Oh, I am sorry, but that is a DISINGENUOUS title.

*Tax cuts for people on low incomes
*Create sustainable jobs and make child care and social care free
*Raise benefits and tax credits now

I don’t get it – how can you cut taxes whilst also making costly services like child care and social care free AND raising benefits and tax credits? We are in a recession and in huge debt – sure this will have to be paid for by taxing the rich even more? I’m all for that but even the Lib Dems won’t touch that policy with a bargepole.

“if enforcing workers’ rights sounds like too much of a burden on business”

… take those businesses into workers’ control!

Thanks for the link. A lot of work has been done about how the benefits system should be reformed, which is central to Oxfam’s argument and has been advocated for many years by people like Community Links and the CREATE Consortium.

I’ve blogged quite a bit on this (see http://livingwithrats.blogspot.com/2009/02/punishment-for-poverty.html for example) and it’s an issue we’ve been pushing through New Start, the regeneration magazine. I’d be happy to contribute more to the debate.

KJB – how so?

Delboy – in the medium term, the best way to reduce the level of debt is to get the economy growing (for example, in the 1950s we had a much higher relative level of national debt, but because the economy was growing strongly, it was possible to pay it down while increasing living standards for most people). To grow the economy, we need to get more money to people who will spend it (through targeted tax cuts and benefits rises) and more people into work (lack of affordable childcare is a major barrier which keeps people on benefits and out of work). That’s a pretty basic summary, duncanseconomicblog.wordpress.com has much more on this and is highly recommended.

Chris –

Julian – would be keen to hear more, have you been involved with the development of the community allowance?

On a different note, I’ve deleted one comment already from a man who is not nearly as witty as he thought he was. There’s the whole of the rest of the internet for wannabe humourists or people who want to discuss other subjects, this here is for questions, constructive criticism and other discussion of Oxfam’s campaign.

And here was me thinking the CRAP anagram was actually very witty. So, in my typical devils advocate kind of way, to take on from the anagram he posed what exactly is the meat of Oxfam’s proposals?

I’ve read the report and it ultimately says tax poorer people less and give them more money. This isn’t new, and indeed many points raised are either a) being done or b) have been said they’re not going to be done. I guess I’m all for people stating the obvious and hammering home a message, I do it enough, but it doesn’t really detract from the fact that it is ultimately what our now gagged comedian was saying…lots of catchy sound bites that don’t really say anything.

Hopefully people with enough will and pressure will be able to adopt this as a jumping block to try once more to get a fairer shout for everyone when it comes to taxes, benefits and how we’re treated in economic terms. I’m not really holding my breath given modern performance on this subject (that’s to say more taxes on the poor, a move to less benefits, and the only “progress” on workers rights being in gimmicky pro-discrimination needless legislation)

Ah, Lee, but I am a humourless leftie, so wannabe humourists are held to a higher standard than ‘do they make Lee Griffin laugh’.

On the substantive, there is a difference between ‘saying things which are obviously correct’ and ‘catchy sound bites which don’t really say anything’. I agree with you that giving poor people more money should be uncontentious (though the report says a fair bit more than that), but it is actually quite controversial in the current political debate and is far from just being a meaningless soundbite.

For example, Rowenna wrote an article earlier in the week pointing out that there isn’t a coherent left-of-Labour economic agenda for change in response to the current crisis. I reckon that Oxfam’s six point plan is an excellent agenda for change, and one with widespread appeal (e.g. the call for tax cuts for those on low incomes is one with supporters across the political spectrum).

Has an odd practical elegance about it, which is usually a good sign.

“Rowenna wrote an article earlier in the week pointing out that there isn’t a coherent left-of-Labour economic agenda for change in response to the current crisis”

She did, and I played Lib Dem policy bingo with it. I’ll do so again.

*Tax cuts for people on low incomes

Check! Party policy to reduce basic rate to 16p *or the equivalent*. (ie I’m hoping we will end up with a combination of basic rate drop and PA rise, as suggested in Oxfam’s paper.)

*Create sustainable jobs and make child care and social care free

Check! Green Road Out of Recession plan offered as an alternative to the VAT cut. Childcare up to 18 months free in policy paper passed in Harrogate last month.

*Raise benefits and tax credits now

Half check. Child benefit to be raised, state pensions to be raised by becoming index-linked. But tax credits to be tapered off at the top end. It’s sheer lunacy to pay households earning up to £66k pa a few hundred quid a year in the name of child support, and I’d be surprised if anyone here seriously supported that. I’ll have to read the Oxfam proposal on this in detail.

*Reform the welfare system to make it easier for people to get jobs

Check, as an aspiration. No detail on this yet.

*Protect working people by enforcing their rights

Well, check. That’s a basic liberal issue.

*Fund low cost credit by capping the maximum rate of loans and making crisis loans more available

Don’t have this as an active policy goal. Sounds good, though.

Hm, we seem to have done pretty well there, all told. All it needs is for a lot of people to get on board and start pressuring the party to adopt the remaining bits and refining the bits they’ve already got.

Seriously, broken record, I know, but this “new program for the left” you all keep angsting about is already here. It just happens not to be wearing a red rosette. Sorry about that. Up to your consciences I suppose.

Don,

I wouldn’t claim any credit for the Community Allowance work except to say it’s something I’ve supported and tried to keep pushing through New Start magazine and my own blog. The best people to talk to about it are Jess Steele at the Development Trusts Association or Aaron Barbour at Community Links.

However if you feel there’s stuff I’ve done that’s useful to add to the mix please email me.

“Why does every thread always end up in a “well the Lib Dems already do it, so just join up, ignore the fact that we don’t know our electoral arses from our elbows and have failed to break the two-party mould since the 1980s” rant with you?”

It only takes a couple of elections to “break the mould” does it? Anything longer than that and you’re useless? I can’t get over some of the tripe talked on this subject. Let’s see how they handle the next election and if they fail to keep growing as they have continuously do then perhaps you have a point.

“(e.g. the call for tax cuts for those on low incomes is one with supporters across the political spectrum).”

Except the Labour administration.

Lee – Labour did just raise the starting tax threshold this week – a tax cut for those on low incomes.

Agree with Alix – there is a lot in what Oxfam is saying which will overlap with Lib Dem (and Greens etc.) policies, but as you said, there are some bits which aren’t currently LD policy, but which presumably you would support? It’s a good resource for anti-poverty campaigners in all parties to try to push their parties towards a joined up anti-poverty/pro-economy set of policies.

Just deleted “delboy”‘s comment of this morning. To repeat, there is the whole of the rest of the internet for people who want to slag other people off and who don’t appear to have anything interesting or constructive to say.

“Lee – Labour did just raise the starting tax threshold this week – a tax cut for those on low incomes.”

Which they had to do in response to the woeful handling of their tax band rearrangement that put more money in the hands of the wealthy and took it from those very low income workers now finally getting a permanent solution to that cock up. Forgive me for not applauding the rectification of a serious error.

Well done to Oxfam for adding to the chorus, in all seriousness. As long as it rubs off on the next administration then it’ll have been for something, however it really doesn’t strike me as all that revolutionary enough to be something that is going to help people now.

Aw, you deleted Delboy?? Well, from the piece that’s preserved:

“Why does every thread always end up in a “well the Lib Dems already do it, so just join up, ignore the fact that we don’t know our electoral arses from our elbows and have failed to break the two-party mould since the 1980s” rant with you?”

Look, mate, check out the checks. Nothing exaggerated, all supported by published policy docs. If you have a substantive comeback, let’s hear it. Otherwise, by all means do continue to wallow in your own bile and make yourself and whatever cause it is you have look appalling.

Don, the starting tax threshold goes up at the beginning of every tax year by about £400 – that’s routine. Noticed Brown at PMQs trying to pass it off as a “measure” last week and was not impressed. They try that one on every year.

Must blog about FRED today. I don’t agree with all of it (or, indeed, with all of Lib Dem policy) but as you say it’s an excellent simple prescription to use as a baseline.

Alix: In fairness the threshold has increased substantially compared to previous years, but as I said, this was damage control.

Oxfam is ignoring skills. Schumacher pointed out that if the poor are given aid they are kept alive but if they are taught the right skills, such as farming, fishing and setting up craft industries they become independent. There is nothing about girls entering stable relationships before having children. If an uneducated and unskilled teenage girls have children before the age of 20 and none of the fathers support her, then it is very difficult for her to obtain those skills and education.
Clinton, while President was very aware of the correlation between poor education, having children when not in a stable relationship; having children before the age of 20 and poverty.

Many of the jobs associated with the green economy are going to require high levels of technical education and training. Designing,constructing and operating off-shore wind farms, wave powered electrical generation systems, carbon capture , recycling plants, electrical cars .etc.

The problem is that many employers are finding it difficult to find people with the right skills and attitude. That is why so many well educated and skilled East Europeans are being employed in this country, particularly where the work also requires a a level of physical stamina – nursery /horticulture , farming , fish processing etc. Even during the boom years, British people were unable to obtain jobs because their skills were too low and expectations too high. Even K Livingstone said “I will believe there is problem with unemployment when I am served a coffee by a Briton, when in London”.

One american academic has pointed out that that a lack of numeracy has greatly increased debt because people do not understand interest. As Einstein was once asked ” What was the most powerful force in the Universe?”; he replied ” Compound interest “. In one shop I entered , there was a sale , 10% off. The article was £80 , so I said to the assistant the price was £ 72 just to confirm. Her reply was ” I do not know “. Look I said 10% of £80 is £8, £80 minus £8 is £72. I am no good at maths said the assistant. This was in a good quality shop in a prosperous town. I could not believe such a low level of arithmetic. How much of the “Ninja ” no income , no job mortgages were problems because they were taken out by poorly educated people who did not have the arithmetic skills to assess the costs. If a company gave a mortgage to someone has has obtained a doctorate in maths or computing from from Stamford University and was about to take up a job for a high tech company in Sillicon Vallley, then this would be a much lower level of risk.

We have a comprehensive education system and often parents ,which in many parts of the country, fails many children . When children are turing up at school without basic social skills (- see last Sunday’s Observer )and then we have an education system which does not provide the basic numercay,literacy and reasoning skills to the those in the bottom 30% ; we will not break the generational poverty trap.

Perhaps it is time we adapted Schumacher’s ” Small is beautifull ” approach to development, to tackling poverty in this country?

[18] One reason I suspect why Eastern Europeans are attractive in the agricultural/horticulutral sector (which presumably does not require a high level of book learning) is that they are willing to live in hostels – because they have no intention of doing the job for a lifetime.

The problem of “leakage” is what will bedevil all attempts to create jobs. I suspect that in order to create one permanent full-time job, at or above the minimum wage, which will be filled by a British citizen it is necessary to create nine others, of which six or seven will go to south Asia and the balance to the aforesaid Eastern Europeans. That level of stimulus is unachievable by any known economic policy of left or right.

@19 – Mike that’s really interesting what you say about leakage and needing lots of jobs abroad to create one job in the UK. Could you say more?

Sorry, Don, but where is the money coming from to fund all of this?

It either has to be created by someone and then taken from them in tax or it has to be borrowed. Which is it to be?

Oxfam are themselves funded from taxation to the tune of £70m per annum and I hope we are getting more for our money than a benefits wish list, a contrived acronym and a cartoon depiction of a mixed race lesbian.

I know, I know. But it is highly irritating.

[19] I’m afraid I made the numbers up, Helen – I’m hoping that Chris Dillow or someone like him will swing by to tear them to shreds (or otherwise). But “leakage” as a concept is well established.

19. Mike killingworth. The problem is that unskilled and semi-skilled Britons are competing for jobs which probably need skill levels of NVQ 2-3 with East Europeans who have equivalent skills at this level or better. The East europeans are not just competing for unskilled work. Those East Europeans with skills equivalent to NVQ 2-3 or higher, after 2-3 years good service are being promoted to supervisory roles. Time and again , employers are saying that East Europeans are taking skilled jobs which Britons do not want, because they are too arduous- construction, agriculture, fish farming, food processing , horticulture etc etc. East Europeans with degrees and good secretarial skills ( and speaking 2 or more languages ) are also competing with Britons who do not have degrees for secretarial/administration/accountancy jobs. If a company wants a book keeper/office manager ;why not employ an East Eopean graduate in business studies who speaks their own language, English and plus another language; as compared to a Briton who just offers two years secretarial/admin training and cannot speak any foreign languages?

Globalisation means global competition for jobs and those who are more hungry, flexible and better skilled will win- just look at the Premier league . To hold down a place in the a team in the Premier League, a player is competing with all those in the World , not just the UK and Ireland.

Hi all,

Great blog (though I guess I would say that), and good to see a lively discussion has been started.

One thing that particularly piqued my interest was Charlie’s comment about skills. Necessarily, the recession has led us to talk about the urgent action that’s needed to help people right now, but the second part of our message – the need to build the foundations for future recovery on a fairer, more sustainable basis – is no mere add-on. (Mark Easton at the BBC picked up on this aspect very well – both in his blog and in his piece on yesterday’s Today programme.)

A central part of what we’re asking for in our paper is for investment in ‘green’ industries, but also in social infrastructure – things like childcare and social care. Now, I fully take Charlie’s point that some of the jobs in question are going to require substantial amounts of training that won’t bear fruit for years (though, of course, that doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing), but there are also some ‘quick wins’ that will help us get through this recession – like creating jobs insulating and retrofitting houses (a significant part of Germany’s recession response, for example). An investment in social and childcare is also not an overnight solution, but the messages that these are valued and valuable jobs is one that the government can put out there right now. How much would it mean for those professions if when the government talked about investing in the nation’s vital infrastructure, the social health of the nation was right up there at the heart of that?

I’ve responded to this and one or two other things on Oxfam’s UK poverty blog, so do feel free to swing by
…

[23] Charlie, I very much doubt that the delightful Mongolian waitress in the café I’ve just had lunch in was hired for her language skills. Or that Estonians etc are.

25 . Mike Killingworth. Your statement supports K Livingstone in saying that many Britons are not prepared to take jobs in the service sector.

[26] Yup. Why else did Tory politicians encourage immigration from the Caribbean in the 1950s?

28 At a guess, lack of people willing to do the work in the 1950s but I do not know for sure.

As someone with a small business some of these appear to be contradictory.

If you raise benefits and tax credits now it’s likely I’ll have to pay more to attract staff (or do without). Likewise “improving workers rights” sounds great, but in practicle I suspect it’s going to cost me (perhaps I’ll do without again).

What does”Reform the welfare system to make it easier for people to get jobs” mean? As I’ve explained it seems to be contracdicted but other elements of this proposal.

As for the other stuff, I’ve got nothing against it, but surely it will mean taxes will have to go up. If this happens I’ll have to make cut backs, including staff.

[29] Al, do you think, when taxes are cut – “great, I can hire more staff” or “now I can afford to give them that pay rise”? (I mean, irrespective of market conditions.)

No, I thought not.

“Tax cuts for people on low incomes”

I bothered to phone Oxfam and ask them what they meant by this (that did make Antonia Bance giggle, or at least so I was told).

The aim (OK, desire, ambition perhaps) is to get the tax free allowance to be the same as what someone would earn full time on minimum wage. Around £11,500 a year.

(Obligatory UKIP advertisement…this is party policy, or will be when we revise our three year old £9,000 a year allowance policy paper.)

It’s also long been an Adam Smith Inst policy suggestion. Amazing how us horrible little classical liberals, out there howling in the wilderness, end up proposing things that over the years become mainstream, isn’t it?

Amazing considering what balls-up they create, yes.