Skip to main content

Let's invest in our children not HS2.

A shameful 30% of children in the UK are living in poverty, and 70% of them are children of hard-working families.    That is over 4 million children.

Child poverty is increasing in the UK, and it is not difficult to see why.

Tory austerity and poverty wages have pushed families into poverty.

For almost the decade from 2010 to the present, child benefit – a vital lifeline for families struggling to make ends meet – has lost nearly a quarter of its value simply because it has not increased as prices have risen.

Investing in ending child poverty would bring high returns to the economy.

Child poverty matters - it matters a great deal because it represents a crucial link in the causes of poor health.   Childhood obesity, for example, is a significant consequence of poverty.

If we wanted to tackle childhood obesity, we would also want to combat childhood poverty.

But let's examine what that means.  It means ending poverty.  It means creating fairness in the distribution of wealth and opportunity. It means ending poverty wages and insecure jobs.

It means creating an economy with social objectives.  It means not only being tough on childhood poverty but also being tough on the causes of poverty.  We must stop the madness of austerity.

A report from the Joseph Rowntree Trust published three years ago estimated that the cost of poverty to the UK economy was £75 billion annually.   The cost of poverty accounts for £1 in every £5 of public expenditure.

The Tory-led austerity has been economically foolish, as much as it is unfair.

It is staggering that the government can talk casually about the billions required for projects like HS2 without blinking an eye, yet wring their hands at the idea of spending such sums investing in people - taking them out of poverty and giving them a fair opportunity.

HS2, they say, is an investment in vital infrastructure.   So too is an investment in our children.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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,