More in the litany of disregard for women

Christine Quigley, member of the Young Fabian Work and Families Policy Development Group, argues that the coalition government should not take support for granted from women who benefited so much under Labour.

Today’s announcement on Child Benefit cuts for higher-rate taxpayers is the most recent example in this Government’s litany of disregard for women. Osborne’s announcement today (well-timed to bury media coverage of the latest revelations on Andy Coulson) means that households where one earner takes home £44,000 a year will lose out on this valuable universal benefit. What is missing in this debate is an analysis of how the cuts will affect inter-family dynamics.

Many UK households still follow the typical male-breadwinner model, with the husband or male partner earning the main income, and women working part-time, on lower incomes, or not at all. (The full-time gender pay gap still sits at nearly 17% forty years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act.) For those women who don’t work, either through choice or necessity, the Child Benefit payment may well be the only money directly paid to them, as Katherine Rake points out. An income of just over £20 a week may not seem like much, but it allows a measure of control and independence. A plethora of academic studies such as Lundberg, Pollak and Wales (1997) point out the common assumption that family incomes are pooled, so that the distribution of income within the family doesn’t matter. The same study finds that the move from tax credits (generally received by the father) to Child Benefit (paid directly to the mother) in the UK saw greater expenditure on children’s (and women’s) clothing.

Once again, the Con-Dem Government hasn’t taken equity between men and women into account. We already know, thanks to Yvette Cooper, that women will bear the brunt of spending cuts from this year’s Budget, but an impact assessment from the Treasury is sadly unavailable publicly.

Conventional political-science wisdom holds that women are inherently more likely to vote for conservative parties. It may well be that the UK’s Conservatives are banking on our support – but selling women down the river won’t win our votes. Let’s not forget Labour’s achievements for women; from the Equal Pay Act and national minimum wage, to better maternity pay, Sure Start, free breast cancer screening, support for victims of domestic violence and increased political representation for women. Today’s cuts are symptomatic of what the Con-Dem Government really thinks of women – we must stand for progressive policies.

Lib Dem conference and Coalition Government: who’s dragging who round the circus?

Years of ignoring the Lib Dems’ conferences are at an end, the Left should be careful to read the signs in Liverpool and the public’s reaction closely.

By the time you read this Nick Clegg will have made his pitch to the Liberal Democrat faithful that their Coalition with the Conservatives is “the right government for right now”. With the polls where they are, this message is going to be a tough sell and whether it convinces either his party’s faithful or the public is something only time will tell.

Poor Nick’s got a difficult balancing act: reaching out to the public without completely trampling over his party. Clegg has to convince his party that that he hasn’t gone native in Mr Cameron’s company.

Many will have thought that Coalition Government would be about Conservatives instigating policies and Liberal Democrats holding back the nastier Tory tendencies but the reality is proving more complex.

Over the weekend senior Liberal Democrat figures were actively trying to paint their party’s role in Government, behind closed doors at least, as being about ensuring the Lib Dem’s distinctive signature on every policy this Government puts through. On the BBC this weekend Simon Hughes was keen to make sure people understood that “ …there are lots of times when Nick will say ‘No, not now, or not this way’…or they’ll [Lib Dem ministers] be saying we need to go further, faster or differently”. I’m not sure whose fears that is supposed to allay. Its cold comfort for party members already uncomfortable on a whole raft of issues, already the word ‘dictatorship’ is being bandied around by the grassroots.

When you add public opinion that they don’t like large strands of Government policy, the question emerges: is it Cameron’s lot to blame or Clegg’s?

So far the Conservatives seem to be happy to acquiesce Clegg’s political muscle flexing but the future post-conference, especially the post-coalition agreement, looks stormier than ever. Already Saint Vince’s comments on the migrant cap have put him at odds with Teresa May, whilst Evan Harris has decided to put some distance between the ‘progressive wing’ of the Lib Dems and Clegg (though that distinction should probably have been made clearer to Lib Dem voters).

The Lib Dems are now tarred with very cut, every policy, and all the rhetoric of this Coalition Government. Why shouldn’t Labour cover them with feathers call them what they seem to be?

This puts a little pressure on Labour as it journeys up to Manchester. Thousands of new Labour members are actually Lib Dem voters angry at being sold a duff political project and by the end of this conference there are likely to be many more of them ready to  follow their lead.

But it is a very different scenario if uneasy Lib Dems MPs and councillors are, after a week in Liverpool, pushed/shoved/encouraged to search for a more comfortable political home.  What will Labour be ready, or able, to offer them?

Seriously, what are MPs for?

It struck me when reading the post by my colleague, Vincenzo Rampulla, on Nick Clegg’s Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that there is something else missing from this debate that was almost entirely absent too from the commentary on the expenses crisis last year.

Really it’s the first principles of making the sort of administrative changes IPSA has led, and constitutional changes, now being sought by the Coalition government: the role of MPs in 2010, and beyond.

The work of an MP has evolved and it seems incredulous that changes to how the offices of MPs are financed and, right now, how many people an MP should represent, are being pushed through without proper discussion; in parliament or amongst the general public.

Surely we should be asking what, in the twenty-first century, MPs are for, seeking to reaffirm why the public need them, and agree somewhat on what they are expected to do, before we determine how many are needed and how we provide funds for them to carry out their duties and represent their constituents?

The evolution has seen a massive increase in casework and the huge demands of extensive scrutiny and pressure led by mass media, and latterly, new media. The British public – but particularly those people that rely upon governments more like the last than the ideological service-cutters currently residing in Downing Street – deserve to openly discuss where the focus of their representatives’ work should be before they are told they have to get in the queue behind more people.

Shortly before parliament was dissolved in April, retiring Labour MP, Mark Todd, in a criticism of parliament’s failure to address this core issue, conveyed the nature of change:

First, what are the understood functions of a Member? In Churchill’s definition, published in the 1950s, the role was threefold, and in order of priority. I have edited it to remove the explicit sexism from his text. He said that the roles of a Member were: to exercise judgment in the interests of Great Britain; to act as a representative, but not a delegate, of his or her constituents; and to serve his or her party’s interests.

The Select Committee on Modernisation’s report on the role of Back-Bench Members, published in 2007, set out the following functions. Unlike Churchill’s, they are not in priority order. They were: supporting their party in votes in Parliament; representing and furthering the interests of their constituency; representing individual constituents and taking up their problems and grievances; scrutinising and holding the Government to account and monitoring, stimulating and challenging the Executive; initiating, reviewing and amending legislation; and contributing to the development of policy, whether in the Chamber, Committees or party structures, and promoting public understanding of party policy.

He goes on to highlight one such moment in time that accelerated change:

An MP serving between 1935 and 1950 said that, ”before 1939, unless there was some controversy afoot, I rarely received more than twenty letters a week…But after the election of 1945, everything was changed…suddenly the MP ceased to be a politician and potential statesman and became an official of the welfare state. Thousands wanted houses; old people wanted pensions; ex-service men wanted jobs; everybody wanted something and ‘write to your MP’ became a cliché”.

But it wasn’t the only instance – change has been both rapid, and inconsistently distributed amongst constituencies.

IPSA has set out its stall. Instead of taking the moral and long-term approach, the new independent authority took the populist approach of clamping down on ‘expenses’ (and this did need action even if I may not have chosen the exact same route to doing so myself) without considering the very real need to provide finances for MPs to act in their constituents’ interests. The media were allowed to get away with a characterisation that most MPs were on the take rather than a sensible dialogue being cultivated about the need for (fairly paid) staff with the resources to do their jobs. I sense no movement here.

But the Coalition’s intentions to reduce the number of MPs present an opportunity to discuss why – beyond a simplistic, yet dubious, argument of savings to the public purse – British people’s representation should change, not least as the reforms are not linked to a democratisation of parliament’s upper house. I suggest to the prime minister that this country needs effective representation, not less representation. Debating and consulting on the role of MPs would help determine whether I, or Mr Cameron, is right. If the expenses crisis taught us anything, it is that Britons very firmly expect more of their MPs. It is hard to see how the Coalition’s reforms can possibly provide this.

Live Budget webchat

Join our live webchat on the Emergency Budget from 12 noon today.

GUEST POST: Triple-jeopardy in welfare proposals increase risk of poverty

In this guest post, Young Fabian member Neil Coyle argues that, despite the supposed similarities in the welfare policy of Labour and the Coalition government, the proposed changes announced by the Coalition so far are regressive.

Incoming Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, has announced welfare commitments including:

• Putting DWP at the forefront of improving quality of life for worst-off citizens;
• Ensuring work pays; and
• A Social Justice Cabinet Committee.

Sound progressive? Examination of the detail available is more worrying. Overall, proposals could mean the triple-jeopardy of:

1. enforced, ineffective medical tests;
2. cuts to support to find work; and
3. cuts to in-work support.

Medical tests

Labour introduced a ‘Work Capability Assessment’ (WCA) to ascertain the impact of health conditions on people’s ability to work. But organisations that supported reform have criticised WCA implementation.

Disability organisations suggest the WCA is unable to effectively ascertain the impact health conditions have on ability to work. Cases have arisen of people assessed as ‘fit for work’ being exempted from undertaking work related activity on appeal. 40% of the people who appeal have DWP decisions overturned and the number of appeals already outstrips other benefits.

Instead of addressing WCA challenges, the new Government is bringing forward wider reform plans using the assessment on all 2.6 million Incapacity Benefit (IB) claimants. Labour had proposed 1.5 million IB claimants undergo the WCA at a rate of 10,000 per week to 2014. The new Government’s WCA plans will require significant additional costs – recruiting Jobcentre Plus/medical assessment staff to handle assessments and public resources wasted in costly appeals.

Support to find work

Labour provided support for people furthest from the job market through initiatives like Pathways to Work. The coalition has announced it will scrap Pathways and other programmes in favour of a single ‘Work Programme’.

But a ‘one size fits all’ approach will be ineffective at ensuring all citizens, especially disabled people, are supported to find work. At a time of higher unemployment this is doubly disadvantageous and could cause a bias in the system against helping people with highest needs to find work.

Reduced in-work support

Labour proposed a £40 per week better off in work guarantee for many people moving off benefits. The coalition has cut this proposal, instead making loose statements about ‘making work pay’ which some fear may mean cuts to benefits in the June Budget.

The coalition’s tax credit proposals also cut in-work support. The threshold of income planned to restrict access to tax credits may not reflect some people’s – especially parents of disabled children’s – higher living costs and could push families into poverty.

The coalition agreement also pledges an employment law review. A weakening of employers’ obligations on parental rights, flexible working and ‘Reasonable Adjustments’ for disabled employees could make work untenable.

The ‘C’ change

Despite shared terminology and a general media focusing on similarities in the main parties’ on welfare, the combination of recent announcements represent a sea change from Labour to Coalition.

Progressives must monitor the impact of proposals on poverty.

Lib Dem policy and the coalition

An interesting outcome of the coalition negotiations that produced the Cabinet and Ministerial teams across Whitehall is the noticeable absence of Liberal Democrats in a small number of Departments.

In DEFRA, DCMS and the Wales Office there is no LibDem representation at all, which must raise questions over the Party’s ability to retain an independent stance on policy in these areas.

The South West of England is Liberal Democrat heartland territory, and DEFRA plays a significant role in many people’s lives due to the rural agricultural nature of the region’s economy. The Liberal Democrats have to be seen to play a role in this area of policy. Who is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for rural affairs?

DCMS controls the budgets for the Olympics and tourism, has regulatory oversight for broadcasting and journalism, among many other areas. The 2012 London Olympics will continue to be controversial due to the huge sums of money and the national prestige at stake. Who is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for DCMS?

The answer to both questions is that there isn’t one.

The formal coalition that has been hammered means that the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party is bound into Government, regardless of whether they have members in each department. There will be no official spokespeople from the Liberal Democrat side of the house for these departments. As with any Governing party there will be backbenchers who express differing views to the Government, but no LibDem ministers to explain to their peers why a certain policy should be supported or otherwise. They now have no formal role in these areas at all.

Looking further afield, it will be interesting to see whether the LibDems as a party will continue to produce an alternative policy platform to the Conservatives in any areas of Government. It will be very difficult to retain an independently LibDem stance on any issue when they are a full coalition partner. When faced with the prospect of being totally subsumed into the Conservative party with regards policy, I wonder how long LibDem members, activists and their Councillor base will refrain from rocking the coalition boat.

The road ahead…?

Despite the huge statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister this evening, the reality is that a deal with the Liberal Democrats still has to be made. It’s obvious that Gordon Brown’s future as PM has been removed as a perceived ‘road block’ but what will form the basis of that coalition beyond the foundations of economic stability, electoral reform and deficit reduction is still up for grabs.

A stable, strong and principled Government has been the watch words across the commentary and coverage, providing a blueprint of where we want our politics to be. The coalition may give us none of this.  Coalitions are precarious and there are more questions left about the future than answered.

But despite all his ‘image’ problems, Gordon Brown has managed to stay above the fray and come over as a Statesman and a leader. And now, according to the FT, his decisive move means it’s ‘game on’. That puts pressure on Nick Clegg who has been allowed to flitter between suitors for longer than principles should have allowed.

The PM has set down a marker, he’s set out a timetable that will work towards stability in coalition and lead Labour to a newly-elected leader. But it also opens up the possibility about wider and deeper discussions about the direction of our movement.

As others have highlighted, a leadership election in the party will necessitate a longer, harder look at the party as a whole. Both the Next Left conference and the  Compass’ conference over these coming months will need to revive and rejuvenate the direct of our political project. Whilst these turbulent times offers a chance for our own Young Fabian Policy Development groups to inject new ideas and thinking the youth of the movement.

So, yeah, this is an intensely exciting and important time, where the left could – perhaps – come together to change British politics for ever. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves: can a deal be reached?

And you thought the excitement was all over….