I want somebody to take away from me what I have and give it to other people.
I’m a pensioner in a comfortable place in the most comfortable part of the UK, the south-east. Our incomes are high relative to every other region of the UK; more of us own our own houses than any other region. Government policy persistently works to protect us and boost us more than any other region. One of the most important considerations for Liberal Democrat policy on inequality must be to reduce the very substantial difference in income, wealth and comfort between the south-east and everywhere else in the UK.
I do not ignore the substantial inequalities within this region as well as between it and others. The village I live in is very comfortable indeed. But it has its own food bank. The nearest town to me, Lewes, is decidedly affluent. However, it has three food banks. Nevertheless, the more pressing need, I believe, is to fix the massive inequalities between regions. There will be no substantial growth in the near future to enable a pretence that everybody can win. So that means that, if others are to do better, I, and people like me, will do worse. That is as it should be.
There will be many ways to do this. I focus here on two: infrastructure and general spending. In each case, I focus on one aspect out of several possibilities.
For infrastructure, there should be a primary criterion in the consideration stage of projects: how does this spending benefit the regions or the nations? This should apply, even if the project is in London or the south-east. The presumption should be that whatever money is available for infrastructure projects should go to the regions first. Some might object that London and the south-east still need money spent on infrastructure projects. Yes, they do, but for too long they have taken precedence over spending in the regions. That priority should be reversed. If that means I have to wait longer for an upgrade to my railway line, so be it.
We also need to be clear that any examination should concentrate clearly on what is the actual benefit to the region concerning jobs, income and the reduction of poverty. Hinkley Point, for instance, will cost a fortune, but only a small proportion of that spending will find its way into the pockets of local people. So there must be a robust and realistic measure of what the benefit to people in the region will be.
For general spending, I suggest the measure we need is simple, although sure to cause vibrations in high places. That is to re-establish proper and realistic funding to local councils. If money is tight, then it should go first to councils in the regions and nations. I will have to wait longer for my recycling to get up to scratch, and social care will still be stretched here, with painful consequences, for longer than it needs to be. So be it. My comfort has been bought at the price of misery in other parts of the country for far too long.
* Rob Parsons is a Lib Dem member in Lewes. He blogs at http://acomfortableplace.blogspot.co.uk. He curates Liberal Quotes on Facebook
7 Comments
The sentence that reads “However, it has its” should read “However, it has its own food bank”.
“I want somebody to take away from me what I have and give it to other people.”
Rob, Rob, you don’t have to wait for “somebody”. You can give it now. No one is stopping you.
Rob Parsons,
one of the clear impacts of regional imbalances in infrastructure spending is the disproportionate increase in land values that it generates.
The Liberal Democrats are the second largest group in East Sussex County Council and have a strong presence throughout the county. They are the second largest group on Lewes District Council and are the largest group in Newhaven Town Council.
Councils will be able to raise council tax by 2.99% from April 2019. Combined with a 2% precept for those local authorities funding social care, some bills could rise by 4.99% or an average £80. There may be an additional precept added by police forces averaging £24 per year.
While Council tax itself needs reform, along with business rates it is currently the only significant tool available to local authorities. Councils have the power to make council tax benefit available to the poorest families. if you’re on a low income or claim benefits, your bill could be reduced by up to 100%. The last budget also gave councils the power to assess empty properties up to a 100% premium., effectively doubling council tax on 2nd homes left unoccupied for much of the year.
As a longer-term permanent solution, we are going to have to move to a system of Land Value Taxation, controlled at local government level, that provides the necessary funding for essential services. A system of LVT will recapture part of the benefit of disproportionate land value increases in the South-East that you speak and alleviate the burden of council tax is less prosperous regions of the country. For more on LVT visit the ALTER website https://libdemsalter.org.uk/en/
Innocent Bystander: I am talking about a structural realignment involving tens of billions of pounds a year. My ockets are not that deep.
Joseph – with you completely, ad I’m very glad that LibDem policy is moving in that direction. But I only had 550 words, and others have very eloquently expressed the desirability of LVT.
@Innocent Bystander
‘ “I want somebody to take away from me what I have and give it to other people.”
Rob, Rob, you don’t have to wait for “somebody”. You can give it now. No one is stopping you.’
Speaking as someone else who has an occupational pension and a selection of legacies and a redundancy payment over the years, managing one’s finances properly is not a trivial matter and takes some work to do properly. I’m sure, Rob, like me, gives regularly to things like his church, his political party and several charities. Of course, these are all special interest groups, and don’t provide overarching support of the community that, for instance, a local council should. If my local council were to get an extra thousand a year from me, assuming that it is reasonably well run, that would outsource the priority setting and decision making, taking some of the load from me.
I agree with nearly everything Rob and other contributors say here, this includes the fact that poor people exist in ‘rich’ parts of the country as the ‘poor’ parts. However, if you have a good and secure income, you live a much better life on your income in a ‘poorer’ part of the country. Although the extremes present in London are not, in general, found elsewhere, there still remains a sharp distinction everywhere betweeen the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’.