I would’ve liked to have been a wee fly on the wall when Alex Neil defended Scottish Government anti-poverty policies in front of the Church of Scotland’s Commission on the Purposes of Economic Activity this week.
I would’ve been intrigued to watch as the Cabinet Minister for Capital Investment put forward policies like the home building programme as evidence of job creation and poverty reduction. Firstly, because The Scotsman can’t seem to decide whether the commissioners found Neil’s responses “disappointing†or “impressive†(anyone who can untangle this journalistic model of clarity get back to me in the comments).
But my curiosity is mainly piqued because there’s scant opportunity at present within Holyrood to see the Scottish Government really defend their policies against a well-thought, robust critique.
Scottish Labour is still revolving around the broken tactic of opposition for opposition’s sake, and it is neither robust nor well thought-out. A brief scan through the last week’s press releases from Holyrood’s official opposition indicates that the SNP are responsible for just about every economic ill north of the border.
Assuming The Scotsman’s report on the Minister’s talks with the Church of Scotland Commission isn’t entirely garbled, Neil’s claim that Scotland doesn’t have enough powers to tackle poverty and unemployment does seem to stand up, ironically since nothing seems to be standing up against the Tories’ bulldozing of any of the fragile edifices of social justice this country previously had.
The Church of Scotland’s Commission on Economics is one of many endeavors by civic Scotland aiming to understand the root causes of poverty in Scotland and to propose workable, effective solutions. Led by Professor Charles Munn OBE, the Commission will report in February 2012 on fundamental ethical questions underlying economic activity, on which the Kirk can influence change.
The two-year Poverty Truth Commission reported in April 2011, with an impressive legacy for implementation, even when considering just the Scottish Government: persuading civil servants to now engage with and involve those with direct experience of poverty in policy development; to work together with kinship carers to address the needs of children.
Quoted in the report, Jim Wallace, the former Deputy First Minister, said: “Through the Commission I have become convinced that we are more likely to identify solutions to some deep-seated problems if politicians and officials involve those who experience the reality of poverty in their daily lives. That is the challenge to policy makers and those who deliver public services at every level of government.â€
I don’t think the challenge of tackling the abhorrent scale of poverty in Scotland is misunderstood or underestimated by the Scottish Government. I don’t think Neil runs to the adage of ‘more powers’ for the hell of it – I think they’re needed, and I think Scotland’s poverty proves why. But I think even without a debate on what powers and when, it’s obvious the Coalition Government in Westminster and their spending plans – a “reckless gamble on people’s lives†– severely restrict what Scotland can do to alleviate the suffering of too many people in our country.
I am glad Scottish Government, and Ministers like Neil, have to discuss and defend policies in front of movements by Scottish civic society. Whether it’s the Kirk’s Economics Commission, the Poverty Truth Commission or the Scottish TUC’s Better Way campaign, the need for people to reveal the pain of the recession and demand change is crucial. It’s also heartening in Scotland that we have an established church firmly on the side of the 99%, unlike elsewhere.
Every government needs to be held to account, because it is in the dialectic of proposing and defending policy that better decisions are made. Civic Scotland does this extremely well, and Scottish Government should, and mostly does, listen.
But if the only source of this critique is civic Scotland, it indicates it’s time Scotland’s political opposition realign themselves. You can’t claim to be a movement for social justice but keep resorting to student union-esque baiting by press release of bad news for the SNP. After all, the rest of Scotland is getting involved to find ways to work with, thoughtfully debate with, and constructively disagree with the Scottish Government and its work to tackle the causes of poverty. Why not those elected to hold them to account?
Pingback: Wings over Scotland | Filling the opposition vacuum
#1 by James on November 11, 2011 - 1:46 pm
Much as I favour control over all the levers of governance coming to Scotland, there are actually loads of existing changes that could be made by SNP Ministers within devolved powers. As Steve demonstrated some days ago, the better off are the big winners from the Council Tax Freeze while the poorest are having their services cut. Vast sums are earmarked for vanity roads projects, not the buses and trains which serve the wider community.
What Labour should be doing is taking a left critique of Ministers’ existing policies. I also don’t understand why failure to tackle poverty necessarily proves the case for more powers rather than demonstrating an inability to use existing ones correctly. It’s both, for my money (plus the consequences of international financial problems, deregulation etc).
#2 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 2:56 pm
“Vast sums are earmarked for vanity roads projects, not the buses and trains which serve the wider community. ”
That’s a rather disingenuous point. What road project has cost more than the trams?
#3 by James on November 11, 2011 - 4:44 pm
You don’t have to look very hard to find the most absurd example.
#4 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 4:57 pm
That’s rather cheating in the definition of a “roads” project as opposed to a public transport one. Buses and trains have to cross the Forth too – if the rail bridge was falling down would you be complaining about building a new one being a “vanity project” or applauding the commitment to the rail network?
#5 by Aidan on November 11, 2011 - 6:36 pm
there’s no need to dual the A9 to run buses up it.
#6 by Bill Pickford on November 11, 2011 - 7:44 pm
No, but there is a need to dual it to cut down on the carnage.
#7 by Chris McCracken on November 12, 2011 - 9:29 pm
No there’s not. It’s just bad driving. I see it at every roundabout I encounter – people not bothering to look right.
#8 by R.G. Bargie on November 12, 2011 - 12:02 am
Clearly you’ve never been stuck behind one on it in June.
#9 by AliMiller on November 12, 2011 - 1:57 pm
Do you realise how many people die on that road? How many people are injured? And aside from the massive human cost, the financial cost of providing the emergency services to deal with accidents, and the economic cost of delays because of accidents/conjestion?
It is also the route industry uses/will use to access the North of Scotland for renewables. Cutting the time/improving time reliability it takes lorries to get up there is important.
A really cheap comment from you Aidan.
#10 by Doug Daniel on November 11, 2011 - 3:30 pm
Lots of luck running a bus service without roads, James.
Which road projects do you consider to be “vanity” projects?
#11 by James on November 11, 2011 - 4:43 pm
We’ve spent hours on this on this very blog. You’re surely not telling me the additional Forth Bridge is essential for buses?
#12 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 5:03 pm
If it isn’t built, heavy vehicles like buses will end up being banned from the old bridge in a bit to prolong its life. That would be a public-transport catastrophe.
Show us a *convincing* argument that the existing bridge can be economically repaired to cope with all traffic and you’ve got the beginnings of a debate.
#13 by Doug Daniel on November 13, 2011 - 4:09 am
Well, when people talk about “roads projects”, I assume they’re talking about roads on land, rather than road bridges. Anyway, what other roads projects are you referring to on top of that? You used plurals. The AWPR in Aberdeen? Dualling of the A9, the most dangerous road in the country? Maybe thinking back to the M80 and M74 expansion projects?
#14 by cynicalHighlander on November 11, 2011 - 9:42 pm
the poorest are having their services cut.
Not to this level thankfully Poverty suicide couple had warned of hopeless situation
#15 by Louise on November 14, 2011 - 3:29 pm
I’m not a politician and as a non car-owner am hugely in favour of better public transport, but my job recently took me way out beyond the central belt listening to people about the problems in their areas and what they felt was needed for it to be viable to live and work there. I was struck by how different what I heard was to my own orthodoxy. Again and again people came up with the need for improved roads and detailed the harm to their communities from inadequate road links. (and one of the issues raised was how this damages quality local food production which provides employment and saves things being shipped in at a vast price to the environment) Admittedly this is anecdotal, but it was an eye opener for me. I think the Greens may be way out of touch on this (due I’m sure to the best possible motives, I don’t doubt that). But it can start to sound a bit like a ‘Let them eat cake’ attitude from people who can afford not to worry about the viability of road links for making their living. I wonder if you’ve tried asking people in the areas affected about what roads they think are truly necessary? Or is it an area where people are to be ‘telt’ what’s good for them? That tends not to go down well with people at the ballot box.
#16 by An Duine Gruamach on November 11, 2011 - 2:14 pm
A good piece, and I agree with the substance of it. The tradition of civil society providing a critique of government policies is one of we should be proud, and do what we can to uphold.
I also think that the opposition are doing a poor job of doing this themselves. Much as the Kirk (of which I am a member) the Unions and public intellectuals play a vital role in our democracy, so should the opposition, and their failure to do so as they’ve been guddling about for the last six months does them or us no good at all. We’re in uncharted waters with a majority government, but we should expect better from the opposition parties in dealing with this for the betterment of legislation and governance. It’s not good enough for them to shrug their shoulders and say “Well, why make a meaningful contribution when the SNP can just vote it down anyway” and instead just ramp up the rhetoric which is more appropriate for an election campaign than parliamentary business.
It’s not the SNP’s fault that they won so big in May, and all the talk of bulldozers and dictatorships reveals a complete lack of understanding that there are other ways of “doing” opposition of simply voting the opposite direction of the government. It doesn’t work if the government can outvote you, so they really need to be more imaginative. Perhaps listening to how the Greens (and, in 1999-2007) the SSP managed to make a difference would do them good. Different situations call for different tactics, and I don’t think that throwing their collective hands up in despair and hope for a better hand in 2016 will do the country much good at all.
Minor point – the Kirk hasn’t been established since 1921 😉
#17 by Kirsty on November 11, 2011 - 6:00 pm
Small e established, as in part of the establishment, honest! I’m no authority on the official, proper links between Kirk and state, I just like that they’re part of society!
#18 by Indy on November 11, 2011 - 2:16 pm
This may seem like a complete red herring in this debate but I think one of the things I would like to see all the political parties in Scotland get together to oppose – and to strongly oppose – is the proposal to introduce individual electoral registration.
Why do I think that matters in the context of the debate about poverty? I think it matters because people living in poverty are already the most politically marginalised group and individual electoral registration would only exacerbate that.
For political parties, campaigning is based on identifying your support and getting them out to vote on the day. There is a tendency for all of us to focus on people who we know are going to vote – that’s why we all buy the marked up register and we don’t target persistent non-voters, a high number of whom are people living in deprived areas. I don’t think there is anything deliberate about this, it’s just something that has happened over time but it can create a vicious circle where politicians focus on people who vote and people who don’t vote feel ignored. We all need to think about how to break this circle.
So the current situation is bad enough but if we bring in individual electoral registration I seriously think there is a danger that whole communities could effectively become disenfranchised. So we really have to try and stop that happening.
Also I would say that in my opinion tackling poverty is not just about economic factors and how governments slice up the pie, it’s about poverty of expectations as well and it’s just not possible to change the circumstances that create that, unless the people who are in that situation are the ones setting the agenda. They know what would make a difference to their lives better than anyone else so they need to take the lead. So another thing we need to do is make sure that the empowering communities agenda is really pushed.
I actually hate that phrase empowering communities because it sounds like typical managerial-ese but it’s probably one the most effective way for government to approach poverty. I know that the SG and COSLA have been looking at ways to improve that but I feel this needs to be pushed a lot higher up the national agenda. Apart from anything else it’s going to be essential at a time when resources are diminishing. We shouldn’t be having spending decisions affecting communities only being taken by people who go home to live somewhere else at the end of the working day. It really needs to be the people living there who decide what is most needed and what can be cut.
And how that ties into the issue of voter registration is that we need to be very aware of the dangers of taking a kind of charitable approach to poverty, which actually disempowers people by making them objects of pity and do-gooding. I’m not knocking the do-gooders but I am sure people know what I mean. If poor people voted in the same numbers as pensioners or middle class people it would really make a difference. They would be able to wield quite significant electoral power if only they realised it. Whereas, if even fewer people use their vote, their voice will be further diminished and they will become even more reliant on people advocating on their behalf who don’t actually live their life and don’t have the same stake in achieving change.
#19 by Jenny on November 11, 2011 - 9:03 pm
Interesting article. Great to see an item on poverty, an issue which there is so little commentary about, considering how much of a problem it is in Scottish society. I live in a part of Edinburgh that has been ‘up and coming’ for years but still has a hell of a way to come, and day and daily I see folk who I feel have been let down by successive governments – who just plain don’t have enough money and who are largely unheard. It troubles me that there is so much debate about energy policy, or crime and sentencing, or (pick your issue really) – and so little about poverty. (And inequality, a wider but closely related issue).
This should be natural Labour territory. This should be something Labour members care more about than the constitution. Yet in the last election campaign, I don’t think I heard anyone involved in the Labour campaign talk about poverty. As someone who very recently quit the Labour Party after 17 years of membership I also completely agree with your analysis that the party is obsessed with ‘opposition for opposition’s sake’. The steady stream of ‘SNP policies kill kittens’ style press releases is profoundly depressing, and as you point out, means there is not nearly enough proper and worthwhile questioning of real policy impacts. (And, when there is a genuine point to be made, it is lost or dismissed as just Labour having a pop, since that’s all we’ve done for years and years. Oops – I said ‘we’ again – need to get out of that habit. )
PS – Great to see a new voice on this blog and gender balance too, hurrah!
#20 by Barbarian on November 11, 2011 - 10:37 pm
Poverty is not really being addressed by anyone. And the trams and bridge are all on the East Coast, which only really of benefit to Edinburgh. Even then, how do trams deal with poverty in Edinburgh? Something nice and shiny to look at when begging on the streets for hours.
I think the longer the wait for the referendum, the longer people will be sitting waiting for real change. If Mr and Mrs Poverty see no change after three years, where is the incentive to vote, let alone for independence?
Any party which sits down and does something to deal with poverty could be onto a winner. But it ain’t happening, nor do I expect it to either.
#21 by An Duine Gruamach on November 12, 2011 - 4:42 pm
I can assure you, the trams have not been a benefit to the people of Edinburgh.
#22 by M G on November 12, 2011 - 5:08 pm
Barbarian sweeping words but where would you suggest we start ? As has already been pointed out elsewhere, the very people living in poverty are possibly the ‘most’ disenfranchised and the least likely to vote.Perhaps in a nothing to lose kind of way’ they’ may decide having been used as ‘cliche’ for so long they might just welcome Independence as the status quo obviously has not worked.
Unfortunately, having been reduced to soundbites,the ‘vulnerable’,the people living in poverty’ and oh yes ‘those hard working families’ may require more than being trotted out by any political opportunist on the TV.
Poverty is not just about finance though is it? Its about being ‘included’ being part of something ,being allowed to believe that you can aim beyond your ‘boundary ?’ The absolute sheer drudgery of never having the opportunity to ‘live’ has a huge impact on humans.
The trams have been a shambles -agreed, but if all infrastructure is cancelled well guess where the blame would eventually filter down to ? Oh yes that would be the Daily Mails favourite folk.
The thing is ,walk around any town and try and identify ‘those ‘living in poverty,is it someone out of work or is it someone in work but whose income does not cover their outgoings-it is never as straight forward as it seems.
There are people out there tackling poverty but perhaps it needs more joined up thinking. The trouble is while everyone recognises the problem ,how many of us sit behind our ‘laptops’ discussing matters ,when we could be out there doing our bit ?
#23 by Steve on November 13, 2011 - 10:43 pm
Hi Kirsty, good to see someone putting poverty on the agenda. I agree that we should use the powers we have to alleviate poverty, but the hope that we could do something more to tackle it is also one of my reasons for supporting an independent Scotland.
And thanks to James for all the mentions of my guest piece! For me the CT freeze is an example of the Scottish Government using its powers to move us in exactly the wrong direction unfortunately.