I have no ideological aversion to defences of Liz Truss. We all have our foibles, after all. But the one argument I won't accept is that, in going gung-ho for growth, she at least identified the right problem. I mean, pointing out that the British economy has been in a decade-and-a-half-long torpor and suggesting we ought to fix it ≠ penetrating analysis or a programme for government.
Keir Starmer, for his part, has spent much of the last four years trying to convince voters, in words and deeds, that he is not Jeremy Corbyn. And despite twice inviting voters to make the man prime minister, this has been a largely successful endeavour. Which is why the recent leader Starmer most reminds me of is not his predecessor, but Truss.
I don't mean to suggest that the next spending review will spark a gilt market crisis and that Starmer will be gone within 49 days. Temperamentally, the two could scarcely be more different. But the constant refrain about growth and how it will solve all our problems and negate the need for tax rises on working people (whoever they are), is uncanny.
Not least when some of the lower hanging fruit (economically speaking, at least) such as membership of the EU's single market and customs union have been ruled out, while the party promises to get immigration (another source of growth) down.
Labour did have until recently a fairly ambitious green investment plan, but that was effectively cut in half, and so the sums involved are now "not terribly large in the context of the broader public finances" according to Ben Zaranko, Senior Research Economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Yes, a burst of planning reform and house-building is a core part of the Labour offer (we'll see how they get on in government) but it all feels rather scratchy at this point. Not least when current spending plans, such as they are, imply quite painful cuts to public spending.
The problems the UK economy faces have been going on since the Global Financial Crisis, driven by desperately disappointing productivity growth. As a result, and with thanks to The Sunday Times' David Smith for providing the figures, in the last 15 years GDP has grown by an average of 1.1 per cent a year, compared with 2.8 per cent of the previous 50. Fans of compound interest will know that is a jaw-dropping difference.
At the same time, the world is becoming a more expensive place. Demographic change, the end of the post-Cold War peace dividend and so on all mean that public spending is only heading in one direction.
Starmer and his soon-to-be chancellor, Rachel Reeves, are unlikely to do anything quite as reckless as Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. But just saying 'economic growth' on repeat doesn't deliver it. And with no significant rapprochement with the EU likely in the next parliament, they will be trying to break a 15-year torpor with one hand behind their backs.
