-
Tbf I think I have given you the crazy pills, last page I said:
Why does Rachel Reeves feel the need to be a crap George Osbourne, is fiscal responsibility and balancing the books aka austerity really what we need?
And now there has been a bunch of back and forth on what balancing the books means
I was mis-quoting what I read in The Times piece and it wasn't the phrase balance the books used, it was :
Reeves’s other announcement is that she has drawn up new fiscal rules. A Labour government would balance day-to-day government spending, but allow itself to borrow for capital investment. Crucially, it would be committed to reducing the national debt as a proportion of national income.
But comment on fiscal responsibility was drawn from:
The shadow chancellor has been outlining her party’s plans to show that they are fiscally responsible. Has she chopped down the “magic money tree”, which seemed to govern Labour’s economic policy under Jeremy Corbyn? “I don’t believe there is a magic money tree,” she says, thankful to have been gifted a soundbite. “If you want to pay for things, you’ve got to explain where that money is going to come from.”
This was before her speech, I thought her speech was a more coherent set of principles although not without challenges
You are reading a single comment by @greentricky and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
greentricky
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!