.png)
In 2018, Professor Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, wrote that "Poverty is a political choice" in Britain, continuing that "it seems patently unjust and contrary to British values that so many people are living in poverty." Six years later, nearly a fifth of the country lives in absolute poverty: the level of poverty at which people can no longer meet their basic needs. The question is at the forefront of today's political debates: how, and why, has poverty become so prevalent in this country? It's, of course, impossible to answer a question as multifaceted as this within a 600-word article — but a large portion of the answer lies, just as Professor Alston says, in the politics of it.
After the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression, two conflicting schools of thought began to dictate governmental attempts at recovery worldwide. In places like the United States and Australia, expansionary fiscal policy — that is, attempts to stimulate the economy through increasing consumer and government spending — became the underlying principle for economic policy. The United Kingdom sought a different approach: rather than increasing spending, government leaders (notably George Osborne, at-the-time Chancellor of the Exchequer) attempted to rejuvenate the economy through austerity: a method of economic policy that seeks to cut spending and minimise tax increases — hoping to decrease the financial deficit to spur the economy. These cuts, the largest to state spending since World War 2 , meant enormous cuts to social services and the public sector as a whole. In 2010, cuts were made to living allowances, tax credits, and benefits — loosening the social security net and disproportionately impacting Britons with lower incomes. For the poorest 10% of households, cuts to social provisions like these led to a 38% loss of income — entrenching pre-existing poverty and leaving many of Britain's poorest with few tools out of poverty.
For a more up to date overview of the current situation have a look on the latest report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on politics in the UK here.
British austerity was distinct in how it handled the financial crisis: many governments took to decrease their deficits in the aftermath of the GFC (global financial crisis), but Britain was one of few that sought to do so by decreasing the size of the state itself. Now, with few provisions to help those struggling to help themselves, British poverty has become unrelenting and inescapable. The gutting of these provisions were not coincidental either — narratives surrounding 'widespread' benefit fraud made it politically convenient for politicians to insist on capping the amount that people could claim, or scaling back welfare for the poorest Britons. In fact, in the 2015 election, news stories discussing benefits were most commonly accompanied by the words "cap, fraud, system, claimant, sanction, scrounger, bill, cut, payment, cheat, tourism, and scam." At the same time, surveys indicated that over a third of Brits believed those on benefits don't actually "need" the benefits they claim.
Yet, nearly a decade and a half since the initial onset of austerity, why is the UK still suffering from mass poverty? And why have things not begun to improve? The answer to that question lies in the persistence of austerity itself: the policy was initially presented as an economic necessity — a short-term environment that would allow the UK to return to economic health. But in 2013, signs that austerity was working — a 1.8% growth in the economy, helped to lead the Conservatives to another victory, promising tens of billions more in cuts, and presenting it as the only viable form of governance. The social security net, over time, was gutted more and more, and coupled with an increasing cost of living — with inflation and price hikes from rent to energy to groceries — has been unable to aid the millions of Brits plunged into poverty in the decade since.
Tony Durcan, a former Newcastle local government worker, said in a quote to the New Yorker that "Youth services and a lot of community-support services [...] just disappeared completely" in the aftermath of austerity. In the years since, child poverty has increased to nearly 40%, and programs that would've previously helped vulnerable populations like these no longer exist. In 2013, the British government believed it was at the forefront of economic recovery — yet we seem to be trailing behind our peers in that regard now. With the average British worker £11,000 worse off than pre-financial crisis trends, the gap in recovery between the British & other European economies appears only to be growing. With a state lacking in resources, these trends likely won't change. In 2010, epidemiologist Michael Marmot presented social-security reforms to an incoming David Cameron-led government, arguing they would reduce inequalities at a reasonable price.
This video by TDLR news provides a nuanced overview on the sophisticated and complex ways which allow for systemic poverty in Britain
Perhaps, if these measures were adopted, the numbers — whether it be the average decrease in real wages for British workers, increase in poverty, or the ability of the government to provide for its citizens — would look vastly different today. And perhaps, if a different political choice had been made all those years ago, the levels of poverty we see today would be unimaginable.
ความคิดเห็น