The FT has an article this morning, of which the headlines are as follows:
Are Labour and the Conservatives adopting ‘Heevesian' economics?
_________
The policies of the chancellor and his opposite number are looking increasingly alike
Rachel Reeves, Britain's shadow chancellor, on Tuesday declared to a City audience that “stability is change”, vowing that Labour would break from the “chaos” of recent Conservative economic policymaking.
But while Reeves's reference point is Liz Truss's self-destructing, unfunded “mini” Budget in 2022, economists note that some of the “stability” she is offering comes from a growing alignment of Labour and Tory policy.
How long did it tale for them to notice is the most obvious question to ask?
If Reeves agrees with Hunt about this long lost of policy issues, how likely is it that they might differ on anything significantly:
- That neoliberalism is right.
- The Bank of England must be independent and monetary policy should be beyond the Chancellor's control.
- That fiscal rules are paramount.
- National debt as a proportion of GDP must fall.
- Banks and the City are intermediaries and not creators of money.
- Markets are supreme.
- Multiplier effects are limited.
- Austerity is an appropriate trade-off for 'stability' that appeases financial power.
I could go on and on. The point is, once you have a shared economic DNA, how different will you ever be?
Reeves is dedicated to perpetauting Tory economic policy, but the FT has only just noticed. That's just about the only news in the article. Some of us have known that for a long time.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thank you and well said, Richard.
Reeves was introduced by former Tory minister Nick Boles, said he’s advising Reeves.
Whenever the shadow Treasury team speaks, members emphasise the role of Truss, say little about Johnson and Sunak, and say nothing about Cameron and May. Labour implies that it’s happy with what has happened since 2010. It’s very much uniparty continuity.
Even though the Bank of England shares some of the blame for what occurred under Truss, no one points this out, especially when Labour says it wants to enhance the role and independence of the Bank of England and OBR .
In fairness to the FT, one needs to be sure before “changing horses” to early. The FT is just following mainstream narratives. I see the FT and its prognoistications as a combo of entertainment and feel good for those that pretend to run the country.
Speaking of which, I feel we have been very unkind to the tories and this video tries to, in my view rightly, set the record straight (& I favour my irony straight – no ice). Keep a box of tissues handy – you will need them.
https://twitter.com/larryandpaul/status/1787753659389940175?t=S8lyN-ExVD9oK1RK8v0h4A&s=09
Very good
Well, at least they have noticed. That is something.
Couple of typos:
How long did it tale for them to notice is the most obvious question to ask?
If Reeves agrees with Hunt about this long lost of policy issues
Reeves is dedicated to perpetauting Tory economic policy,