Osborne is to be commended for telling the truth – no matter how unpalatable

Published on Tuesday 18 November 2008 20:25

With the swing of the democratic pendulum it is suddenly Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling who look like the guardians of economic stability, and shadow chancellor George Osborne the irresponsible harbinger of doom (Debate & Opinion, 17 November).

Yet Mr Osborne may simply be focusing on some basic economic truths. Tax cuts and borrowing will encourage spending. Spending could well be on imports. A rise in imports means an increase in demand for other currencies to pay for them and less demand for sterling. A downward trend for sterling means imports will cost more and inflation will rise. High inflation will encourage the Bank of England to look at whether interest rates should rise.

A drop in sterling might well stimulate imports, but surely Mr Osborne is right to focus on the uncertainty and potential instability this may create.

There is an old Churchillian maxim that you should never criticise your government while abroad but never cease to criticise it while at home. The shadow chancellor is offering some constructive criticism about traditional "tax and spend" policies. He should not be dismissed as a charlatan.

BOB TAYLOR

Shiel Court

Glenrothes, Fife

I cannot recall an occasion – certainly since 1976 – when we, the UK electorate, stood in greater need of knowledge of the true facts about the extent of our borrowing – individual , corporate and governmental – as it now stands. Listening to the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, and George Osborne, it is impossible to reach a judgment between the widely differing remedies each proposes to deal with the slump, because there is no clear statement of the size of the debt.

My instinct is against the government's preference for spending our way out of recession because it smacks of deepening the hole we are already in by continuing to dig.

The policy difference between Labour and the Conservatives in this matter of the level of national debt that should be allowed to accumulate over the next few years is so great that it must be referred to the electorate. We need an exhaustive discussion of the matter before a decision is taken. So why not a general election by public demand ?

J S DUTHIE

Muirfield House

Gullane, East Lothian

Yes, we need a "Jolly good dose of austerity" to make us "value the better things in life", as your editorial states (18 November). But why aren't our politicians explaining this to us?

Research now shows that, above a certain "comfort level", more wealth does not bring us any more happiness or contentment; it only brings more craving for status and the means to defend it.

We allow ourselves to be seduced by advertising into buying things we don't need and wasting valuable time and expense following a candyfloss culture with false choices. Not only is it bad for us but is unsustainable and threatens the future of our grandchildren. As the post-war pop song tells us, "The best things in life are free".

RAY NEWTON

Buckstone Way

Edinburgh

In reply to Dr Peter Dryburgh's strictures on my depiction of the London Stock Exchange as a temple of free enterprise which should not be subject to Draconian regulations (Letters, 11 November), I adapt Sir Winston Churchill's famous words on democracy: "Capitalism is a very bad system of financial management but all other systems are infinitely worse."

HUGH MANN

Carrington

Gorebridge, Midlothian