TMP Online

TMP editor, Chuka Umunna, enters into the stop and search debate and warns against the perils of playing politics in this arena. 

One spring day in April 1981 my mother popped down to Brixton with her little toddlers, to do a spot of shopping. Little did she know what was about to unfold; as the tension mounted and the violence started, she literally sprinted to our car with her two bundles of joy - my sister in her pushchair and me on foot - and fled. She still talks with relief about how she knew the various side roads out of the area, enabling us to make that quick exit more than 20 years ago.

You see, when Conservative leader David Cameron seeks to kick about the stop and search issue as if it were just another political football, this is the arena into which he is lobbing it. It is common currency that it was the disproportionate use of stop and search powers by the police then, in addition to the deprivation which many in urban Britain suffered under Margaret Thatcher, that led to the riots that spring day.

Unlike Cameron, it appears that history has not been lost on Sir Ronnie Flanagan, whose report into policing is published today. Yes, things are different now. The police are not so “gung-ho” in the use of their powers and we have different issues, the number of violent murders of young people in London last year among them. But Flanagan has recognised the need to ensure the police command the respect of all communities given his proposal to retain the “stop and search” form to demonstrate accountability, particularly to ethnic minorities, though he sensibly acknowledges procedures need to be streamlined through the use of modern technology. No doubt his experience in Northern Ireland has informed his outlook.

The Tory leader, on the other hand, has adopted a completely different approach. In his interview in the Sun last week, we were told how he “sees the effects of the violent crime explosion as he cycles to the Commons” from his home in Notting Hill. No doubt he stops every now and then to talk to the locals on his way. Cameron would have us believe that his finger is on the pulse of urban Britain, while Gordon Brown doesn’t recognise the problems. So what did he propose? “Freeing” the police to do “far more stopping and far more searching,” without which we are not going to be able to deal with the current problems, he says. He wants to do away with accountability measures, such as the forms, which were introduced to ensure the police use their stop and search powers properly:

“In the British police service there were problems with racism, there were problems with attitude. That needed to change, I think it has now been changed. I am quite clear the current rules have to go.”

He conveniently forgets the numerous deaths of black people in police custody, like Michael Powell in 2003, and the dreadful reports of racism in police training centres such as those in Hendon and Cheshire since the publication of the Macpherson report, which found institutional racism to be rife in the Metropolitan police.

Read the rest of this entry »

TMP’s European columnist looks at the intersection of religion and politics in the EU.

How we bridge the gap between religion and politics in a multi-cultural society is something that is being considered across Europe. I recently attended a meeting of the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) in London where this issue was debated (see: www.londen.pvda.nl).

The Netherlands has an interesting history where the divide between Catholicism and Protestantism was a significant issue. Now, with a growing Muslim population, the balance between religion and the state has come to the fore again. The PvdA has argued strongly in favour of a separation of church and state in the past. However, today it is taking a more pragmatic approach in some areas, for example through supporting the founding of religious schools.

Across Europe the fault line between religion and politics has raised its head. In France the state is constitutionally secular and there was great debate about the wearing of the hijab in schools. In the UK the recent debate around Catholic adoption agencies, and whether they could be forced to treat a gay couple in the same way as a straight couple seeking to adopt provides another example.

In much of western Europe the traditional centre right parties call themselves Christian Democrats. This often leads to the main centre left party seeking to distance themselves from the church. This has lead to interesting results. In Spain the centre left pushed past a law allowing for gay marriage against a strong lobby from the Vatican. In Italy, the same issue has just pulled apart Prodi’s centre left governing coalition and new elections are now on the cards (Italian PM Romano Prodi is pictured, right, with the Pope).

There is clearly no one model as to how the state interacts with the church and religion in Europe, something that led to a heated debated as to whether the now defunct European constitution should include a reference to God. I am glad that it did not, as the interaction between religion and the state clearly varies so much. However there is a role for the EU in sharing knowledge about balancing this interaction. As our societies grow ever more multi-cultural it is vital that the state is seen to be fair to all religious groups, not favouring institutionalised religion over others. Examples from other European countries could help guide our politicians when they seek to address issues.

Anne Fairweather is TMP’s European columnist and a Prospective European Parliamentary Candidate for Labour in London.

Ahead of the “Super Tuesday” Democratic Party primaries in the US this evening, watch this music video “Yes We Can” which is inspired by Senator Barack Obama’s presidential bid. It has been produced by Black Eyed Peas frontman, will.i.am, and film maker Jesse Dylan (son of John).

Commenting on ABC News on the video, will.i.am said of Obama’s speech (after the New Hampshire primary) which inspired the video:
“It made me reflect on the freedoms I have, going to school where I went to school, and the people that came before Obama like Martin Luther King, presidents like Abraham Lincoln that paved the way for me to be sitting here on ABC News and making a song from Obama’s speech”.

The video features Scarlett Johansson, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Kate Walsh, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Adam Rodriquez, Kelly Hu, Adam Rodriquez, Amber Valetta and Nick Cannon.

Meanwhile, Obama was working New Jersey voters yesterday with Hollywood actor, Robert de Niro. De Niro said Obama was the “one person has given me hope, has made me believe that we can make a change.”

New research for the TUC published today reveals that the public purse loses £13 billion a year through tax avoidance by the wealthy and £12 billion a year through tax avoidance by corporations. Altogether this adds up to £25 billion - or around £1,000 a year for everyone at work in the UK.

The research, conducted by accountant and tax specialist Richard Murphy, is published in “The Missing Billions”, the first in a new series of TUC pamphlets designed to stimulate debate called Touchstones. The research includes the analysis of 344 sets of accounts from Britain’s 50 largest companies and analysis of HMRC and other official statistics.

Analysis of the top 50 companies’ accounts shows that their effective corporation tax rate is 22.5 per cent - not the 30 per cent agreed by Parliament. The companies almost always pay 5 per cent less tax on average than they declare in their accounts and in the seven years up to 2006 their effective tax rate fell by 0.5 per cent each year.

The report shows how super-rich individuals avoid paying their fair share of tax. £3.2 billion tax is lost by turning earned income into investment income (which is taxed more favourably) or by shifting the income to others (such as spouses) in lower or nil tax bands. Another £3.8 billion is lost moving transactions out of the UK, £0.5 billion by turning income into a capital gain and £4.8 billion from various kinds of tax planning.

Half the amount lost to tax avoidance could raise the level at which higher rate tax starts being paid by £10,000 a year, which would also offer significant help to those on middle incomes; or increase the state pension by 20 per cent; or reduce income tax by 3p in the pound; or build an extra 50 hospitals a year.

The Touchstone pamphlet calls for:

- a minimum rate of tax to be paid by all those earning more than £100,000 a year to limit their use of tax avoidance and tax planning, without affecting the tax rates of middle Britain;
- a stop to HMRC staff cuts so that there are sufficient resources to effectively collect tax;
- the non-dom tax loophole to be abolished;
- capital gains on assets held for less than a year to be charged to income tax;
- a change to the tax treatment of charities to give them more income and close a tax loophole; and,
- the introduction of a new ‘general anti-avoidance principle’ to make it easier to tax the super-rich and large companies.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: ‘There is mounting concern at the growing gap between the super-rich and the rest of society, but so far there have been few practical proposals to do anything about it. This TUC pamphlet is therefore doubly helpful. First it carefully works out just how much the super-rich and big companies rip the rest of us off by not paying their fair share of taxes. Secondly it sets out a practical set of policies that close loopholes, end abuse and starts the process of making the super-rich make a proper contribution - all without raising a single tax rate.

‘Our strong view is that the proceeds should be used to properly fund public services, where six million are facing cuts in their real pay, and relieve poverty - particularly child poverty. But you do not have to agree with our spending priorities to back our call for fair tax, and we recognise the argument at this difficult economic time for boosting the income of low and middle Britain through tax cuts.

‘This is not the politics of envy but the economics of fairness. It is all about getting rich and powerful people to understand they must play by the rules, not look for ways round them.”