mikems wrote:
As for Lamont, he may have led a traditional fiscal policy - and what else could he do after the failures of both monetarism and the Lawson nonsense. But his monetary policy was ruinous and stupid, simply because he supported a 'strong pound' for macho, not economic reasons. '
"Enterprise" in the post-war period meant something different to what it does now. Surely it's a matter of record that Britain underformed post war compared with other European countries? That's what Skidelsky is talking about, not letting banks run amok.
Lamont's concern was inflation and he supported the ERM very much as a means to an end, and because without it the government wouldn't do what he thought was necessary to deflate the economy. He thought it had run its course some time before Britain got kicked out of it.
He was very grim in a "price worth paying" way, but it wasn't purely macho, and he hadn't caused the inflation he inherited.
I make no great claim for him, beyond that he approached the deficit in a serious way, and hit lots of his own supporters rather than take it all out of social security.
I think the hammering the government took for it was very important in explaining where we are now.