Today’s announcements about turning the “Big Society” into law are much more significant than they seem.
Ignore Nick Clegg’s pathetic statements that The Big Society is Liberalism. And ignore all the waffle about empowerment. This is not such thing, at all.
The core issue of significance today is the draft legislation that will enable communities to call a binding referendum if a local authority wants to increase council tax by more than the cap set by the communities secretary. As the FT notes:
Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, will outline initiatives that will, he said, attempt to “end the era of big government”.
No, this is about bringing the era of democratic government to an end. The neoliberal right wing frequently argue that democracy is dangerous — because it allows a majority to set tax rates and they claim this is prejudicial to the minority who pay most tax. And here is Pickles bringing this idea into the UK — saying that if a small minority do not like a tax increase proposed by a democratically elected local authority they can oppose it. The imp0lication is all too obvious. Democracy is not to be trusted, this says. And the right to veto the democratic wish of the majority has to be granted to those who might pay more than average tax as a result — with, no doubt, a minority being granted the right to veto.
This is fundamentally undemocratic.
But it’s also about ensuring that reallocation of wealth through tax does not take place, and that the poorest remain poor. remember, the biggest part of council spending is on social services.
I think this the thin end of the wedge. next we’ll have a right granted that a tiny minority can call a referendum to veto any tax rise, and we’re steadily on our way to a flat tax system whilst in the meantime all those former public services are given away, for nothing no doubt as they’re suddenly worthless as we can no longer afford them, to money grabbing so called “entrepreneurs” who will exploit the local monopolies they will possess for private gain at the expense of the rest of us.
This is fundamentally dangerous for the stability of government in the UK, for the future of democracy, and civil order. Yes, I’m worried. I think this is a dangerous path that could lead to serious civil unrest as a majority are oppressed by a minority— and I don’t like that prospect, at all.
Labour has to oppose this with all the might it can muster.
If they don’t then they too are in trouble. And that would be even more worrying.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Actually it is those who pay taxes who are oppressed, and those who vote to have our money looted that do the oppressing.
@Guido Fawkes
Showing your true colours then, eh?
What’s your answer – weighted votes, based on wealth? Is that what you’d like?
Even by Guido’s low standards his comment is ludicrous. Anybody who thinks that the super-rich are “oppressed” by the sorts of people who are going to suffer most from ConDem policies – benefit claimants, people who rely on local services, and people who won’t be able to afford to stay on at school now EMA is being scrapped – is living in an Ayn Rand-esque fantasy universe.
I have never read so much rubbish, consequently will not bother to waste my time refuting it.
End of democracy indeed! So what you believe in then is top down democracy, which is the complete reverse of what should happen.
Richard
As usual some very perceptive comments which have obviously enraged Guido Fawkes. This is a very dangerous time for democracy in this country but unfortunately the majority do not seem to comprehend this. Our society has been debased by the relentless media focus on the cult of celebrity.
Eric Pickles is perhaps the most extreme example of a trend among ministers in the coalition govt which is to use entirely specious or selective reasoning in an attempt to rationally justify policies that are totally opportunistic and motivated by spite.
For example: Eric says ‘we are in favour of local democracy’ and then George Osborne introduces a council tax freeze which prevents elected local councils from increasing council tax to offset cuts to local services. Where the hell is the democracy in that?
The referendum idea (first floated by Michael Heseltine in the early 1980s) is another farce. If we can have binding referenda for councils’ decisions to raise CT, why not binding referenda to stop councils cutting services? But of course that wouldn’t fit with Eric Pickles’s prejudices so we won’t get that.
Luckily, Pickle’s arrogance will be a big contributor to the downfall of this govt. The cuts he has put in place for the next 4 years are so severe that they will lead to the complete collapse of many local govt services – and I think people are intelligent enough to see that this will entirely be the fault of central govt, not local govt. The resulting chaos should be enough to help Labour win by a landslide at the next election. They are already in front in many of the polls despite the fact the cuts haven’t really started yet. I’m pretty confident.
Paul Staines is an enemy of democracy.
I’ve been asked to post this for someone who cannot get on (and I have no idea why that is – sorry):
I always maintained that one of the key objectives of the Thatcher project was the re-feudalization of society, but with two key differences; first, it would not be on the old land-based system of feudalism, but on the basis of business (not industry, of course, since Thatcher destroyed our manufacturing base – no, rather the card-sharping business of wealth-shufflers, the modern equivalent of the three-card or three shell scam); secondly, all traces of the old feudal contract of service to your Lord in return for his protection would be dumped as a piece of mediaeval sentimentality. Well, here we are, beginning the take the steps even Thatcher hesitated to take. Frankly, we need another Peasants’ Revolt, only a successful one this time! (13th Dec)
I think he might be suggesting a fixed tax per head – hang on – isn’t that the poll tax??
I have to say it must be soo oppressing to have the problem of so much wealth that you have to pay a large tax bill – the problems of poverty, hunger and shelter aren’t really oppressive things that cripple their victims – frankly its their fault, isn’t it Guido!
The poor should be blamed as the architect of their own circumstances – isn’t that right, Guido?
They should have studied harder at school, eh Guido?
There’s no such thing as community, is there, and therefore, there should be no helping hand or safety net – after all, you’ll never need one will you? Why should you pay for anyone else?
Oh the thought of your oppression – it pains me to think of it!
Richard, I’m sure I’ve already said this before but it is so important. We have the opportunity now with these brilliant young people and the labour movement to overturn the neo-liberal status quo. But we must remember what happened after the successful poll tax riots – we got something not much better with Council Tax. So the important thing is to develop the alternative policies, which I know you and others (especially with LEAP) are doing, and push these ideas out to the public. We must give people hope of building something better, not just pulling down the rotten structures. And we need to show that there already is a good foundation on which to build.
do libertarians not understand that arbitrary power thrives where democratic power absents itself, or are they rooting for arbitrary power?
Well, central government has capped rises in council tax for years, thus making a mockery of the concept of local democracy in any case. of course, hasn’t California had such a system for years (Proposition 13) which has seen people consistently voting against state tax rises; and isn’t this one of the reasons the state is now bankrupt, since it hasn’t been able to raise enough money to pay for the activities it needs to carry out?
Oh sorry, I forgot – taxation is theft, taking money from all the hard working responsible people (like bankers) to give to the feckless and useless. Let’s not have any taxation, any public services, any elected officials or representatives, or any form of government at all. I’m sure a pure, unfettered form of Social Darwinism will make us all so much happier.
“But we must remember what happened after the successful poll tax riots …”
Interesting turn of phrase. So you seem to approve of action by minorities, in this case violent, to change the will expressed by the majority. Which is what I believe our host was arguing against.
@Guido Fawkes
Rich people gain the most benefit from property rights, so it is quite easy to argue they should pay the most tax.
I’m not saying property rights are bad, they are great, but so is a fair rate of taxation, the most being paid by the rich who benefit the most from having a well functioning society.
It is clear the cuts are weighing heaviest on the poor as are the tax increases that get passed, such as the VAT rate increase for example. The wealth disparity is growing and the cuts have not even hit yet.
If you keep putting your property rights before other people’s human rights you will be in for a shock.
“saying that if a small minority do not like a tax increase proposed by a democratically elected local authority they can oppose it”
Err…surely if only a small minority don’t like it then a larger number will support it?
Is it not you who dislikes democracy? Or only when it suits you?
Democracy allows that you can vote for your choice of local representation. If the council on which that councellor sits votes for an increase in Council Tax above an arbritrary limit then you get another vote on the specific issue. Is that more democracy or less? Sounds like more to me.
“But it’s also about ensuring that reallocation of wealth through tax does not take place, and that the poorest remain poor. remember, the biggest part of council spending is on social services. ”
But surely the “reallocation of wealth” bit is in the remit of central government? Local accountability is in how it delivers that bit of it for which it has responsibility. The issue is more about how those expensive executives justify their salaries in delivering value for money.
“…the rich who benefit the most from having a well functioning society.”
Not sure if I follow your logic here. It’s generally accepted that one of the main benefits of society is to protect the weak from the strong. If you look at the GINI indexes of the world’s nations on the ever useful CIA website it is the least ordered societies that have the greatest inequality. So as ordered societies redistribute more wealth from the rich to the poor one would presume the poor benefit more. It certainly isn’t the rich, who are quite capable of looking after their own wealth in the absence of order.
@ Guido Fawkes – why not just cut to the chase and press for a property qualification for the franchise?
I’ve had a look at the “settlement” for local government.
Some of the big losers are Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Manchester, Rochdale, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Blackburn, Hartlepool Middlesbrough, Barrow-in-Furness.
Richmond-upon-Thames council and Surrey council have very modest cuts, and Dorset gets an increase in funding.
The government line (Eric Pickles for the Cons, Andrew Stunnell for the LibDems) is “that no council will face cuts of greater than 9% of their total spending power.”
This is very misleading, and is not really true.
Take Barrow-in-Furness, as an example:
Current spending power £16.2m
Next year reduces to £12.3m (23.8% cut)
One-off transition payment of £2.4m for the next year only, brings reduction down to 8.9% temporarily.
In 2012/13 spending power reduces even further down to £10.9m
In the space of two years, the council’s spending power will go from £16.2m per annum to £10.9m per annum.
That’s a cut of 32.7% in two years.
@peter
That’s a fair point.
How about this “the rich, who are currently benefitting the most from our well functioning society, as can be seen in the increasing wealth disparity.”
Additionally, as the rich have the most, they also have the most to lose. Take the UK’s richest 1% and drop them in Somalia. They would be comparitively even richer than they are over here, but since the Country is so broken I’m sure they would not trade. This demonstrates the benefit they receive from society.
Of course this assumes, probably unrealistically, if things got really bad, and they had already pilferred all of the country’s wealth they wouldn’t just move abroad to the next target.
Your point still kind of stands, but we all benefit from a well functioning society, and it can be argued either way.
Here’s a comparison of two councils in the same league:
Over the two year period, Surrey’s spending power will go from £826.4m to £798.9m
A loss of £27.5million, equating to a 3.3% cut.
Over the same period, Manchester’s spending power will go from £623.9m to £514.7m
A loss of £109.2 million, equating to a 17.5% cut.
@sickoftaxdodgers
Prop 13 in California has effectively limited the property taxes citizens pay in this state.
Some other propositions that required higher taxes or fees in California have also been defeated by the electorate.
However, most people are probably unaware that California has taxes that many other states don’t have (a statewide income tax that is in addition to the federal tax) and a higher sales tax than most states.
Add to that the fact that this is a very highly regulated state, where for example the price of gas is higher than anywhere else except Hawaii, and you get a general feeling against further taxes.
I would also add that due to the massive immigration of poor people from Latin America, California’s state has a social burden that other states don’t have.
Of course, if property taxes were higher, maybe some of these other taxes would be unnecessary. Food for thought.
@sickoftaxdodgers
Prop 13 in California has effectively limited the property taxes citizens pay in this state.
Some other propositions that required higher taxes or fees in California have also been defeated by the electorate.
However, most people are probably unaware that California has taxes that many other states don’t have (a statewide income tax that is in addition to the federal tax) and a higher sales tax than most states.
Add to that the fact that this is a very highly regulated state, where for example the price of gas is higher than anywhere else except Hawaii, and you get a general feeling against further taxes.
I would also add that due to the massive immigration of poor people from Latin America, California’s state has a social burden that other states don’t have.
Of course, if property taxes were higher, maybe some of these other taxes would be unnecessary. Food for thought…..
Richard. Forgive for being thick but I can’t quite follow your argument regarding referendums. Are you saying that if an increased tax proposal is put to the people as a plebecite its rejection certain?
Prop 13 has been a disaster for California. They should pay heed to the works of one their greatest social philosophers Henry George. The main wealth of the state which belongs to the whole community is LAND. Collect all the land rent for public benefit and they would no longer have a problem.
@Bluecat
Read Colonel Rainsborough’s famous appeal for democratic rights for all men during the Putney Debates 1647, ..”For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he…”
@cesar esteban
“Prop 13 in California has effectively limited the property taxes citizens pay in this state.
Some other propositions that required higher taxes or fees in California have also been defeated by the electorate.”
Which was my point; these referendums are right wing populism dressed up as citizen empowerment. If the state authority has to hold a referendum every time it wants to increase a tax, or introduce a new one, you end up with the situation California is now in.
“I would also add that due to the massive immigration of poor people from Latin America, California’s state has a social burden that other states don’t have.”
Really? Haven’t other American states also seen large scale Hispanic immigration e.g Florida? Florida has no proposition 13, and it isn’t bankrupt from what I’ve heard. This just sounds like the usual right wing argument blaming immigrants for everything.
Maybe the cost of imprisoning so many people as the result of the ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy, has something to do with the parlous state of California’s finances.
Is it not the case that the state now spends more on it’s prison services than it’s education services?
@sickoftaxdodgers
There are big differences between California and Florida. California, a very successful state during decades, attracted millions of poor Mexicans and Central Americans who simply had to cross the border to find work. With low levels of education, these immigrants have never done very well, even in the best of times, and have always required all types of government services.
Florida, less economically diverse and with no land borders, attracted a very different mix. A few boat people,yes, but also middle class Cubans and rich and middle class South Americans who spent fortunes in Miami’s shopping centers and invested in real estate.
Another big difference between the states is availability of land. While in Florida it is easy to build high buildings, this has never happened in California. Not just because of earthquakes….also because nearly every city in California- run by conservative homeowners- is against that type of construction. The result….we have among the most expensive housing in America. This a big cost factor that is overlooked by some people, but not the companies that decide to invest in other states like Texas.
The prison system? Yes, it is very expensive. Could be three strikes, but also the fact that California is very unionized, and the prison wardens specially so.