What Are (and What Should Be) Our Bottom lines?
By Emma.
There’s quite a lot of commentary at the moment on Twitter and the blogs bout Nick Clegg’s demands for a hung parliament. While some of the critisism is apt, I tweeted some days ago, and still feel, that at the moment, any and all criticism of Clegg – especially by anyone connected with Labour or the Tories – is simply counter-productive. It feeds his message of “same old politics” too easily, and the Tory press are blurring the lines so much already that even valid criticism seems like carping.
I also think that some of the lines don’t quite make sense. True, it’s not for Clegg to choose the Labour leader, but it may be for Labour to choose between being led by Brown or governed by Cameron. I believe even Gordon knows which is the preferable choice.
So let’s assume Clegg gets to play kingmaker – or even crown himself with a Labour cabinet. What are the conditions Labour should put on such an alliance?
In the debates, both Clegg and Cable have attacked Tax Credits and their manifesto proposes getting rid completely of the Child Trust Fund. These must be a vital line in the sand. These are essential policies to continue a fair redistribution. This is a key Labour principle, and we must fight for it.
Secondly, no anti-union laws, including increasingly draconian laws to stop people working collectively and politically. Unite and Ashcroft are not the same, and union members already jump through enough hoops donating money through their union – a signal of thier political belief in collective action. A good Labour person in the DTI and protecting this area at the Treasury will be hugely important.
Finally, agreement on a referendum on voting reform must include an AV or AV+ as well as FPtP and STV options. Each party (and individuals within the parties) must be free to campaign in the referendum as they see fit.
I think these measures would be essential to assuaging Labour concerns, but shouldn’t be too bitter a pill for the Lib Dems to swallow. If Labour are seen as giving up something as substantial as their leader, the Lib Dems will also have to show willing to be coalition players. I don’t think these measures which protect the vulnerable should be too hard to take.
Tags: Gordon Brown, Lib/Lab coalition, Nick Clegg, poverty reduction, referendum, unions, voting reform
Tuesday, April 27th 2010 at 00:26
Interesting insight, I have a couple of comments/questions.
First quick one, why should AV *and* AV+ be on the referendum paper? Jenkins suggested AV+ and so that should be the labour option on the card. FPTP is clearly Tories baby, while STV is the Lib Dem choice. More important to this would surely be, amongst whoever realises the referendum, that if we’re having more than a two option question the vote has to be carried out in an STV/AV manner (ironically).
Secondly, why is it seen to be that removing child trust funds is an anti-redistributive matter? I’m all for redistribution, which is why I baulk at the idea of the government spending money on a kid that ultimately provides a very small benefit to an individual and has no proof as to being beneficial. What is fair in the redistribution of state funding to so many kids, most of which will find themselves in a situation where they don’t require that money after their life direction has already been shaped and decided?
The reason this stance irks me is that the Lib Dem policy is to take that money and to put it in to the education of poor students…to me this is REAL redistribution, putting the money where it works right away, tackling the inequalities of poverty at source and providing our youth with an opportunity to gain proper aspirations and education. This to me is much more intelligent redistribution than giving 18 year old’s a grand after they’ve already been either consigned the scrap heap or achieved what they need to give them an extremely good chance of a comfortable life.
To a lesser degree the same has to be said about Child Tax Credits being given to families that clearly earn enough to support their kids perfectly well.
I’d just like to know why these are immovable to you when it is abundantly clear that there is more intelligent ways to spend state money to combat inequality in our youth?
Tuesday, April 27th 2010 at 00:57
Hi Lee,
Firstly, I said AV or AV+ – not both. I prefer AV+ but accept your argument that it is the “Labour option” and as such would want to hear the will of the party as to which one we favoured.
On your second point – this money is not nothing. It’s a great starting point. £1000 is a deposit on a flat, a trip abroad, subsistence during a short course or support during an apprenticeship. Also very, very few people’s life direction is shaped and decided by 18. Mine certainly wasn’t and I can think of few of my friends – with the exception of a small number of those who had children very young (and could certainly have used a grand!) – who re where they thought they would be then.
On your point about students, I would like to ask you what you mean by “either consigned the scrap heap or achieved what they need to give them an extremely good chance of a comfortable life.” I don’t think you are consigning everyone who doesn’t go to university to the scrap heap, but it certainly reads that way now. Either way, I don’t want to fund the education of the minority (or the 50% who I would love to see attending university) off the backs of the poor. By all means find a more progressive way to fund university students (I would suggest a graduate tax with a reasonably high floor) but don’t do it out of money assigned for the people who won’t get that advantage.
You talk about people able to support their kids already, but it is evident that universality both protect benefits (we saw this in the 80s when Thatcher went after Child Benefit) and also increases their uptake by the very people who need them most.
So no, I must politely disagree, and say that I don’t think it is “abundantly clear” that there are more intelligent ways to spend money to combat equality and to combat inequality.
Finally, given that you believe that the Liberal Democrats shouldn’t compromise with Labour on this matter, imagining this scenario, what would you rather give up?
Tuesday, April 27th 2010 at 10:35
Apologies, misread your electoral reform sentence!
As for the second. I’m not denying £1k is a great starting point, but it goes to everyone. I also think you’re being a little naive if you believe that your life has not been set hugely by the time you’re 18. If your literacy, skills and social cohesion hasn’t been developed properly up until you’re 18 due to the poverty and inequality in your area then there is no way that the £1k is going to be more than a one shot fun time payment for those that should be using it for more, while those that had a better upbringing, that don’t *need* that money, use it to further the gap between them and the poor.
As for students, I wasn’t talking about university, I was talking about primary and secondary education.
The only reason Child Trust Funds are universal is because no-one can see whether a poor family will become better off, and vice versa, so means testing at the start of a child’s life is irrelevant to their need when they’re 18. It has to be universal otherwise it would be completely unfair as well as a gross misuse of money that could be much better spent improving equality of education and aspiration.
Tuesday, April 27th 2010 at 10:45
“Finally, given that you believe that the Liberal Democrats shouldn’t compromise with Labour on this matter, imagining this scenario, what would you rather give up?”
Child Trust Funds are neither here nor there, if Labour insist on us continuing to waste money on it when it really can’t be afforded, fine…as long as they understand that they’re forcing more cuts somewhere else to get the reforms to education Lib Dems want. It isn’t negotiable to put more money in to poor schools to raise students’ potential, no matter whether Labour want to folly on a holiday booze fund for teenagers or not.
Tuesday, April 27th 2010 at 14:13
I disagree with your lines in the sand, Emma, but then when you say my name pop up you probably knew I would. Child tax credits are a good policy in principle, but at the current income levels they are a childlessness tax, and the threshold should be significantly reduced in order to help the poorest get on. It’s currently a redistributive policy – away from those who don’t have children to those who do. I would have thought a redistribution away from those who can afford it to those who can’t would be a more Labour standpoint, but it appears I lost that argument long ago. I’ve no objection to the principle, but I just don’t think the range of people who can currently benefit from it can really be defended. But of course, you can’t say anything against the fa-mill-ee.
Child trust funds are *probably* a better policy, but I fear they can’t be afforded as things stand. Also, I’m not sure we can pronounce too firmly on what the benefits and disadvantages are when we’re not going to have the end product for, what, another ten years, and a multi-cohort study for another six years after that? There’s no point dying in a ditch over something when we don’t even know what that something actually does. If it transpires that 80% of kids go to Ibiza/Chamonix and spend a week binge-drinking with the money, or buy unsafe cars and drive them unsafely, will it have been a failure? This risk is real, so in the brave new world of budget cuts I think CTFs may have to go.
To me the lessons of European politics in the last few years are that nobody can really afford more than one or maybe two non-negotiables. Everything’s back on the table once the door closes on the coalition negotiations, and I don’t think anyone can afford to be too precious about anything bar a signature policy that would cost you too much to give up. I don’t think this is ours.
Tuesday, April 27th 2010 at 14:13
Yes it does go to everybody – that’s the universality I was talking about earlier. It’s simply not true that “the only reason The only reason Child Trust Funds are universal is because no-one can see whether a poor family will become better off, and vice versa, so means testing at the start of a child’s life is irrelevant to their need when they’re 18″ there are many reasons why universality is an important concept and one people trying to protect the poor continue to fight for. I mentioned a few above.
You seem to be setting up something of a straw man here, as both Labour and the Lib Dems want to increase spending on education. I agree that if we are to do so and keep the Child Trust Funds either other spending will have to go or some other tax will have to be raised. That’s the point of prioritising. And for me these are a priority.
I reject utterly that they are a “one shot fun time payment” or a “holiday booze fund for teenagers”. They are a start in life for everyone, regardless of the other factors that have worked for or against you up to that point. So for some they will be an addition to a comfortable lifestyle, but for many others – other’s whose payments will be protected by their universal nature – they will be a place to live, or support in further learning or a chance to experience life changing travel or vitally, a start in the habit of saving.
Finally, I’m a long way from naive, and I know how important to a person’s life chance their early (particularly pre-school) development and education is. That’s why I support, applaud and champion Sure Start and other educational measures the Labour Government have introduced. But I’m also not willing to write people off as “on the scrapheap” if they haven’t achieved their maximum potential by 18. Which is why I am concerned that the Liberal Democrats are threatening to take money out of Train to Gain.
But I realise that if we are to have coalition (now or in the future, as if some form of voting reform is introduced, it may not be this time but another where our parties have to work together), we will have to compromise. So we can’t lay out the Labour Party Manifesto and say “there our bottom lines” any more than a coalition partner could do the same. I’m trying to come at this with this spirit of compromise in mind, and think what we consider essential.