Government borrowing

That tax cuts which mostly benefitted the better off would generate growth is an unproven ideological assumption. There was never any clear argument as to exactly how they would do so. In practice much of it would likely have either ended up in bricks and mortar, pushing property prices ever higher - the kind of boom that helps no one except those who already own property and landlords leeching ever more money out of the pockets of productive workers - or would have ended up being squirrelled away into offshore accounts. It is hard to see the link between this and growth. And the austerity from 2010 onwards choked off growth into something utterly anaemic compared to what had gone before. And you wanted to fund tax cuts by more of the same, imagining that you'd improve growth without explaining how? And even Thatcher's tax cuts were never unfunded. Many of them were paid for by increases in other mostly indirect taxes, especially VAT. Also by cuts in other areas. And by the proceeds of privatisation. Thatcher herself - the supposed role model - believed in sound money and would never have done what Truss did and come up with a bunch of entirely unfunded tax cuts. She would have found a way to pay for them.

Bollocks, for reasons already explained but which you choose to ignore. Again, nothing comes for free, not even tax cuts. They have to be paid for by spending cuts, increased taxes elsewhere, or more borrowing. That is the de facto reality however much you want to pretend otherwise with unconvincing semantics.

Well a record tax burden certainly has not generated growth - and all you can offer is even higher taxation...

Whilst no fan of New Labour, growth was substantially higher in those years than under the Tories since then, in spite of big spending increases as well as tax increases in the form of stealth taxes associated with New Labour. So they must have been doing something right that the Tories have failed to do since then.

One obvious lesson to be learned is that austerity tends to impede growth. So more of it to fund tax cuts is highly unlikely to deliver growth. Another is that tax cuts unfunded tend to crash the economy. If you want viable tax cuts you need to relearn one of the vital tenets of thatcherism, ie the notion of sound money, that nothing comes for free and everything needs to be paid for somehow including tax cuts. Because what Magrathea utterly fails to grasp is that funding can be spoken of in two directions. Eg that whilst tax rises might be necessary to fund spending increases, spending cuts might be necessary to fund tax cuts. The latter do not come for free except in the realms of fantasy economics.

Tax cuts financed by austerity will not deliver growth. Tax cuts funded by increased borrowing is also likely to be economically damaging in a way that undermines growth. So it's a chicken and egg situation. If you want tax cuts without austerity or more borrowing, both of which will hold back growth, then you need growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. So what has to be done is that taxation itself needs to be rejigged, likewise spending, rather than cut, in ways that encourage growth. In other words you somehow need to generate the growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. Unfunded tax cuts will not generate growth. Even Thatcher knew that much. Which is why she started out by redistributing the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxation as a means of boosting the economy rather than simply slashing the overall tax burden without saying how it would be paid for. In this crucial area, Truss was no Thatcher, having utterly discarded one of the central tenets of Thatcherism, ie the need for sound money and balanced books.

What massive tax cuts?
The reduction in the top rate would have been peanuts and to claim stopping proposed raises that hadn't yet happened is a massive cut is made up fairy tales

You obviously enjoy jumping to negative conclusions about others if they dare to state a few home truths.