-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Britain's economy
Spurious George
The chancellor1 is poised2 to put forward a long-term plan for Britain—about the wrong thing
THE British government's great boast is its resolve. Fainter hearts might have trembled before the political law that you cannot cut your way to re-election. But the Conservative-Liberal Democrat3 coalition4, forged in the dark days following the financial crisis, formed a plan for the economy and stood its ground. Its reward has been to see unemployment tumble and Britain grow faster than any other big rich country in 2014.
It is a rousing refrain. And when George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer5, gives the budget speech on March 18th, less than two months before a general election that will revolve6 around the economy, he is sure to utter the words “long-term economic plan” and to affirm his iron commitment to a fiscal7 surplus for Britain by 2018-19 (see Bagehot).
The shabby truth, however, is that the success of Mr Osborne stems from the goals he has abandoned, rather than the guns he has stuck to. And next week, unless his budget plans are more apt, Britain risks paying a heavy price.
The government has done sensible things with Mr Osborne as chancellor—not least cutting corporation tax, raising the income-tax threshold and pinching Mark Carney from Canada for the Bank of England. But it has been at its best when it has been at its least consistent, in three main areas.
The first is fiscal policy. Five years ago the Conservatives pledged to eliminate almost all of Britain's structural8 deficit9—then estimated at 8.7% of GDP—by the end of their term. They now lead a coalition government that is only half way there. Borrowing this year will probably be about 5% of GDP or £90 billion ($135 billion), £55 billion more than first planned. After two years of weak growth, because of austerity and a European slump10, the chancellor pushed back his deadline for closing the deficit. So much for what was then known as “Plan A”.
Red box, black box
That change was welcome and necessary. Sticking to the plan would have meant tax rises or bigger cuts to public spending, or a combination of the two. It would probably have pitched the economy back into recession, and might have wrecked11 public services. As it is, the state has coped with deep but steady cuts. Crime is down and the sky has not fallen on local government or the National Health Service.
A second change of course was equally welcome. After coming to power in 2010, the coalition first stuck to the previous Labour government's plans to slash12 capital budgets. Public investment—always the easiest bill to cut quickly—fell by 35% in two years. That was foolish. Spending on infrastructure13 is essential to long-term growth and is chronically14 low in Britain. Mr Osborne tempered the cuts in infrastructure spending starting in 2011. Again, his change of heart was good.
The biggest and best departure from the blueprint15 is also the most embarrassing. Before he became prime minister, David Cameron pledged to reduce annual net migration16 to the “tens of thousands”. The coalition government has never abandoned that goal. Yet at the last count net migration stood at a UKIP-maddening 298,000 and rising. Because they are young, healthy, hardworking and enterprising, immigrants have boosted growth and swelled17 the public purse. A big fall in net migration would have weighed on the economy: GDP has risen by 7.8% over this parliament; GDP per person is up by only 4.2%.
You might think that the government's vacillations are ancient history or that doing the right thing is more important than saying it. But plans focus the mind. And in the upcoming budget Mr Osborne risks focusing minds on the wrong issue.
Britain's biggest problem today is not the deficit but stagnant18 productivity growth that leaves output per hour 2% below its peak in 2008.The country's economic future depends far more on boosting how much Britons produce at work than how quickly the deficit is cut. Mr Osborne surely knows that and may secretly plan to shift priorities later. But he is making good policy less likely. U-turns are embarrassing, so plans tend to last for too long. By preparing for deficit-cutting and neglecting productivity, government departments are dissipating their efforts. Mr Osborne did well to change course before. The right thing today is to make a plan for productivity—and stick to it.
1 chancellor | |
n.(英)大臣;法官;(德、奥)总理;大学校长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 poised | |
a.摆好姿势不动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 democrat | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士;民主党党员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 coalition | |
n.结合体,同盟,结合,联合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 exchequer | |
n.财政部;国库 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 revolve | |
vi.(使)旋转;循环出现 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 fiscal | |
adj.财政的,会计的,国库的,国库岁入的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 structural | |
adj.构造的,组织的,建筑(用)的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 deficit | |
n.亏空,亏损;赤字,逆差 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 slump | |
n.暴跌,意气消沉,(土地)下沉;vi.猛然掉落,坍塌,大幅度下跌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 wrecked | |
adj.失事的,遇难的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 slash | |
vi.大幅度削减;vt.猛砍,尖锐抨击,大幅减少;n.猛砍,斜线,长切口,衣衩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 infrastructure | |
n.下部构造,下部组织,基础结构,基础设施 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 chronically | |
ad.长期地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 blueprint | |
n.蓝图,设计图,计划;vt.制成蓝图,计划 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 migration | |
n.迁移,移居,(鸟类等的)迁徙 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 swelled | |
增强( swell的过去式和过去分词 ); 肿胀; (使)凸出; 充满(激情) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 stagnant | |
adj.不流动的,停滞的,不景气的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|