Passing the buck on Council Tax Benefit

Today's Independent carries a story on the impact of Council Tax Benefit cuts, both on the recipients and local authorities. Whilst it's not new news, it serves to further highlight the Coalition's cack-handed and unjust approach to welfare reform.
The decision to cut the budget by ten percent has a double sting in the tail. Firstly, local authorities / devolved administrations have to decide how best to administer it and fill the shortfall. This then leaves them in an impossible position and they face a hard choice - reduce the benefit available to recipients (but not the level of Council Tax), pushing them further below the bread line, or put up Council Tax to meet the shortfall.

This is buck-passing on an epic scale.

No doubt the Coalition will then respond by exercising its power to cap Council Tax increases in England, just to make life doubly difficult.

Where now for social liberals?

In His recent Shifting Grounds article, Professor Richard Grayson of Liberal Left, the grouping of Lib Dems opposed to the coalition, pinpoints exactly how and why the Liberal Democrats have lost their way.  There is, he argues, a small elite of individuals in the Lib Dem ranks who want them to become a centre-right party of small-state liberalism. I would argue that it is probably a larger grouping that isn’t confined to an elite, but this brand of pseudo-conservatism is certainly driving the Lib Dems in the Coalition.  He points to the overbearing influence of individuals like David Laws, libertarians who see less government as the answer to most problems.

By asking the question, ‘how many  of the Coalition’s state-slashing policies are helping to disperse power and build capability in our citizens?’, Richard gets to the heart of what Liberalism is all about, as well as highlighting just how Liberalism - or at least the social liberalism that I associate with – has been absent from the Coalition’s Programme. Perversely, Nick Clegg summed up the crux of the argument in a speech in 2010: ‘It is not the size of the state – it’s what the state does that matters’.

If only Clegg’s actions in government had been as Liberal as his words.

Whilst I admire the attempts of Richard and his Liberal Left colleagues to fight the Social Liberal corner, I remain unconvinced of their ability to bring about the change of direction needed. Other than a light smattering of press coverage, I see no evidence of significant impact. Crucially, their Advisory Board and Executive Committee lacks parliamentarians and boasts no MPs.  Liberal Left cannot hope to change the course of Lib Dems in Parliament without this support.

The sad reality is that the Liberal Democrats no longer offers a comfortable home for social liberals. Consequently, members and voters are deserting the party – in droves.  An article in last Sunday’s Independent suggests that one in five Lib Dems resigned from the party last year, with the worst loss of membership in those constituencies represented by Government ministers. In Scotland, Lib Dem membership is down by over a quarter.

They shouldn’t have expected anything less. The feeble and irritating defence from a ‘Lib Dem spokesman’ was to acknowledge the difficulties caused by their decision to ‘put the interests of the country before party’, and to pay tribute to the ‘real liberals’ who’ve stuck it out, the ‘heroes of Liberalism’. The ‘heroes of Liberalism’?? Are they serious? Can they really be that dismissive of losing 20 percent of their membership base?

There are now a lot of Liberals who find themselves disenfranchised, disillusioned and despondent. The question is, are they just going to pack up and go home, or are they going to mobilise and try to present a truly Liberal alternative to the Coalition? More importantly, who can rally them, and through what mechanism? Can anyone succeed where Liberal Left is struggling? Time, as always, will tell.

The closing of the door

It's now clear that the Tories have closed the door on the prospect of House of Lords reform. By doing so they have, once and for all, slammed, bolted and barricaded the door closed on any notion that the Lib Dems have any real influence in the Coalition.

The bickering will begin, the 'tit for tat' rejection of each other's policies will begin, and the Coalition will blunder on until 2015, ineffective and directionless.

Neither party can afford the electoral consequences of disengaging from it.

Mr. Clegg, how naive you have been. You sold out on your party's principles very cheaply indeed.

The worklessness myth

Founded by Iain Duncan-Smith, the work of the Centre for Social Justice on its alleged ‘five pathways to poverty’ has strongly influenced the Coalition’s flawed and unjust approach to welfare reform. To crudely repeat the CSJ’s argument, ‘benefits trap millions in worklessness and dependency over several generations and that future economic recovery will bring only a slight reduction in worklessness’.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent riposte, Poverty: The Role of Institutions, Behaviours and Culture, helps to dispel the myth and leaves the CSJ – and the Coalition’s welfare reform advocates – with some questions to answer.

First and foremost, work is not always in itself a ‘cure’ to poverty. Those at most risk are families with a single earner in low wage or part time job. Under-employment, and the availability of good employment opportunities, is the issue for such households.

The Coalition’s rhetoric has focused on demonising the economically inactive, such as those claiming incapacity benefits, with the claim that the current benefits system is an attractive alternative to paid employment, and that this view is passed on from one generation to the next. In fact, only 0.8 percent of all households – a mere 15,000 across the UK – have two or more generations that have never worked.

Whilst there is a correlation between the periods of unemployment of fathers and sons, local labour market conditions and the availability of jobs are important factors underlying this. Equally, when the local labour market is strong those with health problems and disabilities are more likely to work than those in areas with weak labour demand. It would seem that the availability of local employment opportunities has the most impact on worklessness.

The CSJ’s suggestion that there is a ‘culture’ of worklessness in some communities that creates poverty misses the point entirely. As work disappears from an area, the individuals in these neighbourhoods face less access to employment, creating an alternative culture that lacks routine, organisation and structure. It takes time to turn this situation around, and habits can be difficult to break. JRF’s research actually suggests that residents in disadvantaged communities share values and aspirations similar to the rest of us: fairness, hard work and responsibility.

Do the CSJ and the Coalition seriously think that reducing the benefits available to these communities, leaving them worse off, will actually make them less likely to be in poverty? What’s needed is strong local leadership and better community engagement led by community organisations that can provide support and advice to break habits and raise aspirations.

Once you cut through the right-wing drivel, it’s pretty clear what’s lacking – jobs.

State-sponsored vilification of the most vulnerable in our society does nothing to tackle the unfounded prejudices that exist about our disadvantaged communities. It is a pretty disdainful fig-leaf for the coalition to use to cover up the absence of a growth and employment strategy.

Welfare Reform: the cart before the horse

Welfare reform is a clear example of where the Coalition has got it badly wrong and its approach falls down in three key areas: fairness; strategy; and timing.

First, a few words on the rhetoric used by the Coalition when talking about welfare. They state that we should make work pay and that no one should get more on benefits than if they were working. Every reasonable person can agree to that, but the examples that they use, with the support of the gutter press, are so extreme that they are further stigmatising an already vulnerable and disadvantaged group. As a result the 'benefit scrounger' becomes the dominant character in the debate when they deserve no more than a small cameo role. Very few people actively chose to live off benefits. Their perspective has been ignored as it is politically inconvenient, and the debate has been distorted.

This leads to my first point of criticism: fairness. As the Government's greatest expense, they claim that they have no option other than to slash the Welfare bill to reduce our large national debt. There's no real consideration of the needs of benefit recipients here, simply a focus on saving money. That's why it suits the Coalition to skew the debate to focus on the minority that abuse the system, rather than take a more holistic view that seeks to address the underlying causes of worklessness and social disadvantage.

Call me an old fashioned social liberal, but I think that making those who can least afford it your first port of call when looking at ways of reducing the deficit is a little unfair, don't you? A tough approach to raising revenue from those who can afford it through appropriate taxation would be a better starting point. Emergency taxes levied on the financial sector would be a good start. After all, the banks got us into this mess and they are desperate to get back into our good books.

While benefits claimants are feeling the brunt of the Coalition's sythe, the rich enjoy a five pence tax cut. Fair? I think not.

Secondly, strategy. Welfare reform is progressing on the basis that claimants must engage in return to work schemes delivered through the Work Programme in return for state support. The Universal Credit will be tapered so that someone taking up an employment opportunity will never be worse off than if they were on benefits. All fine in principle, but it lacks one essential ingredient: jobs.

The Coalition's obsession with cutting, rather than taking a realistic approach that seeks to reduce some of the deficit and manage the remaining debt over a longer period, has come at the expense of an economic growth plan. In fact, it has sent us into recession and caused government borrowing to go up. Jobs are disappearing, tax revenue is consequently dropping and, surprise, surprise, the deficit is getting bigger, not smaller. Welfare spending may actually go up as a result of projected future job losses.

Where is the sense in a Welfare reform package that is designed to encourage people into jobs that don't exist and that the Coalition has no strategy for creating?

This underlines my last criticism: timing. By creating a system that is based on getting people into non existent jobs the cart has been well and truly placed before the horse.

Before weilding the stick, you need to grow the carrot. The coalition needs to provide the fertiliser. They seem more than capable of producing one particular type of fertiliser, just not the type this country needs or wants.

The realities of providing local health services

I found myself in a minority of one when I got embroiled in an online debate about local health provision last week.

The decision to close the local and replace it with the new facility five miles away was not popular with residents. A quick glance at the discussion will show you that most feel as though an inferior service is being provided at the new hospital, particularly in relation to A&E, and they are bemoaning the lack of a hospital in the town itself.

My perspective is somewhat different.  The old hospital was well past its best, a crumbling ruin compared to the new one. The new location is also much more accessible to people in the North of the Borough. Whereas the old hospital had a ‘9 to 5’ A&E,  the new one has an emergency centre that can deal with most minor accidents, with more serious cases being referred to nearby general hospitals. This was essentially what happened when the old hospital was still open, so there really isn’t any change from what went before.

Needless to say, my views were seized on. Other contributors to the debate would have you believe the new hospital isn’t a patch on what went before.  I was well and truly demonized.

We cannot have the penny and the bun, especially in these challenging economic times, and our healthcare commissioners are placed in an impossible position. The reality of the choice is this:  the people of the Borough can either have a second rate A&E service in the new hospital (which was the case when it was an ‘official’ A&E at the old one) or a better standard of service that they have to travel to. I’m not saying that the service at either of the other hospitals is perfect, far from it, but it would be considerably worse if A&E services were spread more thinly.

If people are worried about the length of time it would take to get to an A&E, the research shows that it is the ambulance response rate that matters more than the time it takes to travel to hospital. I feel that inconsistencies here are a more reasoned focus for health campaigners.

No matter where a hospital is located, someone will always be dissatisfied and too many people get fixated on the building itself rather than the quality of the service.  The public protests begin at the first whiff of a suggestion that a hospital may close (although interestingly not in my town, to any great extent) and the local politicians start to dance to their tune. At this juncture, we need more honesty from our politicians, but the desire to make political capital from the situation usually wins through. We cannot hope to provide a first rate service in every single community, town and city etc within the budget constraints. A whopping 40 percent of the Welsh budget already goes on health provision.

A reasonable service within a reasonable distance has to be a better option than a patchwork of inconsistent community hospitals offering varying standards of provision, whether it is A&E, Maternity, Cardiac or Pediatrics.

The benefits of housing associations

When local council home tenants voted against being transferred to a housing association, I think they missed a trick.

Housing associations are so much more than landlords. As not for profit mutuals, any surplus is channelled back into the housing stock and they offer planned maintenance programmes and responsive repair services. They also offer a range of other services to their tenants and work with support agencies to supply homes for people with diverse additional support needs, including those with learning disabilities, homeless individuals, young people leaving care, women fleeing domestic abuse, those recovering from substance-misuse and people with mental health problems. They invest in the communities they manage and take a proactive approach to managing anti-social behaviour issues.

Not only have local tenants lost out on the holistic packages of support that housing associations provide, the local authority is going to have to folk out £170 million to bring the council stock up to the Welsh Housing Quality Standard. They money may be there, but just imagine the other uses it could have been put to, especially in these challenging economic times.