We shouldn’t forget that it was Clement Atlee’s post-war government that introduced the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, the feeling at the time being that the working-class had after years of poverty and exploitation finally earned the right to equality under the law. The legislation was one of a sack-full of reforms aimed at improving the conditions of the ‘little man’ and of course make power accountable after witnessing the terrible effects of newly centralised power in Europe. There have been many inevitable reforms since, such as the means testing of legal aid in order to allocate to those who need it most, however the latest reforms can be seen as a spiteful, political dismantling of a bastion of equality that the United Kingdom should be proud to defend and further strengthen.

It is the will of the Tory-led coalition government to increase the cost of a judicial review which will have dire effects for the worst off in society. It is true that judicial reviews can cost the taxpayer money in criminal cases that run the risk of losing. Solicitor Oliver Kirk justifies this risk perfectly:

This is not about lawyers defending guilty people and getting them off. It’s about people having confidence in the justice system so they know it works; it’s about protecting people so when somebody is found guilty the public know they are guilty.”

The problem for me is when a member of the public, with a genuine qualm with a ruling that has affected their person wants to come forward for a judicial review. In these cases, public bodies are only going to be accountable to those who can afford the legal challenge. Thus those experiencing welfare cuts and charitable organisations that represent similar social groups such as homelessness charity Shelter and mental health charity Mind will no longer represent their clients interests effectively in a court of law.

As a society we should surely be strengthening our legal systems to make sure justice prevails to the greatest degree possible. It is also in the interest of a civilised society to ensure that criminal cases do not lead the parties involved to take matters into their own hands and act outside of the law to resolve their problems.

The continued agenda of privatisation may be lauded as the key to curbing government spending however the truth is not being spoken enough. Where previously government had to be accountable for its behaviour, newly privatised services are not bound by the same protocol and thus their influence on activities with the modified services is now becoming in the interest of profit and not preserving democracy.

A Tory-led government making themselves less accountable and going unchallenged would make an excellent satirical cartoon. It would probably consist of Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and a number of ministers taking turns to poor soil onto a coffin, representative of the legal lid bill. Thus consign the most vulnerable in society to their current circumstances. The eroding of civil liberties is not particularly amusing however.

There has been widespread opposition to the legislation in the legal profession with the government’s own barristers, the 145 Treasury counsel expressing the view that “restrictions on judicial reviews will undermine the accountability of public bodies” and the Church of England has even publicly opposed the reforms. Infact, lawyers oppose the reforms so strongly that they took to the streets to protest, presumably at the injustice of the changes and not because they face a decrease in wages. In keeping with other Coalition policies, consultation with professionals was not high on the government’s priority list, presumably there is just a notepad with a few pound signs scribbled.

We know that the expertise of lawyers, is key to the correct outcome in a court of law, the specialised skills that lawyers develop are very specific to particular cases, in turn this ensures that justice prevails. This is especially true for legal aid cases with many lawyers finding a niche in representing cases relevant to their clients. The reducing of lawyer fees proposed in the reforms will therefore lead to an end to the quality of service these clients receive. Miscarriages of justice are going to increase unfortunately. Legal aid lawyers do not earn as much as other lawyers due to the economic background of suspects represented and this is going to put them out of business or refocus their energy on more affluent clients.

The consensus among professionals is that many high street solicitors are going to face hard times, this view is held by Mark Davies of Goldstones Solicitors who predicts “the death of the high street firm”, a view also backed by barrister and author Chris Jeyes.:

The reality of these plans is that upwards of 1,500 firms will leave that market, and many or even most will close their doors for the last time”

These closures will lead to an oligopoly with power shared amongst a small amount of large solicitors. There is going to be a situation where good lawyers will find their profession is no longer financially tenable and the drop in the quality of service provided is a huge blow parallel to other proposed reforms.

Possibly the worst element of the proposed legislation though is the decision that those receiving legal aid will be awarded contracts through ‘price competitive tendering’. Thus the right to choose who legally represents you as a poorer person is going to end as will equality under the law and fairness of trial. So, even more possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Great. Lawyers have even come out defending the working class, suggesting that the changes to our legal system will lead to the United Kingdom to becoming a ‘banana republic’ with power being completely taken away from the vulnerable in society.

All of these processes that are changing are going to directly increase homelessness. Shelter use the judicial review system to hold local authorities accountable to their responsibilities to provide housing for local constituents. Then new economic pressures and decreased in quality of service is going to lead to many families becoming destitute and many homeless people staying that way. An unfortunate truth.

If you are not convinced at the injustice the legal aid reforms will provide, consider this situation. Kent based solicitor Oliver Kirk has put forward is this:

Just imagine you are accused of something you haven’t done. You would want to be represented by someone who was experienced and who you could trust. Instead, you may well find that your nearest provider is 50 miles away and he is young and inexperienced, and is going to be paid more if you plead guilty because, under the one-fee arrangement, he has no incentive to consult with you, take witness statements or instruct experts.”

Legal aid was hard earned and is a foundation of justice in the United Kingdom and these politically motivated reforms will take us backwards to a time in our history when the world was more unequal and power was unaccountable.

The e-petition against the Ministry of Justice proposal can be found here.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

The latest example of that is Snowden’s revelation that GCHQ/MI5 spied on and bugged ministers and senior officials from South Africa, Turkey and Russia during the G20 summit in London in 2009. The usual rationale trotted out for such spying is that it is protect the UK from terrorists and criminals. That can hardly apply here.

The legal justification is provided by the 1994 Intelligence Services Act which allows GCHQ to undertake surveillance “in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK”. That in itself is a pretty much catch-all net for spying on anything. Just how far that can be perverted is illustrated by the G20 incident in 2009. Turkey was spied on to find out its position on the reform of the global financial infrastructure after the financial crash in 2008-9!

In the case of South Africa, British hacking of their foreign ministry computer networks was apparently targeted at discovering briefings given to ministers for G20 meetings. That has nothing to do with the economic well-being of the UK. The motive is obviously to give UK negotiators an edge denied to their counterparts. Similar techniques were used in much more unsavoury surroundings to try to turn swing States in the UN Security Council deliberating Resolution 1441 before the Iraq war in 2002-3.

What emerges from these incidents is that State surveillance by US and UK, as well as by Russia and China, is totally out of control. The spooks are a law unto themselves. The reason that they were so desperate to get the late ill-lamented Communications Bill on to the statute book was that it would have have given them retrospective cover for aggressive surveillance directed against UK citizens which has been in full swing for some considerable time.

When this was blocked, they even resorted to an arcane EU edict which they hoped could be manipulated to provide the legitimacy for them to operate free from interference. They are supposed to be monitored by the parliamentary Intelligence Services Committee (ISC), but of course they are only told what MI5, etc. are willing to tell them.

There is a perfect storm brewing. After the disgracing of the banks, MPs, media, and police, the so-called security services are also now revealed to be self-serving and unaccountable.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

I understand that it was Ed Miliband who put my name forward, and I believe it shows that he appreciates hearing members’ views even when he disagrees with them. I will continue to pass on feedback from the frontline, both positive and critical – there’s a national policy forum next weekend 22/23 June, and an NEC meeting on Tuesday 16 July. If there’s anything you’d like me to raise, just email me.

After thinking and talking it through, I decided to accept. With all the scandals and stings, it’s important that political activism is valued as an honourable part of collective life. The tiny minority of ex-ministers who sell themselves to the highest bidder and use party position as a passport to personal wealth let us all down. Most members put in huge amounts of their own time and money out of loyalty and commitment, and many councillors, MPs and party staff work way beyond the hours for which they are paid.  They air their differences in private and not on the Today programme. All deserve praise and recognition.  Without them I would not have been able to continue as a national representative, nor would I have wished to.

Finally I’d like to congratulate Tony Robinson on his award. As well as Baldrick and Time Team, he was an elected member of the NEC from 2000 to 2004, and he became a good comrade. He put a lot of work into the party away from the media spotlight, and his views were also influenced profoundly by talking and listening to members.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

While Gove has rampaged through the education system, Labour has criticised details but has been without a substantial alternative. There have been valid criticisms of (1) control of schools from Whitehall, (2) the over-prescriptive national curriculum, (3) founding free schools where extra places are not required, (4) bullying schools into becoming academies (4) the abolition of the education maintenance allowance (5) the breaking of teachers’ national pay and conditions (though this is said sotto voce), (6) the use of unqualified staff, (7) the reversion to written exams only assessment; (8) admissions procedures that reinforce inequality.

These criticisms do not amount to an alternative vision. The three-year period of the Coalition’s educational reforms has felt like being on a ship which has been taken over by a captain who rejects modern navigational techniques and who is directing it onto the rocks while his critics take him to task for: the use of unqualified seamen; money wasted on decorating the captains’ quarters; bullying staff to join a company union; using out-dated instruments. All valid criticisms but none of them deal with the ship’s direction.

Stephen Twigg’s speech to the RSA on 17 June was billed as giving direction for Labour education policy in the run up to 2015. Firstly, announcing policy in this way makes a mockery of Labour’s policy processes: The ideas of this speech had never been put up for discussion within the Party. Announcing policy in this way shows a total disregard for the Party’s democratic structures. The forthcoming National Policy Forum should have something to say about this and should insist on its rights if wants to be taken seriously.

Did Stephen Twigg’s RSA speech offer the promise of a new direction for English education?

He said that he wants to make three radical reforms: (1) more school freedom to promote higher standards; (2) devolution from Whitehall to local communities; (3) increased collaboration between schools. These reforms are said to be guided by “evidence not dogma”.

The key idea in the proposed reforms is to give all schools the freedoms of academies. Further, the aim is to encourage the formation of schools founded by parents and schools founded by teachers. Each school would be able to alter the length of school days, and the school and to order its own services. Would they also have the freedom to vary teachers pay and conditions? We are not told. (There are Labour murmurings on this but nothing clear.) Secondly, we are promised a revision of admissions procedures to prevent covert selection and a local authority oversight of standards in some unspecified way. Local authorities would be able to create new maintained schools but, of course those schools would operate as independent institutions.

When politicians speak of “freedom” it is appropriate to ask “freedom for whom?”. In this case the intended answer is ‘freedom for parents, for teachers’ and for schools’ and it is one that Stephen Twigg is proud to announce. This may appeal at first but a little reflection will should soon remind one that this is exactly the same language as that used by Michael Gove. So what is common and what is different?

What is different is the rolling back from some of the most ludicrous aspects of Gove’s policies. It is clearly not tenable to run all schools from Whitehall. A much discussed third tier between government and schools is required (although interestingly there is no explicit mention of this in the speech). Gove’s traditionalism on exams and the curriculum will not withstand scrutiny and will not produce the promised results.

On these points Stephen Twigg is right. But what is the basis for his approach? Gove has a theory and it is that of neo-liberalism: societal improvement through the pursuit of individual goals in a market context. Parents are required to play the role of consumers looking for the best product for their children rather than of citizens looking for the best social framework for education. Finnish education is much praised but without telling us that the Finns clearly and explicitly rejected this model.

Steven Twigg says the system should be determined by parental choice and schools acting as independent units by, for example choosing their own service providers. Again, this sounds good at first, until one realises that it is destructive of the idea of socially provided services and of a societal vision and purpose for schools.

It is based on the idea that  markets knows best. This is not evidence. It is dogma. This speech does not change change direction from that set by neo-liberal ideas. Anyone doubting this should read it in full themselves. This is not the way forward for Labour. These reforms would not lead to a fair and high-performing education system.

Image credit: pressmaster / 123RF Stock Photo

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

• to get UK-controlled tax havens to sign up to a OECD agreement on providing tax information,
• to establish a worldwide standard on automatic tax information transfer,
• to get G8 countries to reveal the identity of shell companies, and
• to help developing countries get their rightful entitlement to tax

All perfectly desirable objectives, but fraught with caveats.

The OECD action plan to put a stop to corporation tax loopholes has not yet been published so it is not at present clear how comprehensive or penetrating its strictures will be, and the final outcome after being presented to G20 finance ministers next month is expected to take another whole 2 years.

Even if the 10 UK Crown Dependincies and Overseas Territories (i.e. tax havens) sign up to their t.i.e.s (tax information agreements), will they be published so that NGOs can monitor their implementation, and how will they be enforced? Revelation of the real beneficial ownership of trusts, foundations and shell companies in tax havens would certainly be a major advance – not least when the latest expert estimate of the wealth secreted away in tax havens amounts to no leass than £21 trillions! – but again how will it be enforced and what are the sanctions to secure compliance? And will the G8 ensure the developing countries get all their tax dues when most of the banks and big businesses currently cheating them of their tax are Western-controlled?

Without looking a gift horse in the mouth, there are good reasons for doubting both the sincerity and effectiveness of the present proposals. The Tory party gets half or more of its funds from the finance sector (banks, hedge funds, finance houses of the big multinationals), so it seems unlikely the Tories will bite very hard the hand that feeds them.

If they were really earnest in ending corporate tax avoidance, they would simply threaten to close down any of the 10 UK tax havens that didn’t fully comply. And if they were really serious about stopping tax avoidance, they would back not a very narrowly based General Anti-Abuse Rule, but a much more broadly based General Anti-Tax Avoidance Principle bill.

That’s why, having won 19th place (out of 20) in the ballot for Private Members Bills, I’m putting forward a UK Corporate Transparency Bill which will require greater disclosure from large companies, real enforcement of beneficial ownership requirements, a duty on banks to report to HMRC those large companies that hold accounts with them (so that tax evasion cannot happen), and a requirement on the richest 1% of individuals (those earning more than £150,000 a year) and the top 250 companies to publish their annual tax returns.

One irony – if that’s the word – is that I actually drew 2nd place in the ballot, but one of the Deputy Speakers arbitrarily decided to reverse the order! So instead of being high up in the top 7 with a good chance of getting a bill passed on to the statute book, nos. 13-20 were unceremoniously dumped at the end of the queue with no chance at all!

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

Balls said the Conservatives were putting “politics before economics” by trying to privatise the bank before it has been fully returned to health. The union, on the other hand, believes “RBS should become the ‘dynamo’ to drive the UK out of the economic doldrums through lending and support to businesses and communities”.

Banks have consistently failed to lend to support small businesses despite government instructions to do so, Unite argues. Initiatives such as ‘Project Merlin‘ and the ‘Funding for Lending Scheme‘ have both failed to provide adequate access to finance (see notes to editors), with recent Bank of England figures showing that net lending by state backed Lloyds and RBS actually fell by £2.6 billion in the two most recent quarters.

Unite is urging the government to put the national interest before short-term, political opportunities and create a nationalised bank committed to fulfilling the needs of society and the real economy. This would include the creation of a properly resourced ‘British investment bank’ to provide finance for infrastructure investment and to small businesses.

All of the G8 countries, except the UK  have some sort of state backed lender for small and medium size enterprises (see notes to editors):

• Canada – Business Development Bank of Canada
• France – Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC)
• Germany – Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW)
• Italy – Cassa Depositi e Pretiti (CDP)
• Japan – Japan Finance Corporation Small and Medium Enterprise Unit
• Russia – Russian Bank for Small and Medium Enterprises Support
• USA – Small Business Administration (SBA)

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said:

It is wrong for the government to push only for a RBS sell-off when the banking sector is clearly not fit for purpose in its present form.

The bank is not lending to those who need it including businesses and individual customers. The banking sector is still addicted to dishing out enormous rewards to an elite few, and has yet to offer diverse, local forms of banking.

RBS should become the dynamo which helps drive the UK out of the economic doldrums through lending and support to businesses and communities. This would repay British taxpayers by building a British investment bank. Powerhouse nations like Germany use their banks to promote jobs and growth for future generations.

So instead of looking at the bottom line, or pocketing some cash ahead of a general election, we urge the government to have the bravery to think differently.  Create a bank that works in the national interest, including a ‘British investment bank’ to provide finance for infrastructure investment and to businesses.

Going back to business as usual would be a lost opportunity on a colossal scale. Instead the government could make history and reshape banking to support the real economy.”

The union points out that a state-owned bank could

1. Increase lending to viable businesses
2. Lend to local councils to fund a mass council house building programme
3. Lend funds for a significant investment in green infrastructure such as rail and green energy
4. Support UK staff at the bank with living wages.
5. Stop the payment of irresponsible bonuses and disproportionate pay awards to those engaged in ‘casino banking’
6. Lend to individuals to offer them an alternative form of credit to the legal loan sharks (pay day lending) who provide emergency cash, but at extortionate rates.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

A recent judicial ruling declared the Duchy of Cornwall, one of Britain’s largest landowners, to be a “public body” potentially liable to freedom of information rules. Furthermore, the Duchy is subject to the financial scrutiny of Government whips and any financial transaction worth more than £500,000 by the Prince (whose legal staus is inseperable from that of the Duchy) must be approved by the Treasury.

However, according to a Duchy of Cornwall spokeswoman:

The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate, not a public body and is not funded by the taxpayer. The Prince of Wales chooses to use his private money from the estate to pay for his public duties, as well as those of the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry.

He also chooses to pay income tax on the income generated by The Duchy. The Duke of Cornwall manages the estate for present and future Dukes, and for the wider benefit of tenants, communities and the environment.”

Whilst we may wish to defer campaigning for an end to the feudal institution of the monarchy, there is no reason, for as long as it does exist, not to insist that the monarchy in all its aspects is publicly accountable. We are citizens, after all, not subjects.

That means we should insist both on accountability, including the right of access to information, and full liability to all forms of taxation. It is not reasonable that any public servant, royal or otherwise, should “choose” to pay some taxes but not others. And I suspect that quite a number of the 80% who wish to retain the monarchy would agree.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

If you’re yet to see it, the piece is very uncomfortable. Readers who’ve experienced and survived domestic violence might want to give it a miss, so keep that in mind before you click this link. But it’s fair to say the photographs of Charles Saatchi gripping the throat of Nigella Lawson, pushing at her nose and reducing her to tears leave little to interpretation. No amount of context can spin this as anything other than an assault.

While some might be tempted to see the splash as a good thing, I don’t think theSunday People have done Nigella nor anyone else a service. While anyone with a progressive bone in their body would welcome the raising of the profile of domestic violence, in this case and for whatever reason, Ms Lawson has hitherto kept it a private matter.

Until she and her husband were papped, that is. 

What Nigella must have felt while she endured the public assault must be compounded and magnified by the coverage. She now faces the prospect of everywhere being tagged a victim and, should she decide to refrain from commenting, or not leave Saatchi; Nigella runs the risk of being seen to be undeserving of support, sympathy and solidarity. In the delightful double standards of our culture, it’s down to the woman to leave her abusive male partner – not the latter’s responsibility to reflect on and address his violent conduct. Even worse, it’s her behaviour that is now subject to scrutiny. For she will be persistently dogged by will she/won’t she separation tittle-tattle and speculation. Far from helping Nigella, the Sunday People have put her under the kind of spotlight she neither sought nor asked for. Any agency she had has been stripped out as they’ve boxed her into a corner in which her every move will be scrutinised.

I’m no expert on this sort of thing, but surely this isn’t the position you’d want to put anyone who suffers domestic violence in.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

2. Progress: a political embarrassment – Taste the difference! Frances Docx and Conrad Landin chart the ‘progress’ of the Sainsbury-backed Blairite pressure group from its glory days to its current toxicity and self-parody.

3. Anne Marie Waters – the worst possible PPC for Brighton Pavillion – Andy Newman writes about the worrying links of one of Labour’s latest parliamentary hopefuls.

4. Did the two Eds last week expose Labour’s policy process as a sham? – never mind the disgrace of capitulating to Tory economic policy, says Jon Lansman, where was the party’s policy forum in the taking of this decision?

5. Labour can see the light, so why won’t it act? – Michael Meacher writes about the absurdity of the front-bench quest for Tory-defined ‘economic credibility’ when Ed Balls professes to recognise the fallacy of neoliberal thinking.

6. The People’s Assembly against Austerity: a programme for action – read the proposed policy and action points to be put before the London gathering next weekend.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

The unipolar power of the US as the world’s hegemon plus the lack of technological breakthroughs with worldwide industrial application have left a growing vacuum of demand. Demand, that is, sufficient to power a global capitalism that depends on it. That comparative vacuum which was met by the enormous explosion of debt in the 1990-2000s, and which led directly to the global financial crash of 2008-9, is once again being met by the huge expansion of debt which cannot conceivably be sustained long-term.

The one relatively bright spot last time round was China. Its growth rate fell, but was still strong by Western economy standards. Now however China is joining other nations propelled by debt-fuelled growth. Total bank and other-financial lending in China hit almost 200% of GDP in 2012, well on the way to doubling since the 125% level in 2008. Moreover the debt is growing twice as fast as the economy. That kind of debt-laden growth can survive for some time, but sooner rather than later will hit the buffers because the level of debt cannot be paid down.

Next, Europe. Lombard Research has found that EU banks are more or less insolvent and only survive because of Draghi’s famous commitment to do ‘whateve it takes’ to preserve the euro. That has meant providing unlimited liquidity to the EU banks. This again is not a long-term tenable position because the EU banks’ liabilities exposure is 350% of EU GDP (compared, say, to only 80% for US banks in relation to US GDP). Moreover the eurozone banks are not only highly leveraged, but are still expanding their balance sheets and making little effort to recapitalise.

Then there is what the Director of Financial Stability at the Bank of England has termed “the biggest bond bubble in history”. This is the flip-side of the government pumping £375bn of electronic money (QE) into the UK economy over the last 4 years. If that colossal bubble were to deflate in a rapid or disorderly fashion – signs of which were apparent when Bernanke at the US Federal Reserve indicated he might begin to reduce the QE stimulus – the consequences would be catastrophic. What makes these risks even worse is the further bubble created by Osborne’s insane help-to-buy mortgage guarantee scheme.

What is needed, but no political leader will talk about, is not the further magnification of already gigantic financial bubbles, but rather the release of the suppressed demand caused by decades of squeezing wages and the ideological taboo at the centre of neoliberal capitalism against any use of Keynesian demand stimulus.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites