Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Art for Art’s Sake

Sep 30

Posted by Guest Blog in Culture, Economy | 4 Comments

Today, Better Nation’s first guest blog, written by Mairi Sharratt. Mairi is a poet who blogs at www.alumpinthethroat.wordpress.com, and can be found on Twitter here.

I Value The Arts badgeTalks of cuts are the theme for the year, perhaps even the next few years, and everyone wants to know where the cuts are going to be made.

Notice how the political discussion has now completely moved away from the bankers’ responsibility and a Robin Hood Tax to how people will be paying.

So at the moment every organisation and charity is fighting to keep its funding, and it looks like, if predictions are correct, that we are going to see a widening of the already great chasm that is the gap between rich and poor. Not just in wealth but also in education and health outcomes too.

Out of all of the organisations that are fighting against cuts, movements to save arts funding is one of the ones I have most problems with. As a declaration of interests I am moderately successful as a poet, with a few publications and anthologies under my belt. I know many writers and creative people who have benefited from funding and if I was to be offered funding so I could write full time, I would take it.

However, my problem is not with the funding of the arts themselves, but the arguments put forward to defend them. For a long time any argument defending cuts in arts was based on the facts that arts “enrich” us. This is always a difficult argument, as how we consume culture and what culture we chose to consume is mixed up with our identity. Therefore if someone sees the arts as purely highbrow and views themselves as a low brow type of person they will not be persuaded by this argument – which could be seen as a failure of the arts to define themselves as all-encompassing.

Bring out recent research, however, that shows how much the arts add to the economy, and you have a much stronger way to persuade those who don’t believe in their inherent value. However, I am left worried by this new strand of defence. Mainly because I firstly see nothing wrong with the fact that not everyone likes or appreciates your work (did I mention I’m a poet?) and secondly, I believe that it could fundamentally weaken the arts in the long run.

We are told that it is proved that the arts now add to the economy, and that is one of the reasons why funding should continue. Where does this leave arts organisation that don’t add to the economy? There are a lot out there doing great work, such as ArtLink who work with people who experience disadvantage and disability, Art in Hospitals and other organisations who assist artists and writers to work with inmates in prisons. I imagine it is pretty hard to make an economic argument for these organisations, although you can definitely make a social and wellbeing one.

If the economic impact argument is accepted and there are further rounds of cuts, how will arts organisations who have no discernable economic impact defend themselves? They are essentially left weaker than their more profitable cousins. Another fact that backs up the economic arguments for the arts is that “eight out of ten of the top visitor attractions in the UK are museums”. That’s great, but are those eight museums all concentrated in one or two areas of the country? Are they all exhibiting work and buying it on an ongoing basis from contemporary British artists, photographers, sculptors, writers and others? I think the answer is probably no.

My fear is that in making a virtue of the economic impact of the arts we leave the part of the arts that cannot demonstrate direct economic benefits weakened and vulnerable, and that is likely to be the ones that have real social benefit for those who access them and for artists who are at important points in their development. Organisations such as Save the Arts are of course still arguing that the arts fundamentally enrich our lives, however I worry that if the discourse on the usefulness of the arts starts to focus on its economic value, and that this is accepted by the majority of people as the arts’ primary raison d’être, then we come one step closer to being a society that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Spending tomorrow’s money today

Sep 29

Posted by Jeff in Economy | 13 Comments

What is the difference between Private Finance Initiative, Scottish Futures Trust and and Tax Increment Financing?

At the time of writing, I don’t know, but whichever political party in Scotland can answer the above question the clearest and most persuasively may well end up reaping considerable rewards at the next Holyrood elections.

At a high level (or a helicopter view if you’ll forgive the business lingo), the differences are as follows:

Private Finance Initiative – A procurement method which secures private funding for public institutions in return for part-privatisation. PFI is also an operational framework which transfers responsibility, but not accountability, for the delivery of public services to private companies.

Scottish Futures Trust – Tricky one this, best to take it from the horse’s mouth. The Scottish Futures Trust is the independent company responsible for improving value for money in public infrastructure investment projects such as schools, transport, health and regeneration. The main functions of SFT are to improve the value for money of the billions of pounds spent each year by public sector bodies and finding new ways to raise affordable finance in today’s tight financial environment.

Tax Increment Financing – A new funding option for the UK, given the go-ahead by Nick Clegg and being used to fund Edinburgh’s Waterfront, including a cruise liner terminal. TIF is a method to use future gains in taxes to finance current improvements (which theoretically will create the conditions for those future gains). When a development or public project is carried out, there is often an increase in the value of surrounding real estate, and perhaps new investment.

So great news then; while thousands are losing their jobs, RBS continues to hang on a shoogly peg and the Capital’s finances are being brought to their knees by the troubled Tram project, Edinburgh can still afford a new bay for cruise liners by plucking new money out of thin air. Not too shabby hey?

So how does this work? Well, it’s simple really – Edinburgh is spending tomorrow’s money today. A finished, fully-functioning waterfront would create extra tax receipts so let’s take out a loan on those future cashflows in order to build the waterfront in the first place. I know what you’re thinking, it all sounds a little too circular, hollow and bit ‘sub-prime mortgage’, doesn’t it? In Dragon’s Den parlane it’s a bit like giving away the business in order to get a business.

Barry White, the SFT’s chief executive has said: “Tax Incremental Financing is an innovative way to fund growth from growth which supports jobs and aids economic recovery.” I’m sorry, is it just me or does the phrase ‘funding growth from (future) growth’ not send shivers down your spine? Funnily enough, this week marks the first week that banks have started reselling those subprime mortgages in the UK since the credit crunch. Investec is bundling up some ‘non standard mortgages’ and putting it out to the (still just about AAA) British market. Are we just reinflating the bubble again? Have we learned anything at all?

The approach by Edinburgh Council with TIF is also ‘non-standard’ and one can’t help but think that Council Leader Jenny Dawe is risking a mini credit crunch by trying to be a jammy dodger. Furthermore, it is surprising that a political party that swept to power on a wave of anti-PFI is now turning to a remarkably similar approach to financing as the next election draws nearer. John Swinney, according to the Telegraph article at least, appears to have given his backing.

I shouldn’t be too negative and sceptical, there may be a logical reason for this approach after all. The coalition in Westminster is cutting fast and deep, certainly faster and deeper than Labour, the Greens or the SNP would like it to. This leaves Scotland in a particularly difficult position as it cannot stimulate the economy in the way that the Scottish Government would like as it can only spend what George Osborne sends north via the Barnet Formula. With this clever Tax Increment Financing, Scottish local authorities (and even theoretically the Scottish Government itself) can circumvent Westminster’s largesse and raise money from the private sector itself in order to stimulate the economy directly, in contrast to the Con-Lib approach for the best way ahead.

It is risky but radical, keen but Keynsian, gallus and, most certainly, a gamble. After all, Homecoming Scotland could feasibly have been funded with TIF and, well, the future inflows never did materialise as forecast, did they?

And is it necessary? Scottish Futures Trust as a consultancy body for conventional funding methods is working. Slowly, admittedly, but it is working. We can’t push too hard too soon and build up liabilities for Scotland that may end up becoming black holes. We have too many such liabilities from the old PFI days.

At the end of the day, I always go for that old comparison with the family finances. And, well, if you are feeling the strain, if you are tightening the belt, if you are living hand to mouth, then it’s probably not a great idea to get the credit card out, effectively spending double in the short term, in the hope that vague, future income will ride to the rescue.

In spending tomorrow’s money today, Edinburgh is taking a massive gamble, too big a gamble for my money.

Trams, bridges and cruise liners = too much money being spent in too small an area at precisely the wrong time. It will end badly I’m afraid.

Serious benefits

Sep 28

Posted by Malc in Economy | 28 Comments

Since the election of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in May the political debate has centred around their determination to reduce the deficit – and to do so in the main by cutting what George Osbourne describes as “wasteful spending“. Of course, the collective left are having a field day, with multiple campaigns against the cuts though Labour (if you still recognise them as a party of the left) recognise the need for some cuts. I guess I’m somewhere in the middle (which means in this post I’m going to piss off both left and right and lose any friends I’ve made in the last few weeks).

The reason I’m writing this post is my reaction to this piece by Caron. Basically, she has reacted rather angrily to the way the Daily Mail has covered this story. Granted, it doesn’t really take much to get angry at a Daily Mail article, but I’m not as annoyed by it as Caron is. Indeed, I’m more annoyed at the subject of the article.

As background (and there may well be more to this story than has been made public – especially since it is a Daily Mail story!) the couple in question have recently had twins (born early September) which brings their family to six children. Neither parent works and they live in a small council house – and have “demanded” to use the Daily Mail’s terminology a larger (council) home. Caron argues – not entirely unjustifiably – that the Mail should be emphasising the need for better and more affordable housing rather than criticising them for not working and naming their children after celebrities. I’m not immune to this at all.

But I do think we need a little perspective as well – and this is where the “cuts” debate above comes into play. Having debated with Caron on the issue, its clear that she thinks if we don’t help the children in this situation we are actively punishing them for their parents’ choices. My argument was and is that there is a distinction to be made between actively providing support (and thereby helping the children) and withholding support (which would not help them but equally we wouldn’t actively be hurting them). Absolutely, it isn’t the kids fault their parents are irresponsible. But it also isn’t the taxpayers’ responsibility to play parent in their place. Obviously, its a tough situation, and I have sympathy with them. But they made choices to have 6 children knowing well they could not afford them.

Malc's Cat (cute picture so the left doesn't hate him)

As a young, recently-wed, (unfunded!) postgrad I well understand the pressure we’re under to try to buy a property. But there’s no way I could afford it at the moment. So I rent. And I have done for three years. And the flat is one bed and a boxroom – its not like I’m a rich brat living in a four-bed mansion here. And because I’m still a student, we cut back – we don’t do all the things we’d like to do, we buy only the shopping we need and cut out the luxuries. We did, however, get a cat. After a lot of considering whether we could afford it, eventually we decided we could. Granted, a cat is not as costly as a baby (or 6) but that’s not really the point. We realise our limits and have made decisions based on them. In short, I like to think we’ve been responsible.

Now, obviously my situation is different – and perhaps I’ve been given better opportunities than the parents (and definitely the children) in the case highlighted above.  I’m not immune to that argument.  All I’m saying is that 6 kids when you don’t have a job just isn’t responsible. And I’m just not convinced that the state should pick up the slack – I wouldn’t expect them to if it was me.

Maybe it is unfair to pick on this family (especially the way the Daily Mail has). But maybe its time for some tough love. Let’s support these people, but do it in a way that isn’t simply a hand-out for people who don’t have a job but still think they can support a family of six because the government will pay for them. Let’s help them make the right choices, be more responsible with their decision-making (and family planning!) and let’s not just give them state handouts when they want a bigger house.

For me, when you hear people moaning about folk scrounging off benefits when “I’m out working my fingers to the bone” this is why. It’s why people are apathetic about politics and disengaged with politicians. Parties continually go into elections with pledges to “get Britain working”, to get people off benefits and into jobs, and yet when it comes to it, the jobs just aren’t there.

I couldn’t agree more with what Simon Heffer says here: “welfare should be a safety net, and not a way of life.” In the meantime, let’s not vilify as “right-wing” those who have recognised this and are trying to change it.  Otherwise we’ll be forever stuck with a system which seems to suggest that if you want a bigger house just have six kids and the government will pay for it.

Could a Red-Green coalition work in the UK?

Sep 27

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Parties, Westminster | 18 Comments

The two elections that I have been interested in this year have each thrown up interesting results. The UK, a country famed for not doing coalition politics, has resulted in a surprisingly successful pairing between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Meanwhile Sweden, a country that is typically governed by a coalition of several parties, has for the first time in decades effectively ended up with a hung parliament.

This post combines factors and factions of both countries to consider one potential option for the left-of-centre in the UK – a Red-Green coalition, or a Progressive Alliance if you will.

The losing ‘half’ of Sweden in last week’s election was the Red-Green coalition but they have campaigned so steadfastly alongside each other that even the promise of Ministerial seats has not tempted the Greens into Government. In the UK coalition Government may well be here to stay so those currently making up the Opposition may have to find a more proactive approach to the new terrain that objecting from the sidelines strictly along party lines.

So, if a Red-Green coalition makes political sense in Sweden is there any credence to the argument that it makes political sense in the UK? If so, how would it work?

Well, assuming the AV referendum is either rejected by Westminster or ignored/rejected by the public, First Past the Post could see a dividing up of constituencies in a loose agreement between the Greens and Labour.

In return for (1) policy concessions, (2) Labour not fielding a candidate in Brighton Pavilion to safeguard Caroline Lucas and (3) perhaps not fielding candidates in Cambridge and other seats where Labour probably won’t win but the Greens are fighting to finish higher and higher, the Greens would agree to not field candidates in the vast majority of seats across the UK. The message would be that a vote for Labour is a de facto vote for the Greens and an upside would be that more targetted, intensive campaigns could be lodged in the Cambridges, the Oxfords, the Lewishams and the Norwich Souths.

A springboard to representation that helps keep the Conservatives out of power and helps speed up more Greens getting into Westminster.

Similar suggestions were raised before the May election this year with prominent environmentalists urging Greens to vote tactically, back the Lib Dems(!) or back Labour as the least worst option between the top two parties. A coalition is at least a more elegant solution to a last-gasp panic because with a week till voting it looks like the Tories are getting in.

Examples already exist and not just in Sweden. A Red-Green alliance ruled Germany from 1998 to 2005, the Socialist Left and Greens governed France from 1997 to 2002 and in Norway a Red-Green coalition has ruled since 2005, winning re-election in 2009. There are fewer examples in the UK with Leeds Council being the only example of a formal arrangement that I could find.

The benefit for Labour speaks for itself. In the last election, had the Green votes been added to the Labour vote, Gordon Brown would have taken eight seats off the Tories and one from the Lib Dems* (see bottom of post). That may not sound like much but there is every chance that a formal agreement would bring more jaded Greens out to vote and the green credentials that support from Caroline Lucas’ party would provide would mean large swathes of Lib Dem votes could well move to Labour at the next election, more so than is already on its way of course.

The combination of Green votes pushing Labour candidates over the line, a boost in turnout from environmentalists and Lib Dems switching sides could well prove decisive in what should prove to be a very close election in 2015.

No candidate in most constituencies may seem like a high price to pay from a Green perspective but Labour has more to offer and less to lose so the imbalance is unavoidable. The attraction of being able to directly shape Government policy must be appealing for Greens who for so long have been on the fringes of political debate and were one to suggest that such a coalition could never make a difference then it is worth noting that had UKIP votes been added to the Conservative votes in each constituency in May 2010 then Cameron would be enjoying a majority right now. I suspect UKIP would be more than happy with 1 MP and no Euro-friendly Lib Dems in Government but, well, they’ve missed their chance.

And therein lies the risk at brushing off this option too cheaply. Caroline Lucas losing Brighton Pavilion in 2015 (or whenever the next election will be) is a nightmare result for the Greens from where they are now. The momentum lost from being frozen out of Westminster just when Climate Change becomes irreversible would be very damaging indeed.

There’s no reason why compromise and progress cannot be realised simultaneously and why a merger of the left shouldn’t deliver green shoots and ripe red fruit for all involved.

* Constituencies that Labour would have won in May 2010 if they had also claimed the Green vote in each constituency:-

Brighton Kemptown (from the Conservatives)
Brighton Pavilion (of course)
Broxtowe (from the Conservatives)
Cardiff North (from the Conservatives)
Hendon (from the Conservatives)
Hove (from the Conservatives)
Lancaster & Fleetwood (from the Conservatives)
Norwich South (from the Liberal Democrats)
Stroud (from the Conservatives)
Waveney (from the Conservatives)

Just how big IS Labour in Scotland?

Sep 26

Posted by Malc in Parties | 55 Comments

I don’t want this to be an attack piece. I’m no longer affiliated to any party and I’m not trying to make one look better (or bigger) than another. I’m simply trying to find out the truth of a matter. For that reason, I think this post fits with our remit, to think about Scotland and how it can be better (in this case, by finding out some truth.

So my question is this: how many members do the Labour party have in Scotland?

The reason I ask is that I listened to Harriet Harman at Saturday’s Labour leadership announcement proclaiming that the party had found 30,000 new members since May (UK-wide). I figured SOME of them must be in Scotland, so I looked at the figures published on Labour’s website regarding how their constituency parties voted in the leadership election. That page shows the first preference votes cast for each candidate from each CLP, the total votes cast within each CLP and the total number of ballot papers distributed to each CLP. Now, assuming Labour are democratic (and the electoral college system makes that a debatable point) then they will send a ballot paper to EVERY member in each CLP. Which means from the information given, you can work out how many members there are in each CLP… and how many there are in total.

So I took each of the 60 Scottish CLPs (divided by Westminster constituency – Orkney and Shetland excepted) and put them in a spreadsheet and simply totalled the numbers (see end for the numbers). By my reckoning – using Labour’s own published figures – this would make Labour’s membership in Scotland just 13,135. A far cry from the “near 20,000” they had 18 months ago. Indeed, that article, from January 2009, suggests Labour membership was 26,500 in 2000. If my figures are accurate (and I did put IF there, though if Labour’s OWN figures are accurate then I don’t see why they wouldn’t be) then two questions arise:

1)  Where has HALF of their membership gone in the last 10 years?

2)  Where is Scottish Labour’s share of the 30,000 new members since May, cited by Harriet Harman on Saturday?

Now, perhaps my working is wrong, I’ve got the wrong end of the stick from either what Harriet Harman said or from the CLP figures, but I really can’t see it. If someone from Labour wants to tell me how wrong I am – evidence will be required, naturally – I’d be happy to retract this. But to me, on these figures, it seems very much like Labour are a party distinctly in retreat in Scotland.