-
I'm afraid I just don't accept that.
You should accept it, it's true. Again, I've not heard/read exactly what was said but providing costings etc. is good, and was at least a line that could be used as a fall back with Corbyn and his fully costed plans, especially as the Tories have demonstrated the true magic money tree gun reality of what can be done, but any mention of "balance the books" should be avoided as it's just a euphemism for austerity now.
snottyotter-
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here - I didn't use the phrase 'balance the books' and neither did Rachel Reeves. She just had a good answer to the question 'where will the money come from' and I think that's a good idea. Refusing to have an answer for that question on some principle of purity makes us look incompetent - I don't think that's especially contentious!
ReekBlefs
I'm afraid I just don't accept that. Being able to explain where the money comes from is a crucial competency test for voters. Is it wrong that they see national finances as akin to household finances? Yes. Should voters have a better understanding of national finances? Probably. Is it worth Rachel Reeves expending her precious political capital explaining to people why they're wrong on this as a pre-requisite of getting her vision out there? Absolutely not. You engage with the world as you find it, not as you want it to be. We can reframe the narrative when we are trusted; trying to do that before we're trusted is not going to work.