Time for the IFS to come clean – they swing to the Left
Posted on August 8, 2010I’ve written before about the duplicitous and ultimately meaningless term “progressive”, and its counterpart “regressive”. The distinction, as well as being dubious, is inherently political – a nice term for “socialist” and “not-socialist”. It’s not unfair for the Left to take up the term – after all, this is politics and language is a weapon in that war.
What is odd, though, is that the Institute for Fiscal Studies have become Britain’s leading cheerleader for the idea that progressive=good, regressive=bad, promoting the concept that particular types of economic policy are politically better than others.
The IFS’ pitch and reputation is that it is both non-partisan and politically unbiased – that it does not prefer one set of political ideas over another, but it just wants the sums to add up. As they say on their website, “our most cherished asset is a hard-won reputation for objectivity and impartiality”. Given that this status imparts such huge weight to their reports, particularly within the BBC, it is bizarre and misguided that they are increasingly moving beyond bean-counting and into flag-waving.
As Matt Sinclair at the TPA notes, the IFS’ latest criticism of the Government is founded fundamentally on the assumption that the best way of helping the poor is by handing them cash – that is a big, and controversial, political statement. They’re not just measuring who gets more and who gets less, they are expressing a subjective value judgement about the Budget’s politics.
There’s nothing wrong with being a think tank that comes from a slightly pinko political perspective – plenty do and are successful with it (although the conclusions of such bodies are of course often incorrect).
It is wrong, though, to purport to have no ideology whatsoever when you actually do lean one way more than the other. Maybe, like the BBC, they truly believe themselves to be blank slates in perfect political balance, but I don’t believe that is humanly possible. I believe they truly are non-partisan, but free of all politics? Not a chance.
It is telling that while those on the economic Left yell that the TPA is ideologically of the libertarian right – something it has never disguised – they are at pains to tout the IFS’ reputation as some kind of flawless, superhuman machine pumping our pure facts. It is nothing of the sort – and that is something the IFS should make clear.
Tags: Britain, Economics, Institute of Fiscal Studies, Parliament, public spending, Socialism, TaxPayers' Alliance, Think Tanks, Westminster
Categories: Economics, Opinion, Politics, Public spending, Westminster
If you think it’s a fiction that progressive=good and regressive=bad, why does it matter to you that the IFS identified the budget as regressive?
Surely you lot who support regressive measures can cheer. Those who disagree can do the opposite.
The government has claimed repeatedly that the budget was progressive. The IFS shown that it is regressive. You can’t get in a huff when it turns out a specific claim pushed by your government is fact-checked and found wanting.
25.08.2010 12:27
The point is that this is far from the first time the IFS have been cheerleading for the concept of “progressive” leftwing political ideology. They can say what they like but they shouldn’t pretend to be ideology-free.
By the way, I like the idea of this being “my” government – “I agree with Wallace”!
25.08.2010 18:57
Ad hominem attacks always show the weakness of the counter argument so attacking the IFS looks like an attempt to ignore the facts….
The matter is not whether the IFS “swings to the left”, it’s whether they are right in their analysis.
So far the Treasury is losing the argument… badly, comprehensively and very publicly, and you haven’t even attempted to argue on the facts.
25.08.2010 12:38
and what pray tell is the argument.? It is not the soundbites galore being bandied around this subject, nor the ‘ad hominem’ attacks which are not taking place. I do not think questioning the political leanings of an organisation is insulting. It is fair cxomment o ask to what degree a conclusion is influenced by other factors. It seems to em the left do this every day about the coalition and i have no problem with that. However, reversing the flow seems to engender screams of rage. You cannot have it both ways.
25.08.2010 14:06
I don’t think you know the meaning of ad hominem. Cave quid dicis cum onere.
25.08.2010 14:19
Oh yes I do!!!
Anyway, waht about addressing the point, mr pedant…
25.08.2010 15:12
Are they assuming that limiting housing benefit to £21kpa and raising VAT is regressive?
I earn £22kpa, with a decent inner city rent of £4,200. So I could get a 5 bedroom house for that limit – I will not cry any tears.
26.08.2010 17:23
But ‘progressive’ and ‘regressive’ have quite settled meanings in this context. A ‘progressive’ tax/spending measure = one which takes proportionally more from the better off, less from the worst off. ‘Regressive’ = the opposite.
“Progressive”, you’re right, does have an alternative meaning – something like “left-wing”, “socialist”. But in this case its opposite is not “regressive” (as in, “I’m a regressive!”), but “conservative.”
No?
25.08.2010 12:49
My ex has “progressive” MS. Is this therefore, “Socialist” MS?
25.08.2010 14:38
“regressive” and “conservative” being the same thing…
‘ll buy that!
25.08.2010 16:12
“I’ll buy that” – you would, Alex!
25.08.2010 18:58
What I want to know is what is the progress towards. Ask someone seeking progressive policies what their destination is and you will get no answer; other than further towards a “fairer” society. Ask them in totally fair society what the ratio of 10th percentile to 90th percentile income is and you don’t get an answer.
I assume that the target is not equality of income as that would leave no reward for hard work; risk or aptitude – that would hardly be fair. So there must be some ideal distribution in their mind (which presumably if we went beyond progress would then lie in the turning round and progressing back towards it.
I wish the media would start asking this question – progress towards what ultimate destination.
25.08.2010 12:59
Alex I’d argue that Mark answers your criticism in his article. The research is probably 100% accurate GIVEN it’s frame of reference. When you read research by the TPA do you think”‘well it doesn’t matter what their politics are their analysis is accurate?” – Probably not. By the same token you can’t take the IFS report as the unvarnished truth free from ideological assumptions. No economic and social research is ever 100% unbiased, that’s why it’s always open to debate.
25.08.2010 13:02
Yes but Mark isn’t debating the analysis, he’s attacking what he thinks are the assumptions….
eg. I know the Tories are the Tories and I know their mindset, but if they say “today is Wednesday”, I have to admit that they are right….
If they said it was Monday, i would dispute it.
if they said it was hornswoggleday i would ask them to explain what they mean by hornswoggleday and, if i disagreed I would dispute it…
But I wouldn’t just say…oh look, the Tories think it’s Hornswoggleday (or Wednesday), they must be wrong because of their assumptions…..
So if the Tories say that the budget is progressive, I might suspect it’s not, but i would need facts to dispute it.
The IFS have produced some facts and the Tories can do nothing but attack the IFS. Which tells me that the IFS is more likely right than wrong in this instance.
25.08.2010 15:19
I currently work on the basis that if the BBC prefix a think tank’s name with the term ‘right wing’ … then it is right of centre or disagrees with the BBC’s view.
Where the BBC use no prefix implying neutrality … its so far to the left, its in danger of falling over.
Has never failed me so far.
… And like “Tory Cuts, Labour Investment” …. I ignore terms like regressive and progressive as shifty unreliable words that have no meaning when uttered by politicians/lobbiests.
25.08.2010 13:05
Just listened to the headlines on fivelive drive…no mention of the IFS report, instead a lead item about complaints rising in the NHS… bloody right-wing biased BBC always attacking the public sector and letting the Treasury off the hook….. again….
Tory stooges is what they are if you ask me….
25.08.2010 15:22
I picked up on one part of the report – that an unemployed couple with children could lose 8% of their income. Well, good??? Why on earth should the couple be unemployed?! How long should other taxpayers sustain and pay for these families? And what of the cost of the future generation? There are numerous examples of the children doing exactly the same.
So this is not regressive, but progressive. Well done, the coalition! They shouldn’t try to defend themselves, they should attack – give examples. They did say though that the report ignores the effect of these people finding employment – which is the second part of the strategy to modernise the welfare state.
25.08.2010 13:06
Payments made by the government of £2000 per week for housing benefit is progressive. It is however unsustainable and unfair. This analysis by the IFS doesn’t take that into account – looking only at movements in the actual cost to the Treasury and the nominal benefit to the claimant.
A static analysis they provide is pathetic when it stands to reason that if you increase out of work benefits this leads to increased number of people choosing not to work and vice versa.
25.08.2010 13:08
As I see it there are two issues.
First, does the budget make the poor worse off? The IFS’s argument assumes that anything that reduces transfer payments in the short term makes the poor worse off, and that the deficit and the general competitiveness of the economy are irrelevant. This is a view of sorts, but hardly an uncontroversial one: if the government were to ignore the deficit they would need to cut more in the future; if they tried to balance the budget without cutting spending they would need to raise taxes by something like 20%. This would result in a massive shrinkage of the private sector, making the country poorer overall, reducing everyones’ incomes and also reducing future tax revenue for transfer payments.
The IFS here seems to be totally behind Labour’s electoral ‘focus everything on the short-term and damn the economy’ stance. While there’s no evidence they support Labour specifically, they’re certainly with the political left in this country if they’re pushing this view.
Secondly, are the terms “progressive” and “regressive” appropriate either way? No, they are political propaganda terms, trying to imply that one set of policies are good and the others bad. “This policy benefits the rich at the expense of the poor” can be a factual statement. “This policy is BAD and people who support it are EVIL” is a political statement. This is fine if you’re overtly a partisan for the left – no one expects politicians not to engage in propaganda for their own side – but not so if you claim to be impartial.
25.08.2010 13:08
I just don’t get the argument at all.
The government are the people who claimed the budget was progressive (wrongly) for political means. All the IFS have said is that it isn’t, statistically.
The only real argument is whether the government think that they have a mandate to produce a regressive budget.
They quite obviously don’t. 55 of their seats voted for the exact opposite
25.08.2010 17:35
Whilst I agree with the thrust of what you’re saying, The IFS has always been a useful idiot for the shadow chancellor. Do you remember Darling’s last budget? The IFS said that there would have to be departmental cuts of 25% to make the budget add up (not the message that Brown wanted to put out 6 weeks before an election) and Osborne made hay while Labour squirmed. Cameron used to regularly taunt Gordon Brown with IFS findings at PMQs.
Now the shoe is on the other foot.
The way that the IFS preach their neutrality means that it has set itself up to be little more than a political football (with more swerve than Jabulani).
25.08.2010 13:09
I suppose it depends on what you are progressing to?
If you want a state where people take responsibility for their own actions,
where people are productive and contribute to the economy and society, then
the budget probably was Progressive.
If you believe in take, take, take, and that the answer to all life’s problems
is to dole out money and ignore the underlying problems, then it probably was
regressive.
25.08.2010 13:14
Bit puzzled by this one Wallace. The TPA has used progressive and regressive in exactly the same technical sense as the IFS – i.e. whether the immediate impact of government spending will result in an overall redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Therefore merely using the term doesn’t make them left wing – indeed, the whole point of the report was to assess how the overall package of measures in the budget mapped out against the claim made by Osborne that his budget was progressive. There’s nothing wrong or indeed left-wing about checking the claims made by the Government against reality – which, given your previous role, I’m surprised you don’t recognise.
25.08.2010 13:51
[...] the best response to the IFS comes from former TaxPayers’ Alliance employee Mark Wallace: Time for the IFS to come clean – they swing to the Left What is odd, though, is that the Institute for Fiscal Studies have become Britain’s leading [...]
25.08.2010 14:11
Not sure what you’re on about here Mark. The government claimed the budget was progressive, and that the Conservatives were a progressive alliance with the Lib Dems. Porgressive and Regressive are words with well understood meanings. The Lib Dems have constantly claimed that the rise in income tax threshold is all part of a progressive plan. The IFS has done its job. It’s independently established that the government is wrong (or perhaps lying) – the budget is regressive. They have not said this is a bad thing, they have said that this is the opposite of what the government said. Surely you believe the statements of politicians should be checked for factual accuracy. What is it about their analysis that you dispute?
25.08.2010 14:28
This report was commissioned and part-funded by a charity called “End Child Poverty” – go to its website and look at the list of trustees. Almost all are drawn from Labour’s public-sector management layer – quangocrats, policy “experts” and trade unionists. Is it really much of a surprise that the report they paid the IFS to write is negative towards the present government?
25.08.2010 14:56
So when the tory party pay Yougov to come up with a poll for them, it’s automatically going to tell them that they’re polling 90% of the electorate, as they’re paying for it………
Stop talking such twaddle. It’s hardly the IFS’s fault that Osborne and Clegg claimed it was progressive, as they have basically zero mandate to do anything but that
25.08.2010 17:33
[...] Clegg is in good company today criticising the IFS’ work. Mark Wallace, formerly of the TaxPayers’ Alliance and now a political consultant has today claimed that [...]
25.08.2010 16:04
I dont think its political see Blogger IFS confusion and my confusion http://bracknellblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/blogger-ifs-confusion-and-my-confusion.html
25.08.2010 16:29
I’ve heard a rumour that the taxpayers alliance “swing to the right” so we should therefore ignore any facts and statistics they produce
25.08.2010 17:27
I really don’t get the point of this article, other than an ex member of a tory front group, trying to help out his party in the media.
All the IFS have done is demonstrate pretty clearly, and statistically that the Chancellors budget was regressive.
It’s hardly their fault that Nick Clegg and George Osborne tried to mislead the country, by claiming that it wasn’t.
The issue here is the simple fact that the government have no mandate at all for these types of regressive cuts, and the only way they can get away with it is by claiming they are progressive.
25.08.2010 17:30
About time Cameron stopped messing around with ‘progressive’ nonsense entirely. The IFS wouldn’t have to debunk it then, would they?
Dave should just be truly conservative … if he can remember what it means.
25.08.2010 17:52
[...] the best response to the IFS comes from former TaxPayers’ Alliance employee Mark Wallace: Time for the IFS to come clean – they swing to the Left What is odd, though, is that the Institute for Fiscal Studies have become Britain’s leading [...]
25.08.2010 18:07
All things said and done it was “progressive” policies that got the UK into a situation where over 3000 restrictive new laws have been added to the books, parliament can get by-passed by means of enabling acts, seats in the House of Lords can be bought….did I mention that there’s no money left? Progressive….bah!
25.08.2010 23:48
Isn’t progressive being used here in the taxation sense rather than the political sense? It is a stupid word for redistributive tax policy I agree, but it is basically correct in this case.
26.08.2010 09:43
Good info
10.09.2010 05:24
This website seems to encapsulate what is wrong with this country. Everyone picks holes in everyone else and bugger-all gets done. The fact is that we need to end the culture of welfare-dependency and turning this into a semantic argument just wastes time. Let’s get on with change cos I for one am sick and tired of seeing most of our taxes wasted by the hordes of incompetents that inhabit both chambers of the House. ‘Less politics, more governance’. Perhaps one of you ancient-world scholars out there can translate that into Latin and we could hang it over the door at Westminster!
14.09.2010 10:57