Though Cowards Flinch

Yeah, yeah, I’m the total dullard in the Labour Uncut interview who asked David Miliband a boring question about political economy, straight after that most humorous exchange about Zombies which now has the MSM in raptures about David’s lovely sense of humour.

Here, for fellow dullards with no sense of humour, is my question, David Miliband’s answer, and the follow-up from the Labour Uncut interviewer (I’m assuming Sion Simon):

Q.  (from Paul): Do you agree that one of the problems Labour faces, as it opposes the current coalition’s cuts, is that the coalition’s ‘national debt’ narrative which aligns itself to the concept of household debt is actually quite strong and that by setting out Labour’s policy of cutting the deficit later when growth has set in we merely fall into the trap of looking like Tories, but without their courage of conviction?

A. Well yes and no. We have to avoid the trap of looking like because we don’t accept the masochism of George Osborne that we’re in denial. No, I don’t think our plans were simply aping theirs, because reducing the deficit in half was necessary once private sector growth had been properly established. So I think that we have a responsibility to be a party that shows it’s willing to take tough economic decisions. But they have to be in the interests of the country as a whole and they have to be consistent with the growth pattern because unless you have growth you’re never going to reduce the deficit.

Q. So you think that what the coalition are doing, aligning with household debt, is incorrect?

A. Well it’s wrong, to see the national accounts as the same as a household account, because for obvious reasons they’re not. And it’s wrong to believe that deficits are never necessary, sometimes they are necessary when demand in the private sector collapses both here and around the world. And the vast bulk of the borrowing we have at the moment has been used by the collapse of corporate tax revenues and by the global economic recession. And so we’ve got to keep in mind. You have to build back growth consistent with recognition that on the public spending side that we’re not going to be in the same position in the next ten years as we’ve been in the last ten.

Well, I’ll give him 2 out of 10:  1 point for not saying he doesn’t like zombies, and 1 for at least realising that household budgets are not the same as national budgets.

Marks are, however, lost for:

a) Internal inconsistency  (3 marks lost)

How do you stick to a four-year plan for halving the deficit while also saying how quickly you can cut depends on growth?  Given that the bloke who wrote this post on that very matter has been sitting in Harriet Harman’s office doing her economics for her for months suggests, you’d have thought he’d have got that bit.

b) Assuming spending cuts take priority (3 marks lost)

Even if we accept that the deficit must be cut, spending cuts are not the only way t cut it.

c) Lack of anti-Tory narrative (2 marks lost)

The question was designed to set him up for a quick rant on how the Tories have peddled a simplistic narrative of the way the economy works, and on into the how they have worked on a popular but entirely mendacious appeal to ‘commonsense’ in the context of possible ‘bankrutpcy’. 

Did he seize it?  Erm, no.

Note: No marks are actually lost for a failure to grasp alternative political economy opportunities.  That would have brought bonus points like Ed Balls got one of yesterday.

I may be a dull bugger, but my marking’s rigorous.