Forum menu
And becomes tax deductable irrespective.
And she's declaring that Labour would seek to keep that. Tax rules in this area change all the time (for example super-deductions and now full expensing). Labour are likely to make changes of their own (arguably there are tax breaks aimed at capital investment that are taken advantage of by some simply to avoid/shift tax liability without really investing in the UK... and other breaks that are not in practice made available to smaller UK companies that really could do with them) but she is seeking to reassure the private sector that the tax system will still incentivise investment not deter it if there is a change in government.
“The lifeblood of economic growth is private investment.”
Did she actually say that ...... so John Maynard Keynes was talking shite?
Who would have thought that Keynes would one day become too left-wing for the Labour Party?
And btw Reeves certainly isn't stupid. She might be a manipulative liar though.
So... she should be telling people who could be involved in private investment in the UK (rather than elsewhere) that what they do is irrelevant to the UK economy (rather than its "lifeblood")... so don't bother... and then head home feeling smug that she's put them in her place? I suppose she could... I mean, they need us more than we need them... but why shoot herself (and the country) in the foot before she even gets close to being in the Treasury? Fluff em up, get them on side.
yeah he's badly misread the electorate 😉
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1747751843453604071?t=CpNiynEuXMUaTJN6ZE3_HQ&s=19
Difficult to know whether it is down to anything he has done really though isn't it (unless you include keeping your head down and u turning on loads of things). A lot of people don't know much about him but just know they don't want the Tories anymore and Labour are the other party.
And come polling day how many of that 12% of Reform voters will actually vote Tory?
suppose she could…
Tell the truth rather than maintain and repeat neoliberal/thatcherite myths and lies?
What about trickle down economics....its been a while since a politician has talked about that.
yeah he’s badly misread the electorate
No, lying to the electorate can be hugely beneficial for a party leader. Who has suggested otherwise?
Look how successful Thatcher was in not only winning elections and but also fundamentally changing society.
It is much easier to sell myths that people already believe.
yeah he’s badly misread the electorate 😉
If you zoom out a bit and look beyond individual polls you'll see support for the Tories has actually been pretty steady since Sunak took over. Labour have been slightly losing support over the same time period, and everyone else looks more or less the same.
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
The only party that has had any significant shift has been Reform which has almost doubled it's support in the last six months. It's difficult to see exactly where this increased support has come from though.
And come polling day how many of that 12% of Reform voters will actually vote Tory?
according to yougov up to 1/3rd of the reform vote , the other 1/3rd either loyal reform & final 1/3rd wont vote
(and i reckon tice will pocket the cash and not stand the candidates like last time)
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1747962898134040980?t=yjHQ29g9KrOtooHODO4jkw&s=19
Oh where have we seen that before?
Labour Truss mash-up
They're all obsessed with growth through tax cuts at the wealthy end.
It's insane.
The answer is staring them in the face - spend and fix society. Then watch the growth come on line, and then use tax to control inflation.
It’s insane.
I'm trying very hard not to pay much attention. But if I was paying attention then it would be one of the most depressing things I've ever seen or heard from a politician in the UK. It would appear that Labour have been completely captured by the corporate establishment. Reeves is the most tory politician I've ever seen in the Labour party, certainly much more than Blair. We can only hope that after the election their majority will be large enough to give Labour MPs the leverage they need to resist this lunatic Trussonomics fringe.
resist this lunatic Trussonomics fringe.
But it's not some fringe backbenchers, if Labour win she'll be the Chancellor, picked by the PM to enact their joint vision.
I do believe that a rebellion within the PLP is likely, especially if the Labour's majority is huge.
What is suppressing any chance of that currently happening (apart from the ceasefire vote) is being in opposition. A small Labour majority would also have a similar effect.
Obviously the New Labour on steroids team now in charge know the risks of that happening which is why they have put so much incredible effort into interfering with constituency selection processes - they need fully compliant Labour MPs in the Commons.
But it’s not some fringe backbenchers
No the backbenchers are still mostly slightly left of centre Keynesians who believe in public services and tax and spend. It's the shadow cabinet with the likes of Reeves and Streeting who appear to be corporate shills regurgitating the trickle down fantasies of Truss and the Tufton St lobby. We can only hope that once in power the PLP will force Reeves to rememeber which party she's in.
Usual cherry picking of the actual statements, Reeves stated that she'd like to see tax cuts for workers across the spectrum, via the removal of the freeze on the rates for the 20/40/45% tax rates kicking in. No promises were made, just a statement on, if it was possible, increasing these to match inflation would be seen as a positive, and where funding was available, focused on the lower end, i.e. the 20% and 40% rates more than the 45% rate.
Usual cherry picking of the actual statements
Well presumably you can read the whole article in the Daily Telegraph but surely this comment is important to highlight:
"My instinct is to have lower taxes".
It is obviously important because it says a lot about the next Chancellor of the Exchequer. It says that her attitude to taxation is very similar to that of Tories such as Margret Thatcher and Liz Truss.
If the comment is not particularly notable Reeves would not have felt the need to make it.
Reeves was very clearly telling Daily Telegraph readers what sort of Chancellor she will be, why should we ignore it? Because that comment was only for Daily Telegraph readers?
Her instinct is for lower taxes, but against the tax rates, which have been frozen, meaning in the next few years millions more will fall into these rates and pay more tax and effectively take less home.
If she'd started talking about lowering inheritance tax, corporation tax or other taxes that benefit the rich more than the working classes then it would be worthy of headlines.
If/when Labour do get in at the next election, what do people here think would actually change in the UK? Given that the real issues are things like poverty, the growing housing crisis, a rapidly declining NHS, collapsing public services, local authorities going bankrupt and our justice system failing society, what do you think would improve, if at all? <br /><br />And how long before we're back to the real tory party ruling again?
what do people here think would actually change in the UK?
Nothing will fundamentally change. We'll still have a govt which serves the top 1% in our society and which protects the wealth of asset owners by continuing the unnecessary policy of austerity based on completely arbitrary fiscal rules and limits. At the very most we can expect a less hostile approach to funding of the NHS, schools and other frontline services via local authorities. I would also expect industrial disputes with doctors et al to be quickly resolved. Worst case scenario is Reeves continues with her Trussite fantasies and doubles down on austerity following stagnant economic growth resulting from no public spending. In that case the only thing that will change is the party managing the cluster**** and the tories will be back in 4-5 years.
We can only hope that once in power the PLP will force Reeves to rememeber which party she’s in.
The PLP where all the new candidates are being chosen for loyalty to the supreme commander?
I think that is hopeful.
The PLP where all the new candidates are being chosen for loyalty to the supreme commander?
I think that is hopeful.
I doubt it. My local labour candidate (who's pretty much a shoe-in to win) largely toes the party line and can be seen as a loyalist to the leadership, but I know for a fact he's not a conservative. He's by no means a radical, but with a long history in local govt he's not going to stand for continued Trussite austerity alongside tax cuts for the rich. I reckon the vast majority of the PLP are in the same bracket. Reeves is going to have quite a fight on her hands if she persists with this nonsense.
This is IMO a very good sign - Starmer attacking over culture wars. Very well selected issues as well - NT and RNLI - both beloved of tory voters / the middle classes From the Grauniad<br /><br />
More reaction to the government’s major setback on the Rwanda offshore immigration policy to come. But first, my colleagues Pippa Crerar and Patrick Butler have this great piece on Labour leader Keir Starmer’s evolving strategy – and willingness to fight. Read the full piece below.
<br />In the coffee break after Keir Starmer’s speech on civil society on Monday, the mood among charity leaders was positive. Perhaps most of all they liked his defence of the National Trust and RNLI, beloved national charities that have, over the years, been demonised and demeaned by the right.
“It’s come to something when the Tories are at war with the National Trust,” the Labour leader had told them. “That’s what happens when politics of self-preservation prevail over commitment to service.”
His speech was also symbolic of a broader strategy from Starmer, who has been looking for opportunities to flip the narrative and show that he is not just ducking fights with the Tories to deny them electoral dividing lines, as some of his critics suggest.
This same strategy was on display earlier this month when he told reporters he was “up for the fight” of defending the “nanny state” as he announced plans to improve child health under a Labour government, including supervised toothbrushing in schools.
He also used similar language when it comes to government investment in green energy…
"If they want that fight on borrow to invest, I'm absolutely up for that."
Starmer attacking over culture wars
I think it's a line of attack they need to keep banging
I don't see defending the national trust and the RNLI, as fighting back against the culture wars.
Now we have Streeting again talking utter bobbins about the NHS. He is just a paid shill for american private healthcare interests. the last thing the NHS needs is another reform unless its to get rid of the fake market bollox. Reform takes away energy and time from care. Yes reform might be needed but it needs to be as a part of a long term well thought thru plan and will require more money
I think there are times when the Labour party is led too heavily into nostalgia. It would be the easiest thing in the world to go into the next general election just saying ‘worst crisis in NHS history’, ‘you can’t trust the Tories on the NHS’, ‘you’ve got 24 hours to save the NHS’ and, by the way, here’s a nice sepia film of Nye Bevan.<br />When the Sun’s Harry Cole put it to Streeting that that was exactly how Labour campaigned on the NHS in elections, Streeting replied:
<br />Well, we haven’t done very well in the last four, so I’m not planning to repeat those mistakes.<br />Streeting also restated an argument that he has previously made as shadow health secretary, saying that what the NHS needed most was reform, not extra money.
<br />You can’t just keep on pouring ever-increasing amounts of money into a leaky bucket, you’ve got to deal with the bucket itself.<br />And on the topic of NHS funding, he told the Sun:
<br />It’s not right to keep on asking people on low to middle incomes to pay high taxes when they’re struggling. And it’s not right that they don’t get much for the money they are putting in.
Taxes in the UK remain low and if you don't want to tax low and middle income earners then you tax high incomes - who are very low taxed in comparison to EU countries and stop companies avoiding tax
I don’t see defending the national trust and the RNLI, as fighting back against the culture wars.
Both organisations have been attacked by the right for being "too woke" with a racist takeover of the NT attempted and attempts that failed to stop folk supporting the RNLI because they saved folk from drowning in the channel
Both sets of attacks are part of the "culture wars" IMO
Now we have Streeting again talking utter bobbins about the NHS.
So what he's actually saying is that we spend money on bed blocking because there's no properly funded social care system, we pay too much on recruitment and locum fees because there aren't sufficient trained clinical staff, and they're not paid well enough to be retained, we paid too much to management consultants (standard opposition stuff), and some stuff about savings that could be made through bulk buying...
None of that seems, on the face of it, anything other than standard "we can do better than that lot" opposition electioneering tub-thumping. Where's the "utter bobbins"?
its all about paying back his paymasters in private healthcare and sorting those things require more money and do not require reorganisation
Streeting has made it clear that the "reorganization" he wants is to increase privitisation
Private providers in the NHS have always been there, and will always be there. A Labour government won't mean an end to that. What duties those private providers are carrying out, who they are, and on what cost basis can all be reformed... some of it needs to be. The big question for me is... will more people be directly employed by the NHS in 5 years time if Labour get in, or fewer people? And more importantly, can the decline in services, waiting times, trust and satisfaction be reversed? Any path to achieve that arguably means more money and reform in Social Care than the NHS itself... that's the nettle to grasp... somehow.
And as we know Labour won't have any money due to BS about responsibility with public finances. I suppose if we are lucky we could see Rachel Reeves lose her seat.
BS about responsibility with public finances
Labour are planning much more investment, funded by borrowing (people understand that term).
Labour are planning more day to day spending, funded by tax changes (like that VAT example in Klunk's video).
Labour will also be reassuring voters that they will be responsible with public finances (get over it).
---
Oooo... Starmer deep fake on Radio4 World at One.
Like I said, BS
None of that seems, on the face of it, anything other than standard “we can do better than that lot” opposition electioneering tub-thumping. Where’s the “utter bobbins”?
As already said, Streeting is little more than a shill for private healthcare corps. You can bet he'll be talking to various dodgy types about private care homes to move the 'bed blockers' onto; nothing he does is for the good of the people. It's a given he will become very, very wealthy once his time in politics is over. His nest is being lined as we speak. No surprise from a nasty little crook like that; he takes his cues from his family of thieves and scammers.
his family of thieves and scammers
In case anyone was wondering... his Mum was born in prison, Grandmother and Grandfather both did time:
A different tale to most of our politicians, for sure.
I can't stand Streeting, but attack him for what he does and what he politically represents, attack him for being a tory spiv, but not for where he came from.
Agree, he should be getting praise for where he has got to based on his upbringing. I still dislike him though!
I can’t stand Streeting, but attack him for what he does and what he politically represents, attack him for being a tory spiv, but not for where he came from.
I was also born and raised in the east end, but unlike Streeting's, my family didn't rob and steal from others. If we didn't have something, we went without, we didn't resort to crime and making others suffer. This mindset has clearly continued with him, in his self-serving lack of empathy and choice to be a shill for (often unscrupulous) corporate interests over the needs of greater society, particularly the most vulnerable.
Agree, he should be getting praise for where he has got to based on his upbringing
Why? Plenty of people have succeeded in spite of growing up in poverty, without their families resorting to crime. So praise them instead.
Why? Plenty of people have succeeded in spite of growing up in poverty, without their families resorting to crime. So praise them instead.
"He" is not "his family". I am certainly not mine.
The ability of folk to find a reason to squabble rather than unite for a greater good never ceases to amaze me.
Why? Plenty of people have succeeded in spite of growing up in poverty, without their families resorting to crime. So praise them instead.
When they get mentioned in the thread I certainly will.
"Wes Streeting says Labour has been too nostalgic about NHS as he argues it needs reform not extra money "
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1749732507707400666?s=20
Lethal Tory simpleton.
The NHS needs to be run for redundancy not efficiency.
It's cut to the bone.
Private providers in the NHS have always been there, and will always be there.
That could be cured by applying the dental healthcare model, they would all be gone inside a parliamentary term.
That could be cured by applying the dental healthcare model, they would all be gone inside a parliamentary term.
I've had to pay through the nose twice to go elsewhere for private dental care when my dental practice (where I'm an NHS patient) couldn't get the staff and I was in pain and bleeding... so while there may be things to learn there for GPs and other NHS services, there's an awful lot wrong with how GDPs work, ask anyone who can't get a dentist locally at all. And plenty of dental practices are private providers of NHS care anyway. I think I've only ever been on the NHS list at privately owned practices my whole life. Oh, and all the dentists I've known personally have been private contractors providing NHS services... none have been direct employees of the NHS, not one.
The NHS needs to be run for redundancy not efficiency.
health spending has very marginally grown (as in 0.1%/year real terms) under this govt, removing additional covid spend. However it's gone disproportionately to the big hospitals - where the power resides in the system - not to primary care let alone social care, or public health in local authorities - which are how you keep people away from the more expensive bits of the system where no one wants to end up.
Don't tell me it's wrong to look at how to do this stuff better. And don't tell me that doing stuff better means cutting into the bone.
He is a paid shill for american healthcare companies and has made it clear he wants mote privitisation. He is an utter shite
he wants mote privitisation
We're going to need to make more use of existing private provision AND to increase the staffing levels in the public sector (both NHS and in a NCS if we ever get one). Short term, reducing waiting times means getting NHS patients seen by anyone and everyone... longer term the NHS (and the care system) needs more people employed by, and working for, the state system.
There is no spare capacity in private healthcare and a limited pool of staff. More privitisation means longer waits as private healthcare is less efficient. 10 years ago there were no waits in private healthcare - now its months
Where do you think all this spare capacity is coming from?
Private healthcare is the same pool of resources and labour that could/should be available to the NHS
Stop making excuses for its existence.
This so ridiculous that it shouldn't even need mentioning.
Don’t tell me it’s wrong to look at how to do this stuff better. And don’t tell me that doing stuff better means cutting into the bone.
Looking at doing stuff better is just an excuse to privatise more of it in this example.
Funding is the easy bit - the moron that is Streeting is pretending it isn't.
The knock on of state investment is growth in the private sector and a funded NHS. Anything else is lies.
We actually don't need a private healthcare service.
Many working in the private sector would otherwise be working abroad. Escapees from the NHS who couldn't cope with the pressures of understaffing and bottlenecks. Long term the NHS needs more staff, and the care system needs fixing to free up capacity. Short term the private sector needs to be used to bridge us to that... it's a 10 year job to sort out NHS staffing and the care system, minimum. The public will want, and expect, things to begin to turn around when it comes to access to services far sooner than that.
There is no spare capacity in the private sector. Thats the truth. The limitation is workforce and money. Privater sector is also LESS efficient so actually increasing privitisation would increase delays as they get less done per medical staff hour
How can the private sector bridge the gap without spare capacity?
We actually don’t need a private healthcare service.
I agree. But we have private provision of NHS care on a huge scale, always have done. And we have private healthcare. An incoming government has to deal with what is in place, and seek to reform it. Improving outcomes for NHS patients (us) needs more than the waving of hands and wishing we weren't starting from here.
And porivate healthcare cannot do that - it just cannot - no spare capacity and no extra staff and less efficient
the key thing is social care and that costs money - a lot of it. ruled out by Streeting and Starmer
There is no spare capacity in the private sector.
So people aren't turning to private health to avoid long waiting times? Why are there two different waiting times for private an NHS services? This suggests that, while there isn't spare capacity, the use of resources isn't currently best used based on clinical need rather than ability to pay.
Anyway, increasing NHS staffing and transforming the care system is exactly what "Starmer and Streeting" are proposing. Both are going to take "a while"... and outcomes, especially waiting times, need to begin to change much sooner. Voters need to see an improvement within 5 years, or all Labour plans get stopped by an incoming Tory government and we're back on the current downward slide. That's the politics of it.
So people aren’t turning to private health to avoid long waiting times?
Yes they are - which is why private healthcare now has waiting lists in months ie no spare capacity
Streeting made it clear no more money for the NHS. No word of sorting social care. Link me to the social care plans?
Streeting made it clear no more money for the NHS. No word of sorting social care
Sorry, but that last line isn't true. More money has been proposed for the NHS for staffing, and so has a "national care service". But the increased NHS staffing, and the creation of the NCS, will take multiple parliaments... Labour won't get that unless they improve results way before the benefits of those policies come good.
This is going around in circles again. Think what you like, or read what Starmer and Streeting have proposed over the last few years.
More money has been proposed for the NHS, and so has reform of social care.
Really? Streetings speech today said the opposite and a link to social care plans please
Search "Streeting" and "national care service". I can't link you to a manifesto. And that will only include initial steps to be actioned in the first few years anyway.
so no plans then - just a vague aspiration without any funding.
You really have drunk the Kool Aid haven't you...
You really have drunk the Kool Aid haven’t you…
Well, I don't wear the same shit covered spectacles as some.
We’re all agreed NHS staffing and social care are both a mess… and if Labour don’t work on both there is no long term fix… but that isn’t going to produce results immediately. Using rather than wishing away private providers they probably need to be part of any shorter term plan, don’t they?
Again, from what i read, it's basically the same type of statement that's been made for a generation, the NHS needs to be more efficient, rather than just throwing more money at it and hoping it finally works, so that when it does get more money it's actually beneficial.
We'll see what it actually means if Labour get in, will they have the bottle to go for restructuring, or just do the usual and throw 3% or so a year extra at it and hope it keeps quiet whilst they're in power.
Using rather than wishing away private providers they probably need to be part of any shorter term plan, don’t they?
Nope - they are part of the problem not part of the solution. They are less efficient, more expensive and have no spare capacity. a greater use of privatte healthcare will reduce capacity overall not increase it
, the NHS needs to be more efficient
Its one of the most efficient healthcare services in the world treating more for less than pretty much any other. England wastes money on the fake market and that bit could be gained back. twice the admin costs of scotland where the fake market was eliminated
So, what’s your short term plan? While we wait for NHS staff to train or return? Likewise care staff.
I agree that private providers are part of the problem, but they also exist. Use (and reform how they’re used), or ignore/abolish. Which is more likely to reduce waiting times within a few years?
NHS
Get rid of the fake market - that will free up 5-10% of the entire NHS budget in england<br /><br />Pump more money in
Rejoin the EU to get access to the surplus of EU nurses that used to come here
Have a proper national discussion about what the NHS should be doing
Bring GPs into the NHS some are very good doing a very good job. Some are awful
Social care - bring it back into state ownership and pay and train staff properly
All costs money tho - and no profit for Streetings paymasters so all ruled out by Starmer and Streeting
I’d agree to all those aims, personally. We’re not getting much of that though, not in the short term. Not here and now.
So, short term waiting lists… what’s your plan? Grounded in the real UK of 2024-2028? Deliverable in that time frame? Starting from where we are now, not where you and I wish we were now?
Thats my plan. all perfectly feasible within the first year. all ruled out by Starmer and Streeting. Rejoin the EU is the only one with any difficulty at all. Scotland got rid of the fake markket very quickly. took months.
They have no plan at all apart from Streeting needs to pay back his paymasters
'Short term' hey? I wonder how we got here? Could it be short term thinking?
Where do you think using the private sector leads to exactly? - more of the same catastrophic failure of public service.
That's the aim.
It's just more of the same dross from Streeting with one direction only.
All private medical provision reduces the capacity of the NHS to serve the people.
https://twitter.com/JujuliaGrace/status/1750083518988685699?t=O_0-X_ZuiCJ5pU4gh6yNxw&s=19
It all be that efficiency and waste bollocks the Tories are so fond of.
Every single large organisation has waste, it is just what happens and is a given. That doesn't stop you trying to improve things such as sorting out social care.
Thats my plan. all perfectly feasible within the first year. all ruled out by Starmer and Streeting. Rejoin the EU is the only one with any difficulty at all. Scotland got rid of the fake markket very quickly. took months.
So abolish private medicine, nationalise the 6,000+ social care providers, make all GPs salaried employees is the easy bit? Rejoin the EU in year 2?
Simon Stevens's 2017 reforms effectively abolished the internal market in England with establishment of ICS and ICBs. Do some reading.
And Scotland saved 10% plus? How is the SNHS doing right now?
We could have a conversation about, say, the appropriate balance of primary, secondary and tertiary care, public health and social care without talking about absolute levels of spend, which is what Streeting is on about, but not in the face of ignorance (primarily, possibly willful, possibly just ignorance), closed minds and blinkers.
‘Short term’ hey? I wonder how we got here? Could it be short term thinking?
Yes. Short term. Long term we need more NHS and care staff, trained and working in an environment they can stay in. That'll take, what, 10-15 years to implement? If Labour don't ALSO aim for short term improvements in NHS waiting lists, then they'll only get 5 years in government, and no long term plans can be fulfilled. If an incumbent Labour government fight an election where the public experience of being treated on the NHS is still where it is now, or worse, they are sunk.
The NHS as a "mixed economy" is here to stay. Keeping it free at the point of use, increasing NHS staffing, and reforming social care... those are all aims that a Labour government must pursue... but also using existing (and additional) private provision is just something for those of us on the left to suck up... the practicalities of making NHS services fully publicly delivered (for the first time in NHS history) are insurmountable. Growing public provision is the way to move the balance away from private provision... so that's back to the long term goals... more NHS staff, reforming Social care... no quick pay offs there.
If Labour don’t ALSO aim for short term improvements in NHS waiting lists, then they’ll only get 5 years in government, and no long term plans can be fulfilled. If an incumbent Labour government fight an election where the public expense of being treated on the NHS is still where it is now, or worse, they are sunk.
thjs is absolutly true Private healthcare cannot help significantly tho
"Simon Stevens’s 2017 reforms effectively abolished the internal market in England with establishment of ICS and ICBs. Do some reading"
it really did not remove the excess bureaucracy at all - just created more in your "ICS and ICBs"
"And Scotland saved 10% plus? How is the SNHS doing right now? "
yes - admin costs in Scotland last time I looked were 10% of budget, Englands 20%
Scottish NHS is distinctly better than Englands. No strikes for a start off. Far from good but better
Private healthcare cannot help significantly tho
Agreed. Marginal gains at best. Lots of those will be needed for any short term turnaround. None should be ruled out based on preferred ideology (I probably share yours here).
The big stuff (funding local government to provide more direct social care for example) is all long term, for multiple Parliaments.
Lots of those will be needed for any short term turnaround.
That's not what will happen. That's not where Streeting will go with this. The big stuff will never happen whilst we ceed to these little Labour crumbs of fake hope.
None should be ruled out based on preferred ideology (I probably share yours here).
The preferred capitalist ideology is already in play. And that's what failure of privatisaiton looks like. But no matter how bad things get we have Labour lining up to suppport more marketisation of things that could be so much better.
There is a supply side problem and that is the makings of the incorrect ideology.
How much more should fail before we accept the model is wrong?
The NHS as a “mixed economy” is here to stay.
And that is not a fact at all. It could go either way depending on the administration of the day.
Huff post:
Keir Starmer has accused the Tories of planning to spend billions of pounds on tax cuts so there is no money left for an incoming Labour government
Lies and more lies.
Starmer should know there is no bank account at the BoE or the Treasury that saves money up for the government to spend from tax receipts.
The Tories are bad enough without setting precedent to cripple the country with lies about spending.
He can check out the the mechanism if he wants - the government gets a credit to spend by way of the consolidated fund at the BoE - every time it needs any amount of money.
From parliament.uk
The Consolidated Fund is the Government's general bank account at the Bank of England. Payments from this account must be authorised in advance by the House of Commons. The Government presents its 'requests' to use this money in the form of Consolidated Fund Bills
What's more they're always passed.