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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As