A year or so ago I wrote the most successful ever post in this blog's history. I simply rewrote the government's first tax summary. The post has been read hundreds of thousands of times.
Now Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI) has produced a paper on the impact of Osborne's personal tax statement. This is what they say of their research:
Government tax summaries could contribute to anti-welfare views and reduce support for public spending, study finds
- New study tests impact of annual tax summaries on public support for welfare and state spending.
- Results show Government presentation of public spending — with welfare listed as the top category - may lead to lower support for state spending, and could contribute to anti-welfare sentiments.
The way the Government presents its annual tax summaries may contribute to anti-welfare sentiments, according to a new study by the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI) at the University of Sheffield.
The annual documents, which provide individuals with a breakdown of how their Income Tax and National Insurance contributions are spent, attracted controversy when they were first issued last year, with the Government accused of manipulating welfare spending information in an attempt to stoke anti-benefits sentiment in the context of austerity cuts.
Tax spending was broken down across fifteen categories ranked by the amount spent on them, with welfare spending appearing as the top category. The tax summaries, which were issued to all 24 million taxpayers in the UK, were defended by the Government as a way of increasing transparency.
However, a new online polling study by Dr Liam Stanley and Dr Todd Hartman, of the University of Sheffield, tested different ways of presenting tax summary data to assess the impact on public opinion. The study presented people alternative tax summaries, showing the same data in different way, before asking questions that tested their attitudes towards state spending and welfare.
One alternative summary, created by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), provided a more detailed breakdown of welfare spending — keeping the other fourteen categories constant, but using official Government accounting frameworks to split the welfare category into four parts (personal social services, public service pensions, other benefit spending on pensioners, and other benefit spending on those of working age). On the IFS tax summary, the breakdown of welfare spending ensured that health became the largest category.
The second alternative summary was created by tax campaigner Richard Murphy through his blog Tax Research UK, which proposed 25 different categories to illustrate how taxes are spent. In this summary, ‘specific non-employment benefits' (such as housing benefit) became the largest category.
The results of the survey show that participants who received the official Government tax summary, compared to the IFS summary, were:
- Less likely to agree with how the Government spent their money;
- Less likely to indicate that current Government spending is a good use of taxpayer money; and
- Likely to guess that the Government spends more on welfare.
Dr Liam Stanley said: “This month every UK income taxpayer will receive an annual tax summary in the post. Our study suggests that the Government's tax summaries could lower public support for state spending and contribute to concerns about high public spending on welfare and the stigmatisation of welfare benefit recipients.
He added: “These findings are significant because next week the Chancellor's Autumn Statement will announce further deep public spending cuts. As the tax credits debate demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to austerity is increasingly controversial. In this context it is arguable that the tax summaries could help the Government to maintain public support for cuts to public spending and to the welfare budget.
“The results show that concerns about the potential politicisation of spending data in the annual tax summaries are valid, and that further research on the official presentation of spending data and how it impacts on public opinion is urgently needed.”
The SPERI brief can be viewed at http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief16-The-UK-annual-tax-summaries.pdf
I agree: there is no room for propaganda and that is what these statements are.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Is this a surprise?
I never doubted for a second that the main objective of these propaganda sheets was to undermine support for public spending.
This is the most partisan rightwing government this country has ever seen.
It’s raison d’etre is to maintain itself in power through distorted information management – to implement the most extreme rightwing policy programme which does nothing to help ordinary people.
The sad irony is that the Tories don’t actually require this kind of blatant manipulation.
Labour has rendered itself wholly unelectable with Mr Corbyn at the helm. And I know you have been close to Mr Corbyn’s team Richard, but from this Labour voter’s point of view he is an utterly disastrous leader.
Ben
JC borrowed my ideas. I did not write them for him
I think they will happen whether delivered by him or others
Richard
It’s his ideas that are the disaster, not him personally (although that may also be true!!)…
The question this former Labour voter asks (along with the rest of the family unit) is; is it just Corbyn who is seen as a “problem” or is it what he, alongside a great many others, represents?
Is there a body who could fund sending out of leaflets to everyone with one of the more detailed and informative breakdowns of spending?
I don’t know how much it would cost to do though. Can the Labour Party do it or the TUC or another organisation?
I tried last year
I don’t actually have the data break down this year
Very late in the day to organize, ca. £650,000 would be needed and coordination from a united opposition campaign, that does not exist. Lucas, Corbyn and others (TUC etc) could make a funding appeal? I have a recent price for 10,000 Climate Change leaflets campaign to a selection of postcodes. A5 leaflets + Royal mail delivery ca 3 pence each, across UK costs ca. £650k for 20 Million plus admin costs to coordinate huge print runs. Great idea thought a People’s tax statement through the letterbox in response to the Govt statement. “The personal tax statement George Osborne doesn’t want you to see”. I’d be keen to give these out on the streets. RM I can get prices for larger numbers and revised artwork.
I really can’t see it happening I am afraid…
Nor I. Social media is our province.
BenM-give Corbyn a chance, he’s trying to lead a party with about 10% of his MP’s behind and the rest still hanging on to a ‘Tory-Lite’ perspective. For heaven’s sake, it took Labour a year (!!!) to decide whether it should oppose the Bedroom Tax and as a result let many vulnerable people down, badly.
Labour needs to get back its instinct for social justice which it jettisoned as it took on monetarism and the neo-lib package. As a result they quaked before the Overton Window. I’d rather see an unelectable Labour in the wilderness for a bit while it turns round the oil tanker of public perception after 35 years of myths than a slightly modified Tory Party.
BenM-get behind the change that is needed!
Sorry BenM, can’t agree with you about Jeremy Corbyn. Whether he’s unelectable or not can only be tested at the ballot box – coming up in one form or another in 2016.
But what was the alternative – carrying on with neo-liberal LINO (Labour in Name Only) policies that saw Labour lose 4 million votes between 1997 and 3005, and a further 1 million between 2005 and 2010?
Here’s what I posted on Facebook to someone who can’t understand how the Tories won in 2015:
“I repeat what I said – the fault is Labour’s, for not providing a more exciting, convincing offer (and for not exposing Tory lies).
In 2010, we had a PM, Gordon Brown, who was unpopular, but who HAD saved the global economy, and who HAD been the real force behind REAL social change, such as the National Minimum Wage and Tax Credits, and who COULD have won a victory for that in 2008 or even 2009, but who hung on to the end, when all that was left was the image of a DEEPLY illiberal Labour Party (remember the ID cards, and the 90 days detention plan?), in the grip of neo-liberal “blue Labour”, ” in the black Labour”, and LINO’s (Labour in name only), all basically Thatcher – lite, under the malign influence of TB (who was actually “Thatcher with a human face”, and who REALLY poisoned the well through the illegal invasion of Iraq).
Then in 2015, we had the two Ed’s paying obeisance to the loony neo-liberal clique in the Labour Party, represented by eg Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna, and who are INCREDIBLY powerful in the Labour Party (or at least WERE then), and who accordingly ran an austerity-lite campaign, aping the Tories, with a crackpot strategy of “let’s not talk about the past, and how the 1997-2010 Labour Governments ran the economy and dealt with the 2008 Crash, both SUPERLATIVELY well, and rescued the NHS, education, Local Government, and Human Rights and Equalities)” that effectively threw away ALL our best cards.
If Ed M had been ALLOWED to be the Corbyn type austerity – opponent I believe he really wanted to be, I think he might have won, but trying to be a nicer version of Thatcher (which is effectively what came across) and having given up the strongest card over how WELL Labour actually performed, compounding it all with the truly catastrophic involvement in the equally crackpot (and malign) “Better Together” Scottish Rferendum campaign, when Milliband shared a platform with Cameron, resulted in the collapse of Labour’s attempt to take bacserialr.
Woeful, truly woeful.”
And, of course, the above analysis doesn’t mention Tory lies about the NHS (mentioned by Sylvia in her post) and VAT in 2010, and Child Benefit/CTC/WTC and other lies in 2015.
Einstein defined madness as being the frequent repetition of an act that led to failure, and expecting a different, successful, result. Labour simply could NOT carry on trundling along the neo-liberal tramlines to oblivion offered by the other 3 leadership candidates, but HAD to break free. Only Corbyn offered that: he may be dumped for non-performance, but ANY successor will HAVE to continue pursuing the anti-austerity line initiated by Corbyn, and that enabled Justin Trudeau in Canada to thrash and trash the neo-liberal “austerian” Harper.
We wait eagerly for the same outcome here in the UK.
@ BenM
“It’s raison d’etre is to maintain itself in power through distorted information management”
Whereas the alternative of preferring not be open about where tax revenues go and hoping that people won’t ask is?
I am really not sure what your question is
How can information be open, Ben, when it is deliberately distorted and misleading in the way set out in the blog?
Indeed, I’m having trouble figuring out why anyone could seriously suggest what you have done, that, by implication, the author of the blog or anyone else making this argument is actually seeking to hide information when it’s clear to a blind man on galloping horse that the argument made is calling for clearer and more realistic classification data.
The question has to be raised: Is it the case that you have not read it properly or missed/misunderstood the argument and the words used; or is it a case of not wanting to understand in order to distort and deflect the argument made in the hope that people won’t ask and won’t notice that’s what is being done?
Because if it is the latter, it has been noticed.
@ BenM
Easy to criticise. Tell us the core policies and strategies you support. Otherwise you’re just another troll.
I’ve asked around and I am assured that its not just me. There are others that are sick to death of hearing this whole “unelectable” mantra? It’s a weak, ultimately centrist form of objection that avoids argument by assuming (and pretending to know) the limitations of other voters.
In Greece, Syriza and Alexis Tsipras were deemed to be unelectable. Go back through history and you’ll find plenty of former PM’s that were declared to be “unelectable”. In some cases (such as Thatcher) you’ll wish that they actually were. The electability of an opposition leader is largely a function of people’s dissatisfaction with the present government – at the time of the election!
If you think that current polls or approval ratings or some tedious misconstrued drivel about Corbyn’s reaction to last week’s news will count for anything in 5 years time, then you know clearly nothing about the intentions of other voters. And you’d certainly know nothing bout the amnesiac, zero-attention-span aspect of contemporary, media-driven politics.
On the subject of polls this one seems to be quite OK, more ambiguous than “disastrous”. Either way, it counts for little in the greater scheme of things.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn/62858/jeremy-corbyn-beats-pm-in-satisfaction-poll
It does appear to have the quality you suggest
I do wonder who else Labour would pug forward
Interestingly enough Richard, I’m dealing with an issue very much related to this. Due to illness, I am entitled to free prescriptions and recently received something called a ‘Penalty Charge Notice’ (probably due to my ticking the wrong box on the prescription) from an entity called NHS Business Services Authority (Business???) It’s a part of the NHS and not a private business I was told.
What irked me was the Introductory paragraph which started with:
‘ To protect public funds and increase value for taxpayers……’
You get the idea-one is immediately immersed in propaganda …the tone of the letter was intimidating with a presumption of guilt reflecting the last 5 years of Tory vilification and marginalisation of the ill/poor/vulnerable.
I have to confess, I used a quote from your Joy of Tax as part of my email response to their summation of my complaint (I would have preferred to ask for your advice first-but didn’t want to impose) so I hope I haven’t misused your words! Here’s the relevant part of my e mail (I assume it’s ok to use part of an as yet unresolved complaint correspondence?)
“b) The introductory paragraph is pure political ideology and gives a false picture of Government accounting for purely political purposes. The phrase ‘value for taxpayers’ gives the impression that prescription payments are DIRECTLY taken from a transfer from tax receipts. No such transfer takes place either in theory or practice (unless you can point to where in the Whole Government accounts this happens). The use of this misleading phrase is, therefore inaccurate and designed to give a false impression of accounting realities for political ends and should have no place in such a letter. Furthermore, the notion that there is such an entity as ‘taxpayers’ money’ (implied in the phrase ‘value for taxpayers’ is highly doubtful from a legal perspective.
In support of the above view I quote from a recent book by leading tax authority and tax campaigner, Richard Murphy in his book ‘The Joy of Tax’:
“Tax is NOT (my emphasis) taxpayers’ money. It is the Government’s money and it is the Governnment’s rightful property. It is absurd to claim otherwise.
…….And then there is the FACT (my emphasis) that tax is, of course, legally defined as the property of the Government, which is why when consent fails it can enforce its claim to ownership of it.”
I went on to make a more general point:
“3). The ideological and Cultural Context:
a) We have had 5 years now of systematic vilification of those in receipt of benefits and a Government program that has sought to turn those in receipt of welfare into social pariahs. This is well known and indisputable given the language used. In this context , the NHSBSA letter either consciously or subconsciously reflects this negative view of the welfare claimant by implying immediate criminalisation and a wording that conveys presumption of guilt-this is indefensible and adds to a culture of bullying and belittlement. For a branch of the NHS to act in this way is improper, in my view.”
I’d be interested to hear your view on this Richard. I should say I wasn’t implying that prescriptions shouldn’t be checked but the way in which the process was hijacked by ideology!
(Richard- if you feel this is not suitable to use on the blog, no problem!)
I agree with your response
The logic is wrong: if you did make a mistake that is to be human. Put it right without fuss
It’s like paying tax penalties for innocent tax errors when big business does not: deeply irritating with the same assumption of guilt
Letters from HMRC on such innocent errors are these days pretty vile documents
I recall when they were not
Richard
“backserialr” SHOULD read “back power”. Blasted predictive the text even infects material copied in!!
This is pretty hypocritical even for you!
So the Government displays public spending in a way that helps its political case, so what!
How many times have you lumped together different numbers into a massive “tax gap”, including late payments, so you could get a bigger number and make a political point?
And then later quietly admitted you could only reclaim a fraction of that…
How many times have you lumped all the Capital Allowances together to get a huge number and make a political point?
And then admitted later that you would keep many of them in place after all….
No difference as far as I can see.
I have always broken all the detail down
And been completely honest where the data came from
This government says payments to its ex employees are welfare
That’s lying
I have never done any such thing
You can’t spot the difference
Does not want to set the difference.
Three reactions to this piece:
1 As I have said before, this Tory government has succeded, as no other previous government in my lifetime, has persuaded the electorate to share many of its odious positions through the use of an equally odous propaganda campaign akin to those of Goebbels. Indeed, as mass surveillance was being discusssed last week, twitter carried a tweet referring to a young Tory MP and quoting his words: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. Alongside his picture and quote was a picture of and quote by Goebbels; who used precisely the same words. This can only end in disaster unless those who oppose Tory propaganda, most obviously the Labour Party,devise and deliver an equally persuasive counter-narrative (as you have so ably been doing with this blog).
2 Someone posted on here yesterday this link https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/why-amazon-isn-t-a-fucking-idiot-and-runs-a-deficit-f9d5734b68ec#.5egtlmmzl on which what I perceive to be a very persuasive part of that narrative for those who can get past the language used. Perhaps toned down without losing the anger behind it, this seems to me a very useful template for attacking the previaling worldview; the fact that the post has gone viral would seem to support that view.
3 The reason why Corbyn has attracted such attention is not in my view down to his alleged incompetence but his desire for a different kind of politics in which real world facts replace the drivel pumped out by this government. He seems to me to be focussed on finding a better politics, one in which he has his views but wants to negotiate with those, it seems the majority of the PLP, who cling to the idea that they can win by focussing only on developing a populist position that accepts the ideological position and propaganda of the Tories and, maybe, only maybe, removes the hardest of the edges of the current regime.
I suspect that Corbyn understands that he may not be the person to lead Labour into an election, on the basis that the defeat of austerity in Canada seems to have been down to a combination of the message itself and a charismatic and decisive individual to present it, such is the way of our world.
But, if Corbyn has done, or achieves, nothing other than forcing an essential conversation into the national consciousness, he will have done his party and the country the most enormous service for which he deserves appropriate praise, if not from a PLP focussed on appeasement as a route to power, then from the country at large.
If Corbyn succeeds in the role of John the Baptist that would be no bad thing
Mind you, there is no Messiah in sight right now
Indeed and Cameron’s ignorant crap memes such as:
“we’re living beyond our means” and
“We’ve only got deferred taxpayers’ money”
still go unchallenged by Labour in the commons-if Corbyn is to become the ‘Baptist’ this needs to happen pronto.
Having reflected on this I have concluded that these tax summaries are actually a perfect gift for a sensibly sharp and ruthless opposition.
To explain: one might carefully begin with a question in the House of Commons (not on notice)
Q: “I refer the Chancellor to the government’s most recent so-called “tax summary” and more specifically to the item… Does the Chancellor seriously consider that payments to former civil servants are a form of welfare? If so, could he please explain why, and if not, could he please explain why he has chosen to deliberately mislead the British public by suggesting that they are?
At least 2 follow-up questions will be required they should:
A. Focus on the weakest, most evasive aspects of Osborne’s response so that an accusation of shiftiness and evasion can be added to that of being ‘deliberately misleading’.
B. Pick out the tax summary items that are the most absurd (rather than the most significant)as these will be more embarrassing and more likely to catch attention.
The first round of questions should draw out the pain by focussing on just one item per question. They should also be accompanied by a simultaneous press release and press conference. A barrage of repeated questions will let the government know that this is now a gleefully defiant campaign and not a fishing exercise.
The beauty of this is that the Tories won’t be able to provide a satisfactory answer, their tax summary strategy is wholly reliant on the opposition’s weakness and lack of imagination. Unanswered questions invite repetition and further pursuit, for example:
Q: “Given that the government seems resolute in its belief that that payments to former civil servants are “welfare”, can we assume that the entitlements of former parliamentarians are included in that category? Has the chancellor advised William Hague that he is now on welfare? (and so on etc.).
The campaign can and should go on over time so that every point made in your post (for example)is borne out and the tax summary becomes a propaganda liability for the Tories rather than an asset. This is not so much a case of turning weakness into strength, merely making the most of the weakness that is already present in the “tax summary”.