Forum menu
Markets change, government policy changes, world events happen.
True. Day one of any Economics course. Anyway, gilts, still a thing, yeah? So his point about debt not just being internal to the government/BofE is still current.
Funnelling money into the profits of energy producers is my big fear. It’s an unnecessary price for us all to pay to keep warm this winter, tax that money back, properly, a real windfall tax not a tiny percentage with tax breaks for increasing future fossil fuel extraction/reliance as Sunak gave us. I think we’re at risk of “being played” by the energy sector and this government as well.
PMQs... Starmer going hard on "excess" oil and gas company profits... rightly.
Kelvin:
PMQs… Starmer going hard on “excess” oil and gas company profits… rightly.
He also asked about the payment, so to did Ian Blackford. It's a joke these profits. I also heard that it was questioned why EDF advertise 100% renewable electricity generation and increasing prices when it has no relationship to Gas or such like...
JeZ
Don’t mention gilts Jez! You’ll fire Rone up and we won’t hear the end of it…
Cheers! 😁
I only have to repeat myself because people keep talking as though the tax payer is the limit on spending.
When that stops I can stop.
I also heard that it was questioned why EDF advertise 100% renewable electricity generation and increasing prices when it has no relationship to Gas or such like…
On that question (wasn't Starmer), the answer is that gas and oil don't cost any more to extract either. It's not the cost of production that's the problem. There is no reason why higher prices, and higher profits, should go to the gas producers while artificially holding down the price for renewables. Energy is energy.
So, all the opposition parties pointed out where the "help" as regards energy prices is heading.... straight into the profits of energy companies. This is the start. There's months of this to come. Will they push Truss into a real windfall tax on energy producers? She sounds set on not doing so... it's public support verses protecting the profitability of oil and gas companies... which does she value most?
While I don’t pretend for a second to understand economics of countries if it were true that a government that can print its own money and never has to repay it why doesn’t every country with their own currency just print off all the money they will ever need? Surely you end up devaluing your currency & cause inflation?
Countries with central banks issue new money every time the government spend.
It's how it works. For several decades. US. New Zealand. Aus. Canada all do it.
As long as the resources and labour is there to take up the spend you're good.
Printing money is the wrong terminology.
There is Government spending and there is Q/E. Q/E is getting confused in this process - and is getting referred to as printing money.
Q/E is not MMT by the way.
Q/E is buying back bonds with BoE issued money. But not the same as government spending. But can be used to offset deficit spending as in covid.
I’m not an economist but I do know we have to pay interest on this debt and the debt isn’t just the BoE. So it does effect us in the future and the interest payments takes money away from the public purse that could be invested in services. Again I still don’t think this is wise and again we are still being played by the energy markets and paying more based on speculation.
All you need to grasp is the government is the currency issuer - it can always meet its obligations.
There isn't a limited number of £££.
Limits are inflation from to much spending dealt with via taxation which deletes £££.
Gilts are still in demand.
It may be a fairly effective line of attack right now, as a lot of typically Conservative voters seem to think that Labour is profligate and reckless with the country’s finances. Chipping away at the confidence those voters have in the Tories’ ability to manage the economy may get them thinking more carefully about their vote, so they either don’t vote or in some cases may even vote for Labour if they’re making what they feel to be reassuring noises about spending
This is a thing - but my point is the Tories always get away with spending whatever they want and Labour shackle themselves, and like in the 2017 manifesto - which was fully costed - people still criticised the numbers.
Labour simply don't push back enough.
And that idiot Liam Byrne said there was no money left at the end of the last Labour government. Which was a joke but backfired badly
Labour absolutely need to speak in a different narrative.
Long term sort of the problems with greedy companies - short term get people's bills paid.
Neither Labour not the Tories will do much to push against the market that I can see currently. Yet.
Windfall taxes are a drop in the ocean and not a solution. But the wealthy and profits do need taxing at a higher rate.
You keep making these statements but people, like me, don't get it - maybe I'm just too thick but I read what you write and it doesn't make sense, often it doesn't even seem to me to bare a resemblance to the question you're are answering.
So if "All you need to grasp is the government is the currency issuer – it can always meet its obligations. There isn’t a limited number of £££." is true then why can't they issue say £20 Trillion and we can all have a great life?
I'm really not trying to be an arse but there must be some point at which it all falls down.
I’m really not trying to be an arse but there must be some point at which it all falls down
Because you're working on the principle that money is finite. It's all you've ever known. And to a household it is.
We operate a system where our government spends first and taxes later.
To spend it does so via an obligation with the BoE. Everytime.
You're not thick it takes a lot of rewiring you're understanding of how things work!
But then it's simple.
Government put money into the economy - real money. Commercial banks make loans that have to be paid back (under license of the BoE).
So if you control the money supply you own the means to control how it's spent.
Think about this spending has to come before taxation - or where did you get your money from to pay your taxes?
Governments can create more money. But if they create too much, then it becomes less valuable.
If people have too much money, then they can pay more for other things that are of restricted supply (which is most things - food, oil, cars etc) so then everyone needs a pay rise to pay for it - which is ok, cos everyone has lots of pounds, so then they can all afford to pay more, so prices go up again. The problem with that is that if you have money in your bank or even your pocket the same number of pounds becomes worth less. So people who hold lots of your currency in bank accounts don't want it any more, so they sell it, and that means whilst you have lots of pounds, they don't buy much. So the government needs to create even more pounds to pay everyone, and so it goes on.
All money these days* is based on trust. You want pounds because pounds people see them as valuable because they know they can exchange them for things with other people who also think they are valuable. They don't physically exist at any point.
So they could put those trillions into the economy but choose not to.
So why do they choose not?
true then why can’t they issue say £20 Trillion and we can all have a great life?
Simply because the spending has to be matched against something that society needs and can deliver with available resources.
What you are suggesting would be inflationary.
Let's say there was a bridge needed near your house - a big one. The government spends the money to create it - the money is spent on the resources available and the cash moves into the private sector. The economy takes up the slack as the money doesn't enter straight into the wider economy all at the same time.
Your town gets its bridge and the government generate wealth and something positive for the community.
The problem is Governments believe money comes from the private sector and generates wealth and this is the only way to deliver a project efficiently.
One problem, the private sector won't select the most needy project but the most profitable one.
So they could put those trillions into the economy but choose not to.
So why do they choose no
Because there has to be the resources available to absorb the money floating around.
That's why you pick the project first and then finance it.
What you are suggesting is helicopter money and that is not the same as identifying a project that can be funded by government.
(Oh and political will!)
Are we doing the Chicken and Egg thing again? I mean, it's true, but it's just about timing. Thinking of it as borrowing isn't really any different. Spend it now... take tax in future to pay for that "borrowing".
So that's were we are... create money to help with energy prices... and then choose how to get that money back (or destroy it if you prefer the unintuitive language of MMT)... through future bills, or taxing the profits that energy companies are making from us during this energy crisis. I think it should be the second, predominately or entirely. But I didn't used to work for Shell and the Institute of Economic Affairs though. Unlike our PM. Truss will do everything she can to make sure the oil and gas companies keep the profits they make out of this energy crisis, and increase our future reliance on the fossil fuels they extract. It'll take the public, and opposition MPs, to expose and try and change that. Starmer and Blackford have gone in hard from the first PMQs. It's only the start though... it's going to be a long winter of the public vs fossil fuel giants.. and the public don't have the upper hand... they don't have their person in the top job of government.
Are we doing the Chicken and Egg thing again? I mean, it’s true, but it’s just about timing. Thinking of it as borrowing isn’t really any different. Spend it now… tax take in future to pay that “borrowing”. So that’s were we are… create money to help with energy prices… and then chose how to get that money back… through future bills or taxing the profits that energy companies are making from us during this energy crisis. I
We are doing more than that we are explaining how you can't just give government money away without a project that demands it.
Also Kelvin I know you tire of this (I mean you don't have to contribute but I appreciate you do.) But a lot of people still think taxation comes first!
You get it - many others don't - it's worth the repitition.
So that’s were we are… create money to help with energy prices… and then choose how to get that money back (or destroy it if you prefer the unintuitive language of MMT)
Create money and destroy(deleted?) money is not unintuitive.
The money doesn't come back. It's deleted from an overdraft and not used to pay for anything.
Leaving a deficit (or surplus).
So it would appear we're back to the 1980s with tax and spend labour vs tax cutting tories. Seems to me that's the wrong argument to be having in a world with climate change and dysfunctioning capitalism but it at least might force Starmer to pick a side and set out clearly what he's about. He seemed to do that in PMQs but now needs to back it up with some policies which will directly help working people. The danger of course is that he now has an opponent who isn't shy of spelling out what she believes in as opposed to Johnson's dissembling. It'll probably come down to which one has the most confidence in their position and belief in themselves, and that doesn't bode well for Starmer or the labour party.
A simple way I've created myself to analyse this is that the private sector/wealthy hoard resources/money leaving less for the rest of society. (One of the great failings of capitalism.)
That becomes a hole that needs to be plugged by new government money. Or where else does the money come from?
Taxation exists to limit that happening. You tax the rich to stop them hoarding it the government can spend less if necessary.
The danger of course is that he now has an opponent who isn’t shy of spelling out what she believes in as opposed to Johnson’s dissembling.
He picked her up on "trickledown economics"... perhaps clearer language from the new PM will help Starmer properly pick her up on it, and counter it. No more Less nailing jelly to a plate.
I never watch PMQs but was thinking of giving this a go - should I bother?
Did Truss really mention the laffer curve? FFS.
The Tories actually gave up lowering corp tax because they didn't get any more 'revenue' a few years ago.
That's the laffer curve which is based on a rich person's fantasy.
Probably not.
I never watch PMQs but was thinking of giving this a go – should I bother?
No. I can sum it up in the following:
Truss: We'll cut taxes to help business
Starmer: We're the party of working people.
Like I said, back to the 80s. The main difference is that while Starmer makes that claim, there's little evidence of it in policy apart from a fairly insignificant windfall tax. He's got a lot of work to do to convince voters that he means what he says.
Yeah.
It's appears to be that old style debate with the Tories doing whatever it takes to survive.
@rone again.
So, for example, in the case of Boris Johnson's 40 new hospitals, they are no doubt needed and the Government could create the money to build them, but you would need to have the builders, equipment and raw materials available in the economy to facilitate the build, thus spending the money?
So, for example, in the case of Boris Johnson’s 40 new hospitals
Yeah that about the gist of it. If you spend without the resources and labour being available, the result is higher prices due to the mechanics of supply and demand. The argument around govt spending is that the availability of funds is never the thing that stops something happening. Then it becomes a question of political priorities. Instead of asking 'where is the money coming from' (as Emily Thornberry is doing right now on Sky news), labour could/should be making the argument for redeploying resources from one place to another to benefit the whole of society rather than a few shareholders.
They should also be making the case that tax is a tool to be used for political ends, rather than needing it to pay for things. So by all means lets have a windfall tax on oil and gas companies, but not because we need the money, but because it's fair and just. I don't know why that's such a difficult or risky argument to make.
Governments can create more money. But if they create too much, then it becomes less valuable.
Well not really, our currency is Fiat and not pegged to anything - the value is determined by the buyers and sellers on global markets.
If people have too much money, then they can pay more for other things that are of restricted supply (which is most things – food, oil, cars etc) so then everyone needs a pay rise to pay for it – which is ok, cos everyone has lots of pounds, so then they can all afford to pay more, so prices go up again.
Currently we have no growth or little growth - there isn't enough money for consumers by way of example.
Also when the government spends it doesn't necessarily go into circulation all at once. So you can generate loads of money and if it went to one person who put it all in a bank for argument's sake - the net affect of inflation is zero.
Therefore the act of creating money is not inflationary. What happens to it afterwards could be. That's a key distinction.
So, for example, in the case of Boris Johnson’s 40 new hospitals, they are no doubt needed and the Government could create the money to build them, but you would need to have the builders, equipment and raw materials available in the economy to facilitate the build, thus spending the money?
100%
And the political will to do it.
But you don't need to raise taxes. That's exactly how it operates currently, and since the 70s.
No problem - sorry some of my messages are scrappy/typo'd jumping about on a phone between jobs.
One other thing - the actual limit is governed by resources not £££.
Look at energy - limited resource - price goes up.
(Very cleanly explained by DazH up there! - didn't spot that.)
Truss: We’ll cut taxes to help business
Starmer: We’re the party of working people.
The 'working man' (as it was) has moved on though - it's middle-class family now with a BMW and MINI parked outside a new-build. He's got two years to make some progress and he's showing few signs of doing so.
The "party of working people" is so bloody cynical. They should represent those that lack the means which is a wider band of society than just working people.
They will never beat "For the many not the few."
Ah I watched 10 mins of Starmer v Truss - spent all the time going on about 'how will we pay for it.' I knew this would become their position.
Seriously shut up - and protect the consumers first. He sounds like a Tory he really does.
protect the consumers first
Er... that really isn't the battle ahead. Labour have already helped push the government into a position where "protection" for consumers is coming this winter. There is no way Truss can avoid a quick fix on household energy bills. The effort now is to stop that money just disappearing upwards via energy company profits. Get it back, spend it where it is needed.
Er… that really isn’t the battle ahead. Labour have already helped push the government into a position where “protection” for consumers is coming this winter. There is no way Truss can avoid a quick fix on household energy bills. The effort now is to stop that money just disappearing upwards via energy company profits
That is not the effort by a long shot until people in energy poverty have money against their bills.
Labour were arguing about the where the money was too come from just minutes ago.
NO ONE cares where the money is coming from if you're in energy poverty. They should actually be arguing for more funds as it isn't quite enough.
You have moved the debate sideways which is fine, but not the priority and Starmer has completely missed the boat as usual by talking about pay-for.
So with respect in practical terms you are wrongly positioned in the debate.
If they focussed only on the "help", which will be coming, you would be saying how easily they would be outflanked when that helps comes. The focus now is making sure the Tories don't just use this opportunity to funnel the money upwards... and if they do, to make sure everyone knows that they have. Just as with VIP lanes for Covid, the fact that the government is throwing money around isn't enough... follow that money...
The focus now is making sure the Tories don’t just use this opportunity to funnel the money upwards… and if they do, to make sure everyone knows that they have. Just as with VIP lanes for Covid, the fact that the government is throwing money around isn’t enough… follow that money…
That's not the focus if you've turned the energy off to save money.
The focus is on delivering the support.
I'm happy to wait until Thursday to see what the actual plan is. Let's stop jumping the gun? It's not helpful.
Let’s stop jumping the gun?
It is Truss who has jumped the gun by ruling out taxing the money back out of the companies making huge profits out of this crisis. I suspect she'll have to eventually uturn on that, but she won't if the opposition parties take the advice to "seriously shut up" in the face of what the PM has already said about her response. She needs shaming into something like a windfall tax. As a minimum.
Labour were handing them 29 billion just for a shorter period and you need to know only 8billion of that was covered by windfall tax.
It's a load of rubbish Kelvin.
Fully funded Kelvin.
They are using the exact same mechanism and some magic accounting.
you need to know only 8billion of that was covered by windfall tax
I do know that. An extra 8billion. Partly by closing the gaping loophole that Sunak put in place for the fossil fuel companies to "encourage" them to extract more. Sort of a climate change promotion bonus. See... it's not just that the government stand to make the rich even richer, they also want to push increased reliance on fossil fuel. This isn't just about money, its about direction for the energy sector, our country and planet. And Truss is sending us the wrong way, fast, and that needs calling out.
Why won't she increase the windfall tax and close the loophole? Does she think companies will just stop extracting from North Sea fields? No, they won't... she's looking to use this crisis to funnel money and power to the fossil fuel industry and away from "green crap" at exactly the time we should be weakening their hold on us.
The IEA have their woman in number 10... watch her carefully... she's not in there for us.
Labour should talk about the Tories corruption and profligacy. They should talk about the Tories borrowing more and paying back less into the exchequer historically. They can talk about the massivley increased deficit under the Tories and how austerity didn't work in any way. They have to show that the Tories are worse with money than Labour are.
They don't need to say "where is the money coming from?" to do this.
Sir Keir Starmer in his tribute to QE2 earlier today described her as the greatest monarch ever, which I thought sounded like a bit of an exaggeration bearing in mind all the past monarchs such as QE1.
And after all QE2 inherited an empire and died leaving us with none.
And after all QE2 inherited an empire and died leaving us with none.
That's a good thing, in my opinion.
Having an economic plan (no matter how messy) versus no economic plan.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1572495855310938112?s=20&t=kY5lwughcV_qx6t4VTzJQQ
No PMQs, again, today. She can't run forever...
Having an economic plan (no matter how messy) versus no economic plan.
Maybe he's saving it for the conference? We know what it will be anyway, something that looks like Osbornian austerity combined with a bit of Brownian tax and spend targeted in specific places. In other words tinkering around the edges to give the impression of radical change whilst not really changing anything at all.
Truss doesn’t have a plan beyond tax breaks linked to increasing the use of fossil fuels, and bribes for well off backers and voters. Investing in green energy, including on-shore, and increasing energy efficiency, are still part of Labour’s plan. Truss is getting her bounce because she is doing everything she can to avoid scrutiny of her non-plan, and she has plenty of help there. And not just from the allies you expect. 😉
Starmer handled her empty words well at the last PMQs. Since then she’s happily kept well away from parliament and cancelled interviews with any journalist up to the task of asking her questions. She can’t stay in the fridge forever… but perhaps she can stay in there for much of the time left ’till an election (whenever that might be)? Perhaps that’s “the plan”? Avoid scrutiny, and hope that everyone blames Starmer for the mess her government(s) are getting us in.
Germany has nationalised the countries largest gas supplier to deal with the energy crisis. Is Starmer still sticking his fingers in his ears to drown out the obvious message.
Starmer isn’t PM, and isn’t likely to be at this rate. If people had voted Labour into office, they would be reacting to this crisis in similar ways to Germany (and France and…) in terms of taking ownership in return for the bailout money, but they didn’t… did they… they gave the Tories a majority to give money to the rich and divest rather than invest in publicly owned assets. Get the Tories out, or keep beating on the opposition for not being in power, so getting nothing done, and treading too carefully because they are trying to get people who have been voting Tory (or not at all, or ignoring FPTP and wasting their vote) to vote for them.
Truss doesn’t have a plan beyond tax breaks linked to increasing the use of fossil fuels, and bribes for well off backers and voters. Investing in green energy, including on-shore, and increasing energy efficiency, are still part of Labour’s plan.
Like it or not she has a plan.
Has Starmer said anything about the cap on banker's bonuses?
keep beating on the opposition for not being in power
The Opposition has been criticised for not providing opposition. No one has criticised the Opposition for not being in power, as you well know.
Has Starmer said anything about the cap on banker’s bonuses?
Yes he has said that the measure would be "pro-rich". Not much more I think, he appears to be leaving criticism of the proposal to those who can make the case more eloquently than him:
And not just from the allies you expect.
Bless. I dont recall you criticising binners for his moronic "down the allotment" drivel. Or is that not the allies for the tories you are thinking of?
Avoid scrutiny, and hope that everyone blames Starmer for the mess her government(s) are getting us in.
Yeah I dont know where they might have got that idea from. I take it is okay to blame Corbyn for brexit etc though or will you be taking an equally hardcore line against the labour centrists who take that line?
Or is that not the allies for the tories you are thinking of?
I suspect he's not so much alluding to those criticising Starmer as opposed to those bigging up Truss. Even Binners never blew smoke up BJ's arse the way some seem to with our incumbent Puppet Moron.
She has a cunning plan, don’t you know. Just don’t ask to see it.
I like to nip in from time to time to see I’m still contributing to the thread while not contributing to the thread.
Carry on…
I suspect he’s not so much alluding to those criticising Starmer as opposed to those bigging up Truss.
Like Guardian comment writers?
"For any new prime minister, the first question is: are they up to it? And Liz Truss clearly is. She looked like a prime minister, she performed reasonably well, and she even managed a decent joke."
Dismissing Truss as a puppet moron might be fun but it isn't a constructive way to deal with someone who has both immense power and the immense capability of causing huge damage.
There is no evidence that Truss is currently failing in what is undoubtedly her agenda - to shift the UK in a more right-wing direction and serve the interests of the wealthy elite.
You might laugh and ridicule at her alleged inaptitude but it is her who is in the driving seat, it is her who is choosing which road to go down, and by the time she does eventually crash who knows how much the wealthy elite will have benefited from her premiership.
A misplaced sense of intellectual superiority is poor compensation for years of unrestrained and unchallenged Tory rule imo. It almost seems as a form of hysteria to me - a reassuring comfort blanket for those struggling to face reality.
Wowsers.
"Years of unrestrained and unchallenged Tory rule" is exactly the problem.
Step 1 of the solution should be straight forward enough.
I suspect he’s not so much alluding to those criticising Starmer as opposed to those bigging up Truss. Even Binners never blew smoke up BJ’s arse the way some seem to with our incumbent Puppet Moron.
You see - a few posters on here only want allow political debate that enforces their values. I mean they're mis-judged Guardian rehashes but none of us are perfect.
Fact is so much was said about Truss being a walking disaster they've yet again stock-piled stupidity before it all fell into place.
They can't come to terms with the fact she hasn't turned out as much as a super clown as their expected caricature.
On the ground she's implemented some support for the the energy market (when they said she wouldn't) - for now it doesn't matter that it's a bung to the energy suppliers - they were going to get YOUR money anyway. May as well be the government cash. (And trust me Q/E backed spending is on the cards so it won't be ever be tax payer's money.)
They also said she would be a disaster at PMQs and when she wasn't the liberals cited her as boring and dull. (Listen to my mate Dunt. He's the king of suprised centrist.)
Truss is now experiencing a poll bounce because Starmer's plan for energy was not enough. That was well within his power to improve. And the fact they tried to justify it as being fiscally prudent was even more ridiculous. (It wasn't fully funded anyway. It was magical accounting.) The Tories plan is actually better based on purity of government financing. (Tax should come on the producers but hey they're Tories.)
Also certain members on here are now talking up borrowing and tax cutting without being informed about how any of it works. I mean the financing hasn't actually been described yet but Binners' kids are apparently paying for it.
Talk of the national debt shouldn't be on the lips of Labour voters in this way. It means future Labour government's won't be able to spend to improve society.
You can say all this and still despise what the Tories stand for because you're merely observing what Truss is doing successfully to gain power.
Imagine a world where your guy can't get the upper hand of the clown you thought was going to be a farce?
That's the world of the frustrated pretend leftie.
Eventually though the Tories will implode and a good Labour party could be ready. But we don't have that either. That's the real disappointment - not Tories being Tories.
"We're now allowing bankers bonuses"
"The rest of you, don't ask for above inflation pay rises"
Yeah, going just swimmingly isn't it? You're deluded.
Eventually though the Tories will implode and a good Labour party could be ready. But we don’t have that either.
Took almost 20 years last time and they lost against a very good opponent as Blair had exactly what was required at exactly the right time. Starmer doesn't have 10% of what Blair had (the selling power or the timing)
I see that Starmer wants to send out a clear message concerning what sort of party the Labour Party is - deeply patriotic. Not only must its members be totally committed to a military alliance dominated by the United States of America but they are also expected to stand up and sing the praises of His Majesty Charlie Windsor :
https://www.thenational.scot/news/22312893.labour-conference-sing-god-save-king-break-tradition/
What a great way to unite the whole Party...... forcing leftie republicans to stand, or sit, as Conference erupts into an arousing rendition glorifying inherited power and wealth.
And also what a great place to do it - Liverpool, allegedly the most anti-royalist place in Britain:
I look forward to seeing the spectacle of a party formed by organised working people to challenge the establishment on their behalf, declare their undying commitment to the very pillar of the establishment.
And let's not forget that current leader of the Opposition, just like our current Prime Minister, once called for the abolition of the monarchy:
So that's at least two things Liz Truss and Keir Starmer have in common, both are shameless careerists and both once called for the abolition of the monarchy.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1572619212484485125
What? But Truss is an absolute catastroF*** ERG nutter clown that's going to collapse within 1 week of being elected.
We've had no politics* and a new PM playing a key role in a week long all consuming patriotic event. Of course she has a bounce in certain North of England seats.
[ * well, no opposition politics ... plenty of newspaper op-eds saying how everything is now okay ]
Wonder how the end of the fracking ban will go down in those seats? What happens when the earthquakes restart?
“We’re now allowing bankers bonuses”
“The rest of you, don’t ask for above inflation pay rises”
Yeah, going just swimmingly isn’t it? You’re deluded.
Yeah don't you just hate that. It's almost have having neoliberal parties gives people no options.
We’ve had no politics* and a new PM playing a key role in a week long all consuming patriotic event. Of course she has a bounce in certain North of England seats.
We've had loads of poliltics. Just no PMQs. Besides it's the energy handout - it was always going to be so. And it's being implemented quickly. Truss is not stupid in doing the thing to keep her going.
Wonder how the end of the fracking ban will go down in those seats?
We/they will just vote with their pockets - who can blame them?
What happens when the earthquakes restart?
Lol at this - near where I live Ollerton - is (Was?) already the earthquake capital of the UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-25824615
Lol at this – near where I live Ollerton – is (Was?) already the earthquake capital of the UK
Have we got to that point now...? Labour are opposing this lifting of the fracking ban, the new PM is proposing it, so we'll defend it (or divert from it as in an issue) with little quips? Carry on...
Miliband and Rees-Mogg in parliament today is probably worth watching if you think we don't have a "real choice" when choosing between continuing with this string of Conservative governments, or kicking them out... ideally for a generation.
Have we got to that point now…? Labour are opposing this lifting of the fracking ban, the new PM is proposing it, so we’ll defend it (or divert from it as in an issue) with little quips? Carry on…
Just an anecdote, I think you're reading too much into that.
The serious case is people will vote with the wallets on energy in the current situation.
Miliband and Rees-Mogg in parliament today is probably worth watching if you think we don’t have a “real choice” when choosing between continuing with this string of Conservative governments, or kicking them out… ideally for a generation.
That's not a choice for someone with bugger all money is it?
Miliband had his shot with his soft-touch neoliberal offering.
I was one of the fools who didn't vote for "chaos with Ed Miliband"... that went well for us, didn't it? That was an age ago though. If you can watch the exchange today between Rees-Mogg and Miliband, and think that Rees-Mogg is the one who'll stand up for your interests, with any eye on your quality of life... well... 🤷🏻♂️
That’s not a choice for someone with bugger all money is it?
I think it's a very obvious and clear choice.
Vote for the party that is promising to legislate against people - like them - with little money, wishing to exercise their right to withhold their labour whilst simultaneously allowing huge pay increases and reducing taxes for the wealthy.
Or don't.
I would rather Labour 2022 be like Labour 2017 but they aren't. Let's not pretend that they are just as bad as the Tories and that people have no choice between the two.
Took almost 20 years last time and they lost against a very good opponent as Blair had exactly what was required at exactly the right time
This buys into Blair the saviour myth. John Smith was doing a rather good job and the tories had completely imploded.
I see that Starmer wants to send out a clear message concerning what sort of party the Labour Party is – deeply patriotic.
I'll believe it when I see it. And not in a second hand repost from the Times in a rag with a very obvious axe to grind.
Yeah don’t you just hate that. It’s almost have having neoliberal parties gives people no options.
WTF are you talking about? You're the one blowing smoke up her arse, I was just pointing out what an utter horror show she already is. But yes, I'm sure she's just waiting for the right moment to tone it down, keep deluding yourself.
I think it’s a very obvious and clear choice.
Vote for the party that is promising to legislate against people – like them – with little money, wishing to exercise their right to withhold their labour whilst simultaneously allowing huge pay increases and reducing taxes for the wealthy.
Or don’t.
This.
Took almost 20 years last time and they lost against a very good opponent as Blair had exactly what was required at exactly the right time
This buys into Blair the saviour myth. John Smith was doing a rather good job and the tories had completely imploded.
You conveniently forgot this bit:
Starmer doesn’t have 10% of what Blair had (the selling power or the timing)
The critical word being 'timing'. That was entirely what won 'Blair' the election, the groundwork was already done.
I see that Starmer wants to send out a clear message concerning what sort of party the Labour Party is – deeply patriotic.
I’ll believe it when I see it. And not in a second hand repost from the Times in a rag with a very obvious axe to grind.
Why, because for you it is unthinkable that the Labour Party Conference would sing "God Save The King"?
And you are accusing rone of deluding himself?!?
Tell me about the very obvious axe that the BBC has to grind.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62960726.amp
Well I'd take them at their word before The National(ist) but not much more.
As I said, the report in The National was second hand and initially covered by The Times (paywalled so unable to look further). They're not exactly shy when it comes to sensationalising anything that could be even remotely construed as British nationalism or anything associated with it.
So I was sceptical, is that wrong?
Fair enough the comments re the National/Times.
However for me it is, sadly, eminently believable the Labour Party under the current leadership might want to kick off Conference with a rousing rendition of God Save The King.
Not that I believe there is anything fundamentally wrong about singing the rather bizarre British national anthem at Conference, what worries me is the motivation behind it - this imo false patriotism.
If the Labour Party wants to be patriotic then they should offer a credible alternative to the present government which puts the British people first, and leave meaningless flag-waving to the Tories. Less saving the King and more saving the people.
Haven't we just had a thread which featured chat about all this King and Flag stuff? You should probably re-read what you were saying in there to others who had reservations about the singing of God Save the King, and sticking with the Monarchy in its current form going forward.
You should probably re-read what you were saying
Why? I haven't mentioned anything about the national anthem in any thread recently. And all my comments with regards to Mrs Windsor have been completely consistent.
I have repeatedly pointed out that imo the monarchy has no role to play in an advanced democracy. I have also repeatedly said that imo abolition of the monarchy is currently a non-issue, there are far more pressing issues to deal with and abolition would be inconsequential to the lives of ordinary working people.
I have also expressed the opinion that the views of the pro-royalist majority should be respected and not ridiculed. One STWer went as far as to describe people queuing to witness a historical event as "perverts".
I am not asking Labour Conference to discuss the abolition of the monarchy and include it in the next general election manifesto, nor am I suggesting that kicking off Conference by hypocritically forcing delegates to sing God Save The King is a good idea.
Are those concepts too difficult for someone who sees everything only in terms of black and white to understand?
It shouldn't be for someone who starts a new thread with the following words:
I’m a republican, but I rate her highly as a human, I wish her well and hope we have her as head of state for a bit longer still.
So you are a "republican" but wanted her to remain head of state for a bit longer?
I hope that Charlie Windsor's recent elevation to position of new head of state makes up for your undoubted disappointment 🙂
So, we keep the Monarchy, we just don’t let Labour join in with celebrating the new King… because…? They are asking the public to put them in office. Should they avoid being involved in any event where the anthem is sung if the voters put them in government?
So you are a “republican” but wanted her to remain head of state for a bit longer?
Absolutely. I’m against our current monarchy (in scope, power and wealth) being passed on via inheritance. But I wanted the Queen to live on longer and remain in her post for a while, she was doing a good job in some ways, especially later in her reign. Just like I’m in favour of a parliamentary democracy, yet would like the current government to be out asap. You can be for/against a system without being for/against whoever holds which post in that system.
I hoped she’d pull through and live a bit longer. Heartless of me, I know. I didn’t wish ill health on her, or want her death hastened, just because I’m a Republican. I would have liked her to have been our last Monarch, but that was never going to be the case, was it.
You told us time and time again why the Monarchy is here to stay in the other thread. The Labour leadership now seem accepting of that… why should they let the Conservatives frame them as not sharing in that consensus? Many voters suspect they don’t, a feeling that took hold under the previous leader, inaction down the Labour Party will let that feeling sink in further… politically dangerous when the country looks like it’s gone Monarchy mad.
So you are a “republican” but wanted her to remain head of state for a bit longer?
Makes as much sense as a socialist bigging up a Tory PM TBH.