Asylum distribution scandal less about immigration and more about inequality

Photograph: The clock tower of Rochdale town hall from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Over the weekend, there were reports of anger at the way those seeking asylum in Britain were being distributed across the country. These people were being sent to the poorest communities, while the richest communities often took not a single person (Lyons & Duncan, 2017).

One town particularly affected was Rochdale, a small town with an outsized history as a progressive beacon. It was the birthplace of the co-operative movement and, against the grain in Britain, supported the Union and the abolition of slavery during the American Civil War (Keegan, 2010; Cash, 2013) - despite the pain of the loss of cotton imports from the Confederacy.

Even in a town with that historical backdrop, there is anger that is framed and understood through the lens of anti-immigration sentiment (Lyons, 2017). But that misses the point, as much of the distracting immigration anger has done so far. The real issue is inequality.

As the figures show, without the funding to match, the burden that comes with caring and including those people seeking asylum is being dropped into the hands of the country's poorest communities (Lyons & Duncan, 2017).

Communities that have already been hit hard by cuts to local government budgets (Butler, 2017) - services have been stretched and funds are scarce. It has been Conservative policy for some time to shift responsibilities away from central government without funding.

All the while, the Right seeks to misdirect the anger at this situation onto 'immigrants' - to those fleeing danger and murder, or the refugees of war. But the figures clearly show the real problem: Britain's wealthiest communities are not pulling their weight or sharing the burdens.

This isn't isolated to asylum. Look at the energy and the environment. Communities, particularly Conservative constituencies, have refused green energy technology, like wind farms, as 'eyesores' blighting their communities (Hennessy, 2012). But where is their outcry against their energy coming from dirty plants in poorer neighbourhoods?

While this unequal distribution of burdens paints Britain in a bad light, . Part of the opposition to the expansion of green energy has been the unequal distribution of its financial benefits (Mason, 2012) and in every community there can be a found positive and charitable support for those seeking asylum from danger.

From Saffiyah Khan, the woman who stood up and peacefully faced a nationalist group when they surrounded a counter-protesting woman (BBC, 2017); to the peaceful and charitable disposition found in communities across the country (Lyons, 2017); there are innumerable examples that Britain has broad shoulders and can make light of its burdens.

But not when all of the burdens are dropped on the poorest communities. Not when the wealthiest communities exempt themselves, sending the unfortunate and desperate somewhere else without even the support funding to match.

It's one rule for conservative Britain and another for everyone else. Like in ancient Athens: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". That adage is not good enough and should be left buried in the past where it belongs.

Fear and hatred have found fertile soil amidst the artificial scarcity of austerity

Today sees the latest in a sustained run of demonstrations in the UK since Donald Trump was inaugurated President of the United States. For many progressives, his election has crystallised their anxieties.

They have watched, maybe even supported under the banners of New Labour, years of exclusionary conservative neoliberalism. That system reaped unequal rewards and ultimately unleashed widespread consequences. The austerity that was imposed to manage them has created an artificial scarcity.

Those actions, results and reactions have left some quarters of society - not few in number and faced on all sides by shortfalls and cutbacks in the name of 'scarce' resources - deprived, disregarded and ultimately disaffected. The political disconnect is tangible.

As wary progressives have worried, this fertile ground for fear and anger - prepared under the inattentive rule of those who were too busy enjoying the fruits of the good times to tend or care for it - is now being exploited.

The most virulent of the poisonous crop that has been sewn is xenophobia. That dangerous weed is being grown deliberately in some places and spreading all by itself in others - though it is perhaps reassuring that it must first be dressed up and sold only through distorting and distancing filters, that shows blatant hatred of outsiders, without an 'excuse', is not accepted.

But people are bringing it home. Making it part of their everyday. It would be a toxic mischief to allow the mistrust and hatred of outsiders to be normalised. The frontline against that threat is challenging the negative attitudes towards people seeking refuge or looking for a better life in a new land.

A major part of events will be the 'One Day Without Us' event, a 'labour boycott' by migrants, and those standing in solidarity with them, to demonstrate the value of migrants to our economy - an event months in the planning (Garcia, 2017; Taylor, 2017).

The day was chosen because it coincides with the United Nations World Day of Social Justice. It theme for 2017 is "Preventing conflict and sustaining peace through decent work":

"Social justice is an underlying principle for peaceful and prosperous coexistence within and among nations. We uphold the principles of social justice when we promote gender equality or the rights of indigenous peoples and migrants. We advance social justice when we remove barriers that people face because of gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, culture or disability."

Therein lies the inclusive message that has so far run through the opposition to Trump. The exclusivity that the new President stands for is being opposed by a movement for a more egalitarian and inclusive society.

But to create such a society, equality and inclusivity needs to be achieved on an economic as well as social level - and the times seem to be making clear that you really cannot have one without the other.

The anger that stewed within those who felt discarded or ignored, even during the so called 'salad days' when the global economy was booming and Labour was in office, is now fueling a desperate turn inwards that public policy has frequently, if often unwittingly, aided.

Austerity, by slashing public spending, has imposed an artificial scarcity. That sense of a finite limit is being used to fan fears that were more easily assuaged during the years of plenty. Fears of shortage, of limited places and supplies, are forcing people into adopting a triage mentality.

While conservatives talk of austerity in terms of of doing things efficiently to save tax payers some money, myths are spreading, and being spread, about the skivers and the cheats that is feeding sectarian and segregationist mentalities.

These are lines being drawn - borders, classes, and talk of the deserving and the undeserving - and with the fear of scarcity at their backs, no one wants to be on the wrong side of those lines.

After years of exclusion from the gains of globalism, austerity has turned a economic setback into desperation and a society-wide scrambling retreat. Those gathering at today's protests must think carefully on how to reach out with their message, beyond the progressives who will gather around them.

The rise of xenophobia and the rising fear of scarcity have gone hand in hand. Progressives must poke through the propaganda that surrounds the supporters of their opponents and find the desperate people within that noxious cloud and let them know: the choice between aiding our kin and aiding a stranger is a false choice.

Budget 2016: Osborne's Sugar Levy will get the headlines, but he's presiding over a weak economy and a fractured society

Osborne's budget will grab headlines, but there is more moving beneath the surface. Photograph: Pound coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

If there is anything you can take away from the UK government's 2016 budget statement, it's that the Chancellor George Osborne knows how to tick boxes. There was support for small businesses, a levy on sugary products and government help for savers (BBC, 2016).

The Chancellor gave these policies, gathered together, a budget for the next generation. Yet as ever, the headlines are only what Tim Farron called the 'political theatre' (ITV, 2016). There is much more to be found in the details - not least a revealing look at the Chancellor's approach to government.

Osborne admitted that economic growth forecasts suggest the economy is growing more weakly, and that the government has missed its own debt and deficit targets (BBC, 2016). Yet room was still found for cuts to corporation, raising the highest tax band and making cuts to capital gains tax.

Jeremy Corbyn's response was hostile. From the off he called the Chancellor's budget a legacy of failure, that was poor on equality (BBC, 2016{2}). The Labour leader argued that the breaks for the wealthy were being paid for by those who could least afford it.

Corbyn said that tax breaks for the wealthy were disgusting when they were accompanied by cuts to disability support. The poor attitude towards equality was epitomised in the continued existence of the tax on 'women's products', as in essentials like tampons and sanitary towels, and the patronising plan of distributing the proceeds to 'women's' charities.

As for the next generation, there was little in the budget to offer a tremendous amount of hope. Under-25s won't benefit from minimum wage rises - or increasingly from any kind of social security at all (BBC, 2013) - and savings help for under-40s won't do much to help deal with rising housing rents, let alone house prices.

There was also little information on how the Chancellor intended to find the funds to cut the deficit. Beyond the previously announced changes on tax credits and ESA, there were no other major spending cuts were outlined, beyond a vague commitment to finding around £4bn in government 'efficiencies' - and apparently raising an, astonishing, £12bn from closing tax loopholes.

From a progressive perspective, one thing that the budget did reveal was Osborne's attitude to government. The Conservatives have felt comfortable pitching themselves as supporters of limited government, the private sector and even pitching themselves as rendering the Liberal Democrats obsolete.

But the Chancellor's decisions reveal something different, highlighted in the way that he framed tax cuts for small business. In his statement, Osborne said they were made possible by higher revenue coming in from big business.

But what Osborne could not resist was to also take higher receipts as a signal to cut taxes. What this highlights, and the Chancellor himself alluded to, is the Conservative view of taxation as an incentive or disincentive. A mechanism to be used to manipulate social behaviour toward the governing party's interpretation of the 'national interest'.

What hasn't been asked by those handing out successive tax cuts is whether tax in itself has a role to play as a civic contribution, that goes towards the serving of the public good. Whether there is a contribution that ought to be made, back into the community, for the extraction of wealth in your own interest.

As Osborne cuts back government spending and the public sector he reveals something else. A vision of a small state, one that does little itself but interferes a lot: meddling and social engineering through the tax system, trying to shape society through supply and denial of small but crucial funds to devolved institutions largely bereft of funding.

The sum so far of Osborne's approach is an increasingly divided and unequal society. Taxes have come down but the economy remains weak. Burdens continue to pour onto the more vulnerable. Osborne will get the headlines, but they are only a mask that disguises a weak economy and a fractured society.

Return of Charles Kennedy's proposal of a penny on tax for education signals worries that more needs to be done on inequality

The late Charles Kennedy, whose practical policies have returned to the table for consideration in Scotland. Photograph: Charles Kennedy speaking at the Friday Rally at the Scottish Liberal Democrats Spring Conference, 2015 from James Gourley/Liberal Democrats (License) (Cropped)

One of the more worrying statistics of the moment is that generational inequality is rising, as the doors that allow social mobility are closing (Inman, 2016). One particularly telling factor is that home ownership has become a distant and fading dream for young people, as modest incomes are no longer enough to get started (Elliott & Osborne, 2016).

So far, George Osborne's efforts have been aimed at finding ways around tackling the key problems: making larger and cheaper loans available, turning rents into deposits and selling off social housing cheaply to tenants. All of these moves are attempts to stimulate the private sector and take care of the middle class - largely at the expense of those worse off. What they don't do is fix the core problems, like a lack of supply that drives rents and prices through the roof.

But Osborne's austere laissez faire isn't going to close the inequality gap. For schools, for example, the place where inequalities first begin to take their substantial toll - whose teachers and administrators are buried under mounting stress that is driving employees away (Harris, 2016) - a place to start would seem to be a simple, practical acceptance: more money is needed. Yet with austerity ascendant, that will be a difficult thing for this government to accept.

Under the present conditions, its really no surprise that the late Charles Kennedy's penny on tax policy has seen a resurgence. Kennedy proposed, as Ashdown did before him, to add one penny in the pound to income tax - an increase of 1% in search of £3bn in additional funds - to support extra spending on education (BBC, 2001; Marr, 2001; Taylor, 2016).

The same policy has now turned up in Scotland. Will Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, announced the return of this policy to the Lib Dem's platform at the end of January (Carrell, 2016) - only to be upstaged a week later by the Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale's adoption of the same policy (ITV, 2016).

Under Kennedy, this was seen as a bold, but practical measure at a time when the economy was improving dramatically. Under Kennedy's successor Nick Clegg, the emerging financial crisis led to these ideas being translated into 'fairness'. Clegg's, now much missed, red lines in government involved sharing the burden  (Parkinson, 2012) - refusing to have cuts impact on the poorest without the equivalent be expected of the richest.

Amongst the things Clegg fought for was increased spending for the early years at school (Ahmed, 2015), hoping to close gaps so that children might grow up with the skills necessary to seize opportunities on their own merits. During that time, Conservative supremacy and lust for cuts was barely restrained by the Coalition. Now it doesn't seem to be restrained at all.

All in it together, to protect the next generation from crippling public debt, seems to have become the means to disenfranchise the next generation - denying young people public services and affordable housing. Meanwhile, the wealthy are doing just fine (Inman, 2016).

And yet, austerity has laid bare and made finally visible in the UK the true extent of the financial crisis - from which the UK was largely sheltered by the government funded public sector. From homelessness at the extreme, to the now common shortages of affordable homes, the public may now finally - thanks to austerity - be realising the full weight of the burden falling on them.

In those conditions, the re-emergence of policy's like Kennedy's penny on tax is not surprising. A general outcry for more the government to do more cannot be far away. While that, of course, doesn't necessarily always have to mean constant high levels of public spending on fully nationalised services. But more has to be done.

Mariana Mazzucato, economist and one Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's anti-austerity economic advisors, has argued that the private sector is a weak innovator that is loathe to take risks. Quoting Keynes, she argues that most innovation - the opening of new economic spaces - is done best by government (Mazzucato, 2013) - in the form of a smarter state.

Inequality has many facets that need to be tackled. Education needs more support. Housing needs to be more widely available and cheaper. Young people need to see more opportunities in more fields. None of these things can be achieved without some additional government funding at some stage. Public bodies have the ability, and the right, to act: to open up new economies, to create new opportunities where there are now none, and to invest in new futures.

 

Breakthroughs in all of these areas would lead to new economic growth and wider spread shares of the spoils. A penny on tax for education is a modest, practical start. A small, subtle, rejection of the austerity doctrine. But it is one small solution, for just one part of a huge and interlinked problem of inequality that the government cannot for much longer simply trim around the edges.

As the Conservative Welfare Bill goes to an activist House of Lords, progressives need to speak out for the alternatives

The House of Lords has become an ironically activist body in opposition to the Conservative majority in the Commons that is trying to substantially restructure social security in Britain.

On Tuesday the Conservative government's Welfare Reform and Work Bill returns to the Lords for its third reading. The bill is a key part of the Conservative pursuit of their roundly inspecific manifesto promise of billions in 'welfare savings' - including attempts to scrap child poverty measures, to introduce a total Household Benefits Cap, to freeze benefits and to restrict Child Tax Credits (Treloar, 2015).

In Autumn, the Chancellor dodged public criticism by dropping plans to make cuts to Tax Credits, aided by a gamble on positive economic forecasts (ITV, 2015). Yet, as was recorded at the time, this was only a matter of delaying the inevitable (Kuenssberg, 2015; Eaton, 2015). The intention was still, in time, to phase out Tax Credits and fold them into the Universal Credit.

Now its again the turn of the Universal Credit to face cuts (BBC, 2016). The Institute for Fiscal Studies has stressed that changes will leave many of the poorest people thousands of pounds worse off. Once more the burden of paying down the deficit and debt has been shifted around, disguised, and then left upon the poorest, on those who are struggling the most.

If other opposition has been quiet - with the Labour Party in its pre-Corbyn interim under Harriet Harman abstained in the bill's early phases (Guttenplan, 2015) - it may only be because the political system renders them powerless.

Its true that the government has already been defeated in an ironically activist House of Lords over its welfare plans on both Tax Credits (Morris & Grice, 2015) and the attempt to scrap Child Poverty measures (Mason, 2016; Mortimer, 2016) - with Liberal Democrats who in particular seem determined, weak though their mandate has now become, to use their, problematic but still considerable, presence in the House of Lords to oppose the cuts in Parliament. Yet with a Conservative Commons majority, any opposition could eventually be overcome.

One the biggest criticisms of the Conservative majority is that it has sought to balance the books without sufficient concern for the human cost in the present (Sikka, 2015; Boffey, 2014). The focus of the Conservative government on 'making work pay' has mostly been an exercise in relativism - making work seem relatively more profitable by punishing, hassling and impoverishing those in need of welfare.

For progressives there is a responsibility to look to other ways that do not accept the casualties of the present as an inevitable tragedy and to speak out, especially at a time when the most vulnerable are losing their voice by falling off electoral registration lists and so being under-represented (Mason, 2016{2}). At present, the most exciting alternative is the Basic Income.

On trial in the Netherlands and Finland (Perry, 2015; Unkuri, 2015), the Basic Income is a form of universal welfare, provided to all citizens unconditionally. It acts as a level of subsistence support that is always available, aiming to alleviate all citizens from the fear of falling into, and the desperation of being in, poverty.

On a practical level, it would replace most in-work benefits. From the personal income tax allowance - which might be seen to fulfil a similar role through a tax discount, only provided on the condition that you work for a wage, at a cost of an estimated £86bn - to tax credits and the jobseekers allowance - costing £30bn and £3bn, respectively.

The ongoing economic struggle continues to disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable. Austerity has little to offer them, depending more upon negative liberty, the removal of limitations, than positive liberty, providing a leg up to opportunities.

Laissez faire is not enough. Visibly rising homelessness and the need for food banks is not good enough. A civilised society should be able and prepared to take care of the most vulnerable. Progressives have to be prepared to look for and propose solutions, with more compassion, that act to end poverty.