If the UK is to have any chance of rediscovering a growing and thriving economy where quality of life improves, it has to reverse the entitlement culture so that people focus on contributing to society, not taking from it. The glaring disaster of the November budget of this Government is that it adds some £16 billion to the welfare bill at a time when most economists and non-socialist extremists are urging reduction of that bill. According to independent commentators, it fails to cut spending in the public sector, and it does almost nothing for economic growth. The OECD says the tax rises of £26 billion will “act as a headwind on the economy” until 2029.
The Budget incentivises and rewards not working, cementing and ingraining the culture of entitlement before contribution, as if there is a right which people who do not work can exert in order to live off the hard labours of others, the cash cows. It is a moral necessity to wholly support the relatively few people who are totally disabled from working. That apart, the culture, and political dogma behind it, of paying people to stay at home condemns unnecessarily swathes of people to a life of dependent misery without human dignity, although some may not see it in that way. It is perhaps cruel. It also means it is perceived as a right rather than a privilege to be grateful for. Reversing that culture means people embracing their responsibilities and duties, which these days are barely talked about as the virus of invented human rights spreads its contagion.
DOES THE BUDGET EXPOSE DISHONESTY AT THE HEART OF GOVERNMENT?
The Economist describes the budget as one for the Labour Party not the country, and this from a PM and Chancellor who swore to put country first. Is this a government polished in the art of deception not the art of service? The Guardian on 29 November goes further describing it as a Budget for working people provided you are the PM, i.e. for one person only. So, PM first, party second and country third. Allegedly, according to the OBR, the Chancellor, in the Budget run up, overstated the shortfall in the public finances by as much as £20 billion to justify tax raids. Did she lie? Chancellor Reeves broke every protocol about budget confidentiality, leaking and dripping for weeks her taxes leaving people to fear and speculate. It was desperate. It is noteworthy that even the Observer, a staunch Labour supporter, published an article headlined “Economic with the truth: the mis-selling of the budget”.
The Times reports how in Parliament Rachel Reeves declared in her budget speech that the hospitality sector would be boosted by the reduced business rates, while at the very same time another Department was announcing that valuations of relevant buildings would go up by so much that the hospitality sector will in fact be paying millions more in business rates. Hospitality and the High Street are reported as being ravaged. She vaunted the Government’s housebuilding record, untrue as fewer houses have been built than in normal previous years! She said that the budget requires the rich to pay for better public services but £16 billion is for benefits payments. The PM declares over and over again, starting with the election manifesto, that growth will drive decisions and pay for the increased spending. Yet no material things are done to grow the economy, especially the private sector which is the engine room and the source of taxes, and in fact the private sector is milked to feed the obese and unproductive public sector.
Starmer appeared, at least on television, declaring that no manifesto pledges have been broken but people in work are patently paying more tax when he swore they would not. This Government promised that living standards would improve, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies is reported to say that prospects for living standards are dismal; and that is because nothing is done to grow the economy or improve productivity, other than spend more on the public sector. And productivity even in the public sector has gone down, with unemployment rising rapidly. This Government swore that the defence of this country, its security, is its primary duty and so more resources must urgently go into defence but, it is reported, barely any extra money has appeared.
Some may say all politicians lie, accusing Boris Johnson of lying about Covid parties especially, but the present deception is on an epic scale by comparison, and this from Starmer of self-declared moral righteousness. He even talks as if only the Labour Government cares about poorer people especially children in poverty. This insults hardworking people whatever they vote, most of whom care about others as demonstrated so often by the charitable generosity of Britain towards those in need.
Has this Government lost its moral compass, twisting the truth, with legally crafted weasel words, and a lawyer PM representing himself arguing that black is white. Or are our PM and chancellor not lying but are they so incompetent that they simply cannot discern the impact of what they do? Or are they both dishonest and incompetent, a terrifying combination. While they inherited a country beset by debt, a lot due to paying for Covid furlough and other lockdown policies, in a world in turmoil of wars and confusing trade resetting, they have a duty to abide by promises and take responsibility and deliver a framework at least where people can thrive and grow the national pie. That the young are disillusioned is evidenced by the exodus of talent the UK is experiencing. If people are given opportunity and take responsibility, they need to see it is worthwhile and reap and keep the rewards of their honest endeavours, not see them snatched away only to be redistributed to satisfy the dogma of some backbenchers of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY ARE SECRET FOR CHANGE
So many commentators refer to a UK where entitlement is winning and division, not unity, prevails. Is this perhaps because, led by Government example, there is a lot of emphasis on “human rights” and rights generally, where people look inwardly to self and their own interest. Perhaps also, when expounding rights, more emphasis and consideration should be given to duties and responsibilities. Nevertheless, there is certainly an appropriate right that those who are incapable of self-help and cannot contribute at all are assisted by the welfare state for life if necessary.
Perhaps too people have a right to work, as under the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the EU, but equally do they have a duty to work? The law gives people who are struggling to pay for food or shelter a right to receive benefits, that is subsidy by those who are working, but is there not a prime duty and responsibility on people to look after themselves and take responsibility to contribute as much as they can to society? If so, why do so many people spend so much effort doing as little work as they can get away with? And why does the State write off many people on benefits for life? The State may want to help children especially, but do all parents have, and accept they have, the primary duty and responsibility for the cost of, the education and the behaviour of their children? If so, why are there so many absent fathers? Do people have a duty to obey the law? If so, why do so many consider breaking the law to be ok provided they can get away with it? Many seem to think they have a right to receive treatment for ill health, but do they consider they have a duty to keep themselves healthy as far as possible?
Is it true to say that for most rights perhaps some corresponding duty arises? And our rights to freedom only exist because millions died in wars to protect them, and now it is said perhaps most young people do not see a duty to defend the nation? Honesty and integrity are under threat.
Maybe if there was more positive emphasis all round on duties and responsibilities, we would have more chance of moving away from an entitlement society to one where contribution is admired and success rewarded, not punished as seems to be the mantra of the day. People who work hard, provide for themselves, make sacrifices for their families, pay taxes and even sometimes accumulate wealth are never recognised with gratitude for keeping this country and the welfare state afloat; and they also generally care deeply about people who are in distress through no fault of their own.
The current Government, however, sets a poor example, disrespecting, even sometimes sneering at, those people, treating them as cash cows for others, and regarding their earnt property as something to be grabbed to compensate for the failures of those who govern; and those elected ministers at the top defend themselves by being economic with the truth. That needs to change.
Leave a Reply