Render Unto Caesar

It seems The Government is set to perform a U-turn on the issue of the Pasty Tax. This will,  I suspect, bring joy to every Baker and Supermarket in the country; not to mention the whole of Cornwall. At least now we won’t have the Sons of Kernow marching on London demanding retribution. 

It was a stupid tax anyway, being levied on all hot foods – pasties, pies and sausage rolls – that were sold above a specific “ambient temperature.” What no one figured out was exactly how that would work, as the “ambient temperature,” would change not only on a day to day basis but as you moved from north to south or east to west, thus requiring shop workers to stand over their chicken and bacon pies with a thermometer every morning trying to decide if they needed to add VAT to it.

But this is not a post about the Pasty Tax – though I could do a whole post railing about the stupidity of it if I felt like it – but rather a post about taxes in general which I think is a far more interesting topic, at least to a certain degree of interesting.

Now nobody likes paying taxes and I guess I can understand why. That’s your money that the government is taking out of your pay cheque. Money you could use for something much more fun. Like a holiday to Bermuda. Besides you already have to pay all the household bills, so why should you lose any more? Like I say, I can understand that sentiment. Unfortunately, however, taxes are necessary.

The American Jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr once said that “taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society.” He was right. However much we gripe and complain, taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society. Taxes go towards keeping the armed forces well trained and equipped. Taxes go towards paying teachers to educate our children and towards paying the police to maintain law and order. And if you happen to be lucky enough to live in the United Kingdom then taxes go towards making sure you have access to free healthcare as and when you need it. Taxes, however annoying they are to pay, are the grease that keep the wheels of society turning. If it weren’t for them we would have to put things like schools and hospitals out to tender, and put them into the hands of private companies. That to my mind would not end well.

One thing that really exasperates me is the fact that no politician can get anywhere promoting higher taxes. To my mind this shows the ignorance of the majority of the electorate. When asked, voters say that they want more money invested in schools and hospitals and roads, but they then object to taxes being raised. Where do they think the government is going to get the money to do the things the electorate have asked them to do? Off  a magic money tree? I long for the day when a politician tells it like it is. You can either have good hospitals and high taxes, or low taxes and bad hospitals, but you cannot have both decent hospitals and low taxes. Not in this country anyway.

This is not to say I am necessarily in favour of high taxes. Only that I can see why some times they have to be implemented, and I wonder why everyone else can’t see it too.

Do we have to do it now?

Lords’ Reform has been in the news again recently. The Lib Dems want it. Cameron sort of supported it then the local elections happened and it got quietly dropped from the Queen’s Speech and I suspect buried at the bottom of the legislative agenda.

But this blog isn’t about the pros and cons of reforming the Lords, because in my experience there are good arguments on both sides – “It will be more representative” cry those in favour, “It’ll lead to deadlock” reply those against it - Though I will say that the argument “It’s an archaic institution, a relic of a bygone age with no place in modern society” is a bit of a daft one. The same could be said of the Monarchy, the changing of the guard, the office of Speaker and depending on how long something needs to have existed to be archaic the office of Prime Minister which only came about because George the First couldn’t speak English. But I don’t see anyone lobbying for these to be abolished or reformed any time soon.

No, this blog is about the necessity of Lords’ reform occurring right now. The Lords has been around in one form or another for about a thousand years and seems to have done a pretty good job so far. While there have already been some reforms and it seems logical – to some people anyway – to continue them, I fail to see why it has to be done right now.

The world, as you may have noticed, is in a bit of a mess. The Eurozone is on the verge of collapse, we’ve just entered the second dip of the recession, the war in Afghanistan shows no sign of ending, Israel and Palestine are sniping at each other on an almost daily basis, we have an aging population, a school system in need of vast reforms, a lack of viable industry, record levels of unemployment, we need to invest billions we don’t have in renewable energy research and combating climate change and Iran may or may not be quietly building a nuclear arsenal. There’s quite a lot on our plate at the moment as it is. In the face of all this I have to ask, do we really have the time to prioritise what is essentially a non-issue?  

I know the real reason of course. This is the Lib Dems bite at the apple. The chances of them ever being in this position again are negligible – especially considering the Local Election results – and they want to get stuff done while they have a chance. But I would think that their time would be better spent pushing for things that really matter, like solving the issue of climate change or fighting to save the libraries. If you asked a cross section of the electorate which mattered to them more, libraries or Lords’ reform I’m willing to bet 90% would say libraries.

If we are going to insist on violating the old adage, “Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere” then fine. But can we please do it when we actually have time, preferably once we’ve sorted out the banking crisis, got out of Afghanistan and had a quiet word with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

You got a better option?

So. It’s been a week since François Hollande become the President Elect of France – congrats on that by the way François – and a week since the Greek electorate failed to elect a new government. Both of these things happened as a result of electorates rejecting their government’s austerity measures. The people of France and Greece are tired of austerity, tired of continuous cuts, and they have sent this message to their politicians the only way they know how.

But is there really any alternative to austerity?

The reason that President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Papademos introduced austerity measures was not because they wanted to, but because they had to. It was not because they found them fun, or because they wanted to see pensions slashed, or because they wanted people to live in poverty. It was because their countries were rapidly running out of money and if they had not instituted these measures they might well have gone bankrupt.

People seem to have forgotten that we are still in the middle of a recession. While some countries such as Germany are doing better, it hasn’t finished yet. And a recession means, in the immortal words of Liam Byrne, “there’s no money left.” Imports are costing more, exports are earning less. This means that in order to save money – in order not to have to sell off the Tower of London or something – belts must be tightened and sacrifices have to be made. That means pensions may have to be frozen and jobs cut. It’s messy and at times it may not seem to be working. But I have yet to be introduced to a system that works any better.

Some people advocate spending our way out of the recession. But considering – as pointed out above – that nobody has any money I don’t know exactly how this would work. To spend money you need to have money and right now the only way for governments to obtain money is by instituting cuts. It’s kind of a never ending loop.

I’m not saying I approve of all cuts or even that I think austerity is a good idea or the only option. I certainly think Greece needs to find a proper balance between austerity and protecting those who are most vulnerable in Greek society and I also think the other nations of Europe could possible let Greece off a bit considering what the Greek government’s austerity measures are doing to that country. But at the same time I can’t see the logic in rejecting austerity completely. I have a horrible feeling that both President Hollande and whoever replaces Papademos are going to enter office to discover that what their predecessors were doing was exactly what was necessary.

If someone can come up with a better way to get everyone out of the recession than I will gladly reject austerity. But till then I think we need to just take a deep breath and live with it.

Why would you say No?

I’m disappointed. Not with the local election results, because I always figured Labour would do well. Not with the London results because I always knew – and hoped – that Boris would win, though a higher position for Siobhan Benita would have been nice.

No. I’m disappointed beyond belief with Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield. They were all presented with the opportunity to say yes to the idea of having a directly elected mayor and they all said no. The only place to say yes to the idea was Bristol. I would have thought that Birmingham at least would have said yes to it.

It’s the AV vote all over again. There was not enough information given to the electorate about how it would work. There was too much noise from the no camp and not enough from the yes camp. People were not willing to embrace change. “The system works right now,” people cried, “Why should we change it?” Or more often, “Why should we vote for more money grabbing, arrogant politicians?”

Except that it doesn’t have to be like that. Of the three places outside of London that have now elected mayors, both Salford and Liverpool have chosen former councillors, who already know the city they will now govern and how it works. And Doncaster’s mayor is a member of the small English Democrat party and therefore can’t be said to be part of big party politics. There would be plenty of opportunities for people who understand their cities to become mayors, if only the opportunity was available.

Those of us who believe in greater local government are currently smacking our heads into the wall. You only have to look at first Ken and now Boris in London, or across the pond to guys like Rham Emmanuel in Chicago, Michael Bloomberg in New York and Corey Booker in Newark, to see that elected mayors can and do work. They work for two main reasons.

Firstly, a mayor provides a level of visible accountability, so that people know who is in charge. Ask anyone you like who the head of their local council is. They won’t know. The only reason I know is because I’m a massive politics nerd. However, if there is a mayor then the electors all know who is responsible for running their city and they can contact that individual with their queries, their problems or their complaints.

Secondly, and most importantly, a mayor provides a figurehead, someone a city can unite behind during times of both triumph and tragedy. Rudy Giuliani was that for New York after 9/11 and, whatever you think of him personally and politically, Ken Livingstone was that for London after 7/7. He provided a face and a voice, vocalising the fears and feelings of millions of Londoners in a way that the Prime Minister couldn’t. The PM had to speak for the whole country. But Ken spoke for London.

Liverpool and Salford now have mayors. Bristol will have one shortly. Hopefully they will show the UK’s other cities that the post can work. Then maybe the next time the idea is suggested, there will be a more positive response. 

Respect for Those who deserve It

I’m sure we can all think of times when we’ve been angry or stressed and said things that we didn’t mean and later regret. It’s just something that happens sometimes. However when you’re in a position of authority saying those things can land you in a whole heap of trouble, as demonstrated in the House of Commons on Monday. .

During urgent questions to the Prime Minister regarding the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his actions during the BSkyB bid, the Labour MP for Bolsover, Dennis Skinner, asked why Mr Hunt was receiving “better employment rights than most of the workers in Britain” and implied that he was being used as human shield by the PM. In response Mr Cameron told Mr Skinner - who is eighty years old and has been an MP since 1970 - that he was “free to take his pension at any time” and advised him to do so.

Now, whatever one thinks of the ‘Beast of Bolsover’ who is at times as close to Communist as it’s possible to be without joining the Communist Party of Great Britain and has been best described as a “hard left oddball,” he deserves more respect than that from a fellow MP, and certainly from the Prime Minister. Mr Skinner has been an MP for forty two years – which means he has been around for about as long as the Prime Minster has been alive – and has in that time never missed a sitting of Parliament, arguing that while he was a miner, “if you missed a shift at the pit you’d get the sack” and that his job as an MP deserves the same commitment.

He has never claimed on expenses, has never sought high office within the Labour Party - though he has been both Chairman and sat on the Party Executive - and most importantly has had a life outside of the Westminster Beltway. He is a rare example of an MP who believes in actually representing the people who have elected him and in holding those in authority to account. He deserves respect for that at least, if not for his age.

If the Prime Minister is really determined to move the Tories away from their reputation as the nasty party he needs to stop making comments like this. It’s especially odd as the Conservative Party have a commitment towards “conservative values,” which one would assume includes respect for their elders.

Mr Skinner is tough enough to shake this episode off, but Mr Cameron is already getting flack for it from other members of the Opposition and while I know he won’t, I can only hope that next time he is in the House he will apologise for what is at the end of the day, utterly disgraceful behaviour.