Poverty Alliance Briefing 14

Transcription

1 Poverty Alliance Briefing 14 TACKLING POVERTY AFTER THE ELECTIONS: PRIORITIES AND CHOICES Background The 2010 election campaign has been dominated by discussion about how each of the main political parties would deal with the UK s debt problems. In all of this discussion the implications for tackling the high rates of poverty have rarely been addressed. The four main political parties in Scotland all make reference to the need to address poverty and social exclusion in their manifestos. However, there appears to have been little discussion in the media regarding how effective their plans are. Even when discussing the state of the public finances, little time has been given to considering how planned cuts will impact on the most vulnerable. In order to encourage prospective candidates at the election to be clear what their own priorities would be for addressing poverty after the elections the Poverty Alliance, Scotland s national anti-poverty network, asked candidates of the main political parties to outline what they would do to address poverty if elected. A short questionnaire was distributed to Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Conservatives, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Green Party and UKIP. The questions were based on priorities identified during a series of discussion seminars organized by the Poverty Alliance at the beginning of the year. The question covered four main areas low pay, benefit levels, attitudes to poverty, and public services. In addition to the four main questions, we also gave candidates the opportunity to say what would be their own priorities for tackling poverty. Responses The number of responses received was very disappointing. Whilst appreciating that this is an extremely busy time for candidates in all parties, we would have expected a higher level of responses considering the importance of the issues being discussed. With almost 1 in 5 people in Scotland living in low income households, tackling poverty should be a priority for all political parties. The following responses were received: Scottish Labour Party: 4 Scottish Conservatives: 0 Scottish Liberal Democrats: 5 Scottish National Party: 4 Scottish Green Party: 4 UKIP: 4 Poverty Alliance Briefing No 14 May

2 We are very grateful to all of those candidates that took the time to respond to the questionnaire 1. We also received a number of responses from candidates who stated that whilst they were supportive of activity to address poverty, they could not spare the time to complete the questionnaire. The low response rate undermines the intention of this exercise, that is, to get behind the manifesto commitments and find out what candidates really think about some of the key issues. It is perhaps most disappointing that the Scottish Conservatives failed to return a single response, particularly given the emphasis placed in their campaign on the idea of the Big Society. Whilst the low response rate cannot be taken to mean that the majority of candidates in Scotland do not care about policies to address poverty and social exclusion, it does suggest that they need to accord the issue far more importance. The low response rate is also a sign of the low priority given to poverty issues during the election campaign overall. This has implications for the way anti-poverty campaigners work together in future to put poverty higher up the political agenda in future election campaigns. Below we look at the comments received by some of the candidates on these key issues. Question 1: The numbers of people living in poverty who are in employment continues to increase. How would you ensure that all jobs pay a living wage and genuinely lift people out of poverty? 1 The Scottish Green Party also submitted a general response to the questionnaire. Low pay remains a problem for thousands people of working in Scotland and the UK, despite the introduction of the National Minimum Wage over 10 years ago. In the last few years the concept of a living wage has become increasingly popular, with the Scottish Living Wage Campaign successfully working with trade unions to win major employers over to the concept of a living wage. But far more needs to be done to help the thousands of workers who struggle to get by on poverty wages. Here s what the candidates said: The Liberal Democrats emphasized their policy of the setting the Income Tax Threshold at 10,000, removing many low paid workers from the tax system. They also opposed increases in VAT and supposed annual increases in the minimum wage. None of the Liberal democrat respondents mentioned the living wage approach as a solution to in-work poverty. The Scottish Labour Party candidates mentioned the importance of the National Minimum Wage and their goal of increasing it in line with average earnings. Cathy Jamieson, (Kilmarnock and Loudon), also stated her support for the Living Wage Campaign adding it is entirely affordable to ensure that all public sector jobs pay a Living Wage. Others mentioned the steps taken by Glasgow City Council to pay the living wage and stated that other employers should follow the City Councils example (David Graham, Argyll and Bute). Scottish Green Party respondents highlighted their manifesto commitment to a living wage for Poverty Alliance Briefing No 14 May

3 public sector workers. They also noted that they are committed to raising the minimum wage towards the level of a living wage to ensure an end to in-work poverty. (Marie Campbell, Glasgow South) The Greens also located the problem of low pay within the wider context of income inequality and high pay: we support the introduction of maximum wage ratios in the public sector, ultimately throughout the economy, to ensure that Chief Executives pay doesn t soar to ridiculous levels. (Elaine Morrison, Argyll & Bute) The Scottish National Party respondents opted for a combination of a higher national minimum wage and reform of the tax system. Andy Doig (Paisley and Renfreshire South) stated that in the event of a balanced parliament we will push for an increase to the national minimum wage. Richard Thompson (Gordon) also supported a higher national minimum wage alongside a rebalancing of the tax system in favour of lower earners, so that low earners no longer pay a higher marginal rate of tax than high earners. Responses from UKIP were more mixed on how they would address low pay. Most supported the removal of low paid workers from the tax system: the removal of tax on the first 11,500 will ensure that lower income earners will pay no tax on the minimum wage. (Steven McKeane, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale). Others were more hostile to the idea stating that I don t believe it is government s place to impose a minimum wage on employers (Kris Seunarine, Glenrothes). In line with party policy, others saw the answer to low pay in tightening immigration laws: stop mass immigration (which would require exit from the EU) thereby reducing competition in the jobs market. (Martin Gray, Angus) Question 2: Basic benefit rates have been falling in real terms for very many years. JSA rates, currently at approx per week, are well below the UK Government's official definition of poverty. How would you ensure that people who have to rely on welfare benefits no longer have to live in poverty? At the moment, levels of welfare benefits ensure that anyone who has to rely on them is certain to live in poverty. Research carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation into a Minimum Income Standards shows that current benefit levels leave most people trapped in poverty. If progress is to be made in tackling poverty in the future the level of welfare benefits cannot continue to be ignored. Here s what the respondents had to say on the issue: All of the respondents from the Scottish Labour Party emphasised the importance of using the benefits system to help people get back into work as soon as possible. Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) stated that we will offer a more personalised service and greater support and training to help applicants return to work. Katy Clark (North Ayshire and Arran) also emphasised the importance of getting people into decent jobs but added that if elected she would Poverty Alliance Briefing No 14 May

4 fight to see increased (benefit) levels to lift people out of poverty. The Scottish Liberal Democrat respondents also emphasised the importance of employment. Eileen Baxendale (Glasgow North East) supported the goal of sustainable employment and stated that they would create work placement schemes for young people and fund extra Foundation degree places as well as meeting the cost of adult apprenticeships. Richard Brodie (Dumfries and Galloway) felt that to achieve the aim of lifting people out of poverty the system would need a complete overhaul. Scottish National Party respondents argued for reform of the system overall, making the process of getting help to find work more effective. Richard Thompson wanted to see the phased withdrawal of benefits, to ensure that people should not be worse off when taking a job. All Scottish Green Party respondents highlighted the role of their proposals for a non-means tested Citizens Income Scheme. By linking this proposal to higher levels of income tax the Citizens Income Scheme would, according to Marie Campbell, we will ensure that those who rely on the State for support no longer have to live in poverty. Elaine Morrison added that such a scheme would also build a recognition of the value of unpaid work such as volunteering and caring into the benefits system. UKIP emphasised the need to remove as many people as possible from reliance on benefits. Anthony Atkinson (West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine) felt that there was a link between reducing immigration and reducing the numbers reliant on benefits. Kris Seunarine stated In my opinion 65 per week is generous. Question 3: Negative and stereotypical views of people living on low incomes (i.e. benefit cheats, scroungers ) remain widespread in the general public, and represent a barrier to further progress in addressing poverty. What role can Government and politicians play in addressing these negative attitudes? In recent years it has been recognised by many anti-poverty campaigners that negative public attitudes towards people living on low incomes represents a significant barrier to making further progress in tackling poverty. There are many ways in which these attitudes can be addressed, but politicians have a key role in changing the way we talk about poverty and the way people in poverty are treated. And whilst it is an important issue, it is not one that appears in any of the party manifestos. Here is what they had to say on the issue: Scottish Labour Party respondent s linked reform of the benefits system to changing public attitudes about poverty. Cathy Jamieson argued that having a fair and transparent benefits system would undermine the belief that many people in work have that those on benefits are better off than Poverty Alliance Briefing No 14 May

5 they are. Katy Clark clearly stated her position: we must spread a positive message about what we are doing to help people out of poverty, and in that message ensure that we make clear that people living in low incomes are not to be treated as benefit cheats or scroungers. The Scottish National Party respondents made several suggestions on how negative attitudes could be addressed. Andrew Wood (Dumfries and Galloway) argued that Government should improve public awareness on the real position (of benefit claimants) and highlight the importance of creating a fair and equal society. Andy Doig also emphasised the need to educate the public about the reality of poverty: we need to educate people that most of us are only two or three pay checks away from being unemployed or potentially homeless. The Scottish Liberal Democrats saw politicians and media playing a key role in addressing negative attitudes. John Mainland (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) stated in relation to the role of the media that the Mail/Express/Telegraph/Sun could do more. Richard Brodie stated politicians should be champions of the poorly paid. Eileen Baxendale we will not speak of people in poverty in disrespectful terms. The UKIP respondents expressed a variety of views on negative attitudes to people in poverty. Anthony Atkinson felt that education was the key, but education for people on low incomes to give them a greater desire to succeed. Kris Seunarine stated the fact is that those labels are rightly deserved by many long term unemployed who have no intention of working. Like other respondents the Scottish Green Party linked changing attitudes to changing the welfare system, emphasising the opportunity to remove stigma from system by ensuring that everyone receives something from the system. Robin Harper (Edinburgh East) stated his support for the withdrawal of the negative TV and poster campaigns on benefit cheating. Question 4: People on low incomes rely on services provided by public and voluntary sectors, services that are vital for their wellbeing and that help them move out of poverty. How should these services be protected in the face of spending cuts? The state of the public finances and the need to reduce the structural deficit has dominated much of the debate at this election. This was inevitable, but the political debates have rarely focused on what they will actually do to make sure that essential services that poorer people rely on will be protected. With this question we attempted to see whether the parties spending plans would have an impact on the poorest: The Scottish Labour Party respondents supported protecting services that support the most vulnerable. Katy Clark stated if money needs to be saved, it should Poverty Alliance Briefing No 14 May

6 not be on the vital frontline services which vulnerable people use. Ann McKechin linked the protection of frontline services to the introduction of the 50p tax rate for high earners arguing that the those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greater share of the burden. The Scottish National Party respondents were against cuts to public services. They argued instead that Trident, ID cards and the House of Lords should be scrapped in order to avoid cuts to essential public services. In turn greater support should be given to front line voluntary sector organisations. The Scottish Liberal Democrats, like other parties, said that frontline services should be protected. They were also the clearest of all respondents that cuts would have to be made, although care should be taken to ensure that these cuts did not affect the most vulnerable. Eileen Baxendale also linked efforts to abolish tax loopholes for the rich and examining some of the very high salaries paid in the public sector to protecting public services. Scottish Green Party respondents argued against cuts to the voluntary sector. Elaine Morrison noted that the role of the many voluntary sector organisations acting as catalysts for community cohesion and renewing the fabric of our society cannot be undervalued. Marie Campbell stated that the Scottish Green Party would resist attempts to privatise health and education services. For UKIP, Anthony Atkinson argued that public services were under pressure due to immigration and that the primary issue is to remove all illegal immigrants from our shores. Steven McKeane argued that public services that re necessary should be ring-fenced. Kris Seunarine stated the fact is that if the money isn t there, then cuts have to be made. People need to understand this basic economic principle. Question 5: Finally, please tell us your top three priorities for tackling poverty if elected: We have not attempted to list or rank all the priorities that the PPCs gave. Rather we have identified some of the issues that were mentioned most often. Labour Party included creating jobs; improving the national minimum wage; protecting benefits from cuts. Liberal Democrats included economic recovery/job creation; taking the lowest paid out of the tax system; and investment in the education system. National Party included reforming the benefits system; improving the national minimum wage; and making the tax system more progressive. Green Party included moving the Poverty Alliance Briefing No 14 May

7 minimum wage towards the level of the living wage; the introduction of a Citizens Income Scheme; protecting public services through progressive taxation. Key priorities for UKIP to cut poverty included: cutting immigration; cutting taxes (particularly for the lowest paid); and creating more jobs. Conclusions The most striking thing to emerge from this survey of prospective candidates at the next General Election is the abysmally low response rate. The four main political parties are fielding in the region of 200 candidates. Only 13 bothered to respond to this questionnaire (and none of them were Conservatives). This is both disappointing and worrying. It is disappointing as it undermines the credibility of this exercise. Organisations such as the Poverty Alliance have a legitimate role in encouraging politicians to be more forthcoming about their views and beliefs in respect to tackling poverty. The reticence of so many candidates is puzzling when most of the manifestos appear to make much of their approaches to tackling poverty. On an issue that should be central to determining how our society moves forward in the future, we would have expected all candidates to be anxious to have their voices heard. But the lack of responses is also worrying as it confirms the lack of interest and coverage shown in issues of poverty and social exclusion throughout the election campaign. It was to be expected that the campaign would be dominated by alternative plans for tackling the public debt. And with the introduction of the leaders debates, it was also perhaps to be expected that the media would have even greater reason to focus on the personalities of the party leaders. However, this has ensured that the issues of substance are often rarely discussed or reduced to little more than a meaningless sound bite. This creates a challenge for anti-poverty organisations. We are in a period when the prospects for tackling poverty are going to be significantly constrained. If we are to push poverty and social exclusion issues further up the political agenda it is essential that we work more effectively together, create more unity amongst the wide range of civil society organisations that are concerned with poverty, and do a better job of holding our politicians to account. Amongst the handful of responses that were received there is much to be optimistic about. The enthusiastic support for the Living Wage Campaign from both the Labour and Green Party respondents, the emphasis given to improving the national minimum wage and taking the lowest paid out of the tax system by the SNP and Liberal Democrats, and the support shown for tackling the issue of stigma by (almost) all the respondents suggests that there is much to build on. It is imperative that anti-poverty campaigners and activists do build on the opportunities that exist. There is little doubt that we will need all the allies we can find to make progress in the future. It is crucial now that whoever wins the election on 6 May, anti-poverty campaigners are there to hold them to the promises that have been made. Poverty Alliance Briefing No 14 May