RSA Animate - The Economic Consequences of Mr Brown
0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
That is mister Brown's
brilliant slogan for his economic policy:
"Prudence for a purpose".
Prudence is the budget,
the use of money, the inputs.
And purpose
is what it's about,
the outcomes.
By that standard...
by the standard of
purpose
new labor
in government is a failure.
The purpose was
inspired by the ideas of social justice to break
with the thatcharite legacy
of reckless inequality.
But under new labor
Britain
far from becoming more equal
became more unequal society.
More unequal economically
in the distribution of income
and more unequal socially
for example in health inequalities.
The economic consequences of Mr Brown are negligible
not much for the good not much for the bad.
Just nothing.
However, this is only the trivial part of my story here this evening.
What I'm really hear to talk about is WHY?
And that will shift my attention very quickly from questions of this or that about a
government
to questions of the constitution.
In my study I've looked at four core policies: child powerty, health care
crime, education
and then overall inequality.
The assessment is, on the government's own terms,
prudence for a purpose.
And here's the best available independent research and evidence
and I've looked mainly at the good years from 1997
to 2007.
So inputs there: the story was very good
Mr Brown was master of the budget.
More money was put into
priority policy areas.
More public investments. Public investments went up.
And new policy instruments were puts to use.
But then again nothing or next to nothing follow through
to results
in outcomes.
Let me say a few things about child poverty
Mr Brown's flagship policy.
This is a picture of what happened.
That is the percentage of children living in households in poverty.
Now what this picture basically shows is nothing.
It is basically nothing.
It remains
about a third
of children
in Britain lived in poverty.
Now there are some small movements up and down
on that charge
but basically this picture shows nothing.
Of the small movements..
What happened was that
a long
upwards trend
in the rates of child poverty
came to an end in 1994
three years before the new labor came to power.
Then the rates started to edge down and that's when
new labor came in.
And hten after Mr brown introduced
tax credits
the new instruments to combat
child poverty
the rates of child poverty again increased.
They should of course have decreased but they increased.
And the reason for that was that underlying income inequality
then shifted
towards the increasing inequality
and the policies that were in place were not capable for protecting children
against the fallout
of increasing underlying inequality.
That was
exactly the story during the 1980s.
Children were not protected
and they are still not protected.
In crime
after the new money was put in
a long trend
of falling rates of crime was interrupted
and the level of crime stabilized.
Only in education is there some success.
Here a long-term trends of improvements in educational results
were maintained
and did not and not interrupted or lost.
Now there is not much of success, but at least it's not outright failure.
It was a poor value for money. Here also productivity
declined
and again
inequalities persistent.
All in all than
in individual policies nothing or next to nothing
follows through.
and you get overall purpose of breaking the back of inequality
and introducing and nobody else social justice
nothing
absolutely nothing
so the question then is why
ambassador that is extremely difficult and paradoxical
because this was a government
but should have succeeded
it how did everything he had power and you got money to work with from economic
growth
you got mom to expedite vision
it had ambition
yet activism
it had sincerity
and it was a competent government
there is a real tragedy in the greek meaning the gods gave
the ladies and gentlemen of the new labor government everything they could
warmth and dream of a moscow
and then the guards denied them any benefits
from back east
by mister brown and mister cameron child at each other
in parliament
ones saying we had succeeded
and long the other saying you are incompetence
they are both wrong
the story of new different
is not a story of a government that failed because of incompetence
did he say intriguing story of a government that failed in spite of
competence
apartment
the government made by the sections
one child poverty they used the wrong instruments and they did not put enough
money in
they were warned
in the n_h_l_ s much too much money was put in much too quickly
and with much to march
political spin
on health and crime
preventive policies were neglected
and everything was invested in reactive and controlling missions
so that was the mistakes and there's much to learn from them
even body is not much of an explanation because we have to ask why
then a competent government
mess it up for itself
with bad decisions
the deeper explanation then lies in the system of governance
and in the constitution
nine looking into government policies in detail what i've done here
it quickly becomes visible
how extremely centralized the british system of government now is
everything is decided in and run from downing street
the rest of the country undocking foods parliament
is on the receiving end
more under commons dot in partnership
now the absence of mobilizing policies in this review
sleeve
the population was not immobilized politically
the reintegration of the shame of child poverty and to repay its debts to it's
true
the professions and health care in schools were not valid and encourage
neighborhoods will not hold i think it's the scourge of anti-social behavior
people were not small were nice to take care of their health
the government to come on that
and everyone else was controlled
your neighbor for all the children shape it's been neglected ought to be to ship
in particular inside the bottle stopper actors of government
during the last thirty years or so
the british constitution of p drastically leadership
mister barone mister brown inherited missus fractures centralization
have been broken with that legacy they may have succeeded
instead
they slipped into continuing its and inadvertently perhaps
undermine their own calls and condemned themselves
ever more effort
for everlasting
if your neighbor
with all the guards gave them in nineteen ninety seven
court naku
then no government in this country
clip in a focal crew this evening
by offering you professor ring ginza gender for constitutional reform
restore the house of commons
as the central political authority in british democracy
second
reinvent local democracy
and it needs to be reinvented our suitcases
britain just does not have proper noble units
to devolve power to
and third
straighten out political funding
and the way we pay for politics
my recipe is default
make all political funding public
don all donations from individuals businesses
and unions
and distribute public money
asb anxious to borders
for them to give to their partner of choice
or to throw away
ladies and gentlemen last week in washington
president obama
reminded congress of their duty to get don what we were sent here to do
here in britain today
the constitution is now such
that no government
can get done
Transcribe by http://www.facebook.com/KnowledgeConsumersSociety