Skip to main content

Austerity wasn't necessary

Britain's first budget since leaving the EU shows little to no Brexit dividend.  Digesting the UK Chancellor's budget will take a bit of time...just a bit.  But it is already clear that there is little of the trumpeted Brexit bonanza.  There is no windfall from Brexit.

Of course, some will argue that there was never going to be any.

Instead, the government has abandoned its economic principles, planning now to increase borrowing to spend on big infrastructure projects and cope with the coronavirus pandemic.   It is a crisis budget.



We saw none of the £350 million a week for the NHS that adorned Boris Johnson's Leave campaign bus.  We did get an extra £6 bn for the NHS, which is woefully short of the £18 billion that was suggested as a bonus from Brexit!

Of course, nobody believed the battle bus figure in any event.  It was a porky pie.  Not only did it get the number wrong for our payments into the EU, but it was also a sleight of hand to suggest that this could be used to fund the NHS.

Yet, despite the increased spending and the massive borrowing, there is no end to austerity.  We will still see the growing crisis in social care and children's services.  We will see the social fabric of our society continue to deteriorate.

Bricks and mortar alone in grandiose schemes like HS2 are not sufficient to rebuild our towns and communities.

But the budget tells us something crucial.   Austerity was not necessary as a response to the banking crisis in 2008/9.  It was always possible for the government to borrow to spend.  It was even possible for them not to cut income tax for high earners.  

It wasn't necessary to slash funding to local authorities so that they could not afford to meet their statutory requirements, and pushing them towards bankruptcy.

It wasn't necessary to cut benefits and drive hard-working families into poverty.

The Tory government and the Coalition before it took the opportunity to make the poorest families pay for the bankers' greed.







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