Forum menu
But you don’t seem to know what Marx actually said
I've read Marx; saddle soreness mainly...
Marx talked about socialism as a step towards communism in The Communist Manifesto.
I'd agree with Ernie that the most appropriate (and common) use of Marx' work is in relation to an analysis of capitalism and markets.
Marx talked about socialism as a step towards communism in The Communist Manifesto.
That's how Lenin saw it but Marx talked about two stages of communism.
Ah I think that I may be misremembering section 2 or 3 (the one that looks at different types of socialist ideas) in the communist manifesto. In my mind, they drew a similar conclusion to that which you're attributing to Lenin? Wasn't the earlier stage of communism some type of socialism (even if not explicitly called that?)
social democracy is not a form of socialism. ~This is really basic stuff.
Just because you don't see it as a form/variant of socialism doesn't mean that it isn't. A lot of people feel it is a form/variant which is clear from a quick Google but guess they are all wrong and you are right, again 🙂
Wasn’t the earlier stage of communism some type of socialism (even if not explicitly called that?)
He didn't differentiate... Marxist socialism and communism were the same thing. He critiqued other forms of socialism such as the utopians I referenced earlier so it's true that according to Marx, they are different to communism.
Ah right, maybe I need to reread! I don't find his writing particularly engaging tbf. David Harvey has an excellent series of videos working through Das Kapital which is how I accessed that book. I've read The Communist Manifesto a few times, got a hell of a lot of other stuff to read currently though!
https://twitter.com/AngusMacTout/status/1763870858358001889?t=AvU0RWWTsv-5nKpcwJ9z7g&s=19
How to not fix an economy.
I'm guessing her mum didn't have her own central bank.
Meanwhile, Rachel tries to run her household budget as if it was in the hands of a British government: “In order to balance the books I took my car off the road. Now I can’t get to work, and my car has depreciated hugely, but my bills are 15% lower. Next month I’ll turn off the heating and they’ll be another 20% less. Pretty soon we’ll be rich.”
Let's just hope this is to keep all those that don't understand how a countries economy and bank/currency works (95% ? of people) happy and not scare the horses as she must really know how it works so once in power will not be trying to 'balance the books' in her own office.
Wow, even with a generic picture statement she's getting a slating, i dare say Reeves, who has a masters in economics and 25 years experience in that game may know slightly more about it than most of us, who tend to use google as the way to solve all problems 🤣
i dare say Reeves, who has a masters in economics and 25 years experience in that game may know slightly more about it than most of us, who tend to use google as the way to solve all problems 🤣
Isn't that the problem though?
This is yet another example of total dishonesty by a senior politician. Reeves knows damn well that the role of a Chancellor of the Exchequer is nothing like her mum going through the shopping receipts on the kitchen table.
The whole suggestion that running a sovereign economy is like a family household budget is a myth originally made popular by Margaret Thatcher and perpetuated now by "centrists" in the Labour Party.
Reeves, as you point out, knows exactly what she is talking about.
And again the point is missed, shes not talking to people who have a vague understanding of how economies really work, shes talking to the other 90% of the electorate, you know the ones who might elect her party into power.
For people who claim to have such a detailed grasp of economics you all seem to have little understanding of how to get elected.
And again the point is missed,
I think you have, actually. She has the opportunity to stop perpetuating a myth but has chosen to do the same as Keir and essentially say nothing at all.
you all seem to have little understanding of how to get elected.
I am not disputing that telling lies can be an extremely effective way of winning an election, just look at the 'need to clear the deficit' lies in the 2010 general election, or Starmer's '10 pledges' lies to win the Labour leadership election, as good examples.
What I am disputing are the lies, not how effective they are.
What myth?
As for the story (which you can't read from the link), it was an anecdote from her early years to simplify a complex issue, not sure how balancing the books is a myth in any walk of life, from household to countries?!
No I stand by my assertion that she knows trying to explain complex economics to people that actually do struggle to balance their household budget is not going to get your party elected. Thanks for proving my point.
I know it would be nice if politicians could be honest and explain realities but after years of ever growing populist governments that's not realistic. To quote that film, you want the truth, you can't handle the truth.
The labour movement’s role was supposed to be to empower the working classes including through education and understanding. It’s a fundamental betrayal when the Labour Party instead conspires in keeping them ignorant and taking advantage of their ignorance. Reeves has been telling us for some time what she will do in government; we would do well to listen instead of pretending otherwise.
No I stand by my assertion that she knows trying to explain complex economics to people that actually do struggle to balance their household budget is not going to get your party elected. Thanks for proving my point.
I think it's great that you're close enough to her to know what she thinks, and aren't a no-mark sounding off.
I'm less contemptuous of the electorate than some on here, and believe that a leading politician saying that economies don't work like household budgets would be listened to, if only because it would be so different to the usual nonsense
Christ, if a statement could sound like it came straight out of 1984 it’s that 😂
Very funny. I wonder what Orwell would have made of the 2024 Labour Party.
it was an anecdote from her early years to simplify a complex issue,
It's a complex issue and Ms Reeves needs to find a way of showing the nuance, not dumb it down and patronise everyone. Using simpletons (Thatchers) approach got us in this mess and those who want to run the show should be pointing out that this is why we are where we are.
Yes heads may spin but showing your working is something we were all taught and need to be reminded of.
Its in the Telegraph
the readers opinions aren't for changing 😉
The household budget analogy is a populist simple answer to a complex question. You only ever create more populists with more alluring simple answers by adopting their answers. The most important point however is that their simple answers never work; the household budget analogy has made 99% of us (and virtually all Labour supporters) significantly worse off.
The absolute vapid irony of so called progressives joining in with the continuation of the failed Thatcher era economics and ideology is the most painful thing I've witnessed.
Just because Labour are doing it doesn't make it correct or honest.
Give your heads a wobble; spend 15 minutes looking at what has gone wrong in the last 40 years and what the basic mechanics are needed to address it.
The 'complex" economics guff that we keep hearing on here is also total distraction to make excuses for Labour's inadequate logic.
How difficult it is to tell people money can't be created by the private sector? (With the caveat that commercial banks create loans with a liability for your mortgages etc. under the license of the central bank.)
It's oh so complex. Dozy left-wingers will never get their head around it apparently.
Let's leave it to the right to exploit for military spending shall we?
Good God Labour are such pushovers, you don't get genuine Tories fearing their political choices.
Here it is: no useful growth or better services until Reeves pivots on her utter delusional economics.
It's a simple choice.
sure how balancing the books is a myth in any walk of life, from household to countries?
1) because it means no public money is left in the economy to spend. You've taxed out (removed) what you've put in.
2) how often are surpluses run in Western governments running Fiat systems? And on the odd occasion they do - follow the economic contraction. (Etc Clinton.)
I do feel like concerns about Tufton Street, Russian dark money etc. distract from the more fundamental corruption at the heart of British politics, which is the near total identity, in terms of interests, agenda and personnel, of our political and business elites. They don’t even see anything wrong with it, wouldn’t occur to them.
And in other news from the FT
“UK public trust in political parties collapses to 12%”.
No shit sherlock.
I had to look up sinecure, and how is this a good thing?.
Non exec directorships are usually used to reward your pals or as a payment for servuces rendered ie a bribe but promised when you do something and paid later.
Legalised corruption
As always, follow the money. When a company wants to pay someone £50K a year for one days work you have to ask what exactly are they getting for that money. When the person is ex government that is not hard to guess what is going on.
Pure lies from the Labour camp. Total lazy repetition of how it all works. And none of it is good for anyone.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1765301726565797934?t=b1pVEo25tmnrotco5KqYsA&s=19
Arghhhhhhhhhhhh . Whenever I hear the phrase “maxed out the credit card” or “balance the books” I have to remember that these utter ****ing ****s are relying on the fact that the average voter actually believes them.
What a day to be alive - even the BBC is agreeing with rone!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68494168
Scroll to the bottom of the article for commentary on 'maxing out credit cards' 😃
Lol at you!
Andy Verity of the BBC is a damn good financial journalist and he also agrees. In fact his own research led the BBC to challenge their own Journos to question the national debt in house-hold terms. Which is why you will see references to it in BBC articles.
I mean it's not even remotely complex or controversial to say that the UK Government owns a central bank and has its own current account - from which all spending flows.
A house-hold doesn't own a bank nor issues currency.
Back to the piece - Labour are that shoddy these days they don't realise they are pulling from David Cameron 2008.
"Labour has maxed out Britain’s credit card, says Cameron"November 9, 2008
Can't beat a bit of Tory-speak to generate your tag-lines from.
Maybe people will catch up soon, and start to realise that all this tax and spend, fiscal responsibility, financial black holes all strangely lead to a disintegrating state.
I mean you can't take the budget seriously - because they've got themselves in a mess equating tiny tax cuts with a power house economy.
For the Tories it looked like this was the case for a while during the big growth years when in fact all they've done is sell off state created assets to a few lucky people (created for free.)
Who'd have thought that selling something that is free to the government would generate a bit of money?
they don’t realise they are pulling from David Cameron 2008
I’m sure they are well aware that they are turning the Tory campaigning sound bites back on them.
I’m sure they are well aware that they are turning the Tory campaigning sound bites back on them.
So using well-trodden false Tory sound bites is good for whom?
Constantly trying to explain away Labour's appalling adherence to Thatcherism is not working Kelvin.
There is no excuse you can use that leads to a positive outcome.
You do realise people believe this crap because is repeated over and over without criticism?
I may have missed it but all Starmer has to say is that we will keep the non-dom change as that was out proposal but will use the money as we planned to improve public services and I don't think many people would be turned off by that.
That’s the trap kerley. Labour can’t promise to stop a tax cut for workers without being open to being painted as the party of tax risers (by the party that is still raising our taxes). They will have to make other changes to their plans. And move attention to their other tax changes aimed at those with capital and wealth. Which they may not have time for now, if the election ends up being called soon. A very smart political move by Hunt.
You do realise people believe this crap because is repeated over and over without criticism?
Of course. And while your attempts to change the narrative with your own repetition are admirable, Labour need to win an election, not win an argument. They won the argument in 2019.
A smart political move.
Labour could just come out and say that the Tories have ****ed over the economy for the last 14 years, it will take time and money to put it right, either back us or accept a Tory led dystopian future.
Now is possibly a good time for a bit of brutal honesty
It is not a very good trap and very easy for Starmer to counter if he wanted to as polling suggests more people (55%) want improved public services over the (30%) who wanted tax cuts.
He continues to give the impression that he is happy with the stuff the tories are doing as he will just continue to do it, useless ****.
Of course. And while your attempts to change the narrative with your own repetition are admirable, Labour need to win an election, not win an argument. They won the argument in 2019.
The repetition is coming from the Labour Party. Not me.
2019 adhered to Labour's fiscal rules and were not in any way related to the things I'm talking about.
Labour winning an election based on Thatcherism - how dumb is that? Take your blinkers off.
Labour election co-ordinator Pat McFadden is asked how Labour's economic policy differs from the Tories. He is unable to list a single way in which they differ.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1765523307573514343?s=20
“Prospective MPs with lobbying day jobs are introducing their clients to senior Labour figures – and boasting about it.
Labour put lobbyists on the ballot……..and big business is the winner
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1765640290990231858?t=ZDROZ9kLfJ2XTQZEaMyw2A&s=19
Spot on.
Backed into a corner.
https://twitter.com/DavidMcNab17/status/1765746667683221725?t=HATjuYxIv3TwVZjE1YvS0g&s=19
Labour election co-ordinator Pat McFadden is asked how Labour’s economic policy differs from the Tories. He is unable to list a single way in which they differ.
You're right he says absolutely nothing.
Just magically jumps to growth as an explanation 🤣
From the BBC
Labour now intends to pay for its NHS and school breakfast plans through future savings to public spending if it wins power, Rachel Reeves has said
Lmfao. Future savings ??
If only there existed a regular and solid mechanism for spending whatever is available to purchase - by the UK government...
What an absolute terrible mess Labour have got themselves in with their utterly stupid fiscal rules & pay-fors.
I said this would happen a while ago. That, if you try and play the pretend game you get caught out irrespective of talking about fully costed. Tories are much better at lying. So let's not go there
All this because they don't want to say how things are really financed.
Pretending that taxes fund spending when everything is in a two decade or so decline is just futile when there's also effectively no growth either.
If you can find the money now (which you can) then future 'borrowing' is horseshit of the highest Reeves order.
Just hit the button and fix the country! And you can have my vote too if you get this bit right.
Grace Blakeley is always a good listen but she still believes the private sector funds the state. If she could deal with that she would be unstoppable.
Why she doesn't end up on QT more is beyond me. She'd annihilate Kate Andrews.
She's properly articulate.
The repetition is coming from the Labour Party. Not me
Says the man who's written 6 out of the 8 most recent posts..........
Gordon Brown likens Starmer's plans for slimmed down cabinet to rule under Chairman Mao
"I doubt, as John said, if the other 20 members of the cabinet would be very happy if they were told that they were outside this inner circle."
Yeah but Sir Keir Starmer and no one else gets to choose who is in the cabinet so I can't see it being a huge problem for him.
No one who is aware of Starmer's behaviour since becoming Labour leader, the expulsions, the intolerance of any dissent, and the direct interference into the selection of Labour candidates, should be surprised by this proposal.
It has always been reasonable to assume that Starmer will govern the country in a very similar way to how he has ruled the Labour Party.
This country is completely ****ed, isn't it?
This country is completely ****, isn’t it?
Yup... the problem is there's no good party to vote for, so essentially you have to vote for the least worst option.
It's backwards.
I suppose if you think long term, then that should technially begin to steer the ship in a better direction.
Another potential U turn on its way. This time increased workers rights as the 'businesses' don't like the sound of them. Yep, that sounds like the Labour Party doesn't it.
What is he scared of this time, you would think increased workers rights would be an easy sell to the electorate being that the majority are workers.
As the Tories get worse Starmer seems use this as a function of his own logic too.
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1767324541565411638?t=NJK9SXbFB2qDu8PnaxMtOQ&s=19
This daft man is obsessed with the word Reform ... 'cos that will fix a road, hospital and housing crisis.
Labour and Starmer aren’t popular – but the Tories are even less so
"Starmer has arguably become a drag on the Labour brand, with his own rating having been consistently lower than his party’s over most of the last year.
Looking more closely within the results shows that there is also notably less specific enthusiasm for Starmer than Labour. Among those intending to vote for Labour, 18% have a “very” favourable opinion of the party, while just 9% say the same of Starmer.
Since early 2021, almost without interruption, the public have generally said that Keir Starmer has been doing badly as Labour leader – by 52% to 33% in our most recent tracker poll. "
Shocking when you consider that for obvious reasons the right-wing press has treated Keir Starmer with kid gloves.
Shocking also is that Labour's "popularity" is so dependent on the current Tory government's unpopularity, something which by definition will undoubtedly change dramatically after this year's general election.
so essentially you have to vote for the least worst option.
this is all two party democratic politics ever
Shocking also is that Labour’s “popularity” is so dependent on the current Tory government’s unpopularity, something which by definition will undoubtedly change dramatically after this year’s general election.
Does beg the question - why has he gotten 'worse' with every step of the political trajectory?
I just think he's lucky to be able to behave like this in the face of such a mess.
Something......something.....growth .......something ......something....private investment .....something .........something......enterprise ........something.....something.......reform .............something....something........markets .....something....something.....business investment
Starmer hasn't a ****ing clue....Reeves hasn't a ****ing clue.......absolutely no ****ing mention of government investment.........but private sector investment will save the country...........we're going to get more ****ed.
Good article in todays guardian by Frances Ryan
Yabba dabba "wealth fund."
'cos we need private money apparently to do anything. Wow. Wonder how anything ever started then?
These total goons.
Good article in todays guardian by Frances Ryan
Yes I saw that. Can there be any more of an on-point argument?
Starmer hasn’t a * clue….Reeves hasn’t a * clue…….absolutely no * mention of government investment………but private sector investment will save the country………..we’re going to get more *.
It's totally ridiculous that they're relying on the decaying private sector to generate the growth for the private sector.
this is all two party democratic politics ever
Whilst true, I don't think the choice has ever been so bad. Tory 2023 or Tory 2010, take your pick.
He who shall not be named might have been a fud but at least he offered something genuinely different.
Starmer’s currently standing in a lava field with a good number of those who voted for him demanding to know why he hasn't brought the balance they craved.
I have to honest with people - Rachel Reeves.
Labour will not bail out bankrupt councils, the shadow chancellor has said.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-will-not-bail-out-bankrupt-councils-rachel-reeves-says-13091728
Does anyone know how this differs from current Tory government policy?
Labour will not bail out bankrupt councils, the shadow chancellor has said.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-will-not-bail-out-bankrupt-councils-rachel-reeves-says-13091728
Does anyone know how this differs from current Tory government policy?
Read the entire article and she does not say that at all anywhere within the quotes they apportion to her, maybe worthwhile reporting their inaccuracy via the website.
Does anyone know how this differs from current Tory government policy?
I heard some slippery centrist commentary yesterday explain that they don't really mean it.
I can't remember exactly the reasoning. It didn't make any sense.
Read the entire article
You won't be surprised to learn that I did of course read the whole article before providing a link to it.
This is what the article claims was Rachel Reeves response to the question concerning bankrupt council:
Ms Reeves said: "I'm under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that I will inherit if I become chancellor later this year and I need to be honest with people."
She added: "My focus is on reforming the planning system to get Britain building again...
"If we do those things, we will bring in the tax revenue and we will be able to invest in public services again. There's no shortcuts. That is the way."
So I repeat the question - does anyone know how this differs from current Tory government policy?
I don't think relaxing planning laws differs from current Tory policy.
In what way will a Labour government help bankrupt councils that is different to what is currently happening?
It's a fair and reasonable question to ask, and it is quite a serious problem.
My focus is on reforming the planning system to get Britain building again…
The magic 'reform' solution ...
Especially when the reforming will be the councils job who won't have it in their list of things they already cannot afford to do.
Fortunatly the construction industry and developers are know for their honesty and integrity, so there won't be any problems with them pushing beyond the boundries of acceptable practice while we wait for all those extra taxes to roll in and fund the agencies that keep them in check.
It is almost like she is just making it all up isn't it.
You won’t be surprised to learn that I did of course read the whole article before providing a link to it
Can you highlight where she said "Labour will not bail out bankrupt councils, the shadow chancellor has said.", which you highlighted in bold with the original article?
I already have - I copied and pasted her reply.
Nowhere does Rachel Reeves claim that she will do anything to help bankrupt councils, when she is asked the question directly, beyond apparently "reforming the planning system".
Do you call reforming the planning system "bailing out bankrupt councils"?
And I am assuming that you don't know the answer to my question concerning how this differs from current Tory government policy?
I am not sure that repeating the same question as argee contributes much to the discussion MCTD. I already answered it. See my previous post.
A more useful contribution might be if you can reveal how Labour policy on bankrupt councils differs from Tory policy on the matter?
As I said, it is a reasonable question relating to a very serious issue which costs a lot of ordinary working people a lot of money and results in failing services.
A more useful contribution might be if you can reveal how Labour policy on bankrupt councils differs from Tory policy on the matter?
I doubt anyone on here has a comprehensive understanding of what the tories policy was/is and what the Labour policy will be when/if they get into government, you're asking a question that has no answer yet..
Again, if you're quoting papers, it's bad form to use an article that uses misquotes like this, i've complained about the article now to the news agency involved.
"A more useful contribution might be if you can reveal how Labour policy on bankrupt councils differs from Tory policy on the matter?"
A record 19 councils in England have been handed multimillion-pound government bailout agreements totalling £2.5bn to prevent them collapsing into bankruptcy in the next few months, in a move likely to trigger a new round of public asset sales.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has agreed that the councils can take the highly unusual step of using funds raised by loans, or the sale of assets such as land and buildings, to plug holes in day-to-day revenue accounts.
The agreements, known as capitalisation directions, are not grants or bailouts in the conventional sense of a cash injection but an arrangement that allows councils to bypass normal accounting rules to convert capital sums obtained by loans or selling assets into revenue.
That's the Tory policy then, the councils can support themselves by borrowing more or selling off publicly owned assets.
Reeves, as quoted above, has stated that they'll invest in public services but without really being clear how or when this would be achieved.
So they're clearly different, unless you are assuming that what Reeves means in her politicians non-answer is identical to the current approach..
She said this:
She added: "My focus is on reforming the planning system to get Britain building again...
"If we do those things, we will bring in the tax revenue and we will be able to invest in public services again. There's no shortcuts. That is the way."
So she has everything back to front (again) and she claims there are no shortcuts.
She could simply just pay/inject cash for them as Chancellor using the regular channels of government money. It's simply a political choice to not do that.
So she believes : reform = more tax receipts = then can spend.
Total toss, and the wrong way around for how government funding really works.
Agreed - a very different approach to the Tory one. Reeves is saying jam tomorrow and the Tories are saying you can have your jam today but you'll need to swap it for your toast.
I am not sure that repeating the same question as argee contributes much to the discussion MCTD. I already answered it. See my previous post.
You made a big play on a headline that was not supported by the article. You then doubled down by quoting a part of the article that clearly doesn't support the headline, or your own repetition of it's claim.
Reeves may turn out out to be a worse chancellor than Kwarteng, but you have failed to provide evidence to back up your claim.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has agreed that the councils can take the highly unusual step of using funds raised by loans, or the sale of assets such as land and buildings, to plug holes in day-to-day revenue accounts.
Is it really highly unusual - I thought that local councils had been selling off assets for years to plug holes in day-to-day revenue accounts, and also investing in commercial ventures precisely to generate much needed revenue?
Is Labour's policy really to stop local authorities from selling off any assets should they become technically bankrupt? I agree that it would be different to current Tory policy but when has Labour suggested that it would do that?
And although I don't understand how "reforming the planning system" would help councils which have issued Section 114 notices how is that different to the Tory policy position of reforming the planning system to allow more green field/belt developments?
My own council has issued Section 114 notices on three occasions in the last couple of years. Initially the somewhat corrupt Labour controlled council got into an extremely serious financial situation by spending huge amounts of council tax payers money on failed business ventures.
After the first Section 114 notice Croydon Council was forced to sell their failed business ventures at huge losses and they were prohibited from spending any money on anything beyond their statutory obligations. And since then they have imposed massive hikes in council tax during a cost of living crisis.
When and where has Labour said that they would do things differently in cases of Section 114 notices? With a Shadow Chancellor who has made such a huge issue over the claim of Labour being more fiscally prudent than the Tories it is reasonable to be sceptical that they would.