Sunday:
Milipot calls Kettle black.
Last time I got any diaries written, Mr Simon expressed some concern I was being a bit HARSH on Hard Labour by judging them based on what they WERE not what they ARE.
But you know, until they actually start professing some NEW positions (and opportunistic tactical opposition REALLY doesn't count) then I don't think it unfair to judge them by what they WERE on the uncontroversial grounds that IT'S WHAT THEY STILL ARE.
Despite Mr Milipede soft-peddling some of the ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS policies, they have barely moved from their HIGHLY RIGHT-WING stance on law and immigration.
And under Mr Balls, their economic position is UNCHANGED from the Darling plan (a plan which would have CUT DEEPER than the Coalition's – the main difference being that Darling intended to CUT THE HEALTH SERVICE. The Conservatory pledge of real-terms increases in health spending, which we've agreed to be bound by, means that EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT bears a HEAVIER share of the cuts, allowing Labour to perpetuate the MYTH that they would have cut less. But it IS still a myth.)
Mr Bully Balls might SHOUT about a "plan for jobs and growth" at every given opportunity, but this is, again, a TACTICAL response to the length of time economic recovery is taking and how that prolongs the painful austerity measures, with no recognition that the outcome under Labour would have been virtually indistinguishable.
Worse, it amounts to no more than a REHEAT and REPEAT of Mr Darling's "borrow more for a temporary VAT cut" tactic of 2009, which resulted in (at best) a dead cat bounce of the economy (and is arguably as much the cause of the "double dip" as anything that the Coalition, Europe, America or Ming the Merciless of Mongo has done since). Like injecting adrenaline into a heart-attack victim, you can get them to jump up and run around, but you're ignoring the MASSIVE DAMAGE to their system that you are EXACERBATING by simulating recovery ARTIFICIALLY.
That isn't a stimulus as Mr John Keynes would have understood it (because you DON'T end up with any infrastructure or educational advantage at the end), and it is completely false to suggest, as Mr Balls continues to do, that Keynesian economics would support continuing to borrow to support a CURRENT ACCOUNT deficit until the rest of the world fixes the economy for us.
2 comments:
Absolutely fair point about Labour - I can see what you mean in that their professed desire for change hasn't happened yet, so their previous record is all you have to judge them on.
Intrigued by the economics - I gather that the Coalition's current economic stance is actually softer than what Alastair Darling was proposing. It also seems unlikely that Bully Boy Balls' 'stimulus' tactics would work either (and Labour could make a good start of reform if they took HIM off the front bench). But as someone more knowledgeable than I on the subject, with both approaches having been shown to be ineffective in providing growth and staving off recession, what do you think would be the best approach?
There's a lot to be said for the "Plan C" approach proposed by the Social Liberal Forum, an evidence-based approach that would see more investment in key infrastructure and training (it's very Keyensian!).
There's an extent to which the Coalition are moving this way, with new capital spending being brought forward this year.
On the other hand, Gideon is also planning on bunging a hundred and fourty billion pounds of cheap credit at the banks, which strikes me as a worrying attempt to stimulate growth by recreating the pre-crash bubble conditions.
I should poin out that Amercia has perfomred a deeper fiscal contraction than we have, although with better targetted key investment programmes. And America is recovering, so it's not austerity per se that's killing our economy, more that it doesn't work in combination with other pre-existing factors (e.g. overdependence on the finance sector who we are now requiring to build up capital rather than more lending).
I'll come back to my old thesis: growth will come when confidence returns, but it's a mystry what causes that.
Post a Comment