Skip to main content

There is an alternative and the British Chambers of Commerce spell it out.

Today the Prime Minister, David Cameron, adopted the strategy of economic madness. Whilst his Business Secretary, Vince Cable, has described the loss of the triple A status as being largely 'symbolic', Mr Cameron once again nailed his colours to its mast. It is a bit like crashing a car into at a tree and then declaring that it indicates they were travelling in the right direction. Mr Cameron continues with the line that there is no alternative. This is wrong, blind, foolish, obstinate and rather arrogant. It rejects advice from those economists who call for a change in direction.

The economy is in a bad shape. It is insufficient to point to the odd 'green shoots', the odd indication that things might turn out all right in the end. The coalition is missing its targets by a wide margin, and with the current strategy, austerity is set to last at least until 2017 and beyond. A decade of austerity will leave the economy considerably weakened, the poor poorer.

Nor is this a party political issue. Groups across the political spectrum, and of no political colour, have called for a strategy for growth.  Today, in light of the absence of growth, the British Chambers of Commerce has called for immediate action to stimulate growth. This would be a major change of direction. Growth should be the objective, and not simply cutting the deficit.

The Director General of the BCC said today:

"The Chancellor should seize the opportunity in next month's Budget to be radical, and introduce measures that creat“e an environment of enterprise, stimulate export growth, kick-start infrastructure projects and create a structure of business finance which supports growing companies. Above all, these measures should create confidence. Our own research shows that firms across Britain believe they can drive growth this year, but they can’t do it alone. The government must be bold and do all it can to boost confidence so that businesses can create jobs, wealth and ultimately long-term growth.”

The government strategy is counter productive as blind austerity reduces revenue it becomes more difficult to cut the deficit. It is bad economics and bad for the country. There is an alternative.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha