‘Entire cities’ being ‘cast aside’ in a nation where ‘rampant consumerism and individualism’ are the new religion, say Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
John Bingham. Daily Telegraph. 14 January 2015
Archbishops’ pre-election assault on ‘evil’ of inequality in Coalition Britain – Daily Telegraph
Coalition austerity is defended on pragmatic grounds, that it is necessary to maintain the integrity of sterling and logicically, that it is wrong to pass the costs of Labour’s past mistakes to future generations. The argument about the strength of sterling is probably overstated. The need for austerity is now common ground amongst the main parties. The only question is depth, speed and where it falls. Liberal Democrat and labour proposals are less severe primarily because they take into account the benefit to future generations some types of capital expenditure.
Conservative economic thought likes to reduce the economy to a household. It then simplifies policy to one point. Margaret Thatcher adopted monetarism which said the only thing that mattered was the supply of money and the greatest threat inflation. George Osborne believes the greatest threat is interest payments and the only thing that matters is government debt. Even with this change, the policy is much the same – low taxes and deregulation.
The Labour party has for some time adopted an economic orthodoxy which may be described as neo-orthodox or neo-Keynsian. At leas this is the position which Ed Balls helped develop and still proposes which was followed by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Those closed to economic policy in the labour party are proposing a prudent policy. The view that Labour will take, spend and ruin everything is scaremongering. Misrepresenting your opponent weakens your case
Labour was as guilty as the Conservatives of seeing London as a financial centre as the wealth generator for Britain. Both parties have advocated policies to help the regions. this includes high speed trains and development on the M62 corridor. The conservatives will emphasise low taxation and deregulation whereas labour has prioritised grants and relocating public sector jobs. It is wrong to say that Conservatives are against developing the regions. it is simply that they regard debt reduction as more important.
The problem is not that some cities have been written off but that some people have been written off and are regarded as a burden on society rather than as part of society.
Welfare reform started with the slogan “making sure work always pays” This sounds good but every rationalisation seems level down in addition to overall austerity cuts. I believe that to get people back to work you need far more enabling and less mandatory activity which is widely seen as useless. Sanctions are described by the DWP as “a last resource” but are reported as frequent and arbitrary. The regime for the sick and disabled is reported as resulting in many delays and harsh decisions. The condition of many would be substantially improved if administration was improved so that the system worked as the legislators intended.
I hope that someone with a feel for both Christian social ethics and the British economy reviews this book for Fulcrum.
Inequality is the theme of the moment, and the essayists can hardly ignore it. But perhaps at least one of them has addressed the simpler question whether it is moral to ignore standard textbook knowledge in taking a decision that risks harm to others.
From here, what Britons are “all in together” looks like this–
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/britains-success-story/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/the-english-prisoner/?
The Coalition advocates for economic growth as a solution to various ills, but meanwhile pursues budget cuts that, when interest rates are as low as they are, tend to stifle just such promised growth. Because the cuts weaken the safety net, they have a double effect in the present economic conditions: (1) They make the poor especially dependent upon promised growth; (2) They make that growth unlikely, long-term stagnation probable, and actual decline possible. The adopted means are working hard against the stated ends.
If one has believed the standard university texts, then one has expected this result all along. If one thought that it was reasonable and ethical to disbelieve them, many quarters of data surely show the error of doing so by now. Whatever one otherwise thinks of the Coalition, or would think of its cuts under other economic conditions, or expected them to do when they began, it is not realistic to continue them for the stated reasons while interest rates remain as low as they are.
Do not Christians, simply as persons of good will, have a duty to demand rational government?
Cities cast aside is an exaggeration. There has been substantial regeneration e.g. in Manchester and Leeds. This may pre-date the coalition but northern cities seem determined to make a go of it.
Some inequality is inevitable. Some rewards are appropriate. We need a strengthening of the safety net. Despite coalition intentions their is still a problem with retention of income when low income individuals work harder. The advantages of the wealthy are so enormous that an increase in higher rate tax is justified.