The case for austerity

From speed cameras to schools to the film industry - every corner of public spending must be examined for possible cuts.

It was the proper role of government, in the financial crisis 2007-09, to cut interest rates and increase spending. This was right to meet the shortfall in private demand. Although this meant running up a large budget deficit, as the government spent more on welfare than they recieved from tax receipts, it can be seen as a necessary evil. The most ardent of Keynesian thinkers still maintain that spending is needed until the recovery is assured.

But we must put things in perspective. The European Commission estimates that the UK has budget deficit of 12% of the GDP - the highest of any EU member. Long-term interest rates have not shot up because of the serious stance the Lib-Con coalition have displayed on deficit reduction. Increased public spending was the right path in the recession, but now the path is clear.

A patchy dispensation of justice

The US government have managed to set up a $20-billion BP compensation fund for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And rightly so.

However, this highlights a blaring double standard. The Bhopal disaster killed 3,500 people in the direct aftermath, and 15,000 in the following years; many children born disabled; and toxic waste continues to contaminate drinking water. Yet the Indian government and Union Carbide agreed at a settlement for a meagre $470 million.

Yes, the BP oil spill is outrageous but it is pale in comparison to the Bhopal gas leak. Senior managers at the time of the gas leak in Bhopal were sentenced to two-year prison sentences and a fine. This scandalous dispensation of justice has been said to be treated like "a minor traffic accident."

The Indian govermnent have pledged to pursue a clean-up of the toxic waste by Dow Chemical (the company who bought up the assets of Union Carbide but have refused to take responsibility for its liabilities.) This is a welcomed decision - better late than never.