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

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As