Davis's call for faster cuts is economically reckless

An accelerated cuts programme would prolong the recession.

The most notable section of David Davis's speech on the economy this afternoon, provocatively entitled "There is an alternative: why the government needs a growth strategy", was that on the spending cuts. Davis's contention is that George Osborne, rather than going "too far, too fast", has cut too slowly. He pointed out that that deficit was £125bn last year and challenged Keynesians to explain why "a fiscal stimulus of this size is not already making our economy grow."

It's an argument that many on the Tory backbenches will sympathise with but it's also hopelessly misconceived. The deficit that Davis highlights is not the result of Osborne borrowing for growth but of a collapse in tax receipts caused by the recession and a higher-than-expected benefits bill (the cost of failure, in other words). And while it's true that the cuts to current spending have been more modest than many claim (current spending is down 2.9% or £11.5bn on 2009-10 levels), the cuts to capital spending, the most valuable spending in growth terms, have been far larger, with investment down 47.9% (£24.4bn) in the last two years.

These cuts go some way to explaining why Britain, with the exception of Italy, is the only G20 country to have suffered a second recession. When consumer spending is depressed and businesses are hoading cash, the government must act as a spender of last resort and stimulate growth through tax cuts and higher spending. If it fails to do so, it crashes the economy, which is exactly what has happened.

Davis also underestimated the damage that faster cuts would have done. An accelerated cuts programme, with even greater job losses (393,000 public sector jobs have been cut so far), would likely have tipped the economy back into recession even earlier.

Former Conservative leadership candidate David Davis. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

An alternative Trainspotting script for John Humphrys’ Radio 4 “Choose Life” tribute

Born chippy.

Your mole often has Radio 4’s Today programme babbling away comfortingly in the background while emerging blinking from the burrow. So imagine its horror this morning, when the BBC decided to sully this listening experience with John Humphrys doing the “Choose Life” monologue from Trainspotting.

“I chose not to choose life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you’ve got Radio 4?” he concluded, as a nation cringed.

Introduced as someone who has “taken issue with modernity”, Humphrys launched into the film character Renton’s iconic rant against the banality of modern life.

But Humphrys’ role as in-studio curmudgeon is neither endearing nor amusing to this mole. Often tasked with stories about modern technology and digital culture by supposedly mischievous editors, Humphrys sounds increasingly cranky and ill-informed. It doesn’t exactly make for enlightening interviews. So your mole has tampered with the script. Here’s what he should have said:

“Choose life. Choose a job and then never retire, ever. Choose a career defined by growling and scoffing. Choose crashing the pips three mornings out of five. Choose a fucking long contract. Choose interrupting your co-hosts, politicians, religious leaders and children. Choose sitting across the desk from Justin Webb at 7.20 wondering what you’re doing with your life. Choose confusion about why Thought for the Day is still a thing. Choose hogging political interviews. Choose anxiety about whether Jim Naughtie’s departure means there’s dwindling demand for grouchy old men on flagship political radio shows. Choose a staunch commitment to misunderstanding stories about video games and emoji. Choose doing those stories anyway. Choose turning on the radio and wondering why the fuck you aren’t on on a Sunday morning as well. Choose sitting on that black leather chair hosting mind-numbing spirit-crushing game shows (Mastermind). Choose going over time at the end of it all, pishing your last few seconds on needlessly combative questions, nothing more than an obstacle to that day’s editors being credited. Choose your future. Choose life . . .”

I'm a mole, innit.