What Blair gets wrong about the economy – it is fired by people, not business | Letters
Readers argue poverty, inequality and housing costs weaken demand, so the economy cannot recover by business incentives alone.
Intelligence analysis by GPT-5.4 Mini
Three readers push back on Tony Blair-style supply-side thinking. They say inequality, high rents, weak demand, and unresolved housing and tax issues are what keep the economy from “firing.”
The letters say an economy is like a car that needs fuel from everyday people buying things. If rents are too high and the rich keep pulling ahead, the car sputters even if business gets more help.
Analysis
What the letters argue
Readers responding to Jonathan Freedland’s piece on Tony Blair reject the idea that the economy can be revived mainly by encouraging business. One letter says poverty and inequality are not side issues to be fixed later; they are part of why the economy is misfiring in the first place.
Demand, housing and debt
The strongest theme is demand. The writer argues that there can be no real “animal spirits” if ordinary people do not have enough money to spend. High rents, described as taking up as much as 40% of weekly pay, leave households squeezed and can push them toward risky debt. On that view, an economy built on weak household demand is unstable even if firms are given the right incentives.
Blair, Brown and the legacy of New Labour
Another letter says Blair and Gordon Brown failed to fix the deeper weaknesses inherited from Thatcher-era economics. It criticises the use of private finance initiative deals to build schools and hospitals, arguing that the contracts were inflexible and often expensive over time. The writer also says the government was too relaxed about tax, ownership and who would ultimately benefit from these arrangements.
Poverty and inequality after New Labour
A third letter offers a more mixed assessment. It says pensioner and child poverty fell under New Labour, helped by spending on benefits and tax credits. But it also says poorer working-age adults without children saw little improvement, while the highest earners pulled further ahead, so overall inequality rose slightly. The letter concludes that poverty reduction requires confronting wealth inequality, not only using benefits when money is available.
Key points
- Readers say poverty and inequality are part of the reason the economy is not firing.
- One letter argues that weak household demand makes a business-led recovery unrealistic.
- High rents and household debt are presented as major brakes on spending.
- Another letter criticises New Labour’s use of PFI and its long-term public liabilities.
- A third says benefits and tax credits reduced some poverty, but inequality still rose overall.
If policymakers take these criticisms seriously, they could focus more on wages, housing costs, and support for low-income households. That could strengthen demand and make growth less dependent on debt or speculative booms.
If the focus stays on business incentives alone, the same problems readers describe could keep returning: weak demand, high household debt, and rising inequality. The letters suggest that without deeper reform, poverty and housing pressure could keep holding the economy back.
