Are we really all in it together….? And who is ‘we’ anyway?
October 25th, 2010 by Katherine Trebeck Posted in Inequality, Livelihoods, UK poverty, Welfare reformThe Conservative’s tag line of We’re All in this Together is going to be seriously put to the test in the next twelve months. The Institute of Fiscal Studies’ verdict on the Comprehensive Spending Review already put a dampener on things.
But amidst all the post-Comprehensive Spending Review analysis, I see a few chinks of light (although I would plead guilty to any charges of grasping at straws…). Setting aside the large scale cuts to welfare for the most vulnerable and the lack of any clear mechanisms for job creation, there are one or two areas of emerging policy that strike me as pretty darn sensible.
One has been the announcement of a Green Investment Bank. Another is the rise in apprenticeship places. And another is the apparent willingness (to make an effort at least) to tackle abuse of the tax system. It has been good, if surprising, to see George Osborne on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show (17th of October) asserting that tax evasion is immoral It is even better to see him backing this up with increased enforcement capacity.
In doing so he is joining the claims by his new Best Friends Forever (Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander) to crack down on rich tax evaders - joining Alexander’s description of tax evasion as ‘morally indefensible’.
I’m holding my breath a wee bit because how effectively such promises are implemented will be the true test of the extent to which we truly are ‘all in it together’.
Early hints are that the better off are flinching – see their reaction to the ending of child benefit for those earning over £44000 a year. Or remember the much vaunted, (though little evidenced) exodus of high earners from London if tax rates rise too high. Or, perhaps worse of all, note the rise in the number of organisations offering their well-off clients advice on tax avoidance – when I typed ‘tax minimisation advice tax solutions’ into a search engine, I got over 18000 results.
All this reminds me of the experience that we’ve all had of sitting in a car in a traffic queue, where 99% of cars have respected signs to merge into one lane (to accommodate road works, for example). There is always one driver that ostensibly thinks his time is more precious, his tasks more urgent or his destination more important, that he drives up the inside lane then nudges his way into the front of the queue. Clearly this is a driver who doesn’t feel any sense that ‘we are all in it together’ in such situations.
With such chasms between the experience of the recession and the subsequent funding cuts, claims that ‘we’re all in it together’ from men clearly able to weather the storms are patronising at best, at worst completely ignorant of the trade offs and sacrifices that people in poverty make every day. Recent research figures show that the poorest people are unable unable to afford items deemed essential – such as buying all weather shoes or replacing worn out furniture.
So I’ll keep an eye out for how the few promising policies in the CSR are implemented, hoping for policies that act as true indicators of how substantive the mantra of ‘all being in it together’ really is.

2 Responses to “Are we really all in it together….? And who is ‘we’ anyway?”
By C. Matthews on Oct 28, 2010
Your e-mail today asserts that ‘we shouldn’t forget that it’s the banks that caused this crisis – and it’s the banks that should help to get us out of it.’
Nothing to do with the fact that Labour borrowed more, in its 13 disastrous years, than all British governments over the previous 300 years combined, then?
Overtly political stances such as this will lose Oxfam many supporters, including me.
By Katherine Trebeck on Nov 3, 2010
Thanks for reading my blog, though I’m unsure which email you mean? You might be referring to the recent poll conducted by YouGov for Oxfam (see subsequent post) that found almost 70 per cent of people think money to reform the welfare system should be raised by clamping down on tax avoidance, while over half were in favour of a tax on the financial sector. Any reference in my posts to the banks helping to contribute to recovery from the financial crisis would appear to be a reflection of what British people think…
More broadly, I agree with you that the previous Labour Government is hardly blameless – indeed, it needs to share some of the blame for the persistence of poverty in the UK. But this just highlights that poverty in a country (still) as rich as ours, the existence of poverty is a political matter. Yes, poverty has aspects to it such as labour market status, family circumstances and disability. But the fact that as a society we let people who are unemployed or in low paying jobs remain in poverty is essentially a political decision, if implicit rather than explicit. It is a matter of the distribution of resources (for more on this do see Oxfam’s publication Close to Home.)