The venue was more prosaic than the rose garden of 10, Downing Street, and there were fewer smiles and other overt signs of cloying matiness. But David Cameron and Nick Clegg were united in claiming that the coalition's first priority is to get rid of the deficit and put the economy back on its feet. Quite right too, but the question is, and the difference should be, how do you do it? And which is the horse and which the cart?
The Tory policy is that the first prerequisite is to get rid of the deficit by cutting government expenditure and then the economy will revive. When government expenditure is no longer hogging the resources available for investment and "crowding out" the initiatives of innovative private enterprise, then go-getting entrepreneurs will move in to set up bright new industries, rebalance the economy and, hey presto, jobs are created, growth is restored and joy and prosperity abound.
Keynesians put it the other way round: revive the economy and then, as the tax take increases and welfare expenditure falls, the deficit will correct itself. Keynes also pointed out the obvious: that entrepreneurs will not invest unless they can be reasonably sure of a demand for their products. In a depression, therefore, the government can and should inject demand into the economy by public works (a massive house-building programme, infrastructure improvements, green energy technology - there is no shortage of projects). The income generated will have a multiplier effect as demand stimulates the private sector and, hey presto, jobs are created, growth is restored and joy and prosperity abound.
In spite of his greater coolness Clegg seems still wedded to the Tory view, at least on the surface. However, a "body language" expert observed, that "while (Clegg) gave Cameron lots of attention and nodded in all the right places, a look at his feet showed his weight was often on the foot furthest from the prime minister. Consciously he was being supportive , but his body was secretly trying to distance him from Cameron." (Peter Collett, Guradinan,09/05/12)
On such slender threads hang the hopes of a revival of the Liberal Democrats, and, more importantly Britain's economy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can't say I am impressed by body language experts.
ReplyDeleteWhen Cameron says there are things he would like to do but cannot because of coalition (but does not say what!), I think the writing is on the wall. Trouble is neither Cameron nor Clegg want an election with the present opinion poll figures. Glad that Milliband is doing better now.
Even more troubling is the case of the sex ring which Vaz says has nothing to do with race when it is obvious that they went free for years just because of political correctness
Certainly the Liberal Democrats would be hammered in an election now. I'm not so sure about the Tories. Labour still has a long way to go to establish its credibility and, bizarrely, the Tories still win on economic competence.
ReplyDeleteAccording to my reading the problem with bringing the sex abuse cases to courts is that the girls are not believed, and thought to make unreliable witnesses.
Not if you read the detailed police reports.
DeleteThe case has generated a lot of discussion and, you're right, many people seem to think that the racial aspects may have caused the police to hold back. Also worrying is the apparent laxity of the care service, where there doesn't seem to have been sufficient concern about where these girls were and what they were doing.
ReplyDeleteI have express a few of the articles on your website now, and I really like your style of blogging. I added it to my favorite’s blog site list and will be checking back soon… Fitness Accessories factory
ReplyDelete