To cut or not to cut...

The Lib-Con coalition have been very clear from the outset: the budget deficit will be reduced drastically by the end of this parliament. This is in contrast to Labour who planned to cut the deficit by half over the next four years. Between the two parties, there is a clear divergence on how to deal with our fiscal policy.

This conflict reverberates through the entire British economy. On the one hand, we have the ardent Keynesians, who argue that government spending must not yet be curbed. On the other hand, there are those like George Osbourne, who vehemently feel that reduction must be at a much faster rate. Perhaps this is true; sustained spending could trigger inflation in the long-run. Further, interest rates will rocket as investors lose confidence in our government.

However, I see more merit in keeping our foot on the pedal. There are pertinent lessons to be learnt from the demise of Japan. In the 1990s, they tightened their fiscal belt before private demand could sustain itself. This is the case with Britain. Household debt levels in the UK are worringly high - reduced public spending and tax increases do not bode well for the British economy.

Perhaps this issue is so capturing because of the conflict of ideas it presents. Both sides wield strong economical arguments.

Nevertheless, the budget deficit question is not as clear as it may seem. There is nobody who disagrees that the deficit must be cut. Our structural budget deficit is unforgivable and an EU commission estimates that our deficit lies at 12% of our GDP. It is the rate of cutting that is so hotly contested.

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.

Capping the problem

Immigration issues were very prominent in the last general election - often seen as the elephant in the room that many politicians tip-toed around.

However, in the coalition agreement the need for a non-EU immigration cap was set out. The aim is to reduce the numbers coming in from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands, back to levels seen in the 1990s.

Cameron claims that a cap will finally put a cap on the heated issue of immigration in the public domain (excuse the pun!) The thinking is, the public will be appeased by action and thus, it will no longer pose a problem.

The number of bogus colleges with bogus students would also be curbed. Hence, a cap will reduce the number of people coming to the UK to work in the black economy.

However legitimate the plans may be, perhaps these comments are untimely. On a visit to India to strengthen economic ties, Cameron talks about a cap that would potentially prevent Indian doctors, nurses and engineers seeking employment in the UK. India's commerce minister, Anand Sharma has even gone as far as claiming it could have an adverse effect on trade relations.

The key to all our woes...

...in David Cameron's eyes, it's certainly our foreign trade policy. And rightly so. By demonstrating Britain is "open for business", we can attract healthy foreign inward investment.

His reasoning is very logical: in times of austerity, when government spending is curbed on every level to tackle the structural budget deficit, we need trade. Companies all over the world need to buy British goods. Private companies must be the engine of growth as the public sector is squeezed, if we are not to see jobs lost.

Accordingly, Cameron has made it clear that diplomats, regardless of their juniority, must promote UK business abroad by trying to win orders for UK firms.

In the last week, the Prime Minister has been on a "jobs mission" - from the USA to Turkey to India. This is the right strategy.

Freshfields

I have always thought that I wanted to go into the law profession in the future. So, to find out a bit a more about the field, I decided what better way than getting first hand experience; for the last three days I have been on work experience at Freshfields.

Being able to mingle with the people at the firm, from trainees to associates to partners, my time at Freshfields provided an ample opportunity for me to gain exposure to working life.

I worked in the Employment, Pensions and Benefits (EPB) Department shadowing an associate. I was able to learn so much more than I could by researching on the internet! First off, I read through and discussed an Employment Appeal Tribunal document . All three days I sat in on the department's training sessions - on cross border deals, treasury shares and pensions schemes. These sessions were littered with incomprehensible jargon! Accordingly, I made a glossary of all the legal terms I learnt.

Perhaps the most rewarding task I completed was my note on "Responses to Industrial Action." The note, based on research from books on employment law, outlined how a firm could deal with official and unofficial strikes from their employees. It was sent to the whole department for future reference!

After three fruitful days of working at Freshfields, my passion for this area is burning stronger than ever!

Tonight's the night

Perhaps it is slightly pertrubing that tonight's election debate (just 15 minutes to go!) excites me just as much as the World Cup in June. Eeek!

Tonight could prove to be a game changer yet it could also be a damp squib. As its the very first election debate in British politics, no one quite knows how it will turn out. With trust in politics at a low ebb, it is essential that this debate is an engaged and responsive one. Although it will be fantastic for tomorrow morning's soundbites, I hope the debate does not prevail as one full of recited lines and bunch of pretty phrases. I hope for substance over style.

More than anything, I hope the rules are broken! The crowd are forbidden from cheering and booing - ridiculous!