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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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