Some Labour politicians playing football, possibly contemplating a tax to exploit the Premier League's wealth in this brief break in play. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour plans football tax to boost grassroots sport

Labour is to propose new taxes on the Premier League and sports betting firms to boost sport at the grassroots level.

As parliament's summer recess begins this week, it's clear the Labour party is adamant not to disappear like it did during its significantly quiet summer last year. It is difficult for the opposition to make many headlines – or at least positive ones – during the silly season, but it looks like Ed Miliband and his top team have a number of proposals up their sleeve they’ve saved for the summer months.

An example of this is the plan to be announced today for new taxes on the Premier League and sports betting firms. The aim is to boost grassroots football and other sports at that level.

Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman will be announcing these proposals, as well as a call to reintroduce two hours of PE weekly for all primary school children, a policy scrapped by the coalition.

Although the party is bound to face criticism for being “same old Labour”, introducing more taxes and dressing them up as policies, but this matters little because that criticism is likely to be levelled by those who wouldn’t be voting Labour anyway.

The populist angle of these proposals is more significant. Tapping the wealth of the Premier League and using the proceeds – the Times reports it could raise £275m from the tax – for developing grassroots football will be popular among ordinary sports fans, who have been hit by rising ticket prices for Premier League games.

This would go alongside the plan for a levy on sports betting firms’ gross profits in order to fund community sports facilities and raising money to help support people to fight gambling addictions. This type of levy reflects one that already exists in horseracing, which raised £82m this year.

So the Conservatives’ dismissal of these plans as a “short-term gimmick” doesn’t really hold water. Labour has clearly figured out that there is serious money to be made here, and redistributed among communities and individuals, as well as successful precedents already in place.

It is also a shrewd move towards encouraging exercise among a population that we repeatedly hear is becoming more obese and more sedentary. Rather than introducing “sin taxes”, say on fizzy drinks or fast food, it is a positive method of promoting a healthier lifestyle. So even if Labour’s detractors will tut at the idea of a new tax, it can’t be accused of nannying. And that’s more than you can say for the coalition, which has been prevaricating embarrassingly over plain-packaging for cigarettes and minimum unit pricing for alcohol.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

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.