They may not be saddled with debt, but their future will suffer (image c/o Vince Alongi on Flickr)
Since the 2010 election, the coalition government have repeatedly underlined the need for the national debt to be cut. Never mind that the national debt has been proportionally higher for most of the last 200 years and cuts on this scale have not been attempted before. One of the arguments often put forward by the coalition and its supporters is that we must pay the debts now to ensure that we do not load that debt onto future generations. Take Fraser Nelson writing in The Spectator:
The Prime Minister was right: it is unfair. Debt is nothing more than delayed taxation. To saddle the next generation with billions upon billions of debt is not just an economic failure, but a moral failure.
Or David Davis at ConservativeHome:
Let me make it quite clear. It would have been immoral for the Government to load yet more debt on future generations to repay. And it would have been economically illiterate. David Cameron and George Osborne should be congratulated for having the courage to grasp this nettle so decisively and so immediately.
And from The Telegraph:
Mr Cameron has opposed Gordon Brown’s policies of borrowing billions to fund temporary tax cuts and continued public spending, arguing that it is “immoral” to burden future generations with huge Government debts.
The message is clear: deal with the debt or the next generation will end up paying. Whilst it is ‘immoral’ for future generations to be burdened with debt, it is not apparently ‘immoral’ for the next generation to pay for the errors of the financial sector and central government.
The Sunday Mirror has today revealed that around 250 SureStart centres are set to close due to budget cuts*, despite pledge from the Conservatives that they will be protected (this follows a previous study earlier this year conducted by families charity 4Children and the Daycare Trust). In Sheffield, home to Nick Clegg’s constituency, ‘more than 30 centres are facing the axe’. The revelations follow a Freedom of Information request by the newspaper that exposed that 90% of councils will reduce their spending on Sure Start in 2012. Sure Start is an important scheme because it is:
an investment in young children and their families, which is rather like an investment in education. Costs are incurred in the short term in the expectation that there will be a return on that investment in the longer term. One of the main reasons for investing early is that in the development of children’s potential, they need to have achieved lower level milestones before they can move onto higher ones.
Cutting investment in Sure Start centres is effectively cutting investment in the next generation’s education and curtailing their potential. Whilst they won’t be saddled with debt, their futures will be seriously compromised.
And it is not just through cuts to Sure Start that the next generation are paying for the economic policies of successive governments. There is, of course, the substantial rise in tuition fees which will mean that the average degree will now cost at least £27,000 to obtain (of course, this does not include the substantial material and living costs associated with going to university). There are already claims that there has been a significant decline in the numbers of students applying to go to university in the light of the substantial financial burden that will be placed on them. So much for placing the burden of debt on future generations as ‘immoral’.
This shifting of the burden can also be seen in the current situation for our public library network. As Public Library News has reported, over 400 public libraries across the country are in very real danger of closure. This will have a substantial impact on our children and their development. Earlier this year, the National Literacy Trust published a paper demonstrating the positive impact a professionally run library service has on our children’s development. According to their research:
…this new study of 17,089 pupils aged 8 to 16 finds that young people who use their public library are nearly twice as likely to be above average readers than peers who don’t visit their library (18% compared with 9.5%). The research also reveals:
- Nearly half (44%) of the 8-16 year olds surveyed use their public library
- Library users are more than twice as likely to read outside of class everyday (47% vs. 22%)
- 7-11 year olds are nearly three times more likely to use the library than 14-16 year olds (63% vs 25%)
- Over a third (38%) of young people who use the library believe it will help them to do better at school
- The most common reasons children cited for not going to the library were that their family does not go (52%) and that their friends do not go (40%)
It is also worth noting that despite the cut to book funding (see my post here for a fuller explanation) children’s borrowing is still increasing. In fact, children’s use of professionally run libraries has been perhaps the greatest success of the public library network in recent years. Furthermore, it is also worth noting that a number of libraries are co-located with Sure Start centres, such as Lindley in Kirkless. In this context it is not difficult to see the impact library closures will have on the educational attainment of the future generations.
Whilst the politicians and the commentators are happy to claim that it would be ‘immoral’ to load debt onto future generations, they see no problem with making the next generation pay for the profligacy of the bankers and the negligence of politicians of all shades. They may be relieved of the burden of debt by this coalition, but they will almost certainly pay for it. In the words of Fraser Nelson ‘this is not just an economic failure, but a moral failure’.