Two stories caught my eye on our website yesterday (12th March), both relating to the effects of austerity on the United Kingdom.
Two stories caught my eye on our website yesterday (12th March), both relating to the effects of austerity on the United Kingdom. The first highlighted in an excellent article by Bernadette Meaden was a reflection on the recent report about the psychological impact of austerity. The second an LSE study demonstrating that young people are highly unlikely to ever earn the salaries of their parents.
Both these studies are important because they tell us something about the country we are becoming. They could, if we paid attention to them, act like the canary in the coal mine, warning us of the danger of continuing along the path of endless cuts. And parties of all political persuasions would do well to stop and consider what they mean.
The psychology study is concerning because it demonstrates that among other things austerity policies are causing instability and insecurity, fear and distrust, isolation and loneliness. I’d argue that we should be worried about this on compassionate grounds alone – what kind of message does it send if we aren’t bothered by our citizens feeling this way? But there are other, more practical implications. Firstly, there is clear evidence that a happy healthy workforce is a productive one. And we will need a productive workforce if we are to ensure the recent fragile growth in the economy is sustained. Secondly, if the numbers of people feeling insecure, distrustful and isolated grows, it is likely to have a negative effect on society as a whole. It is possible this could lead to an increase in demand for mental health services, a decrease in civic engagement and a rise in incidents of violent behaviour.
The second report, on the future prospects of young people, should also give us pause for thought. Whatever end of the political spectrum we are on, I think we would all agree that we want what’s best for our children. So isn’t it alarming to think that they will never do as well as us? As a parent of teenagers, I am already anxious about the debts they will incur from going to university. The idea that their future is one of uncertain employment, lower wages, and temporary housing is disturbing to say the least.
Those of us who have been opposed to austerity from the start have always criticised the fact that it disproportionately effects the poorest people in society. The proponents of austerity have long argued that their plans are improving the economy and helping poor people. But as I’ve noted previously this analysis is selective with its use of data on poverty and as the Centre for Welfare Reform has noted, the government repeatedly refuses to engage in any discussions on the cumulative effects of cuts on disabled and sick people. This has led to an unhelpful impasse with one side accusing the other of lacking compassion, and the other rebutting that austerity opponents are naive.
Perhaps these two new reports could be the start of helping us out of the impasse. Because whatever side of the debate we find ourselves, surely we should all be concerned that large numbers of people are feeling insecure, disengaged and isolated from society? And surely we all want to be investing in our children rather than indebting them? If empathy doesn’t sway politicians to change their ways, perhaps self interest will. The evidence of these studies shows a better future for everyone calls for a different approach. We need a post-austerity consensus that invests in people and communities rather than cuts and reduced wages.
With less than two months to go till the General Election, isn’t it time we asked politicians to respond such a call?
—–
© 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
*Our election paper can be found here