Honeyball’s Weekly Round-Up

Labour Party

The Tory- led coalition has helped the rich to get richer and it is the poor who’ve paid for it, according to a new study. The report published last week was produced jointly by Essex University and the London School of Economics.

The study found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne-who famously said “we’re all in this together”-has been engaged in a significant transfer of income form the least well off half of the population to the ore affluent in the past four years.

The government had always insisted that the burden of austerity should be shared fairly and equally, but the research found startling evidence indicating that the poorest have been hit hardest. In many ways it’s not surprising of course. But this independent study provides some startling evidence to support, what has been, theory.

The researchers revealed, among other things, that with the exception of the top 5% of the country who lost a total of 1% of their potential income, the more well off half of the country has gained financially from benefit and income tax changes, seeing increases of between 1.2% and 2% in their disposable income.

The top 1% income earners have seen net gains following changes introduced by the coalition government which include a cut in the top rate of income tax.

Meanwhile, lone parents lost much more through cuts to benefits and tax credits while being faced with higher income tax allowances. Also a quarter of those on the lowest pay have shouldered a particularly heavy burden losing more than 5% of what would have been their income without the coalition’s reforms, the report found.

Labour is right to assert that neither the pain of austerity nor the rewards of the economic recovery have been equitably shared. Indeed, the Guardian reported on Saturday that Ed Miliband told a meeting of party members in the West Midlands: “This country is too unequal and we need to change it.”

The Trussel Trust, which runs emergency food banks in the UK predicts an increase in attendance over the next few months. Its chairman, Chris Mould, told the Observer: “It is not true to say that we have all been in this together. It is time we were honest about that and made a decision about whether we are happy with that.”

While Matthew Reed, chief executive of the Children’s Society, responded to the report by stating: “This important analysis offers further evidence that children in low-income families are among the groups losing the most as a result of cuts to benefits and tax credits.”

Lord Sugar, has urged David Cameron to offer more support to the growing numbers of self-employed workers after official figures revealed their pay has plummeted under the Tory- led coalition government.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies revealed self-employed incomes have fallen 14% since 2010 when Cameron came eto office.
Meanwhile a separate analysis from the Office for National Statistics revealed the average real income of the self-employed fell by 9%, from £24,000 to £22,000 a year.

Lord Sugar called for the Prime Minister to: “Clear the path for hard-working self-employed people to concentrate on what they do best”.

The actress Imelda Staunton has made an interesting observation. She said that while older women are celebrated in this country in film and television at least, pressure is applied in the form of impossible images which younger women are expected to uphold which she described as “wrong’ and “revolting”.

She was speaking at a Telegraph Wonder Women event.

The LSE considers going private

Labour Party

The London School of Economics has presented plans about going private to its governing body in the wake the coalition’s cuts to higher education.  Apparently, along with Cambridge University, they feel there may comes a point after which it is simply not worth them staying in the state sector, even if they charge the proposed top rate of fee of ₤7,000 a year. 

The 40% cuts that the coalition is proposing for the higher education sector is going to disproportionately hit arts and humanities subjects, and LSE, being a world leader in social and political sciences, will feel the brunt more than most.

A letter signed by the chairman and director of the LSE, sent to Vince Cable regarding his statements on the Browne Report, strongly criticises his emphasis on subjects which provide specific skills, such as science and technology, over others.  The letter states that:

“No case is made in the report to suggest that the teaching of the social sciences, or indeed the humanities, are incapable of providing these skills or providing public benefit.  In fact, the social sciences provide students with many of the high-level and flexible skills desired by employers, including training in rigorous policy analysis, oral and written communication, and problem solving.”

As a history graduate myself, I find the idea that the coalition can have so little regard for subjects such as history, politics, social science and philosophy, deeply troubling, especially since many of members of the government have degrees in just these subjects.  The LSE does not offer any science or technology based courses, but is an institution of world renown that attracts the highest quality of student from the UK and abroad.  They go there because they know that the skills they can learn will be invaluable.

Furthermore, as a Labour representative, I am acutely aware of the role that the London School of Economics and its founders Sydney and Beatrice Webb, played in the early years of my party’s history.  That an institution built on the principles of social democracy and equality is considering becoming a private institution is disturbing, to put it mildly. 

A spokesperson for the LSE made it clear that they had to consider all available options in the light of the spending review.  The coalition is running the risk of putting too much strain on the institutions that make Britain a world leader in higher education. It would certainly not be in the national interest to undermine the excellent standing in which our best universities are held. Britain stands to lose a lot by falling behind in higher education, both at national level where our own students would not have the option of the highest level of learning and internationally where Britain is at the very top of the tree.