In 1852, the troopship HMS Birkenhead was\nwrecked off the South African coast. On board, aside from the soldiers\nthemselves, were many women and children. With limited lifeboats available, the\ndecision was made that those women and children should have first priority. At\nthe time, this was an astonishing decision \u2013 the usual rule being \u201cevery man\nfor himself.\u201d And in spite of the huge loss of life in the wreck, the \u201cBirkenhead\nDrill\u201d was a game changer \u2013 setting a standard that\u2019s still the rule at sea\ntoday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The UK government, however, has conspicuously\nfailed to learn from this idea, especially when the economy is, well, at sea.\nWe\u2019ve now had four decades of \u201cevery man for himself\u201d; and when the financial\nservices sector hit the rocks in 2008, it was more a case of \u201cmoney and banks\nfirst\u201d, with women and children \u2013 and indeed most men \u2013 coming a very poor\nsecond. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Come the new year, we will have yet another new government, which will be faced \u2013 amongst other things \u2013 with the consequences of a decade\u2019s worth of cuts to services that, one way or another, the majority of us rely on. This is despite the fact that the accepted view in macroeconomics always was that public spending cuts during a recession would lead to falling government income, making it impossible to reduce its debt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whilst there\u2019s been much talk from most of the parties of a second industrial revolution based on green tech, there\u2019s been remarkably little detail on what it is, how it would be made a reality, when we might see some results, or even exactly what \u201cgreen\u201d means. There\u2019s even less detail on how to address the ballooning number of people reliant on food banks and other support services \u2013 much of it provided by charities instead of the state. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whilst reliance on food banks is the result of\nmisguided spending cuts, rather than climate change and global warming, there\u2019s\nstill a very large elephant in the room: What do the various Party manifestos\non offer suggest we should do about the effects of all that austerity?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Conservatives, who, along with the Liberal\nDemocrats, gave us austerity in the first place, seem to have taken a \u201cjob done\u201d\napproach. Although the NHS and police appear to be in line for additional\nresources, there\u2019s no sign of any reversal of cuts to social support or indeed\nsignificant modifications to Universal Credit \u2013 both of which make life much\nharder for many, and busier for food banks. In other words, there probably\nwon\u2019t be additional austerity \u2013 but we\u2019ll still be stuck with the results of more\nthan a decade of cuts. Not very helpful. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats appear to have been partying with Cameron and Osborne\u2019s Kool Aid \u2013 promising us a budget surplus as a matter of course. Aside from the implications of this for yet more austerity, there is also the question of how they would in short order \u2013 as they promise \u2013 turn the UK into an exporting powerhouse, like Germany or the Netherlands, to achieve the necessary income. Like the Conservatives, they envision a \u201cgreen\u201d revolution, but appear equally short on ideas to make it happen. Two thirds of EU member countries currently run a deficit, and ours is one of the largest; but it could be worse if the UK eventually joins the Eurozone. The euro is managed by strict limits on both public deficits and national debt; and from what we\u2019ve seen imposed on Greece, that can result in austerity that would make the UK\u2019s experience look like a walk in the park. So, not much joy on the austerity front from the Lib Dems then, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n