Clegg is an opportunist. And he ory Colitions claim to 'remve the deficit' is a meaningless as 'eliminating 'boom and bust'. Its an impossibility. There will alwys be times of acclerated growth and times of accelerated decline, and countries will always be in hock to financiers.
What is important is that the periods of prosperity should be lengthy, and the periods of hardship short as possible.

well mr blanchflower, the world of economics has been discredited by recent economic failures, however although economists have failed us, the last thing on earth we need is a social anthropologist telling everyone that he knows how to do it better, when its so obvious he doesn't.

i'm quite intrigued by this concept of being able to spend the saved interest payments on something else, because it completely ignores the fact that the money borrowed expands the size of the economy, and so the issue, in terms of government debt must be whether the interest payments, on the money borrowed, is more or less than the additional benefits of the larger economy as a result of the loan.

and the flaw in the, we can save all this money in interest payments argument, is that the economy may shrink to such an extent, as a result of this enthusiasm for removing debt, that no money is saved, but instead lost as the economy shrinks.

but the idea that its not just a simple transfer of money, but that the borrowed money serves a purpose in expanding the economy is a hard mathematical concept to get across..............it might be time to address cleggs arguments at a more basic level, rather than to use language that many people don't understand.

I read that the current interest repayment amounts to 11% of GDP. In order to meet that payment the government has either to borrow via bonds which means more interest payments, or just print more money which means inflation and probably higher interest rates. Or they can tax people so much that they haven't got much to spend which results in a reduced demand in the economy and further economic slowdown. Or they could cut the debt and reduce the payments by cutting back on government expenditure.

What do you propose that they do? What exactly is the alternative to the present government action?

I work in a soon to be abolished regional development agency, where we prided ourselves on doing a a grown-up approach to growth, based on hard-headed analysis - and major agreement from businesses, councils, communities on the main priorities that would help develop our regional economy.

A lot of our work was spent pragmatically resisting the tendency of Whitehall civil servants at grabbing at ill thought out instant initiatives... and trying to refocus on key things like infrastructure and skills black spots in our region. Businesses thanked us for that.

And so, now the regional development agencies are out of the way with their "bureaucratic" - i.e. sensible, pragmatic and grown up approach to economic development - the meddlers reign with ill thought out initiatives - such as the Regional Growth Fund, Enterprise Zones, Enterprise Allowance Schemes - all that tosh.

Blanchflower is perfectly correct. From day 1 of the Coalition their message has been Labour left a mess and we (the Coalition) have to clear the mess. Someone should point out that when you have a recession caused by a property collapse in the USA a mess is created indirectly. Ireland so beloved by Osborne was running a liberal economy , their problems are worse than the UK, how can that be? simple The Banks.

There was is no plan for growth because the Tories have a classical liberal view of economics,and therefore economic activity will come about by necessities.By that time the deficit will have come down but the social divisions which seems to have been ignored will be exacerbated.

Unfortunately the Coalition was allowed to reinforce the message that 'the mess' is the fault of the last Labour Government because as the new Opposition Labour was sidetracked by the election of a new leader who then took paternity leave which created a political vacuum.

To be effective Labour has to acknowledge that some of its policies were wrong (the focus on neoliberalism - deregulation, increasing inequality etc) and really explain where the new jobs are coming from. The share of national wealth going to wages and salaries is reducing so to maintain standards of living people have borrowed excessively. This is not sustainable but what will take its place? It will take considerable time for a new economic and political narrative to be compiled and it will be insufficient for Labour to present itself at the next election as a neoliberal party with less brutal policies. There is a deep mistrust of politics and not just in places like Egypt.

Clegg is an opportunist of the highest order. I've come to the conclusion that he has no real depth to his own views and his press and public words are those of the Cameron PR machine. He's not convincing because his words are bereft of fact and purpose. The guy is a disaster and a shameful leader of a shamed party.

Why pretend that all of this political sewage really means anything for working clased(now unemployed) peoples. At the age of 72 I have potentially more expeience of real life than all of you so called intelligenzia put together. Get a life

an ordinary maN IN THE STREET(omit)

Can anybody tell me where all the intelligenzia go when not trying to sound awfully important in computer postings

billymckeen

IT MUST BE TRUE - THE INTELLIGENZIA BELIRF YOU CAN GET CONTAMINATING DISEASE FROM COMMUNICATION WITH WORKING CLASSED SENIOR CITIZENS.

Mr. Devine,
I'm not sure where you read that our interest payments are 11% of GDP - as you can see from here: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1692_2011&stat...
Interest payments are currently at 2.8% of GDP - and that figure is lower than it was in every year from 1979 through to 1992. Mrs Thatcher didnt seem to think it was a problem, so why should we? Unless it is being used as a smokescreen for ideological cuts?

@JohnRuddy: yes you're right its not 11% as I wrote. I read it in a BBC article. Maybe these cuts aren't necessary after all.

I think part of the problem is that Labour didn't defend themselves from the onset (due to the distraction of the leadership elections), so, unbelievably, the media were convinced that there was no alternative and therefore the public were duped, hook, line and sinker!
http://www.homeimprovement101.net/

Charlatan minor is putting it polite. He has exasperated even me in his "how shallow can you get" in his lies and conning.

He won't get a job in the UN in the future in his performance in the last eight months - no one would trust him, due to his self-serving conning, the disgrace.

Tell us again Cleggy, the last Labour government caused the world economic crisis of 2008? Knob!