Forum menu
Polling at this point in the electoral cycle is completely and utterly meaningless. In fact you could argue after recent events that all polling is completely and utterly pointless.
i’m sure Starmer isn’t unduly concerned about a gammonbot petition that everyone will have forgotten about by next week. He knows that the leader of HM opposition is as clueless as the present one and that the shadow cabinet contains absolute dimwits like Helen Whately.
His main opposition, in reality, appears to be Jeremy Clarkson
It’s like we’ve given up on the idea of enforcing a fair distribution in society and instead have decided that there is actually an infinite money supply so we don’t have to worry about getting our money back from the oligarchs and billionaires anymore.
Nope, redistribution is central to MMT. It's the main objective of fiscal policy, along with tackling economic externalities (pollution etc) and being able to target strategic industrial sectors and social groups. I don't know of a single MMT advocate who thinks we shouldn't tax the rich more whilst spending more. The two go hand in hand, becaue otherwise you'll get runaway inflation. The only difference is that the purpose of tax is to restrict inflation and achieve social and economic change, rather than having to raise money to spend on stuff.
I’m pretty sure that’s what Sri Lanka said.
Yes and Zimbabwe, weimar germany blah blah. These are not valid comparisons. Britain is a 2 trillion per year economy with one of the worlds most stable and respected fiat currencies, alongside significant political and military geo-political power. Comparing the UK to Sri Lanka is laughable.
It’s also silly to say it ‘does work’.
Well it's working right now as that's how our money system works. If it didn't work the economy would have already collapsed. What doesn't work is the way it is obfuscated by pretending that we are 'borrowing' money from investors (where do they get their money from?) and basing policy on the myth that the govt operates like a household or business.
I don’t know of a single MMT advocate who thinks we shouldn’t tax the rich more whilst spending more.
Well, that’s what’s happening.
basing policy on the myth that the govt operates like a household or business
Policy isn’t based on that myth, but language people understand is used to explain policy. Tax and spend interact, even though what is spent isn’t restricted or funded by the amount that is taxed. These interactions are complex. Politicians need to speak to people without the time or inclination to look into those complexities.
Taxes need to rise. More importantly, they need to be shifted further towards wealth holders and larger companies. When people start with the “tax doesn’t matter”, “people won’t stand for a larger tax burden” when taxes are raised on land owners, building owners, share owners, non-doms or whoever, it only echoes and validates the populists that sell simple solutions based on low taxation and a diminished public realm (with a side portion of burning more fossil fuels to “maintain living standards”).
Yes and Zimbabwe, weimar germany blah blah. These are not valid comparisons
To date, Sri Lanka is the only country to have implemented anything resembling an MMT policy. @BruceWee is not just using it as an example of a country that's had a runaway currency problem. The outcome was that instead of the expected MMT theory expectation of the policy having little to no effect on inflation, it was in fact a huge driver of inflation (for obvious reasons really)
and the UK govt as the sole issuer of the pound can use that power to spend more money
But Sterling isn't just a currency it's a traded commodity in every money market all around the world, 24 hours a day. What happens when you have more of a thing than the market can accommodate?
the Tories appear to have closed the gap with Labour.
The Tories are one of the strongest performing political parties the world has ever seen, that they've regrouped from a defeat (even as large as the one they suffered in the Summer) should come as a surprise to no one. Remember that Labour were ahead of the Tories from Sept 2022 to the election, and it made not one bit of difference in all that time how the Tories governed.
Polling at this point in the electoral cycle is completely and utterly meaningless.
Yup, I could not agree more. I am remarking that despite very clearly being absolutely hopeless (and having to contend with Reform UK) Badenoch has nevertheless managed to close the gap with Labour in the short time since becoming Tory leader.
What does that say about Starmer?
Frankly not a lot. Obviously if Badenoch was a political heavyweight or some sort an intellectual giant it would be a very different story, but as you quite rightly point out she is not.
Yes, no true Scotsman, and all that...
According to Kelton, the reason Greece got itself into such a tiz was because it was in the Eurozone. If it had been a currency issuer it wouldn't have had the same level of problems.
Printing their way out of their financial difficulties wouldn't have solved the actual issue behind the issues with the Greek economy. And if they had tried then I'm sure Kelton would have been very quick to explain why they weren't doing MMT 'properly'.
I always ask the same question when it comes to MMT. If the Eurozone is such a hinderance to countries' prosperity and stability, why isn't Kelton recommending each State in the US becomes it's own currency issuer rather than a currency user?
What does that say about Starmer?
That he’s bright enough to take full advantage of the situation he finds himself in - with a huge majority and a useless opposition - to take unpopular but important decisions early, knowing that you’ve got another 4 and a half years left on your mandate?
In fact you could argue after recent events that all polling is completely and utterly pointless.
If you struggle with the concept of confidence intervals and the problems of FPTP making small differences massive then sure.
Its worth noting that the big winner in the polymarket prediction market made heavy use of polling albeit in imaginative ways which the media companies who generally just look at the first line after the caveats dont.
to take unpopular but important decisions early, knowing that you’ve got another 4 and a half years left on your mandate?
Ah it is all part of a cunning "jam tomorrow" strategy.
I reckon that faith based politics is underrated. After all when you think about it it does make sense......as long as you keep the faith.
So making Labour unpopular is all part of a carefully thought out plan. Starmer is clearly more cunning than a fox who is professor of cunning at Oxford, to paraphrase Blackadder.
Ah it is all part of a cunning “jam tomorrow” strategy.
It’s not being particularly cunning, is it? It’s just what every new government does. Remember when Liz Truss tried it despite having no mandate and forgetting the fact that nobody except her thought that she represented a ‘new’ government?
In Starmers case they’re bringing in policies now that will bear fruit in under 4 years. Not rocket science really, is it?
Well despite it not being rocket science voters don't seem to realise that they simply need to wait four and a half years for the sunny uplands.
If it was that easy to understand they would realise, just like apparently you do, that shit news today........doom, gloom, black holes, difficult decisions, blah, blah, simply means great news and loads of jam tomorrow.
Before the general election we were told to wait until after the election to see what a Labour government would do, now we are being told to wait another four and half years. It's all a bit confusing!
I don't suppose that the message in 2029 will be wait until 2034 before you judge, because all the shit and gloom of the previous years proves that everything is going to plan?
Remember when Liz Truss tried it despite having no mandate and forgetting the fact that nobody except her thought that she represented a ‘new’ government?
I thought the problem with Liz Truss was that all her policies were shit?
I had no idea that it was anything to do with her not having a mandate.
voters don’t seem to realise that they simply need to wait four and a half years for the sunny uplands
Well, if they think everything can be fixed in six months then they’re easily led. Who’s trying to use such an appealing lie to lead them… and why… well…
It’s all a bit confusing!
No, it really isn’t. There is lots happening, every day. Some of it being resisted and moaned about by the people you would expect to be moaning. Plenty more is going under the radar because it’s just getting on with what is expected, and what was promised.
Well, if they think everything can be fixed in six months then they’re easily led.
Is that what you really think....... that lack of support for Labour is down to voters thinking that everything can be "fixed" in six months?
You don't think it has anything to do with not liking the direction that the government has taken? Honestly?
Since Liz Truss's disastrous premiership has been raised as a comparison to Starmer's do you think Truss's problem was that everyone wanted her to fix everything in 49 days?
I know it's fashionable to dismiss voters as stupid but they are not as stupid as you make them out to be.
A post while I'm on the crapper. 😉
The poor old UK....
After 14 years of ill health the UK was finally diagnosed with a table but serious cancer, Toriincompentinoma.
The consultant told the UK that the road ahead would be harsh, no point in sugar coating it but there would eventually be light at the end of the tunnel. In the meantime ignore those offering quick fixes or blaming the illness on a mild case of Ceneristitus, a mild condition treated with antibiotics and a cream.
The consultant is certain of his diagnosis, chemo treatment is begun.
The chemo treatment is harsh, some days the treatment might seem as bad as the disease but it's very early days.
A guy on X tells the UK to ignore the diagnosis, Torincompentnoma isn't the problem! In fact, if reformed, purified into a less diluted form it is the cure!
For a bit the UK ponders on the post 14 years of relentless pain, ever changing diagnosis and revolving door of lead consultants and thinks **** that shit, the chemo is bad but that was relentless. I'll give the chemo time and see how it goes.
-------------------------
Right. Time to wipe my arse.
"A significant majority (56%) believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, compared to just 19% who feel things are on the right track."
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-five-britons-think-they-are-worse-labour-was-elected
At least the Tories and Liberal Democrats managed to convince voters that austerity and tough times was a good idea because it would reap rewards later, but that was almost 15 years ago.
Perhaps Starmer should adjust his strategy to reflect up-to-date realities...... it would seem that voters won't get fooled again with all the "tough decisions" mantras.
voters thinking that everything can be “fixed” in six months?
I hate to break it to you.. But yes, that's exactly what the average voter thinks.
But it doesn't matter as the current government isn't going anywhere for at least 4 years.
Someone above said, and I paraphrase 'it takes quite a few years for policy changes to come to fruition'
Just as you can't turn an oil tanker around very quickly.. It's a heavy beast.
voters won’t get fooled again with all the “tough decisions” mantras
No one mentions the “easy choices” recently made… more money for health, schools, justice, and all the other services where the damages of Tory austerity will take a decade to fix… the ‘tough choices’ have been about making it harder for land owners to avoid what minimal wealth taxes we have, withdrawing the winter cruise allowance* from better off pensioners, removing tax breaks for those sending kids to private schools, making minimum wage employers pay more, and increasing taxes paid by businesses. Tough for some maybe… but the direction and priorities are fine with me.
[ being flippant there, my mum isn’t rich, never goes abroad… but she pointed out that the uplift in her state pension is still greater than any winter fuel payments she’s losing ]
I thought the problem with Liz Truss was that all her policies were shit?
They were indeed shit, but more importantly they were completely and utterly insane, driven entirely by the Tufton Street mob, who seized their opportunity to get a vacuous half wit to implement their idealogical lunacy
I had no idea that it was anything to do with her not having a mandate.
After the chaos she unleashed, most people looked at their massively increased mortgage payments and said “hang on a minute, I don’t remember voting for some utterly insane policies, driven entirely by the Tufton Street mob, seizing their opportunity to get a vacuous half wit to implement their idealogical lunacy. Do you?”
Thats one of the main reasons we now have a Labour government
No one mentions the “easy choices”
The only person relentlessly talking about "tough decisions" is Starmer. Small wonder that people are pessimistic.
A few days before the general election Starmer promised to "relight the fire of optimism". And yet all that is coming out of him since then is negativity.
withdrawing the winter cruise allowance* from better off pensioners
My mum, who has no issues with the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance, told me of one of her very comfortably off, Tory voting friends who was up in arms about it as ‘“I’ll have to pay for my own flights to Tenerife now!”
With what her, Jeremy Clarkson, Andrew Lloyd Webber and James Dyson are all having to endure, the worlds smallest violin is getting a serious workout here
The tactic of providing an example of how a government spending cut won't affect a particular person, or persons, to justify that cut, is one which Tory politicians and newspapers such as the Daily Mail have always used.
Are we now using the same tactic to justify Labour government policies?
More important than the personal examples provided by the likes of Daily Mail columnists are the analytical calculations of internal government modelling.
"Internal government modelling shows the decision to remove the benefit from millions of pensioners will push about 50,000 more people into relative poverty next year, and another 50,000 by the end of the decade."
One of the founding principles of the British welfare state when it was established was that it should, in keeping with the accepted norms of social-democracy, universal in its provisions.
This was for a variety of reasons including that it was only way to guarantee that welfare benefits would be available to everyone who actually needed them. The only proviso was that those persons who can contribute more to the social funds did precisely that.
That use of that 50,000 figure is absolutely bogus. Have a dig through the report, it ignores everything else being done for pensioners. It’s a report on the impacts of the change with all else being equal… if pensions don’t rise (they are) and people who need more help don’t receive any (which they are). The report was needed to inform what mitigations are required if/when the change goes ahead… it should not be used/seen as a way of predicting what the result of the change will be in reality.
The only person relentlessly talking about “tough decisions” is Starmer. Small wonder that people are pessimistic.
Hang on, let's get this straight. You're giving the strong impression you're not a fan?
I'm pessimistic because of climate change, rising authoritarianism with Putin, Trump, Jinping and the CCP, Brexit, the billionaire dominated planet etc etc. Frankly if would take more than the perfectly good employment white paper published yesterday to make me optimistic. Also because I'm from Yorkshire, which at least makes me cheerful about it all.
You’ve got to admit though John, he’s not exactly Johnson is he… “talking up” our “worldclass whatever”, while running it down.
Starmer will never make many people optimistic with his rhetoric. He needs to deliver substance not charming boosterism while scruffing up his hair. Honestly, it’s too soon to judge him either way really. Unless you’re wishing him to fail, and have been since before the election.
Hang on, let’s get this straight. You’re giving the strong impression you’re not a fan?
Whether I am personally a fan or not isn't relevant, I won't be deciding who wins the next general election.
Although to be fair I am not in any politician's fan club, I judge politicians based on what they do. So yes, you are right, I am not a fan.
I know that attitude goes against the grain of many though. Apparently you pick a side and then it is a case of for better for worse, for richer, for poorer, till death us do part.
Also because I’m from Yorkshire, which at least makes me cheerful about it all.
Perhaps that's Starmer's problem - he is from Surrey. Maybe if he was from Yorkshire he wouldn't be spreading so much doom and gloom and voters would be more optimistic, eh?
The electorate have been peddled fantasy economics since 2016 with its cakism and we can have it all nonsense, embraced by the gullible, looking for easy answers to complex problems, happily delivered by populist snake oil salesmen
Now the grown ups are back, belatedly, after also having another Brexit fantasist in charge of the Labour Party for far too long at the worst time possible. And now the you’re moaning about pessimism.
Its just realism. Soz, and all that
A country can only survive on fairy tales for so long before the real world has to intrude again.
Seems a lot of people want to keep living in a dreamworld and are going to start a petition to insist on it
They were indeed shit, but more importantly they were completely and utterly insane, driven entirely by the Tufton Street mob,
As anyone with the vaguest clue would know that is crap and just playing into the tories hands.
It was pretty standard tory theory hence why almost all but the most sane ones were behind it originally. Its only about 5 days in that everyone started distancing themselves and pointing at the Tufton lot who, themselves, just pointed at Truss.
Even so they could have got away with it aside from the fact the pension funds had made some moronic gambles which couldnt handle the most mild pressure test.
It couldnt have happened now since the regulators decided to eventually shut the stable door. Question is whether the regulators will be allowed to keep those rules in place or whether those are some regulations which have gone too far in limiting the crown jewels?
It was pretty standard tory theory
Mkay. Any examples prior to Truss of anyone advocating 50 billion in unfunded tax cuts?
My recollection of her leadership campaign was of her opponent, one Rishi Sunak, predicting that if she went ahead with this madness it would end really really badly. Ironic given his legacy, I know.
The consensus amongst the few sane Tory MP’s left was ‘yeah, she’s saying this to curry favour with the membership, who are all mental, but she won’t actually do it’
Quite some re-writing of history you’re doing there .
Mkay. Any examples prior to Truss of anyone advocating 50 billion in unfunded tax cuts?
ermmm ok, well done for demonstrating you dont actually understand what the problem was with her plan. Perhaps you could ask a handy sixth former?
I know its hard for someone so easily led by the latest headlines but just go and look at the papers from the 23 to about the 26th and you will see overwhelming support from the right wing press and commentators. It was not limited to the tufton mob although the right wingers have done a good job of convincing the simple minded it was.
We've all got Truss wrong... her refusing to listen to advice from people who knew about, you know, things like pension funds, refusing to let her cunning plan be scrutinised by the people we pay to be across the details in the normal way, wasn't the reason for her failure. It was just bad luck.
II know its hard for someone so easily led by the latest headlines but just go and look at the papers from the 23 to about the 26th and you will see overwhelming support from the right wing press and commentators. It was not limited to the tufton mob although the right wingers have done a good job of convincing the simple minded it was
Ah yes…. I often forget you genius lefties are so much more switched on than us pathetic drones, us slaves to the military industrial complex, us simple proles, woefully devoid of your searing insight, who unquestionably accept what we’re spoon by the Murdoch press and now Elon Musk on Twitte/X/Whatever
I just find it refreshing that given your obvious intellectual superiority to us mere mortals, you somehow manage to stay humble and not even remotely patronising and somehow totally free from sniffy, high-horse condescension
I just find it refreshing that given your obvious intellectual superiority to us mere mortals, you somehow manage to stay humble and not even remotely patronising and somehow totally free from sniffy, high-horse condescension
LOL I'm lovin that coming from you binners!
Anyway moving away from personal insults and to answer your question concerning previous examples of unfunded tax cuts from Tory governments. The dash for growth and the temporary booms created by Reginald Maudling, Anthony Barber, and Nigel Lawson come to mind.
Conservative governments almost always run budgetary deficits. Reaganomics is know for both its tax cuts and deficits, in fact I believe that the term "unfunded tax cuts" was first coined by critics of Ronald Reagan.
We’ve all got Truss wrong… her refusing to listen to advice
It's clear that at the time, she didn't refuse to listen as much as go out of her way not to inform certain organisations about her plans. If I'm being generous to Truss, in some respects - her claims that there are organisations in the UK that work to constrain governments. She's correct. The OBR, and the BoE for example. Which can be a good thing, and generally beneficial to the economy, but they undoubtedly prevent Govts from developing radical agendas.
You can argue the toss about whether her plan - to shock the UK economy into growth, was a decent or workable poloicy, but without the backing of non governmental organisations, it just caused instability , and rather than be attracted to the UK investors smelled blood, and the pound fell
But at the same time the fiscal targets that a strongly independent BoE operates to that mean that the UK is known for being intuitionally stable, also work to frustrate govts. Starmer can have all the plans he like to invest in say; sewage repairs, or sure-start or pothole repair or whatever, and essentially faces the same constraints that frustrated Truss.
Have a dig through the report, it ignores everything else being done for pensioners.
The government didn't carry out an impact assessment of the WFA cut https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/12/no-winter-fuel-payments-impact-assessment-was-carried-out-no-10-admits
There's a massive assumption that pensioners are claiming the benefits that they're entitled to, which would allow those in greatest need to access WFA. The government think that 60%-ish of poorer pensioners who could claim Pension Credits don't claim, which is a route to WFA. A so-called double-whammy, no PC and no WFA for those in greatest need.
But it's all okay because we equitably sent some leaflets out...
Keir Starmer, speaking to reporters at the G20 in Rio, said: “We’ve had a campaign to drive up pension credit, to get more pensioners on to pension credit, which obviously is not only a guarantee of the winter fuel allowance, but also gives the credit itself. So there’s an additional benefit there.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/19/winter-fuel-payment-cuts-may-force-100000-pensioners-below-poverty-line
/blockquote>
Yes, I do feel strongly about it. It's appalling
We’ve all got Truss wrong
Thats not what I am saying. Again go and look at the headlines for the first 2-3 days after the mini budget and you will see overwhelming praise for it from pretty much everyone on the right wing side of things. Even those who were less convinced saw it as high risk/high return vs just high risk.
Blaming Truss alone lets everyone else off the hook. Its a reinvention of history playing into the hands of the tories.
As for the pension funds. You seem to be confusing their role in events. They were caught up in events due to their LDI strategies which couldnt handle margin calls. As far as I am aware no one really understood the risks here and it wasnt highlighted prior to the budget. It was a ticking time bomb and I suspect if any of the pension funds had spotted the risk they would have been quietly exiting the market rather than highlighting it.
go and look at the headlines
The newspapers running positive lines* on whoever the new Tory PM was, and no matter what they were (or weren’t) doing? Yes, business as usual. Not sure that tells us anything, other than how symbiotic the Conservative Party and many of our newspapers are.
Right back to commenting on how badly the press claims Starmer is doing as PM…
[ *just remembered the Daily Star front pages… gold! ]
LDI strategies which couldnt handle margin calls. As far as I am aware no one really understood the risks here and it wasnt highlighted prior to the budget.
Liz Truss is on the record as saying that when she launched her Catastrophic mini-budget that she didn’t know what LDI’s were. And because she isolated herself from any advisors and wouldn’t allow any grown ups know what she was planning she had no idea of the potential consequences. There’s a phrase for this…. wilful ignorance. Not really a quality you look for in a PM. It’s like giving a monkey a machine gun
Which can be a good thing, and generally beneficial to the economy
Quite a loaded phrase that. What actually does it mean? From where I'm standing it means beneficial to capital and those who control it rather than anything to do with your average voter. Should we be grateful that the BoE and OBR ensures that the financial system and economy is stable enough to prevent any challenge to the power and wealth of billionaires and corporations?
Perhaps that’s Starmer’s problem – he is from Surrey. Maybe if he was from Yorkshire he wouldn’t be spreading so much doom and gloom and voters would be more optimistic, eh?
But his father was a toolmaker apparently...
But his father was a toolmaker apparently…
Really? I don't recall him mentioning that.
The newspapers running positive lines* on whoever the new Tory PM was, and no matter what they were (or weren’t) doing?
No it was rather more than that. It was full throated support for her strategy and if it hadnt been for the pension funds screwing up which incidentally no one seems to have spotted up front then she probably would have got away with it.
The reinvention to blame just her is the tory papers rapidly rewriting history and sadly people are falling for it.
Its good to know we can now acknowledge the press bias and its no longer the labour leaders fault for everything though.
one of which may mean you get to take home your wages in a wheelbarrow?
Bit of a red herring really. Ensuring stable prices in the economy doesn't require that billionaires and corporations acquire vast amounts of wealth without having to pay much of it back as tax or have their wealth limited in some way to benefit everyone else. In fact I'd say the opposite is true, inflation and financial instability are a product of the system which enables and prioritises vast profits and wealth accumulation.
Bit of a red herring really.
I'd rather there be a check on the short term expediency of politicians than not. The historic investment/return and spending records for the political classes of all stripes post-war is frankly woeful The system of checks by Treasury, BoE market forces etc etc the very least lends the whole thing some (badly needed) discipline.
The UK lack of investment is largely to do with the fact that borrowing for the UK govts is expensive now. The UK runs a trade deficit and we rely mostly on "Foreigners giving us their money" for investment. As it happens both the EU and US have recently invested E1.2T and more than $500B respectively on infrastructure and rebuilding programmes, in the case of the EU it's overall economical outlook is growing making borrowing cheap and for the US, well, they're the world's reserve currency, they can pretty much do what they want, The UK (since 2016 at least) isn't in a position to do that anymore.
And I know you'll talk about "countries with their own central banks can't go bankrupt blah blah blah" and all that, but bad things start happening waaaay before you get to that level of financial incompetence, so in reality, it's just a meaningless technicality.
So yeah, we're probably never going to be in a state where the BoE is printing £1,000,000 pound notes to fling about like confetti, but that's mostly down do the mandarins sucking air through their teeth and asking "Are you sure?" rather than any great strategy coming out of the pages of Tory/Labour manifestos.
but that’s mostly down do the mandarins sucking air through their teeth and asking “Are you sure?”
Yeah the same mandarins who would tell us there is no alternative to a system where a tiny few people take the majority of the wealth and everyone else has to work their bollocks off to make ends meet and put up with crumbling public services. The thing those manadarins are best at is looking after themsselves and their mates in the city and it's got bollocks all to do with maintaining a stable economy.
If you can bear to read the blame shifting accounts of any of the recent Tory PMs or Chancellors... that really wasn't the issue... wanting unaffordable tax breaks for the wealthy, while squeezing public services and those that work in them, was what the politicians were pushing for, while the warnings of civil servants as regards the effects of doing so were pushed aside.
kelvin
Full Member
If you can bare to read the blame shifting accounts of any of the recent Tory PMs or Chancellors… that really wasn’t the issue… wanting unaffordable tax breaks for the wealthy, while squeezing public services and those that work in them, was what the politicians were pushing for, while the warnings of civil servants as regards the effects of doing so were pushed aside.
This was the word and the word was good.<Thumbs up>
kelvin
Full Member
If you can bare to read the blame shifting accounts of any of the recent Tory PMs or Chancellors… that really wasn’t the issue… wanting unaffordable tax breaks for the wealthy, while squeezing public services and those that work in them, was what the politicians were pushing for, while the warnings of civil servants as regards the effects of doing so were pushed aside.
This was the word and the word was good.<Thumbs up>
"the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum."
- Tony Benn
There appears to be at least a couple of individuals on this thread who wish to conserve the status quo ......"nothing tooo radical please"
I on the other hand still believe in the brave new dawn which the Labour Party was established to achieve.
Or are people suggesting that 2024 is the brave new dawn?
Benn is right (as usual) and matches what I have observed over the last 40 years where I have been old enough to notice/feel changes. Each government promises change but just tinkers around making thing slight better or slightly worse. Tories tend to make things slightly worse than better but not massively so. The problem with living in a democracy where the people are scared of radical and are more interested in immigration figures which have no impact on the vast majority of people.
Yes, I do feel strongly about it. It’s appalling
You'll be gobsmacked when you find out about Brexit and the lack of a "impact assessment"...
These poor pensioners, if the loss of £6 per week is pushing them into poverty, I think most of us would consider that they're already in poverty. And as someone almost at pensionable age I do struggle with the concept of folk retiring with only a State Pension to support them; did they put nothing aside whatsoever and/or never have a private/works pension during their working lives?
<anecdote>I know two people who were overjoyed to learn they could take huge wads of cash out of their pensions in their fifties and joyfully did so, then spunked that cash up the wall in months without any plan as to what to replace it with - one of them is furious about the cut to the WFA even though she won't be eligible for years yet. I'm a financial ignoramus but they make me look like a financial super brain, and I suspect there's a lot of them about. </anecdote>
And as someone almost at pensionable age I do struggle with the concept of folk retiring with only a State Pension to support them; did they put nothing aside whatsoever and/or never have a private/works pension during their working lives?
Yes a lot of people can barely afford to live week to week - putting aside money for retirement is a luxury.
Yes a lot of people can barely afford to live week to week
Undoubtedly true but there are a lot more that either naively think (expect) the state to provide a comfortable retirement or just live for now maximising their current lifestyle at the expense of retirement.
Pensions were never intended to cover 30 plus years of comfortable retirement which people now expect. If you want that you have to pay for it either taxes or privately.
or just live for now maximising their current lifestyle at the expense of retirement.
Not an entirely unnacceptable life goal if you ask me. Who wants to work their bollocks off saving money so you can sit in a care home dementedly staring at the walls waiting for death? **** that!
What about the period between retirement and care home, I'm at least hoping for a few years of active fulfilling life before senility sets in. Anyway it's personal choice but don't moan if you spend today and have to live off beans and watch the heating costs later.
Unless you live in Rone's parallel financial dimension someone has to pay at some point to fund your living costs.
There appears to be at least a couple of individuals on this thread who wish to conserve the status quo ……“nothing tooo radical please”
I've yet to read the memories or biography of a conviction politician like Benn or Truss who didn't think the civil service were thwarting their plans at every turn. I tend to think it's a combination of the mentality of the types of folks who aspire to high political office, the democratic process being party a beauty pageant and the Dunning-Kruger effect
or just live for now maximising their current lifestyle at the expense of retirement.
dazh
Not an entirely unnacceptable life goal if you ask me. Who wants to work their bollocks off saving money so you can sit in a care home dementedly staring at the walls waiting for death? **** that!
(Rambling post alert.)
^^Agreed. I've already had to dip into my small pension at the age of 56 and next year I might literally be homeless as the house is sold to fund my old mum's residential care. They might defer payment, the might not. They dont know at this stage.
If that comes to pass, I'll be drawing a further circa £5K out to get a small van to use as a micro camper to live in. I'll park up outside my lads for to use their shower and that. Lol
Anyway... No idea if I'll be around into retirement age and I don't want to live in a bedsit. Been there, done that.
Seeing social care up close and personal these days has utterly convinced me that it's a shit time to be old and infirm I'm this country. When my quality of life starts to diminish significantly ill be taking an 'alternative route' unless I qualify for assisted dying.
So yeah, practicalities of roof (van) overhead and 'living for now' mean I'll be skint in later life... but I still consider myself luckier than many!
or just live for now maximising their current lifestyle at the expense of retirement.
dazh
Not an entirely unnacceptable life goal if you ask me. Who wants to work their bollocks off saving money so you can sit in a care home dementedly staring at the walls waiting for death? **** that!
(Rambling post alert.)
^^Agreed. I've already had to dip into my small pension at the age of 56 and next year I might literally be homeless as the house is sold to fund my old mum's residential care. They might defer payment, the might not. They dont know at this stage.
If that comes to pass, I'll be drawing a further circa £5K out to get a small van to use as a micro camper to live in. I'll park up outside my lads for to use their shower and that. Lol
Anyway... No idea if I'll be around into retirement age and I don't want to live in a bedsit. Been there, done that.
Seeing social care up close and personal these days has utterly convinced me that it's a shit time to be old and infirm I'm this country. When my quality of life starts to diminish significantly ill be taking an 'alternative route' unless I qualify for assisted dying.
So yeah, practicalities of roof (van) overhead and 'living for now' mean I'll be skint in later life... but I still consider myself luckier than many!
When my quality of life starts to diminish significantly ill be taking an ‘alternative route’ unless I qualify for assisted dying.
Yup. Currently watching the assisted dying debate (where's the thread BTW?) and I'm getting a bit annoyed at all the arguments about coercion, people thinking they're a burden on their familes etc. If people are worried about being a burden on their families that's because they will be! It's a no-brainer.
Yeah, I am in a similar situation, at 55 it is only the past few years I have been able to save anything into a pension, so it won't be much when I do retire. I will have partial UK and German state pensions which will be more per month than just the UK state pension alone. and of course with the huge disparity of asset and wage inflation that has occurred over the past 40 years, any investments now are buying smaller and smaller crumbs from the pie.
IMO basing pension provisions on stock, shares and bonds is a bit of a grift to get the general public emotionally invested into the markets when 99% of the benefits flow to the already wealthy. It is a terrible way of organising pension provision, but it is neoliberal orthodoxy so no body wants to question it.
I have a decent job now, and if I had a similar level job from in my early 30's I would probably have been able to plan my retirement much better and buy a house, but that hasn't been my life. I still think I am lucky to now have the job I do late in my working life many/most won't even get such a lucky break later in life.
I think lots of people on STW don't realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble, they seem to really believe in meritocracy already existing rather than it being an ideal to strive for. They seem to believe they work harder and smarter than those who earn less than them, and therefore those who earn less are lazy, stupid and underserving. They will make the right noises to publicly display they are on the "good" side of the culture war, but when it comes to policies that could actually improve lives, they obfuscate the issues, they dismiss the problems, argue against the solution, they reveal their true convictions rather than the culture war façade they want people to see.
Eh? How did that happen?
Carry on.
I put the "why didn't these people just out a grand a month into a private pension fund? I bet its because they spent all their money on "living it up""" comments in the same box as the "why don't homeless people just buy a house like the rest of us? I bet it's because they like being homeless and drinking Special Brew"
I think lots of people on STW don’t realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble, they seem to really believe in meritocracy already existing rather than it being an ideal to strive for.
When discussing meritocracy I always find there are always two important things to remember.
Firstly the initial use of it was by Michael Young in "The Rise of the Meritocracy" which was a satirical take on the current education system.
Secondly when his son Toby Young (yes that one) failed to get into Oxford he phoned them up to complain and got him in.
So kinda proving the point of his book.
I think lots of people on STW don’t realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble,
I couldn't agree more. Some folk on here don't seem to realise how difficult life is for large swathes of the population. Living for now my arse. Most people working for minimum wage in horrible jobs don't have the luxury of putting money aside. I should know, I was one of them for most of my working life. I'm not any more but I haven't forgotten what it is like.
I didn't have any form of pension until I was in my late thirties. There simply wasn't any money spare at the end of the month. The only reason Mrs F and I have a mortgage is because her parents let us live with them for several years in order to save enough money.
I think lots of people on STW don’t realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble
It's worse than that. They are sticking two fingers up to people. Let's debate semantics instead, lalala I can't hear you, I'm doing alright.
Then there's the old man politics, snide agendas and talking about the UK like it's still the same as 40 years ago.
Let's not forget the sad cases and self righteous, who admit they're only on social media to wind up political opposites (is it going well boys... it's men isn't it, middle-aged men) because they have got too much time on their hands!
IMO basing pension provisions on stock, shares and bonds is a bit of a grift to get the general public emotionally invested into the markets when 99% of the benefits flow to the already wealthy. It is a terrible way of organising pension provision, but it is neoliberal orthodoxy so no body wants to question it
Indeed.
The acceptance and misunderstanding of the value of the market is outrageous.
The market can't create money it can only - to add insult to injury, swill pre-existing government money about.
Those bonds that make up investments - came from prior government spending.
It's a huge trap that accumulates and concentrates wealth for the few.
I'm not sure there's a whole lot we can do about it - as Tory doctrine over the way our money system works as been absorbed as fact.
It's clearly a construct but a really persistent one.
Very few politicians save Zack Polanski are prepared to challenge the current narrative on monetarism.
I've pretty much given up a lot of hope this year that things are going to get better for many people.
And whilst there is a massive blind defence of all Starmer's shockingly poor ability to address material issues that might change our lives for the better - there doesn't seem that much to discuss.
They seem to believe they work harder and smarter than those who earn less than them, and therefore those who earn less are lazy, stupid and underserving.
That is the tory way and gives a nice excuse for the privileged to not have to acknowledge their privileges. I have had many a discussion with these people as I am surrounded by them at work and where I live. They really do not want to get it.
Keir Starmer has a plan. And next week he will let us know what it is.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/32038935/sir-keir-starmer-government-oil-tanker-change/
Apparently the first phase of action has been completed:
"That’s why, next week, I am setting out our Plan For Change, which will be the next phase of action across government."
These poor pensioners, if the loss of £6 per week is pushing them into poverty, I think most of us would consider that they’re already in poverty. And as someone almost at pensionable age I do struggle with the concept of folk retiring with only a State Pension to support them; did they put nothing aside whatsoever and/or never have a private/works pension during their working lives?
Some people live their entire lives dependent on the state. The vulnerable, especially those with mental health problems, are unlikely to apply for additional payments while the older pensioners born up to 1951 (when the new state pension began) can be on very low pensions (£101.55 pw is one government threshold)
One route to access WFP is Pension Credits and the form is 24 pages of questions and notes; some with mental health issues will have difficulties even contemplating that
The difference between the vulnerable and MPs is that MPs get their claims made and are fully supported, while the vulnerable are not, e.g. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall has claimed £3758.14 for her constituency home between April and July alone https://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-staffing-business-costs/your-mp/liz-kendall/4026
Equitable? No, the vulnerable needed support before cutting WFP
An interesting editorial in today's Guardian. The first sentence :
Sir Keir Starmer’s reboot is clearly a strategy to win over voters disillusioned with the government’s performance.
Is that true...... with the next general election still over 4 years away is Starmer really already trying to win back disillusioned voters?
It is a pretty damning editorial, it sounds as if it was written by a STW "Lefty"! And with it coming from the Guardian Morgan McSweeney won't be very happy.
Edit : Apologies, yesterday's editorial.
Is that true…… with the next general election still over 4 years away is Starmer really already trying to win back disillusioned voters?
His constant appeasement of the 'right' is bewildering. What for - it doesn't work. The right think he's a communist and will not give him the benefit of the doubt next time.
Also why does he have a reboot / relaunch of new pledges/plan/points every few weeks - which he won't stick to anyway.
This government is thus far a vapid failure of muddled planning, sketchy economics and awful decision making.
The budget has saddled them with a mess of their own making. It would take some serious unwinding and back-peddling which I do believe eventually, at the last minute they will have to do something to affect material conditions instead of pretending they need high-finance for growth or simply lose the next election.
From the Guardian slug - "The prime minister faces scrutiny as voters demand bold action, not recycled policies, to address Britain’s deepening economic and social concerns"
Really? What has anyone with half-a-brain being saying for at least 10 years.
Well, Starmer’s speech was mostly about adding a target of trebling the number of new infrastructure projects to the existing house building targets.
What were the first questions from press and media in the Q&A afterwards…? Immigration, immigration, immigration…
Yes, everyone is obsessed with immigration as the issue to solve which will make their lives better. I am convinced that most people wouldn't notice if net migration was 0 (well they would as services would be even worse but they wouldn't link those things)
When people are constantly told that immigration is a massive problem a lot of them believe it (but they are not stupid of course)
I haven't seen the speech yet, so how much government money is being allocated to the house building program?