Have your say
First the shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the Labour Party would vote in favour of chancellor George Osborne’s so-called fiscal charter (the charter would legally prevent governments from spending more than they bring in in tax revenue when the economy is growing). And then, yesterday, McDonnell appeared to do a complete U-turn. Labour will now oppose Osborne’s charter.
And so our question to you is: should this have been Labour’s position all along? Is Labour right to oppose the chancellor’s fiscal charter?
Create your own user feedback survey
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
55 Responses to “POLL: Was John McDonnell right to reject George Osborne’s fiscal charter?”
Walter Wiltshire
300,000 Labour members want the policies that Corbyn was voted in on. not some Blairite/Tory appeasement.
Selohesra
The Tories got > 11,000,000 votes – you need to have greater appeal than to 300,000 class warriors, deficit deniers and student politicians if you are gong to make a difference to this country
James Semple
Dead right, Walter. The leader must lead, not follow. I only recently learnt how a country can create money BEFORE getting it back in tax, not after, by reading Richard Murphy’s book “The joy of tax” (great title). Maggie got her economic principles from her father’s corner shop, but a country needs to look further than that.
Cole
What about the other 9 million people who voted Labour in May? You might think about them – and getting another 3 million or so for Labour to win the next election.
Dark_Heart_of_Toryland
Why should any government tie its own hands hand, just to make a meaningless political gesture? The idea that a government should be legally obliged to run a surplus at all times, and under all circumstances, is simply fatuous.