Sir! Keir! Starmer!

So that’s all the people currently renting privately who’ll fear losing the roof over their heads

You think all those people will be out on the street? Many of them will be able to buy a property for the first time, especially when house prices come down as a result. The remainder will still be able to rent in a much more balanced market with lower rents. You'd hope this would also be combined with a renewed push on social housing to further increase affordable housing.

Rent caps are the norm across the world, even in some of the most market driven economies. The rental market needs regulation and taxation changes, not “destroying”. More social housing, with low rents, is key.

With Johnson we got what we expected.

Ah - we should stick with our lying, self-obsessed, corrupt PM because the LOTO isn't QUITE to our tastes, I understand. Glad I popped in, suddenly everything makes a lot more sense.

Well summarised.

You’d hope this would also be combined with a renewed push on social housing

I think you'd have to more than hope. I think if you did this the other way around, ie start building the social housing and reserve some of it for private renters first, you get the traction you're looking for, because otherwise you're just "hoping" the market will do what you want.

You think all those people will be out on the street?

I genuinely think if you stood and said in public "we want to kill off private renting" that would be the end of your party. I think if you said "here's some policies that will mean private renting is legitimately not going to be your only choice" you probably won't have them running away screaming 🙂

Quite frankly I f****** despise him, possibly even more so that Johnson.

That's an odd attitude conveying perceptions so distorted there's no point in engaging.

Starmer was a good DPP and is an okay bloke by accounts I've heard. Okay he's not fired up the public and I couldn't call him an inspirational leader of the opposition but the Labour party at least seems to have stopped self-destructing after the hijack of recent years. Chances of being in government - which would be a so much better government than the joke that we have - should be much higher, but have increased.

“we want to kill off private renting”

I should have known that anything said on here is taken pedantically and literally. When I say 'destroy the rental market' I'm not talking about removing it completely, I'm talking about massvely reducing the power of landlords to hold renters to ransom. Of course we need a rental market, but it needs to be balanced. At the moment it's tipped massively in favour of landlords who use it as a free lunch. That free lunch has gone on long enough and it's time it was removed.

Housing is the single biggest issue that impacts people both financially and practically. It should be natural labour territory to bring in a host of radical and popular policies to sort it out. Of course they won't because the Daily Mail won't like it. Instead they'll frill around the edges and keep it quiet to keep the establishment happy, and all the people who would enthusiastically support it won't even know it's a policy.

 It should be natural labour territory to bring in a host of radical and popular policies to sort it out.

They have, they want to increase taxes on people's income from unearned sources.

They have, they want to increase taxes on people’s income from unearned sources.

By how much though? And what are they going to do with it? That on it's own isn't going to bring down rents or get first time buyers on the housing ladder.

So again, what are just the first two policies you’d like to see that you think would pass a sniff test of the electorate then?

You know in the Sunak thread you are supporting my position.

They have, they want to increase taxes on people’s income from unearned sources.

It's not a policy that will shape society. That's just Labour's fiscal responsibilty noises.

(I'm not saying don't do it. But don't kid yourself reliance on wealthy people is needed to pay for things.)

You can keep him, I want to get rid of him.

You just want to get ride of Johnson and don't have a strong opinion of what ought to be replace him that would make a considerable difference to society?

(I assume you mean get rid of Johnson and the Tories - or just Johnson?)

‘The state’ developed the horse and cart?

You know I was referring to the former part of your comment.

Matt Forde is looking for help in developing humour?

Ah – we should stick with our lying, self-obsessed, corrupt PM because the LOTO isn’t QUITE to our tastes, I understand. Glad I popped in, suddenly everything makes a lot more sense.

No one said that.

But I don't want him / and the Tories replacing with Starmer either.

It's quite possible to hate Johnson and know what was coming and not really want Starmer/Labour either. You can hold those beliefs at the same time.

You are downplaying Labour's miserable attempt at progressive party politics by suggesting they're not quite to our tastes.

So again, what are just the first two policies you’d like to see that you think would pass a sniff test of the electorate then?

Honestly I don't want to bore people away with what I've written here time and time again.

You said it all in the Martin Lewis thread - ideologically speaking.

Lewis might be famous for trying to be apolitical but he has said many times you can't just have a market and tinker with it. You either have a market and let it do its thing or you actively take control of it and make it fairer for the less well off.

No faux-Milliband price caps here please.

Look the state comes first in terms of creating money. Take that one fact on board and you will see how that Liberal construct that small-state low tax competitive markets have absolutely ruined the planet and carved up society needlessly.

I don't want more of that.

When Starmer gets his head around that I will be a believer. Until then he's part of the problem.

You just want to get ride of Johnson and don’t have a strong opinion of what ought to be replace him that would make a considerable difference to society?

Of course I do. And Starmer not matching exactly want I want doesn't change the fact that I'd rather have him as PM than Johnson. If you don't, that's fine... I absolutely don't agree with you... and I hope come an election enough people don't agree with you and choose to vote in a way that makes Starmer PM and makes Johnson consider leaving British politics entirely... he is a corrosive force, and to hear people who say they are left of centre sound happy to stick with him over having a Labour government is frustrating, for sure.

Rent caps are the norm across the world

the evidence says that rent controls have less then desirable effects outside the areas they’re implemented, and measured overall can raise the rents city wide by as much as 5-6% It also affects landlord behaviour by either increasing density, or by finding and converting to rental other properties not scheduled for rent capping

You know in the Sunak thread you are supporting my position.

I'm not arguing with you here either, I'm genuinely interested in what you think.

Of course I do. And Starmer not matching exactly want I want doesn’t change the fact that I’d rather have him as PM than Johnson. If you don’t, that’s fine… I absolutely don’t agree with you… and I hope come an election enough people don’t agree with you and choose to vote in a way that makes Starmer PM and makes Johnson consider leaving British politics entirely

I will go out on a limb and say middle-ground MPs create an angrier right-wing faction. So in pushing for Starmer you will probably get a worse Tory in charge.

I’m not arguing with you here either, I’m genuinely interested in what you think.

Man, I've written loads. I'm more on telling the truth of how the macro-economy works in countries with central banks. It's key to getting politicians to spend for the good of the community.

I'm for state intervention and big spending on (GND) infrastructure without the limitations of how do we pay for it. A job guarantee becomes the back-stop to inflationary pressure from government spending. I'm happy for experts to figure out where money and infrastructure is needed for society to be improved. Rather than the market. Keynes.

(BTW that's not the same as inflation we have now - which I agree needs different tools.)

I was very pro Corbyn on spending; but his and John McDonnell's main contradiction is they took the wrong economic advisors on board (Meadway et al) - and they sat the spending frame-work inside fiscally conservative restrictions. Wrong.

Yes, Corbyn was operating inside the same fiscal frame-work as Starmer. Doomed.

Broadband communisim is okay too.

Room for the private sector (phone contracts by way of light-hearted example).

I’m more on telling the truth of how the macro-economy works in countries with central banks

again, not having a go. Do you think this would stand contact with the press? the voters? Who’ve  long been fed (what amount to) fairy stories and “understands” how the economy works?

Because how do you say to folks “all that stuff politicians have been saying for years is all nonsense; here’s the truth” without sounding like a politician telling folks a different fairy story?

So are we liking Starmer, tolerating Starmer or hating Starmer, just need an update before my next post ;o)

I think he's presently filed under the category 'worse than Hitler'

I'm not quite sure why, probably for being horrid to Jeremy, but he is

Carry on....

So are we liking Starmer, tolerating Starmer or hating Starmer, just need an update before my next post

file me under tolerating him. I can’t hate him, but he just sounds like a lawyer and every time he starts speaking regardless of how I make myself pay attention, I can’t for more than a few moments, and that’s not good really

I'd be happy to have him as PM. But he doesn't have what it takes to take Labour that far. He has my vote. Doubt he wants my advice... he's definitely not going to hear it... but he needs to present Labour as a team... more joint appearances and reference to others. The pandemic has made parties look increasingly like individuals working and speaking alone... and working against that, and the politics of personality, is Labour's only hope while he is leader.

Because how do you say to folks “all that stuff politicians have been saying for years is all nonsense; here’s the truth”

This is where labour need to be a bit political savvy. They start with the two major economic shocks of the banking crisis and covid and point out that the tories didn’t and never intend to ‘pay back the debt’. Once they’ve hammered that message home they then ask why if we don’t have to worry about the debt in times of crisis do we have to worry about it normal times. Then they can start proposing policies based on real economics rather than the fantasy that we have a national credit card.

Once they’ve hammered that message home they then ask why if we don’t have to worry about the debt in times of crisis do we have to worry about it normal times.

You could do that (I mean, it's true, but it's a hard correction to public understanding). Or you could point out that this is a time of crisis, and the government is adding to that with its policies. Supporting the less well off, and making society more equal, is linked to a better performing economy. Refusing to act to improve the lives of people who are struggling, in the name of shoring up the economy, is not just harmful to people's lives, but wrong headed economics.

Or you could point out that this is a time of crisis

They can say what they like, the point they need to get across though is that if not paying back the debt is good enough for the tories it’s good enough for labour. Instead Rachel Reeves is doing the opposite in saying that Labour will balance the books because the tories haven't. It's madness.

This is where labour need to be a bit political savvy. They start with the two major economic shocks of the banking crisis and covid and point out that the tories didn’t and never intend to ‘pay back the debt’. Once they’ve hammered that message home they then ask why if we don’t have to worry about the debt in times of crisis do we have to worry about it normal times. Then they can start proposing policies based on real economics rather than the fantasy that we have a national credit card.

Where are you getting the information that the UK government never intend to pay back the debt, the UK has a national debt of £2 trillion, and have to pay interest on that debt, and payments annually, i believe we're now at a point where servicing the debt costs us more annually than we spend on Defence or Transport, or many other departments.

We have gone from a national debt of around 80% of GDP pre COVID to about 105% post COVID, so for the next few years we will have to pay increased interest to service that debt.

Where are you getting the information that the UK government never intend to pay back the debt

The UK govt, that is all UK governments of all parties, has never ever paid back it's debt. The debt represents all the money in existence. Paying it back would suck all that money out of the economy and we'd have all out economic collapse. You need to read up on some economics, in particular how fiat currencies work. I'm sure rone will be along in a second though to explain it all. He does it much better than I do 😄.

Or you can just read this..

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/03/02/the-national-debt-paranoia/

Let’s hope Johnson stays in, then, right?

I don't hope for it, but it's what will happen because Starmer is a follower, not a leader.

The UK govt, that is all UK governments of all parties, has never ever paid back it’s debt. The debt represents all the money in existence. Paying it back would suck all that money out of the economy and we’d have all out economic collapse. You need to read up on some economics, in particular how fiat currencies work. I’m sure rone will be along in a second though to explain it all. He does it much better than I do 😄.

I understand that, hence why, if you read what i wrote, 'servicing' the debt costs the UK government upwards of £50 billion just now, the higher that debt gets, the worse those annual payments become, and the more in debt we get, the poorer the rate of credit is for what we borrow, which again drives up the servicing costs of that debt.

As for FIAT, we can print as much money as we want, but without actual value behind it the world market wouldn't really fall for it, and inflation would run riot, otherwise everyone would have been doing it throughout time, the US are about the only ones who can get away with it due to the dollar being a trading currency, and of course their presence on the world stage.

the US are about the only ones who can get away with it

Where did the money to bail out the banks and pay for covid come from? Has that ever been 'paid back'? No one is talking about 'printing as much as we want', that's clearly stupid. But neither are we 'paying back' the debt. The debt is just savings, and yes the government pays interest on that, if they didn't we wouldn't save, and if we don't save the government can't spend by running a deficit. So there's no need to worry about the interest we pay on 'the debt', it's all just part of the system.

From the link above which I guess you haven't read:

'The so-called national debt still has interest paid on it. But then so do bank deposit accounts. And they look pretty much like money too. Only, they’re not as secure (at least without a government guarantee in place) and so the government can pay less.

Where money is concerned for every deficit someone has to be in surplus.'

Also the rate of interest on govt bonds is nearly always lower than the rate of inflation. Currently it's much lower, by about 5% depending on which inflation figure you use, so the govt is benefiting from the 'debt' being inflated away each year.

We have gone from a national debt of around 80% of GDP pre COVID to about 105% post COVID, so for the next few years we will have to pay increased interest to service that debt.

Didn't reply to this point before, but can you explain why the govt has to pay more interest because the national debt has increased? I don't recall interest rates going up simply because the debt had increased. Interest rates have gone up because the BoE is (erroneously) worried about rising inflation. It's got bugger all to do with the rise in the national debt.

Didn’t reply to this point before, but can you explain why the govt has to pay more interest because the national debt has increased? I don’t recall interest rates going up simply because the debt had increased. Interest rates have gone up because the BoE is (erroneously) worried about rising inflation. It’s got bugger all to do with the rise in the national debt.

It's like an interest only mortgage, but the house is now £2 trillion rather than £1.5 trillion, so the annual payments to service this are now 25% more.

The National Debt isn't linked to UK interest rates or the likes, it's the borrowings against UK Gilts/Bonds/etc, same as many around the world do, it's also quite a stable market for areas such as pensions to buy these, as they are less volatile than financial markets, and have a set return.

It’s like an interest only mortgage, but the house is now £2 trillion

Except the house is real, and the debt to the bank is real. The national debt isn't a real debt because it represents the money that exists in the economy. And it's much lower than the govt says it is, because they conveniently exclude QE from the balance sheet. Real debts have to be repaid. Repaying the national debt would be economic suicide.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/12/21/the-uk-national-debt-is-less-than-60-of-gdp-and-nothing-like-what-the-government-is-reporting-today/

The National Debt isn’t linked to UK interest rates or the likes, it’s the borrowings against UK Gilts/Bonds/etc

Bond yields are directly linked to UK interest rates, so the national debt by definition is linked to interest rates too.

and the debt to the bank is real.

Real ish 😉

pondo Full Member
I don’t come into this thread often as it’s so corrosively, depressingly toxic

Nah it's not toxic, it just includes opinions which you strongly disagree with.

If you want an example of a toxic thread click on the Boris Johnson thread.

More than a third of the electorate vote Tory. Some of them ride MTBs. And yet despite over 10 thousand posts you won't find a single one, certainly not in the last 6 months, supporting the current Tory PM.

Why? Because the environment is far too toxic for anyone to feel they can freely express their support for the Tories and the current PM.

The only opinion which is tolerated on that thread is one that expresses total and undying hatred for Johnson. Even expressing a dislike for Johnson is not considered good enough and won't be tolerated.

As a consequence there is no meaningful debate, just a massive slagging off extravaganza too toxic to allow the slightest diversity of opinion.

We have gone from a national debt of around 80% of GDP pre COVID to about 105% post COVID, so for the next few years we will have to pay increased interest to service that debt.

Yeah and the estimates were 120%, and we've been at 270% - so what? And what follows is a massive industry expansion.

Measuring national debt as a percentage of GDP is a pointless exercise in a modern economy that has gone through a pandemic.

The aim should be a balanced economy - if that takes lots of government spending then so be it.

A balanced economy should included a fully mobilised workforce, good rates of pay, good conditions, high standard of living for most, investment in public infrastructure. Etc.

Using just numbers to report on the state of the economy doesn't describe how the country might have benefitted from such spending

Increased interest is irrelevant and being inflated away. (That's not the same as inflation not being a problem.)

As Dazh has explained we don't pay the debt back like you think. It's just becomes a running total of money not yet taxed back.

The currency issuer never has a problem with paying its obligations.

The attention should always be on real resources and labour. Everything else is just numbers used to bash people over the head with.

Pre-pandemic we were almost in recession - without government spending we would definitely by in deep recession by now. So we've at least delayed it for the time being.

That's the power of money creation utilised for the benefit of the population. We were paid to stay at home help reduce the spread of the disease.

Post-pandemic It was always going to be a choice between people being unemployed, recession and a ruined economy or government spending, supply-side inflation with a larger national debt.

Where else do you think the money is going to come from?

Although technically the national 'debt' didn't increase due to broadly the same amount of Q/E as spending. But they keep Q/E from the ONS balance sheets when being reported. Imagine that the source of government money is not included.

Completely misdirected to keep all the media excited.

Your daily reminder that when we spent 400billion for the good of the country there was no increase in tax burden on the UK to pay for it. (It was 'funded' indirectly by Q/E)

Changing the subject slightly, here's another massive open goal for Starmer. Will he tap the ball in the net by proposing a simple ceiling on student load rates, or not? He could be really brave and abolish them altogether, and this was wildly popular at the 2017 election, but I think he's already ruled that out with his 'balancing the books' nonsense.

https://twitter.com/Effy_Yeomans/status/1514161937814274049?s=20&t=B3GGJLmA8XOnAUhUTg_ZGA

but I think he’s already ruled that out with his ‘balancing the books’ nonsense.

No he hasn't ruled it out at all. And he really could not have been clearer about his views on student loans:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/keir-starmer-pledges-to-keep-labours-policy-of-scrapping-tuition-fees-if-he-becomes-leader

Sir Keir said: "Labour must stand by its commitment to end the national scandal of spiralling student debt and abolish tuition fees. We lost the election, but we did not lose our values or determination to tackle the injustice facing young people going to university.

"Young people cannot wait another four years for a Labour government to tackle this issue. That is why I would urge the Chancellor to use next month’s Budget to invest in the next generation by restoring maintenance grants for students in further and higher education."

Worth a read as regards tuition fees, and also how Starmer warned about exactly the kind of damaging economically illiterate approach that Sunak & Johnson are right now pursuing after declaring the pandemic "over"... damaging all our futures, but especially that of the young...

https://labourlist.org/2021/01/starmer-rejects-post-crisis-austerity-dont-make-the-mistake-made-in-2010/

No he hasn’t ruled it out at all.

And does anyone actually think he'll stick to that promise? I'd put money on this being quietly dropped in then next manifesto.

Worth a read as regards tuition fees

Fair enough but I don't trust anything he says so I'm not going to take his words at face value. Will save this link though and come back to it when the manifesto is out.

And does anyone actually think he’ll stick to that promise?

Dunno. He is currently calling Boris Johnson a liar and a hypocrite and claims that "Britain deserves better, which of course it does. What do you think?

What do you think?

I think he thinks that Britain deserves a more serious, technocratic and competent PM, but that's about it. He doesn't seem to think Britain deserves more progressive policies, better public services and ultimately a better quality of life for working people. On all that stuff it's basically more of the same with some nice PR to make people feel like it's better.

I mean I agree, we do need more honest, serious and competent politicians, but if they don't change anything then it makes no difference who is in the govt.