Tweet
The ideological gap just yawned yet wider as David Cameron sprang into the New Year with tigerish ferocity. The longer Labour is in power, he said, the worse it gets - for the economy, national debt, crime, education, welfare dependency, the health service and family breakdown; all worse, worse, worse. Broken Britain needs an election now when "change is going to come". But president-elect Barack Obama, Cameron is certainly not. As the new president plans a trillion-dollar Keynesian stimulus in the United States economy, Cameron retreats into Thatcher's 1980s. Every time he speaks, he climbs deeper into the recesses of her handbag economics, preaching thrift and a bonfire of public spending.
He is right that this year things can only get much worse: every economic commentator says so. Any government seeking re-election after a year like 2009 with three million unemployed and gaping black holes in high street shopfronts can expect an uphill struggle. On the face of it, Cameron should walk it with constant finger-pointing - who was at the wheel when the economy crashed? Revenge is a strong voting motive. Superficially, he has all the best lines. The question is whether his phoney economics fool enough of the people enough of the time.
Yesterday's speech extolled the moral case for saving and thrift, "where government and citizens live within their means, save for a rainy day, waste not, want not". How well that chimes with the current mood, in which the worried rein in spending and even the comfortable indulge in frugality chic. It chimes with the bishops' call for less shopping and more praying. It chimes with commonsense instinct: in hard times pull in your horns, don't borrow, don't spend; hide under the duvet until it's all over. So when Cameron ratchets up the rhetoric by calling the VAT cut "an absolutely criminal waste of public money", plenty of voters will nod in agreement. Labour's £12.5bn cash splurge did feel odd. When Cameron claims: "We are in this mess because of too much government debt", it sounds plausible. When he offers £5bn in tax cuts for penny-wise savers by taking money out of current spending to salt away in savings accounts, that too may seem like prudent policy. All this goes with the grain of human instinct - and Labour has yet to find resonant language to challenge it.
Cameron's plan for retrenchment is economically illiterate, and would be frighteningly dangerous if he were in power. But it's hard to explain why thrift is not the answer in a punchy political message. Keynesianism is counter-intuitive: he wrote himself about the problem of the "thrift paradox" - persuading people and governments to spend, lend and invest at a time when every fibre of their being urges slamming on the brakes. But let's examine why the Cameron prescription is part populism, part poison and part snake-oil: since he's not stupid, presumably he knows it.
Take his plan for a loan guarantee to let banks lend again with the state as guarantor. It sounds good - indeed, the government has already said it will do the same, responding to the Crosby report. Cameron's deceit, in his eagerness to cut borrowing, is to pretend he can do it cost-free by raising interest rates enough to cover any losses from failed loans. Nonsense, say those working on the scheme. To make it self-financing, he would have to raise the loan interest rates to many times their present rate, and no one would want them. Guaranteeing loans, some of which would fail, costs some £2bn - but in Cameron's fantasy economics he pretends he can both fix this crisis and cut spending.
Take his key claim that Britain's debt "puts us in a much weaker position than other countries". Is that true? Ask the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies - by no means always a friend of Gordon Brown's previous economic policies - and here's their verdict: of the G7 richest nations, only Canada has a lower stock of debt than the UK. The US, France, Germany, Japan and Italy have even higher debts than the sizeable 57% of gross domestic product Labour now plans. Compared with all the leading economies, the UK is still only in the middle of the debt table. So yes, we can well afford to borrow more to avoid the worst of this year's cataclysm - and that is the right thing to do. What of Cameron's plan? To make a sudden £5bn cut in spending this April is an anti-stimulus at a time when money needs to be spent. The Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that the only way to cut quickly is to axe whatever is easiest with random destruction, without rational planning.
Was the VAT cut "a criminal waste"? The IFS says it was the best way to get money out there fast. What of Cameron's plan to encourage saving with tax cuts? Not a bad idea, but absolutely not in the depth of recession. For years the IFS has criticised Brown for adding to national debt by failing to raise enough tax to cover his higher spending in the good years. Now, the IFS's Carl Emmerson says: "But even if he had, that slight cushion would no way have insulated us from this crisis."
Cameron's proposed cuts in public services would be disastrous in a year like this. He would ring-fence only NHS, schools and defence spending, while from April he would cut planned spending on everything else. But how could he cut Department for Work and Pensions funds as unemployment claimants soar? Why cut the big rise in apprenticeships, just as the young are leaving school to sign on? How do you create jobs if all infrastructure is cut back? (His high-speed rail would take years to set up - and it needs state funds.) During the last Tory government, average capital spending was just 0.6% - while Labour has spent more than 2%, the price of repairing 20 years of public squalor. Labour's plan to bring forward £10bn of capital spending to create 100,000 jobs is a vital necessity.
Labour relies on real economics winning over the plausible lie in the long run. After all, the Confederation of British Industry, the International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development all urge Keynesian policies, with Barack Obama leading the way. Labour's serious problem is that no one will ever be able to prove whether what they did worked: if the recession is less deep, were these debts really necessary? Economists will argue for years, but nobody will ever know how much worse things might have been, had Cameron been in power.
polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk
- David Cameron
- Conservatives
- Economic policy
- Economics
- Recession
- Credit crunch
- Saving money
- Tax
- Tax and spending
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
More...
Comment