No one is suggesting the labour party should be lecturing voters on the mechanisms of govt finances
People seem to prefer the version where say we can't afford it! You can't have something.
Good old Brits.
Like the Monty Python sketch where the family lived in a cardboard box at the bottom of the sea.
No one is suggesting the labour party should be lecturing voters on the mechanisms of govt finances.
No one? One poster does nothing but that. And they're not alone.
Point about the last Manifesto for me is you aim high and hit half of those things - you're doing well.
(I didn't agree with Corbyn's need to show where the money was coming from of course because the media still found flaws.)
Ask James Meadway (the economist for the manifesto) - he's on a whole different planet about the financing - he was part of the problem. I've told him - as others have several times.
A left economist that thinks the rich pay for stuff for the less well off.
God help us and the problems that gives us.
No one? One poster does nothing but that. And they’re not alone
I'm not the Labour party though am I? And what I'm saying is - it's outrageous that Starmer and Reeves telling lies over government spending and then claiming growth is possible. That's a ridiculous position for a progressive party.
Every time they say this or say we can't have xyz then I will respond - that's the point of discussion. You want me to ignore them - for what reason? It's not beneficial.
If the country never gets beyond this one simple fact of spending- society will not get the stuff it needs and the economy will never do its thing, and people will be shafted.
Posters will go around on here in circles forever wondering why they can't have this and that. It's funny how they don't make the connection isn't it? No one was happy with the results of austerity and yet there's a route to correct it.
That's real doom loop. Not MMT.
MMT economists of merit have got very close to policy makers several times. It will happen.
Kelvin - for me you seem to like to sweep this part under the carpet. Yet the Labour party seem to be enthusiastically reducing what they've got to offer an electorate because of finances. It simply can't be ignored.
Let's see what the USA do about the debt-ceiling - always an interesting one. They can *choose* to default or just set another.
I think the Labour shadow cabinet replying "but MMT" when questioned about how they'll fund a policy would be utterly barking mad. MMT already happens. The public don't understand it. Send them all on the same online course you've taken if you want, but between now and the next election don't expect Labour to be explaining it to voters while appearing overly profligate and reaffirming the manufactured fears of voters who really have nothing to fear from a Labour government. Labour won't risk that.
Labour policy is currently too timid, too restrained... the over correction from 2019 policies too great... but the public can be brought on side as regards greater investment in education, health, energy, transport, housing without lessons on how government spending works (pretty much as Dazh said).
think the Labour shadow cabinet replying “but MMT” when questioned about how they’ll fund a policy would be utterly barking mad. MMT already happens. The public don’t understand it. Send them all on the same online course you’ve taken if you want, but between now and the next election don’t expect Labour to be explaining it to voters while appearing overly profligate and reaffirming the manufactured fears of voters who really have nothing to fear from a Labour government. Labour won’t risk that
You keep banging this drum, and like all left posters on here - want a progressive Government?
(Me on a course FFS) That's not what needs to be said. They just need to stop saying we can't have stuff because of government finances. It's a lie and it's disingenuous and not a reflection of economic truth.
No one's suggesting we all go on the mission I've been on for several years that just ridiculous. Which is why you keep citing it I reckon.
Just stay on the right side of truth and set a plan out to spend.
There's a lot of misrepresentation on here just to defend a theoretically left-wing party that keeps shifting rightwards - it says more about your willingness to accept poor outcomes.
without lessons on how government spending works (pretty much as Dazh said).
It's absolutely central to the debate when people believe that there is no money to spend.
You can't have one without the other because it is being used right now by Starmer as reason you can't have the things you and Dazh want.
I think you've contorted this debate to something it isn't for some reason.
I want the same things as you - mostly - but you're not going to get them whilst Starmer is saying we can't afford it.
After all the only reason MMT gets bought into these discussions is because people expect to challenge me. I don't need convincing. It's others. I think there's value in that.
(Tjagain and Mattoutandabout both don't believe it's technically possible? MMT curious I would say.)
I want the same things as you – mostly
I think so.
but you’re not going to get them whilst Starmer is saying we can’t afford it
Agreed.
But the answer isn't to suggest that we can afford any thing and everything without limit, which is what people hear when they get a simplified cut down explanation of MMT.
Explain that we can invest more, should invest more, must invest more, and indicate where that investment will be aimed.
Also explain changes to where money will be recovered by government, and where spending will be restrained.
[ eg - fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks for newspaper owners and the like ]
But the answer isn’t to suggest that we can afford any thing and everything without limit, which is what people hear when they get a simplified cut down explanation of MMT.
.
Again no MMTer says without limit. You've added that bit on unnecessarily in my opinion.
You simply highlight the reason for more explanation, and force me to repeat myself!
There's a need to constantly challenge what Starmer is putting out because what he's saying is economically incoherent (as Sunak is too)- and politically not progressive either.
My focus is on Starmer saying we can't have stuff rather than MMT saying we can spend without limit.
"Unlimited access to government money to purchase whatever is needed and available." is exactly how I would frame it for the hard of hearing.
...is not the same as unlimited spending. I never say that. And people on here claim I do. Bullshit.
People misrepresenting MMT like to say that for obvious reasons.
Also explain changes to where money will be recovered by government, and where spending will be restrained
Commentators will still ask how are you going to pay for it. So you have to be informed about the process.
Yes, you can explain it to the commentators and interviewers on TV as Brenda from Bristol won't be watching that and in reality Brenda is not actually interested in how the economy works, she is interested in the results of any government.
Lying to her about not having money is just that, lying.
Q: How will you pay for it?
A: Our intention is to spend money on infrastructure and education, this is an investment in the countries future and is both necessary and worthwhile. The previous govt wasted 100s of millions on dodgy ppe deals, didnt chase up billions in dodgy covid deals. We will spend money where it is needed. Can we afford as a country to not spend on the NHS? To not improve the sewerage systems?
John Crace nails it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/02/keir-starmer-labour-tuition-fees-politics-sketch
Again no MMTer says without limit. You’ve added that bit on unnecessarily in my opinion.
You've certainly refined your argument from when you first made it but either you or daz, can't remember which, certainly put it across that way. It may not have been your intent or what you saw but it's certainly what others saw.
You could really have saved a lot of grief just by saying 'its not tax and spend, it's spend and tax' and just left it at that. There is an important distinction and it grossly over simplifies MMT if I've even half followed what you're saying but it's enough to start changing the way folk think.
Discussions about bonds and stuff goes way over most folks head and just reeks of the "magic money tree". K.I.S.S.
Q: How will you pay for it?
Well meaning but you didn't explain how it was paid for. It's not in your answer.
You explain why we should have the stuff, and that Tories piss money down the drain.
Agreed on all accounts but that's not explaining how it's being paid for it better still how spending works.
You could really have saved a lot of grief just by saying ‘its not tax and spend, it’s spend and tax’ and just left it at that. There is an important distinction and it grossly over simplifies MMT if I’ve even half followed what you’re saying but it’s enough to start changing the way folk think.
Saved a lot of grief? As in, people will just keep challenging and it will naturally expand.
On the other point I think people have mostly read other stuff into it and misunderstood the terminology. And yes perhaps I've refined things and cocked up here and there but I'm no academic either.
I think years ago I said spend before tax, but then debaters want an explanation of what borrowing is and so forth.
There is no leaving it as spend and tax, (STAB versus TABS) people then go - well what is the national debt etc? It's a complex area with many strands. Folk can always read the books and seek the experts for detailed info.
Probably the nature of debating on a forum.
Discussions about bonds and stuff goes way over most folks head and just reeks of the “magic money tree”. K.I.S.S.
Went over my head for a long time but I would say it's worth extrapolation.
I see the Sue Grey inquiry has amounted to absolutely nothing
Tories were really hoping for a scandal before locals
So the opposite of doing stuff is not doing stuff.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
How many hospitals did the Corbyn government build? How many social workers did it recruit? How many internet bills did it reduce?
Saved a lot of grief? As in, people will just keep challenging and it will naturally expand.
I suppose yeah. Start at a very basic dilution and work from there. Its easier (in my mind anyway) to explain something basic with something progressively more advanced than to start 2 steps in and have to backtrack. Meanwhile those that aren't following the argument continue to latch 2 steps ahead with a flawed understanding.
On the other point I think people have mostly read other stuff into it and misunderstood the terminology. And yes perhaps I’ve refined things and cocked up here and there but I’m no academic either.
Totally agree there. I'm no teacher and struggle to explain stuff as well. And get frustrated.
I think years ago I said spend before tax, but then debaters want an explanation of what borrowing is and so forth.
There is no leaving it as spend and tax, (STAB versus TABS) people then go – well what is the national debt etc? It’s a complex area with many strands. Folk can always read the books and seek the experts for detailed info.
And that can be a good thing. Obviously there's a limit before anyone just says 'go and read X' but if people are engaging and obviously picking up points then you're at least getting the message across.
And on that, is there a decent starting point you can recommend for the casual reader? Website or book. You've actually piqued my interest and tbh even if anyone else disagrees it doesnt hurt to actually understand what it is they're disagreeing with!
John McDonnell dealt with it well when slightly more positive change was being proposed.
Unfortunately they had a leader that put a lot of people (yes Corbyn activated the youth vote but older people tended to dislike/distruct him)
And on that, is there a decent starting point you can recommend for the casual reader? Website or book. You’ve actually piqued my interest and tbh even if anyone else disagrees it doesnt hurt to actually understand what it is they’re disagreeing with!
'The deficit myth' is probably the most straightforward and comprehensive book by prof Stephanie Kelton.
Gimms website is a good UK resource.
https://gimms.org.uk/ put together by regular folk who wanted to know why there was money for the banks in the GFC
https://youtube.com/@RichardJMurphy
Richard Murphy has some good stuff and he's on the right side of the battle but sometimes doesn't help himself by being a little antagonistic with other economists, because he changes his language which can be confusing.
But he puts out of interesting stuff and does know BoE financing.
Murphy had a stream other night that was accessible and covered lots of bases.
https://www.youtube.com/live/b-aAoICdrmQ?feature=share
The MMT podcast is great with lots of good MMT big hitters and banking experts. Loads of episodes.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9waWxldXNtbXQubGlic3luLmNvbS9yc3M?ep=14
Warren Mosler - the architect of MMT has good resources but he can be tricky to crack.
https://moslereconomics.com/mmt-white-paper/
He came from the banking world so he's a long way from politics and his insights are usually ahead of everyone else.
Prof Bill Mitchell in Oz is at left side politically and has a very robust blog.
Lots of good stuff about employment, and technical stuff.
https://billmitchell.org/blog/
Reeves spluttering her way through how things have changed for the worse and then coming out with zero response at all - other than Keir is a pragmatic guy.
He's not pragmatic he's impotent, with zero substance. That's why he's falling apart under questioning about tuition fees. He holds no will or ideas on how to change things.
The current feeling seems to be things have gotten so much worse - so Labour should do less. Because they've backed themselves into a fiscal corner actually.
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1653663981704192001?t=zNfdlshXlhYxNicvbHn3CA&s=19
You’ve certainly refined your argument from when you first made it but either you or daz
I've always talked about MMT with the condition of controlling inflation. I think what many of the sceptics do is hear the words 'the govt can create money to spend on stuff' and then automatically think that means 'so they can spend as much as they want'.
That being said there is an awful lot more the government could be doing and a lot of slack in the economy to do it. And then there's stuff which is simply just beneficial and necessary, like sending our kids to university without crippling them with debt, and paying nurses, doctors and teachers properly so we can recruit and retain them to run our hospitals and schools.
The frustration is that there seems to be a consensus among politicians, the media, and the public that we can't afford to do any of this stuff. We can afford it, we've always been able to afford it. But it needs people with some vision and courage to change the narrative. And to bring this back on topic, Starmer is doing the very opposite of that.
F***ing hell that Rachel Reeves car crash! Is the labour message to voters seriously going to be 'the tories crashed the economy so we can't afford to keep our promises or do any of the stuff that will benefit you. Sorry!'? Never in my life have I seen such cowardly, unambitious and frightened politicians as this lot. And they want to call themselves leaders!? Does she even realise that she's currently in an election campaign?
If they don't change tack very soon they're going to lose the next election. They're making Rishi Sunak look like the change candidate.
Above all the debating about politics and Brexit, and even the economic landscape - I'm so shocked that there aren't great minds out there figuring out the route to a better country. The right have had it too good for too long that it appears normal to marketise everything - at the expense of the state.
Markets are tools, if they don't work - replace them with something better.
Too much subservience to a system that everyone thought was working and has failed leaving everyone bereft of ideas and courage.
Other options are available.
Shit-a-brick - Labour = ruddy clueless!
We don't want pragmatic - we want someone to make radical changes.
Where are the adults in parliament! 😱
Beggars belief that these people (Tory and Labour) are the best they can put forward.
Beggars belief that these people (Tory and Labour) are the best they can put forward.
All depends who the "they" is that are putting them forward. They have to be MPs to start with and we know who elects MPs...
Beggars belief that these people (Tory and Labour) are the best they can put forward.
Not really, the best and brightest got the **** out of Dodge, this is what's left.
They have to be MPs to start with and we know who elects MPs…
They are selected by the party first. We can only vote for the clowns on the ballot paper.
That’s not what needs to be said. They just need to stop saying we can’t have stuff because of government finances. It’s a lie and it’s disingenuous and not a reflection of economic truth.
But it's what wins elections. Labour don't want to be seen as spend, spend, spend party as the tories will make much capital out of it, even though they have done exactly the same, with the added bonus of pouring a lot of that cash into certain peoples pockets, as well as absolutely s**t canning the economy in the process. Hypocritical from the tories? Yes, but they still have media allies, and social media to muddy the waters of the electorate. Anything goes in politics, and when it comes to the tories in particular, that anything has already gone.
Speaking of the electorate, the policy u-turn on Tuition fees is aimed at a few sets of voters, not just the wavering "moderate" tory voters, the red wall seats as well, nobody wants to see others getting a free ride on the taxpayer even though those students may possibly contribute large amount to the UK economy in return for the investment of a no tuition fee education. Unfortunately, the Cameron governments "hard working poor/scroungers" turned the already divided nation dial up to 11.
They are selected by the party first. We can only vote for the clowns on the ballot paper.
The two big parties cannot afford to have "maverick" MP's with what would be perceived as radical ideas that spook what looks like a smaller section of voters that are required to win elections under the FPTP system,(None of the big parties want to share power, so FPTP stays)they have to tow the party line. That party line is increasingly influenced by think tanks, and in particular with the tories, Tufton street and Washington DC, so unless some of you "radical" folks have got a sizeable wedge of cash tucked away in the cayman islands, then perhaps you can start a think tank masquerading as a charity and get lobbying.
I can't remember who it was, but someone here believed that the situation had to get far worse before the people of the country would rise up and demand change to a fairer system, more socialist I think, well you may get part of your wish...the bit where it gets far worse, I can see Labour only lasting one term in power, and then the National Conservatives coming to power. With the rise of the far right in places like the US, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, and Italy, basing their anti immigration politics on the "values" of those arriving not being compatible their Christian conservative values, and so on, thanks to FPTP they would gain power in the UK on a minority of the vote. From there on I think it could get bloody.
So, politics is F****d basically, Just don't expect change to come from the inside.
But it’s what wins elections. Labour don’t want to be seen as spend, spend, spend party as the tories will make much capital out of it, even though they have done exactly the same, with the added bonus of pouring a lot of that cash into certain peoples pockets, as well as absolutely s**t canning the economy in the process.
What wins elections is distorting the truth to suit your agenda it appears.
Flip-side of the narrative is you can't fix things without government spending. It's simply not going to happen.
We've coasted so long on the idea of running out of money - that's what people believe. That's why we need to start hammering home what we can actually do and how we will do it. It's only because of letting people who don't understand how the economy works control the narrative.
I stumbled upon a clip with Starmer admitting that balancing the books was basically austerity thinking. What he says in that clip is perfect - if only we had a leader talking like that now.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1653672753893892096?s=20
Speaking of the electorate, the policy u-turn on Tuition fees is aimed at a few sets of voters, not just the wavering “moderate” tory voters, the red wall seats as well, nobody wants to see others getting a free ride on the taxpayer even though those students may possibly contribute large amount to the UK economy in return for the investment of a no tuition fee education. Unfortunately, the Cameron governments “hard working poor/scroungers” turned the already divided nation dial up to 11.
Look at how you framed this yourself.
Tory client journos looking very daft now
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1653803722605047821?t=4l4qZVlBqzQKWxCxGXN6qA&s=19
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1653775297307717633?t=5xF-x9YR4LLcll-cGRtVcQ&s=19
Ouch
(It is an old poll chap at savanta says he was on leave or something)
someone here believed that the situation had to get far worse before the people of the country would rise up and demand change to a fairer system, more socialist I think, well you may get part of your wish
Disaster socialism. "Soon the scales will fall from their eyes and they will see I was right along!". A close relative of Corbynism, where it's more important to be pure and on the backbenches than compromised and in power!
I think you need a bit more understanding of the Theses on Feuerbach. Starmer and Reeves proposing to change sfa.
Disaster socialism. “Soon the scales will fall from their eyes and they will see I was right along!”. A close relative of Corbynism, where it’s more important to be pure and on the backbenches than compromised and in power!
The guff spoken about ideological purity.
Think it was started by James O'Brien.
Simple point - the thing that has ruined the way the country has operated for decades - neoliberalism, and it's shift of wealth to the few - now can't have any push back because apparently it's ideologically pure to do so ?
So no fix then?
Centrist's have lost the plot because they don't have a position that pushes back against the Tories other than competence.
"If you'd only do it right it would work." Is no solution.
There was never any purity with Corbyn just solid ideas that would be totally rational and progressive in today's situation.
To be fair, it does seem incongruous to use the word "pure" about a man who took money from the Iranian state to present a TV call-in shows.
We don’t want pragmatic – we want someone to make radical changes.
TBF(ish) the last two Tory PMs have both promised "Radical change" The first one radically changed the tiles in the No.10 en-suite and then awarded radical PPE contracts to his chums, his successor Radically tried to un-cap banker's bonuses and radically spiked interest rates and inflation... Perhaps Labour hedging their bets that the public have had enough radicalism.
But I think they really are on the wrong tac, Lil' Rishi is going to try and sell himself on the same old "fiscally responsible" Tory trope over the next couple of years, all the while quietly implementing the same plan to run down public services in the name of austerity and efficiency to then flog the remnants as franchises to the private sector.
Labour keep falling into the "plausible funding model" trap in interviews, the focus groups have obviously told them that the floaters are terrified of the UK having imaginary mega-debt, so they end up accepting that premise as a starting point and don't want to get Gotcha'd for "Wild Un-costed spending promises"...
Reeve keeps getting sent up in front of the press and the same lines are wearing thin, apparently repealing Non-Dom status is going to pay for an awful lot of things, but the list keeps shrinking.
The shadow of Corbyn looms over it all, they want to promise to revive the public sector, renationalise the trains invest in the NHS and education but hey know they'll get shouted down by some Oxbridge journalist and pestered for detailed costings. Hence the watered down message people hear is that either "nothing will change but you'll get a slightly different Neo-Lib, centrist government" or else "Their lying and these socialists will sneak in and Starlin all over the home counties"...
Boris Got in by taking a total flyer on wild lies and gambling that the disaffected masses were willing to take a punt on an obvious grifter... I kind of feel like Kier needs to do something similar, stop worrying about trying to demonstrate some sort of credibility that nobody believes any politician has anymore and just go for the Tory Jugular at every opportunity. When someone asks about funding formulas, ask them if that even really matters when A&E visits take 6 hours before a nurse can see triage you, when we have working families living in poverty, using foodbanks and paying record sums for energy while the share holders still bank profits, and kids keep missing school days because the government is failing to negotiate effectively.
Basically He needs to Bench Reeve, let Raynor off the leash and start pushing hard on the quality of life and wealth gap buttons...
Basically He needs to Bench Reeve, let Raynor off the leash and start pushing hard on the quality of life and wealth gap buttons…
I want more Rayner and more Jess Philips punching people in their faces. Blair got elected because he had Prescott with him. Bernie Sanders and even Biden are popular because they were willing to get into with their opponents.
If some barking mad Tory is standing opposite you talking about how French asylum seekers want to change your dog's gender, you can't have two nerds referring to OBR memorandum footnotes. You have to have someone that's going to hit back and talk sense.
The guff spoken about ideological purity.
Think it was started by James O’Brien.
Was it not Kinnock? See the 1985 speech referenced on a previous page of this thread.
Comrades, it seems to me lately that some of our number become like latter-day public school-boys. It seems it matters not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game. We cannot take that inspiration from Rudyard Kipling. Those game players get isolated, hammered, blocked off. They might try to blame others – workers, trade unions, some other leadership, the people of the city – for not showing sufficient revolutionary consciousness, always somebody else, and then they claim a rampant victory. Whose victory? Not victory for the people, not victory for them. I see the casualties; we all see the casualties. They are not to be found amongst the leaders and some of the enthusiasts; they are to be found amongst the people whose jobs are destroyed, whose services are crushed, whose living standards are pushed down to deeper depths of insecurity and misery. Comrades, these are vile times under this Tory Government for local democracy, and we have got to secure power to restore real local democracy.
Was it not Kinnock? See the 1985 speech referenced on a previous page of this thread.
Oh I actually I don't know.
I was just having a go at JOB as he's always banging on about it and Corbyn in the Centrist-sphere.
I want more Rayner and more Jess Philips punching people in their faces.
It needs a hell of a lot more than mouthy women hurling insults. Rayner's silence and invisibility speaks volumes. Either Starmer has told her to keep quiet for fear of her putting off snowflake daily mail readers, or she's had a look around and decided it's already a busted flush and is keeping her distance in preparation for the approaching leadership election. Same goes for Philips. Doesn't look good either way.
I’ve enjoyed it when ed milliband of all people is let off the leash. He seems to have some fire in him.
Toynbee being a total moron. Playing the limited piggy bank logic.
There people are an embarrassment to solving society's problems.