In reply to Postmanpat:
> The first and most obvious point is that this is a different administration so there is not a contradiction in pursuing different policies.
It's not so much different policies as completely rubbishing the philosophy that underpinned all of the policies of the previous administration. That is the whole point, as I have explained.
> Having said that, you know very well that Hammond is not "maxing out the credit card". He is decelerating the speed of deficit reduction, not abandoning it.
Well, it's quite different actually. "We're very concerned about eliminating the deficit, but not actually so concerned that we'll put any time limitation at all" is Labour policy. The previous Tory lot took a completely different stance that used time-limited deficit elimination as a fundamental around which all policy revolved - and as such was the justification for the unjustifiable policies in welfare reform.
> The second point is that this is a completely different situation to 2009 and that, according to the OBR, we face a completely different outlook to that of 6 months ago: When the facts change, you change your mind.....
I've responded to this point several times upthread. The facts have not changed in the right direction to justify the policy change within the framework of the same political and economic philosophy, as I said:
> This isn't a little policy u-turn where what sounded like a good idea turned out to be unpopular for reasons that weren't anticipated. This is a rubbishing of 6 years of economic strategy, a whole ideology with drastic human consequences binned as if it just doesn't matter. No explanation. No apology. Just "oh, actually, it doesn't matter".
> To paint that as a humble adjustment of policy in the face of new information is f*cking ridiculous, and you know it.
Back to:
> 1) The cornerstone of Osborne's policy was to rely primarily on monetary policy to stimulate growth which would enable fiscal policy to be tightened...
> 2) In 2009 Osborne faced a fiscal deficit of 10% of GDP. Quite obviously that had to be brought under control. It's now nearer 4 % so there is more room to show flexibility.
I think these points are quite reasonable and I applaud the change in policy (and think it should go further). It's rather a shame that we didn't hear about how there was actually quite a lot of wriggle-room in terms of acceptable levels of borrowing earlier, *before* the basic support for vulnerable people living their lives was dismantled. Don't you think now is a bit late to let on?