The Chancellor George Osborne Just Doesn't Understand Me!

The deficit can be eliminated without raising taxes. Welfare benefits for working age people are frozen for two years. Some wee tax cuts for middle class folk with pensions. No comfort for those who don't have or can't afford pernsion contributions.

Austerity is once again the watchword of a millionaire Chancellor of a cabinet largely made up of other members of the millionaire club. Austerity, a word devoid of compassion, reeking of self-righteousness and scornful of charity - and by that word I point to its old fashioned meaning of grace gift, caritas.

An election is coming so no mention of increased taxes, and beyond the election if Chancellor Osborne has anything to do with it, there will be no need to raise taxes. Which for me raises the key question - why in heaven's name not? There is a more serious deficit to be acknowledged by a millionaire Chancellor - a deficit of understanding. He simply does not have the life experience, practical knowledge or social awareness to understand that not everyone is out only for themselves; not everyone thinks those on benefits are less worthy of care and support; not everyone thinks that the mantra of rewarding those who 'do the right thing' has any ethical, political or economic validity. At least no validity beyond the narrow confines of minds that have never wrestled with the disciplines of home economics, paying bills by juggling limited money, making choices between heat and food.

What's more George Osborne doesn't undetstand me. He hasn't a clue about people like me who accept that the welfare of those who are sick, elderly, out of work, struggling to make ends meet on a minimum wage and frozen benefits, is a responsibility which has its own moral logic, and which will inevitably cost me money. Likewise my personal commitment to the NHS, which does not belong to the Government of the day. Its future and its own health is a responsibility that ought to have a higher ethical priority than the self-interested posturing of those who find reasons to cut its resource allocations while pretending that the contribution has gone up in real terms. "In real terms" - there's an irony! I presume what is meant is in book keeping terms, which is not the same thing at all, is it, really.

So the Chancellor is urging us to choose the future not the past - a phrase he used repeatedly in his speech today. But excuse me,- we have no choice but to choose the future. The past is, well, past it. The question is will we choose an austerity future a la Osborne, or a different kind of future. Whatever future it is, be astonished Mr Osborne, as a matter of Christian principle and social justice, I would willingly pay more income tax to enable the funding of those institutions which contradict the austerity dictat imposed from above and by iron fisted intent penalises those least able to afford it.It is that unselfish if unglamorous acceptance that I have to pay more to make sure others are looked after that the Chancellor fails to understand.

And if he is really saying, and really believes, that the majority of the electorate will vote against any party which raises levels of tax, then maybe Mr Osborne has to ask himself his own question and answer it with his own strap line - choose the future. Ah, but what kind of future? Just or unjust? Austerity or caritas? Party or people? Rich or poor? Which deficit matters most - the national money deficit or the social justice deficit?

Behind the smiling Chancellor is the strap line "Securing a Better Future". Whose future? Better for whom? Who will be more secure?

Comments

[Simon Jones]

Brilliant, Jim; well said.