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

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 balan…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…