Forum menu
"I still firmly believe that even though they haven’t spent even a day in government, Starmer and Reeves are at the centre of all that is wrong with the UK, and more worryingly, the entire planet."
Thank goodness someone understands, comrade
I often wonder if Rachel Reeves wakes up every morning wondering what she can do to futher erode normal people's aspirations for a better life for them or their kids. She's like a policital grim reaper, on a mission to squeeze every last ounce of hope and optimism out of an already depressed and cynical population. I despise her quite frankly, she's the very worst example of a machine politician.
If she can help deliver half of what she outlined in her speech, she'll bring plenty of people hope.
If she can help deliver half of what she outlined in her speech, she’ll bring plenty of people hope.
Come-on we've been here several times and you've enjoyed the defense of the dwindling morsels
I'm not feeling it. You must be on your hands and knees looking for political crumbs Kelvin.
Neo-Thatcherism, only there's nothing left to sell.
I still firmly believe that even though they haven’t spent even a day in government, Starmer and Reeves are at the centre of all that is wrong with the UK, and more worryingly, the entire planet.
Laughable analysis apart from the grimness on offer.
You don't need to exaggerate the point either. Because no one ever said that.
I often wonder if Rachel Reeves wakes up every morning wondering what she can do to futher erode normal people’s aspirations for a better life for them or their kids. She’s like a policital grim reaper, on a mission to squeeze every last ounce of hope and optimism out of an already depressed and cynical population. I despise her quite frankly, she’s the very worst example of a machine politician.
Yep. And I can't for the life of me see any defence in anything she's ever said.
For a start how do you defend anyone that believes the private sector funds the government? That's a starting point for economic illiteracy. (What would she have done in the pandemic I wonder?)
And she still can't say how the growth will appear. No plan. Nothing.
Here is her hero quote to the BBC:
"Unless you get growth...you're always going to have to make almost impossible trade offs", Ms Reeves told the BBC."
Total horseshit. What she even talking about?
"In her speech, the shadow chancellor is expected to confirm new details about Labour's approach to controls on borrowing, the setting of interest rates by the Bank of England and how it would return the economy to long term growth"
We all wait for this one.
Maybe labour should be called Reform too? They're using the word a lot.
"And that’s just on the issue of people living on unemployment benefits without pointing out that there was also no NHS waiting lists, less inequality, less crime, no pointless foreign wars, etc etc"
Waiting lists maybe but the rest?
Equality was a long way from what we have today (unless you specifically mean equality of wealth), we were engaged in an anti-communist war in Oman and Northern Ireland was at the height of the troubles. As for crime, there was still plenty of gang violence and unreported abuse going on.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1770168954591592630?t=8S9IFSAQI-CnYqt8N0Wqkw&s=19
Good Christ.
Not just stupid but duplicating stupid.
One simple fact: if government debt is falling then money is being drained out of the economy.
I'm totally convinced that Rachel Reeves doesn't understand anything about our economy such that she is borrowing from a totally flawed and destructive analysis.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1770170631402721377?t=3J3Nd4DlzFFP-DeTIdF42w&s=19
If the actual aim is to get the budget into balance then the economy will stall because day to day spending still needs extra government money.
Appalling.
People will be along in a second to tell us how copying Conservative economic policy is actually good for Labour and the economy.
(Note: successful economies don't run balanced budgets.)
What's really frustrating is they don't have to do any of this.
A cursory google provides plenty of articles that show the 1970's were also shit for the NHS, low staff numbers, unprecedented industrial action and multiple layers of additional bureaucracy as well as climbing mortality for a multitude of ailments.
This is the tory party Rwanda bill that labour have said they will not vote on/abstain from tomorrow, the Labour Party under Keir Starmer are a total ****ing busted flush,
Ah the much loved Tory mantra which people believe because, well because it must true as everyone keeps repeating it
Dunno about you, but I lived through it, so the mantra gets repeated because unfortunately it happens to be true.
[ duplicate post removed - forum pretty borked today ]
“Rwanda bill that labour have said they will not vote on/abstain from tomorrow”
A quick explainer about that:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68599308
TLDR: the Lords will seek to amend, again.
There’s a majority for this bill in the Commons, and against the amendments… the Lords are can only really seek to improve not throw out the legislation (in effect… delay, delay, delay). You need a new government, and a change in the balance of MPs, if you want this policy ultimately blocked or removed.
As for crime, there was still plenty of gang violence and unreported abuse going on.
You took the comment "less crime" as meaning "no crime"?
Yeah there was crime in the 70s, and the 60s were famous for the gang violence of the Krays and the Richardsons, but crime shot up in the 80s under Thatcher - despite their claim of being the party of law and order.
Which is not in the least bit surprising since there is a globally recognised link between the levels of crime and level of inequality in societies.
And no, people didn't have to wait months/years for hospital appointments. It wasn't even necessary to make an appointment with your GP.
Obviously the Tory narrative concerning the 70s, which is used to justify neoliberalism/Thatcherism is too deeply ingrained ingrained in some people's minds to expect people to accept an opposing narrative, especially since "new" Labour goes along with it, so I am not going to change the minds of those who believe it.
But it does intrigue me when those who accept the Tory neoliberal narrative don't seem perplexed at the sight of headlines claiming the lowest levels of unemployment since the 1970s. Unemployment levels has always been seen as a particularly useful gauge of the health of a society. Although not when it is inconvenient apparently.
Dunno about you, but I lived through it, so the mantra gets repeated because unfortunately it happens to be true.
Yeah but that could be simply a reflection of your own personal political point of view - obviously not everyone has the same political views.
Or it could be an example of the "Mandela Effect"
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-mandela-effect-4589394
Yeah but that could be simply a reflection of your own personal political point of view – obviously not everyone has the same political views.
What is it about voting Green that would make me have such a reactionary viewpoint?
So it's the Mandela Effect then?
I have no idea what your personal political views are but as far as I am concerned the 1980s were far worse than the 1970s, although obviously that is coloured by my political views - you might think the 80s were a great decade.
The reason it is the 70s and not the 80s which is given as an example is because the victors write history. And Thatcher was definitely the winner. She claimed that her greatest achievement of all was New Labour, that's how comprehensive her political victory was.
Although we are obviously still currently paying the price of that victory.
So yeah, no one uses the 80s as an example because it simply doesn't suit the Tories to do so.
FWIW I wasn't even born in the 70s but your claim that people enjoyed more equality is completely untrue. Maybe better if you were a white heterosexual male but otherwise, nah.
Let's not forget we were also the "sick man of Europe". Or was that, the IMF bailout and the winter of discontent just more examples of Tory misinformation?
Yeah.. My prediction is labour will win a reasonably comfortable majority in the next election.
But it won't be because Labour are good, it will be because they are not quite as evil/stupid as the conservatives.
So it won't really be a win, as such as it will be avoiding a larger disaster.
your claim that people enjoyed more equality is completely untrue.
I don't 'own' that claim.
"Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries. Today, it is the second most unequal, after the US."
I am frankly staggered that on supposedly "lefty" STW anyone should argue that the UK has not become less equal in the last 45 years.
Let’s not forget we were also the “sick man of Europe”. Or was that, the IMF bailout and the winter of discontent just more examples of Tory misinformation?
Yup. The "sick man of Europe" line is very similar to the "Broken Britian" line which was peddled by the Tories between 2007 and 2010 when they formed a government with the LibDems.
But perhaps you believe that it really was a case of "Broken Britian" until we had a Tory prime minister?
Remembering that there were economic difficulties in the UK in the 1970s, and there very obviously were, does not mean that there were no economic difficulties in the 1980s, or the 1990s, or the 2000s.
And yes the classic "but Labour went cap in hand to the IMF" which is regularly trotted out is an excellent example of Tory misinformation.
Firstly the reason it happened was not because social-democracy had failed in the 1970s and needed to be replaced with neoliberalism, as the Thatcherite Tories would have you believe, but because, among other things, oil prices quadrupled overnight.
And secondly the reason that a Labour government went to the IMF is quite simply because Labour won the general election - documents released in 2010 show that had the Tories won the general election they had planned to do exactly the same thing.
But you won't hear a Tory politician admit that so perhaps it isn't true?
Let’s not forget we were also the “sick man of Europe”. Or was that, the IMF bailout and the winter of discontent just more examples of Tory misinformation?
Yes but it's only half the story. The UK were already racked up in foreign debt at that point. (Due to a complex swap arrangement.)
Spill over from Bretton Woods (reliance on the dollar) and the UK only used half of the loan. Technically impossible to happen now and massively weaponsied for Tory value.
It's so fascinating progressives keep using simple Tory attack lines to make their points.
History is normally more complex than just taking a Tory trope and using it in support of Reeves/Starmer becoming more wedded to monetarism.
Have I got this the correct way around - we desperately want to get rid of the Tories because they are oh so painful and ruinous but we're now in a new paradigm where because Labour are doing demonstrably failing Conservative policy then it's a good thing?
WTF - only on STW forums.
Just keep voting for the Tories then! We have the natural cycle of where their policy gets you currently playing out now!
Why even bother going back to the 1980s? There's nothing to sell off to make the Thatcher thing work because the state doesn't have the assets that it had.
Crack on - the Centrist super cycle again doing God's work for the Tories.
Scotland Yard investigating Croydon East Labour vote rigging?
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1769767810727620987?t=XDA040Fq2vdB_XSfbi-6Gg&s=19
... Goes without any fuss these days.
"Have I got this the correct way around – we desperately want to get rid of the Tories because they are oh so painful and ruinous but we’re now in a new paradigm where because Labour are doing demonstrably failing Conservative policy then it’s a good thing?
WTF – only on STW forums."
I think that's how your views are distorting it in your head.
I agree with mattyfez, we're headed for a smaller disaster, because the electorate are too ill-informed to be trusted to vote for what the country really needs at this point. Something Labour seem to understand and accept, even if some of you on here don't like it.
I agree with mattyfez, we’re headed for a smaller disaster, because the electorate are too ill-informed to be trusted to vote for what the country really needs at this point. Something Labour seem to understand and accept, even if some of you on here don’t like it.
I don't like out because it is pointless. Being in power but doing pretty much the same things with no attempt to make it better and if Reeves is to be believed that will never change. Those ill informed voters need to see some positive change as they will always be ill informed so will just vote tory again as they saw no difference under Labour so what was the point.
Has Starmer or Labour's popularity increased each time he has dropped one of his pledges - If the answer is no, which it is, then why did he drop them as they were the type of thinking that is needed.
Scotland Yard investigating Croydon East Labour vote rigging?
The Labour Party culture in Croydon is deeply corrupt. From the dodgy business deals which helped to achieve bankruptcy and spiralling council tax increases, to the scandal covered by ITN of properties unfit for human habitation, to the hacking of journalists emails to use illegally obtained information to expel party members.
What makes all this particularly worrying is that the two people most responsible for this Labour Croydon culture are extremely close to Keir Starmer, and have huge influence over him.
Firstly David Evans the person chosen by Starmer to be Labour Party General Secretary was the man who masterminded the successful campaign to defeat the Tories in Croydon, a borough which they had always controlled, and replace them with Labour. Evans is undoubtedly a brilliant tactician who has Starmer's ear.
And secondly Steve Reed the Labour MP for Croydon North has an extremely close association with Morgan McSweeney, the man who pulls Starmer's strings, going back to the days when Reed was leader of Lambeth council - long before Starmer was even an MP. It is reasonable to assume that McSweeney had discussions with Reed before approaching Starmer to ask him if he would stand as leader. Reed's influence over both the Croydon Labour Party and Keir Starmer is indisputable.
I consider Labour rule in Croydon to be a microcosm of Labour rule in Westminster, and a window to provide an insight into how Labour will govern the UK.
You are right about the lack of interest in the failings of Labour under Starmer compared to failings that might have occurred under Corbyn.
The centrists position is quite clear, as seen on this thread - Labour, and more importantly its leader, must not be critised. If you do you are basically saying that Labour are worse than the Tories.
But on the other hand if the Labour leader provides a vision which is significantly different to that of the Tories then he must be relentlessly critised, ridiculed, and condemned. See the Corbyn thread for proof.
Thanks for the backstory on that. Not something I'm familiar with.
I was reading all the guff from Reeves about supply-side reform - that's the same old Thatcherite guff which includes cutting taxes etc.
the solution lies in wide-ranging supply-side reform to drive investment, remove the blockages constraining our productive capacity, and fashion a new economic settlement, drawing on evolutions in economic thought.”
Wtf?
Does anyone buy any of this? It's total junk words.
'Fashion a new economic settlement...'
???
Okay Ernie - on my evening tube list!
@ernielynch and @rone It would appear that it's a choice between blue or red authoritarians/populists/fasicts* at the next election. I'm not enthused and I can hear my staunch Socialist Londoner grandparents spinning rather quickly in their graves.
*Delete as your political view dictates.
Yes Sandwich I'm totally confused why it is going in the opposite direction of what is needed.
It's the exact opposite of pragmatic and will solve very little.
We've been truly stitched up. (Although I've never been keen on Starmer - total lack of political conviction but somehow gets James O'Brien and Ian Dunt very excited, and half of STW.)
He's going to be the working example of why people say politicians are all the same in terms of solutions. (Without the hysteria of the Tories granted.)
But I can feel the excuses piling on early - 'the Tories had 14 years to do this... Starmer can't do owt in 5 years!'
I give in. Quotes are buggered.
if you've five minutes you could look at what Reeves actually said in yesterday's speech about a decade of national renewal
"it is evident that Lawson was wrong not only in application but in theory. First, because his microeconomic reforms were hitched to an inadequate view of the appropriate policy levers, assuming that the state had little role in shaping a market economy and that the people and places that matter to a country’s success are few in number.
The outcome was an unprecedented surge in inequality between places and people which endures today. The decline or disappearance of whole industries, leaving enduring social and economic costs "
...
Since 2010, economic policymaking has been characterised by two major failings. First, austerity, then instability."
...or you could just listen to what people you tend to agree with say about it I guess.
"The centrists position is quite clear, as seen on this thread – Labour, and more importantly its leader, must not be critised"
As a centrist, I am bitterly disappointed with Starmer and the direction the party has taken, and have said so on here a few times.
But I'd sooner have a Labour/Starmer government than a Tory government, which is tbe bottom line for me.
The vehemently anti-Starmer KernowDamo covers it in his video today:
https://twitter.com/DEhnts/status/1770385725264949252?t=D733paTY3TlneBJqRG_gvA&s=19
This unfunded things has gotten out of hand to the detriment of all of us now.
Instead of debating what we could spend money on - what is urgent. Silly politicians have laid the groundwork for the unfunded/funded nonsense that will hold us back.
God, this is all so bloody ridiculous.
if you’ve five minutes you could look at what Reeves actually said in yesterday’s speech about a decade of national renewal
I've read it - it's just meandering capitalism lip-service but I acknowledge your point.
Since 2010, economic policymaking has been characterised by two major failings. First, austerity, then instability.”
Can't you see they're just saying we're not doing austerity but actually we're still doing austerity using the same macro economic levers the Tories enjoy?
It's a object lesson in how to pretend 'we're' doing things a bit differently.
Reeves can't even string a logically clear progressive plan together.
Can you tell me where the growth will come from if it's clear then? I can't see it.
Reeves' speech hit list
BoE independence tick
OBR tick
Unfunded Tax cuts/spending tick
Debt sustainability tick (omg it costs to x percent to service debt. How will we ever go on? )
Reduce Debt tick
Reform = growth tick
There's nothing in it at all remotely clear or useful to a voter who wants stuff fixing asap. Can you imagine if Labour talked in those terms instead of second hand city speak?
I'd love to know what an average voter thinks of that speech...
Instead of debating what we could spend money on – what is urgent. Silly politicians have laid the groundwork for the unfunded/funded nonsense that will hold us back.
Yep, it has been used as an attack line for whatever the opposite party wants to do rather than attacking what they are actually trying to do. It really is set in in majority of peoples minds now so not sure how that can be reverse. Starmer/Reeves will not even be attempting it as they are using the same BS.
As a centrist, I am bitterly disappointed with Starmer and the direction the party has taken, and have said so on here a few times.
But I’d sooner have a Labour/Starmer government than a Tory government, which is tbe bottom line for me.
So exactly the same position as me then, although it would be fairer to describe me as far-left rather than centrist.
The single most important goal in my opinion is the defeat of the Tories and any credibility they might have in the eyes of the electorate, their failed neoliberal policies should be consigned to history.
We cannot possibly move forward if the Tories are still considered a credible party of government who will serve the interests of ordinary people.
So for that reason I passionately hope that Labour achieves a staggeringly huge majority in this year's general election.
I know that today's Labour Party does not offer any solutions which are significantly different to the Tories's, but surrendering and allowing the Tories to govern is also not a solution.
Those who want to change society in a meaningful way need to fight each battle one at a time. Right now the battle is to kick the Tories out. However it does not mean that you simply embrace repackaged Tory policies in the meantime.
Being dishonest with the electorate because you think that they can't handle the truth doesn't sound like a step forward imo. Even though the Tories have very successful used that tactic for decades.
I’d love to know what an average voter thinks of that speech…
The average voter won't have listened to it. The average voter 'knows' that the NHS will get more money from Labour and that while public services might get cut, the countries 'finances' will be 'better' under the Tories, and that's if they pay any attention at all to national politics. I've met reasonably intelligent folks who would struggle to put Labour/Tory into the correct left/right paradigm, or even give a coherent explanation of what those phrases mean, let alone speak sensibly about differences in macro/micro economic policy. People get paid, they try not to look at NI/Tax deductions and they get on with their lives.
Reeves is signalling to the people who will comment on the speech that the average voter may hear on the radio on the drive home (while they really concentrate on what's for tea tonight) that Labour will keep to spending pledges and might think "Oh, that might mean my taxes might not go up in Labour get in. If they're not too bonkers I might vote for them this time"
Politics is a beauty contest. End.
I agree with everything in Ernie's post. I just remain more optimistic (perhaps unwisely, but that's just me)
"Being dishonest with the electorate because you think that they can’t handle the truth doesn’t sound like a step forward imo."
You've answered your own point though, being honest isn't going to achieve what you clearly outlined in the rest of your post. Getting the electorate back to a point where they can handle sensible debate is like many things years off.
Battle one, get the Tories out and get Labour in.
"There’s nothing in it at all remotely clear or useful to a voter who wants stuff fixing asap."
Er, that's just your opinion man. There's a direct criticism of tory economic policy and its outcome, and statements about what labour would do differently. "Second hand city speak" given her background it's not second hand unlike most of what I see here.
Do you think this mess can be fixed in under 10 years?
Do you think this mess can be fixed in under 10 years?
A lot of things could be fixed in 1 year if they had the will to do it. It is simply about choices they want to make.
People would notice that stuff has been fixed that quickly and as most don't have a ****ing clue about how a countries finances work it doesn't really matter what is happening over there as that is irrelevant to their lives.
Do you think this mess can be fixed in under 10 years?
If the strategy is to go into the two general elections following this year's one with "this mess" unfixed then I reckon it is fair to say that we won't be having a Labour majority government for very long.
"Jam in over 10 years time" doesn't sound like much of a vote winner to me.
Being dishonest with the electorate because you think that they can’t handle the truth doesn’t sound like a step forward imo.
The electorate might be able to comprehend the situation if you sat down and explained it to them, but that's not how politics works. It's not about telling the electorate what you plan to do and why it's a good idea. It's about taking anything and everything your opponent says and twisting it to use against them by any means possible. The less the electorate know, the less able they are to spot your bullshit, which means you have more opportunities to manipulate them.
It's not how it should work, but it does. One defence against this is not to say anything that can be criticised.
-------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------
“Jam in over 10 years time” doesn’t sound like much of a vote winner to me.
-------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------
It worked in 2016... and we're at 8 years without even the hint of blossom on the trees, never mind fruit to make Jam with.
Labour (if they win) need to be able to show in 5 years time that things are turning around, with an understanding and acceptance that there's far more to do. If they go into this election claiming they can fix everything within 5 years (never mind in the first year) and then don't deliver that... they'll be doubly done for... support at this election will drop (they'll lose trust promising what looks undeliverable) and support at the next election will be all but non-existent as failure to deliver what is in the 2024 manifesto will be hung around their neck... they won't get the easy ride that others have had in the media with their complete failure to deliver.
Since MMT describes how money works in an economy with its own fiat currency I think you might struggle to find a nation on earth that hasn’t ‘moved to MMT’.
Partly
“Jam in over 10 years time” doesn’t sound like much of a vote winner to me.
It worked in 2016…
Firstly your memory is obviously different to mine, I don't recall anyone promising jam after 2026.
And what do you mean it "worked"? Are you suggesting that the Tories will remain in government until at least after 2026?
There is no doubt that Labour can win the general election in a few months time. But there is no evidence that they are likely to win the following two general elections if they don't deliver.
How much faith to you expect the electorate to have in a Labour government which says that it will need over 10 years to clear "this mess?"
It is stretching "trust me, I'm a Labour politician" to the very limits.
[ deleted - more dupe posting ]
I'm suggesting the vote was won, based on benefits that would take years to deliver. That is all. And so far zilch delivered.
Unlike the unaccountable Leave campaigns, Labour have to deliver. And that includes honesty about how long things will take. Promise everything will be sunny by 2029... lose in 2029... because even if things are turning around, they'll be plenty more required.
Perhaps you can expand on that – what would be fixed in a year, by which competently trained people, with what adequate funding amd materials?
Whatever the top 5 things that need fixing are. With money comes competently trained people, funding and materials. People forget that the government can do a lot of things when it has a massive majority (big assumption) and can steamroller over anything in it's way - again, if it is has the will to do it.
passionately hope that Labour achieves a staggeringly huge majority in this year’s general election.
So do I as it will help rein in the authoriatrian wing of the party. More herding cats required for a really big majority not a piffling 80 or so but 100+ will do the job of spiking "The Croydon Wing" (for want of a better description).
I’m suggesting the vote was won, based on benefits that would take years to deliver.
No, it was won based on sentiment. People use sentiment to evaluate everything. Both positions are justifiable - "we want something done now" or "we are prepared to wait a decade" - and it's much too complex for most people to rationally evaluate. So they accept whichever position is being told them by the person they support - and they support the people who give off the vibe that they identify with. It's all about emotion, nothing to do with rational thought.
More herding cats required for a really big majority not a piffling 80 or so but 100+ will do the job of spiking “The Croydon Wing”
The flaw with this plan is the new candidate list is being filled centrally to avoid any awkward types being elected. Sure some will get through but the higher the majority the more they will be swamped by the Starmerites.
This unfunded things has gotten out of hand to the detriment of all of us now.
Instead of debating what we could spend money on – what is urgent. Silly politicians have laid the groundwork for the unfunded/funded nonsense that will hold us back.
God, this is all so bloody ridiculous.
The problem is that 'the markets' will punish governments for borrowing huge amounts, currency will sink & inflation will increase, I still dont see how this can be avoided
we wasted the opportunity to invest when borrowing was cheap
https://twitter.com/JonathanEley/status/1770394766854758832
"The flaw with this plan is the new candidate list is being filled centrally to avoid any awkward types being elected. Sure some will get through but the higher the majority the more they will be swamped by the Starmerites."
Wasn't the experience in our seat. There really wasn't any "Starmerite" candidates at all. Starmer doesn't really seem to have many followers in the party the way other recent leaders have. And the candidate thought to be the preference of the national leadership lost the vote (no one I know voted for him).
What is true is that candidates that support more cross party cooperation on "the left" (think of the Clive Lewis types) are struggling to get on to short lists. A shame in my opinion. Especially here, where the Green party stood down their candidate at the last General Election and some members doorstepped for Labour.
^^^that's the same bit of Reeves' speech I put on the previous page. Anyway, reposting this from today's Guardian on PMQs as some will appreciate it:
"The cleverest question of the day came from the SNP’s Stephen Flynn, who found a zinger that managed to skewer the Conservative and Labour (the SNP’s main threat in Scotland). He asked Sunak:
With his backbenchers looking for a unity candidate to replace him, which of the now numerous born-again Thatcherites on the Labour frontbench does he believe best fits the bill?"
(I mean I don't agree with the premise, obv, but it is funny.)
"With money comes competently trained people, funding and materials."
You know how long it takes to train doctors and nurses? Social workers? Teachers? Build schools, hospitals etc?
"The problem is that ‘the markets’ will punish governments for borrowing huge amounts, currency will sink & inflation will increase, I still dont see how this can be avoided
we wasted the opportunity to invest when borrowing was cheap"
While i get the "sovereign country/bank and print the money" concept, the rest of tne world we have to exist with is less keen on the idea, and thats where, in my uneducated view, it falls down.
You know how long it takes to train doctors and nurses? Social workers? Teachers? Build schools, hospitals etc?
Import the people you need, build things quickly - all easily possible within a year if you have the will to do so and have the money to do so.
Import the people you need, build things quickly – all easily possible within a year if you have the will to do so and have the money to do so.
Only possible within a year if you have all the designs and contracts sorted. I've worked on major construction projects, you can easily be three years in design and contracting before you get a single spade in the ground, and that's on a 'simple' project.
The money doesn't always speed things up, some things take time to get right so you don't have to fix them again later. Proper engagement leads to better projects, ice seen piss poor examples where designers weren't encouraged to consult with end users to speed things up and then have had to go back in and completely rebuild areas to get it right
The key thing is to have a budget and a clear outcome in mind.
Yes you can staff up from migration (and should do), but again you need a plan to do it properly and sustainably so that you encourage skilled labour to come here andb want to stay here
“The problem is that ‘the markets’ will punish governments for borrowing huge amounts, currency will sink & inflation will increase, I still dont see how this can be avoided
This is simply not true.
The 'markets' should not sit above a democratic government's political will to do things for its people. And the government should have the resolve to see through what it wants - because the markets don't alway behave in the interests of what is necessary and need to be accountable to government. Secondly the government enables the markets not the other way around. Hold this thought.
Are markets going to dicate policy because of this? Nope - shouldn't be part of the picture should it. We need to fix things - not operate on a whim to what markets believe is good for the rest of us.
(P.S when a big market collapses - it's usually the government that comes to rescue. That tells you the actual order of things.)
Currency markets largely move up or down for lots of reasons - after 7 trillion stimulus the dollar enjoyed a strong bull run for instance.
Taxation is the opposite of government spending and is a mechanism to remove money from the economy if inflation rears its head. Inflation can be mitigated by simply making sure resources are available.
While i get the “sovereign country/bank and print the money” concept, the rest of tne world we have to exist with is less keen on the idea, and thats where, in my uneducated view, it falls down.
Any monetarily sovereign country with its own central bank issues money every time it spends. That is a fiat system. So that would include USA, JAPAN, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA and the UK for example. The term 'printing money' has made things appear exceptional - but it's quite a normal daily operation for the countries listed above. It's better explained by not using the term 'printing money' rather issuing currency with digitally marked up accounts. Adding reserves. We've been doing it this way for 40 years.
It doesn't fall down because all these large economies operate pretty much the same system - central bank issues money to the government to spend by marking up accounts, government then issues debt (Gilts) to match the spending. The debt is not necessary to fund the spending. It's just a reserve drain of private money to save with the government. Throw-back to gold-standard thinking but not essential in a modern fiat economy. And does preserve the illusion of 'borrowing' money.
we wasted the opportunity to invest when borrowing was cheap”
Totally irrelevent.
The Government can always meet its obligations to pay and rolls over any debt and interest with new money creation.
Rememember MMT is a framework for analysis and not 'printing money.'
P.S when a big market collapses – it’s usually the government that comes to rescue. That tells you the actual order of things.
Yup. The reason that the second most important minister in government after the Prime Minister is the Chancellor of the Exchequer is precisely because the markets cannot be left to their own devices.
If they could be the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the easiest job in government.
A "free market" economy needs constant and unrelenting government intervention. Every general election is basically a choice concerning how the government will manage the economy.
P.S when a big market collapses – it’s usually the government that comes to rescue. That tells you the actual order of things.
Yup. The reason that the second most important minister in government after the Prime Minister is the Chancellor of the Exchequer is precisely because the markets cannot be left to their own devices.
If they could be the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the easiest job in government.
A "free market" economy needs constant and unrelenting government intervention. Every general election is basically a choices concerning how the government will manage the economy.
"The reason that the second most important minister in government after the Prime Minister is the Chancellor of the Exchequer is precisely because the markets cannot be left to their own devices."
That sounds lifted from Reeves' speech.
I found this critique quite interesting
Echoes of Rishi Sunak in Rachel Reeves's rite of passage speech
https://news.sky.com/story/echoes-of-rishi-sunak-in-rachel-reevess-rite-of-passage-speech-13098144
"But we're left wondering if there are any sizeable Labour policies after a speech that was deceptively similar to one that Rishi Sunak gave two years ago.
While the shadow chancellor talks approvingly about the US Democrats' subsidy schemes for boosting green investment, there is no hint that the UK will do anything similar. Indeed, Ms Reeves has just recently cancelled her plan to increase annual government green investment to £28bn a year.
Perhaps the simplest accusation one can direct at Ms Reeves is that her plan sounds deceptively similar to the ones proposed by the current government."
Import the people you need, build things quickly – all easily possible within a year
Where are you going to import them from? EU staff ate not going to return without freedom of movement. Stripping developing nations of staff is unethical.
The ‘markets’ should not sit above a democratic government’s political will to do things for its people. And the government should have the resolve to see through what it wants – because the markets don’t alway behave in the interests of what is necessary and need to be accountable to government. Secondly the government enables the markets not the other way around. Hold this thought.
Are markets going to dicate policy because of this? Nope – shouldn’t be part of the picture should it. We need to fix things – not operate on a whim to what markets believe is good for the rest of us.
I don't disagree, it shouldn't be part of the picture, but it very much is, the real question is how do you change that?
There's no mention of how you can regulate against the markets doing what they want to do
Taking Truss as an example, the markets weren't njust punishing her for uncosted tax cuts, they were pricing in that she would need more austerity to 'pay' for them, and that was politically untenable, the markets were pricing in her stupidity
I think that's part of the reason Labour are going to such lengths to paint themselves as responsible (Though i think they should be planning big on green infrastructure investment and the markets would still get that)
The flaw with this plan is the new candidate list
Everyone has a plan up until they get punched in the mouth - M Tyson.
I’ve met reasonably intelligent folks who would struggle to put Labour/Tory into the correct left/right paradigm
Back in the 2015 election campaign, a far from stupid work colleague working for a world leading civil engineering firm asked me "which party should I vote for if I don't like immigration?".
I know some will dismiss it because of the author, but it's worth reading this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/21/labour-party-cancelling-membership-policies
Jones has always been a good critic of government policy of the day, and I'm sure he would be if Labour won whether he stayed in the party or not... but it'll be easier for him to continue his job if he's not a member... I'll keep reading him.
Read it this morning over coffee, my immediate reaction is "at least wait until they're in power?" But then I've not been a member for years now either, so who am I to criticize?