David Cameron Economic Policies Economics Essay

David Cameron Economic Policies Economics EssayIn 2008, the British prudence was veneer recession. The manufacturing and construction sector were experiencing a slump in to their profitability, while the wait on sector was not growing. David Cameron took everyplace as the Prime Minister of Britain, in the year 2010. The Prime minister introduced the deficit -reduction strategy as his master(prenominal) policy of improving the British economy (Faulconbridge and Matt, 2). The economy reacted passively, with a b swanline increase of its GDP, which stood at 1.1%. In 2011, the economy did not peak, though in that location was a reduction in the political sympathiess cypher deficit, due to the austerity measures of David Cameron political sympathies. In 2012, the British economy experienced a slump in growth. The nations reckon deficit grew to 11%. The GDP of the demesne fell by a margin of 0.7% in the year 2012.This is attributed to the amount of capital the politics fagged in hosting the Olympics. However, David Cameron defended the move arguing that the construction leave behind give the country an approximate amount of 13 billion pounds, over the next decennary years. This paper analyzes the David Cameron policies on economic development in Britain. It analyzes the resultant roles of these policies, and the public response to the policies. It draws a conclusion on whether David Cameron is enacting the right policies that are beneficial to the British, over a long period of time.The Cameron government has enacted policies of dealing with work out deficits, and government debts. In the financial year of 2010/2011, the Conservative government introduced an emergency budget that was aimed at reducing the structural deficits of the countrys budget. The government agreed to reduce its expense to about 6 billion pounds. This policy by the Cameron government is referred to as austerity policy.Austerity policy refers to measures a government takes in or der to reduce its deficit, and they are in the form of reducing government spending. The government does this by reducing the money in spends in providing services to its citizens (Faulconbridge and Matt, 2). This to a fault includes the benefits it affords to its civil service, and other groups within the country. For instance, in 2010, Chancellor of Exchequer, George Osborne came up with a review of government spending. The Chancellor estimated a cut of an approximate order of 81 billion pounds over the next four years.This amounted to 19% of budget reduction in every department of the government. The government announced a seven billion pound reduction in benefit spending, and living accommodations benefits. The government increased pension contribution of public sector employees, and a cut of 7% financial contributions to all local councils in England. The billet of the budget responsibility announced that these measures will lead to a dismission of thousands of jobs.These austerity policies faced resistance in England. The labor party is the primary(prenominal) critic of these policies by David Cameron, and it suggests an increase of taxation to the rich, for purposes of reducing the deficits (Faulconbridge and Matt, 6). However, the David Cameron government opposes this move, and suggests a cut in the welfare spending of the state. Cameron removed taxes that drive money which is used to provide local services, and reduce the amount of money Britons pay on rail fair.He faced criticism from the middle mannequin people, but he justified this action by stating that it will disallow a cut in medical and school services. Due to the policies, the British economy is emerging out of recession. However, economists project a weak economy and uncertainty over its growth in the next coming years. The fanfare rate is 2.7%, and therefore reduces the disposal income of the various households in Britain. However, this figure reduced by a margin of 2.5%, as co mpared to 2011. In 2011, inflation stood at 5.2%. In the corporate business environment, there are mixed results in limits of profitability (Faulconbridge and Matt, 6).For instance Halfords corporations, a bicycle manufacturer describe a drop of 23% of its revenues, while Arcadia, a clothing retail company posted a profit of 25%. The British government is of the opinion that the economy is stabilizing, despite these figures (Flanders, 4). Basing on this, David Cameron is right in initiating the deficit-reducing strategies. This is because miserable away from the strategy and increasing government borrowing will result to recession in future, and increase government debts (Flanders, 3). Increased borrowing will make the make the British economy to the vulnerable to the Eurozone crises, leading to recession. It is therefore better to initiate policies that will improve the economy, even if the short term consequence is not beneficial. In the long run, the economy will generate jobs , and the government will have enough money to improve the welfare of its citizens.