Buckingham Palace: Where Public Money Goes to Waste

Photo © 2009 Kyle Wood

Discovering severe financial mismanagement by the Royal Household, the Public Accounts Committee have now suggested that Buckingham Palace should be opened up to more paying customers when the Queen is not in residence.

Every year, £31m of taxpayer funds is handed over from the Government to the monarchy to allow them to perform their “official duties”. Arguably a nationalised institution, the monarchy spends this massive sum of money maintaining their palaces, paying their staff and funding Royal duties, like state visits.

It’s a well-worn analogy by now, but we must consider the hypocrisy of our funding of this historic institution. Whilst measly citizens tire themselves out with endless work and constant anxiety, hearing headlines around rising council taxes and electricity bills and seeing their friends, family and neighbours evicted from their homes because they have one too many bedrooms, the Queen seems exempt. Her home is taxpayer funded much like council houses but, with 240 bedrooms, the monarch, unlike less-privileged members of the population, isn’t faced with an eviction notice.

Yes, having a monarchy does come with its benefits – they do bring in some income through tourism – but these are benefits that can easily be found by pumping this extraordinary amount of money into other sectors. And, in light of the Public Accounts Committee’s findings that the Household has been overspending, what trust can we have in those that manage the Queen’s finances. According to the Committee’s reports, poor management by the Queen’s staff has meant that adequate funding has not been found for the monarchy to perform their duties that provide these benefits. “The Queen has not been served well,” the report finds. With just £31m a year and only £1m in their reserve fund, it must be difficult getting the food on the table in the evening. We mustn’t forget also that the monarchy does have its own private source of income, generated from their land, property and wider assets. Despite this, and the Public Accounts Committee’s criticism, the grant is set to rise to £37.9m this year.

And, therefore, it is simply ludicrous that those in the population with sincere adoration for the Monarchy, a keen interest in historical architecture or a curiosity to know what a life of luxury looks like, should be the people laden with the task of coughing up for the household’s poor financial management. To ask us, as citizens who contribute massively to this £31m grant, to pay even more to have the privilege of seeing a tiny proportion of the inside of a palace we technically all own a small part of is, quite frankly, appalling. It is those household staff with the remit of ensuring the funds are distributed appropriately that should be required to find a way of plugging their shortfall. This should most certainly be done in a way that does not mean that the public suffer even more.

Whatever your beliefs about the monarchy, it is a slap in the face to know that you should have to pay to visit a house that you are helping to fund. This house, filled with impressive art collections, and architecture of enviable grandness is just one of several that is given to the Monarchy and paid for with our taxes. If we are to truly end the financial mismanagement within the Royal Household, there is one clear solution: stop using public money to prop up this out-dated and useless institution.

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures

Photo © 2009 Arthur Picton

A 99p store in Wrexham had to call in police backup when their store was bombarded with shoppers seeking to make the most out of a rare half price sale at the bargain store. People will laugh and cry ‘what is this world coming to?’ but the sad reality is that, in these times of austerity, for some any chance of a saving cannot be missed.

With the shop’s lease expected to come to an end on January 28th, the store had made the decision to mark down all products to fifty pence, causing a surge in customers. However, following last-minute negotiations, the lease was extended and managers made the decision to return products to their normal prices. Stupidly, the management put this into effect in the middle of their opening hours, doubling their prices at midday, and understandably angering customers who had been queuing for nearly two hours.

When people are willingly squeezing themselves into a shop that has already exceeded its maximum safe capacity in order to get their hands on doubly discounted goods, it’s hard to disagree that something has gone wrong. It is far from the fault of the shopper, however. The Government’s programme of austerity is forcing people into harsh economic difficulties, resulting in the need to look for the cheapest way of financing their lives. If that means forcing yourself into an overcrowded shop, well, desperate times call for desperate measures. Anything that makes the money last a bit longer is something that should be pursued.

Besides, it was a poor decision by the store’s management to decide to increase their prices in the middle of the day. It’s logical, for any customer, that if your shopping doubles in price from the moment you pick it up from the shelf to the moment it passes by the till scanner, then you’re going to be angry. You’ll feel cheated and lied to – your ten pound shop has suddenly become twenty pounds. This sale has been advertised for days and yet, after battling with other customers and patiently queuing for an inhuman amount of time, you’re being told that the terms have changed. I find it completely incomprehensible that any person could go through that situation and not be enraged.

So, what is this world coming to? A financially squeezed population trying to be economically sensible and save every penny they can, whilst the Government continues to make their situations harder and shop managers are solely concerned about how much money they make in a day. I think it’s pretty obvious what’s not right about this state of affairs.

Switzerland Begins Assault on Excessive Pay

Photo by 1:12 Initiative for Fair Play

Switzerland are to vote in a referendum on whether to cap pay ratios in organisations at 12:1. This is in addition to previously passed legislation that reduces the number of bonuses granted to senior executives. What we see here is nothing less than a sensible progressive policy.

Instigated by the Swiss Young Socialists, the referendum is a direct result of a petition that gained the support of over 100,000 people. This tremendous declaration of public agreement demonstrates widespread satisfaction with what is increasingly becoming the acceptable status quo: greedy capitalist executives taking more than their fair share. In this sense, Switzerland is leading the way in effectively challenging a system that allows a greedy few to get more, more, more. This is not an unreasonable or unfeasible demand. As Europeans continue to be stifled by austerity measures, we should continue to seek opportunities to garner funds that will help our Government's to make it easier for people to live.

The situation seems even less nonsensical when you put it in terms of statistics. To introduce a pay ratio of 12:1 in the UK would be to set a maximum salary of around £148,000. That's hardly on the brink of an austere budget. Currently, it's more than the Prime Minister's base salary - if the person who, arguably, has the hardest job in the country can only be paid £140,000, it makes no sense that people who do less difficult and liable jobs earn so much more. I'd welcome some reasoning as to why CEOs and footballers can earn eight-figure salaries. Furthermore, what does that money pay for?

Additionally, the maximum wage would be in comparison to a worker paid only the minimum wage of £6.31, for 37.5 hours work a week. It's now widely believed that, in a society where the rate of inflation increases faster than wages, this wage is no longer enough for people to get by healthily or comfortably. What we must see introduced is a living wage: a wage that fluctuates with the economy, so that no person is ever stuck on a wage that becomes more and more difficult to support a life with. When you live in a society where people are no longer able to afford the bare basics, it seems ludicrous that some people would be outraged at the idea that they might only earn ten times more than their lowest-paid measly employee.

However, the situation looks even worse when you look at what the money can afford, rather than just the pay ratios. For example, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham earns around £372,000 this year, along with some other 'perks' that come with the job. That's only a meagre £7000 a week; incidentally, enough in a month to pay off the cost of a three-year degree course (even with the increased £9000 fees that he recommended were introduced). But to add salt to the wound, in two weeks the Vice-Chancellor earns more money than his lowest-paid employee does in a year. 

It is for this reason that what Switzerland is doing is highly commendable. If this is how much someone earning less than half a million a year can afford, imagine what the CEOs can pay for on a daily basis. We must tackle this deeply unfair equality and find some way for that money to be put to a better use, like increasing the wages of the lowest-paid. 

Natalie Bennett Kicks Off Conference Season with Promising Speech

Kicking off the UK Party Conference Season, Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett set off continuous rounds of applause as she delivered a promising speech to her party in Brighton.

Bennett showed how in touch and relevant the Green Party is yesterday when she reiterated the Green Party’s long-standing policies on fracking, austerity and privatisation. The policies outlined by the leader are ones that stand well with the public and, once the party receives some national coverage of the event, will likely hit home in a large section of the population.

As the population continues to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Natalie Bennett is right to point out how the Green Party (and Ukip) will stand in good stead at the next General Election, in 2015, as people look towards viable alternatives and realise that these parties have policies they can eagerly rally behind.

Perhaps the most attractive of the positions taken in her speech are her commitments to renationalising the railways (and Royal Mail), anti-fracking and anti-cuts. With people around the country suffering from the Government’s brutal cuts, a party that promises an honest and viable reprieve should receive a considerable amount of backing. However, the Green Party's stance on immigration and asylum seekers will not be welcomed by the general public, as people continue to perceive these issues as problems for the UK. Many YouGov polls have shown that people see immigration as a threat to the country as a whole but not to themselves - this completely highlights the effect of the British media, whereby people are led to believe that immigration is a problem when few are actually affected by it.

Natalie represents a party with few, and not irreconcilable, splits and, thus, has the good fortune of rare inner-party scuffles. This conference is already showing a party ready for the election, prepared with relevant policies and eager to support each other across the country. Much more will come out of this conference that all should be interested in.

For a detailed report of her speech, see below:

---

Natalie Bennett has opened the Green Party conference, the first of the UK party conference season, in Brighton today, immediately outlining the party’s continued opposition to fracking, austerity and military intervention in Syria.

At her second conference as leader of the party, after Caroline Lucas, the sole Green MP, stepped down from the position of leader last year, Bennett proclaimed the party’s continued resistance to the coalition Government’s austere programme.

Praising the actions of elected Green Party members, Bennett declared it a difficult situation for Brighton and Hove Council, the only Green council in the country, under the continued strains of ‘brutal’ Government cuts. Bennett congratulated the councillors for their work on introducing a living wage, pay ratios, ethical investment and great GCSE results under their authority. She also commended Jenny Jones on her appointment to the House of Lords before announcing that Jenny will take a platform of abolishing the House.

Criticism of Ukip and Nigel Farage…

This article was originally published by H4TV - for the full article, click here

Prime Minister's Questions - 11th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The second Prime Minister’s Question Time after the Summer Recess, held on the twelfth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers, began with Cameron and Miliband paying tribute to the families and friends of those who died in the attacks. The Tory leader promised to prepare a plan for the Syrian situation in time for the UN General Assembly, with particular focus on ensuring that there is access to the country for humanitarian aid. Cameron and Miliband welcomed figures that overall unemployment levels had fallen, and that private sector jobs had risen to 1.4million. Miliband accused the Tories of ‘total complacency’ with the handling of the deficit, criticising the Government for the slowest recovery in 100 years where prices have risen faster than wages.

Miliband asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed with the Education Secretary, Michael Gove’s, comments that those who used foodbanks ‘only had themselves to blame’. Cameron refused to back or distance himself from these comments, instead retorting with his own criticism on Miliband’s speech at the Trade Union Congress conference yesterday, claiming that it was a ‘disgrace’ that he had caved into trade unions.

There was considerable back and forth between the two major parties on the topic of youth unemployment with Labour attacking the Government for the continual rise of unemployment for the country overall whereas the Tories commended the Government for a fall in unemployment levels in their particular constituencies.

However, Miliband did not bring up today’s report from the UN on the effects of the bedroom tax, suggesting distrust with the accuracy and reliability of the report.

Prime Minister’s Question Times now stop for a few more weeks whilst we turn our attention to party conference season, starting with the Liberal Democrat and Green Party conferences this weekend.

Prime Minister's Questions - 4th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

MPs appeared rusty as the first session of Prime Minister's Questions began after the Summer recess. It comes as no surprise that the dominant topic in the House was Britain's response to the Syrian civil war, following the recall of parliament for a debate on military intervention last week. Cameron and Miliband debated in a calm manner, agreeing on points that a diplomatic solution must be reached by convening talks between the warring parties and the nations backing them. Cameron couldn't resist a shot at Miliband, ending their exchange with a complaint that Miliband divided the house on a vote 'that led to a vote'. Many members of the House called for a more concerted effort in bettering relations with Iran, who were named as complicit in an attack on the British embassy, following the election of a new president. Cameron argued that Britain needed to be cautious but that he had taken steps towards this.

Asked about why the Tories won't back a mansion tax but continue to implement a bedroom tax, Cameron retorted that Labour needed to learn what a tax was before ridiculing Miliband about whether they would reverse it if they were in Government and demonstrating how to nod in response. Miliband showed no sign of Labour's commitment post-2015, showing an unwillingness to show their true views, either because they would be unpopular or so as not to reveal their tactics. Prime Minister's Questions only return for a few weeks before party conference season puts it on a hiatus again.

Cameron Demands Complacency on Fracking

Photograph by Push Europe

"Get behind fracking" demands David Cameron in The Telegraph today. Think of the benefits to the economy, he lays on. Ignore the environmental impact, he infers. As anti-fracking protests continue strong in Balcombe, Sussex, the Tory Prime Minister adds yet another controversy to his premiership's legacy, so what substance lies behind his words?

The pro-fracking alliance of Caudrilla and The Conservative Party announce the godsends of the new energy initiative at any hint of disapproval: cheap energy, self-sufficiency and enough jobs to provide for the unemployed and the millions of illegal immigrants popping out of the sewage system. Meant to be a bit of good news, the Nasty Party must be in disarray that their distraction from their widespread attacks has only added fuel to the fire. Rather than prompting street parties and celebrations akin to those on New Year's Day, simply the possibility of fracking has resulted in angry gatherings. 

The potential of fracking is vastly outweighed by its potential to wreck the environment. Carving up the countryside, destroying habitats and contaminating water, it's hardly going to be Beautiful Britain. 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas doesn't exactly suggest a short-scale and isolated project; if David Cameron's partners manage to find shale gas, which is a certainty, there's no doubt that they'll continue to exploring elsewhere in the country. It really should come as no surprise that fracking is being favoured over other options when one of Cameron's advisors, Lord Browne, is the chief executive of Caudrilla. The big black bags of money that the Government are saying will drop into the Treasury or the local public's back pockets are empty promises. If anything is reinvested into the economy, it will be minimal. We only have to look at the 'Big Six' to recognise this; despite their massive profits this year, they still have the cheek to demand more money from their customers. Here is where Cameron's promise of cheaper energy can be called into question.

The latter two promises, self-sufficiency and jobs, also raise eyebrows. Although it may be the case that fracking can provide them both, they are not the sole approaches that can offer, and they are far more the cleanest. Fracking is a dirty process, and presents the highly likely chance of water contamination in the local area. Add the certainty of increased traffic from unclean lorries through the local area, and the noise created during the process, and it the pollution is an abysmal thought. Furthermore, climate change is a real concern in the present day and as we continue to rely on finite and dirty resources to power society, we are forgetting the long-term problems and solely thinking of the short-term benefits. It has been predicted that 60-80% of resources in the ground must not be extracted if we are to avoid any of the catastrophic results of climate change. In contrast, there are various green energies that can be invested in for all the same benefits. Additional money placed towards procuring energy-efficient homes and building technologies to catch renewable energies is far more sustainable and financially viable. The jobs created by implementing a shale-gas service are equally required for a large-scale investment project in sustainable and clean resources, that will not just benefit us, but generations to come and have far more public support than dirty fracking.

The language used by the pro-fracking alliance is misleading and ignorant of alternatives and public opinion. Despite widespread opposition, the technology, which is in its infancy, is being favoured over far more sustainable technologies, which can provide the very same benefits. There is enough shale gas to keep us powered for decades, they say. But there is enough sun, water, wind and heat to keep us powered indefinitely.

Also posted on Redbrick.

A Tory Guide to Getting Quick Cash

Image by Palestine Solidarity Campaign

In times of economic crisis, the Conservatives usually find themselves in Government (cheekily proclaiming themselves the ‘natural party’) and with the task of cutting the deficit and balancing the books. This is a task they have long developed a strategy for – if you can’t cut the services, privatise them – easy. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the kind of strategy that has been in place since the 2010 General Election win.

They are a party of supposed economic credibility; they can decrease the expenditure and debt of the country. But the tactic of privatisation is just an easy way of getting quick cash; if you can sell something for a good enough price, you’re going to get the money much quicker than if you persevered and waited for the profit (if there even is one) to add up. Take some examples that have come out recently: student loans debt, Royal Mail, blood plasma and, more recently, social services. Here we have a wide range of government-provided but publicly-funded services that are part of the majority of society’s everyday lives. These institutions arguably provide the backbone of UK stability and health, but the government is proposing to sell them off to possibly reckless profit-orientated major corporations.

The latter case, the idea of privatising the social services, is simply abhorrent. These services help the most vulnerable children in society, protecting them from harm and helping to enable themselves to get a better lifestyle. Whilst publicly run, this is exactly the kind of service the government should be funding and providing; a government should be concerned about the welfare of its paying citizens and working on behalf of its citizens. To grant this service to a major corporation is to ignore the fact that most companies have a primary interest in raising as much money as they can as quickly as they can. As long as they provide a legally compliant service, that’s as high as they will aim, whilst asking for extortionate price. We are only able to hope that, if the sale does indeed go ahead, that the resulting managers of the social services aren’t of detriment to those who desperately need them.

This isn’t just a made-up negative judgement; it’s fact. We saw earlier this week how security companies such as Serco and G4S have been overcharging the government and, thus, the public for the installation and monitoring of security tags on offenders. Our train providers are among the most expensive in Europe. And, there’s the ever-growing problem of companies moving abroad to rake in cheap labour, destroying jobs back in the UK. In a capitalist economy, it should come as no surprise that corporations only exist to make as much money off their consumer as they can get away with. They may not even care how their services are used, only that they are gaining some money in the process. Take for example, the reports that Palestinian children are being held and, allegedly, tortured, in G4S prisons in Israel. They claim they are not breaking “international law” but surely their actions are still immoral.

But this description can surely be applied to the Tory government too. Their strategy of making cuts and selling companies is simply a way of getting as much money back as they can almost ignoring the detrimental side-effects it may have on society. Meanwhile, they will report that borrowing has fallen, the deficit has fallen, and the Government is recovering the UK’s economy. Is this really the case or just an illusion?

Prime Minister’s Questions – 17th July

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

How much of the UK’s legislation has been bought by lobbyists? Both sides of the House questioned that today. The Tories questioned Labour’s relationship with trade unions, in particular Unite, with Cameron stating that trade unions buy Labour’s policies, candidates, MPs and even leader. Meanwhile, Labour requested an answer to the connection between the advice of Lynton Crosby and the decision to not go ahead with plain packaging on tobacco products. Neither side gave particularly satisfactory answers. Miliband was particularly quiet on the day’s announcement of falling unemployment (despite long term unemployment levels having gone up) and this was something that Cameron made sure the House was aware of. As expected, another dominant topic was the Keogh Report, which placed 11 NHS Trusts under special measures with both sides of the house disagreeing on the change of number of nurses and clinical staff since the Government took power in 2010. The sight of Cameron lying back in relaxation, head towards the ceiling, was not unobvious; as we head into the Summer Recess, Cameron is in a strong position, with a recent poll placing Labour and the Conservatives on an equal lead, and he’s revelling in the knowledge. According to him, Labour’s leadership is “in crisis” – everyday, the country is getting stronger, and everyday Miliband’s leadership is getting weaker.

Prime Minister's Questions - 26th June

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

Today’s Prime Minister’s Questions was dominated by questions on infrastructure, with members eagerly awaiting the Spending Review to be delivered by the Chancellor immediately after the scrutiny session. Miliband seemed in his element today as he attacked the Government for their poor record on delivering their promises on infrastructure, highlighting that only 7 of 756 infrastructure projects have been completed under this government, and 5 of those were started under Labour. Cameron tried to deflect the argument by questioning Labour’s record in their 13 years of power, to which Miliband easily answered that there 3700 rebuilt schools, 1000 new hospitals and 3500 new children’s centres. Cameron returned to his usual defence and stated that it was because of this that the country was in this “mess”. According to the Prime Minister, half of the population think Miliband belongs in Sesame Street rather than Downing Street. Serious concerns over the alleged bugging of the friends and family of Stephen Lawrence by police were raised by a Labour MP, with a positive response from the Prime Minister that two independent inquiries had been set up by the Home Secretary to investigate and that no additional oppositions were ruled out. Labour were attacked for the conflicting reports from Miliband and Balls about their commitments in regard to borrowing, with both contradicting each other. The session only served to prove that neither of the main parties are prepared to commit to further investment if elected in 2015.

Prime Minister's Questions - 19th June

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

After a busy week at the G8 summit, David Cameron returned the House of Commons for his weekly scrutiny session, beginning with an announcement that the Chief Executive of BT, Ian Livingstone, would be joining the Government as the trade minister towards the end of the year. Ed Miliband immediately questioned the Prime Minister on whether the Government would be making amendments to the banking bill, based on the parliamentary commission on banking’s report, stating that Labour would be submitting them if the Government didn’t. However, consensus between the parties was found on this point. Miliband attacked the Government on the news that many in the banking sector received a bonus in April that was 64% higher than in the previous year, stating that it was the result of Cameron’s lowering of the highest rate of tax. Cameron failed to defend himself, instead retorting that the Labour party did not manage to sort the problem out themselves during their thirteen years in government. The rise in child poverty was also a dominant topic, with many Labour MPs attacking the Government’s policies that have caused this increase – all David Cameron could do was say that it was Labour’s fault, because they got the country into the economic crisis. Caroline Lucas asked the Prime Minister whether he would agree with her that The Sun newspaper should be removed from sale in the house, due to the link between the portrayal of women as sex objects in the media and the acceptance of sexual harassment. The Prime Minister laughed the question off, stating he was glad that she got her question asked after her “dazzling t-shirt”, but that he believes all newspapers should be available for sale in the house, disgustingly shrugging off the blatant sexism that The Sun prints.

Waging War on the Welfare State

Image by Helen Cobain

Welcome to April. At the next possible opportunity, make a U-turn.

Today is the day of the implementation of further dreaded cuts. As April arrives, we can only optimistically hope that it is some well-organised April Fool’s joke, but unfortunately we know better of a Conservative Government. Lambasted as the “nastiest” ever Government by the TUC, it is difficult to ignore the harsh effects of the benefit changes that are begin from today; from our beloved "bedroom tax” to the loss of legal aid. All of these seem set to only make the poor poorer in the name of deficit reduction.

While Iain Duncan Smith claims that they changes are “fair”, the shouts of society are in stark contrast and looking at the policies, we can understand why. Firstly, and most prominently argued, is the effects of the incoming “bedroom tax” which will force families out of social housing simply due to the number of rooms their house has. Two-thirds of the people who will be hit by this tax are disabled. People will be coerced into moving into smaller homes which may not meet their needs, in order to remain financially sustainable.

Perhaps in an attempt to pin some blame on the local councils, the Government are now offloading council tax benefits into local control (with a 10% reduction already imposed). Whilst local councils are already being forced into making cuts by the Government, there is little leeway for them to increase the spending in these areas and we are likely to see further reductions by local councils in order to meet the other demands required of them.

At the end of the month, the Universal Credit will be piloted in the area of Ashton-under-Lyne, intended to merge many different benefits together into one means-tested payments. However, this will undoubtedly reduce the amount of money that claimants will receive, pushing those with no alternatives further towards or below the poverty line. Furthermore, with the software for the pilot not yet looking ready, this reform is looking set to fail.

The U-turns and amendments of the Government on planned policies have simply demonstrated how ill thought-out their work is. With regards to the “bedroom tax”, it is a sorry state of affairs that the public and Labour must point out how the policy would disproportionately impact the elderly, disabled and military families, before the Government can realise what is wrong with their policies. It changes little though and many policies continue to pass through the Houses and into legislation without being properly scrutinised and surrounded by public and opposition doubt of their practicalities, effectiveness and, most importantly, impact.

However, the welfare system is far from perfect and its reform is not a topic we should just shy away from. There are things about the system which are fundamentally unfair; for example, that some families can be better on benefits than if they worked, but the battle plan of the Government is waging war on the wrong side. Rather than ensure that companies pay their employees wages which make living comfortably possible, therefore ensuring that people on benefits do not have more money than their working counterparts, they are simply reducing the amount of money they dole out to help those in real need of help.

The fiscal year of 2013/2014 will definitely hit hard, and those who need the most financial support will see it unfairly dwindling away whilst their rich counterparts receive a tax break. It is unfair, it is harsh and it is ill thought-out but these are reforms we will be forced to suffer the consequences of, simply so that we try and get rid of those minus signs in our bank balance.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 20th March

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

A serious undertone lay within the house today as members gathered for the budget announcement, resulting in a far more polite and short rally between Miliband and Cameron and the level of jeering was kept at a minimum. Finding consensus on the issues of the Cypriot euro bailout and the support for Syrian opposition, it could easily have been forgotten what a landmark day it was for the country; perhaps the work on the Leveson inquiry has showed the two parties that it is not impossible to reach something that all can agree on. Questions revolving around the budget were also kept at a minimum, most likely awaiting the question session after the announcement. Yet, this did not stop the Conservatives being blasted with their decision to cut the fifty pence tax rate for millionaires, which is set to come into effect next month. There was a disgusting display of a lack of concern from the Prime Minister when he appeared to shun the remarks of a Labour MP who told the story of a homeless teenager who must live off eleven pounds a week due to the Government’s economic policies. Obviously tired of the questions on the economy, Cameron claimed taking advice from the Labour party on the economy was ‘like taking advice from Enron on accountancy’ before refusing to answer what he would ‘spend his millionaire’s tax cut on’.

Prime Minister's Questions - 6th March

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

A furious Cameron erupted in the chamber today, blasting Labour as ‘croupiers’ and demanding that Miliband apologise for the “shambles” that the Labour treasury left the economy in under the last Government. Labour attacked the Government for their opposition to the EU’s banker’s bonus cap, suggesting it as hypocrisy that they would want to do this whilst inflicting deep and damaging cuts, including the “bedroom tax” on the poorest and most vulnerable of society. Cameron refuted the claims, arguing many times that the reform was not a tax, and that the most vulnerable sectors of society were exempt. Miliband ridiculed the Conservative party on their 2015 prospects, stating that he was glad Cameron was preparing for being in opposition by asking him questions, before saying that he looked forward to seeing Theresa May directly opposite him in opposition. One Liberal Democrat MP (in a rather dazzling yellow waistcoat) congratulated their victor in the Eastleigh by-election, proclaiming the benefits of sticking by their leader . Another MP asked how Cameron ‘s talks with Ukip, the party of “nutcases”, were going. Cameron almost ignored the remark, instead stating that it showed that Labour were going “precisely nowhere”. Finally, one Labour MP told Cameron that if doesn’t “get a grip”, he should let Miliband in the seat to do so instead.

Misconceiving the Green Party

The Green Party Logo

It is a horrible misconception of the Green Party to take their name literally and assume that they are a single-issue party – that is to say that their policies are always, at the very least, tenuously linked to environmental policies. However, this is not the case. There’s no denying that the environment is at the core of a lot of Green policies but, despite this, the Greens have a vast manifesto full of policies on education, crime and personal economy. And, unlike other smaller political parties such as UKIP, their policy focus is not one that can easily be solved in one policy change. The Green Party is essentially a left-leaning party with Socialist ideals; hence, similar to the Labour party before it abandoned its roots and repositioned itself under Blair’s New Labour. It’ll be impossible to talk through all of their manifesto points in 600 words, but we can at least look at some of their biggest policy areas.

The basic Green Party policy page alone outlines their attitudes towards the banking system, health and the jobs. The Green Party offer support for policies that attempt to make society a more equal arena, for example, a “living wage” as a new minimum wage which they predict would be around £8.10 an hour. One specific section on young people states “we think it’s unfair that young people are demonised for hanging around on our streets” and then goes on to promise more spending on youth services and free travel on off-peak buses for those under 18 or in full time education. Furthermore, their extended manifesto highlights policies relating to the equality of those who define as LGBTI, women and disabled. They also have a keen focus on further democratising democracy by extending the right to vote to those aged 16 and 17, and changing the voting system to proportional representation for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and allowing a right to recall your MP.

Of course, it would be deceiving to talk through the Greens’ manifesto points without whipping out their environmental policies. As environmental policies make their way into mainstream politics of the three main parties, it is often questioned what more The Green Party has to contribute to the field; some argue that there are only limited, realistic ways of achieving an environmentally friendly society. It is, in fact, the opposite of this; although the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats do offer environmental policies in their manifestos, these are quite often easy to complete and more anthropocentric (to conserve what is for human consumption). In contrast, many of the Green Party’s policies can be interpreted as ecocentric (focused on the welfare and value of nature).

Using the credible source of Wikipedia, we only have to look at the party’s encyclopaedia entry to note that they are not simply an Environmentalist party, but are often attributed the characteristics of being republican, progressive, democratic, socialist and soft Eurosceptics. Upon Natalie Bennett’s successful election in August 2012, she announced that the UK needed “investment in homes, investment in jobs, investment in energy conservation, renewable energy and public transport.” This clearly shows that, although the party does have an Environmentalist focus, they have room to focus on the wider social and fiscal issues that the people of the nation find important. If you find all of this surprising, visit www.voteforpolicies.org.uk and you will see most participants have discovered that the policies of which they most agree with are those of the Green Party. Try it yourself – choose four policy areas and choose which you most agree with; see what party you should be voting for. The fact that you won’t be able to spot The Green Party’s environmentalism in every area shows that they are not just a single-issue party.

January 2013 in Economics

Image by HM Treasury on Flickr

Now, before I start, I must admit that I am no expert in the field of economics. There are few words and statistics that I understand. But, the relationship between economic policy and return on that policy, in the way of contraction or growth, is not a difficult analysis to undertake. Hence, the recent news items regarding the nation’s return to contraction, the closure of Jessops, the cut of jobs by Honda and the contraction in the construction industry, all within the space of the week, signify a massive problem in our fiscal system.

In an earlier post, I predicted that the return to growth in the third quarter of 2012 was merely the result of the temporary Olympics and Jubilee celebrations (otherwise known as “artificially strong growth”) and this is exactly what has been confirmed by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), noting that without the Olympics the economy would have flat-lined. However, the final quarter of 2012 included the Christmas period – a period of increased and frivolous spending – so it comes as a surprise that we see this contraction so quickly. In another post, I predicted that 2013 would see the UK re-enter a recession. Now this  has not yet happened, (obviously due to the first quarter only having recently begun) but with such a quick contraction and the dent made in the employment figures this week, we can only expect to see this or a dramatic turn of events in the coming months.

Yet, based on just these major newsworthy statistics on job losses, we can already see 2170 people starting their new year without a job, entering an environment where intake of new employees is minimal and those without a job are being punished by the coalition’s blaming policies. Before long, we can see these people losing money on the benefits they did not necessarily used to have to rely on, and then being called scroungers of the state due to their reliance on and complaints about the reformed benefits system via this so-called revolutionary universal tax credit. Ironically, the Government wish to be the helping hand up, but these people will only remember having to take a forceful step down.

But much more ludicrously is the fact that this very week, despite these detrimental austerity measures, despite these massive job losses, despite the number of people’s lives they have ruined, our beloved MPs want a 32% raise in their wage packet. It comes as no surprise, that those who demanded the highest raise were from the already particularly well-off members of the Conservative party. Perhaps more surprisingly is that this raise was demanded by members of parties across the board and not just those of the three main parties.

It is disgusting and awful that those who are coercing the saving of money, reduction of budgets and removal of benefits are those also pleading for more money in their pockets. Because, after all, MPs should be exempt from the rules that they place on the rest of society.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 28th November

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The economy was on the tips of everyone’s tongues in the Commons this week (but when isn’t it?). After the initial expected tributes to those involved in flooding rescue and clean up operations, the Commons immediately descended into the brawl between Cameron and Miliband, both blowing their own trumpets about their economic policies. Miliband continued to rely on quoting Cameron’s words and twisting them to his advantage when questioning Cameron’s Work Programme as the “biggest and boldest programme since the great depression” to which Cameron reeled off, at a pace most couldn’t keep up with, a horde of statistics about why his policy was good and Labour’s previous policies were not. Quoting 700,000 people in work as a result of the programme, Cameron was left susceptible to criticisms from Miliband that only 2% of those on the programme were in sustainable jobs (although it was quickly pointed out that Miliband’s math didn’t quite work out). The infamous “calm down” jeer was called from the Labour benches as Cameron tried to defend his policies with a flustered face and glances to his ministerial colleagues for support. Questions were also asked about the results of the Leveson inquiry, but Cameron continuously evaded them only saying that we need a strong and robust independent regulatory service for our media.

 

Also published on Redbrick

A Favourable Backbench Rebellion

Image by Constantin Deaconescu

I’m surprising myself by agreeing with Tory MP for Rochester and Strood, Mark Reckless, whom I have most often found myself contemptuously disagreeing with in the past. Plus, there’s the fact that he’s just a Tory in his day job. Mark is a massive Eurosceptic and somehow manages to argue that every problem we face is in some way Europe’s fault. Yet, yesterday, he stood as a backbencher and voted in favour of a reduction in the funds we provide to Europe. This, I fundamentally agree with in these tough times.

As a country, we are fighting our way through horrific austerity measures and facing devastating and disgusting cuts to our frontline services, yet continue to provide consistent financial support to this international body. Whilst we suffer the effects of cuts, we continue to provide funding to other countries without even beginning to negotiate a slight reduction in respect of our own financial difficulties. This is a preposterous idea. When we are supporting our own citizens less and less each day, why should we continue to support citizens of other countries at the same rate as before?

Now, don’t get me wrong; I do not believe we should wholly withdraw all of our financial support to other countries, but I believe in a proportional cut alongside our other cuts. If something must be cut, it must be cut in line with everything else. We should not favour one thing over another thing, unless with it comes overwhelming benefits.

Hence, I find myself on the side of Labour and a local Tory (although a backbencher, mind you) and agreeing with this successful rebellion on the Government. This is the right step forward; it’s just a shame that this does not create a mandate, and that the Government could still ignore the parliamentary vote when they make their EU funding proposal. Let’s hope they listen to the slight majority and reduce the EU benefit and return some of that saved money to our frightful economy.

Don't Be Fooled - We're Not There Yet

Today, the news that the UK had finally shown economical growth of 1% and, hence, exited a recession was announced. It is pleasing news to the country, and the Government and the media are spinning into brilliance; yet I am sceptical. Now I know I'm not an economist but I can offer a short outsider's perspective on this item. I offer caution and definitely think it's no time for celebration yet.

First, and foremost, we must recognise that the quarter that has shown growth encompassed the Olympic period. The mixture of tourism, hospitality and sporting fever practically guaranteed that there would be no financial downturn over the three months from July to September; there were millions of people touring the city of London, an expensive place to be on the quietest of the day, and heightened prices (particularly within the Olympic park itself) for the events will more than definitely have seen a rise in profits amongst the companies. But, this is a onetime event; the aftermath of the Olympics is already over. In fact, if you're like me, I'd not thought about the Olympics at all for a while until this announcement. Despite the fact that it's only been announced that 0.2% of that is from the Olympic tickets, I'm sure the majority of this income is from the Olympics and it's not something that will be repeated. So don't hold your breath for massive growth in the next quarter.

Next, the Government is still announcing and planning further and further cuts that will have huge impacts on the incomes and budgets of households across the country. Hence, there will be little money to spend. People's bank accounts are already squeezed enough as it is without having to deal with a reduction in funding. With no internationals and no sporting events on, people will not spend anything other than on the basics, especially whilst having to save for Christmas.

And that's the final point. We are unlikely to see an immediate drop in growth next quarter, as Christmas will undoubtedly have some increased spending (on those tight budgets) that will cause some small amount of growth. But this will all cause a feeling of false hope; the Government and the media will spin it to say it's a good thing and something to congratulate the Government on, but in reality, they have done little. The Olympic project was set up under the Labour Government; this, plus the spending, was not a result of their policies, but the result of international and national patriotism and celebration.

I warn you, we will be back in a recession before long - unless, by chance, this happens to be the kick up the backside that the economy needs.