Recent Articles
This is what the UK’s stagnation looks like
Following on from Duncan’s excellent post yesterday on the UK’s weak recovery, new statistics from the Office for National Statistics confirm just how drawn-out and grinding stagnation has been so far.
These are further statistics from the Measuring National Well-being project – one of the Prime Minister’s pet projects and a relic of the time when he wanted to convince us he was a progressive too.
The latest figures reveal that Net National Income is now 13.2 per cent (one sixth) lower than it was just before the recession, much worse than the 7 % fall in GDP per capita.
Other figures from the same project, published earlier this month, show that real households’ disposable income per head has fallen 1.6 per cent since the pre-recession peak in the second quarter of 2008.
Real household disposable income is income from wages and salaries, pensions, benefits and other sources after taxation and NI contributions are deducted. Real household actual income is this plus the implied value of public services and this fell by 1.9 per cent in the same period.
But what I found particularly worrying were charts comparing what has happened since 2008 with previous recessions.
The data for real household actual income per head is limited to the 90s and the current recession:
Both series start with the figure for the pre-recession peak set at 100 and then each subsequent quarter as a proportion of that.
The chart for Net National Income per head is dire:
The fall is much worse in the current recession and, as the ONS report notes:
In the 1980s, NNI per head had recovered to its pre-recession value three years after the beginning of the recession. The equivalent recovery came earlier in the recession of the 1990s; it took two and a half years
This time, after more than four years we are still in a worse position than at the Q5 recession trough.
This is stagnation, and it’s a problem that is not going to go away quickly.
How can Labour win back lost voters?
According to analysis from Peter Kellner, president of YouGov, there is only one way that Labour can win back the people who stopped supporting it between 1997 and 2010, by reaffirming Tony Blair’s aim to become ‘the political arm of the British people’, ensuring that every policy passes the ‘One Nation’ test, and ensuring that there is no ‘whiff of the politics of social contest’.
Kellner presents this not as another installment in the long-running and popular series amongst bloggers and commentators called ‘to win the next election, Labour must do all the things which I personally like’, but as an evidence based argument rooted in polling data.
The first half of his article is an overview of some of the findings from YouGov’s research. This suggests that Labour has won back most of the left wingers who stopped supporting it by 2010, but has had less success with people on the centre or right, many of whom are from similar social backgrounds but are currently undecided and have low opinions of all the parties.
This is a useful insight, though one thing which he doesn’t mention is that Labour’s current level of support would be comfortably enough to win the next General Election. YouGov’s data doesn’t shed any light on whether appealing to undecided centrist and centre right voters might come at the cost of losing support amongst left wingers.
In the second half of his article, he moves on from the evidence based arguments to assertions that Labour should do the things which he personally supports, appealing to what he calls the ‘normal, moderate Sun and Mail reading’ undecided voters not just the ‘aberrant’ Labour loyalists.
For example, he argues that Labour should ‘reject the language of ideology, class and social division, and revive the appeal of national purpose’. Yet YouGov’s polling found that 58% of Labour ‘defectors’ would favour a law limiting maximum pay to £1 million. Kellner argues that any attempts to pitch ‘our people’ against ‘their people’ would do immense harm. Yet YouGov found that 78% of Labour ‘defectors’ and 67% of Labour ‘loyalists’ want net immigration reduced to zero. There is little if any link between the evidence presented and the conclusions which he draws.
One interesting bit of Kellner’s article is his argument that overall British politics has become largely consensual, and that the political classes are more divided than the establishment. I’m not convinced about this, given that the perception of many voters is the opposite, that politicians are ‘all the same’, and many of the policies supported by a majority of voters, from salary caps to zero net immigration, are ones which are opposed by most MPs. But it would be useful to learn more about where and to what extent there is ‘common ground’ between most voters about what should be done.
He makes some strong points about the limitations of a traditional left wing approach, noting how changes in the British economy and society and decline of working class institutions make this strategy less effective than it would have been in the past.
Overall, though, Kellner’s article doesn’t make a convincing, evidence based case that there is one correct way to win back the voters which Labour lost between 1997 and 2010. He seems to think that Labour should be aiming to reassemble the coalition of support which secured them a 1997 style landslide, which doesn’t seem awfully realistic (Labour is not, for example, going to win half the seats in Hertfordshire at the next election).
In the run up to the 1997 election, Labour’s strategy focused on attempting to win a forty or so seat majority, and focused its policies, messages and organisation to that end. That seems like a much more realistic aim than the one which Kellner proposes, and his article is of very limited use in trying to work out how to turn that aim into practice.
Local campaigning boosts Labour in Corby
Labour has opened up a 22% lead in the marginal constituency of Corby, where a by-election will be taking place on 15th November. This lead has increased by 7% since the last opinion poll in August.
Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report notes that this is a bigger lead than would be implied by national opinion polls, and appears to be driven by local campaigning. 33% of people reported having been canvassed by Labour, compared to only 11% by the Conservatives; 59% had received Labour leaflets, compared to 42% who had received Conservative leaflets; and 14% had been phoned by Labour compared to only 6% by the Tories.
There’s lots of debate about the best approach which Labour should take to appealing to voters in marginal constituencies. Today’s data shows that one absolutely critical thing which Labour needs to do is make sure that its volunteers talk to more voters than the Tories manage.
Private landlords ‘to get £35bn in benefits’
Three new research reports into housing, all with a common theme:
An analysis of official statistics for Labour MP Karen Buck has found that between 2011-12 and 2014-15 £35bn of housing benefit will be spent on private landlords, £13bn more than the previous three years…
Research by the National Housing Federation found that over 1 million people of working age will need housing benefit in order to be able to pay the rent by 2015…
Research by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations showed in the past ten years the cost of housing benefit spent on private tenants across the UK has increased 153 per cent, compared to a 21 per cent increase for council and housing association tenants.
In 2011/12, 40 per cent of the entire spend on housing benefit went to tenants of private landlords, despite the fact that two-thirds of the entire caseload is made up of social tenants, the report found.
*
If you think that paying tens of billions in benefits to private landlords shouldn’t be a priority for taxpayers, or if you think that working people should earn enough to be able to pay the rent, then you might be interested in supporting the new ‘Yes to Homes’ campaign.
Black people are being left behind further in this stagnant economy
David Cameron will no doubt be tempted in to breathing a sigh of relief at the latest unemployment figures.
Unemployment is at 2.53m, high but falling marginally, and the coalition have taken this to mean the economic picture is improving and there is now hope for young people.
If you’re young and black however no such picture can even begin to be painted. 50% of young black men are unemployed and a recent TUC report in to youth unemployment shows that since that since this Tory-led government came in to power unemployment amongst young black men has risen faster than for any other group.
The next biggest rise has been for young black women. Earlier in the year I wrote of how being black in the job market means being the last to be hired and the first to be fired. This report shows the facts behind this reality.
Differences in employment by ethnicity are widening and as a country we are running out of excuses. More black people are going to university and, slowly, more are going to good universities.
I recently held an award ceremony celebrating the academic achievement of black youngsters, youngsters who have achieved fantastic grades. This is not about a lack of talent but a lack of opportunity.
The reality in communities in Hackney and cities such as London is that the public sector is a traditional employer, employing good people who would otherwise struggle to find a job with small and medium enterprises who are looking for the ‘right fit’.
With the cuts to public sector that are taking place those opportunities for young people are thinner on the ground. In the private sector it has always been more about who you know and having strong social networks. This often means an extended period as an unpaid intern, something which is not feasible for many. This means that in a city that is thriving not everyone can be given an opportunity, some are merely forced to look on as opportunity springs up around them.
The rise in unemployment for black women is very worrying. Black women, Caribbean women especially, are often recognised as being a success story, well integrated and with relatively high levels of employment especially when compared to their male equivalents.
Traditionally black Caribbean women have thrived in the public sector, thanks in part to transparent recruitment processes. Initially many, including my own mother, found work in the NHS as nurses. More recently many have found work in administrative roles.
There is an underlying narrative here of a failed generation, of young people never being given that first opportunity in the jobs market and of young black people being written off as unemployable.
Long-term youth unemployment is on the rise. In my constituency the number of 16-24 year-olds on Jobseekers Allowance for more than a year is up by 50% in 12 months. In some places the rise has been even more dramatic. Harlow has seen an increase of 2400% in long term JSA claimants.These are the people with scars on their backs in the hunt for a job.
These are young people sending hundreds of CV’s with not so much as an acknowledgement. It will be difficult to get them back in to the jobs market after having been out for so long. At the moment it seems if you are young and black in this country Cameron’s legacy looks to be about leaving you without hope and without opportunities either.
Why are MasterCard funding Demos to demonise disabled people?
Max Wind Cowie, head of the ‘Progressive Conservatism’ project at Demos, argues that the government should take greater control over what people can spend welfare benefits on, if they have drug and alcohol dependencies, or if they are what he charmingly calls ‘the non-disabled, non-contributors’. It is a piece of third rate concern trolling about how punishing the poor is essential to save the welfare state, which ordinarily would be worthy of no further attention. But what’s interesting is who is paying for this ‘research’.
To deal briefly with his arguments, he asserts that this ‘is not about punishing the sick – it’s about enabling their recovery’, and that it ‘gives us a better range of tools to use in the battle to get people back to work’. No evidence is provided in support of either of these assertions. A quick search for reports on a similar scheme in Australia suggested that “There’s no evidence that there’s less gambling in the Northern Territory. There’s no evidence there’s less drinking in the Northern Territory.” Recipients reported that “It’s patronising and it stigmatises me as someone on welfare.” Similar problems were found when the UK government gave vouchers to asylum seekers.
The other argument in favour of this policy is it will be popular. Yet Demos’ own polling found that only 27% support greater controls over what long term unemployed people spend their money on. So it’s not even like the public are crying out to control the spending of the ‘non disabled, non contributors’[1].
So what’s really behind this? Part of it, no doubt, is that the government are interested in testing the feasbility of opening up this as a new front on ‘feckless scroungers’. But it’s not the government who are paying for this.
According to Demos’ website, ‘This survey forms part of a wider piece of research supported by MasterCard, exploring the role that prepaid cards might play in the delivery of direct payments and benefits’. Marion King, President of MasterCard UK and Ireland, said “The roll out of direct payments and the introduction of Universal Credit have the potential to increase financial inclusion, especially if the combined payment is loaded onto a pre-paid card…Prepaid cards can also provide local authorities with the ability to monitor and control spending where appropriate.”
If the government decides to introduce prepaid cards for benefit claimants, then MasterCard will be hoping to get the contract to supply them. So in order to try and get their hands on the government’s cash, they fund Demos to hold events at the party conferences and call for a debate about controlling how people on low incomes spend their money.
Most researchers would think that the subject of how to reduce drug and alcohol dependency, and how to avoid stigmatising and demonising people on low incomes are subjects which require careful, evidence based research. For MasterCard and Demos, it is an opportunity to make a few quid. Or as MasterCard might put it:
Funding Demos to hold events at party conferences: £10,000ish
Paying for polling to allow Demos to concern troll about public attitudes: £2,000ish
Getting a handout from government to supply pre-paid cards to disabled people and benefit claimants: Priceless
[1] If I were Wind Cowie, I’d think twice before urging greater government control over the spending habits of the ‘non contributors’ or ‘people who work for Demos on the Progressive Conservatism project’, as they are also known. If we’re going to get into a debate about who is offering a meaningful contribution to society, then let’s start with those who are getting good money to engage in pointless activity.
Nick Griffin’s nasty piece of intimidation
By Tom Bailey
Following the ruling in the legal case related to the refusal of a gay couple to stay in a Bed and Breakfast, Nick Griffin tweeted the address of that couple. Others have discussed Griffin’s latest attempt to get some publicity for the collapsing BNP in terms of the limits of free speech or argued that the response from many on Twitter was overblown. Something that seems to have been overlooked is what a hypocrite Griffin is for tweeting the couple’s address.
In 2008 the BNP’s membership list was stolen and put onto Wikileaks. This prompted understandable anger from BNP members who had not wished for their names and addresses to be published. Personal data had been improperly been made publicly available and so Nick Griffin took to the TV studios to criticise it. He said then that it was a ‘shame’ and complained that publishing the personal information was a ‘nasty piece of intimidation’.
Now Griffin finds himself being rightly condemned for calling for a British Justice team (whatever that is) to create a ‘bit of drama’ at the couple’s house. His justification for the tweets was that ‘they asked for it’ given their use of the legal system to challenge the B&B owners’ refusal to give them a double room. However, whatever you think of the debate over the B&B issue, one thing is clear. Griffin’s tweet of private information and call for a protest outside their house was in the exact same vein as the publication of the BNP’s membership list. With his call for a ‘bit of drama’ at the couple’s house, Griffin’s actions are best described by his own words: a ‘nasty piece of intimidation’.
Scotland: at least Labour could oppose independence independently
In a part of Britain in which the population still gets overly excited about the ideological alignments of its football clubs, the British flag is not just a neutral patriotic symbol.
Thirteen-year-old Lee Heron was earlier this year sent home from his high school in Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire, for wearing a Union Jack T-shirt his mum had bought him Primark. This attire, his teacher deemed, was likely to inflame sectarian tension among the pupils.
Whatever happened to David Cameron’s “Broken Society”?
Remember the good old days of a few years ago when the arrival of the latest crime statistics invariably led to both the Conservatives and the tabloids arguing that the end was nigh?
I do, mainly because I then went and looked at the actual figures.
Even a quick browse showed that both were being either highly selective, relying on the police figures over the results of the British Crime Survey on violence against the person for example, or highlighting only one aspect of recorded crime, such as the use of a specific weapon when the numbers being attacked and killed were in fact in decline.
It’s interesting to note then that the release of figures yesterday, showing that despite the recession crime continues to fall, with only theft from the person increasing, has been met with an almost universal shrug.
There’s no report as yet on the Sun’s website, while the Mail has been left with having to put a story alongside its article on a “teenage yob” being given just a final warning after beating a boy with his own crutches.
Unlike how the Conservatives couldn’t wait to pile in on any sign that Labour was being “soft on crime”, on occasion concocting figures to such an extent that they were warned by the UK Statistics Authority they were likely to “mislead the public”, the opposition’s response has been just as low key, focusing mainly on the drop in the numbers of police officers.
Welcome as this is when the British Crime Survey suggests the chance of being a victim of crime is its lowest since it began, it’s also indicative of how the right-wing press tends to play dirtier with Labour governments than they do with the Tories. The Sun for instance claimed that a mistake in recording GBH was an indication Labour had been cooking the figures altogether, something it had no evidence whatsoever to back-up.
But we barely hear a peep from David Cameron about the broken society now he’s in power, even as hundreds of thousands have to rely on food banks, so the paper that did the most to promote the notion has “moved on”.
As for any even grudging recognition that crime fell massively while Labour was in power, even if the two things are not necessarily connected, we’ll be waiting a long time.
Starbucks is evidence that tax campaigning works
The Guardian reports this morning:
On Thursday, YouGov’s BrandIndex, which records the strength of companies’ brand identity, revealed Starbucks has plummeted in the past few days. Its “buzz” score, which measures the number of negative and positive comments customers have heard, reached a four-year low, falling to -13.9 from +0.7. Its reputation score has also fallen from 4.6 a week ago to -3.9 on Thursday and could continue to drop.
Sarah Murphy of BrandIndex said: “To say this story has been a disaster for the Starbucks brand would be a bit of an understatement. It’s still too early to say what the long-term impact of this is going to be, but in the current climate we’ve seen the public take a fairly dim view towards accusations of corporate greed.”
I think the case that tax avoiding can harm shareholder value has been made.
It’s time corporate bosses noted. The anti-tax avoiders campaign is not going away.
35 Comments
48 Comments
21 Comments
49 Comments
4 Comments14 Comments
27 Comments
16 Comments34 Comments
65 Comments
36 Comments
17 Comments1 Comment
19 Comments
46 Comments
53 Comments
64 Comments
28 Comments
12 Comments5 CommentsNEWS ARTICLES ARCHIVE