A recent news story perfectly encapsulated the ironies and contradictions which arise when people vote for government spending cuts.
A recent news story perfectly encapsulated the ironies and contradictions which arise when people vote for government spending cuts. Not the one about the Prime Minster’s letter complaining about cuts, another one. It emerged that a community in Hampstead, London is crowdfunding its own police officers, in response to police cuts and a rise in crime in the area.
The Hampstead and Kilburn constituency contains wards which are very different in character – some are wealthy whilst some are relatively deprived. As the BBC said in its election coverage, “A key issue in the area is housing, as many of the borough’s wealthier people could be hit by a mansion tax, while others are moving out as they cannot afford to live there.”
Labour retained the seat with a very slender majority, though the majority of voters in the prosperous Frognal and Fitzjohns wards are believed to have voted almost three to one for the Conservatives. Now however, as the spending cuts advocated by the Conservatives are implemented, residents, much like the Prime Minister himself, are shocked to find that those cuts actually affect them.
Jessica Learmond-Criqui, chair of the Frognal and Fitzjohns Safer Neighbourhood panel, says that since the closure of Hampstead police station, crime in Hampstead, “Has taken on a more violent and aggressive quality than we are used to.” There is also talk of Police Community Support Officers being cut, which has prompted Ms Learmond-Criqui to warn of a “breakdown of basic contract between citizen and state” as people are no longer protected by the police.
However, these residents are in the fortunate position of having a solution in their own hands. They can personally find the money to fund their own police officers. Ms. Learmond-Criqui is confident that the money, £600,000 over three years, will not be a problem. “One person has already indicated that they would make a substantial payment yearly towards this cost.”
This situation seems a perfect illustration of how austerity and the drive for a small state increases inequality and creates a divided society, with a declining quality of life for those who are not wealthy. And how, like the Prime Minister, those who vote for low taxes and spending cuts are often surprised by the consequences, and may end up paying anyway.
When government spending is cut, be it on health, education, or policing, wealthy people will usually be able to fill the gap from their own pockets. People and areas without such wealth will just see services shrink or disappear, and there will be very little they can do about it. Imagine an area where the steelworks has just closed down, trying to crowdfund police officers, or anything else for that matter. There will be no spare cash available.
This is the argument for relatively high progressive taxation – it can, if the political will exists, be collected according to people’s means, and distributed according to people’s needs, so that all communities get decent public services. That is what makes a modern, healthy society. The path we are on now, reducing taxes for the rich and cutting spending on services, will lead us to an increasingly divided and unequal society. But no doubt that will come as a terrible shock to the Prime Minister.
—–
© Bernadette Meaden has written about political, religious and social issues for some years, and is strongly influenced by Christian Socialism, liberation theology and the Catholic Worker movement. She is an Ekklesia associate and regular contributor. You can follow her on Twitter: @BernaMeaden