Over the last week or so I've been amazed by the government's repeated assertion that the Conservative proposal to cancel some of the planned National Insurance rises represents a plan to "take £6 billion out of the economy". Gordon Brown and Ed Balls have both said it - it's obviously a centrally dictated phrase to be used wherever possible. Google it and you'll see what I mean.
It's 100% the opposite of what that phrase means. A lower NI rate would mean less money going to the government and more remaining in circulation in the pockets and bank accounts of individuals and businesses - what's conventionally meant by "the economy" as a generality - for them to spend and invest as they see fit. So limiting the NI rises - not that I'm saying that's the right thing to do - would actually leave £6 billion more *in* the economy. "Economy" is not a synonym for "the Treasury".
But this morning I was listening to the Today programme when a Labour politician whose voice I recognised but couldn't place was being interviewed. He said that the temporary cut in VAT from 17.5% to 15% had left more money in the economy - in other words, the correct use of the phrase. Reducing the amount taken by the government and leaving more money in the hands of businesses and individuals does indeed represent leaving more money in the economy.
So, in other words, the political meaning of the phrase is: if it's something *we've* done (or want to do) then it's putting money into the economy, because that sounds good, but if it's something *the other lot* have done (or want to do) then it's taking money out of the economy, because that sounds bad. The actual meaning of the words isn't important. Amazing.
Comments