Philip Stephens (with whom I am by no means always inclined to agree) has this to say in the FT this morning, writing in advance of next week's spending review:
The really intelligent thing to do, though, would be to defer or, better still, abandon [George Osborne's] silly fiscal target. No one seriously imagines that the financial markets would take fright were the chancellor to say he intended to run a deficit of, say one-and-a-bit per cent of national income. The national debt would still fall, and the government would find resources for badly needed infrastructure. Treasury theology rooted in that institution's past failures is just not a good enough reason for public service misery.
This won't happen of course: Osborne has just legislated that it cannot. But that doesn't make the fiscal target silly. It makes it malicious. As countless hundreds of thousands will be testifying over the next few years.
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!
And most UK political parties, caught in their reflexive cringe, go along with it.
“Since the general election, the Conservative government has scrapped or watered down some of the most important environmental policies needed to protect people, tackle climate change and give our renewables industry a fighting chance of success.
In less than six months they’ve scrapped the programme to help people insulate cold homes; removed support for onshore wind farms — currently the cheapest low carbon technology available; announced the sell-off of the Green Investment Bank, needed to drive low carbon investment; cancelled a decade long commitment to zero carbon homes; and watered down vehicle carbon emissions standards — meaning some of the most polluting cars are now taxed the same as the greenest.”
THIS and much else will be the cost future generations will have to bear-not fictitious notions of debt and book balancing.
The ongoing question—Why oh why oh why can Labour not get a coherent challenge together-more cringing before the Overton Window god?
Sorry, forgot to acknowledge quote which is from: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/energy/2015/11/forget-deficit-government-has-forgotten-biggest-crisis-all
This is part of what’s known in America as the Republican YOYO plan-You’re On Your Own.
If you want health care-YOYO
Want somewhere to live-YOYO
Need a Useful Job-YOYO
Truly inspired philosophy of life and a glorious confirmation of evolutionary psychology ‘insights’ (not).
And that is the antithesis of society
What joy the title of this blog gave me.
Only because of course I feel that it is indeed the truth of the matter. I certainly get no pleasure from the impact of this most malign of chancellors in our nation’s history. Indeed, by the time he is finished I could be out of a job myself.
To suggest that Osbourne’s policies belong to a ‘theology’ though is a bit of an insult to theology which I understood to be a rational exploration of the ideas around God etc. Osbourne knows that austerity nearly destroyed the economy between 2010-2012 and here he is at it again. He must know that he will do harm – there is now no excuse – theoretical or otherwise – for his behaviour. It is the rational application of dogma that is unforgiveable here.
As for the Labour party – it seems that they have their own internal problems to contend with at the moment. With the PLP in open revolt against the new leader, there is no way that they can offer anything authentically new to the electorate until the neo-lib baggage they carry with them is deposited elsewhere – preferably in the dust-bin of history.
“there is no way that they can offer anything authentically new to the electorate until the neo-lib baggage they carry with them is deposited elsewhere”
Well put. I’m attending, for the first time my CLP AGM- I’ve spoken to one of the organisers who feels we need to be prepared for a long haul re: the ‘baggage’.
One of the questions which needs to be sent up the Labour Party chain through the CLP’s and which MP’S in the party need to be put on the spot about following the PLP meeting earlier this week is whether or not they believe in and are committed to the rule of law?
Because it would really help to have some clarity as to what set of rules we are all operating under.
Corbyn is getting slated by a number of his MP’S who are behaving more like schoolkids in a playground then responsible adults, over the issue of the rule of law and extra judicial killings. These people seem to inhabit a twilight zone in which definitions like terrorism and terrorist maintain a narrow fixed definition indefinitely. There are enough nutters at large on every side who would take advantage of the irresponsibility some of them have displayed this week.
Tell them to get a grip Simon.
“Treasury theology rooted in that institution’s past failures is just not a good enough reason for public service misery.” The Conservatives don’t need a reason to inflict public service misery, it is exactly what the nasty stupid party likes doing.
Still, I console myself with the thought that a large proportion of those who voted this government in are old, and will therefore suffer from the wrecking of the NHS, the BBC and other great public services which Osborne & Co have gleefully set out on.
Their selfishness/guillibility/stupidity is going to come back to bite them on the proverbial