Forum menu
Obviously Starmer’s Labour party has got it all wrong and will be rejected by the electorate.
Well it's obviously a bit premature to say that with total confidence, as they haven't even formed a government yet, but that is a widely held opinion.
After all the Tories seem set to be comprehensively rejected by the electorate after winning a landslide at the last election.
Although presumably judging from your posting history you believe that rejigging Tory policies will work the magic for Starmer?
Nothing is certain but it has long been accepted that the Tories will be unable to form a majority government after the next general election.
That is the greatest certainty, and yesterday's by-election results seem to confirm this.
You dont do irony do you Ernie?
but that is a widely held opinion
You and 5 others on here doesnt equate to widely held opinion.
You've got to be cautious, voting will be closer than the polls as tories always vote, but one big scandal, or big victory for the government and it changes overnight.
As for Starmer, he'll do well for the election i think, i just think after it he'll maybe be a problem with his vanilla approach, but as always, first thing is get into power, get a majority and then you have 5 years to change your leadership, your approach and so on, just get into power first before you start governing!
On today's ride... I had Kinnock's "we're alll... right.." singing in my ears.
Once the campaign proper is on, and the papers help + much bigger spend of the Conservatives kicks in... a Labour loss is definitely still possible. Unthinkable... but possible. A fall over on the beach here... a bacon sandwich here... an exasperated comment when you think the mics aren't on there... the Tories can't win on their record, but the sentiment that they are still better at governing than Labour, or a coalition of parties, can probably still be reignited by a few irrelevant opposition gaffs and the full focus of the media put on them. Starmer and his apparent unease in front of a camera could still end up being the decider in the minds of swing voters... and the idea that Suank is the best of two bad choices... and that "they're pretty much all the same, but Labour can't be trusted with our money" can be pushed... not with logic... but with feelings.
You and 5 others on here doesnt equate to widely held opinion.
No it doesn't.
What on earth made you think that by saying "widely held opinion" I meant a widely held opinion on STW?
There is a world outside STW and shockingly not everyone thinks that Sir Keir Starmer will solve the UK's problems and draw grateful admiration from the electorate.
Personally I give it less than 12 months before the electorate realise how little Starmer has to offer - he will probably get away with blaming everything on the previous Tory government for the first few months, but clearly not indefinitely.
You on the other hand have obviously far greater faith in Starmer as Prime Minister. I truly hope you, and more importantly voters, are not disappointed.
I didnt just mean STW.......
https://twitter.com/MikeGapes/status/1758508729211715985?t=4_60boUHCJGn1VfeESjIhg&s=19
For the Labour right - they don't care so much about solving problems - maybe Stumpystump can hang with Gapes and enjoy the ride?
What on earth made you think that by saying “widely held opinion” I meant a widely held opinion on STW?
Centrists are so touchy about their Conservative made position that anyone other position can't be valid.
Unless it's Brexit where majorities don't matter.
Yep there is a world outside the STW consensus.
seeing a +4 , bump after the last week is surprising, makes you suspicious of the pollsters! But then a lot of people don't pay that much attention to the Westminster soap opera
whether labour can sustain that sort of lead into the autumn is the big question
position that anyone other position can’t be valid.
Coming from you, with your own made up magic money tree system which you ram down everyone elses throats at every opportunity, thats really a bit rich. You seem to hate centrists which you've projected your own interpretation of their views onto more than the conservatives and the other right wing head bangers.
Are you pro Brexit now as well?
The country is broadly right of centre, always has been, being intolerant of that isnt going to change it. Seeing the Conservatives vacate the central ground and Labour move in is great. We have some more serious politicians with a more progressive agenda, best outcome we're going to get at the next election.
Doesnt really matter though does it, I doubt you'd be happy with any politician or political system, the only you like doing is telling everyone else how bad it all is.
How on earth is Starmer ‘more progressive’??
The country is broadly right of centre, always has been,
Why do you keep repeating this lie? It isnt. You can see this from a casual glance at the voting distribution.
The voting system is rigged in the tories favour though.
Seeing the Conservatives vacate the central ground and Labour move in is great.
The incoherence of your argument is staggering. So on the one hand you are claiming, incorrectly, the country is centre right and is intolerant of change and on the other hand labour taking the centre ground is a good thing.
Why exactly?
Since the former precludes the latter doing much.
The country has been run for the centrists for the last forty years bar a couple of bones thrown to the loons in the last couple.
Have you not noticed how things arent going well? Exactly why would labour enacting the centrists self serving and overall damaging policies help?
"im really left wing but here's why I'm going to do everything I can to ensure conservatives keep winning elections"
How on earth is Starmer ‘more progressive’??
Are you suggesting Starmer is less progressive than Sunak?
Have you not noticed how things arent going well?
Yes, with the right wing loons in charge, wasn't doing so badly before the most recent governments and Brexit.
I'm not sure what is being "summed up"?
It has been obvious for a very long time that the Tories will lose the next general election by a very large margin.
Most people seem to agree with that, although a few centrists are still arguing that Labour needs to comprise even more, for example ditching the £28bn green pledge, because its not in the bag and the Tories could still win.
Labour won Kingswood by 2501 votes. Reform polled 2758 votes, Reform won Kingswood for Labour
Labour won Wellingborough by 6436 votes. Reform polled 3919 votes, a more convincing win for Labour but they're by no means out of the woods and Starmer is right to be cautious (but isn't he always?)
From Kimbers link. I think its aimed at Torys in denial but it equally applies to people on this thread.
It’s Not Too Late For Starmer to Listen to Me
Keir Starmer has been ignoring my advice for four years now, and is 20 points ahead in the polls. But there is still time for him to change course, before he has to deal with the horrifying prospect of a triple-figure parliamentary majority.
And
It’s Time For Labour Supporters to Face the Truth: Starmer Has Failed
Although I wasn’t his greatest fan, I was prepared to give the Labour leader a fair chance. But no longer. At minus eight months into his time in office, it’s clear he has already let down the British people. He has betrayed the hopes and dreams of all those of us who believed in a Labour alternative.
And
Yes, But A Mandate For What?
Starmer is on course to win, but by not setting out detailed plans for his second term in office, does he risk being forced to govern without any mandate to change the country beyond millions of votes and hundreds of MPs?
Labour won Kingswood by 2501 votes. Reform polled 2758 votes, Reform won Kingswood for Labour
Only if you accept the assumption - which is not supported by polling - that all Reform voters would have otherwise voted Tory.
And Reform is a direct result of Tory policy, populise / legitimise the nastiness of the right, trouble is it backfired and instead of hoovering up those votes Reform did. In the meantime Starmer continues to eat away at voters on the left of the conservative spectrum so the Torys are getting squeezed from both sidea (but shush we're not allowed to mention how well Starmer is doing in the polls cos he's got it all wrong and being in government is meaningless anyway, it's better to shout from the sidelines in opposition about how things could be so much better if only everyone else bought into the collective fever dream of sunlit uplands and unicorns for everyone).
I wouldn't put deals on contested seats and a coalition agreement out of the bounds of possibility; both Conservatives and Reform are desperate enough
Labour won Kingswood by 2501 votes. Reform polled 2758 votes, Reform won Kingswood for Labour
And..... if that is what you believe where is the problem?
Do you prescribe to this weird theory that Reform UK will pull out of the general election at the last minute?
Reform UK's support in the two by-elections were in line with what national opinion polls are saying. Even if Reform UK decided not to stand at the general election and ALL their votes went to the Tories (a completely unrealistic scenario) Labour would still win.
Reform UK's 10% (all of it) plus the Tories's 25% still falls short of Labour's 45%
Labour is very likely to win a huge landslide thanks to Reform UK, if Reform UK decide not to stand at the general election Labour will in all likelihood still form a government.
The argument "we need to comprise even more" is simply an excuse by so-called centrists to push for an even more right-wing agenda.
(but shush we’re not allowed to mention how well Starmer is doing in the polls cos he’s got it all wrong and being in government is meaningless anyway, it’s better to shout from the sidelines in opposition about how things could be so much better if only everyone else bought into the collective fever dream of sunlit uplands and unicorns for everyone).
Nobody is saying that. Starmer will win a very healthy majority. There will be austerity lite for the duration of the next parliament, growth will be slow, productivity will be low and the UK will lag behind comparable economies. We will not rejoin the EU. The solution to this will be more austerity and increased privatisation by stealth. Living standards will stagnate. The solution will be more austerity. Public services will be eroded more than already and the solution will be stealth privatisation. Foreign policy will be determined by the US. There will be some progressive measures but nothing that affects the hard architecture of the state. The above will be done in a well managed and an orderly fashion presented by serious career politicians and technocrats. The batton will then pass back to the Conservatives. In short, not a lot will change but it will be done better.
Anyone want to disagree with that assessment?
Anyone want to disagree with that assessment?
Not really, seems pretty much spot-on to me. The only bit I might query is this :
"The batten will then pass back to the Conservatives"
Probably at some point but the nature of Western democracy is changing, nothing seems to be quite as predictable as was the case previously.
The political crisis in Western democracy appears to be more profound than its inevitable cyclic economic crises. In short bourgeois democracy after a hundred years or more has found to be wanting. What comes next is harder to predict.
"And if that is what you believe where is the problem?"
It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters that labour isn't complacent, which is what I said.
"Do you prescribe to this weird theory that Reform UK will pull out of the general election at the last minute?"
No, but Farage isn't above making a deal, like he did in 2019, "country before party" as he said then. As for polls, the majority from 2014 on said that we'd stay in the EU. Remind me how that worked out...
As for polls, the majority from 2014 on said that we’d stay in the EU. Remind me how that worked out…
Two years later there was a narrow majority in favour of Leave, and ?
The margin of error of opinion polls is about 3%, have you seen recent opinion polls?
The huge Labour lead has been actually getting slightly bigger recently, and the general election is really quite soon - we are not in midterm!
Yes, with the right wing loons in charge, wasn’t doing so badly before the most recent governments and Brexit.
We werent doing well before brexit hence why we had brexit etc.
You and other centre right people might have been doing okay but you are a small minority. Its why people were asking for a change however fanciful and how the hard right populists got their foot in the door.
Many of the problems we are facing now are due to decades of thatcherite policy coming home to roost. Our housing market for example with the moronic policy of selling off most of the public housing cheap and then leaving it all to the "market".
We werent doing well before brexit hence why we had brexit etc.
austerity at the root of so much of our problems, ironically that resentment led to scapegoating the EU for then and then Brexit, with Brexit now hammering the country even more...
Anyone want to disagree with that assessment?
Nope, sounds pretty much spot on for England. Hopefully things will be different up here in Scotland
The idea that all the woes started with Brexit is only for those half way up the food chain.
The country has been on a downward trajectory for years. Come on keep up.
Just enough crumbs drop off occasionally and land on people's low interest assets to keep them entertained. For now.
Middle classes will be next to be gobbled up as wealth concentrates even more.
None of this is complex. A transfer of state assets to the private sector. If you're part of that private sector you will probably think everything is great. Until Brexit ruined your visa-less ski trip (tongue in cheek) then it was a horror show for us all to see.
You've also been told socialism is awful whilst mostly experiencing the fails of Neolibralism.
Imagine what all this does to your voting head! It's now good to vote for right wing polices 'cos Labour are doing them and not the Tories.
Sound fiscal-finance from the George Osborne created embarrassment that is the OBR - borrowed from the party you hate to the party you love!
These fiscal institutions (OBR, BoE) etc are not working for you BTW. They are working for the markets and the wealthy. Imagine being in a democracy where they decide what's good for society - with barely any modelling whatsoever to justify it.
Nope, sounds pretty much spot on for England. Hopefully things will be different up here in Scotland
I live in Scotland. I work in local authority, my wife's a teacher, my sister in law a nurse (in Scotland).
We've been shielded from the worst of it, but the pain is well and truly in the post. Things are going to go down hill quickly from here on in. We can't defy gravity forever and the nice words from Holyrood will increasingly be realised as symbolic rather than material
Are you suggesting Starmer is less progressive than Sunak?
I think Larrydavid summed it up quite perfectly. Trying to claim Starmer is ‘more progressive’ than Sunak is like saying one shade of grey is more grey than another.
Not really, seems pretty much spot-on to me. The only bit I might query is this :
“The batten will then pass back to the Conservatives”
Probably at some point but the nature of Western democracy is changing, nothing seems to be quite as predictable as was the case previously.
The political crisis in Western democracy appears to be more profound than its inevitable cyclic economic crises. In short bourgeois democracy after a hundred years or more has found to be wanting. What comes next is harder to predict.
You might be right. But I think Labour have weathered thier crisis (capture by the left) Labour I think will over the next 1/2 parliamentary terms try to a) finally put the left in the party to sleep and b) break the link with the unions decisively in order to be one more like the US democrats and decisively the party of UK plc, attempting to forge an alliance between big capital, cultural liberals but with a nationalistic flavour. It will have inbuilt instability in that regard and may be time limited - the cultural liberals and centerist types may lose patience.
The Tories have a problem that relates to the increasing mental quality of right wing politics - it's untethered from it's base and the big capital/small capital link is destroyed. Johnson's destruction of the sensible Tories , the presence of Trussites is their ongoing crisis. Labour will try and capitalise as per the above on this and present as the sensible, moderate party of UK capital. Unless the Tories can get a grip
I quite like this, it pretty much hits the nail on the head imo:
Enjoy your victory, Sir Keir – the really bad news is you’re heading to No 10
I particularly liked this:
Rather than worrying about how they might lose the general election, Labour ought to be worrying about how on earth they can cope with winning it. They will inherit the public finances in a terrible state. Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, should not be fearful of 1992 or other elections that Labour lost. They should worry about 1929, 1945 and 1964 – elections that Labour won, but after which the party trapped itself by sticking to the economic consensus and defending the value of the pound.
You are right not to be complacent, Keir – because you are going to win.
I suggested recently that Starmer will regret becoming PM - the problems he will face will be massive and he is simply not up for the job imo.
Doing and saying almost nothing whilst enjoying the spectacle of the Tories self-destructing won't be an option when he is PM. Oh how he will look back fondly on those halcyon days when he was just Leader of the Opposition.
He may realise that he is not up to the job 1 year in and let a more progressive leader form a more progressive cabinet and approach but not many leaders (none ever) seem to either realise that or want to give it up however bad they are.
5 years of relief from the tory ****ers will be nice but always hoped for a bit more than that.
They will inherit the public finances in a terrible state
I'm sick to the back to teeth of hearing this one.
It's the number one frustration and fabrication, waiting to give Starmer his get out.
The economy is in a mess (for many) but this doesn't affect public finances or the capacity to spend.
roneFull Member
The idea that all the woes started with Brexit is only for those half way up the food chain
if that's in reply to me I clearly said austerity led to Brexit, which led to an even worse economy, especially for those lower down the food chain
I’m sick to the back to teeth of hearing this one.
It’s the number one frustration and fabrication, waiting to give Starmer his get out.
The economy is in a mess (for many) but this doesn’t affect public finances or the capacity to spend.
labour scaling back climate pledge was done because the public simply don't believe that and the Tories will exploit it
The state the country is in its obvious we need a huge amount of investment, but HS2 is the perfect example of nimbyism & terrible procurement/ exploitative contractors turning the public against the kind of investment we need
the other problem is the scale of investment needed is just so huge that it will blow the overdraft/ max out the credit card 😉
theres a double whammy from this
- the markets will be spooked : see Truss, the £ will fall, pensions will suffer etc etc
- the press & Tories will go full on about irresponsible labour spending & the breadth of spending needed means theyll get smashed at the next GE
genuine question @rone how do labour manage those 2 things ?
the markets will be spooked : see Truss, the £ will fall, pensions will suffer etc etc
Why will the markets be spooked by a government investing and putting money into a country? That is nothing like the stuff Truss did
The tories then cannot go on about irresponsible spending as it is investment for which a return will be seen/services improved over the 5 years so a hard thing to label as irresponsible and if public see improvements slagging it off will not be believed will it.
ssuming Starmer actually does any of that
The economy is in a mess (for many) but this doesn’t affect public finances or the capacity to spend.
I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing this.
In the real world of politics today it really does affect capacity to spend otherwise someone would be quite happy putting your fiscal ideas into practice without any downside. Johnson for one would have jumped at it, he had zero principles and would have done anything for a popular headline.
Why will the markets be spooked by a government investing and putting money into a country? That is nothing like the stuff Truss did
This. Any increases in public spending Labour implement will provide a boost to the economy and result in higher growth which the markets will fully support. The problem with Truss's spending was that it went towards tax cuts for the rich and even the markets know that handing more money to people who are already rich doesn't result in more economic growth.
Johnson for one would have jumped at it
He did jump at it, but wasn't around long enough to do anything. When did you ever hear Johnson say 'we can't afford it'?
He did jump at it, but wasn’t around long enough to do anything. When did you ever hear Johnson say ‘we can’t afford it’?
Poor Johnson just needed more time… utter bollocks.
Anyway, for some reason I thought your work was related to this industry:
Plenty of other examples of Johnson promising big infrastructure spend… right up until delivery… and then failing… probably lots of examples in his thread. Bridges, tunnels, power stations, hospitals… on and on…
Any increases in public spending Labour implement will provide a boost to the economy and result in higher growth which the markets will fully support.
Absolutely. And they’re political cowards for scaling back the spending plans for green transition ahead of an election manifesto. The kick back from “markets” and industry would have been zilch… scared of the voters getting into a “can’t trust Labour with our money” mindset, that’s all. Cowards. Mind you, plenty of people far down the pecking order with even more fear of the Tories scraping another win. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is Labour’s specialty (with more than a little help from voting demographics, the voting system, the media, and political funding stacked against them), so perhaps that fear is valid and serves a purpose. It’s depressing though, and doesn’t bode well for what needs to be done in the next 10 years.
i remain to be convinced the markets wont push hack against a big spending splurge
tho i think this analysis is saying that they're more likely to do this when finances are already squeezed (which sounds counterintuitive)
I suppose the onus is on Labour to ensure spending is viewed as investment, not waste ( see perception of HS2) That is a huge task against our media landscape
Any increases in public spending Labour implement will provide a boost to the economy
i get the theory , but again using HS2 as an example it has to be done right amd you have to bring the public/press along with you
Interesting, but I’m not sure I buy it. Perhaps it just indicates that stock prices are already low when “constraint is high”.
In the real world of politics today it really does affect capacity to spend otherwise someone would be quite happy putting your fiscal ideas into practice without any downside
It seems to be working quite well in the US.
It seems to be working quite well in the US.
You want us to follow the American model of economic management, that country well known for it economic and social equality across society? No thanks.
We all agree investment into our country is badly needed and will have positive outcomes beyond the immediate infrastructure or service provision, the question is how it's funded and probably more importantly how it's perceived to be funded.
I very much doubt the US has released the cash in the way Rone is proposing, the Republicans block anything other than the most moderate spending.
Spending in this country is at record levels but it's not being spent on dealing with the root causes of the issues.
Fuel poverty - money being spent on additional payments rather than the infrastructure to bring energy costs down.
Housing - same, spending money on housing benefit rather than correcting the market by mass building of quality, energy efficient affordable housing.
NHS - massive amounts spent on re-arranging the deck chairs, no coherent 20 year training and recruitment plan.
Schools - the academy system is criminal.
Roads - well there's nothing left for their maintenance.
The rouble is you can't divert the here and now payments to the long term solutions without leaving a lot of people destitute, that's the Tory legacy and will take at least 2 parliamentary terms to start the reversal process.
You want us to follow the American model of economic management, that country well known for it economic and social equality across society? No thanks.
No idea what you're on about. Biden has spent money on infrastructure (including green infrastructure) to stimulate the economy. It seems to be working. How the benefits are utilised is a wider discussion.
You want us to follow the American model of economic management, that country well known for it economic and social equality across society? No thanks.
I've gone at great pains to say the USA has big distributional problems. Inequality - absolutely.
But the core of what Biden has done has given them growth and employment not equaled by many big economies.
There are always loads of things to fix and put right, doesn't mean you can't start with fundamentals for investment and stimulus programmes.
Besides, the US has problems that go way back from where we are now.
So it seems to me you are simply blending a whole host of logic. Fine, but you can't ignore their numbers and both the Tories and Labour would kill for growth as a starting point.
There is one route to growth what you do with it from there is political will.
There is some stuff on this subject in this rather long interview here, plus many other interesting bits. Kelton was in the UK a few days ago at Warwick University.
(I'm not mad keen on this interviewer.)
Poor Johnson just needed more time… utter bollocks.
Oh FGS I never suggested Johnson would have done all that he claimed, just that he never used the excuse of not having enough money. In fact all I ever heard from Johnson was promises about spending money on all sorts of things, and then he'd be reigned in by Sunak. Johnson (to some extent May before him) was a weird tory PM in that he wasn't a big fan of austerity, quite the opposite in fact.
I’m surprised you bought into that myth. He announced shit to gain power and support, and then forgot about it or cancelled it. Take the one example above… do you think he just cancelled rail projects in the north to spite northerners, or to avoid spending the money on it?
EDIT: that’s a rhetorical question, we’ve done all this in the Johnson thread already, let’s drop it.
I’m surprised you bought into that myth.
Aside from £400bn on covid, sure.
Covid spending… no way to condense a response to that into less than about a 100 posts!
Absolutely, but it's a fact that the government "found" the money to invest into the economy without the usual myths around affordability.
They talked up “paying for it later”… and anyway, the “myth” I was talking about was Johnson wanting to invest and others holding him back… it was always planned jam tomorrow, and cancelled spending before we got to tomorrow… that was always his thing… it was nothing to do with a wish to invest, he’s just a con man… the myth that others, or time, thwarted him is highly damaging to the UK… we need to learn from his cons, not feed the Johnson myth.
Take the one example above… do you think he just cancelled rail projects in the north to spite northerners, or to avoid spending the money on it?
Which rail projects in the North did Johnson cancel?
All I could find with regards to the question was this:
So obviously not that.
I posted a link. It was while he was PM.
You want us to follow the American model of economic management, that country well known for it economic and social equality across society? No thanks.
Odd. I would have thought you would be in favour with your belief that its a good thing labour should start representing the centre right with the tories representing the loony right and everyone else left to it.
After all thats the democrat/republican model.
It seems to be working quite well in the US.
It works well for the US as they are the last real superpower, and a lot of the world works on the US Dollar, they can afford to take risks, as it's pretty much negligible they'll suffer any negative effects in the markets due to their might and their currency.
The UK, well the pound isn't quite as robust!
The UK, well the pound isn’t quite as robust!
Quite a sweeping statement. Care to provide some evidence?
And besides, currency markets go up and down, all that really matters is what we do within the UK economy, and that's completely within the control of the UK govt and BoE. The UK govt can spend what it likes as long as the economy can resource it, and the markets don't panic, and they won't panic as long as the money spent generates growth as apposed to filling the pockets of those who don't need it.
they can afford to take risks, as it’s pretty much negligible they’ll suffer any negative effects in the markets due to their might and their currency.
Yup, US markets never panic. Taking risks is not a problem for them.
Except for the US subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-10
US as they are the last real superpower, and a lot of the world works on the US Dollar
Hmm.. a lot to unpack there!
There's no such thing as a 'super power' ... China, Rusia, India, and the EU are all 'super powers'.
If you add the USA into the mix, that's at least 5 super powers. The 'super power' podium is getting a bit crowded!
The ‘super power’ podium is getting a bit crowded!
Not really, the US is still by far the predominant military and economic force in the world. Not as much as it used to be though, largely due to its massively divisive internal politics driven by the inequalities of neoliberal capitalism. It’s an irony that the US (and other western countries) would be much more powerful if they hadn’t abandoned the progressive social democratic politics of the postwar period.
Not really, the US is still by far the predominant military and economic force in the world.
Care to back that up with any facts? I'm sure the USA loves to think it is.
Certainly the UK cannot rely on them given past and recent rhetoric.
The UK leaving the EU was a massive, massive foot-in-mouth moment.
Out of interest I checked the comparison between the USA and China and whilst the USA is obviously (still) easily the greater superpower I was frankly shocked to see that it was much closer than I expected.
The Chinese have impressive foreign reserves!
And difference between 0.0706 and 0.0699 power index doesn't sound that massive.
The UK, well the pound isn’t quite as robust!
So what do you think would happen?
Care to back that up with any facts?
Eh? Do some quick Googling and you’ll find the US still has the largest military and highest GDP. Not as much as it used to be, but still significantly ahead.
To be fair mattyfez didn't say that the USA wasn't the most powerful superpower, he said that there were other superpowers globally.
There is no accepted definition for the term superpower. Obviously Americans are likely to feel that only the US qualifies but it doesn't necessarily mean that their definition is correct.
Anyway despite all that military and money and power and stuff, the US economy crashed less than twenty years ago and they lost a war against one of the poorest nations on earth - Afghanistan.
So as mattyfez suggests the term superpower doesn't really mean that much.
What Ernie said...
You can't be a super power unless you have goldie lookin' trainers!
You knows it!
The US spends close to a trillion dollars in the military budget which last time I checked was the same as the next 10 countries combined. (Although I wonder where that stands now with Russia who as a currency issuer too has managed stack up there recently.)
The dollar is the reserve currency and China has to bank with the USA in dollars for all its trade.
It's fair to say a lot hinges around the USA
USA v CHINA GDP?
28 trillion v 18 trillion. (Est 2024)
I've been lucky enough to visit the states a fair bit and absolutely love the place but as a tourist you are so insulted from most of the bad stuff. Take a look around the back streets of LA and San Francisco and the homeless problems are absolutely devastating.
I also spoke to many people last year who totally despised Trump but that was Colorado so what do you expect. If you've got money you're doing okay there.
If you’ve got money you’re doing okay there.
Like most countries then. They look good on the face of it as a tourist but living there as a poorer person doesn't look quite the same.
The US spends close to a trillion dollars in the military budget which last time I checked was the same as the next 10 countries combined.
And yet they couldn't win a twenty year war against Afghanistan, I don't call that value for money.
The dollar is the reserve currency and China has to bank with the USA in dollars for all its trade.
That's the point, and I can't see immediate change in this being likely though who knows what a few decades may bring? Either way the UK is not in this position.
(And yes - US compared to most of Europe, higher average GDP/per capita but private wealth, public squalor and a big class of the shut out.)
China has to bank with the USA in dollars for all its trade.
I think that "all" might be an exaggeration:
I think that “all” might be an exaggeration:
I don't really understand your point.
Currently:
Chinese exporters receive U.S. dollars for their goods sold to the U.S
At some point things might change. But Dedollarization is always being touted.
But the current mechanics say how it is. At least to the scope of my understanding.
That in recent times there has been an international push for de-dollarization.
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1088021
Yeah much discussion.
Future is a hard thing to play with all this. I was expecting a bust cycle but doesn't look like it.
Markets are booming currently in the USA.
Shrug.
And yet they couldn’t win a twenty year war against Afghanistan, I don’t call that value for money
Perhaps not but they know how to throw money at things.
It's funny how the Republicans are struggling to recognise the relative success of Biden's economics. They're calling it a disaster and yet they really need to shut up and look at their own metrics.
I wonder if this will cut though come the election?
(I mean listen to Jamie Dimon - extremely confusing politically.)
Future is a hard thing to play with all this.
Indeed. There is an argument that the Hamas attack of Oct 7 has tentative links with Saudi Arabia's slow disengagement from the petrodollar. Seeing Saudi Arabia moving away from its total dependency on the US and more towards China and Russia the US government, it is claimed, pushed very hard for the normalisation of Saudi-Israeli relations. This would have resulted in a military-economic codependency and helped to keep Saudi Arabia within the Western orbit of influence.
Oct 7 changed all that, or at least has made it extremely difficult. The Saudi government was always going to struggle to sell its policy of normalisation of relations with Israel to public opinion in the region (and its regional influence is very important to the Saudis) as the world watches the Israeli slaughter of Palestinian men, women, and children, (mostly women and children) that has now currently become impossible.
And yet they couldn’t win a twenty year war against Afghanistan, I don’t call that value for money.
US military hardware is always going to cost loads more than that from China Russia, because the latter two countries use state industries to build theirs, whereas the US arms manufacturing industry is completely capitalist. So spending more doesn't necessarily translate to the US having better military equipment, it just means it costs more. And as for 'military superiority', we've seen time and again how the mighty USA gets its arse kicked by far less well-equipped fighters, wherever it decides to create a conflict. So all that hardware is little more than sabre rattling; the US can't actually use all that against a comparable opponent, because it would just get its arse kicked even more. It can only ever really engage in bigger wars by proxy; see Ukraine for the latest example.
And as for economic superiority; this is another myth. Whilst the US does have a large manufacturing base, much of those products are consumed within the US itself (apart from the military hardware of course). The USA, like the rest of the world, is now increasingly reliant on raw materials and products controlled and produced by Chinese controlled entities. China has mining and production industries across the globe. And companies don't work the way they used to; you don't get so many wholly US owned corporations and conglomerates any more, they tend to be owned by multiple entities globally. China has been quietly buying up large chunks of al sorts of industries for decades. So the label may say 'USA', but the money behind it is from all over, especially China.
So getting back to Starmer; given that UK manufacturing is effectively all but dead, bar a few very small specialist industries, and we can't afford US imports, what is Starmer's plan to help the UK become less reliant on foreign imports (and the related economic control)?