Budget 2013: Osborne does it best when he does nothing at all

“The last thing we need is more tinkering”.

Asked what he wanted from next week’s budget, one successful entrepreneur I spoke to this week replied “not much".

A couple of others in the same discussion agreed. None had a list of proposals at the ready. It wasn’t that they don’t care what Mr Osborne says (although all agreed their focus was more on their businesses), it’s more that they want him to do very little. It fits with the general theme I hear from business that the government’s role should be to create a positive growth environment and then get out of the way.

And with the national finances in a pickle, the entrepreneurs were unanimous that the boldest thing Mr Osborne could do was nothing.

“The last thing we need is more tinkering,” said one. Her point is one ICAEW made in its submission to George Osborne, in which it suggested that instability in tax policymaking undermines future confidence. Whatever the good intentions, the culture of constant change in the tax system ends up leading to complexity.

After last year’s omnishambles, Osborne might himself wish he could get away with doing nothing. But with forecasters pointing to a triple-dip recession, sitting on his hands isn’t a political option for Osborne any more than it’s an economic one.

Assuming he ignores calls (some from within the coalition) for a switch to a plan B, or a plan A+, and instead sticks rigidly to fiscal austerity, he will have very limited scope for manoeuvre. As a result, rather like the wizard in the Wizard of Oz, he’ll be using all the political trickery, smoke and mirrors he can to create the illusion of doing lots to help the country (and will be especially keen to be seen to help what he calls strivers and “the working poor”) without really being able to do a great deal.

The best outcome for business would be a Budget that really grasps the need to inject growth and confidence into the economy. As ICAEW explained in its Budget submission, this means putting in place the right mechanisms for getting finance to small businesses. This doesn’t mean another rebranding of the government’s lending scheme (which has already been re-launched on several occasions) but it does mean getting the proposed Business Bank up and running properly. It requires the funds already made available, whether through the Local Enterprise Partnerships or other mechanisms such as Funding for Lending to actually get to the frontline.

Accepting the limited scope for action open to the chancellor, combined with the need for a little political magic, (these occasions are often as much about pulling political rabbits out of the hat as they are sensible economics) there will doubtless be a whole raft of changes to various types of taxation.

Personal allowances will be raised, some commentators are expecting a tactical reduction in VAT (possibly for the hospitality sector), while others point to a continuing reduction in corporation tax (this one coming into force in 2014).

In the absence of much room for real action, it is fair to assume there will be a number of consultations announced into a whole host of potential schemes many of which will never amount to much, but which look good on the day.

There will be the usual media flurry listing winners and losers from the budget, all filtered through the current political lens of austerity and Labour’s constant jibe that the Tories are more concerned with helping the rich than the poor.

It’s hard to think that there would be more winners if Mr Osborne listened to the entrepreneurs and made next week’s the shortest Budget in history.

This article first appeared in economia.

Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Cree is the Editor of Economia.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.