Archive for the 'Cuts' Category

h1

Henry G Manson looks at the politics of food banks

Friday, April 26th, 2013


Chart from Left Foot Forward

What should be the best response?

This week Ed Miliband was campaigning in Oxfordshire and visited a food bank in the Prime Minister’s constituency. I was surprised that the people of Witney needed a food bank, but perhaps it’s a sign of the times. It struck me how ‘food banks’ have become a live political issue now and are not just a response to real hardship. How MPs and political parties respond to their growth is important.

One thing that is clear is that they’re growing. And fast. Labour MPs have highlighted this in Parliament and while the Prime Minister has retaliated by illustrating the growth under the previous government, the figures are dwarfed by recent years’ expansion. 61,000 people were fed by food banks in 2010/11 compared with 346,000 in 2012/13. At this rate if nothing changes we could see approaching 1 million people using food banks in the next parliament.

For Labour to simply point to them as proof of government failure overlooks the charitable effort and donations behind them. David Cameron’s reluctance to visit a food bank illustrates the difficulty in getting the response right.

For Tories to praise the arrival of food banks and their ‘big society’ ethos looks crass and insensitive to their cause. Peterborough’s Tory MP Stewart Jackson went further at the launch of a local food banks saying “it shows that the Christian community working with others across our city are directing help to those most in need and supporting the statutory agencies to make a difference and a positive contribution, particularly for families with children.” Shouldn’t Stewart Jackson show some humility at the contribution of his own government’s policies that have affected some of the poorest resulting in people unable to feed their families?

Some of the biggest users of food banks seem to be families who are in the throes of having their benefits changed. This is likely to increase in the coming months. Cuts to housing benefit and freezes to benefits while the cost of living goes up will also make it harder for some. There also appear to be many in rural areas and not just in the inner-cities, perhaps reflecting the higher cost of living. Despite the claims of one young Tory activist from Cameron’s constituency claiming that people are using food banks to save money to spend on alcohol, there clearly is a large degree of desperation involved in those that use them. In one case some walked 20 miles to access food.

    I find the very idea of food banks uncomfortable. I am torn. I don’t want to celebrate them, but I am also relieved they’re there when people are so many people are clearly struggling.

Yet Britain remains one of the wealthiest countries in the world and the fact that so many people need to rely on charity should be a collective source of shame shouldn’t it? Or is it somehow better that people are dependent on charity rather than the state? As is stands it seems it will take a lot for the rise in food banks to slow down, never mind begin falling. They look like they’re here to stay. Politicians from all parties may have to find a different way of responding to them.

Henry G Manson



h1

Today’s Daily Mail front page is one of the most controversial in a long time

Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013

To me this creates an excuse for the killer

Almost all the tabloids are leading this morning with the conviction of Mick Philpott of killing six of his children.

Where the Daily Mail is different is that it seeks to put at least part of the blame onto “Welfare UK” and in doing so, I’d suggest, minimises what Philpott did.

Politically, of course, this comes just at the moment when Osborne has gone on the offensive over the changes and cuts in the welfare system.

    The electoral question is whether the Mail approach will resonate and help Osborne or whether it comes over as being too contrived. My view is that it is the latter.

One thing’s for sure – the Philpott coverage has drowned out coverage of the Chancellor’s big speech yesterday.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news




h1

Henry G Manson on Friday

Friday, March 15th, 2013

Hello all: I hate the new Disqus as much as you do. I will be actively looking for a new alternative. Please bear with us until we find one. Thanks, Robert

Has Theresa May forgotten her pledges to the disabled?

Theresa May has been burnishing her right wing credentials in recent weeks. Predictably the right wing press has lapped up promises to withdraw from the Human Rights Act, ‘sack Euro judges’ and allow schools to make profits. But are her promises worth the paper they’re written on? That’s what disabled campaigners such as Sue Marsh http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-smoking-gun-that-shows-tories-lied.html are starting to ask.

Before the last general election the Conservative Party produced a document called A Contract for Equalities. It is an official document, still available on the party website and has a forward from Theresa May which committed to a wide range of measures including ‘consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage’ – something unhappy Conservative activists appear not to have noticed at the time. In it is a section devoted to ‘Action for the Disabled’. It makes a number of pledges that have not been met. The commitments seem clear:

“Central to our plans is a clear distinction between people who can’t work and those who can. Of course, there are some people who due the nature of their disability or illness will not be able to work. These people who cannot work because of a disability or illness should never be forced to work.”

Instead 40% of people who appeal against the ATOS the government’s assessor for incapacity support are successful. MPs are inundated with horror stories from disabled people at their wits end over the assessments, a quarter of which aren’t event accessible by wheelchair. While Theresa May and the Conservatives pledged not to force people who can work to do so, people just days out of intensive care are being told to seek work or lose their benefits.

The document continues, “We are very much focused on helping all who are capable of work, not just those who are nearest to the job market.” Instead evidence suggests the government’s providers are doing precisely that.

We learn that “a Conservative government will tackle the stigma and prejudice that still persists towards disabled people, particularly those with mental ill-health.”

Perhaps most disturbing revelation from the evidence is that the Department for Work and Pensions appears to have drip-fed distorted statistics to the Mail and Express to whip up hostility to people in receipt of disability support.

A key task for any political leader is to hold onto their promises. Clegg has suffered political damage from his failure to uphold flagship pre-election pledges. Cameron has been at pains to keep his support for pensioner bus passes. However the Conservatives appear to have fallen well short on their pre-election commitments to disabled people of all ages. Letting down disabled people doesn’t reflect well on the Tories and Theresa May could do worse than re-read the document the next time she wants to make a ‘wide-ranging’ intervention. The Home Secretary would be wise to uphold past promises she put her name to before making new pledges to court the right wing press that she may believe will aid her advancement. If that means taking on Iain Duncan Smith and the private sector providers now then let’s see it.

Ten years ago Theresa May warned that her party was seen as the ‘nasty party’. Well it doesn’t look too nice right now.

Henry G Manson



h1

Ipsos-MORI finds a big increase in voters blaming the coalition for the cuts

Friday, January 18th, 2013

Fewer are blaming the last LAB government



h1

Ed Miliband shouldn’t have given the undertaking that Ed Balls will remain as shadow chancellor until the election

Sunday, January 13th, 2013

Poll after poll says it – Balls is a liability

For me the big news from Ed Miliband’s Marr interview today was his commitment to keep Ed Balls as shadow chancellor until the general election.

Yes it’s hard when an interviewer puts you on the spot like he did – but Ed should have been ready with a less than strong support for the current shadow chancellor.

I’ve reported repeatedly on the polling that contnues to show that Labour gets more blame for the cuts than the coalition – something you would expect to be wearing off by now, particuarly after the shambles that was Osborne’s March 2012 budget.

    Whatever his economic expertise Balls simply does not have the communication skills to meet the challenges that he faces.

For the LAB team to be trailing as they are when the voting intention numbers are good for them shoud be raising the alarm bells. What are the Balls-Miliband economic ratings going to look like when the voting polls get closer?

Ed Balls has been shadow chancellor for just under two years. A further two years could put the kybosh on his party’s chances of returning to power.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news




h1

A challenging time for LAB as the negative impact of Osborne’s March 2012 budget appears to be waning

Tuesday, January 8th, 2013

32 months after losing power LAB is still being blamed

YouGov’s regular tracker “Who’s most to blame for current spending cuts?” is one I return to time and time again because I believe it might be a good pointer by the time we get to 2015.

Today’s latest figures are refelected in the pie chart above. To me the key findimg is that just 25% blame the coalition – a figure that was last that low in March, at budget time.

Since then it has risen to 29% and the gap with last LAB government was down at 5%.

Now that’s changing which looks problematical to Labour.

    We’ve heard the coalition rhetoric time and time again when cuts are discussed – “We are clearing up the mess left by the last lot“. These figures suggest that that line is still resonating.

My strong view is that EdM needs to replace Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor with someone less close, in the public mind, to Gordon Brown. It will be harder to pin things on Labour is Balls is not the main economic spokesman.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news




h1

Can the country get used to a long and slow squeeze?

Saturday, January 5th, 2013

David Herdson on the politics of austerity

Experts and others making New Year predictions are as much a tradition at the turning of the year as fireworks, soon-to-be-broken resolutions and loud but not entirely coherent renderings of Auld Lang Syne. Except where change – or at least, the clear opportunity for change – is scheduled, these predictions inevitably default to ‘much the same as last year’, and it’s almost certainly on that basis that both the government and opposition will be preparing their arguments for the year (and more) ahead, particularly when most economists see another year of minimal growth in 2013.

    What that argument essentially boils down to is the claim from the opposition that the government’s making life harder for ordinary people while protecting privileged groups, against the government’s that its measures are necessary and fair given its inheritance.

Both cases will no doubt continue to be made for several years yet, irrespective of which party or parties are in power and which are in opposition, for the simple reason that the bubbles built up in the last decade cannot be deflated quickly without causing a crash and cannot be quickly reflated while memories of the last recession remain a constraint on the actions of banks, regulators and investors. The sustainable route out – that of earned growth replacing that of borrowed spending – will take years to achieve and even if it does, interest rates rising back to normal levels will take the edge off any feel-good factor. The reality for all parties is that even if the country can avoid another crash, nominal growth will remain subdued for years.

So what then are the politics of austerity, not just of today but for the foreseeable future, and certainly well into the next parliament? They probably fall into two parts: the politics of yesterday and today, where the government is most under pressure, and those of tomorrow, where it’s more difficult for the opposition.

Governments naturally come under pressure for the decisions they take, all the more so when there are clear losers from them. To that extent, it might have been better to impose a freeze on benefits rather than introduce a tiny rise: that rise is visible and easily resented, while a freeze is felt over time and offers no focus for disquiet beyond the decision itself. It should be easy enough for an opposition to ride the wave of discontent against the government at decisions already taken or in the pipeline.

Where it becomes harder is in response to the question about what Labour would do instead, and elections are of course a choice between parties, not a referendum on any one’s popularity in isolation.

    Does Labour imply it would ease the burden on the average voter by spending more, taxing less or not making cuts, or does it try to argue that it would do austerity better?

In either case, will the public believe the promise is deliverable? Jam tomorrow is a nice promise if the public believe it can be achieved; if they don’t, any party proposing it loses credibility. Indeed, it’s surprising that the government hasn’t made more of ‘black holes’ in Labour’s proposals as a counter-narrative. It is true that the government’s also missed deficit-reduction targets but that only adds to the point that there’s no money to splash about. After all, winning the politics of austerity is the key to winning the 2015 election.

David Herdson



h1

New Ipsos-MORI polling suggests that voters want benefits to go up with inflation – not capped as Osborne wants

Thursday, December 13th, 2012

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news