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 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,