Category: Politics

Cameron and Miliband are both right on the constitution – But for the wrong reasons

dnmufcLeave a comment

Posted: 27 Sep 2014 12:00 AM PDT
Stephen Barber

As the constitutional fallout from the Scottish Independence Referendum campaign continues, Stephen Barber looks at how the two main party leaders down south are addressing ‘the English Question’. Cameron and Miliband may be acting from short term partisan motivations, but this doesn’t mean they’re wrong. While any plausible constitutional settlement is complex, it must be based on devolution to ‘cities and counties’, with any proposed ‘English Parliament’ failing to offer real devolution of powers closer to the people.

Westminster leaders need to put aside short-term party advantage in a similar way that Scottish politicans did during the referendum campaign. If they did, not only might they forge a constitutional settlement that will serve England well for a generation, they might also find they can enjoy the sort of ‘apathy free’ politics that was a highlight of the independence referendum. Whether they choose to engage seriously or not, it is clear that there needs to be real devolved power to England and if new institutional layers are to be discounted, the settlement needs to be one of ‘Cities and Counties’.

What a shame it is that the Westminster party leaders have reverted to type by putting narrow electoral advantage ahead of England and the United Kingdom’s constitutional future. The contrast in England to the sort of leadership Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling showed over Scotland is stark. Westminster should take note because it is this sort of politicking which is responsible for the cynicism of voters and poor turnout at elections: something entirely absent from Scotland where 86% turned out to vote in the referendum.

David Cameron favours ‘English votes for English matters’. Ed Miliband wants to delay changes for years and until a Constitutional Convention can report. It is clear why: Labour would likely suffer from the emasculation of Scottish MPs and whatever the chaos, the Conservatives (who only secured a single Scottish MP at the last election) would more often command Commons majorities on ‘English’ votes; irrespective of who formed the government. If anyone wanted a blueprint of how not to reform a constitution, this could well be it.

Credit: UK Parliament, CC BY NC 2.0But that doesn’t mean that everything the Westminster elite have said is wrong. Cameron is surely right that new powers for Holyrood must be balanced with a fair English Settlement. And Miliband is surely right that the position we find ourselves in demands more thought than enshrining two classes of MPs. They are right, but for the wrong reasons.

A better reason would be to forge a workable and legitimate constitutional settlement in England. And here Scotland has done the service of defining powers which need to be devolved from Whitehall not only to Holyrood in the wake of the independence campaign but also to England. As such, the English need to have a direct say over education, health, transport, welfare and the environment. Not only that, this power has to be balanced by the responsibility to raise taxation used to pay for those services. This ensures the new settlement isn’t simply about Westminster throwing more money at poorer areas of the UK but is about genuinely devolving both power and accountabilities.

An English Parliament has its attractions as a replication of the sort of devolution seen in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But as home to 53 million of the 64 million population of the United Kingdom, it doesn’t devolve power much of a step closer to the people. Moreover Miliband has already ruled out new government and new layers of politicians. Of course that could be solved by the John Redwood plan of English MPs doing two jobs; an English Parliament drawn from within the Westminster Parliament and two classes of MP. But that is so very messy with potentially rival governments created from a single chamber that it needs to be dismissed out of hand.

Consequently any new settlement in England needs to be forged from existing structures outside of Westminster. My proposal would be a combination of cities and counties plus a long overdue reform of the House of Lords.

This would mean empowering the great and small metropolitan areas of England perhaps comparable to what has happened in London. It would create figures accountable to the electorate and able to make policy in areas which matter to them. Such a move could both politically invigorate those parts of the country Westminster cannot reach and boost local economies left behind by the growth of the Capital. For those who do not live in or around the cities, the settlement should be accompanied by a new enabling of the existing twenty six County Councils of England and other council areas. The prize would be a new era for local government as real power is devolved from the centre.

One other overdue reform needs to be included in this settlement: the House of Lords about which I have recently written. The upper house is an indefensible, antiquated constitutional muddle. It remains appointed by the Prime Minister, has grown too big and is full of party donors and factotums. With any new constitutional settlement, reform of the Lords should not be ignored, because it presents an opportunity for some democratic legitimacy in the upper chamber as it is slimmed down and given a role in the new constitutional arrangements of the whole of the United Kingdom.

A new positive English settlement embracing the Cities and Counties and a reformed Lords is possible, but it needs leadership from the top of our politics. Putting aside narrow party advantage might be difficult, but if it happens, not only will Britain have the constitutional arrangements it deserves, leaders might also find some of that ‘apathy free’ politics rubs off on them.

Cameron and Miliband are both right on the constitution – But for the wrong reasons

This charming eulogy emphasises Benn’s belief in the primacy of democracy, along with his dignity and good humour

dnmufcLeave a comment

The Guardian, Thursday 2 October 2014 23.45 BST
Tony Benn: Will and Testament

He ‘immatured with age’ … Tony Benn in a still from Will & Testament
Only a curmudgeon would deny the charm and persuasiveness of this eulogy to Tony Benn. Benn emerges with consistency, dignity and good humour, and as someone whose views on the banking crisis, our punitive military adventures in the Middle East and the centrist timidity of New Labour have largely been vindicated. The film is careful to deride Britain’s fondness for toothless national treasures – and to quote Benn’s irritation with this duplicitous media phenomenon. Though emphasising Benn’s belief in the primacy of democracy, however, it doesn’t touch on Labour’s deputy leadership vote in 1981, which he lost to Denis Healey – an occasion of great bitterness.

Tony Benn is a romantic, a maverick, a non-team player with a streak of conceit – in some ways, not so different from Enoch Powell. Amusingly, the nearest the film gets to interviewing anyone who actually had to work with Benn is resurrecting the taped, exasperated voice of Harold Wilson, who said Benn “immatured with age”. Actually, it’s our dull, shallow political culture that looks immature without Benn. One footnote: a final acting credit for “young Tony Benn” appears to indicate that reconstructions have been used – presumably the photographs showing the undergraduate Benn with his soon-to-be-wife, Caroline, at Oxford.

http://www.theguardian.creviewom/film/2014/oct/02/tony-benn-will-and-testament-

A Constitutional Convention now looks like the safest way out of the constitutional shambles

dnmufcLeave a comment

Following a closer than expected outcome in the Scottish independence referendum, many are criticising David Cameron for his negotiation of the Edinburgh Agreement which paved the way for the referendum. Nat le Roux thinks is more concerned about Cameron and other party leaders having precipitated a slow-motion constitutional train crash. It represents a peculiar type of collective folly for the party leaders to approach major constitutional reform, which would be effectively irreversible, in the same spirit of short-term political improvisation, he writes.

Much of the media commentary on the Scottish referendum and its aftermath has focused on the apparent poor judgement of the Westminster elite – the prime minister in particular – in the negotiation of theEdinburgh Agreement and the subsequent referendum campaign. There are three principal accusations:

  • The UK government should not have conceded a referendum in the first place. Cameron’s apologists argue that he had no choice after the SNP won an outright majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament in the 2011 election (despite the headwind of a proportional voting system). However, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that this result reflected any increase in popular support for independence, which had been running at around 30 per cent for several years. Certainly there were no mass pro-independence demonstrations, Catalan style, on the streets of Glasgow or Edinburgh. And in the 2010 UK general election the SNP won only 6 out of 59 Scottish seats.
  • The terms of the referendum were loaded in the Nationalists’ favour. Cameron was determined to structure the referendum as a simple yes/no to full independence, without a third ‘devo max’ option. As a quid pro quo for a binary question, he made significant concessions to Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, on other issues: the framing of the question (so that ‘Yes’ meant ‘Independence’ not ‘Union’); an electoral qualification which included 16-year olds but excluded native Scots resident in England; and – most important of all – a deferred polling date which gave the Nationalists two years to build support.
  • The UK party leaders’ ‘vow’ in the final week of the campaign was panicky and ill-considered. After the YouGov poll showing a narrow ‘Yes’ lead on September 7th, the Westminster elite were apparently thrown into blind panic; for the first time in the campaign, a ‘Yes’ result seemed a real possibility. The three party leaders published a joint declaration promising substantial fiscal devolution without any variation in the Barnett formula in the event of a ‘No’ vote. This is a very generous promise which allows the Scottish electorate to have their cake and eat it. It goes beyond any likely ‘third option’, which Cameron was so determined to keep off the ballot paper. And it was arguably entirely unnecessary: in the days after the YouGov poll, the betting market – the most reliable indicator of electoral outcomes – never showed more than a 30% likelihood of a ‘Yes’ vote.

These accusations seem to have considerable force, but they are retrospective: if things had turned out otherwise, Cameron’s critics would be singing a different tune. The Edinburgh Agreement and the referendum campaign were driven by politicians, and most political judgements are made under pressure, with limited information, and against the clock. In the ebb and flow of normal party politics that does not matter very much: most foolish decisions are of limited consequence and are in any event reversible by subsequent governments. However it represents a peculiar type of collective folly for the party leaders to approach major constitutional reform, which in this case would be effectively irreversible, in the same spirit of short-term political improvisation.

Janan Ganesh put the point eloquently in the Financial Times recently:

“It is hard to avoid the image of Mr Cameron and his peers scrawling a new constitution on the back of a panini wrapper as their trains hurtle north for a jaunty last-minute campaign stop they never expected to have to make. There must be a point at which the British traditions of amateurism and muddling through become indistinguishable from the chaotic caprice of a banana republic” 

The referendum has settled nothing. Indeed the party leaders’ reckless ‘vow’ may have precipitated a slow-motion constitutional train crash whose essential elements are already becoming apparent:

  • In Scotland, ‘the 45%’ have not accepted that the question of independence is settled ‘for a generation’. Salmond’s successor will work assiduously for a second referendum within five years. She will shout ‘betrayal’ from the rooftops if Westminster does not pass new and far-reaching devolution legislation ahead of the UK general election.
  • Cameron did not consult his party before committing the government to a promise which most backbenchers believe is grotesquely over-generous to Scots. He has tried to buy them off with a promise of ‘English votes for English laws’ on the same timetable as Scottish devolution. This proposal has, true to form, been introduced at very short notice and without proper consideration. It is difficult to see how it could work in practice without creating legislative deadlock. (Imagine a future Labour government, elected on a platform of Health and Education reforms, with an absolute parliamentary majority but a minority of English seats. It would be unable to implement its manifesto commitments, or indeed to pass any legislation at all in these areas, without opposition support.)
  • However the ‘English votes’ gambit has set an effective electoral trap for Labour: opposition will appear self-interested and anti-democratic, and will suggest that Mr Miliband is not confident it can win a majority of English seats in 2015.
  • The government’s timetable for implementing any of these proposals is extremely tight. It is difficult to see how measures put before the Commons in January can be passed into law before Parliament rises for the general election at the end of March, especially if the Lords are uncooperative.

A year ago, The Constitution Society argued that, if Scotland voted ‘No’ in the referendum, a Constitutional Convention should be held to agree proposals for devolved government in the UK as a whole. The long-term future of the Union cannot be satisfactorily settled by the normal processes of electoral politics. Mature reflection is required, in a forum which includes citizens who are not professional politicians. Alan Renwickhas argued that the most appropriate model is the Irish Constitutional Convention of 2012, where members of the public sat alongside representatives of the political parties.

Within the past few days, Labour has taken up the idea of a UK Constitutional Convention, to be held in the autumn of 2015. Inevitably, the government will paint this as a cynical expedient intended to postpone Labour’s day of reckoning on the ‘English votes’ question. That is a matter for regret: for all the Westminster parties, a Constitutional Convention now looks like the safest way out of the constitutional shambles which their leaders have created.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-referendum-and-after-how-not-to-change-the-constitution/

‘Poverty Porn’ undermines the welfare state

dnmufcLeave a comment

‘At their annual conference, the Conservatives announced that if elected next year they plan to issue those on benefits with pre-paid cards for food so they don’t ‘waste it’ on items such as cigarettes or alcohol. This is the latest in a long line of measures which suggest that current welfare reform is based upon the notion that people in poverty are to blame for their circumstances, write Dan Silver and Kim Allen.

The UK is in the grip of what seems like permanent austerity. Political parties strive to be seen as the most qualified to make the “tough long-term economic decisions.” Only this week we have heard George Osborne, Iain Duncan Smith and David Cameron announce plans at the Conservative Party conference for even tougher and more punitive welfare sanctions in an attempt to cut the deficit. But these so-called ‘tough’ decisions most often seem to be about punishing people in poverty, and never about clamping down on tax evasion of the wealthy.

Welfare reform is creating increased hardship within local communities; in Greater Manchester alone, 4,500 people have been sanctioned and have had their benefits frozen or completely stopped. Foodbank use is soaring – with an estimated 500,000 people in the UK being forced to use them last year. This week the Conservative Party announced that, if elected next year, they plan to issue those on benefits with pre-paid cards for food so they don’t ‘waste it’ on items such as cigarettes or alcohol.

This is the latest in a long line of measures which suggest that current welfare reform is based upon the notion that people in poverty are to blame for their circumstances. They are seen as part of a feckless and irresponsible underclass – who are who are unwilling to ‘help themselves’ out of poverty, happy to live a life on benefits.

Tom Slater argues that public consent for these reforms is gathered in part through a ‘production of ignorance’ which focuses attention on the behaviour of people in poverty, while neglecting to mention structural inequalities, such as the existence of a precarious jobs market that leaves people cycling in and out of low-paid work.

On the 6th of November we will be holding an event in Manchester as part of the ESRC Festival of Social Science which will examine some of these ideas by bringing together local communities, social science researchers, activists, journalists and policymakers to consider what role the recent swathe of television programmes such as Channel 4’s Benefits Street – often referred to as ‘poverty porn’ – have in shaping policy and public attitudes to welfare.

The programme has been cited by politicians as revealing the ‘the hidden reality’ of the lives of people ‘trapped’ on state-benefits, and presented as further ‘evidence’ of the need for welfare reform. For example – earlier this year Conservative MP Philip Davies stated:

“Every time people look at White Dee … it will serve as a reminder to people of the mess the benefits system is in and how badly Iain Duncan Smith’s reforms are needed. White Dee is bone idle and doesn’t want to work another day in her life and has no intention of finding a job. She expects the taxpayer to fund her life on benefits”

The realities of these depictions of life in poverty are questionable. Take People Like Us a 2013 BBC production which was advertised as depicting “real life” on a housing estate in Harpurhey, North Manchester. Far from real life, a woman who took part in the Open Society Foundation’s research in a nearby neighbourhood said: “It’s nothing like us round here. I don’t know anyone like that to be honest with you. So in that way the media is a bad thing because it’s made to look as if nobody wants to work and they get drunk all day.” Local resident Richard Searle, due to speak on November 6th, has described it as “Jeremy Kyle-style, laugh- at-the-chavs type of television.”

With such a contrast between the thoughts of communities portrayed, and politicians seeking to justify policies through these programmes, clearly this is an issue for debate.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics.

About the Author Dan Silver is co-Director of the Social Action & Research Foundation . Kim Allen is Research Fellow in the Education and Social Research Institute at the Manchester Metropolitan University.

In work, but poor: barriers to sustainable growth and the need for a living wage

dnmufcLeave a comment

While the UK has returned to growth, many workers continue to suffer economic hardship as real incomes have yet to recover. This means that, just as in the past, the UK economy is relying on an unsustainable growth model where workers spending more than they earn to support the economy. Setting the UK on a sustainable path and reversing the growth of in-work poverty requires policies to raise real wages, writes David Spencer. 

Rejoice. The UK economy is back to where it was before the crisis. The depression is over and sunny economic uplands lie in the future. Feel good, damn it, the economy is growing again. But there is a reason why the positive growth statistics are treated sceptically. That reason relates to the fact that real incomes have fallen in the UK. Despite the restoration of growth, workers in the UK have continued to suffer cuts in their real pay. One of the arguments for growth is that it raises real incomes – in the UK at least, the reverse is proving to be true. The economy has achieved growth, while many millions of workers have suffered increasing economic hardship with little prospect of improvement.

From a growth perspective, the grim facts of the recovery provide cause for concern. The UK economy has only been able to grow by workers spending beyond their means. Workers have run down savings and borrowed more to increase their consumption and this has driven growth. But workers can only go on behaving like this for so long. Without a rise in real pay, the spending must come to an end and with it the recovery. 

There is no sign yet of net exports recovering to support consumption and any rises in business investment will need to continually confound expectations to offset the further fiscal tightening to come. Again as in the past the UK economy is relying on workers spending more than they earn to support the economy. This is a growth model that cannot be sustained and will ultimately end in disaster.

Even the most ardent backers of the government’s current policy stance must harbour some concerns about the prospects for growth in the economy. Lower real wages may help firms keep a lid on their costs but from the perspective of raising demand on a sustainable basis they place restrictions on the ability of firms to grow output. Demand side barriers will bite in the end and terminate the recovery.

But beyond growth there are deeper issues here relating to work and its relation to poverty. Work has long been heralded as the best form of welfare and the route to economic success. This view – summed up in the mantra ‘work always pays’ – has been exposed as a miserable lie. Now it seems that work for many is no escape from poverty. Working hard for a living often means struggling to keep one’s head above water.

Evidence shows that in-work poverty is on the rise in the UK. Among working age adults in low income households, the number in working families has been growing and is now greater than the number in workless families. It used to be that worklessness was the prime determinant of poverty. Now it is more likely to be low waged work.

How did we get into this situation? The underlying causes are complex and multifaceted. They include the decline of unions, the deregulation of the labour market, an inadequate training system and the rise of the service sector at the expense of manufacturing. The UK has lacked the necessary modernising forces that would have otherwise led it towards a high wage economy. Instead, it has evolved an institutional structure that has favoured and entrenched low wages.

What can be done? In the short term, policies to raise real wages in the UK would help not only to sustain the recovery if that is the concern but also to address the problem of in-work poverty. The national minimum wage, although a welcome development, has not managed to address the problem of low pay and this is where calls for a living wage come in. Raising the minimum wage to the level of the living wage would be a bold but economically sensible step to take. Critics may say that this will lead to unemployment. Yet evidence shows that minimum wage hikes have not had adverse employment effects. Indeed, their effect has been to increase productivity via higher levels of worker morale and to reduce welfare spending.

Longer-term, the UK needs to break its reliance on a low wage growth model. For this, it needs a new industrial strategy that focuses on building things rather than on making money. It needs to invest in new industries via the help of the State. Challenging vested interests particularly in the world of finance and creating a model of sustainable prosperity based not on endless growth but on the promotion of human flourishing remain the ultimate goals. Whether these goals are achievable under current conditions remains a moot point. Yet they are goals that we need to keep in our sights and agitate for.

In the end, the UK cannot afford to pay workers less. Driving real wages down is a recipe for economic stagnation and human misery. For all our sakes, we should seek a rise in real wages. 

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting. Featured image credit:

About the Author

David Spencer is Professor of Economics and Political Economy at the Leeds University Business School.