Need for a strong state

This government continues to pursue the ideological idea of a ‘small state’ on the assumption that this is a ‘good’ thing and that markets and commercial organisations do not need any control or regulation.

‘Saving money’ on the state often costs more than it saves.

The list of situations that demonstrate the need for a strong and capable state grows.

To name a few: The Grenfell Tower disaster (the reduction of Building Control and the Building Research Establishment capacity producing a lack of rigour in testing of cladding materials); the Libor interest rate fixing scandal; false accounting within Tesco senior management; the failed privatisation of a number of railway companies; the poor performance of privatised water companies; failed privatised energy companies; weakened planning laws that allow development to intrude into people’s lives; the ill-preparedness for the pandemic, as austerity ripped away the capability of local public health to teams to plan and provision for large scale health events.

The government’s latest wheeze in response to the cost of living is to reduce the need for MOTs for cars, and dilute staffing ratios in child care settings.

Of course those that are proposing these changes will not be affected. The increased risks these measures bring falls on the less well off and vulnerable people.

Rather than shrinking the state its time this tired and chaotic government abandoned its dogma and pursued more positive policies to counter the costof-living crisis, such as investing in a workable home insulation programme to reduce energy costs (the government’s disastrous attempt achieved less than 10 per cent of its supposed outcomes or investing in wider training programmes to enable adults to reskill as the economy changes.

Ian Ayres Down End Road Portsmouth