Skip to main content

Tories are chasing their tails on the economy.

The trick continues. Mr Cameron's inability to give assurances that nobody would be worse off from any changes in working tax credits left him floundering and blustering in the House of Commons. But slowly the defence has been mounted outside parliament and it is the usual trick, tainting those who receive benefits as 'work-shy' and 'on the take'.

The first line of argument was that it is necessary to cut welfare in order to cut the deficit, but why should hard working people on low pay be made to pay for the deficit?  That fairness question is difficult to answer.

They do try of course. 'The £30 billion cost of tax credits', they say is 'too big'.  But welfare is big because wages of the poorest workers are too low.  The bill is big because millions have been forced into low payed insecure jobs.

But that £30 bn isn't the real cost.  The real cost would subtract the costs of unemployment if these people were not in work.   Tax credits keep people in work.  That is what they are for. It makes work pay.  But it wasn't designed for the creation of so many low paid jobs.

It is right that the government should address the problem of low pay and part time work.  Recent surveys show that the majority of people on low pay and with part-time work want to work more hours.  The scandal of employment under the coalition was that the recovery was predicated on pushing people into low paid jobs with low hours and with poor contracts.  This is why reducing unemployment has cost so much.  It is the cost of driving people into low pay and insecurity.  It is a cost of the government's own making.  Nobody envisaged working tax credits would end up costing so much. This is because is never envisaged so many being pushed into low pay by such a long recession.  It is also a result of the wrong tactic: deficit reduction rather than growth.

Insecure, low-paid jobs have left record numbers of working families in poverty, with two-thirds of people who found work in jobs for less than the living wage.  That is the scandal. That is the trick.  The government systematically created a low payed work force.  Millions are trapped on low wages. 

According to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, nearly 1.4 million people are on the controversial zero hours contracts that do not guarantee minimum hours, most of them in catering, accommodation, retail and administrative jobs. Meanwhile, the self-employed earn on average 13% less than they did five years ago.  The truth is that the tax credits problem is one of the Tory government's making.  The bill has risen because of the madness of their economic strategy.  A strategy to 'tackle the deficit' which has failed.  It created the very increase in spending that makes it difficult to cut the deficit. It is a failed economic strategy, and now the government are chasing their tails trying to square the circle of deficit reduction.  

The truth is we are an underemployed country.  Sluggish productivity growth continues. Tax credits need to be replaced by real jobs with a living wage. But cutting tax credits won't in itself achieve that.  The government should only cut tax credits when a real living wage is in place. The government got it the wrong way round.

The reason they got it wrong is because they saw only one objective, to cut the welfare bill.  Ideologically, they don't really believe in a 'living wage'. They pinched it from Labour to establish a background for welfare cuts and declare themselves a party for the workers. This is why they got it the wrong way round.  Cutting welfare for the Tories has priority over the 'living wage'.  It is a trick that has caught them out.

Austerity is presented as the only viable alternative. This is another trick the Tories have been good at. Economic credibility was predicated on accepting this. Labour made the mistake under Miliband of doing so.  The alternative would have been a strategy of real investment for growth - reducing the deficit by increasing revenue.  Indeed, I would argue that this is the only way to effectively tackle the deficit and pay down the debt.  Tragically,  the Tories won the argument by default.  Labour failed to present the alternative.  They allowed a false narrative to gain credibility - that the deficit was the problem that led to the financial crisis. That narrative led to economic madness - a madness the Liberal Democrats helped along.

This is why we need a new narrative, a realistic narrative on the economy.  It makes sense from a number of angles. Without social objectives, economic objectives are meaningless and self defeating.


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

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they