I WOULD never claim to be an expert on financial matters, but the current chancellor’s methods seem to run contrary to what I always assumed to be the way of dealing with a depression.

The bulk of Government revenue comes from taxes and, to ensure this money continues to flow, you do your utmost to keep money moving. Since most of this money starts as the wages of working people, it’s essential to keep as many of these people in work as possible.

Besides paying income tax, earnings buy the necessities of life, pay for entertainment, holidays, etc. All the businesses involved in this purchasing will, in their turn, have to pay various taxes, VAT, corporation tax etc. The people they employ will also pay taxes, so the cycle goes on.

I thought the classic example of how to deal with a depression was the ‘new deal’ introduced into the USA by President Roosevelt. This was brought in during the great 1930s’ depression, and consisted of a programme of public works, which, although some deny it, seemed to bring the depression to an end. It was noticeable that when government involvement started to be reduced, unemployment went up again.

When the recent depression started, I didn’t think Gordon Brown was borrowing enough to make a real difference, although it could be that its depth was greater than he anticipated. What I do find unpleasant is the present Government’s effort to try to put the blame of all our woes on the last administration.

The Government repeats its accusation so often that people must suspect that they are trying to divert attention from their own shortcomings.

DERRICK HOLT Fortnam Close Headington