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

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

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