To play devil's advocate - look at what happens when a leader doesn't set fiscal rules, and starts throwing around money they don't have. That's Liz Truss territory right there (albeit in her case the problem was exacerbated because she threw her nonexistent money at the least deserving recipients).
To play devil's advocate - look at what happens when a leader doesn't set fiscal rules, and starts throwing around money they don't have. That's Liz Truss territory right there (albeit in her case the problem was exacerbated because she threw her nonexistent money at the least deserving recipients).
It may be that the fiscal rules that exist could be relaxed somewhat - but I still think it's better than having none at all.
So I disagree, and I think you are diagnosing the symptoms rather than the disease. The issue with Truss-Kwarteng was not that there was no plan, it was that no believed that the plan would work - probably exacerbated by the "move fast and break things"-vibe.
Or, to put another way. If fiscal rules 'mattered' would it have made any difference if Kwarteng announced a new fiscal rule which incorporated that following elements:
a) a two year 'growth derogation' in which the rules didn't matter;
b) the removal of "Covid emergency spending" from the balance books via an accounting wheeze;
c) a new goal of 4% growth per annum by 2030 and
d) spending being 40% of GDP by 2035.
In this scenario he has set some clear rules which appear superficially sensible and plausible (although, to be clear, I have made up the numbers)- do these 'new rules' calm the markets? If they do, then we have to accept it's all just a game of Chancellors putting in the right numbers to convince someone else they know what they're doing. There's no accountability to them if they can be changed whenever suits and they just have to "sound right".
To play devil's advocate - look at what happens when a leader doesn't set fiscal rules, and starts throwing around money they don't have. That's Liz Truss territory right there (albeit in her case the problem was exacerbated because she threw her nonexistent money at the least deserving recipients).
It may be that the fiscal rules that exist could be relaxed somewhat - but I still think it's better than having none at all.
So I disagree, and I think you are diagnosing the symptoms rather than the disease. The issue with Truss-Kwarteng was not that there was no plan, it was that no believed that the plan would work - probably exacerbated by the "move fast and break things"-vibe.
Or, to put another way. If fiscal rules 'mattered' would it have made any difference if Kwarteng announced a new fiscal rule which incorporated that following elements:
a) a two year 'growth derogation' in which the rules didn't matter;
b) the removal of "Covid emergency spending" from the balance books via an accounting wheeze;
c) a new goal of 4% growth per annum by 2030 and
d) spending being 40% of GDP by 2035.
In this scenario he has set some clear rules which appear superficially sensible and plausible (although, to be clear, I have made up the numbers)- do these 'new rules' calm the markets? If they do, then we have to accept it's all just a game of Chancellors putting in the right numbers to convince someone else they know what they're doing. There's no accountability to them if they can be changed whenever suits and they just have to "sound right".