It is not my intention that this piece should be read as bashing one particular political party or another, more to illustrate the utter futility and incompetence of 'the system' as well as those who administer it along with the inability of to arrange any sustainable long term planning rather than the inevitable short-termism of the current system.
I shall labour the point no further ...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ed Miliband is sometimes often accused of not “cutting through”, of being so
anonymous as to be ignored by the electorate he is attempting to win over.
But when he used the phrase “squeezed middle” to describe the large bulk of
working families who are insufficiently poor to be dependent on benefits,
but not so rich as to be insulated from government cuts and economic
malaise, he certainly struck a chord.
As the Labour leader recognised, millions of households in Britain are
struggling to make ends meet. They are victims not just of a low-growth
economy, but of a barrage of burdens and penalties: New Labour’s stealth
taxes, Gordon Brown’s raid on pensions, the abolition of mortgage interest
relief, the Coalition’s cuts to child benefit. All were aimed squarely at
those who contribute most to our society – so it’s no surprise that the
Prime Minister’s claim last year that “we’re all in this together” was
greeted with such hollow laughter.
Worse, there is every reason to fear that the squeeze is set to tighten. For
our problems are not just due to Gordon Brown being such a ghastly
chancellor: government after government has failed to face up to the
country’s long-term needs.
In the coming decades, the Exchequer will be forced to meet vast unfunded
liabilities, identified more than a decade ago, for which almost nothing has
been done to prepare us. Never mind the debate over the deficit: to pay
state pensions throughout the extraordinarily long lives of the 18 million
baby boomers who will retire within the next 20 years we will have to find
an extra £1.4 trillion – and a further £800 billion for public sector
pensions. And if you think the NHS is too large and unwieldy now, consider
the effect of that same demographic change. By 2020, the Treasury estimates
that health care will demand 10 per cent of GDP – costs will have doubled
from 1990. If our politicians aim to address these problems by targeting the
squeezed middle once again, the effect will be devastating.
At the moment, voters tell the pollsters that they are prepared to put up with
a little pain, if it means that life will be better in future. But the
squeeze is being passed on down the generations. Last year, the housing
charity Shelter estimated that 2.8 million people are delaying having
children because they can’t afford to buy a home: these are young couples
who are in work and ready to start families, but have been caught out by our
chronic housing shortage.
neration after that? Thanks in large part to the recent tuition
fee hike, the children of the squeezed middle are being squeezed before they
have even begun to pay tax. Families with teenagers are scrabbling around to
afford the £9,000 a year fees: if they can’t, their children will have to
take out loans, leaving them with decades of personal as well as national
debts to settle.
Even those who avoided the introduction of higher fees are far from home and
dry. Unprecedented numbers are unemployed – the latest figures show that
nearly 40 per cent of all those without jobs in Britain are under 25. Locked
out of the workplace, many graduates have begun long months of unpaid
internships, hoping that employers who see no need to pay for their labour
will eventually give them a permanent post, or at least the minimum wage.
It is not hard to see why Andrew Cooper, David Cameron’s chief political strategist, informed his boss upon his arrival in Downing Street earlier this year that voters’ greatest concern was that their children wouldn’t have the same opportunities they’d had.
Sadly, the Government’s response to this dilemma has been mixed at best. By raising the retirement age and negotiating a new deal with public sector workers, the Coalition has tentatively begun to fill the gap between what workers expect to receive and what the country will be able to afford – but it still remains vast.
If we are to ensure that our children can enjoy the same levels of prosperity as their parents, we need to make some hard decisions. First, the Government must consider restricting some of the perks given to the rich retired. There is no earthly reason why we should pay for Lord Sugar to receive the winter fuel allowance. If the Coalition can means test benefits for children, why not for OAPs?
As for preparing the workers of the future, far too little has been done. The tuition fee hike may help the Exchequer today, but if Britain’s young people stay away from university – and, as employers regularly complain, are already ill‑equipped for the workplace – we will not be able to compete in the global economy.
Next, even though there is a pressing need for more housing for young families, the National Planning Policy Framework is plainly not fit for purpose: we need a sensitive and strategic building programme, not a brickies’ free-for-all. But why not extend the default rental agreement from six months (much less than the average mobile phone contract), giving young couples the security they need to start a family?
It is no surprise that the political debate in Britain avoids these problems – because they yield uncomfortable solutions. But unless we start thinking seriously about them, the squeeze today will be nothing compared to the squeeze tomorrow.
It is not hard to see why Andrew Cooper, David Cameron’s chief political strategist, informed his boss upon his arrival in Downing Street earlier this year that voters’ greatest concern was that their children wouldn’t have the same opportunities they’d had.
Sadly, the Government’s response to this dilemma has been mixed at best. By raising the retirement age and negotiating a new deal with public sector workers, the Coalition has tentatively begun to fill the gap between what workers expect to receive and what the country will be able to afford – but it still remains vast.
If we are to ensure that our children can enjoy the same levels of prosperity as their parents, we need to make some hard decisions. First, the Government must consider restricting some of the perks given to the rich retired. There is no earthly reason why we should pay for Lord Sugar to receive the winter fuel allowance. If the Coalition can means test benefits for children, why not for OAPs?
As for preparing the workers of the future, far too little has been done. The tuition fee hike may help the Exchequer today, but if Britain’s young people stay away from university – and, as employers regularly complain, are already ill‑equipped for the workplace – we will not be able to compete in the global economy.
Next, even though there is a pressing need for more housing for young families, the National Planning Policy Framework is plainly not fit for purpose: we need a sensitive and strategic building programme, not a brickies’ free-for-all. But why not extend the default rental agreement from six months (much less than the average mobile phone contract), giving young couples the security they need to start a family?
It is no surprise that the political debate in Britain avoids these problems – because they yield uncomfortable solutions. But unless we start thinking seriously about them, the squeeze today will be nothing compared to the squeeze tomorrow.
