The Sylvan cost of living debate considered the following motion:
This house believes it is the government’s responsibility to tackle the rising cost of living.
The debate took place on Monday, 7th February. Lissi Corfield proposed the motion and Apeike Umolu opposed it.
The proposition supporting the government tackling the cost of living
The proposer defined ‘tackle’ as making an intervention to have better control or support. This does not mean stopping the cost of living increasing, but intervening positively. The cost of living is a crisis, and someone should take responsibility. This cost consists of paying for essentials such as energy, heat, lighting, food and housing. A jump in these costs creates a much bigger challenge than if costs are rising over time. The cost of energy will rise by c.50%, and food at 5%. Jack Monroe has shown that essential costs have increased further. All of this means living standards will fall, which can lead to debt and poverty, with the poor unduly affected.
Free-market economics should provide the right balance of prices, yet not under monopoly conditions! Charities, churches and food banks do not have the scale to address this – only the government does. Not only the current government but the opposition and even Money Saving Expert say the state should tackle this problem.
The opposition against the motion
The opposer questioned how the government should intervene, which the proposer did not outline. Could they reverse Brexit, conduct more quantitative easing or create more competition in the job market? Tackle means to take action directly to do something as a priority, and government means Westminster and Parliament. But they shouldn’t prioritise this, many factors of this they cannot control. Energy has a global supply chain which we cannot control and don’t own. What we actually need to do is change our culture, because our lives are changing due to climate change. That will make life more expensive, in general.
The UK has prioritised the cost of living in the past, including through colonialism, capturing resources. Yet we cannot control the energy supplying countries. Government intervention can actually increase prices, such as Thatcher’s 1980s ‘middle class dream’ of home ownership. This led to our obsession with home ownership. Brexit has protected certain industries and led to a labour shortage. The government could increase wages, but that would lead to inflation. Cutting consumption tax would lead to more consumption. But we need to change our culture away from being about the right to consume. The Bank of England’s (BoE) independence means it will not address the cost of living on its own. As a capitalist country we will have boom and bust – tackling the cost of living directly will just mean problems re-emerging later on.
Floor speeches from the audience of the cost of living debate
Floor speakers focused on the impact of rising costs, with some people needing to choose to ‘heat or eat’. Some might sadly die as a result, and the government has a moral duty to address. There could be riots without it. Yet cost increases could be transitory, and government intervention often does not work. Support would come from taxes, which would cause a drag later on. Small energy firms have gone bust, and the BoE has to prop up asset prices. The government could address housing costs by liberalising planning laws. Our housing obsession didn’t start with Thatcher, and we like greenery. The UK government is short-termist, and lacking in strategic planning and long-term thinking. Yet we are a rich country and everyone should be able to afford necessities. The government has been doing this since 1600, and helps big business a lot, so yes!
The opposer’s rebuttal in the cost of living debate
In rebuttal, the opposer clearly pointed out that the motion does not centre on government intervention, rather responsibility. When they do, they should not focus narrowly on living costs but rather for a sustainable and moral life. Tackling costs would allow us to keep our lifestyle the same, effectively bailing us out. I bought a whole chicken at Lidl for £1.65, not a British chicken. We need a long-term approach. Yes, there will be unrest, but we should be willing to accept some cost increases to avoid future problems. Intervention through quantitative easing or taxation has inherent problems. Does electricity need to be on all the places it is?
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer agreed with the opposer over the long term, though the short-term situation still needs to be addressed. How do we effect culture change? The cost of living will affect people if not now then soon, and suddenly, making it difficult to cope. I didn’t bring solutions, but not required. Rich people drive carbon emissions, not the poor who need help with costs and could get into debt. We have a moral duty to protect children, our future. The government has a responsibility to tackle this by whatever method.
Result: in the final vote, the cost of living debate motion carried
The Sylvans concluded through the cost of living debate that it is the government’s responsibility to tackle the rising cost of living.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.