Skip to main content

The election and cutting the deficit

What is it all about and does it matter? The general election that is. It is often remarked about the main political parties that 'they're all the same'. It is certainly true that increasingly they have come to sound the same.  This is in large part, not because the policies are the same, but the pitching of them is similar: the same target audiences, the same cliched lines, the same sort of sound bite. It is also the case that policy differences are often nuanced rather than substantial. But the differences are none the less real. The impact of these differences is not so much through individual policies but through overall strategy.  We here the same soundbite about 'cutting' the deficit, 'dealing' with the deficit from all main parties. We 'must' cut the deficit has become a mantra, almost unquestioned -  a kind of political truism.  But is it really the case that we must? And do all the parties really agree? What's the real alternative in the general election? A better understanding comes from a consideration of the deficit.

We need to look at the deficit and the Total Managed Expenditure across a cycle.  It is clearly the case that holding TME constant it will fluctuate as a % national income.  During  a boom when growth in national income is high then spending will fall as % of that income; during a recession or period of slow growth then TME will increase as % of national income.  Given that we wish to increase spending on capital investment, in infrastructure or house building that helps the economy to prevent a recession, then again we should expect TME to rise as a percentage of national income.  During a recession, with increased unemployment, the welfare bill increases., increasing expenditure..

All this is why cutting the deficit should be seen across an economic cycle.  Simply setting targets for spending cuts without considering the consequences would do more harm than good.  We need a balanced view to cutting ‘the deficit’.

The Tories it seems are, if their coalition partners are to be believed, itching to cut the deficit by slashing spending.  It has become no longer a question of economics, but a question of political philosophy. – rolling back the state. Come what may, the Tories have an instinctive dislike of public spending.  The good that it does is, for them, outweighed by the harm they consider it does.  Not for them the ‘nanny state’ and ‘welfare dependency’.  Labour on the other hand instinctively believe in public spending, not as an economic principle so much as a social principle.  They believe that the good that it can do outweighs the potential harm of ‘dependency’.  The Tories ‘dependency’ is Labour’s ‘support’.   Labour in more recent times has been more in the centre ground of that divide.  If Labour is moving to the left of New Labour it is because the centre of gravity in that divide is shifting.  Experience teaches a lot, and the experience of the last five years has pushed many Labour supporters to reassert their belief in the role of public spending.

This political emphasis is reflected over the long term – although not necessarily in the short term where events blow governments off course..  The average real rate of increase in spending during the Conservative years of 1979 to 1997 was 1.5 per cent, and under the Labour government from April 1997 to March 2009 it has been 3.2 per cent.   It reflects the tendency for Labour to seek social solutions to what it considers to be social problems.  The Tories on the whole seek ‘market’ solutions to what they consider to be distortions of economic reality. – profit driven efficiency with somehow lead to the solving of deprivation in a trickle down – greater wealth creation by free spirited entrepreneurs leads to more jobs and everyone benefits.  To some extent New Labour blurred this divide – it recognised to a greater extent the role of market forces.  Since the banking crisis Labour has taken renewed stock of its position and has begun once again to think ‘social’, if not socialist.

All this means that the lines of the coming general election are more clearly drawn than appears at first glance.  Much more is at stake as a result.  A Tory government will as a matter of political belief cut spending.  Labour will make sounds about cutting the deficit but will resist massive cuts in spending.

The Liberal Democrats adopt a positon that holds something like  ‘we will prevent the Tories an excessive rightward shift an we will prevent Labour from a lurch to the left’.  Frnakly I suspect the voters are fed up with such a balancing act.  The LibDems are likely to be punished at the election.  But they won’t be punished as much as some polls suggest.

I expect we will hear much more about dealing with the deficit in the election - each party trying to outbid the other.  The Tories will say that Labour will spend more and won't cut the deficit. Labour will say that the Tories will slash spending.  The choice is real.  They are not all the same.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno