This week Labour announced ‘reforms’ to the benefits system as part of Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement. Reform only ever means one thing in politics: cuts. The narrative from Labour is that they are having to make ‘hard choices’ because the Tories left everything in a mess. ‘Hard choices’ is another euphemism, parroted by the cabinet to justify economic violence towards ill and disabled people. Attempting to frame this is a moral crusade to get people back to work must surely leave a bitter taste in the mouths of any Labour ministers who still have a conscience. As NEF has shown, the widely reported numbers of £4.8bn of cuts leading to 250,000 more people being pushed into poverty, including 50,000 children, were actually an underestimate. The government have attempted to hide the truth using accounting tricks, factoring in a never implemented policy called the Work Capability Assessment which would have made it harder for people to qualify for a higher rate of universal credit on the basis of illness or disability. It was never implemented, so whilst it may make sense on spreadsheets, it is irrelevant to actual people, living on very little in a cost of living crisis. NEF analysis shows that the cuts will hit ill and disabled people by almost £2bn more than reported and could see around 100,000 additional people pushed into poverty.
There are of course many alternative options Rachel Reeves could have chosen. She could have loosened her self-imposed, arbritrary fiscal rules. She could have imposed a wealth tax, popular amongst the public, and many wealthy people. She did not have to ‘balance the books on the backs of the poor‘. She is choosing cruelty and should be honest about this with herself and the public.
As Dale Vince said: “Here in the UK, a tax of just 2% on assets of more than £10m would generate £24bn a year. It would affect only 20,000 people and would raise an incredible sum that would help us to invest in a fairer, more sustainable society. It’s right that those who have taken the most from our economies, those with the deepest pockets – and who would barely notice it – should pay their fair share.“
I once again find myself asking ‘What is the point of Labour? Iain Duncan Smith quit the Cameron government in 2016 over cuts to disability benefits. I think it’s worth re-reading his resignation letter in which he said:
“I have for some time and rather reluctantly come to believe that the latest changes to benefits to the disabled, and the context in which they’ve been made are, a compromise too far. While they are defensible in narrow terms, given the continuing deficit, they are not defensible in the way they were placed within a budget that benefits higher earning taxpayers. They should have instead been part of a wider process to engage others in finding the best way to better focus resources on those most in need. I am unable to watch passively while certain policies are enacted in order to meet the fiscal self imposed restraints that I believe are more and more perceived as distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest.” He later criticised the “government’s austerity programme for balancing the books on the backs of the poor and vulnerable”.
Labour need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves how they have so lost their way that Iain Duncan Smith looks virtuous in comparison.
I visited DEFRA to stage a protest alongside my colleague Dr Shireen Kassam from Plant Based Health Professionals UK, Scientists for XR and Chris Packham. We went to protest the lack of transparency in appointments to the governement’s new Food Strategy Advisory Panel. They sneaked out the announcement on a Friday afternoon. The panel is overwhelmingly dominated by food industry representatives. Of the 11 independent members, eight are from industry, while no environmental organisations were given a seat at the table. There is not a dietician to be seen. Public policy has real world impacts. This panel will influence the way we farm and eat for decades to come, with implications for food security, access to nutritious food, health and climate, biodiversity and nature targets. Industry should be consulted on implementation, not given a seat at the strategy table. We deserve, and demand, better.
I am increasing frustrated by Microsoft. Every update seems to make things worse. My calendar stopped synching so I missed a meeting and forgot I was on call at the weekend. I’ve had to call in favours and rejig my life in a way which will be exhausting, in order to keep important commitments. I will be tired and grumpy next week and it is Microsoft’s fault.
I went to an open evening at Birkbeck to find out more about their Masters in Public Policy. The event was far more popular than they had anticipated so they had to have 2 separate welcome talks: higher education appears to be very popular! Speaking to lecturers, current and past students, and others considering enrolling was very encouraging. The idea of in-depth reading, learning and writing in an academic environment is appealing. Part-time, evening study allows people with jobs, and caring responsibilites and lives to gain higher degrees, with all the benefits of in-person classes. It also means the intake is an interesting and diverse group with varied life experience, who bring different perspectives to discussions and debates. The key question is, could I fit this in around my very busy job? The definition of part time in Birkbeck’s world is at least 3hours contact and 12hours reading a week in term time. I’m trying to decide if it would madness to commit to this.
It was Eid & Mother’s Day. I made my Mum a card. I thought about all the mothers in Palestine, mourning dead family members, caring for child amputees, crying in hunger, living in fear. News organisations continue to use euphemistic language in reporting on the live streamed horror show to which we are all unwilling viewers. This is intentional, deceitful and effective. Palestinians are frequently dehumanised. Even the use of the word ‘war’ is manipulative, conjuring a vision of an equal contest, not an assault, a genocide, an erasure.
The least we can do is use language which describes reality as it is.
drlj 