The theology of the Autumn Statement
The Coalition Government'southward so-called Autumn Argument (since when was December in Autumn, I wonder?) was, according to Danny Alexander, the last large financial argument before next year'southward election. Then information technology seemed advisable to attempt and offer some theological reflection on it, as it sets out the stall of both parties (to some extent) in the run-up to what is sure to be an election resulting in a hung Parliament.
There should have been enough of material to piece of work with. Big infrastructure projects were appear, so we could reflect on stewardship and investment. This included send infrastructure, so I could accept commented on aspects of locality, mobility and identity in relation to a mobile world. (In fact, it is still the instance that more than 50% of the population die in the aforementioned local authority district that they are built-in. Mobility is the 'privilege' of the minority.) George Osborne tried to steal the wind from Labour on the 'Mansion tax' by reorganising the manner stamp duty is calculated—and its recalculation is no bad thing in itself. This could have led to reflections on the importance of housing, and of the disaster of commodifying it. The question of non-ways-tested benefits has been raised by the opposition; do the wealthy retired actually need the winter fuel allowance in club to heat their pond pools? And information technology might have been timely again to raise the question of a 'free to recipient at betoken of delivery' question virtually the NHS again.
But all of these issues were overshadowed by the one massive issue which is hardly beginning to be discussed by politicians: we yet take non made the major, structural adjustment that we need to to alive within our ways. When I say it was not discussed by politicians, perhaps it was, a little, but only when pushed by those reporting in the first-class coverage by the BBC (the news, Newsnight, and discussions on Radio iv'due south Whatever Questions were my prove).
Evan Davies' introduction to the upshot on Th's Newsnight was wonderfully lyrical whilst still beingness informative and penetrating—I think he has already justified his appointment as a worthy successor to Jeremy Paxman. In his budget statement, George Osbourne singularly avoided mentioning the central failure of his period in function: that the almanac deficit in Government spending will not be met by next yr, equally promised. This is despite the employ of this goal as a justification for spending cuts which trucked no compromise. In fact (someone commented to me—is it true?) this Government has not only failed to stop borrowing, it has borrowed more than all previous Governments put together , so that the national debt (the accumulation of successive annual borrowing) has at present passed £1.4 trillion. I am not certain we have grasped the significance of this. Davis put information technology starkly:
Y'all have to go back to Keen Depression of the 1930s to find a crunch comparable with the 1 we are in. This is a once in a lifetime event. We have, as yet, failed to fundamentally reset our expectations of what tin earn and how we can earn information technology.
Every bit many commentators point out, this is in part due to the strange nature of the 'recovery'. The economic system appears to exist growing, and even so wages are not increasing (even though employment is) so taxation revenues accept not increased as expected. Wages have stayed even so or fallen every twelvemonth since 2007. And how far back practise you take to go to find the terminal time this happened? Just expect dorsum 140 years to 1874.
Role of the history of this is the cyberbanking crisis and the global economic slowdown which, if not the directly cause of the issues we take, were certainly the things which brought the trouble to the surface. Again, every bit Davis pointed out quite clearly:
It'southward not really Mr Osborne'south fault that we haven't got out of the pigsty yet, just equally it wasn't Mr Dark-brown'southward fault that we barbarous into it in the first place.
If merely politicians on both sides were as candid. And herein lies problem number ane—the lack of honesty about what has happened, even the lack of admission of the facts of the state of affairs. Nick Robinson ended his study on the Th evening news with the challenging conclusion:
It's not the budget deficit nosotros should be worrying most, simply the candour deficit.
In our tribal political system, no-one is yet really facing upwardly to the truth; both sides are still trying to score points from the other. One bizarre consequence of this is the pickle Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor, has got himself in. John Hymphrys nicely skewered him on Radio 4's Today on Fri morning:
So what you are saying is, we are now in the place we would have been if Labour has been voted in? Yous are criticising Mr Osborne for his investment decisions, and you are committing yourself to make future cuts in Government spending?
It's an odd day when Labour criticise the Conservatives for adopting their policies, then commit in turn to adopting Conservative policies for themselves!
This leads to the 2nd major problem nosotros are faced with. According to the politically-neutral Institute of Fiscal Studies, in guild to eliminate the almanac arrears—that is, to terminate increasing the level of borrowing—past 2022 (which both sides have committed to), the country faces 'gruesome' levels of cuts for the foreseeable future. This would mean reducing non-protected departments' budget past 30%, 40% or even l%—which includes transport, defence, and policing equally part of the Home Role. Without any proper consultation, this would have to mean a primal alter in the role of Government in our nation. You cannot simply cut in half what is spent in an area without radically altering what y'all are trying to accomplish. All this is at a time of connected and growing inequality betwixt the the richest and the rest. It is remarkable that, whilst wages accept not increased in seven years, the super-rich have continued to get richer.
All of this is predicated on no increases in tax rates; this is the Conservatives mantra, and Labour however feels it has to lucifer this out of political expedience in the post-New Labour era. After all, how tin can you increase taxes when pay is not increasing, and won't that just asphyxiate off economic growth anyway?
If thrift is besides severe, and tax increases won't work, is there some other way forrard? It is not insignificant that references are beingness made back to the Depression. The countries that pulled out of that nigh effectively were those which invested, usually in national infrastructure projects. The legacy of these are still being felt today; the Hoover Dam in the Us was one product of this, and the Sydney Harbour Span is another. Uk is generally reckoned to have poor infrastructure which desperately needs investment; this is the time to address it. This would crave a basic change in outlook. Information technology would signal the stop of the Thatcherite experiment, where growth is fuelled by consumer spending based on increasing credit, and would instead look to economic growth based on strategic investment.
It is important to note that these issues—honesty of reporting, recognition of the real issues, inequality, debt, the role of Government, and investment—are not party-political issues, non to the lowest degree because they do not divide on party lines. Added to that, each has a moral, and therefore a theological, dimension.
In Onetime Testament, the function of the king, the 'secular' power, was to reflect the priorities of God—in particular to protect the widow and the orphan and to see justice done—and to exist accountable to the people in doing so. Very oft, this accountability functioned through the voice of the prophets, who by-passed the structures of power in society to proclaim reality and God's perspective on it. Christians and the Christian churches demand to continue this prophetic tradition. Nosotros need to come across the real affect that existent decisions are having on real people—and to be speaking God's perspective on it.
Additional note:At that place is an splendid interview with George Osborne by Nick Robinson just added to the BBC site. Robinson summaries an important part of the interchange:
The chancellor claims he is being directly with voters over spending cuts but he is reluctant to spell out the consequences of returning to levels of spending as a share of national income not seen for eighty years.
I asked him virtually the calibration of job losses – estimated by the Role for Budget Responsibility to exist one million on summit of the 500,000 already cut.
The number would depend, he told me, "on the decisions we are prepared to have on pay".
The central moment, in relation to the question of candour, comes here:
Q: "Yous say that people should exist straight with the public – are y'all going to exist straight? Let's test information technology? Practise you agree with OBR that there could be ane million jobs in public sector lost, or at least hundreds of thousands?
A: "Jobs have already had to become. Tin can reduce number needed to go if we take difficult decisions on public sector pay. Not always popular simply have protected employment."
Q: "One-half one thousand thousand gone already, right to say at least every bit many again volition go?
A: "Depends on decision prepared to have on pay. If we keep taking realistic decisions on public sector pay, then can afford to have people in sufficient numbers in the public sector doing jobs nosotros ask of them. And this is against backdrop of growing economy where hundreds of thousands of jobs created in the private sector and where upwardly to a million more created."
Q: "You say be realistic – you're talking nigh real pay cuts for every public sector worker for at least another iv years.
A: "This country has to live within its means. Have to have a government nosotros can afford.."
Q: "I'm asking y'all to spell out what that ways for ordinary people, it means real pay cuts for iv years."
I remember this will be a key effect in adjacent yr's ballot.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would y'all consideraltruistic £i.20 a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If yous enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add together real value. Seek showtime to understand, and then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view argue equally a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/the-theology-of-the-autumn-statement/
0 Response to "The theology of the Autumn Statement"
Post a Comment