You might have come to the conclusion that I actually missed the Leader’s Debate and decided to just make up a load of rubbish instead.
And, in fairness, you’d be right. Truth is attempts were made to watch it but we all rapidly lost interest, preferring instead to engage in an activity I believe is called, “socialising” in a “pub” consuming something known as “booze.”
Only a week to go before the elections now, and then we can all be put out of our misery.
Or can we?
The company I kept last night wasn’t exactly going to be enthused by the efforts of Clegg, Cameron and Brown having just been to a meeting at the Adam Smith Institute where Perry De Havilland, Tim Worstall and Guido Fawkes thoroughly depressed us about the shite state of affairs in British politics at the moment and the simple underlying truth: No matter which party forms a Government, we’re going to get a very, very similar Government to the one we currently have.
It’ll be largely social democratic in nature, with a huge public sector that’s desperately trying to compensate for the weak private sector to give the illusion of a healthy economy.
Libertarians like me argue that the weakness of the private sector is in no small part due to the overwhelming redirection of national product into the public sector, and so waiting until the private sector sorts itself out before rolling back the public sector is a) Mental b) Wrong and c) Going To End In Tears.
The Government, you see, is currently overspending above and beyond what it takes in tax on an epic scale, and all three leaders say they want to sort that bit out. All well and good, but none will address the perversion of Keynesian thought that got us into this mess in the first place. Even Keynes thought the absolute maximum tolerable proportion of Gross National Product to be spent by the state was 25%… and we’re approaching 47%. In parts of Britain the public sector is 70% of the local economy which puts Soviet Russia to shame. We’re trying to keep a fire going by throwing on £50 notes with one hand, and buckets of water with the other.
And, in short, this is why there’s not enough jobs. There’s simply not enough stuff going on, so we have millions upon millions economically inactive, and an ever smaller number of businesses and people to pay for the ever growing public sector. This isn’t sustainable, or desirable, and truth is that the only choice is stop doing it or be stopped. That’s the choice.
One bit of the debate I did catch was Cameron saying, “it’s not good enough to borrow money from the Chinese to spend on goods made in China” which I think is a spot on summary of the underlying disease at the heart of our economy, and perhaps why he “won” the debate in the end. In our distant disillusionment, did we miss a leader who actually seems to get it? Perhaps he does… but what’s his solution? How far is he willing to go?
The challenge for the next Government (as set by the three leaders) is simply to get public spending down from “let’s just hand the keys to the IMF” to “catastrophically expensive.” But even if the deficit could be reduced to zero overnight, the Government would STILL be consuming too much of the National wealth. And that? Well, we can’t vote to do anything about that. That bit we’re stuck with. Before Brown sent the public financies to hell the parties used to squabble over one or two billion worth of spending… now they’re squabbling over a difference of about £6bn instead.
Just because all three parties are talking about cutting the deficit doesn’t mean economic liberalism is experiencing some kind of renaissance. It just means things are probably much, much, worse than we fear.
