Economics

Listening to BBC news, it's striking how they are still using Labour's politically-charged vocabulary. When the universities are kicking off about their budgets being cut, the BBC newsreaders are told to talk about "investment" in higher education, rather than spending. Why, though? An "investment" would be to put £1 billion of taxpayers’ money into an Emerging Markets fund, and hope it grows. Giving it to universities - many of which serve neither students nor society - is not an investment. But using the word "investment" is Labour code for "good spending". There is one particularly frequent example if this: the BBC regularly confuse the words "deficit" and "debt" - a bugbear of mine, and something James Forsyth deals with in his column in this week's magazine.

The recession has been intellectually thrilling, and I write that without a note of sarcasm. First, politicians argued as to whose understanding of Keynes was greatest; and now they’re in Keynes versus Hayek territory, over the timing and depth of cuts. The Chancellor and his Shadow have marshalled the various authorities who support their respective cases. The science of economics, if it is science, is in its adolescence. Should necessarily equivalent government policy be detirmined by pure intellectual opinions and reputations, especially as those are being forged for posterity by current events? Economics is as much history as science - like Coleridge’s lantern on the stern of the ship; it illuminates the waters through which we have sailed.

Nick Griffin has just made the following statement: “It was not a genuine Question Time, it was a lynch mob… People wanted to see me and hear me taking about things like the postal strike. Let’s do it again and do it properly this time.” He added that he would lodge a “formal complaint to the BBC over the way it twisted Question Time”. As James wrote last night, the debate was an extended navel gaze into whether it was right that Griffin appeared on the programme. Whilst Griffin unquestionably came off worse by babbling about a rather enigmatic, non-colour specific group called British aborigines, the panel missed the opportunity to demolish the BNP’s policies, by concentrating on illustrating that the BNP is ideologically racist.

One of the more interesting influences on the Conservatives is behavioural economics. The book ‘Nudge’ informs quite a lot of their thinking and one of its author Richard Thaler is now an official advisor to the party; his co-author is heading up regulatory policy for Obama. One of the major British evangelists for behavioural economics and its insight is The Spectator’s own Wiki Man, Rory Sutherland. He drew this magazine’s attention to Thaler and Nudge long before people in the Westminster Village had cottoned onto it.

Tim Montgomerie flags up this passage from Andrew Rawsley's column today: "Mr Osborne raised some eyebrows at a recent private meeting in the City when he was heard to remark that '40% of my time is spent on economics' - meaning that most of his hours are spent on campaigns and tactics. Mr Osborne seemed to think that 40% was an impressively large amount of his time to find to spend on economics; some of his audience thought it was a worryingly low proportion for the man who expects to be chancellor in less than a year's time." Of course, it's no secret that Osborne has other responsibilities within his party.