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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,