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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …