Skip to main content

Spend, spend, spend is not enough

Some thoughts on the Chancellor's measures for recovery.

Ray Noble, academic and writer

The Chancellor's measures are a big package, but likely to be not big enough. There is much to be welcomed, even if it is a commitment with some half-measures. The government should not allow political philosophy to get in the way of doing what is required. Now more than ever, we need a unity of purpose across the political divide. That is never easy. We did it once before in what became known as the 'post-war consensus' on the need for spending on social infrastructure.

It helped us recover from the ravages and debt of war. Far from increasing national debt, the social investment-led recovery helped stimulate demand and the national debt tumbled. All the main parties, Tory, Labour and Liberal put employment at the heart of the strategy.

Merely urging people to spend is not the answer. In the long term, we need an investment-led recovery. Investment creates jobs, increases earnings and thus spending people can afford. If we sit back and allow unemployment to increase, spending and tax revenues will fall, the cost of welfare will rise, and we enter a vicious circle of debt. Unemployment also means a loss of skills, which makes recovery more difficult.

Of course, it is natural to think that encouraging people to spend will be a major part of recovery. After all, businesses are suffering because spending has fallen. But that is only part of the problem. Even if we spend on the high-street at pre lockdown levels, it will not be enough to save the jobs of those businesses now about to lay off workers. You can't spend in an empty, vacated John Lewis's.

As the IFS says " this is no normal recession. It’s the deepest in history." But it could be seized as an opportunity to reshape our economy, stimulating local production, reducing our reliance on global food supplies; an opportunity to invest in Britain and rebuilding our community infrastructure. It needs social as well as an economic investment.

The IFS also rightly point out that timing matters. Merely throwing money at it in one big heave isn't what is required. Sector by sector businesses will struggle, and the underlying problems will be different and need addressing. We have yet to learn precisely which businesses are in trouble and likely to fold. Not all would have had the same resilience. This requires a flexible response from the government. It needs a strategy, involving businesses and unions. £30 billion is unlikely to be enough.

If you have read this far, then that is good. By all means, comment on this, but do try not to dig deeper into your political trenches. I don't know all the answers. I'm just trying to make some sense of the road ahead. Yah boo isn't going to work.

                                                    Ray Noble sings Nadau ta Baptista


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

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations.  If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working