"Joaquim Aguiar costuma escrever que não se pode seguir em frente sem primeiro reconhecer os erros do passado. Por isso, ele usa a metáfora das rotundas. O país está numa rotunda há mais de 20 anos, focado na distribuição de riqueza que é gerada por outros povos e que se transforma em dívida para as gerações de escravos no futuro."
Vamos ao texto de Susskind:
""Growth," declared Keir Starmer at the start of 2024, "is the lever that I intend to pull." The trouble with that line is that it makes the task at hand seem too easy. A far better metaphor is a wheel, not a lever. This captures the real, more difficult, choice: whether to steer the economy towards more growth but, at the same time, to accept that also means turning away from other things Labour believes are important.
Until now, the government has been unwilling to make that trade-off. That is what must change in this budget if stagnation is to end. [Moi ici: O governo precisa de fazer escolhas reais, não apenas ajustes técnicos. Governar não é puxar uma alavanca fácil, mas escolher uma direcção, e aceitar os sacrifícios que ela implica. Starmer evita decisões difíceis.]
Labour is introducing new workers' rights that will cost businesses £5 billion a year according to the government's own analysis. But if this budget is serious about growth at all costs, it would delay these reforms - not because they don't matter, but because ending stagnation matters more.
Labour is pursuing a net-zero agenda that is driving up energy bills, decimating traditional industries and will cost the economy a fortune. But this budget should dilute these ambitions not because the climate is unimportant, but because this price is too high given the economic calamity unfolding.
Labour is protecting the pension triple lock, [Moi ici: Esta cena do "triple lock" consegue ser pior do que qualquer coisa feita em Portugal sobre o tema nos últimos 40 anos] which the Office for Budget Responsibility expects to cost £15.5 billion a year by 2030. But if growth is the main goal, Labour would scrap this and use the savings to, for instance, fund tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs - not because the triple lock isn't nice, but because this money could be used in pursuit of prosperity. Labour is failing to reform a welfare system that keeps 25 per cent of working-age people in big cities such as Birmingham, Liverpool and Blackpool on out-of-work benefits. With growth the priority, this system should be overhauled - not to save money, but because it is inefficient to condemn millions of people, full of new ideas, to worklessness.
Labour will not consider a customs union with our biggest trading partner, the EU, despite the fact that Reeves is likely to blame Brexit for the state of Britain. But if growth really is the be all and end all, then this is the moment to set out the intention to revisit that relationship. Putting the British economy first demands it. [Moi ici: Estes 4 exemplos ilustram a incapacidade de fazer trade-offs. Por isso estas políticas actuais contradizem o objectivo de crescimento]
...
This is the challenge that sits at the heart of Britain: a tension between what the economy needs and what Labour allows.
...
The budget must make clear that Labour's titanic ambitions for the state are no longer compatible with how poor we have become.
...
Finally, the budget must be blunt that this is the end of the road. If Labour does not prioritise growth, if it is unwilling to give up other things that it values in its pursuit, then it is likely to end up with little at all.
My fear is that only an external crisis will force Labour to seriously change direction. My hope is that an internal crisis will happen within Labour before that. [Moi ici: Não acredito, os deputados têm ainda mais medo que o medroso Starmer]"
Vamos ao teste de Roger Martin. Em vários pontos o governo tenta evitar escolhas entre opções plausíveis:
- Crescimento vs. preservar todos os benefícios actuais. O inverso ("crescer e rever benefícios") é plausível → requer escolha; ao evitá-la, não há estratégia.
- Crescimento vs. ritmo/desenho do net-zero. O inverso ("ajustar o net-zero para priorizar o crescimento no curto prazo") é plausível → requer escolha; ao evitá-la, não há estratégia.
- Crescimento vs. manter o triple lock. O inverso ("rever o triple lock para libertar investimento") é plausível → requer escolha; ao evitá-la, não há estratégia.
- Estabilidade pós-Brexit vs. reaproximação económica à UE. O inverso ("revisitar a relação com a UE") é plausível → requer escolha; ao evitá-la, não há estratégia.
%2006.21.jpeg)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário