Quakers and the cuts
Stuart White questions the Quaker statement on government cuts.
On 4 October the Religious Society of Friends issued a news release titled ‘Quakers oppose unfair government cuts.’ Following discussions with Friends in Oxford, I have been encouraged to share my concerns about this statement. I think there are at least two weaknesses with its substance. I am also unclear about the process behind it. First, why are no alternatives to spending cuts recognised? It is crucial to distinguish, as the 4 October statement does not, between cutting the deficit and cutting spending. There is a vigorous debate over the relative contribution that can/should be made by fairer taxation, economic growth and spending cuts, to bring down the deficit.
Yet, remarkably for a Quaker statement, there is no mention at all in the 4 October statement of exploring fairer taxation as an alternative to spending cuts as a way of addressing the deficit. All we are told is that ‘Quakers acknowledge that cuts in local and national government spending are inevitable…’ Because this claim is not qualified by the distinction between cutting the deficit and cutting spending, or by any reference to alternatives in the form of fairer taxes, it makes it sound as if all Quakers have to say about reducing the deficit is that there must be spending cuts. This is not the view of many members and attenders. The minute of the discussion at Meetings for Sufferings on 1 October acknowledges that Friends may have to lobby for a greater contribution from the wealthy (i.e. fairer taxes).
Second, why is it that only those who are unable to work are recognised as being unfairly treated? The 4 October statement seems to be trying to make a distinction between fair and unfair cuts. It says, specifically, that cuts should not be made at the expense of those ‘unable to work’. Most examples of unfair cuts it gives are in this category. But the issue of how the cuts affect fairness is a broader one. Research on the impact of the cuts (from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Trades Union Congress) suggests that the cuts are regressive across almost the whole income distribution. In work, out of work, the lower your income then the higher the burden of austerity as a proportion of your income (across most of the income distribution). This is to say nothing of the impact of the cuts by gender.
Finally, how did this statement emerge and what is its point? In Oxford Meeting, when we decided to make a public statement on the cuts, we started by laying out initial ideas and then went through a threshing process and brought a resulting draft statement on the cuts back to the monthly Business Meeting for discussion. We took time to talk, to test our knowledge and understanding, and to refine our sense of what it is important to say.
By what process was the 4 October statement produced? What did its composers see as its purpose? Is this intended to be ‘the’ statement on the cuts by Quakers at the national level? As it stands, the statement has significant weaknesses, and represents an important opportunity missed.
To read the 4 October statement, ‘Quakers oppose unfair government cuts,’ please visit www.quaker.org.uk/news/quakers-oppose-unfair-government-cuts
Comments
I was pleased at first to see that a statement had been released but I too was unhappy with it. The first thing that concerned me was the idea that ‘cuts in local and national government spending are inevitable’. When taxes are not collected, and indeed companies are possibly getting tax cuts, when the very rich are clearly getting richer (today’s report about executives in the country’s top 100 companies paying themselves even more is just one example) it is intolerable that those least able to take cuts are being hit with the worst of the penny-pinching. What we should be doing, of course, is to not only ensure that the rich pay their full whack of taxes but to increase taxation in a fair way (VAT, for example, is not a fair tax). I know it would not be popular, but for goodness sake,we need to cut the defence budget. NOW. At the moment one of the areas of concern is older people who have never had large private pensions: those reliant on the state pension for all of their income. With food and fuel prices rising and a cuts in transport, care services and even their access to libraries, life will continue to get even harder. At the moment there is much negative press coming about older people hoarding housing, about them not saving for their retirement, etc. I am also concerned about the way the statement was drawn up. Are there any answers on this yet? Caddi
By Caddi on 28th October 2011 - 18:46
Caddi: I have received some more information about the October 4 press release and its status. Apparently, it is not ‘the’ statement, but was intended only to report that Meeting for Sufferings has authorised a statement to be prepared. I gather that staff at Friends’ House are working on a draft of ‘the’ statement with a view to bringing it to MfS in early December for consideration. There may be a clarification of this in the next issue of The Friend. Going forward, I hope the article in The Friend will contribute to making the eventual statement better in substantive terms and perhaps to bringing a wider range of voices to the table. Perhaps others could use this thread as an opportunity to say what they think such a statement should focus on.
By stuart white on 30th October 2011 - 16:20
Please login to add a comment
