Planning rules are to be relaxed, so that people can vandalise their neighbourhoods by building ugly extensions, in order "to boost the economy".
But I've got a better idea.
How about vandalism of a more reckless kind? Council planning officers could be sent out, armed with bricks and crowbars, to vandalise the properties of people who have some spare cash that could be injected into the economy.
If the goal is to increase the flow of money ("to boost the economy"), then what greater incentive could there be for people to open their wallets than having a brick thrown through their window? Compared with relaxing planning rules, this would have the same positive effects in the short term (more business for the construction industry), but without the long-term negative effects of ugly buildings that would have otherwise been denied planning permission.
How about it, Mr Cameron?
(Before you both point out my error, I'm well aware of the broken window fallacy, but it seems to me that the man with the unbroken window would probably not have spent his six francs today, had his window not been broken, and that the likelihood of his six francs being put to use tomorrow is not significantly affected by the six francs moving from his wallet to the glazier's wallet today. In other words, with an unbroken window, it is only the shoe industry that benefits from his six francs, but with a broken window, it is both the glazing industry and the shoe industry that benefits from his six francs. Money doesn't get used up, it just gets moved around, and—in the short term—reckless vandalism makes money move around more quickly. In the long term, of course, it's a different story. But who cares about the long term?)