The Conservative frontbench is at long last starting at least to say that it understands the pressures on household budgets. This is good news. But what will it mean for “sharing the proceeds of growth”?
I know, I know, it’s “over a cycle, we will share the proceeds of growth, and so reduce the proportion of the economy taken by the state. Government will grow more slowly than the economy does.”
But can this survive the scrutiny of a general election campaign when the cycle’s on the down and the cost of living is climbing? Sure, the economy is projected to grow by one-point-whatever-percent this year. But the reality for many households is that they are experiencing a sharp reduction in spending power. Some parts of the economy somewhere may show some growth, but that’s not what it feels like behind the front doors of large numbers of individual taxpayers and voters in constituencies all over the country. Their personal economic sector feels tight; not growing at all, but struggling, shrinking and withering. The end of the month, every month, is too often a time of quiet desperation. If it’s still this bad, or worse, in 2010, it will feel very bad indeed.
For people in this situation “sharing the proceeds of growth” does not resonate at all. It has no traction. The reverse in fact - it has the potential to become the political opposite to Carlsberg: probably the most irritating sound bite in the world. People are crying out for politicians who will tell them how they will ease the strain. When faced with a canvasser assuring them that we will share the proceeds of growth, the politest retort is likely to be “sharing the proceeds of what, exactly?” When we are all tightening our belts, sharing the pain would be a little nearer the mark.
