Fishburn Hedges

25.05.2010

The Labour government that recently passed away (1997-2010. RIP.) had a much-noted habit of talking about investment, rather than spending.We’re in a new era now. Arguments have started to bubble up about how to make cuts politically acceptable, and pundits are asking how the communication of cuts can ease the pain and avoid an electoral backlash.Fraser Nelson argues George Osborne needs to make a moral case for cuts, by describing them not just as fiscal necessity, but as part of a wider, more positive programme based on rebalancing power between the state and communities.I’m not sure: that sounds quite like convincing everyone of the value of a smaller state. This might be a golden opportunity to do so, if you’re that way inclined, but it’s a tad abstract. Especially when most people only really care about their local school/police/hospital.I wonder if the more down-to-earth message (we’re broke. We can’t afford it.) might play better than the less tangible one (lower state spending is the moral choice and is better in the long-run).No easy answers. But in this context it’s interesting that HMT’s website calls the cuts savings. It’s a much nicer word. It’s easy to understand. And how can anyone possibly argue against saving?In fact, it’s like the opposite of that weasel word, investment.Could the rhetoric soon be not about spending versus cuts, but investment versus savings?Posted by Gordon Hector