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
 

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

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