To avoid further cuts, Osborne should raise taxes and reduce benefits

Rather than cutting over-stretched public services, the Chancellor should raise more from the wealthy through tax rises and cuts to universal benefits.

In the build-up to the Budget, most of the debate has been on the here and now, with the Chancellor being urged to boost growth through capital investment or temporary tax cuts. But this will also be a critical Budget for the medium term as George Osborne sets the public spending envelope for 2015/16 ahead of June’s spending review. There’s still time for him to avert another historic public spending mistake.

As part of the Fabian Society Commission on Future Spending Choices we analysed the impact of Osborne’s existing plans as implied by the 2012 Autumn Statement. On the basis of his current commitments to protect spending on the NHS, schools and international development, in 2015/16 we can expect another cut to unprotected public services of £5bn. The services affected include defence, police, social care and local government. Across unprotected departmental spending this would be a real-terms cut of 3.8 per cent compared to 2014/15.

The public services at risk have already been the worst hit by austerity and a further year of reductions would bring the total real cut to these areas since 2011/12 to £36bn or 22 per cent. It is surely unwise to plan further cuts to those budgets that have been hit the most already. Indeed, many areas will face significant pressures even if their budgets stand still in real terms, while an aggregate freeze would still mean cuts to many budgets to make space for growth in other priority areas.

The £5bn pounds required to prevent these further cuts could be found in four ways: cutting the NHS, schools and international development; slowing the pace of deficit reduction and increasing the stock of debt; further cuts to social security; or raising taxes.

Cutting spending on the NHS and schools is not attractive given the rising demand both of these areas face as a result of our ageing population and the new baby-boom. International development spending plans, meanwhile, are part of a long-term international commitment which has cross-party support.

Increasing debt to pay for everyday public service spending is also unattractive. On the current economic outlook, more debt-financed spending is needed but to stimulate the economy today through temporary stimulus and capital investment, not for ordinary government activity. Extra borrowing may also be required in the medium-term if economic growth comes in below the OBR’s previous projections, which are likely to be downgraded this week. But this would merely be to achieve George Osborne’s existing spending plans. Since a future government may well need to push its deficit reduction programme beyond 2017/18 simply because of the state of the economy, it would be unwise to plan for extra discretionary debt-funded spending too.

Instead, the £5bn to prevent further public service cuts should be found through tax rises and social security cuts for 2015/16. These changes should be pre-announced but only implemented if the economy has returned to growth by then (and there is nothing to stop this policy sitting alongside temporary tax cuts in the meantime).

Choices regarding tax and welfare changes should be taken together, since they are both financial transfers between citizens and government. Decisions should be made from the perspective of who has the greatest capacity to absorb changes. This means that any reforms should target the top half of the income distribution, who both have the broadest shoulders and have escaped lightly from austerity until now. There is also a case for increasing the burden placed on older people. Relatively speaking, retired households are lightly taxed and have not suffered welfare cuts to the extent of younger families.

In isolation the idea of up to £5bn of tax rises may appear alarming (it is equivalent to 1 per cent on VAT or income tax). But at present the brunt of deficit reduction is being born by public spending, not tax rises. On current plans, the chancellor is expecting to close the deficit through a combination of 85 per cent spending cuts and 15 per cent tax rises, compared to his original 2010 plan for 27 per cent to come through tax rises and Alistair Darling’s plans of 30 per cent.

So it’s time to shift the balance of deficit reduction away from public service cuts. The good news is that another year of public service cuts can be prevented at the ‘low’ cost of £5bn. The Chancellor should announce 2015/16 tax and benefit plans to generate this money from those who can bear the burden best.

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne leaves 11 Downing Street on March 18, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Andrew Harrop is general secretary of the Fabian Society.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Angela Merkel's call for a burqa ban sets a disturbing precedent

The German chancellor's plan for a partial ban of the full-face veil is a clearly political move, which will do more to harm those women who wear it than protect them.

 

In these febrile times, women’s freedom and autonomy has become a bargaining chip in the poker game of public propaganda — and that goes double for brown, Muslim and migrant women. Angela Merkel should know as well as any other female politician how demeaning it is to be treated as if what you wear is more important than what you say and what you do. With the far-right on the rise across Europe, however, the German chancellor has become the latest lawmaker to call for a partial ban on the burqa and niqab.

We are told that this perennial political football is being kicked about in the name of liberating women. It can have nothing to do, of course, with the fact that popular opinion is lurching wildly to the right in western democracies, there’s an election in Germany next year, and Merkel is seen as being too soft on migration after her decision to allow a million Syrian refugees to enter the country last year. She is also somehow blamed for the mob attacks on women in Cologne, which have become a symbol of the threat that immigration poses to white women and, by extension, to white masculinity in Europe. Rape and abuse perpetrated by white Europeans, of course, is not considered a matter for urgent political intervention — nor could it be counted on to win back voters who have turned from Merkel's party to the far-right AFD, which wants to see a national debate on abortion rights and women restricted to their rightful role as mothers and homemakers.

If you’ll allow me to be cynical for a moment, imposing state restrictions on what women may and may not wear in public has not, historically, been a great foundation for feminist liberation. The move is symbolic, not practical. In Britain, where the ban is also being proposed by Ukip the services that actually protect women from domestic violence have been slashed over the past six years — the charity Refuge, the largest provider of domestic violence services in the UK, has seen a reduction in funding across 80% of its service contracts since 2011.

It’s worth noting that even in western countries with sizeable Muslim minorities, the number of women who wear full burqa is vanishingly small. If those women are victims of coercion or domestic violence, banning the burqa in public will not do a thing to make them safer — if anything, it will reduce their ability to leave their homes, isolating them further.

In the wake of the Brexit vote, racist and Islamophobic attacks spiked in the UK. Hate crimes nationally shot up by 42% in the two weeks following the vote on 23 June. Hate crimes against Muslim women increased by over 300%, with visibly Muslim women experiencing 46% of all hate incidents. Instances of headscarves being ripped off have become so common that self-defense videos are being shared online, showing women how to deflect the “hijab grab”. In this context, it is absurd to claim that politicians proposing a burqa ban care about protecting women: the move is transparently designed to placate the very people who are making Muslim women feel unsafe in their own communities.

When politicians talk about banning the burqa, the public hears an attack on all Islamic headscarves — not everyone knows the difference between the hijab, the niqab and the burqa, and not everyone cares. The important thing is that seeing women dressed that way makes some people feel uncomfortable, and desperate politicians are casting about for ways to validate that discomfort.

Women who actually wear the burqa are not invited to speak about their experiences or state their preferences in this debate. On this point, Islamic fundamentalists and panicked western conservatives are in absolute agreement: Muslim women are provocative and deserve to be treated as a threat to masculine pride. They should shut up and let other people decide what’s best for them.

I know Muslim women who regard even the simple hijab as an object of oppression and have sworn never to wear one again. I also know Muslim women who wear headscarves every day as a statement both of faith and of political defiance. There is no neutral fashion option for a woman of Islamic faith — either way, men in positions of power will feel entitled to judge, shame and threaten. Either choice risks provoking anger and violence from someone with an opinion about what your outfit means for them. The important thing is the autonomy that comes with still having a choice.

A law which treats women like children who cannot be trusted to make basic decisions about their bodies and clothing is a sexist law; a law that singles out religious minorities and women of colour as especially unworthy of autonomy is a racist, sexist law. Instituting racist, sexist laws is a good way to win back the votes of racist, sexist people, but, again, a dreadful way of protecting women. In practice, a burqa ban, even the partial version proposed by Merkel which will most likely be hard to enforce under German constitutional law, will directly impact only a few thousand people in the west. Those people are women of colour, many of them immigrants or foreigners, people whose actual lives are already of minimal importance to the state except on an abstract, symbolic level, as the embodiment of a notional threat to white Christian patriarchy. Many believe that France's longstanding burqa ban has increased racial tensions — encapsulated by the image earlier this year of French police surrounding a woman who was just trying to relax with her family on the beach in a burkini. There's definitely male violence at play here, but a different kind — a kind that cannot be mined for political capital, because it comes from the heart of the state.

This has been the case for centuries: long before the US government used the term“Operation Enduring Freedom” to describe the war in Afghanistan, western politicians used the symbolism of the veil to recast the repeated invasion of Middle Eastern nations as a project of feminist liberation. The same colonists who justified the British takeover of Islamic countries abroad were active in the fight to suppress women’s suffrage at home. This is not about freeing women, but about soothing and coddling men’s feelings about women.

The security argument is even more farcical: border guards are already able to strip people of their clothes, underwear and dignity if they get the urge. If a state truly believes that facial coverings are some sort of security threat, it should start by banning beards, but let's be serious, masculinity is fragile enough as it is. If it were less so, we wouldn't have politicians panicking over how to placate the millions of people who view the clothing choices of minority and migrant women as an active identity threat.

Many decent, tolerant people, including feminists, are torn on the issue of the burqa: of course we don't want the state to start policing what women can and can't wear, but isn't the burqa oppressive? Maybe so, but I was not aware of feminism as a movement that demands that all oppressive clothing be subject to police confiscation, unless the Met’s evidence lockers are full of stilettos, girdles and push-up bras. In case you're wondering, yes, I do feel uncomfortable on the rare occasions when I have seen people wearing the full face veil in public. I've spent enough time living with goths and hippies that I've a high tolerance for ersatz fashion choices — but do wonder what their home lives are like and whether they are happy and safe, and that makes me feel anxious. Banning the burqa might make me feel less anxious. It would not, however, improve the lives of the women who actually wear it. That is what matters. My personal feelings as a white woman about how Muslim women choose to dress are, in fact, staggeringly unimportant.

If you think the Burqa is oppressive and offensive, you are perfectly entitled never to wear one. You are not, however, entitled to make that decision for anyone else. Exactly the same principle applies in the interminable battle over women's basic reproductive choices: many people believe that abortion is wrong, sinful and damaging to women. That's okay. I suggest they never have an abortion. What's not okay is taking away that autonomy from others as a cheap ploy for good press coverage in the runup to an election.

This debate has been dragging on for decades, but there's a new urgency to it now, a new danger: we are now in a political climate where the elected leaders of major nations are talking about registries for Muslims and other minorities. Instituting a symbolic ban on religious dress, however extreme, sets a precedent. What comes next? Are we going to ban every form of Islamic headdress? What about the yarmulke, the tichel, the Sikh turban, the rainbow flag? If this is about community cohesion, what will it take to make white conservatives feel “comfortable”? Where does it stop? Whose freedoms are politicians prepared to sacrifice as a sop to a populace made bitter and unpredictable by 30 years of neoliberal incompetence? Where do we draw the line?

We draw it right here, between the state and the autonomy of women, particularly minority and migrant women who are already facing harassment in unprecedented numbers. Whatever you feel about the burqa, it is not the role of government to police what women wear, and doing it has nothing to do with protection. It is chauvinist, it is repressive, it is a deeply disturbing precedent, and it has no place in our public conversation.

 
 
 
 

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.