Skip to main content

There is an alternative

I am always suspicious of political arguments that suggest there is no alternative. There is always an alternative; the question is which is the best alternative. When the 'no alternative' argument is deployed it usually suggests a fundamental weakness of the position; it is an argument from weakness, not strength. And so it is with the arguments deployed this weekend by the government in the wake of the loss of the triple A rating for the economy.

All governments whether Labour or coalition would have to 'tackle the structural deficit' Mr Cable told us. As if this suggested there was no alternative way to deal with it. What we know is that the coalition adopted a savage strategy of cutting spending to 'deal with the deficit', and they did so without a clear strategy for growth. The alternative would have been to make growth the priority rather than cutting the structural deficit; such a strategy if it worked would have cut the deficit by increasing revenue. As it is, the cuts in spending have reduced revenue and made the deficit worse not better. There is an alternative.

The government also adopted a position determined to protect the triple A rating. This was an absurd approach. Now Mr Cable tells us that it doesn't matter; it is merely symbolic. Indeed it is; so what it means is that the slash and burn of public services has been about protecting something that was simply 'symbolic'; a kind of macho economics! The poorest have suffered for a symbol. Again there was an alternative, which was to consider policies that would deal with the structural deficit through growth and income and not blindly savage cuts.


Mr Cable likes to set up an Aunt Sally that is easily knocked down. He likes to suggest that the alternative would be to 'simply spend our way out of trouble', which won't work. But that is not the alternative, although I suspect the coalition as they panic in the approach to 2015 might just adopt such a strategy. It would, of course, be irresponsible. No we can't 'spend our way out of trouble' but what we can do is be strategic about spending. We could recognise that not all spending is 'bad'; some is vital to oil the wheels of the economy and increase revenue.

It will be interesting to see what strategy Osborne adopts in the coming budget, but I bet there is an alternative. Let's see.

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...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...