One of the impacts
of 2010 austerity we saw again last week. Widespread flooding
ruining hundreds of homes, and costing a life. Can we say those
floods were caused by climate change? Not with certainty, but climate
change has made this kind of flooding more likely. Can we say the
lack of spending on flood defences under a Tory government made the
recent floods worse? Not with certainty, but lack of spending has
increased the damage flooding does more generally.
In 2007 the Labour government commissioned from Michael Pitt (no
longer available on a government website, but available here)
which stated:
“The scale of the problem is, as we know, likely to get worse. We are not sure whether last summer’s events were a direct result of climate change, but we do know that events of this kind are expected to become more frequent. The scientific analysis we have commissioned as part of this Review (published alongside this Report) shows that climate change has the potential to cause even more extreme scenarios than were previously considered possible. The country must adapt to increasing flood risk.”
The Labour government responded to this review by substantially
increasing central government spending on flood prevention. It
reached a peak in 2010/11, the last year of the relevant spending
review. Subsequently the coalition government, as part of its
austerity policy, cut back on spending, going directly against the
spirit of the Pitt review. (More details can be found in my book,
The Lies We Were Told.)
Flooding is a very visible example of what happens when a government
cuts back on spending communities desperately need. There are
hundreds more. Cutting Sure Start centres leading
to growing pressure on the NHS. Squeezing local authorities so they
cut provision for young people, together with less police officers,
helping the spread of knife crime. Squeezing the NHS and local
authority health provision leading
to premature deaths. And so on.
Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson want people to believe they have begun
to reverse the disaster of Osborne’s cuts. They have plans to
return the number of police officers to 2010 levels, which leads to
good headlines because the media always neglects
to account for population growth, with the odd laudable exception
from where the chart below comes.
The number of GPs per head of population have also been falling in
most of the UK, when they should be rising to cope with people living
longer. Here is a chart from
the Nuffield Trust.
Again the Conservatives have announced plans for more GPs, but they
have done that before
and they have failed to materialise. The basic problem is that they
are failing to train enough doctors, too many doctors go overseas
because of poor pay and working conditions in the UK (remember
the doctors strike), and their hostile environment policy and Brexit
discourages doctors coming from abroad. I could go on and on.
But it is worse. We have to have severe doubts that the Tory spending
plans, inadequate though they are, will be fulfilled. There are two
basic reasons. The first is Brexit, which I talked about in a recent
post.
The second is taxes. Tories hate putting up taxes in any way people
will notice, and really like cutting taxes. During the austerity
period they cut income taxes and corporation taxes. This is simply no
longer possible.
The reason why is health spending. The trend in health spending per
person, or as a share of GDP, is relentlessly
upwards. The trend in the graph above illustrates this. It reflects
many things which cannot be reversed: not just increasing life spans
but also technical progress in what can be treated, and the fact that
the better off we are the more in proportion we want to spend on our
health. For a time this upward trend was offset by the peace dividend
reducing military spending, but that has come to an end. It has
nothing to do with a free at the point of use system being
inefficient - in fact the opposite is true.
Both factors, Brexit and taxes, reflect the influence of extreme
neoliberalism in today’s Tory party. There are some Brexiter MPs
who really just want to return to the days of Empire, or who just
don’t get the idea of shared sovereignty, or want to keep
foreigners out. But the key reason for the dominance of Brexit in
today’s Tory party is a belief that a society free as far as
possible of taxes and regulations and state ‘interference’ in
the economy is a good society, and the EU is a barrier to that. The
same ideology wants to reduce the size of the state way beyond
what most of the public wish, and still calls for slashing red tape
despite Grenfell and while greatly increasing red tape for trading
firms because of Brexit.
Their neoliberalism has become extreme because they have, with
Brexit, started working against the interest of UK business. The
party of business has become the party that ignores business. The
Tory neoliberalism has become so extreme that they think they know
what is good for business even though they are told by business that
it is disastrous. A former Tory business minister writes
“I was aghast that a Conservative government, of which I was a
member, had brought the world of business so low.”
Should we be grateful that the Tories have finally agreed to end
years of growing cuts and in some areas start to reverse austerity?
They really had little choice. I think we should credit the new
Chancellor with stopping Johnson announcing tax cuts (at least for
now), and for increasing public investment. But for the reasons I
have outlined the Tories will never be able to substantially reverse
the damage they did with austerity, because they remain wedded to an
extreme neoliberal ideology.
"But for the reasons I have outlined the Tories will never be able to substantially reverse the damage they did with austerity, because they remain wedded to an extreme neoliberal ideology."
ReplyDeleteLikewise the EU. What the Tories have done to the UK is trivial in comparison with what the EU did to Greece and the southern EU countries. At least the Tories did a good job on unemployment which is more than can be said for the EU.