Fortune favours the bold. But the reckless?

Fortune favours the bold, they say. Which sounds terribly exciting. Daring, even.

Here’s the problem. It’s sometimes difficult to tell the point at which boldness turns into recklessness. The man English historians tended to refer to as ‘Charles the Bold’ is called something more like ‘Charles the Reckless’ in French. He had decided to conquer territory between his lands in Burgundy and his other holdings in the Low Countries – present day Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. A bold stroke to give his possessions territorial integrity. Brilliant if he could pull it off.

It turns out he couldn’t. He was killed fighting tremendous odds – all very glorious, all entirely useless – at a battle which brought a sudden, shuddering end to the ambitions of the House of Burgundy. Ultimately, his unfortunate subjects found themselves transferred to the less than gentle hands of the Spanish crown.

Bold or reckless? I leave it to you to judge.

Kwasi Kwarteng, Chancellor of the Exchequer
and his boss and leader, Liz Truss

Britain has these days seen a fine example of boldness in its own politics. The country today is massively indebted, facing soaring inflation and with an economy in recession. In response, Kwasi Kwarteng, Chancellor of the Exchequer (Minister of Finance) in the new government led by Liz Truss, a woman setting new records in deafness to advice, has decided that the right thing to do was to provide tax reductions to the richest in the country and to corporations, as well as (something much more welcome) help with energy bills for everyone, but with no funding for any of these things (far less welcome).

This is all being done in the hope that it will stimulate growth and get Britain out of the hole it’s in.

It’s bold. It’s a gamble. Fortune may help and, as with most gambles, help’s needed.

Here’s another saying, that an Irish friend introduced me to. In his view, the problem of relations between England and Ireland were caused by Irish memories being too long, and English memories too short. 

If supporters rally to the Conservative Party now, it will certainly show how short English memories truly are. Back in 1963, another Conservative Chancellor, Reginald Maudling, tried this same trick, cutting taxes as a way to create ‘expansion without inflation’, as he claimed. It failed. Fortunately, Labour won the 1964 general election and consigned the Tories to Opposition where they could do less damage.

Then in 1972, another Tory Chancellor,, Anthony Barber, tried again, in what he called a ‘dash for growth’. A year later, Britain was forced to adopt a three-day working week, and the following year, Labour returned to office.

Will Fortune favour this latest example of Tory financial boldness? Again, I leave it to you to decide what’s most likely. And then we can watch how things go over the coming months.

Meanwhile, there’s another side of English shortness of memory that needs to be addressed. The Conservatives have been in power for twelve years. Many may have forgotten, but I remember as though it were yesterday the way they attacked the then Labour government for the extent of public borrowing. That debt, they kept telling us, was unacceptable as it would be dumped as a huge burden on the shoulders of future generations to pay.

They also claimed that the NHS was safe in their hands.

Back then, the Tories were screaming about how desperate it was that national debt was becoming unacceptable. And how bad was it? Why, it was approaching 70%.

And how have the Tories done in the intervening twelve years? It’s an interesting picture. The government committed to bringing debt down has, in reality, increased it, so that by 2021/2022 it had reached nearly 95%. The latest moves, splashing out on tax breaks and energy subsidies, can only increase the debt still further.

It seems that the Tories have been more spendthrift than Labour. And what have they achieved with all that money? Let’s take one example. Labour left the NHS in the best state it had enjoyed in its entire history, with better resourcing and lower waiting times than ever. And how is it now? Why, on the point of collapse.

That’s the NHS. Education is suffering. The police are under-staffed. The court system is falling apart. Care is facing disaster. And those who lose their jobs in the recession will find how much the benefit system has been hit.

The majority – the vast majority – of Brits who depend on public services are seeing no benefit from all these changes. All that spending has done nothing for them. It has helped the kind of people who contribute to the election of Conservative politicians, though I’m not sure how much consolation this will provide for the others, the kind who may find themselves waiting for an ambulance that never comes.

My advice? Time for us English to improve our memories and demand that the Conservatives live up to the promises they made, as we should remember, back in 2010. And, above all, to remember that while fortune may well favour the bold, nothing assists the reckless.

As happened with Charles of Burgundy, it’s always everyone else who pays.