No one wants to pay to fix Britain
Sure Start was unequivocally a good policy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that every £1 spent on the policy returned £11 in benefits to the children who attended in improved health, educational attainment and lifelong earnings. It was particularly effective for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is a good example of what bodies such as the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee say is the golden characteristic of good public spending: it addressed a problem in advance. A relatively cheap intervention into the parenting of very young children helps reduce their likelihood of needing other state services in future.
Among its fiscal benefits, Sure Start was thought to reduce Send uptake in schools. Following the wholesale eradication of Sure Start centres during the austerity programme implemented by George Osborne, and then the educational crisis caused by the pandemic and lockdown policies, these Send services are now at a very high level of demand, at a cost to the government of more than £10bn a year.
Campaigners fear that the government is considering changes to education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which give families a legal right to support from their local authority. The number of EHCPs is growing quickly, with take-up increasing every year – the number of new EHCPs in 2024 was 15.8 per cent higher than the previous year – and are in place for around 640,000 of the UK's roughly nine million pupils. The costs have ballooned with them, because in many cases the EHCP requires the council to compensate for the fact that other public services, such as public transport, are not available; councils will be legally required to spend almost £2bn on home-to-school transport (mostly taxis) for Send pupils in the current year, and this will likely only continue to rise.
The government won't be attempting to put any legislation through on Send provision for some time; a white paper is expected in the autumn. But Labour backbenchers are already briefing against the government – the potential for a new rebellion leads both the Times and Guardian front pages this morning – because they fear that having tried and failed to save £5.5bn from reform to disability benefits, a further attempt is being made to save money from vulnerable children. The government insists it has no plans to remove funding from children or schools, and that the object of the white paper will not be to save money but to fix a broken system.
But this was also the argument the government made for reforming the welfare system, which is transparently not working as it should. However, the reforms became framed as cuts, and the prospect of pushing large numbers of people into poverty turned into a backbencher rebellion. The same MPs are sending a clear message that attempts to save money on Send provision are likely to be rejected in a similar fashion.
This is the trap in which the government is caught: clearly, it needs to spend a lot more on things like Best Start in order to bring down the bill for things like Send provision in future. But it can't raise the money to do that, because it's already spending so much money on Send provision now (which is partly the result of Sure Start having been cut). No one wants to pay the upfront cost of Britain being fixed.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Investors from whom the government raises money are increasingly less interested in lending to us. Our long-term borrowing costs are both uncomfortably high and, as we saw last week, sensitive to any whiff of fiscal news. Businesses are increasingly vocal about the amount they are taxed, and hiring appears to have slowed considerably following the rise in employers' National Insurance in the last Budget. We don't know yet if claims of a 'millionaire exodus' are true, but a simple wealth tax is unproven and would make it much more likely.
Labour backbenchers are right to protest measures about which their constituents are worried. But many of them have already spoken out against other fiscal fixes, such as means testing the winter fuel allowance or ending agricultural property relief. What cuts would they support, then? Which taxes would they raise? After the welfare rebellion, it will be easier for MPs to reject openly anything that sounds like austerity (even if it hasn't been announced yet). It is much harder to give a credible account of where the money should come from.
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here
[See also: The special needs trap]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
32 minutes ago
- The National
Jeremy Corbyn's new outfit won't back indyref2. No British party will
'When that party launches, which I'm expecting to be later this month, will be the start of us getting serious in Scotland and finding out who the members are when they join and trying to get, we're looking at the end of August before we get any real meeting of what will be the new party in Scotland. Until then, we don't really have a position other than we are happy to take part in the coalition, electoral alliance talks in Scotland on that basis, on the basis of supporting a referendum.' So, a big vote of thanks to Jim Monaghan for straightening that out for us. In fact, there is a very simple answer to the question of what will be the position of the Scottish plook on the arse of Corbyn's new party. It will be whatever the arse says it will be. The arm of this new British political party located in Scotland will be no different from the Scotland branch offices of the other British parties. Parties are not permitted to have different positions in different parts of the UK. If the likes of Anas Sarwar tries to give the impression that 'Scottish' Labour has a position on any issue that is distinct from that taken by his boss, Keir Starmer, he is lying. Which will shock nobody. The same goes for the other British parties that are either squatting in Scotland's parliament or hoping to do so. None of them can possibly have a distinct position on the constitutional issue. It is impossible for Sarwar to be in favour of a new referendum while Starmer is against it. Because it is all a single party. And Starmer is in charge. Sarwar is there to try and look as much like a real party leader as he can – no much! – so that the British media can go on promulgating the lie that Scottish Labour are (a) Scottish, and (b) a real political party. It is not Scottish, it is British. It is not a political party, it is a sham. It is part of the apparatus which provides the illusion of democracy and respect for Scotland's distinctiveness. It is all entirely false. The speculation about this new party's position on an independence referendum has nothing to latch on to. If that position is to be inferred from Jeremy Corbyn's stated attitude over the past few years, it is as plain as if it was the victim of one of Jim Monaghan's 'clarifications'. If I were to attempt to sum it up, I'd say Corbyn is not – or tries to appear as if he isn't – as explicitly or fervently opposed to a referendum as many (most?) other British politicians. But now is never the time. That being his position, it is also the position of the bit of his party that calls itself 'Scottish'. If they tell you differently, they're lying like Sarwar. It is all irrelevant anyway. Because even when British politicians try to look as if they are not anti-democratic, they are operating within a system which is inherently anti-democratic. As is the case throughout the discourse around the constitutional issue, people talk of a referendum but never define or describe it. As if this referendum could be only one thing and everybody already knows what it is so it doesn't need to be stated. Generally, what people have in mind is a referendum such as had in 2014. They have been 'conditioned' to think of a Section 30 referendum as the 'gold standard' of democratic events. It most emphatically is not! You are probably asking the obvious question. If a referendum held under 'powers' transferred from Westminster to Holyrood is not the 'gold standard', what is? Or perhaps you are wondering what precludes a referendum held under transferred 'powers' being a proper constitutional referendum. I shall attempt to address both these points. The following suggested criteria for a true constitutional referendum were first published in July 2023 as an appendix to the Stirling Directive. Though no longer online, the criteria were referred to and republished in November 2024. In short, a true constitutional referendum must be binary: The options must be discrete, defined and deliverable – they must be two quite different options and not two variations on the same thing. Both options must be tightly defined at the outset and may not change in the course of the campaign. What is voted on must be what has initially been proposed. Both options must be deliverable, in that the winning option and the following actions must be implementable immediately and without further process. To satisfy the previous criteria, the referendum must be on the question of whether to end the Union with England-as-Britain. The legislation authorising and regulating the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. The outcome must be acknowledged as an expression of the democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland and therefore binding on all parties. It should also be understood and acknowledged that the outcome of one referendum cannot preclude future campaigning for other constitutional change even where such change would alter or obviate the prior choice. The referendum process must be impeccably democratic. The franchise must be as wide as possible and based on strict criteria for residency within Scotland. Registering a vote must be made as easy as possible but with due regard for security and confidentiality. The referendum must be held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament with oversight and services provided exclusively by Scottish institutions. Every effort must be made to eliminate or at least minimise external interference. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, Britain shall be classified as an external (foreign) power. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, political parties registered as such and headquartered other than in Scotland shall be regarded as agencies of the country where they are registered and headquartered. In summary, a constitutional referendum is binary, with options which are discrete, defined and deliverable. It must be entirely made and managed in Scotland by Scotland. It must produce a clear decision and not merely a result. It must meet internationally recognised standards for a democratic event. And the outcome is the undeniable expressed will of the sovereign people of Scotland. These criteria were not meant to be prescriptive. The intention was to provoke a discussion about the form of referendum Scotland's cause requires. Most of the criteria are, however, quite evidently essential. That the referendum must be binary. That the options be fixed and not permitted to change in the course of the campaign. Perhaps most pertinently of all in the present context, the stipulation that the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. A referendum held under transferred powers can never be determinative and self-executing because this would mean that the people had the final word on the matter and not Westminster. A proper constitutional referendum would acknowledge the people of Scotland as the ultimate authority, not Westminster. The British state not only will not transfer powers for a proper constitutional referendum, it cannot do so. Supposing it was possible for the British state to transfer powers such as would allow a proper constitutional referendum, this would breach the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The doctrine which underpins the entire edifice of the British state. Without ultimate political authority being vested in a parliament under the near total control of an executive whose clients are not the people but the ruling elites, the whole thing comes tumbling down. The three pillars of the British 'system' are unchecked power, unearned privilege and unregulated patronage. None of these pillars can exist in a political system which is truly democratic. If the people had the authority which the term 'democracy' implies, it is not believable that they would tolerate the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define a British state which serves the few regardless of the cost to the many. A proper constitutional referendum is informed by the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of popular sovereignty are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible and irreconcilable. Therefore, no British government could ever acknowledge the sovereignty of the people in any meaningful way. They may state it as a slogan. But they absolutely cannot give it political effect. It follows that, whatever rhetoric they contrive to make it appear otherwise, no British political party can ever support a proper constitutional referendum. The power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum cannot be given in any case. Regardless of the compelling reasons why the British will not and cannot give that power, the power itself is inherently 'ungiveable'. The right of self-determination is inalienable. It is a human right and cannot be surrendered, transferred, forfeited, abrogated or removed. It is as inherent to the people as life is to the person. If the power to exercise the right of self-determination is in the gift of another, this necessarily implies that it is not present in the people. But it is an inalienable right and cannot be other than present in the people. I hope this has gone some way towards explaining both why no British political party can ever genuinely support a proper constitutional referendum and why a referendum held under powers transferred from Westminster can never be a proper constitutional referendum. Peter A Bell via email
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Sunday shows round-up: Labour defends its ‘one in, one out' migrant scheme
The government is piloting a 'one in, one out' migrant scheme with France. As part of the deal, the UK will return some migrants to France, and in exchange others with a strong case for asylum in the UK will come the other way. On Sky News, Trevor Phillips noted that France could refuse to take back certain individuals, and asked Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander why they would accept 'violent offenders and rapists'. Alexander said there is a lot of 'operational detail' that the Home Secretary and Prime Minister are working on, but claimed the deal was 'robust' and 'workable', and could ultimately 'break the model' of the international people smuggling gangs. Alexander said the government is not setting a numerical target for returns, but they are doing 'the hard work with our international allies', and their 'aspiration' is to return more than one in 17 migrants once the scheme ramps up. Camilla Tominey: 'You can't possibly convince people… the economy is in a good state' On GB News, Camilla Tominey questioned Heidi Alexander over the economy, which shrank by 0.1 per cent in May. Alexander defended the government's record, saying the UK had outperformed the other G7 economies over the first three months of the year, and that the £120 billion of inward investment since Labour took office showed that international capital looks at the UK as a desirable place to invest. Tominey pointed out that in 2022 Rachel Reeves had called for an emergency budget when the economy similarly contracted by 0.1 per cent under the Tories. Alexander said 'GDP figures do bump around from month to month', and talked up Labour's trade deal successes with India, the EU and the US. The Transport Secretary reiterated that Labour's 'number one priority' is to grow the economy. Heidi Alexander: 'When it comes to taxation, fairness is going to be our guiding principle' On Sky News, Heidi Alexander would not confirm expected tax rises in the October Budget. She told Trevor Phillips that Labour have stuck to their manifesto promise of not raising taxes for people on modest incomes, and that 'fairness' would be their principle going forwards. Phillips suggested that 'fairness' might be code for wealth distribution, and asked why Alexander wouldn't say there will be tax rises on the wealthy. Alexander said she wouldn't set the budget in July because the 'global economy is very volatile', and the Chancellor would look at the OBR forecast and make decisions based on the need to invest in public services. Ofcom CEO: 'It is a really big moment' On 25 July, the Online Safety Act regulations will come into force for social media companies, who will have to either remove harmful content or use age checks to protect children on their platforms. On the BBC, Laura Kuenssberg asked Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes if she was confident that the new rules would be effective. Dawes admitted that the path ahead was 'challenging', but said the new rules represent a 'big moment' that will bring about change. Asked how the new regulations would work in practice, Dawes said that companies have been allowed to decide what works best for their platform, but some might become 18 plus only, and others might screen adult content behind age checks involving facial recognition or credit cards. Chris Philp: 'I think they're wrong' On the BBC, Laura Kuenssberg asked Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp about defections to Reform, after four former Tory MPs made the move in the last two weeks. Philp said those people represented a 'very small number' of Conservative MPs over the last ten years, and suggested Reform has 'superficial attractions to people who are frustrated'. He criticised Reform for having 'slogans', but no 'credible plans'. Kuenssberg pointed out that Jake Berry had been in the cabinet with Philp, and suggested that those defecting do believe Reform have credible policies. Philp said they were 'wrong', that Nigel Farage does not have detailed solutions to immigration issues, and that his plan to lift the two child benefit cap would increase the welfare bill and taxes.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Labour minister hints at tax hikes for middle class – but rules out rises for people on ‘modest incomes'
Labour has left the door open to higher taxes on the middle classes in Rachel Reeves ' crunch budget later this year. Transport secretary Heidi Alexander would not rule out tax rises in a series of interviews on Sunday morning, but said the government had pledged not to hike them for 'people on modest incomes'. Asked if the public should expect taxes to go up in the autumn, she said ministers would be guided by "fairness". She also told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips programme that Cabinet ministers did not 'directly' talk about the idea of a wealth tax – being pushed by unions and former Labour leader Lord Neil Kinnock – during an away day at the Prime Minister's Chequers country estate this week. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp said her comments 'sound to me like a barely disguised reference to tax rises coming in the autumn'. The chancellor has refused to rule out tax rises at the budget since Labour MPs forced ministers to make a U-turn on welfare reforms, losing the government an estimated £5 billion a year in savings. She is under intense pressure to find more money after the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) this week warned that the UK's finances are on an 'unsustainable' path the government 'cannot afford' in the longer term. On Wednesday, Keir Starmer failed to rule out extending so-called 'stealth taxes' – as well as the introduction of a wealth tax – as his government struggles to balance the books. The prime minister reiterated that Labour would stick to its manifesto pledge and ruled out increases to income tax, VAT and national insurance, but he did not confirm whether the government was planning to lift the freeze on income tax thresholds in 2028. The freezes mean more and more people are dragged into paying higher rates of income tax every year as the thresholds fail to keep up with inflation. Lord Kinnock last week suggested a wealth tax would bolster the public finances without breaking Labour's pledges. Union leaders, including Sharon Graham of Unite, are also pressuring ministers to consider the move. Asked by Sky News if such a tax had been discussed at the Cabinet away day on Friday, Ms Alexander said: 'Not directly at the away day.' Pressed on what she meant by not directly, the senior minister replied: 'I think your viewers would be surprised if we didn't recognise that, at the budget, the chancellor will need to look at the OBR forecast that is given to her, and will make decisions in line with the fiscal rules that she has set out. 'We made a commitment in our manifesto not to be putting up taxes on people on modest incomes, working people. We have stuck to that.' Asked again if this meant there will be tax rises in the budget, Ms Alexander replied: 'So, the Chancellor will set her budget. I'm not going to sit in a TV studio today and speculate on what the contents of that budget might be. 'When it comes to taxation, fairness is going to be our guiding principle.'
