The Keynesian argument is well rehearsed. And yes, we are a party of the left, but that doesn’t mean we follow the mantra of unsustainable borrowing practiced by many on the far left. For me it’s all about changing the priorities followed so monotonously by mainstream parties. As I say, quality of life is the measure we should use, not GDP.

But the combined effect of those kitchen-table decisions is to collapse total spending and this leads to a downward spiral of unemployment and recession, unless the government steps in to replace some of that economic activity.

This is why all but economic illiterates like the Tories realise that you do not cut in a recession. Even Alistair Darling knows this, he’s just too politically timid to say so because he thinks the electorate are so bewitched by Cameron that they could never possibly believe he’s got it wrong.

Peter is not necessarily proposing higher taxes. Borrowing is not inherently unsustainable, and our public borrowing is still not even that high by historic standards. Take into consideration that a huge portion of that borrowing is not revenue loans for intangible spending – like teachers’ pay – but in fact a mortgage on bank equity which has a substantial and rising market value of its own, and you start to see that news of our fiscal demise has been greatly exaggerated.

You may be right to say that surpluses ought to have been run higher during more successful years, but cutting to deal with that now would be like installing fire alarms in the ashes of your house. And the failure to run up surpluses has been in no way severe enough to preclude a sensible, stimulus-based response to this recession.

One final point, which may be my most contentious – the Greens are a party of the left. Pretending otherwise is not only intellectually dishonest but also, in a country with no other viable party of the left, a massive wasted opportunity.

Rather than sounding like tax ‘n’ spend lefties (which is what a casual reader would take from your article), I would concentrate on changing priorities. Let’s cut spending … on foreign wars, Trident, non-renewables. Let’s invest for the future in renewables, loft insulation and affordable council housing. Quality of life is what we aim to improve and spending priorities must reflect that and not get caught up in a right/left spat.

My real grouse with Brown was he spent, and went on spending when we were not in recession but were booming. Sustainable? At that time we should have been repaying debt, though not many on the left were saying that.

http://tom.acrewoods.net/2010/01/04/a-dangerous-and-remarkable-delusion

People much prefer to think of government finances like household finances. You want to get rid of your debts pronto, and any more spending will just make stuff worse.

Darren Johnson wrote a piece for CiF recently about London’s economy, and got harangued by comments focused on his proposals for spending:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/21/boris-bankers-city-london

Getting the argument across quickly, and in a way that makes sense to the average person who isn’t going to spend a lot of time thinking your argument through – now that’s a challenge. I can almost see why Labour and the Lib Dems jumped on the bandwagon.

As well as the reasons that you give – investment in the future (both shirt term and long term) it’s also important to explain the multiplier effect to people. I may write a blog post on this, hmmm…