When George Osborne unveiled his budget last week, he claimed that after five years of the coalition, the economy was improving so much that we could consider the UK
When George Osborne unveiled his budget last week, he claimed that after five years of the coalition, the economy was improving so much that we could consider the UK ‘comeback country’.
If this is the case, then we would assume the budget will fare well when analysed according to the values outlined in Ekklesia’s election paper .
One of these values – investing in nonviolence as an alternative to security – has already been considered and the Chancellor has been found wanting, but how about the other nine?
• A commitment to favouring the poorest and most vulnerable
The Chancellor does not make any specific mention of poverty and also fails to recognise the need to address the growth in child poverty. In fact the Child Poverty Action Group called this the “see no poverty, hear no poverty” budget . The commitment to raise the minimum wage to £6.70 an hour is welcome but this is still a long way from achieving the living wage of £7.85 an hour. The budget therefore fails to reflect this value.
• Actively redressing social and economic injustices and inequalities
Much was made of the tax threshold being raised to £11,000. Surely this means that people at the lower end of the pay scale will benefit? In fact, as many commentators have pointed out, this only helps people who are earning £11,000 and over. The 5 million lowest paid workers earning less than that receive nothing . And whilst there is a small benefit to people on minimum wage, £28 a year will not get very far. In fact it is the top earners who do best, gaining £445 a year. Although the budget appears to have been addressing this value, it has not done anything of the sort.
• Welcoming the stranger and valuing displaced and marginalised people
There is no mention of migration in the budget. Which is ironic since there is a suggestion that a rise in educated immigrants may well be helping improve the economy . Since there is nothing specific to support migrants, nor anything to harm them, the budget can be considered neutral on this value.
• Seeing people, their dignity and rights as the solution not the problem
There is nothing in the budget that specifically contributes to seeing people as the solution rather than the problem. The lack of measures on poverty and inequality and the further cuts proposed for welfare suggest that the Chancellor doesn’t prioritise the dignity and rights of people in this group. At best, the budget is neutral on this value, but more likely doesn’t promote it.
• Moving from punitive ‘welfare’ to a society where all can genuinely fare well
The proposed spending cuts have been reduced since the Autumn Statement, but this budget is projecting a further£12 billion to be taken from welfare. And as this analysis shows, this will punish the poor again. The budget fails to meet this value.
• Promoting community and neighbourhood empowerment
Greater Manchester Council will be able to keep all its business rates and the London Mayor will have new powers for skills and planning. Whether this has any impact on communities and neighbourhoods is difficult to predict. At best, we can consider the budget neutral on this value.
• Food, education, health, housing, work and sustainable income for all
Whilst the budget suggests George Osborne has listened to the Office of Budget Responsibility, reducing cuts on the public sector and ending austerity a year early, public services will continue to be hit by severe cuts till 2019. This will be on top of the last five years of austerity which has seen a reduction of 30 per cent to the public sector alongside £12 billion cuts to welfare. It is impossible for this value to be met under such circumstances.
• Care for planet and people as the basis for human development
The North Sea oil industry will receive tax cuts worth £1.3 billion, a move which has been widely criticised as being a threat achieving climate change targets . Support for green initiatives is limited, suggesting care for the planet is not a high priority. The budget does not reflect this value.
• Transparency, honesty and accountability in public and economic life
At several points in the budget speech, George Osborne made statements about how life has improved under the Coalition. He claimed the debt of the previous government was created by Gordon Brown, a frequently stated position of the coalition government. However, many commentators, including Mervyn King, former head of the Bank of England, have stated that Labour did not cause the global crash . He claimed that inequality and child poverty is down despite the evidence to the contrary and the fact that government figures demonstrating this will not be available till after the election . This suggests a distinct lack of honesty and transparency which means the budget does not meet this value.
The budget is the moment in the year when a Chancellor sets out his plans for the economy. A government committed to common good principles, would always ensure that such plans included the well being of everyone, particularly the poorest. The fact that the 2015 budget fails to promote any of the values Ekklesia has outlined suggests quite clearly, that George Osborne’s “comeback country” only has room for some.
—–
© Virginia Moffatt is chief operating officer of Ekklesia. Before working for Ekklesia, she spent 30 years working in services for people with learning disabilities, most recently for Oxfordshire County Council.
*More on the issues in the 2015 General Election from Ekklesia: General election