SIR – The full contents of Ian Parsons’s letter ‘Growth is false hope’ (T&A, November 3) convinces me that he is no economist. So I should not think Lord Skidelsky will think much of his support on opinion of the Chancellor, nor will the latter wilt at his condemnation.
I believe expert economists, perhaps not including Mr Parsons’s historian friend, estimated a growth figure of 0.2 per cent taking into account his beloved Labour’s fiscal stimulus, and therefore the additional 0.6 per cent had nothing to do with the dreadful previous administration.
I wonder what Lord Skidelsky’s considered opinion of the profligate Brown is, since he was responsible for a large part of the requirement for any stimulus in the first place.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article