Skip to main content

The nonsense of Tory economic madness

Taking the Tory narrative on the economy you would be forgiven for thinking that current problems with the economy are due to 'out of control' spending on welfare.  It is a false narrative. It is a dangerous narrative because it means we are not learning from history.

The Tories set up this narrative of welfare spending so that they can do what they are ideologically good at doing - cutting social investment.  But it is more sinister.  It is a political trick that shifts the burden of the financial crisis to the poorest and enables the government to 'keep taxes low'. It aims at 'middle England'.  

But it is a false narrative. If you want to see graphically what went wrong you can do no better than consider household debt.  The massive and rapid increase in household debt as percentage of incomes fuelled an unsustainable boom.  


Household debt-to-income shot up over the course of a decade to 170% of household income before the financial crash.  In large part it fuelled, and was in turn fuelled by rising house prices. 


Not only was more and more money pumped into the housing market, house price inflation was fuelled by the growing shortage of housing.  It was also a 'boom' fuelled by an unfettered market. Distorted market economics pushed housing increasingly out of reach of first-time buyers.  This was a social crisis. 

In the three decades following the war, construction of local government housing increased supply. It took people out of slums and provided affordable housing. It was a critical factor in the welfare state and in providing opportunities for hard working families. Home builds reached over 400,00 a year in the late 1960s. However,  with the advent of 'free market' politics from the 1980s, the government retreated from building houses, leaving it to the private sector, with only a small contribution from housing associations.  The consequences are now stark.  Families are forced now into inadequate rented homes in a relatively unfettered rented sector.  Landlords income have been fuelled by the need to support such families with rent allowances.

The Tory government seeks to solve this, not by building more social housing but by trying to force people to move with the 'bedroom tax' or simply putting a cap on rent allowance making it impossible for families to go on living in the areas where they have jobs.  

No, it isn't public investment that brought about the crisis. It was the lack of it. Welfare bills rise because more and more people are forced into low paid jobs often on zero hour contracts. The welfare bill is high because rents are high and pay is low. Yet the government seeks to solve this by cutting welfare.  As well as being socially unjust, it is economic madness.



Comments

Post a Comment

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 ba...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

In praise of social housing and the welfare state

I will declare an interest. I grew up in a one-parent family on a council estate. I occasionally attended my local comprehensive school. I say occasionally because for the most part I played truant. I spent much of my time skipping school but walking and reading on the local common. It had a windmill which I loved. It later had Wombles but that is another story. I contemplated life under the sun. Like many others, I left school at 15 with no qualifications. My penultimate school report said they  'could see no reason why public money should be wasted on the attempted education of this boy'. So I declare this interest of a privileged upbringing. Social housing kept a roof over our heads at a rent mum could (barely) afford; and oh how I recall the days  when she couldn't. She worked all hours to keep that roof over our heads. In those early days of Rock-and-Roll, Bill Haley and the Comets, Adam Faith, Billy Fury, Cliff Richard (yes I was/am a fan), the estate had three c...
2 comments
Read more