The Thin End

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 fo...

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, b...

The Labour Party has produced a bold manifesto.  Already there is a queue of pundits telling the media it can't be afforded.   The reality though is different.  We cannot afford not to do this.  It is a significant investment to ensure we tackle poverty, fund the health and care services, building houses hard-working families can afford while ensuring we have the right kind of investment in critical infrastructure and the skills businesses need. The IFS has already produced its own costings.  It is a balance sheet of how much the immediate costs are and where the revenue would come from.  It doesn't give the entire picture. Over time investment in bringing people out of poverty and investment in health and green jobs will itself increase tax revenue.  It will begin to pay for itself over time. I suppose voters might say, pull the other one, but history demonstrates that when governments made similar spending in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the nation...

When the Tories returned to power in 2010, backed by the LibDems in a coalition, they imposed an austerity programme of cuts in spending. That programme is said to come to an end today, with the announcement of a new expenditure round by Chancellor Sajid Javed.  What was 'austerity' to achieve? It achieved very little for the many, and it drove so many into poverty, homelessness and debt. It forced people into poverty wages and zero-hour contracts. It closed libraries up and down the country. It has driven local authorities towards bankruptcy, with failing social and children's services.    The government said it was aimed to 'cut the deficit', but austerity was always more than pure economics. It was fundamentally political. They did more than impose cuts across the social sector. They created a narrative of the 'undeserving' and the 'deserving' poor. The Conservative Party adopted an aggressive set of  campaign advertisements targeted a...