Harriet Harman, Labour's acting leader, has caused a storm with her remarks on welfare. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Harriet Harman's right: Labour has to offer an alternative, not just opposition

Harriet Harman has thrown down a gauntlet. Here's how I'd pick it up, says Stella Creasy. 

Harriet Harman has thrown down the gauntlet– to do more than be angry about George Osborne’s choices. She has a point. The public need more than an analysis of the damage he’s doing – or despair that as we are out of office we cannot define what we think is fair until 2020. To win we have to be a government in waiting, prepared not only to make difficult but also different decisions about Britain’s future. 

As deputy leader I would help us ensure we are not just an opposition, but an alternative. We do not have to wait until the next election to start. It is right to ensure employers pay a proper living wage and to support apprenticeships. It is also right we balance the national books- every penny we pay on debt repayments is money we could invest in public services. But increasing inequality will do nothing to help our economy or our society- making it harder, not easier for people to succeed is a costly mistake this Chancellor fails to recognise.  Currently Osborne plans to cut tax credits for those working hard but in low paid and insecure jobs. Rightly, many worry this will lead to an increase in child poverty. Cutting tax credits when our economic recovery is predicated on consumer spending rather than increasing productivity also risks plunging not only families into debt, but our national finances back into a tailspin. 

Whilst this government has a majority, it does not have the monopoly on the options– the value of the parliamentary process is that by our amendments and our arguments we can show how our alternative reforms would instead deliver fairness and prosperity for all. 

So what shape could our agenda take? Previously, Osborne made big play of closing the loophole exempting tax haven companies and other non-residents from capital gains tax on the sale of residential property. Curiously he left it open for commercial property. Almost nowhere else in the world exempts foreigners from tax on selling real estate. This is not only the fair thing to do, but also brings us in line with the US, Canada, Australia, and the rest of Europe. Ensuring CGT applies to all sales could save the funds needed to protect tax credits as we move to a higher wage economy. This in turn reduces the need for them in the first place.

There are other loopholes well overdue closing. Managers of private equity funds and some hedge funds receive most of their remuneration as "carried interest". This can run to hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds, but for historic reasons it's taxed as a capital gain at 28 per cent rather than as income at 45 per cent. There's a clear case for equalising the treatment so that fund managers pay the same rate of tax as other high earners. 

The budget also increased the amount of tax relief you could claim for renting out a room, whilst cutting housing benefit for under 21s. Under-25s already make up a third of homelessness and there is a real danger these changes could make things even worse. The Government’s own figures suggest this costs little to implement- doubling the threshold for those who take in a tenant on housing benefit could help reduce the welfare bill by saving us money in our overheated private rental sector. So too overpayments within the tax credit system cost us £5.6bn. Using credit referencing before someone applies could save money, debt collection agency fees and heartache for many asked to repay mistakenly paid funds at a later date.

Finally, many focus on inheritance tax, as increasingly it is paid by the middle classes and avoided by the wealthy. Yet last year the National Audit Office identified that the biggest loophole is "business property relief". If you're seriously wealthy, and your wealth is in a trading business, BPR can help you escape inheritance tax altogether. It's supposed to help small businesses, but the use of this exemption has been rising at an astonishing rate – 50% since 2008 and much faster than the value of inheritance tax actually paid. Last year it cost £565m - restricting it to small businesses could save enough to ensure those with larger families were not penalised by tax credit changes.

These are just some examples of how Labour can tell a different story about the choices to be made on tax and benefits –where to save, how to spend and how our choices are fairer and socially just. That’s why it is right the next leader is given support to define the combination of proposals we put forward. But so too, it shows we don’t have to be stuck shouting ‘trap’ when faced with brutal Conservative plans. Opposing legislation without using the potential of public scrutiny misses our chance to use parliament to fight back. By putting forward our ideas and using the coming months to campaign for what we offer- support for those who work hard and protection for the most vulnerable to get Britain on track- we can put Osborne on the spot instead.  Let’s not wait until 2020 to show we are a government in waiting- let's get cracking now. 

 Stella Creasy is standing for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party www.stellacreasy.org.uk

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ann Summers can’t claim to empower women when it is teaming up with Pornhub

This is not about mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

I can’t understand why erotic retailers like Ann Summers have persisted into the twenty-first century. The store claims to be “sexy, daring, provocative and naughty”, and somewhat predictably positions itself as empowering for women. As a feminist of the unfashionable type, I can’t help but be suspicious of any form of sexual liberation that can be bought or sold.

And yet, I’d never really thought of Ann Summers as being particularly threatening to the rights of women, more just a faintly depressing reflection of heteronormativity. This changed when I saw they’d teamed-up with Pornhub. The website is reputedly the largest purveyor of online pornography in the world. Pornhub guidelines state that content flagged as  “illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive” will be removed. Nonetheless, the site still contains simulated incest and rape with some of the more easily published film titles including “Exploited Teen Asia” (236 million views) and “How to sexually harass your secretary properly” (10.5 million views.)  With campaigns such as #metoo and #timesup are sweeping social media, it seems bizarre that a high street brand would not consider Pornhub merchandise as toxic.

Society is still bound by taboos: our hyper-sexual society glossy magazines like Teen Vogue offer girls tips on receiving anal sex, while advice on pleasuring women is notably rare. As an unabashed wanker, I find it baffling that in the year that largely female audiences queued to watch Fifty Shades Darker, a survey revealed that 20 per cent of U.S. women have never masturbated. It is an odd truth that in our apparently open society, any criticism of pornography or sexual practices is shut down as illiberal. 

Guardian-reading men who wring their hands about Fair Trade coffee will passionately defend the right to view women being abused on film. Conservative men who make claims about morals and marriage are aroused by images that in any other setting would be considered abuse. Pornography is not only misogynistic, but the tropes and language are often also racist. In what other context would racist slurs and scenarios be acceptable?

I have no doubt that some reading this will be burning to point out that feminist pornography exists. In name of course it does, but then again, Theresa May calls herself a feminist when it suits. Whether you believe feminist pornography is either possible or desirable, it is worth remembering that what is marketed as such comprises a tiny portion of the market. This won’t make me popular, but it is worth remembering feminism is not about celebrating every choice a woman makes – it is about analysing the social context in which choices are made. Furthermore, that some women also watch porn is evidence of how patriarchy shapes our desire, not that pornography is woman-friendly.  

Ann Summers parts the net curtains of nation’s suburban bedrooms and offers a glimpse into our peccadillos and preferences. That a mainstream high street retailer blithely offers guidance on hair-pulling, whipping and clamps, as well as a full range of Pornhub branded products is disturbing. This is not about women’s empowerment or mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

We are living in a world saturated with images of women and girls suffering; to pretend that there is no connection between pornography and the four-in-ten teenage girls who say they have been coerced into sex acts is naive in the extreme. For too long the state claimed that violence in the home was a domestic matter. Women and girls are now facing an epidemic of sexual violence behind bedroom doors and it is not a private matter. We need to ask ourselves which matters more: the sexual rights of men or the human rights of women?