Greece needs austerity but help to avoid total collapse

The Greeks could answer that they gave the world rational thought, rhetoric, drama, athletics, epic poetry, geometry, the philosophical method, the orders of architecture, the foundations of science, a word for it, whatever it may be, democracy, kai ta leipomena (or etc, if you prefer a less elevated ancient language). But this will cut little ice with today's Teutonic taxpayer.

There is a long history of scepticism about anything Greek. You will remember that Laocoon, before having his card punched by twin serpents, declared: "Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks, even when they are bearing gifts." It, in that instance, was a horse, and like many a punter since, his cry of "Equo ne credite" was vindicated by events.

But the Greeks are sceptical themselves, which is fair enough, since that's one of the words they came up with. Their scepticism is directed at austerity – another of their words, as it happens – which is also fair enough, since middle-class Athenians find themselves queuing at soup kitchens.

Nobody doubts that Greek governments borrowed and spent irresponsibly, and only a deluded few believe the country will stay in the eurozone, which it had no business joining in the first place. Really painful cuts and restructuring of the Greek economy are essential.

But there is no point trying to get blood out of a stone. A return to the drachma might at least make reconstruction possible without driving the population to starvation or revolution – outcomes which, given the current enthusiasm for the far-left umbrella group Syriza and Greece's shaky post-war democratic record, are not impossible.

The blame for this state of affairs does not lie entirely with Greece. Germany has done very well out of a currency union which should never have included countries such as Greece and Italy. Hoping that it would lead inexorably, by stealth, to real political union, Germany pushed to allow underperforming nations into the eurozone, benefited from its own strong exports, sensible public spending and industry, and not only failed to keep the profligacy of other nations in check, but underwrote it.

These are the chickens coming home to roost. This is also an incontestable vindication of the British decision to keep out of the single currency, and of the predictions made by many on Mr Cameron's own backbenches. It's also – credit where it's due – about the only economic decision Gordon Brown got right.

So it's slightly odd to see Mr Cameron, who has made so much of the importance of austerity and of paying down the debt, as well as our good sense in remaining out of the grand folly of the eurozone, making common cause with the likes of Francois Hollande, the new Socialist president of France, and the stimulus-spending American President Barack Obama, by urging Angela Merkel to cut the Greeks a bit of slack.

But, as is true of most politicians, what the Prime Minister seems to say and what it means are not always the same thing. He is urging the eurozone to consider quantitative easing (QE), pointing out that the UK has done that. He doesn't mention it hasn't worked. Simultaneously, he advocates austerity and paying down debt, neither of which he or his Chancellor has yet tried themselves.

Thus far, George Osborne has attacked the black hole in the UK's finances chiefly by raising taxes, QE (ie printing money) and increasing both borrowing and public spending, and hardly at all by cuts. And this despite the fact the plan for cuts – portrayed as "painful, but brave and necessary" by the Government, and "savage" by Labour, though they are basically the same amount – are no more than a return to the public spending levels of 2004, which even then were far too high.

But Mr Cameron has, again, like most politicians, noticed that while the bond markets and anyone with the ability to count to three sees that austerity is the only sane course of action, people heading for the polling booth understandably prefer to hear about "growth". In fact, Kenneth Clarke, the Tories' europhile Justice Minister, yesterday said anyone opposed to growth was "an idiot".

Since growth just means "having more money", that's true as far as it goes. But an idiot, as the Greeks could tell you since it is another of their words, was originally defined as someone not actively involved in politics; a private person. In other words, most of us.

This gives us an advantage over Mr Cameron, because we do not feel obliged to say things which contradict each other, or indeed contradict what we are doing. Or more accurately, not doing. The election results across Europe (which have now led to the fall of every government in place before the crash) have led almost all politicians, except perhaps Mrs Merkel, to promise incompatible things to their voters.

Greece needs austerity, and it needs help to avoid collapsing into chaos. But that help cannot come within the euro. Germany needs to accept the losses that spring from its own role in the currency union, and that fiscal union is impossible without real political union.

Mr Cameron needs to accept that he cannot be all things to all men. That role was something St Paul was the first to claim he was playing, when he was trying to win round some Greeks – in his case, the congregation at Corinth. But he said he was all things to all men only insofar as he could be while holding to the central truth of his message.

One wouldn't readily confuse Mr Cameron with St Paul, whom it's difficult to imagine "chillaxing", even if he'd had Fruit Ninja on his iPad. But neither the Prime Minister's statements nor his actions indicate he has any clear sense of his own mission at all, and he is far too relaxed about that.

The Greeks have a word for it: hubris. And for what follows: nemesis.