As you drive along Westway, the elevated highway that leads from central London towards Heathrow airport, you come across the blackened skeleton of a 24-storey block of flats. This is Grenfell Tower.
In the early hours of June 14, a fridge-freezer in a fourth-floor flat exploded. A fire spread rapidly up the building. At least 80 people were killed — the final figure remains unclear. The incinerated remains of most of the dead remain inside that charred tower block.
The burnt-out ruins of the tower serve not simply as a reminder of a tragedy which has shocked and shamed the nation. It is also the gravestone marking the end of almost a decade of austerity.
Life in the slow lane
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the most profound shock to the global economy since the Second World War, the British government sought to stabilise the economy and support the beleaguered financial sector by cutting public spending. Welfare payments were hit, and so too were government-funded services — from the police to public libraries to day centres for the elderly.
This has been the U.K.’s longest period of economic austerity in living memory. When people could see the consequences of economic collapse in countries such as Greece and Spain, the case for tight controls on tax and spending seemed compelling to many.
Indeed, the policy of austerity has borne some success. The huge financial deficit — in part caused by the splurge of government money in 2008 used to forestall financial meltdown — no longer feels out-of-control.
The economy is doing tolerably well. After a sharp dip in 2008-09, economic activity is growing steadily and unemployment is low. So too, by global standards, is inflation — currently at 2.9%. But wage rises are even lower — most public sector workers have been pegged at 1% pay increases for several years.
Many of those in employment are now earning 15% less in real terms than they were a decade ago. That hurts. Most youngsters now expect never to earn as much as their parents did in their prime.
A cut in public money for universities also means that most students emerge from their studies saddled with debts of £40,000 or more (over ₹30 lakh). The young are convinced they are getting a raw deal.
The election fallout
For several years, British politics has been hugely volatile and hazardous to predict. Three years back, Scotland came close to embracing the once outlandish idea of independence. Then a year ago the outcome of the Brexit referendum — the decision to withdraw from the European Union (EU) — delivered a seismic shock to the political landscape on a par with the election of Donald Trump in the United States.
Just last month, Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, held a general election three years earlier than she needed to. She expected to win a commanding majority which would buttress her authority in the difficult negotiations about the details of Britain’s departure from the EU.
It was a gamble which Ms. May lost. The Opposition Labour Party — shepherded by the most left-wing leader in its history, Jeremy Corbyn — campaigned for an end to austerity and an emphasis on social justice. They promised the abolition of student fees, and more public spending on the police and the health service. It struck a chord.
The Conservatives emerged from the election as the largest party in Parliament, but lost their overall majority. While Labour didn’t win, it outperformed expectations. The national mood was no longer supportive of austerity.
In the aftermath of the election, Ms. May was obliged to do a deal with Northern Ireland’s main political party to achieve a majority in Parliament. As part of that package, the government has agree to stump up an additional £1 billion (₹8,400 crore) — much of it to be spent on services specifically for Northern Ireland, which has a population of under two million. Opposition parties argue that austerity is clearly over in Northern Ireland, so why should the rest of the country still have to suffer.
Towering discontent
A recent survey reflects this emphatic change in public sentiment. For the first time in many years, more people support higher taxes and public spending than persisting with current levels. Eight in ten want more money for the state-funded National Health Service; seven in ten advocate more spending on state-supported schools; six in ten agree on the need for higher spending on the police. Then came the blaze at Grenfell Tower. It stands in one of the richest areas of London. But it’s social housing, controlled by the local authority and lived in largely by people on low incomes, many of them newcomers to the U.K. or born into immigrant families.
Both the Prime Minister and the leader of the local council have apologised for an inept response to the needs of those bereaved and made homeless by the fire. It’s since transpired that the cladding used on this and many other tower blocks is not compliant with safety regulations. A criminal investigation is under way.
There’s a lingering suspicion that, in one of the world’s most prosperous cities, the poor and the marginalised were seen as less worthy of public money, care and attention. Many people feel that the trimming back of the public sector has gone too far.
The government is not yet reconciled to the increases in tax which higher public spending will require. But however they scrape together the money, Ministers will find a way of reflecting the new mood, reversing their policies and pumping more money into publicly-funded services.
