Skip to main content

No end of austerity for the poorest

We might feel that with the massive borrowing to spend in the UK chancellor's budget sees the end of austerity.   Not long ago, the Tories were attacking Labour for their spending plans.  Now, this Tory government is set for the biggest spending spree in decades.

Of course, much of this is because of the coronavirus pandemic.   The NHS will get a boost in spending because, without such an injection of new cash, it will be unable to cope.

The government is responding to crises.  At last, it is putting in the much-needed funds to strengthen flood defences.

But does all this mean the end to austerity?  The answer to the poorest is that it does not.   There is little in the budget to address the problem of social care.  There is little to solve the issue of high rents and poor standard of housing.



There is little to address the crisis in children's services, and little to address the crumbling school infrastructure.

It is a spending budget, but it doesn't address the real problems faced by working people who have struggled over the last decade.

This is still, under the skin, an austerity budget.  Yes, it deals with the critical needs of the coronavirus crisis and its economic consequences. It is right that it should.  But once again, it will be the poorest who will pay for it.

The Tories have been forced to break their own wisdom on borrowing.   There will be problems ahead.

There is little to address the problem of chronic underfunding of our local authorities.  Many are facing difficulty meeting their statutory requirements.  Children's services, youth services, social care are all set to continue underfunding.

We needed a budget for the people.  We have a budget that rightly protects businesses, but does little to protect the most impoverished families.  It isn't a budget that levels up.  It is a crisis budget.

There is little of the promised Brexit dividend for the NHS.

The government benches cheered the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he sat down after his speech, but many are concerned that they have abandoned the very principles on which they sought election.   Some have already voiced concerns.



 

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...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...