Skip to main content

Simply cutting the deficit is a poor economic goal

It is relatively easy to create an economy that works for the rich but it is difficult to create one that works for the poor.  But it isn't rocket science. The huge public investments in health, education and housing in the three decades following world war two demonstrated it can be done, lifting people out of poor housing and providing them with opportunities in education and work inconceivable before the war.

The Tories and the Tory government, as did the Tory-LibDem coalition have instead targeted the deficit. They have not learned from history.  Despite Britain being bankrupted by the war, and inspire of massive national debt, both Labour and Tory governments invested in social infrastructure and welfare - more so did Labour.  As the economy grew, the national debt fell precipitously. A healthy workforce became a more productive one; a skilled workforce become a more adapted one.



Yet, now, cutting down the deficit has become an objective for a 'strong' economy with robust growth, but it is growth predicated on making the disadvantaged poorer.  The government hails middlingly small growth as a sign the it is working.  It isn't. Not for the poor it isn't  Furthermore it is poor economics whether or not you care about the poor.

 This is why we need a more balanced economic strategy. Growth is necessary, but not sufficient as an answer.  We need also a social strategy.  Simply putting the nations finances 'in order' is not in itself an answer. A family could have a healthy balance in the bank but if the roof leaks it is more damaging than if the family had borrowed money to repair the roof.

Putting the nations finances in order is also used by the Tory government as a cover for an ideological attack on the poor, but not on poverty.  First they create a narrative of the 'undeserving', 'work-shy' poor.  The Secretary of State for works and pensions has used this language time and again.  They also talk of 'helping the poor help themselves'.  The truth is that the vast majority of those receiving benefits are in work.

Another part of the narrative is what is called 'welfare dependency' as if those on benefits are on a kind of benefits drug from which they have to be weaned with cold turkey.  And so it is with working tax credits.  Government ministers say that somehow this will miraculously increase wages.  Yet, there is no process in any economic text I know that demonstrates this principle. The one I do know is that if you cut benefits to the poorest without lifting their wages then they will be pushed deeper into poverty.  They won't be able to afford their rents and so are more likely to become homeless, their health will deteriorate and we end up with a poor, unproductive, unskilled workforce.  It is simply bad, bad, bad economics.

The government has no social agenda other than that of a Victorian era of 'self help'. But even the Victorians began to understand the importance of public health and invested in infrastructure to promote it.  This government has lost sight of the social goals of good governance.  To create health and wellbeing. It follows bad economics for bad social reasons. It pushes the poorest deeper into poverty for the sake of the illusive goal of 'cutting the deficit'.   Cutting the deficit is a poor economic goal.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …