Archive Page 2

The importance of the advice sector in the context of legal aid cuts

Originally published by PolicyBristol on the 19th June 2017.

Dr. Sarah Moore

The PolicyBristol blog has the pleasure of welcoming this guest post by Dr Sarah Moore, who was one of the participants in the recent book launch of Advising in Austerity. Reflections on challenging times for advice agencies (Policy Press, 2017). Dr Moore is also the co-author of Legal aid in crisis. Assessing the impact of reform (Policy Press, 2017) and offers here her insightful views on the need to boost the activities and funding of the legal advice sector.

Anyone familiar with legal aid reform will know that the Legal Aid and Sentencing of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) has dramatically altered the meaning and nature of legal aid. It has meant, amongst other things, a significant reduction in funding, largely achieved by taking a large number of areas of civil law out of scope, including private family law cases, and almost all cases involving social welfare, housing, medical negligence, immigration, debt, and employment.

The most strenuous critics of LASPO have pointed out that the recent funding cuts restrict people’s access to justice. In answering to these problems, LASPO incorporated a set of exceptions. Those who could provide evidence that they had been victims of domestic violence, for example, were to be given access to legal aid to pursue family law cases. And an Exceptional Case Funding caveat was incorporated in the Act for those who could successfully make a case that their human rights would be breached without publicly-funded legal assistance. Both have been woefully inadequate.

Research led by Rights of Women indicates that, even after the government relaxed the rules on domestic violence evidence and legal aid eligibility, a significant proportion of female victims (38% in their 2014 survey) did not have the mandatory evidence to receive publically-funded support. And the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme has been a disaster by anyone’s standards. In the first year post-LASPO, the Legal Aid Agency received only 1,520 applications for ECF. According to the Public Accounts Committee, only 69 were granted funding. That is far, far fewer than the Ministry of Justice and Legal Aid Agency had predicted in the post-LASPO period. Applications have picked up in the last year, as has the acceptance rate, but the fact remains that this safety net is sorely under-used.

Assessing the impact of LASPO

In assessing the impact of LASPO, academics and policy-makers have tended to focus on the impact of reform on the courtroom and litigation. There is certainly much to talk about here. Funding for civil representation and litigation now stands at about two-thirds of its pre-LASPO level, and this has led, amongst other things, to a steep rise in people representing themselves in the courtroom, so-called litigants in person.

All this has been well-documented, not least of all by Trinder et al’s (2014) excellent review of the difficulties faced by litigants in person in family law courts. What has received less attention is the steep decrease in funding for legal advice, with government funding for this form of support now at around one third of its pre-LASPO level. That is a staggeringly sharp decline in a four year period, one that even took the Legal Aid Agency and Ministry of Justice by surprise. This cut to funding has led to a radical change in the landscape of legal advice by prompting the closure of Law Centres, solicitors’ firms where legal aid was previously bread-and-butter work, and, of course, organisations in the advice sector.

The role of the advice sector post-LASPO

What does all this mean for the advice sector, and how might we start to think about the distinctive value of these organisations in a post-LASPO world? For one thing, the steep decline in state funding for legal advice has had the dual-effect of decreasing advice agencies’ budgets and increasing the unmet need for sources of support. And, as mentioned earlier, legal advice has been particularly hit by the cuts, making need for this support especially acute. It is therefore no surprise that, post-LASPO, the advice sector has played a crucial role in plugging the gap in legal support, even whilst it has undergone its own funding struggles.

The value of the advice sector post-LASPO also lies in its role in signposting people to exceptional case funding and, where capacity allows, supporting people in making applications. If LASPO’s exceptions and special provisions are to work, there needs to be support for people to make an application — people, it bears repeating, who are particularly vulnerable and ill-equipped for legal dispute. This lack of support is the principle reason for the failure of the Exceptional Case Funding caveat, and, as a set of organisations that tend already to have contact with the most vulnerable members of our society, the advice sector is potentially key to improving the take-up of this funding and thereby providing access to justice.

Lastly, the advice sector has a valuable role to play in improving public knowledge about eligibility rules for legal aid. Year on year post-LASPO, there has been a drop in casework for civil legal aid work. That downward spiral is not due to a decline in need. It reflects, amongst other things, the public’s understandable confusion about eligibility, and the presumption that legal aid no longer exists — that, at least, is the explanation offered by the House of Commons Justice Committee. And, again, as the advice sector necessarily plays a key role here in informing the public about what is available.

Advice as access to justice

The advice sector can play a really important role, then, in mitigating the effect of LASPO and making real its promise to offer a safety net. It can only do that with proper funding and support, and that requires a major shift in public debate so that the role of advice in ensuring access to justice is recognised. Herein lies a major challenge for the advice sector. Advising people on legal matters (or matters that have a legal dimension) is crucial work; it is also poorly-understood (in academic and policy terms) and relatively neglected in mainstream media coverage of legal aid cuts. This is despite the fact that public need for advice is growing as we enter a seventh year of ‘austerity’.

As we restrict people’s access to state services and welfare, people’s legal needs become more multifaceted and interwoven with social and psychological problems, as the accounts in Advising in Austerity (Kirwan, 2017) so neatly illustrate. The young woman seeking advice on an illegal eviction may also be managing a cut to her benefits, her employment may have become more erratic, and the public services in her local area may have deteriorated. This is what austerity means ‘in the round’, and it is just such a holistic conception of need that the advice sector is well-able to attend to, with its distinctive ability to provide advice on legal matters and information about broader social services. And, of course, in doing this important work, advice agencies do more than simply fill an information gap; they help explain official rules and decisions, often to people who are especially prone to feeling like they’ve been left behind and let down by social authorities. This, too, is what access to justice looks like. Making this case is all the more important in a post-LASPO era.

This blog post was first published in the Bristol Law School blog.

Legal aid in crisis [FC]Legal aid in crisis by Sarah Moore and Alex Newbury is available with 20% discount on the Policy Press website. Order here for £10.39

Find out more about impact, influence and engagement at Policy Press here.

Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 35% discount – sign up here.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Taxation, inequality and post-industrial society

Ruane4Jul17

Sally Ruane

In this blog post, Sally Ruane, co-author of Paying for the Welfare State in the 21st Century, explains why we need to challenge the political culture surrounding taxation to effectively tackle inequality.

 

“The dramatic electoral developments in the US, France and most recently the UK, point to a state of flux in which there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding future direction and outcomes.

These political symptoms emerge following the transition of advanced Western countries from industrial to post-industrial societies, a transition managed in such a way that economic inequality has deepened and financial deregulation has brought about a destabilisation of the whole system.

The rise of in-work poverty

In the UK, from 1980 to 2003, median income began to lag behind economic growth, rising at the rate of only 70% of national economic growth; and in the five years leading up to the financial crash, household income stagnated despite economic growth during the period. More recently, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that in the seven years after the crash, average gross employment income had yet to recover its pre-recession levels. Into this mix we must add that, unlike the postwar period when poverty was associated with a problematic or disrupted relationship to the labour market, most people living in poverty today are living in households where at least one person is working. What is more, average pensioner household income is now higher than average income in working age households. Meanwhile, at the top end of the scale, the best off 1% of households has raced away, holding 7.9% of all income in 2014/15 against 5.7% 1990.

“Average pensioner household income is now higher than average income in working age households.”

Tax and the allocation of resources

The allocation of resources in society is an outcome not just of ‘market incomes’ but also of the totality of fiscal policy. This entails government spending on benefits and in-kind services, on the one hand, and the tax system on the other. The social policy gaze has tended to focus on the former rather than the latter but to understand questions of inequality we have to examine taxation. The tax system encompasses more than the entities taxed, the taxes levied, and the rates and thresholds at which those taxes are levied. It entails also attitudes to the payment of tax, the capacity to and vigour with which the tax collection authority pursues those who owe tax and the infrastructure through which income and wealth are handled, disclosed (or not) and made subject (or not) to tax liability.

‘Flexible’ working and rising inequality

The way in which the tax system works not only is influenced by the nature of the wider socio-cultural and economic system but at the same time influences that wider system.

The acceptance of a model of globalisation in which the financial system was deregulated and many relatively well paid working class jobs were transferred to other, low wage economies, reinforced by a strong pound which suited the interests of the financial sector, gave rise to exhortations that labour must be flexible to attract capital investment. ‘Flexibility’ meant that the wages and terms and conditions of workers were systematically worsened to the advantage of capital. New Labour’s revival of Speenhamland type policies in which the low wages of those in work were supplemented by tax credits afforded a degree of redistribution but at the expense of establishing the acceptability of paying low wages, reinforcing the problem of in work poverty. In other words in addressing workplace exploitation, the tax system has simultaneously exacerbated it.

“… in addressing workplace exploitation, the tax system has simultaneously exacerbated it.”

The cost of tax avoidance

The increasing effectiveness with which corporate and financial interests have been able to lobby ministers has given rise to criticism of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for lacking zeal in its pursuit of complex and sophisticated forms of tax avoidance and evasion, reinforcing the resources which corporations can bring to bear in further lobbying of ministers. The debilitation of the organised working class through acceptance of the dominant globalisation model has weakened the countervailing forces which might have checked concessions to big business and big finance. The success with which large corporations and affluent individuals are able to avoid and evade paying taxes materially affects the resources governments claim are available for funding social security and public services. The resulting austerity erodes the social wage and further weakens the base for social democratic policies.

“Challenging the political culture surrounding taxation is essential if inequality is to be effectively tackled.”

These are just some of the inter-linking examples of the way in which the tax system is both shaped by wider cultural and social factors as well as recursively shaping that wider society.

We argue in Paying for the Welfare State in the 21st Century that reforming the tax system goes beyond altering rates and bands and that challenging the political culture surrounding taxation is essential if inequality is to be effectively tackled and some of the destructive consequences of the shift to post-industrial society are to be reversed.

 

Paying for the welfare state in the 21st century [FC]Paying for the welfare state in the 21st Century by David Byrne and Sally Ruane is available with 20% discount on the Policy Press website.  Order here for just £10.39.

Find out more about impact, influence and engagement at Policy Press here.

Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 35% discount – sign up here.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Free collection of Policy & Politics highly cited articles

Originally published on Policy and Politics blog.

 

by Sarah Ayres, Steve Martin, Felicity Matthews, Diane Stone – Policy & Politics Editors

We are delighted to announce that Policy & Politics has achieved an impressive result in this year’s Journal Citation Reports with an Impact Factor of 1.939. This places the Journal firmly in the top quartile of international journals in both the public administration and the political science categories.

This fantastic outcome is testimony to the outstanding quality of research produced by our authors, the meticulous scrutiny of our peer reviewers, and the hard work of the Policy & Politics and Policy Press team. We would like to offer our thanks and congratulations to all.

To celebrate this increase we have made the most highly cited articles which contributed to the 2016 Impact Factor free to read until 31 July 2017:

Rethinking depoliticisation: beyond the governmental
Authors: Matt Wood, Matthew Flinders

The politics of behaviour change: nudge, neoliberalism and the state
Author: Will Leggett

Rethinking the travel of ideas: policy translation in the water sector
Author: Farhad Mukhtarov

Measuring and explaining policy paradigm change: the case of UK energy policy
Authors: Florian Kern, Caroline Kuzemko, Catherine Mitchell

Government policies for corporate social responsibility in Europe: a comparative analysis of institutionalisation
Authors: Jette Steen Knudsen, Jeremy Moon, Rieneke Slager

Depoliticisation, governance and the state introduction
Authors: Matthew Flinders, Matt Wood

Repoliticising depoliticisation: theoretical preliminaries on some responses to the American fiscal and Eurozone debt crises
Author: Bob Jessop

Politicising UK energy: what ‘speaking energy security’ can do
Author: Caroline Kuzemko

Depoliticisation as process, governance as practice: what did the ‘first wave’ get wrong and do we need a ‘second wave’ to put it right?
Author: Colin Hay

‘Water dripping on stone’? Industry lobbying and UK alcohol policy
Authors: Ben Hawkins, Chris Holden

From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: the new design orientation towards policy formulation research
Authors: Michael Howlett, Ishani Mukherjee, Jun Jie Woo

Depoliticisation: economic crisis and political management
Author: Peter Burnham

(De)politicisation and the Father’s Clause parliamentary debates
Authors: Stephen Bates, Laura Jenkins, Fran Amery

Rolling back to roll forward: depoliticisation and the extension of government
Authors: Emma Ann Foster, Peter Kerr, Christopher Byrne

Global norms, local contestation: privatisation and de/politicisation in Berlin
Authors: Ross Beveridge, Matthias Naumann

Governing at arm’s length: eroding or enhancing democracy?
Authors: Catherine Durose, Jonathan Justice, Chris Skelcher

How does collaborative governance scale? Introduction
Authors: Chris Ansell, Jacob Torfing

Market size, market share and market strategy: three myths of medical tourism
Authors: Neil Lunt, Daniel Horsfall, Richard Smith, Mark Exworthy, Johanna Hanefeld, Russell Mannion

Depoliticisation, governance and political participation
Authors: Paul Fawcett, David Marsh

‘Multiculturalism is never talked about’: community cohesion and local policy contradictions in England
Authors: Hannah Lewis, Gary Craig

Poverty and social policy in Europe 2020: ungovernable and ungoverned
Authors: Paul Copeland, Mary Daly

The role of formal and informal networks in supporting older people’s care during extreme weather events
Authors: Jonathan Wistow, Lena Dominelli, Katie Oven, Christine Dunn, Sarah Curtis

The politics of quangocide
Authors: Katharine Dommett, Matthew Flinders

Women’s pensions in the European Union and the current economic crisis
Author: Liam Foster

Find out more about Policy & Politics here

Find out more about impact, influence and engagement at Policy Press here.

Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 35% discount – sign up here.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

A new kind of democracy: anti-politics and the funnelling of frustration

matt flinders

Matt Flinders

By Matt Flinders, Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield

This post was originally published on The Conversation on 12 June 2017.

“It’s not easy being a professor of politics. Everyone expects me to know what’s going on and what’s going to happen. But I’m just as bamboozled as everyone else by the outcome of the UK’s recent general election.

“Bamboozlement” has become something of a byword for modern democratic events. Think Brexit, think Donald Trump, and now think “Corbyn the conqueror” – the unlikely cult hero leading an “old” political party re-designated as a grassroots social movement.

“…the unlikely cult hero leading an “old” political party re-designated as a grassroots social movement.”

To some extent, recent events in the UK are symptomatic of a broader international trend that is often (but incorrectly) labelled as anti-political sentiment. But high levels of social frustration and political disengagement among large sections of the public actually veils a desire for a different kind of politics – not the denial or rejection of democratic politics itself.

It is this that explains the growth of populist nationalism (on both the right and left) in Europe and the United States. It also helps explain what happened on June 8 2017.

The success of Jeremy Corbyn and his “New-Old” Labour party was that it tapped into and funnelled the large reservoir of social frustration with politics. Corbyn offered a very different type of politics, both in terms of content (a clear shift to the left of higher taxes and nationalisation) and form (against the clean-cut image of “professional politicians”). Corbyn’s rather chaotic and almost amateurish approach came across as refreshingly honest. Never before have a scruffy beard and an untucked shirt become such electoral assets.

If you are anti-political (against how politics generally works), if you are anti-politician (against politicians who all look and behave the same), and if you are anti-establishment (in terms of believing in the existence of a largely untouchable political elite), then the Labour party under Corbyn positioned itself like a political lightning-rod to channel those frustrations.

This is the key point that many of his opponents failed to understand. The more the media attacked and mocked him, the more Theresa May refused to engage, the more Boris Johnson described the Labour leader as a “benign herbivore” and a “mutton-headed mugwump” the more this seemed to energise and build Corbyn’s support base. It simply confirmed in the minds of the disaffected just how brash and arrogant the political elite had become.

Funnelling frustration and offering a positive message formed the magic formula for the Labour Party’s glorious defeat. It tuned into the populist signal.

The critical element, however, which offers a key to understanding contemporary democracy, was the manner in which the Labour party secured the support of at least three very different segments of the previously disillusioned or disengaged.

The first segment was the traditionally anti-political youth (aged 18-24) who were dismissed as “snowflake voters” who would melt away before getting to the polling booth. The pollsters were wrong. (Again.). Around 72% of younger voters ended up placing their crosses on the ballot paper (up from just 44% in 2015).

Many young people are still angry about the EU referendum vote and joined a second section of the public who were, put simply, anti-hard Brexit. This included remainers and soft-Brexiteers, but the common denominator was deep-seated concern about the increasingly belligerent, nationalist and aggressive tone of the Conservative Party.

This in turn leads to the third and final group – the white working classes, the “left behind”, who rejected mainstream politics and led “the revolt on the right” seen in the popularity of UKIP in 2015. The simple fact seems to be that a large proportion of the “left behind” went back to the left. They chose to support an anti-austerity agenda and investment in public services above the anti-immigrant anti-Europe stance offered by the Conservatives.

The times they are a-changin’

It seems then, in this bamboozling aftermath of June 8, that the public is not anti-political. They are “pro-political” but also “pro-a-different-way-of-doing-politics”. They crave the existence of real policy choices and a positive vision for the future.

As I argue in my new book, What Kind of Democracy is This?, the concept of democracy is in flux, and arguably more fragile than at any point in the last 50 years. Politicians need to be popular, but this is different to falling into the trap of populism (the very opposite of democratic politics). Populists tend to offer simple solutions to complex problems, generally by blaming “the problem” on a specific section of society (immigrants, foreigners, gypsies …), and then arguing that if we “the people” could only get rid of the cumbersome safeguards of democracy, life would be so much easier.

“Politicians need to be popular, but this is different to falling into the trap of populism.”

“Let the people govern” is a phrase often used to veil the imposition of centralised and unaccountable structures. Democracy has to have limits, but populists tend to deny this basic fact.

For many, Brexit, President Trump, and Corbyn’s 40% vote share have come as a series of political surprises. The rules of the political game have changed but nobody seems to know quite what they are anymore.

We need a new language of politics in order to fully grasp what kind of democracy this is. The language of left or right, for or against, in or out is the language of simple binaries or zero sum games. It no longer reflects a changing world of multiple and overlapping loyalties and identities. Most of all we need a language of politics that rejects the dominant politics of pessimism and offers in its place a bold new vision of collective action and self belief – a new politics of optimism to underpin a new kind of democracy.

 

What kind of democracy is this [FC]You can pre-order What kind of democracy is this? by Matt Flinders here for just £15.99.

Find out more about impact, influence and engagement at Policy Press here.

Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 35% discount – sign up here.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Featured image: ‘Jeremy Corbyn campaign in West Kirby‘ by Andy Mlah is licensed under CC BY 2.0

If not a hard Brexit, then what?

janice-morphet

Janice Morphet

Now that a ‘hard’ Brexit seems less likely, Janice Morphet – author of Beyond Brexit? – looks at alternative options for the UK’s relationship with the EU.

“Following the apparent disruption of hard Brexit that has followed the General Election, it is now time to review the other options available to the UK.

It would have been better to review these before the referendum was called and to explain the options to more fully inform the electorate during the campaign. Even after the referendum result, a review of the options would have been helpful rather than the incoming Prime Minister opting for the hardest form of EU/UK relationship without appreciating the paradox that her social welfare agenda could best be achieved using EU values, programmes and policies.

However, better late than never. So what are the real options available rather than those frequently suggested by those politicians less familiar with the EU?

 

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA)

The most frequently discussed approaches are the potential for the UK to return as a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). This was set up in 1960 by the UK as an alternative free trade bloc to the EU when the UK realised that it had made a mistake in dismissing membership of the then Common Market. Its members are now Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. While EFTA works as a group on some issues, its members have different relationships with the EU. This might suit the UK, but Norway has already indicated that it may not take the UK back into EFTA membership. How do these relationships work individually?

Continue reading ‘If not a hard Brexit, then what?’

What now for Brexit?

atlas-authors

Danny Dorling, Dimitris Ballas and Benjamin Hennig

Danny Dorling, Dimitris Ballas and Benjamin Hennig – authors of The human atlas of Europe – look at the reasons behind Labour’s success and ask… what now for Brexit?

 

“On June 8th 2017 young people all across the UK turned out to vote for a new conception of politics and a more inclusive, nourishing vision of society (as New Internationalist journalist Chris Brazier put it).

The rise of Labour in the polls in the month before the election was three times greater than any rise ever seen for that party in a month before. The swing in the vote to Labour was greater than that measured at any general election other than the 1945 landslide election. To be fair to Jeremy Corbyn it was actually even greater than that, as that 1945 swing took ten years (from 1935) to occur. In contrast, Labour’s swing in 2017 emerged within just two years of the last election (held in 2015).

Despite the enormous success in the polls and the voting booths it was not enough for Labour to win. The party had started so far behind in 2015 that a completely unprecedented swing would have been needed for outright victory. Labour’s four week surge in the polls would have had to have been not just three times greater than it had ever been before, but five, six or seven times – depending on exactly where that swing had been geographically concentrated. An outright Labour victory in June 2017 was nigh-on impossible in the circumstances, not least of a split Labour party.

But what Labour achieved was enough to put the Conservatives into the demotion zone of now being a minority government.

 

“..greater solidarity is gaining in popularity over division.”

 

Continue reading ‘What now for Brexit?’

Compromise, sacrifice and confusion: why I didn’t vote

Lisa McKenzie

Lisa Mckenzie

by Lisa Mckenzie, author of Getting By; Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.

“I didn’t vote in this election, which for me was the right choice, and a choice that is seldom given debate to within the national media.

My reasons were this: our political system asks us to vote for members of parliament to represent us in Westminster. I didn’t want any of the people on my ballot paper to represent me.

I also don’t think the system of parliamentary political party politics is truly democratic. It serves the greater good, it compromises what individuals believe in order to serve a middle, a mainstream, and a mediocre. It always has to sacrifice something, and someone, and the sacrifice is usually those with least power. I cannot endorse that.

“…the sacrifice is usually those with least power.”

The Labour Party have annoyed me for a long time (forever actually) but especially over the last two years.

I have been involved in many grass-roots organisations and campaigns and I know how difficult it is to keep people’s confidence up when they are having all kinds of institutional power thrown at them from all spectrums of political ideology.

However over the last two years this situation has become much worse, with the internal fighting of the Labour party. Many Labour supporters as well as politicians have taken sides and instead of being an opposition to the Government that has caused so much misery to the poorest people in the UK, they have opposed each other.

Continue reading ‘Compromise, sacrifice and confusion: why I didn’t vote’


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Twitter Updates

Archives

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print.

The work on the Policy Press blog is licensed under a Creative Commons licence.