JUSTIÇA DE SÃO PAULO DETERMINA QUE O MUNICIPIO AUTORIZE A EXPEDIÇÃO DE NOTAS FISCAIS ELETRÔNICAS.
9 de fevereiro de 2024
Por que Rússia deve crescer mais do que todos os países desenvolvidos, apesar de guerra e sanções, segundo o FMI
18 de abril de 2024The third television debate closed the first chapter of a captivating democratic experiment. But nobody wanted to confront the pain to come
After two debates in which a great deal was said, the most conspicuous feature of the third was what remained unsaid. What Gordon Brown did not say last night was, in the longer view, more outrageous even than what he did say in the back of his official car about Gillian Duffy. He said nothing of substance about how he would lead the country out of the mess that he has landed it in with his fiscal incontinence.
The television debates have been a great innovation but, granted the opportunity of an hour and a half to specify where spending cuts will come, all three pretenders to the office of prime minister preferred not to say. Mervyn King’s prediction that whoever wins the general election will be out of power for a generation does offer some sense of the economic inheritance awaiting the winner.
Of course, each candidate enumerated, variously, a list of efficiency gains, tax rises and spending cuts, but most of what will really be required by the new government was left out of the account. It may be that the three leaders felt that telling the unvarnished truth was too great a risk so close to a general election. That silence is an eloquent statement of how much truth they think the electorate can handle.
That is not to say that the debate did not stage a real argument. Mr Brown, adamantine to the end, continued his line that immediate spending cuts are too great a risk to recovery. David Cameron made the point with which this newspaper has agreed — that delay is the largest risk to recovery, not precipitous action.
This opened up a clear and critical fault line between Mr Cameron and Mr Brown on the question of enterprise. Time and again, Mr Brown’s default position was a defence of public spending, which he has increased by 54 per cent during his time in office. The return on that spending has been nothing like as high. By contrast, only Mr Cameron seemed comfortable defending small companies. This led straight to the most serious argument of the election: which leader has a genuine inclination to cut? Though detail was sparse, only Mr Cameron sounded convincing as he detailed the changes that might be necessary.
There is also a serious argument about where the money should come from. What is the optimal balance between spending cuts and tax increases? On this, again, the debate shed more heat than light. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that the Conservative Party wants to achieve 80 per cent of the deficit reduction through spending cuts and 20 per cent through tax increases. The corresponding figures for the Liberal Democrats are 72 per cent cuts and 28 per cent tax rises. Labour is suggesting that cuts will do 66 per cent of the work and tax rises will account for the residual 34 per cent.
The crucial point about these numbers is not that they differ. The crucial point is that they are all terrible. The implications of such savage, but unfortunately unavoidable, cuts in public services are alarming. Last night’s ritual exchange about services that would be made miraculously exempt from reality was a flight of pure fancy. The fact is that all the plans on the table imply cuts of the like that have not been seen in a generation.
In one sense, last night’s debate was very gloomy. Immigration has been a bubbling issue of the campaign and none of the three candidates answered in an entirely honourable way. Nobody, it seems, dares to offer a liberal sentiment. But, in another sense, the debate was not gloomy enough. The cuts will be huge and they will be painful.
The end of the third debate closed an extraordinary experiment in British democracy. The subject was, ostensibly, another — the experiment in public spending that the Labour Government has conducted since the turn of the century. The price was too high; the cost will follow.