Talk to the hand, Nicola, because the face ain't listening. Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

SNP manifesto 2015: Less of a ransom note, more of a blank cheque

The SNP's manifesto, far from a ransom note, is easily reconciliable with Labour's fiscal plans. The bigger fear is that none of the parties are planning for what happens if the economy takes a turn for the worse.

Nicola Sturgeon launched the SNP’s manifesto yesterday with a plan to end austerity, and provide an alternative to the cuts proposed by the Conservatives and Labour. The SNP says it is “the only party offering an alternative to the Westminster cuts agenda”. It wants spending by Government departments to increase by 0.5% above inflation every year after 2015-16.

Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major will warn in a speech today of the “mayhem” which could result from a Labour government reliant on the SNP in the next Parliament, including the risk that the SNP will push Labour into more spending and more borrowing.

Setting the scare mongering to one side for a moment: could Labour accommodate the SNP’s demands and still meet its own manifesto pledge for securing the public finances?  The SNP proposal to increase departmental spending by 0.5% a year would mean current departmental spending going up by around £1.7 billion a year. This would leave departmental spending around £7 billion higher a year in real terms by 2020, compared to the first year of the new Parliament.

However, tax revenues are forecast to rise by around £20 billion to £23 billion a year over the course of the next Parliament. This means that the next Government can raise departmental spending and still eliminate the current deficit (Labour’s target, which excludes investment spending) by 2020 – just. The deficit would also be falling in every year.

Admittedly, Labour would not be able to meet the mandate in the Budget Responsibility Charter, that it voted for earlier in the year. That requires the Government to be on track for the current deficit to be eliminated by the end of a three year period. Currently, that’s 2018-19. But because it’s a rolling timetable, it allows for the flexibility to change the timing of the deficit reduction programme.  And Labour makes no reference to it in its manifesto, suggesting it does not see the Charter as its primary target.

Labour has already left itself considerable room on its deficit reduction plans: because it is targeting the current deficit, that is, excluding borrowing for investment, by 2020, it could have around £30 billion extra in annual spending to play with compared to the Conservatives. It also looks like it has enough room to accommodate the SNP. There is also remarkable agreement between the two on ways of raising money to pay for extra pledges – the mansion tax, the 50p rate of income tax and the bank bonus tax make an appearance in both manifestos.

In fact, the real risk is not so much that the SNP drags a Labour government in to more spending; Labour may be pretty much already there. The bigger risk is that all parties are making plans based on a very uncertain five year forecast.

The tax revenue figures in the OBR report rely on GDP growing by 2.3% to 2.6% a year. The IMF is less sanguine, expecting UK growth to plateau at around 2.1% a year by the end of the decade. Even that forecast implies that the UK’s dismal productivity performance will pick up substantially in the next five years. Previous OBR scenario analysis shows that deficit forecasts could be out by tens of billions if productivity does not pick up, as set out in the Social Market Foundation’s A Deficit of Growth. On current plans, that would leave the Conservatives unable to meet their target too. The gamble on tax revenues to fix the public finances is one that all parties are making.

 

Nida Broughton is Senior Economist at the Social Market Foundation.

Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.