More like this
60 economists give Darling a reason to smile again
But today's retail figures are a reminder that the economy can still deliver the Tories a victory, says The Mole
Alistair Darling goes into the weekend a happier - not to say smugger - bunny. The two letters to the Financial Times from a total of more than 60 economists backing Darling's course, and rebuking Shadow Chancellor George Osborne for his over-eagerness to cut public spending, are just what the doctor ordered.
The mantra 'It's the economy, stupid' has never been more apposite than in this general election. If Labour can prove to the general public that they have the wisdom to see us through this crisis, and that the desperate duo of Cameron and Osborne risk making matters worse, then they have a good chance of holding onto power.
Darling's argument is simple; start cutting back on public spending too soon and we will see a lot more young people on the dole queue. Wait until 2011 before introducing serious cuts and Britain has a chance of averting a social disaster.
Osborne, on the other hand, wants to start the big squeeze the moment he gets into power (how big an 'if' that is, we'll come to). He has been holding up a letter written to the Sunday Times by 20 economists backing him, which he has taken to be evidence that a consensus of economic experts supports his policies.
Wrong again, Mr Osborne. The two letters to the FT suggest that the majority of economic academics are on Darling's side. (Even Osborne, reviled by many in the City to the point where increasing numbers hope he will be replaced before he gets the keys to the Treasury, can see that 60 trumps 20.)
One letter is led by Lord Skidelsky, a biographer of JM Keynes, and David Blanchflower, the former monetary policy committee member. The second is led by Lord Layard, emeritus professor of economics at the LSE. "For the good of the British people," the letter reads, "the first priority must be to restore robust economic growth".
However, before Darling and Gordon Brown - who will put "securing the economic recovery" at the top of his election checklist this weekend - get too pleased with themselves, there's a glitch.
Retail figures for January, announced this morning, show their sharpest monthly drop in one and a half years - 1.8 per cent down from December. The snow hasn't helped, of course, but there has to be more to it than that.
Coupled with yesterday's news that the Treasury borrowed another £4.3bn in January to deal with the public deficit, it's hardly surprising there are some saying our finances are in little better shape that those of Greece - possibly worse.
It doesn't matter how many economists write comforting letters via the FT, Labour MPs fighting for their futures in marginal seats are going to find "It's worse than Greece" a difficult one to counter on the hustings. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
There is no other job in the world where you can be so bloody wrong all the time and not get fired than an Economist. I think you will find that all the economists towing the government line are all viewing the world thru their 'Keynes glasses' take them off you fools he was wrong 200 years ago and even more so today. The idea that you can spend your way out of this crisis will bankrupt the country.
Vote for "Other" next time.LibLabCons have all failed to listen to the people on many pressing subjects.
They don't deserve our support any more and need to wake up to what is happening to our country.
Could some kindly soul please to me (and perhaps other puzzled readers) WHY any credit (sic!) should be given to economists'
opinions? Weren't they the collective genii who gave their imprimatur the shysters & wideboys who caused the GFC?
Put ten economists in room and one would be lucky to have fewer than 15 opinions emerge or, put another way,
Q - why would it matter if a bus full of them went over a cliff? A -A - There might have been some empty seats.
So the very fact that the reportage is 60 one way, 20 tuther, the same point arises - why are economists even fed, let alone listened to or, shloch horror, PAID?
Stating that the Government cannot reduce borrowing without catastrophic results should not engender any feeling of pride in Darling or Brown - it should be to their deep shame that they believe this statement, not a political plus point.