Skip to main content

Pulling together

For the first time since WW2, we are reminded of how facing a major crisis we must pull together as a society.

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how fragile our social infrastructure has become after a decade of austerity.  Whilst not making the response to COVID-19 party political, the Tory government must acknowledge the need to invest in our communities, in social care, and other key services.  These are just as vital to our economic well-being as any factory.

But this requires the government to ensure there is support for our key services.  We must never again allow our social support system to become so fragile.



Just as bridges and roads, rail-links and ports are vital to our economy, so also is the fabric of our health and care system.  The government must once again start investing in people and communities.

Much will be done by volunteer support groups, and that is a wonderful thing.  Indeed, we must all consider what it is we are doing for our loved ones, our friends and neighbours.  We are in this together.

Almost all sectors are the economy is likely to take a hit, with the risk of unemployment as people are laid off.  They must not become another statistic to be filed away in the Office for National Statistics. People need support as well as businesses to see them through this crisis.

After what appeared to be a faltering start, the government appears to be more open and responsive to the changes necessary, although watching the Health Minister on BBC's Newsnight she gave little assurance that the government were responding to the needs of health care workers.

The government also needs to sharpen up its messaging.  It is good to see that this is now happening.  Too many were left wondering exactly what the government's intentions were.






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