March 22nd, 2012

Axing the 50p rate is a win for the least respectable of modern politicians

by James Mills

“It should not be forgotten”, wrote William Hazlitt in his classic essay On the Ignorance of the Leaned, “that the least respectable character among modern politicians was the cleverest boy at Eton.” He was describing George Canning who would go on to be the early 19th century Tory Prime Minister who led a coalition government of moderate Tories and Whigs for the shortest period of any prime minister. However he could equally have been describing the old Etonian Tory Mayor of London or the Tory Prime Minister, who will directly benefit from a cut in the 50p rate of tax.

The truth about whether to cut the current 50p top rate of tax is that no one actually knows whether it has affected the behaviour of the top 1% of income taxpayers who pay it in a substantial long term way. Even the government’s claim that it has raised less revenue is weak. This is because it is only one year’s worth of data. Many of those people may have brought their incomes forward to pay under the old rate meaning that this year’s sum will be lower than expected, or alternatively they may be legally avoiding paying by holding off or deferring their income until after the change.

In addition, if there is less tax coming from the top rate of tax last year than expected, there will be numeral possible reasons for this; from a flagging economy last year, a rise in inflation or VAT or an endless list of other aspects from a flagging economy. Will the government bring back the 50p rate if after one year the 45p rate brings in less money?

The issue of taxing the rich is ultimately horse-trading. The government are asking the high earners to pay more income tax to them than legally avoid doing so, by an arrange of methods from converting their income to only paying capital gains tax, or increasing their pension contributions instead or use methods such around the companies whereby they pay themselves in dividends, loans or bonuses.

There is a legitimate argument from those on the right that taxable income elasticity, the behavioural effect of tax changes, during the 1980s suggests that we won’t raise any more money above the 40% top rate of tax. And there is also a legitimate argument from those on the right that we take in more money in taxes from the top 1% (almost three times as much) now than in 1979, since the top rate was reduced.

However, sadly the data used to support such arguments doesn’t accurately go back to periods of very high marginal rates when the economy was booming, such as during the so called “Golden Age of Capitalism”. Instead data only goes back as far as the mid 1970s when the UK economy was stagnating.

Also the 1980s evidence takes no account of the fact that when Tory Chancellors Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson, then lowered the top rate of income tax from 83% to 60% in 1979 and then from 60% to 40% in 1988, by their own logic, they handed out one of the biggest increases income to the top 1% seen in a generation. Therefore, it’s hardly surprising you raised more in revenue. Let alone you ignore wider economic factors that increase top earners income. After all, the share of income going to the richest 1% has more than doubled after 1979.

The government will likely use or even quote evidence like a report by the IFS published in 2009 responding to the then planned rise in the top rate, which pointed out that there was a legitimate case that only raising the top rate to 45p for the top 1% of earners would raise more money than the 50p tax rate. However, they also made the case that you could raise the top rate and lower the top rate threshold and raise even more.
By using Treasury figures that put current taxable income elasticity actually at a higher rate around 54% (not including indirect taxes or national insurance) for top income earners over £150,000 a year and 59% for those earning between £100,000 and £150,000; the IFS make the point that you could raise the rate between £100,000 – £150,000 to around 60% and raise more money than under the current 50% rate on income over £150,000.

It is right to say that this only raises a very small amount in total tax revenue, and we are all focusing on one very small in comparison to other revenue raising measure. However, when yesterday we learn an additional £2Bn in spending cuts on top of billions more already cut to those on considerably more humble incomes, and a £3 billion raid on pensioners, then the top rate of tax seems pretty fair to me.

Ultimately, the debate over the top tax rate is a bit of a misnomer. Are we honestly meant to believe that a small reduction in marginal tax rates at the top and not wider economic factors in the economy encourages productivity and growth but also helps raise tax revenue from top earners? During the 1980s and 1990s was it only because the top rate of tax was at 40% that increased the income of the top 1%?

There are those who argued that bankers were fleeing London for Zurich last year as a result of the 50p, an argument shattered by evidence that hardly any bankers have left. But this argument was always another misnomer, as even if there was a jump in British based bankers moving to Switzerland, we would not have known how many bankers came to the UK to replace them. Or alternatively how many other high earners from other sectors also did so during that time period (as we don’t record this information).

It is just a simple fact that regardless of the tax rate there will be people who move around from country to country to reduce their tax liability. But there will be equally just as many if not more who move to countries regardless of the tax rate.

To drop something such as the 50p rate without stronger evidence, suggests this could be just the first excuse possible to protect incomes of the richest by a party of the richest. Or more simply, a couple of clever boys from Eton proving they are the least respectable characters among modern politicians.

CategoryDeficit, News, Political Economy, Public Spending | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
January 26th, 2012

Labour’s creed is to transform capitalism towards a commonwealth

by James Mills

Discussing 1920s capitalism John Maynard Keynes wrote: “Modern capitalism is absolutely irreligious, without internal union, without much public spirit, often, though not always, a mere congeries of possessors and pursuers”. Such an assertion makes one wonder when capitalism has actually ever been moral let alone responsible.

It was announced that today that not only did the economy contract in the fourth quarter of last year, but also that the economy grew by only 0.8% in 2011. In addition, manufacturing declined by 0.9%, showing the ‘March of the Makers’ has come to a halt. To put this in perspective, the OBR originally predicted growth in 2011 would be 2.3% and then 2.1% in the CSR; and even in Osborne’s budget last March he revised that down to 1.7% for 2011. It is widely believed our economy needs to grow by around 2% a year to create jobs in the private sector.

The circumstances are bleak for our economy with a global slowdown looming. Inflation may have fallen, but there is limited capacity and limited investment and ultimately a shortage of aggregate demand. Unemployment is over 2.6 million (and expected to grow), household debt is rising, and household incomes are falling; not great for a consumption led economy. In turn, government debt is spiralling and their own deficit reductions targets are way off target.

Plus, with population growth bigger than economic growth and the share of the wealth getting smaller, Monday’s Resolution Foundation report shows the standard of living is declining and this decade looks lost. The question now is not just how do we grow our economy, but in what way do we do it and for what purpose? Should there be such a large slice of the cake going to so few?

There is currently no legitimate alternative to capitalism; by which we mean the operation of a market economy system. Even Nye Bevan accepted this premise in the guise of the mixed economy. However, just like there are many different forms of cola, there are also many different forms of capitalism (likewise, there are also many different forms of socialism too).

Sadly, there is always a very simplistic form of debate when we talk in pejorative terms of anti-capitalism/socialism (so forgive me now). To ignore the existence of markets is like ignoring the existence of the oceans of the world. But acknowledging the existence of something does not mean accepting the way in which we find it; hence why we have sea defences on our coastlines, and travel over oceans rather than allow them to chain us to the land.

The history of capitalism is one in which it has evolved into many differing forms. The capitalism of the 1850s that Marx and Engels witnessed was different in many ways to that which Tony Crosland described in the 1950s; and the nature of capitalism in the 1980s and 1990s differs from back then; and in turn capitalism to a degree has changed in structure to all those eras that have gone before us today.

The main aim of capitalism in all its forms is wealth creation, the market mechanism is the chief tool by which it allocates resources and bases prices for the value of goods based on supply and demand. Therefore, the most efficient producer will reap the highest rewards. Nevertheless, the social cost is not factored in. Over the last thirty years it was simple, what’s good for the most profitable big public limited companies was good for UK Plc (leading us to swapping factories for finance). But what happens when there is a clash between the interests of the former and the latter.

In contrast, socialism at its core is about a more equitable distribution of wealth. And as Tristram Hunt highlighted in the Guardian, socialism has always been a moral response to the unequal outcomes thrown up by market capitalism. And British history has a rich seam of that tradition. Hence, why in an age of market failure, and a lack of a return to equilibrium in many different markets; we on the left who advocate wealth distribution, are best equipped to win the argument through supporting an active state.

Market capitalism creates wealth from scarcity. The reason that those of us on the left who accept capitalism and the paradoxical politics such a position creates for us, is on the basis of raising living standards and distributing the proceeds of capitalism more fairly. It was the same settlement under which Labour eventually acquiesced to the neo-liberal consensus of a more laissez-faire capitalism after 1979. Yet, we now find that not only is this form of capitalism not creating adequate levels of wealth, but it is also creating gross disparities in wealth (and income), due to the unlimited accumulation it espouses.
Therefore, when Labour discusses the future of capitalism it must also discuss the future of the state and wealth distribution. Although, we live in a welfare state, we should move to a more asset based welfare state (and a proper progressive tax on wealth), in order to move towards a new commonwealth. The plusses of this are that asset holding has many benefits such as increasing long term planning on an individual basis. Something that is critical not just in government policy, but also in wider society. It is no surprise to find that the poorest in society have a more fatalistic approach than the richest.

Capitalism maybe aimed at wealth creation, but when Labour is committed to wealth distribution, the transformation of modern capitalism into a true commonwealth is possible; the morals of wealth distribution are age old and spiked to the left. However, in wealth in the twenty-first century has changed in ways to that of the past.

“Circumstance…” wrote R.H Tawney, “alter from age to age, and the practical interpretation of moral principles must alter with them”. If Labour can update our practical interpretations of wealth distribution, we will have truly moved towards creating a more responsible capitalism – and the road map to a new commonwealth.

CategoryEconomics, Political Economy, Public Spending | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
May 20th, 2011

We now need to kick fascism as well as racism out of football

by James Mills

The decision by Swindon Town, a club which finished behind Charlton who employ the only black manager at an English league club, to appoint Paolo Di Canio as their new manager has been controversial due to the fascist political views which Di Canio holds. The former West Ham player vehemently defends these views, for example he justifies his admiration for Mussolini as being based on Il Duce’s patriotism, which he views as a “great quality”. Such a shameless defence for admiring a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands directly and indirectly millions more, brings to the mind the old quote that “Patriotism is the last defence of the scoundrel”.

Swindon Town justify his appoint on the basis that they believe he will inspire and install passion in their team. It is hard to see the logic in the decision, however, as there are currently multitudes of managers who have more managerial experience and less political baggage than the managerial debutant Di Canio.
Many people wish to ignore that politics is part of sport but especially football. Sport since the days of the early Olympiads has always had a tinge of politics to it. What is more surprising is that we believe that it does not exist. One of my earliest memories in our country’s political football was when during a goal celebration Robbie Fowler wore a t-shirt showing solidarity with striking Liverpool Dockers.

So I was saddened to hear some Swindon fans argue that they don’t care he is a fascist as long as he brings success to Swindon Football Club. This is similar to the view held of fascism in European countries in the 1930’s that their populations just wanted a paternalistic government that brought success and stability.

However, I wonder if many of Swindon’s dead football fans who fought and died fighting fascism in the Second World War would share their view. For many, smaller clubs beneath the mega rich clubs of the Premier League are sinews of their local communities. For them their football club reflects a town and its people, not just an expensive football shirt. Small clubs like Swindon are hubs in their community and focal points for many different sections of a community and Hence why I imagine a trade union was supporting them. The trade union GMB sponsors Swindon’s goal keeper and have announced that they will withdraw their sponsorship.

Di Canio and his defenders like to claim that he is a fascist and not a racist as though there is a million miles between the two positions. One just has to look to France, where Jean Marine Le Penn, the French fascist leader declares he is not a racist but a fascist too, yet this is the man who attacks immigration by describing the French National team as having “too noir many blacks” and calling for their reduction. There is some who have seen this as a reason behind the revelations that Laurent Le Blanc has been operating a quota system in his side, limiting the number of black players. Di Canio’s Italian brand of fascism is one that is also associated with the persecution of immigrants, especially gypsy’s.

The idea also put forward by some, that his fascism is more about an affinity with the Lazio fan base is even more concerning. Lazio is a club steeped in Fascism; it was Mussolini’s favourite team no less. They are also a club whose fans not only chant racist and fascist song, which albeit is sadly not a rarity in Italian football, they also carry fascist swastika flags to matches. To separate Di Canio’s views from the inherent fascist politics embraced by the fans is naive at best.

I remember vividly when he made that salute, I was in the only pub in Prague watching the Rome derby, I must declare I have a soft spot for AS Roma, and immediately I and my mates who are not political saw it for what it was. This was not the actions of a fan, as some claim, but those of a right wing fanatic. If you don’t believe me then believe the granddaughter of Mussolini who personally wrote him a thank you letter.

No one would make that sign on such a stage pretending it was not what it was, a fascist salute. He may like Nick griffin, water down his brand of fascism but at its core it is still the same sense of smaltzy sentimentalist ethnocentricity it always was when thousands of Italians made that same gesture to “Il Duce”.

Paulo Di Canio has not just given a fascist salute to Lazio fans on that occasion, however, that was just the most high profile example. He has also given a similar salute to AS Livorno fans, who are well known for their left wing supporters and whose star striker at the time was Cristiano Lucarelli, possibly one of the few openly Communist players in world football.

Now the Livorno versus Lazio fixture is now more than just a football match in recent seasons, it has become a clash of ideologies with Lucarelli, when he played for Livorno, giving a clenched fisted communist salutes to Livorno fans.

Of course I am not saying I expect to see swastikas at Swindon Town home games, but the legitimacy afforded to Paolo Di Canio by this appointment risks legitimizing his views. Nevertheless, when the English game has only one black manager and is bereft of not a single openly gay footballer; is an openly fascist scoundrel for a manager really something English football really needs?

CategoryNews | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
May 6th, 2011

We need a long hard look at what Scotland under Labour should look like

by James Mills

A political hero of mine is the great late Donald Dewar, who once said “Cynicism, together with unrealistic expectation, are the two great bugbears of politics.” These are words this morning that ring in my ears after last night’s results in Scotland sink in. Many view, rightly, that we lead a very cynical and un-thought-out campaign.

I have lived and worked for the majority of my adult life in Scotland. I have worked at the Scottish Parliament and now work for a Glasgow MP. Although a Londoner by birth I have a deep affection for Scotland that’s why I am very sad, in fact devastated, about this morning’s results. Close friends and colleagues who have worked very hard will feel very down today but even more depressing is not just another term of the SNP, but one with a majority.

The re-emergence on this campaign of the SNP is something some of us involved in Scottish politics have long feared could happen even when we were high in the polls. It is not just Labour’s fault however; last night was a loss for all unionist parties. I have believed for a long time now that all the unionist parties have not taken Scottish politics as seriously as we should have been. For the SNP this is a different story. While unionist parties viewed Holyrood and devolved politics as the second tier of politics below Westminster, the SNP view things differently. Alex Salmond stood down from his Westminster seat to focus purely on Holyrood politics for example.

Labour in contrast at Holyrood have seen the loss of excellent politicians like Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson who moved to Westminster; and Wendy Alexander, Jack McConnell and George Foulkes who stood down at this election. While Scottish Labour has lost Westminster heavy weights such as Des Brown, John Reid and Adam Ingram. Although Westminster has seen them replaced with some fresh faces as well as those from Holyrood – nothing has headed in the other direction.

Could you imagine any political party sustaining such huge losses in stature and experience without any knock on effects? Things will be made worse still, with the loss of Andy Kerr and Tom McCabe, which will leave a crater in Labour at Holyrood on top of this.

There is clearly a skills gap that needs shoring up. But where are the new recruits in Scottish Labour to come from?

It is too simplistic to put all the blame on Iain Gray. It also gives too much credit to Alex Salmond and ignores the strength and depth he has in some of his SNP colleagues such as Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney.

We need a heavy weight to return and take on Salmond, but not just one but a few. The legendary father of devolution, Donald Dewar, stood down from his Anniesland seat, to lead the Scottish Labour party at Holyrood. He sadly died suddenly and un-expectantly but was replaced by Henry McLeish another experienced former MP who had left Westminster for Holyrood at the same time.

Hopefully some of the unknown fresh faces on our Labour lists who as a consequence of our loses in the constituency section, and now unexpectedly find themselves MSPs, can provide some much needed supplies. But, long-term we also need some big guns to build around.

Furthermore, if there was a lack of strength and depth in our politicians then this was matched by one in policy too.

Unlike Westminster there is a gap in the market for think tanks in Scotland. For example, I haven’t seen a single report by any major Labour affiliated think tank on Scottish policy in years (if ever), something I have mentioned to anyone I know at the London based ones but has sadly fallen on death ears. There are a couple of Scottish based non-party affiliated think tanks but nothing is coming out of main Labour policy thinkers on Scotland. This is something from the think tank point of view that I have always thought was an open goal on their side, as surely the chance to have a sway over policy direction at a devolved level will see its acceptance at national level. One just has to look at policies such as the smoking ban to see how polices developed in Scotland have been taken up elsewhere in the UK.

But that is just one small angle of policy development; the Future Jobs Fund for example came from a councillor not a wonk. Also, Glasgow city Council for example was the first trail blazers to instigate a living wage long before London.

The greater malaise stems from an inability to define ourselves in a Scottish context. This showed in this election, our top policies were a Scottish Future Jobs Fund and a National Care Service. This may sound familiar. That’s because they were in the UK Labour manifesto at the national election last year too. I would be going too far to say we fought this election on the same policies as the general election, but it’s hard to hide the similarities.

Don’t get me wrong, they are all noble policies and I support everyone but it’s not exactly reinventing the wheel. We could have at least given them new names, because putting the word Scottish in front of something doesn’t make it sound completely different and unique.

Nevertheless, this simply allowed the SNP to present their policies as new, despite many such as their dubious calls for independence being a busted flush. It’s always been said that the only thing which unites the SNP is independence, it was one of the reasons why Wendy Alexander wanted to try and get it out the way and call the SNP’s bluff a few years ago on our terms. As the SNP have a terrible record of broken promises and many weak policy areas that could have been pointed out and wedges struck within their own ranks. Yet we never properly engaged with this but instead tried to fear people into the one policy everyone knows they failed on and are unlikely to achieve.

Yet, it’s not just fresh ideas we need, but also well presented ideas that allow you to convey a message and a vision. One of our key announcements at the Scottish Conference was regarding Hospital boards, I have never had someone on the doorstep in Scotland ever bemoan about this issue to me in that way, although I am sure there are many areas of health policy where this is vital. But if I don’t know this how is the average voter going to? And I am sure it is important, but it’s not exactly going to get people to tune in when it is so opaquely laid out.

There is the crux of the problem and why we turned our guns on the Coalition in London to begin with rather than the Nats in Edinburgh, we simply didn’t know what we wanted to do with power. Then when we finally woke up to this and went after the record of the SNP we did it so last minute that it failed to resonate and allowed the SNP the room to turn the election in to a presidential style battle of personality.

As much as people wish to have a dig at Iain Gray’s personal attributes, I think they should remember that Gordon Brown was always able to keep Salmond quite at Westminster and the many people who try to compare Iain Gray with Gordon Brown should remember this. In addition, Salmond has been up against every Scottish Labour leader in over a decade since the Scottish parliament’s creation. Not only in that time has he become a well known household face, but he is an experienced politician.

The News Statesman last week mentioned that George Galloway compares Salmond to Jim Baxter, a former Scottish footballing cult hero from the 1960s who played well against England at Wembley, but for me he has a more political comparison from that era, he has the cut of Harold Wilson. A smart media operator in his own right, who is loved and hated by sections of his own party, yet with the ability to present himself to the electorate as an everyman.

This trait in their leader matched with our weakness at policy definition, allows the SNP to reach out to former Labour voters as well as Scottish Tory and Lib Dem voters. As I pointed out last week, even Scottish Tories like Liam Fox MP recognise they lose votes to the SNP, yet despite this “Tartan Tory” image they are able to pitch themselves on a centre left platform. In fact, as strange as this may sound to English readers, but I have genuinely had the SNP described to me on the doorstep as socialists in Glasgow and one nation Tories in rural areas of Fife. Despite standing on a very un-conservative platform of separatism and that these so called “socialists” are in the pockets of big business in Scotland; for example their main money man is the head of Stagecoach in Scotland and if you were wondering why there are not enough busses running in less lucrative rural bus routes then look no further to who backs the majority party at Holyrood. What both sets of voters mistake is the paternalism of the SNP.

The SNP also have the advantage of appearing radical to younger and more left field voters as they are separatists and traditional to more older and middle of the road voters as they are nationalists. But Labour can take them on and expose them if we decide upon what our narrative is for what we want to do with Scotland. We could decide for example that Scotland will lead the UK in policy development in certain areas, but if so we need to invest in where we currently are lacking.

This morning is the time to start to rebuild but we need to first take a long hard look at ourselves and decide upon what the blue prints for what we want to build should be. Above all though, cynicism and unrealistic expectations should never appear to be guiding us as a party again.

For those in the rest of the UK, let these results also be a lesson to you too that we need to provide an alternative for Lib Dem and Tory voters or we risk giving them up to other parties….

CategoryLabour party reform, Scottish Politics | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
April 7th, 2011

The Save EMA campaign proves peaceful protest works

by James Mills

Our peaceful direct action has achieved two government U-turns – but nowhere near the same media attention as the black bloc

The English poet and 19th century radical William Blake, who was largely unrecognised by the media in his own lifetime, wrote: “Great things are done when men and mountains meet; this is not done by jostling in the street.” This seems to be ignored by the young, reckless radicals of our age, who do not realise that while the media give them all the attention they crave, it ignores the more successful peaceful protests.

Last week, for example, the Save EMA campaign managed to get two government U-turns. First, on Tuesday, we forced the government to provide support to the quarter of a million teenagers next year who are currently in receipt of the education maintenance allowance (EMA) by threatening them with legal action. Previously, the government had said it was going to axe this support for existing, as well as future, EMA recipients.

Then, on Thursday night, the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, called on the government to review its decision to scrap the EMA. This statement was in contrast to his initial response to the Save EMA protests at the London Conservative party conference in February, when his spokesperson dismissed us, saying the mayor “had no control over education policy”. This was followed up on Saturday in the Guardian with news that Johnson had called Michael Gove personally to protest at EMA’s demise.

According to a recent YouGov poll, the public support peaceful direct action rather than the violent alternative advocated by groups like black bloc. “All serious educational movements have in England been also social movements,” wrote RH Tawney, something that can’t be achieved if one ditches popular support.

Our campaign, predominantly made up of teenagers under the age of 18, has managed to do what the more radical campaigners could not. We have changed government policy and got the Tory mayor of London to express an opinion on an issue that only a month previously he had given the impression was not even pertinent to the capitol.

Nevertheless, the column inches dedicated to these achievements pale into insignificance when compared with the attention given to the more destructive demonstrators against government cuts. Of course, the fact that Johnson has taken six months to pick up the phone to call Gove on an issue that affects almost 100,000 Londoners, especially when compared with the rapid response shown by Ken Livingstone, is only a small step in the right direction. Getting financial support for a quarter of a million students next year is small beer when students starting in September will still not get EMA, while the EMA replacement scheme will still see its funding cut by 70% (instead of 90%).

Despite these small achievements, however, our campaign continues. It shows that by legitimate and peaceful direct action, rather than jostling in the street, change can be dragged, be it kicking and screaming, out of both a Conservative-led government and a Tory-run administration in London.

CategoryNews, Public Protest | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
March 16th, 2011

The poor lose out to the privileged in the coalition’s education policy

by James Mills

By scrapping education maintenance allowance, David Cameron and Nick Clegg put their old schools’ needs above ours

George Orwell famously described England in 1941 as a family, and one in which “the young are generally thwarted and most of the power is in the hands of irresponsible uncles”. Well, now it is in the hands of Uncle Dave and Uncle Nick, and the young – or some of them – are certainly being thwarted. Despite Wednesday’s figures, which show youth unemployment rising a week before the budget, this government still plans to scrap the education maintenance allowance (EMA) – a scheme that costs £550m and is said by the Institute for Fiscal Studies to have produced a “substantial” increase in attainment levels among 16- to 19-year-olds from the poorest backgrounds.

According to the 157 Group of leading further education colleges, even the government’s new scheme replacing the EMA is £225m a year short of the minimum needed to support the poorest students from deprived backgrounds. Therefore, the 600,000-plus poorest teenagers in this country, 80% of whom are from household incomes below £21,000, will see their weekly payments removed.

Meanwhile, 600,000 of the wealthiest children who attend the independent schools in this country have not even been touched – yet they receive a similar amount from the UK taxpayer. The charitable status enjoyed by public schools is estimated by the Independent Schools Council in 2004 to be worth £100m, with inflation that would be now be in excess of £130m. Public sector contribution to the pension scheme for teachers in independent schools is said to be £131m, according to the Guardian.

The taxpayer also subsidises funding for free early-years places at independent schools to the tune of £70m a year. And the taxpayers’ contribution to independent/non-maintained schools for fees alone is more than £600m a year. Although the majority of the latter will go towards special educational needs, there are undoubtedly savings to be made. This leaves us with a total subsidy close to the EMA’s cost, but it has not even been mooted by a government and media dominated by the privately educated. Private schools make up only 7% of our education system, yet 53% of the current cabinet.

Of course, savings could also be made outside the Department for Education; some advocate means-testing for 16-19-year-old child benefit (£1.53bn) or the same age range child tax credit (£2.25bn). The Save EMA campaign has said that if the government scraps its plans to introduce a marriage tax incentive, which costs £550m, it will be able to afford EMA. Why are the poorest teenagers in our country first in line when savings are needed?

Describing England in the same essay in 1941, the old Etonian George Orwell noted that state education had been “meanly starved of money”, and he attributed “the immobility of the public schools” to the public school-educated ruling classes. If Orwell was writing his essay today the same description would sadly also be applicable – as Uncle Dave and Uncle Nick look after their old schools’ pupils at the expense of ours.

CategoryPublic Protest, Public Services | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
February 14th, 2011

Big Society will only mean a smaller society for poor people

by James Mills

This Saturday I am speaking at the Progressive London Conference, normally on a Saturday I help run a community football project in West London, around the corner from my old school. It was started eight years ago by a strong Christian chap called Damien, who was above me in the year at school. It is multi-faith, multi-racial and ranges from teenager boys to adult men in their twenties and thirties. No national or local government edict decided that this should be created, in-fact both are oblivious to its existence, it just sprung up by a collective group of individuals, there was a whip round by the adult working members who bought the equipment and it’s administered by a weekly text message newsletter. Nevertheless, the environment for such a scheme to blossom was due to easy access to a public park we use which is maintained and kept by the local council and as long as the local council keep doing so, and there is enough interest, it will keep going.

The reason why this public access is so prescient to us in the establishment of our weekly football match is because just a few hundred yards up the road in a leafier part of the local area, there used to be another public space which was sold off around ten years ago to a wealthy local community group.

It was then subsequently sold off again a few years ago to a large locally based multi-national company. It has now been turned into a 9 hole golf course and leisure facility with closed off football pitches. The local kids would have to pay a substantial annual membership fee or work for the company to use the facilities; therefore it is mainly used by people from outside of the area.

There are also large public playing fields further up the road, yet these are used during the week by my old school and dominated by adult Saturday and Sunday football leagues at weekends, which have used the fields for years for people from all across London. This was never a problem while local parks provided public space for the community, but with local government budget cuts this has become a more uncertain public provision.

There is already a local community providing an altruistic service which I am part of, however, it is only able to do so in a benign partnership with the local government providing the basic facilities. If this was withdrawn, and if the vacuum left behind was not filled by private spending with the same service provision commitments, as the local council unknowingly provides our community football project, then such schemes will either go under or be usurped and crowded out by more affluent sections in local society that can only afford or want to provide a narrower service.

Here lies the crux of the problem for Cameron’s nominal Big Society when it is enacted in real society, the border between the modern state and private sphere is largely imponderable, so it fails to recognise an enabling state. His rhetoric suggests that he wants to provide a wide social service based on a communitarian collectivist ethos, yet financed by private provision, without realising a popular service can only stretch as far as its finances can follow, will only mean a reduced service and an environment that breeds a disabling state.

In essence a Big Society will only mean a smaller local society for poorer people.

CategoryPublic Provision, Public Services, Public Spending, Universal Services | CommentNo Comments »

January 2nd, 2011

My New Year Predictions… well one so far…

by James Mills

Last year’s “deficit deniers” will be replaced by this year’s “deficit deceivers”

Last year we heard the new government and their supporters describe everyone who disagreed with them as “deficit deniers”, a rather childish coupling of our nation’s fiscal position with that of Nazis who justify or ignore themass murder of millions of people. But with last month’s announcement of the public sector deficit increasing it appears those who wee banding people who disagreed with them as “deniers” are themselves proving to be “deceivers”, as they have advocated a policy of cutting spending (such as the Future Jobs Fund and the cancelling of loans such as Sheffield Forgemasters) to cut the deficit, but what has actually occurred is that as they have cut spending they have increased the deficit. I believe that this is a sign of more things to come and as the year progresses we will see increases in unemployment and meaning lower tax collection but increased welfare spending.

This coupled with the axing of schemes like the education maintenance allowance and Connextions and other wider cuts will also push up youth unemployment according to the TUC. This will again lead to more economically inactive members of our society reducing spending in our economy and tax revenue collection whilst at the same time see more welfare spending, forcing the government to borrow more and leading to a bigger deficit.

I am not an economic genius, this is undergraduate level text book economics. But what will become apparent in the minds of the commentariat, hopefully our party leadership/media team and the wider public is that those like Osborne and others who were happy to brand people deniers will find their media tools or slogans reverted on themselves quite easily.

Hence why last year’s “deficit deniers” will be replaced by this year’s “deficit deceivers”.

UPDATE: It appears Steady Eddie has confirmed this prediction already, see HERE

You know what they say about great minds…

CategoryDeficit, Public Spending | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
December 25th, 2010

Equality in England: The gap between prince and pauper is being made wider this Christmas

by James Mills

One of the films that was bound to be on during Christmas period when I was a child and low and behold is on this Christmas as well, was the Prince and the Pauper. For those who are unaware of the plot, it is the film adaptation of Mark Twain’s classic story about how a Tudor Prince of England switches places with an identical teenage boy from impoverished an London background and both get to meet one another and see how the other half live. At its core this story is about equality and fairness, they are separated at birth by their background yet both prove capable in the other’s shoes.

The story has relevance for me, as well as being one of the first recipients of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), I was also the first generation of my family to go to university and I to study History at the University of St Andrews at the same time as Prince William. I know how important EMA was to my life. The scheme worked because it gave economic power to teenagers like me who were without any and thus propelled us into harnessing our individual talents. That is how a young teenager born into a council estate in London and from a single parent household could attend the same university as the future King of England, but sadly now that drawbridge is being slowly pulled up.

Last week, despite a national campaign organised by the Save EMA campaign that I run and further evidence by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) proving that the EMA works, in helping empower young people like me from disadvantaged backgrounds to take control of our lives and stay in further education, the government still plan to scrap the scheme.

The government claim to want to abolish the EMA due to its so called “deadweight”, however almost all large public policies have an element of “deadweight”. For example, the government also want to bring in a marriage tax incentive, which ironically costs roughly the same amount of money as EMA (£550M), and has a huge deadweight. According to the IFS it will only benefit 3 out of 10 marriages, with some pointing out that it will only benefit couples where one partner remains at home. So in the land of Emily Pankhurst, this presents a large equality issue for young women from deprived backgrounds, because the government are basically saying to young women “we want to encourage you to get married but not to be educated”. This is not so much back to basics as back to the past.

We must also bare in mind that there could be even wider equality issues at stake here as the government want to replace EMA with a form of discretionary fund, the latter are widely recognised by organisations like the LSC as having a “disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities, the disabled and the most disadvantaged.” For those who are still in a quandary about how,  just look to the former head-teacher and someone the Conservative party invited to speak to their annual conference this year, Katharine Birbalsingh. In writing last week for the Telegraph, she describes EMA recipients as “Goons”, who attend universities that should be “razed to the ground”.

These comments came from someone who was a head-teacher at an inner city school, the decisions for who receives these new discretionary fund payments would come from someone much junior with the power of Herod over these young people’s lives. Now I am not saying that all such individuals would be led by prejudice, but why open the door for the possibility of it occurring at all. During my time at school, I was suspended for bad behaviour on numerous occasions and rubbed up enough staff in the wrong way to have similar views thought of me. I was wrong to behave in that manner then, but young people under duress do stupid things.

The government’s plans are taking a massive gamble with the prospects of some of the poorest teenagers not only in our capital but also in our country; and it is further endangering equality in England. Students from Eton and my old school in London will always start life at different ends of the socio-economic order, but the ability to compete on an equal footing in the education system needs to be strengthened and not weakened, otherwise in England princes and pauper will only mix in fairy tales.

CategoryNews, Public Protest | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
November 12th, 2010

Why the violence was wrong…

by admin

The reasons why the violence was wrong, if the blood stained woman police officer and that fire extinguisher didn’t quite convince you, is that it meant the Government were able to completely duck the issue that axing EMA is wrong. I believe that the cuts to education like EMA are evil and wrong; which is why I support non-violent direct action but not direct action that sees people hurt and injured, which I and most people also deem to be evil and wrong. But if you don’t share this view, then at least realise that tactically violent action doesn’t help our cause.

That day we announced that Andy Burnham MP was backing our campaign and we had media requests to talk about EMA and why we were protesting and why it has to be saved. However, throughout all the interviews on the day I was asked questions about “How” we protested instead of “Why”. In another Sky News interview (above) the next day, again I was asked about the anguish shown by a mere 1,000 people out of the 55,000 people protesting. What you don’t see is that at the very end of the interview, which Sky cut out, is where I managed to turn the conversation back on to the issue of EMA being axed. Sky news cut this out of the clip they repeated online and throughout the day, not out of evil machinations but because it was not “the story”; for them like the rest of the media the big news was not the cuts but the violence.

I made the point in the interview yesterday, that nine of the leading British newspapers all had just one photo on their front pages of an anarchist kicking in a window instead of images of the 55,000 people marching united through Westminster, and ask Jo the chap opposite which would he prefer – didn’t answer, but his instant epiphany was obvious. The head of the University of London Union, who was marching about tuition fees and trying to justify the violence, ironically has a son on EMA, and had no answer to me on a BBC interview when I asked how many times have you talked about EMA being axed today. Instead, in her attempts at grandstanding she managed to help the Government and the Tory party avoid being held to account on their pre-election lies.

The idea put forward by some that the violence raised the profile of the event is just ridiculous, as pictures of 55,000 protesters marching through Westminster were always going to be on the front pages the next day no matter what the issue the march was about. But those same people who put across this ludicrous point never gave the peaceful protest a chance to find out if it would work, as before it had ended they started turning to violence – and there is a lot to be said for peaceful protest. Ghandi through his use of non-violent action such as the famous ‘Salt March’ achieved a lot more than any of the violent acts of his contemporaries. Furthermore, this summer saw the death of Scottish trade unionist Jimmy Reid, who successfully helped keep shipbuilding on the Clyde well into this century by his use of a work-in, in which he emphasised the peaceful non-violent nature of the protest with the famous words:

“there will be no hooliganism, there will be no vandalism, there will be no bevvying because the world is watching us, and it is our responsibility to conduct ourselves with responsibility, and with dignity, and with maturity.”

What those who are angry at the education cuts must make sure is that the tiny minority of Lib Dem MPs helping the Tories push through these savage cuts are not getting let off the hook by a tiny minority violent protestors. If you were involved in the violent protests, then all I ask of you is to keep that anger and passion and use it positively in peaceful protests and give them a chance first. Once we engage in violent acts we tarnish our cause, and although those like Jo in this interview are speaking, unfortunately no one is listening. More importantly, no one is listening to why both me and Jo are angry in the first place.

I leave you with the wise words of someone much wiser than myself and who showed that non-violent direct action can beat empires and free millions:

“Violence only multiplies evil and that as evil can only be sustained by violence, withdrawal of support for evil requires complete abstention from violence.”

CategoryNews, Public Protest, Uncategorized | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
« Older Entries
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes