MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
Nic – TJ is big enough to fight his own battles, but I think you are wrong that the 2 child cap discourages larger families and thus is a “green” policy. If there’s real data to support that it would be fascinating. In reality:
I was trying to get off the topic but..................
I believe we need as a country and a planet a smaller population. So I want a falling birthrate. However kids that are already here? You do not punish them for existing. Potential kids - I don't want them. Actual kids. treat well
Nonsense, “Centrists” want big problems solving, they just see the means and the priorities differently to right or left-wingers.
Or more prepared to accept excuses for not doing so?
Nonsense, “Centrists” want big problems solving
So how is Reeves 'solving the big probem' of lack of investment in infrastructure and public services by cutting infranstructure projects and limiting spending on services? The biggest problem in this country is austerity, it has been since 2009. Austerity drives everything from low economic growth to crumbling schools, hospitals, railways and roads. It's a mindset that the country doesn't have enough money to do anything, when that is demostrably untrue. Reeves is just another centrist politician who isn't prepared to challenge the neoliberal mindset of austerity, and as a result we're going to get another 5 years of excuses for not doing anything.
Not quite where you were going with it, but I hear conversations from our kids and their friends in their late teens and early 20s where the ability to afford to have kids does affect plans for the future. Not that I think it is a justification for the 2CBC.
Yeah, but those are probably middle class kids not planning to be on benefits - the 2CBC had zero impact on them. The 2CBC is a policy dreamed up by middle class politicians / civil servants as a way to discourage people from riding the benefits gravy train by having more kids... its bullshit by people who assume that those in a benefits trap plan their families around ecconomics like they would!
The biggest problem in this country is austerity
I think one of the biggest issues in this country is the size and (lack of) growth of its economy. There are far too many people not working. Even the much discussed MMT rules say that while you can run a larger deficit than is presently imagined, you cannot just pump money into an economy that cannot accommodate it, becasue the other side of MMT says that you have to be prepared to take active measures against inflation and be the employer of last resort, and the only levers you have to change that is 1. Tax the money back out, or reduce govt spending, and this govt has no plans (yet as far as I can see) to develop employment schemes to give people work directly. These are pretty fixed. so what's the point in spending money now that causes inflation, that you'd have to take back out again?
That's without having any discussion on the fact that Sterling is a commodity bought and sold at a price on the open market. Put a large quantity of that product into the market and its going to be devalued, you may not care about foreign investment (and there's an argument for that) but this country runs both a trade and income deficit - we rely on "The kindliness of Strangers" to give us money based on what Sterling is worth so that we don't have to tax people heavily. If you want to borrow money in the future, pissing off the people that give it to you now probs isn't the best bet.
Seriously - you've been talking about the Tories in this thread you silly lad. (BTW the 'keep going left' on the sign is a delicious sense of irony. well done!)
I think he’s suggesting that while Reeves and her govt are confirming that they are going to be yet another one delivering thatcherite austerity economic policies when the exact opposite is needed, their centrist supporters are celebrating the fact that Starmer is capable of wearing appropriate clothing when it’s raining. It’s a perfect allegory for the centrist mindset of frilling round the edges rather than solving the big problems.
Correct - because it was reposted on Ian Dunt's feed - who I do find mildy amusing, but his takes are terrible.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1817864597560279244
He acts surpised at every turn. Bless him.
I can't believe a UK Government Labour thread is some sort of target for having 'lefties' in it.
Here's Starmer for once in his life talking sense about government finances - stepping on to the fringes of MMT even. This is like 4 years ago.
If only there was a time-machine so he Rachel Reeves could get some tips.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1817822875920814142
I’ve redone ‘The Sign’ to use on other threads you all try to take over, so the rest of us can avoid you…
There you go again trying to silence anyone who doesn't agree with you. Why not leave this thread to those with something to say and go create your own funny pictures and videos politics thread where you and the other teenagers can hang out?
But the things that Reeves is pausing are nonsense Tory spending pledges, like 'building 40 new hospitals" horseshit that they pedalled, and the tunnel under Stonehenge, which is a stupid idea anyway, and Rwanda. I'm all for "turbo-charging" the economy with public spending, but only to what the economy can bear - otherwise cycle of inflation and austerity again.
While a currency issuing country can't technically go bankrupt, the effects of over-stuffing the economy with public spending will cause a defacto crisis effecting everyone that'll pretty much feel like it has.
BTW the ‘keep going left’ on the sign is a delicious sense of irony. well done!
Yeah I found that weird too. Not only does he want to direct people to this thread but he suggests that they "keep going left".
I am assuming that binners no longer intends posting on this thread. I guess the thought of people having different opinions to his, especially opinions to the left of him, quite intolerable.
Plus being forced to construct a thought-out political argument is always a tad harder than posting unchallenged hyperbole
Plus being forced to construct a thought-out political argument is always a tad harder than posting unchallenged hyperbole
No one wants to come on this thread because whatever argument they make is immediately jumped on and dissected by you regardless of their political viewpoint or opinion.
otherwise cycle of inflation and austerity again.
Austerity wasn't because of inflation, and isn't the cure for inflation.
No one wants to come on this thread because whatever argument they make is immediately jumped on and dissected by you regardless of their political viewpoint or opinion.
Blimey, there seems to plenty of people posting on this thread, it appears to be quite active. Although binners apparently would prefer if some people didn't post at all on this thread.
Far from getting involved in recent disagreements on this thread most of my recent contributions have involved praising recent announcements by the new Labour government.
And unlike some obvious individuals I am not interested in silencing anyone. Although I don't suppose facts like that will carry much weight with you. I'll take the unpleasant personal dig as a sign of having been reasonably effective.
Binners can openly call other posters "tedious dullards" but God help anyone who should direct any fire back. Yet another political thread where some punters cannot engage with others without getting angry and intolerant.
Austerity wasn’t because of inflation,
Osbourne's was entirely ideologically driven, however he claimed it was because of a need to reduce a high deficit, not inflation control anyway.
and isn’t the cure for inflation.
Well, depends what type of inflation you're talking about. To control cost-push inflation (when the money supply is expanded, and it creates a speculative boom) you've got two choices, tax some of it back out again, or reduce govt spending (the money supply). One of those is essentially austerity.
Nothing Reeve's is saying stacks up.
I can't really make any sense of it. Fine if they want to Tory bash and scrap shemes - but she is way worse than I was ever expecting in her understanding of macro economics. There is no way the government can save money.
It's just not possible on a technical level.
If she puts the books in balance she will tank the economy -properly. Not just a simple sterling dip either.
Whole theme of the address is very old school and out of touch. Debt falling as a share of the economy? That's called contraction.
Winter fuel payments (for certain groups) - its removal is totally ridiculous in terms of fiscal space.
Well, depends what type of inflation you’re talking about. To control cost-push inflation (when the money supply is expanded, and it creates a speculative boom) you’ve got two choices, tax some of it back out again, or reduce govt spending (the money supply). One of those is essentially austerity.
Just spending/creating money doesn't automatically create inflation - it depends on what is done with it. You've also got to remember that commercial bank accounts expand the money supply too and apparently that never causes inflation. Ahem.
https://twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status/1817938929938514274
There really was no reason for Labour to be like this - at all. But I did see it coming.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1817938534029840460
Yeah that's what it felt like to me - a charade. A mess of ideas - we're going to save twenty quid here and there.
But the things that Reeves is pausing are nonsense Tory spending pledges, like ‘building 40 new hospitals” horseshit that they pedalled, and the tunnel under Stonehenge
Very true. I have no problem with any of these projects being cancelled, it's more that she's doing it under the guise of 'not having enough money' (which doesn't stack up with inflation busting pay rises for public sector workers). She could have easily said she was cancelling them because they were shit projects and a waste of money and instead would spend the cash somewhere else like bringing back HS2 or on repairing schools. But no, instead we have the continuance of the austerity narrative which pretends the country doesn't have enough money to invest in public services and infrastructure.
Yeah it's now become about each party taking turns about who has wasted the most money.
Again - what are they going to do rather than what are they going to scrap?
which doesn’t stack up with inflation busting pay rises for public sector workers
Yes but she will allude to savings made in other areas to do things like this. Of course it's bullshit but it's theatre.
Funny how were supposed to be getting boring but we're now getting amateur dramatics.
Just spending/creating money doesn’t automatically create inflation – it depends on what is done with it.
I've not said that it does. Spending large amounts of public cash in an economy that doesn't have the capacity to use absolutely does though, because you just create a speculation bubble. Just as using public funds continually will eventually require strong measures to counteract their effect, such as tax increases or reducing the money supply. A few years back Japan's Diat increased taxes on an equivilent £30,000 salary by just about 7% to try to offset the effects of thier 250% debt to GDP ratio
While technically [like japan] we couldn't be bankrupted, increases in taxes on £30K from 20 to 27% would sure feel like it for most folks.
That Richard Murphy tweet is a bit of joke, some-one who's as much a slave to twitter to raise his public profile criticising someone else for being a bit theatrical...Pot Black Kettle Calling - rearrange to form a well know phrase or saying.
There’s a 100 Billion pound yearly hole in the economy due to lost trade with the EU, how about we start talking about that Elephant in the room?
Well not always what you think - when you export you give up real resources for money that is in effect something the government can create.
Not saying your point doesn't have some legs but we have to think about it means to export real resources purchased by £££ - which is always created from nothing.
In other words government could create 100bn tomorrow and spend it on something that needs fixing here in the Uk - then you've got the movement of 100bn from the public to the private sector.
It's doesn't need the EU to do this.
Trade is much more than money course so I'm not refuting all of your point.
The UK is not short of money - it's short of things; infrastructure and services - that support a well functioning and mobile country.
The trick is that parties and the dullard journalists have made the debate about lack of money, and it's been lapped up.
It's totally ridiculous that the debate has degenerated to this level. Especially in light of how the state mobilised itself during the pandemic with masses of money - created at the BoE.
I'm embarrassed for the state of journalism in particular.
So Rone if it's all so easy and there's money to burn (however it's magically made to appear) why aren't Labour doing it. I would hazard a guess they have access to advice from people a lot smarter and more experienced than you economically who they are either ignoring or who are saying there's a hole in the money bucket.
We get why the Tories pursued the narrative, it allowed their disaster capitalist mates to make a killing and played well to their demographic who think austerity means penalizing people on benefits. I can't think why Labour would be pursuing it, announcing a spending spree would be pretty popular.
So could you explain why Labour aren't following your advice? To be able to construct a decent argument for something you need to understand why people might be against it to dismantle their arguments, all you ever do is call everyone else stupid for not adhering to your less than main stream economic theory.
5.5% for teachers the workshy spongers are always on holiday, why do they need a pay rise ?
My mum's ****ing raging, watching C4 news with her now, she gets the basic state pension and £137 a month from a pension she accrued for working at a council care home a number of years ago and the winter fuel allowance paid for her logs and towards gas/electricity, she's meant to get £187 month from the private pension but it gets taxed down to £137.
She's got back issues from damaged vertebrae after a fall 10 years ago so she's now going to try and claim pip, ( her exact words were "they want to tax the ****ers who have money, I'm going to claim pip"
It’s a mindset that the country doesn’t have enough money to do anything, when that is demostrably untrue.
More a case of not enough money to do everything. Which is fair enough - cancel big, expensive projects that, while bringing benefits, aren’t crucial. The Stonehenge tunnel being a case in point; it’s been argued about for years, huge amounts of money spent on challenges and re-designs, the bloody thing could have been built by now and locals and long distance travelers actually getting the benefits from it. By which I mean the massive holdups and time wasted by drivers slowing up to rubberneck at the monument because they expect to be able to see it, they actually feel they’re entitled to look at it!
I drove down to Salisbury yesterday afternoon, and according to my satnav, at the roundabout where the north/south A360 that I use, there was a 3.6 mile line of virtually stationary traffic on the A303. A week or so ago, the A360 south from the junction was closed for 2.5 miles and there was 7 miles of stationary traffic on the A303, waiting time 38 minutes! Seven miles! Nearly 3/4 of an hour! That’s just bloody ridiculous, the waste of time is frankly staggering, when extended periods are taken into account.
Part of the problem is that ignorant entitled assholes on the A303 deliberately block the ‘KEEP CLEAR’ boxes so stopping people going N/S from having a clear run through. It nearly happened to me on my way home at around 7pm, travelling north I was able to get across the westbound carriageway, only to find cars nose to tail on the eastbound, and because the lane splits into two, for traffic going north and those going straight on east, drivers were trying to squeeze others out. One car moved forward slightly, as I was approaching, just as the one behind started to edge forward to block the box and shut me out. He was shit out of luck there, ‘cos I don’t give way when I have right of way, and I had the momentum to squeeze into the space, also blocking the other lane, and I could just get right through and carry on north. A second or two slower, and I’d have been stuck until some kind soul grudgingly let me through.
All totally unnecessary, if drivers obeyed the instructions and kept the boxes clear, but they are far too entitled to do that.
Personally, now the tunnel has been cancelled, the answer is to put 6’ perforated fencing along the edge of the road, to block the view of the stones - if drivers can’t see the monument, there’s no need to slow down, and also perhaps put in traffic lights, because seven miles of stationary traffic is just not acceptable any longer, from an environmental point of view, because of all the emissions, if nothing else.
Book an appointment with CAB for her. My mum and did did a few years ago and they’re now pulling in more in benefits than I earn!!
Book an appointment with CAB for her. My mum and did did a few years ago and they’re now pulling in more in benefits than I earn!!
I think with the speed that my spms has progressed I need to see them as well, mum does all cleaning, washing, house stuff, my meals etc, sometimes I can barely lift an arm (legs left me a few years ago) so I'll claim the max pip for personal care (on max pip for mobility/middle for personal at moment) and I guess mum could claim for carers allowance or something, I'll call them and see if anyone can come out as I can't get to them.
She’s got back issues from damaged vertebrae after a fall 10 years ago so she’s now going to try and claim pip, ( her exact words were “they want to tax the **** who have money, I’m going to claim pip”
I don't think your mum can claim pip if she's of retirement age mate, sadly. I'm not sure if there is an alternative once beyond retirement?
I think with the speed that my spms has progressed I need to see them as well, mum does all cleaning, washing, house stuff, my meals etc, sometimes I can barely lift an arm (legs left me a few years ago) so I’ll claim the max pip for personal care (on max pip for mobility/middle for personal at moment) and I guess mum could claim for carers allowance or something, I’ll call them and see if anyone can come out as I can’t get to them.
Sorry, just saw your second post.
Yep, your mum should be able to claim carers allowance if she looks after you for 35 HR + a week. That's about £75 a week I believe.
It would certainly be worth exploring the possibility of getting the higher award for the daily living component due to your MS. I'm guessing you've been through the PIP "game" at least once, so know how horrid the process is?
Sorry, as I can't think of any way of posting this without it seeming like I'm on a mission to undermine you!
Do you mind me asking if you have a background in economics or similar? I've always wondered as like make on here, at least some of what you say does make sense to me though I largely have no idea about the topic!
Feel free to ignore this though, I'm being a cheeky begger in asking this and totally understand if you want to keep your private life, well, private! Lol
It’s a mindset that the country doesn’t have enough money to do anything, when that is demostrably untrue.
Isn't this the same thing as saying "spending too much will raise inflation" ?
It would certainly be worth exploring the possibility of getting the higher award for the daily living component due to your MS. I’m guessing you’ve been through the PIP “game” at least once, so know how horrid the process is?
Ive been in/out of assessment allowance/disability allowance for years due to breaking my spine very badly in 1991 and back onto it in 2008 then pip when diagnosed with spms in 2017 so I’ve had 33 years worth of battling and appeals against the ****ers so I know how to deal with them but I get utterly fatigued at the slightest stress or exertion these days, even getting up and dressed in my uniform of joggers and T-shirt takes me a genuine 20mins of “what’s the ****ing point” sat on the bed every morning, had to call my bro and mum at 1am on sat night to carry me the 20ft to bed as I couldn’t move due to bad bladder/kidney infection and raging fever.
On a positive note, I can still wipe my own arse, but now my hands and arms are going fast so I guess I'm hoping the assisted dying bill gets through in time for me to make use of it
On 1000mg of ciprofloxacin and 200mg of nitrofurantin for the next 14 days so if I start posting gibberish just ignore me.
@stumpyjon We've had 14 years of this and it hasn't worked, has it? There's a word to describe doing the same again and again and expecting a different result.
I suspect that the people advising the government are clinically insane and there's a lack of will to make a change or try something different. Or more bluntly ministers are suffering from a lack of moral fibre. What has the country got to lose? We're going backwards fast and at this rate we'll be back in EU because we need to like in the 70's.
@somafunk
Yeah, you've been well and truly put through the benefit claim meat grinder then.
Utterly shit to read that post mate, my friend was diagnosed about 6 years back, I can't remember what type of MS it is but she's just at the point where swallowing food/ drinking is becoming an issue. It's a horrible disease.
Stress is the last thing you want, have you got an advocate to help you with the pip if you go for the higher award?
Your mum claiming carers allowance should be pretty straight forward in comparison.
Utterly shit to read that post mate, my friend was diagnosed about 6 years back, I can’t remember what type of MS it is but she’s just at the point where swallowing food/ drinking is becoming an issue. It’s a horrible disease.
That is one of the most soul destroying possibilities that MS can bring, you can get special dietary advice for such an issue but it’s never a cure as the eventual outcome is always the same conclusion. every single case of ms progression is different, from relapsing remitting to primary progressive to secondary progressive.
relapsing remitting (and to a certain extent primary progressive) is like climbing a mountain, you will stop/start but get to the top eventually if you persevere
secondary progressive is like throwing yourself from the top and making most of the view before you eventually hit the ground.
Unfortunately they’ll never be a cure but modern DMT’s can hold it at bay for relapsing remitting, tired of this parish invented/developed a DMT for the disease.
I'll have to ask her which type she has, I could be wrong but I think they changed the diagnosis at some point with her. Or I'm imagining it.
She's ferociously independent, always been a battler but she's outright told me and her family that there will come a time, whilst she is still able to, to... "call it a day."
Her uncle has lived with it for many years and is now utterly dependant upon his wife, she's seen his "journey" and I think that's in part what has made her decide what she wants to do in the future.
Personally, now the tunnel has been cancelled, the answer is to put 6’ perforated fencing along the edge of the road, to block the view of the stones –
I had a pretty much clear run from Torbay to Amesbury last Saturday morning , until I got to Stonehenge.
I asked friends who live there why don’t they just put up a fence so you can’t see it from the road ? They seemed to be under the impression it has been discussed , but is deemed not to fit in with the environment . Well, if a £million of fencing ( I know it wouldn’t be as cheap as that, but it could if you really wanted it too * ) would solve the problem, then someone needs to overrule them and allow it .
You could run a cycle lane behind it while you were at it
* probably just about cover the consultants fees ?
What a real economist is saying about Rachel Reeves' options....
@anagallis_arvensis
5.5% for teachers the workshy spongers are always on holiday, why do they need a pay rise ?
hoping this is a joke??
Thank goodness, me too. I’ll get back to sponging on my summer break.
TomZesty
Full Member
Thank goodness, me too. I’ll get back to sponging on my summer break.
You make 3 teachers in the forum now!
Pity my lads grown up, would have been handy to know when he was still studying at school. 🙂
My mum’s **** raging, watching C4 news with her now, she gets the basic state pension and £137 a month from a pension she accrued for working at a council care home a number of years ago and the winter fuel allowance paid for her logs and towards gas/electricity, she’s meant to get £187 month from the private pension but it gets taxed down to £137.
You might want to get someone with all the facts to check the details - but my mental arrithmetic says she shouldn't be paying as much tax as that... basic state pension is about 11.5K pa. 187/m ~ 2.2K pa = 13.7K pa total income - of which the first 12.5k is tax free and so she should be taxed at 20% on the 1.2K above this = which would take her £187 a month down to £167.
She won't qualify for PIP if she's not had it before retirement age. She may qualify for attendants allowance if she needs external help. If she's caring for you she should get carers allowance (I'm not sure she'll manage to argue she needs attendants allowance and is caring for you). The entire benefits system is a total mess meaning that people who deserve it often don't claim it.
The idea that my in-laws who go on four foreign holidays a year, usually including 2 cruises, need winter fuel payments is ridiculous (although they have the thermostat set at 24 constantly!). They were horrified when the press hinted tripple lock might go last year, but are very annoyed when hospital appointments have been rescheduled because of strikes... So whilst I don't want to see any individual suffer (and would encourage anyone who thinks they will struggle to make sure they are claiming everything they are entitled to) I think scrapping winter fuel payments probably is an inevitable consequence of the pension itself being tripple locked.
Good first step towards sorting the NHS incoming…
Not convinced by that. Stopping building 40 desperately needed hospitals isnt good.
Asking Consultants just to work more hours than they currently do for free in many cases isnt going to work
An increase in pay will hopefully start attracting more people, but you need training post to be available. I am not aware that have been any increases in training posts.
Also social care pay needs addressing, many are on minimum wage which for the work these brilliant people do is terrible,
Stopping building 40 desperately needed hospitals isnt good.
Do we 'desperately need' 40 new hospitals, d'you know? Even if we do, there weren't 40 new hospital being built anyway, it was made up nonsense by Johnson. There was I think two or three brand new hospitals being built and some additional building work to another 34 to make them larger. Reeves has said that all of them will come under review
Do we ‘desperately need’ 40 new hospitals, d’you know?
Yes we do, do you not watch the news?
it was made up nonsense by Johnson
No it wasnt. Funding has been allocated to some and building started.
I am not anti Labour here, I work in the NHS, I just dont see any steps so far that are going to change anything for the positive.
Yes we do, do you not watch the news?
I'm not sure that 3 brand new hospitals and 20 or so projects to add wings or larger buildings on existing sites is going to make a huge difference to the waiting list for treatments. There's a waiting list becasue there's not enough workforce, not space. Personally I'd rather see the money allocated to those projects being spent to reform GP and dental services.
Not convinced by that. Stopping building 40 desperately needed hospitals isnt good.
Given that the reality never matched the announcement, I'm not sure how much the NHS has actually lost. And they'd be **** all use with no one there to staff them. It's a worthwhile trade off for now. None of us in the public sector have enough of what we need.
Looking forward to seeing what cuts HMRC will have to make to fund part of our pay rise, given that our job is to get tax revenue in to fund public services, a fact the last government tried to hide from the public accounts committee.
All this chaos is of Labour's own making and it's going to get worse.
Everyone is now squabbling amongst themselves about how we take from one hand and give to the other.
It's incorrect and a distraction. And could easily solve but just removing or adjusting Labour's terrible and self-imposed fiscal rules.
We've had years of this argument - a restraint on available money and Labour look set to make it even worse.
I think Reeves sounds exhausted and confused over her own doing. Something is off. She must know it's twaddle.
My thoughts that the economy will get worse (in some areas) under Labour is being cemented that she promised more difficult decisions will need to be made.
You also have to question the validity of the OBR or the IFS in this process if the government can simply not get access to previous government's info. (Which is rubbish but that's what's being peddled.
Questions all over that and the OBRs 5 years in the future modelling.
Labour can operate within a clean slate frame-work. They don't have to inherent anything for future spending from the Tories (other than resource constraints and inflationary pressure.)
Until they change this thinking we are probably having a Tory based economic future with a bit of pointless give and take. People will suffer.
What is the point of Labour?
Ta Poly, I'll look into it and get the exact figures to check
Anyone hear the automaton on R4 Today program getting interviewed by Mishal Husain this morning?, I had the radio on as my mum was helping and she told me to "switch that ****ing woman (another word for woman actually) off"
Bzzzzzzzt.... fiscal rules............ whirrrrrrrr........ economic stability ........... zzzzzzzzziiiiiiip .......... independent pay review body's....review bodys.......review bodys......review bodys.....review bodys ..................... bzzzt...bzzzzt....bzzzzttttt ........... public finances .........pssst.....pssst......pssst.......irresponsibleirensponsibleiresponsibleiresponsible ................ click....click....click ......... financial responsibility ......financial responsibility ........financial responsibility ............fhit .... fhit...... fhit.... fhit..... fhit ...... inherited difficult decisions ..... inherited difficult decisions .... inherited difficult .......... decisions....decisions ......decisions ....... tic .....tic ......tic...... tic ........ tic ......goverment difficult .....goverment difficult ........government difficult ............... brrrrrrrrzzzzzzzzzzzzz ............ private sector ...... private sector .......sector ........sector ...........private............ unlock....unlock.. .......unlock ...... unlock.......
2hours 10minutes in below.
Somafunk - yeah that's all I hear.
But that's what happens when people repeat economics buzz without looking one inch below the surface.
Government spending has more in common with double entry accounting than wider economic observations acknowledge.
Shoddy journalism.
With our new fiscal lock, never again can a government play fast and loose with the public finances.
brings back memories of Browns "end of boom and bust" speeches.
All this chaos is of Labour’s own making and it’s going to get worse.
So nothing to do with Tory misrule and 14 years of madness, Ok then.....
Everyone is now squabbling amongst themselves about how we take from one hand and give to the other.
Really, the current incarnation of the Labour Party seems remarkably disciplined at the moment, the only noise I can here are the usual whingers on here and apparently some old bloke on his allotment.
See it's more of the same from yourself and still no insight into why Labour may be following this path if your novel economic approach is so easy to implement?
See it’s more of the same from yourself and still no insight into why Labour may be following this path if your novel economic approach is so easy to implement?
It’s not exactly rocket science to draw a parallel between Reeves previous employment and her current economic principles though is it?.
New government comes in and in the first months make small changes to try and balance the books to forecast against their term, it's not shocking, it's pretty common, small tweaks, see how the markets react, keep moving.
Still seeing all the 'lets spend our way out of trouble' stuff being thrown up, backed by MMT, do people (who actively stated they didn't vote Labour) surprised that a new government isn't implementing something that's never been tried in isolation by a western nation in their first few weeks, also remember, all these posts from Murphy, Kelton et al, they're on the outside trying to look in, basing their comments on their beliefs and no internal information that Reeves and her team have.
New government comes in and in the first months make small changes to try and balance the books to forecast against their term, it’s not shocking, it’s pretty common, small tweaks, see how the markets react, keep moving.
That doesn’t excuse the cuts for those at the bottom of the food chain
Reeves and co are going to have to up their performance. This is the third or fourth "much worse than I thought" statement from a new minister, it's so obviously the favoured text from HQ. Fact is she had that text written weeks ago but wasn't going to share it with the rest of us because she knew it would scare the horses.
blackhat
Free Member
Reeves and co are going to have to up their performance. This is the third or fourth “much worse than I thought” statement from a new minister, it’s so obviously the favoured text from HQ.
I don't really mind that, it was always going to be this way and to an extent it's true, look at the statements from the IFS and OBR.
What I'm interested in are the announced policies, not a "politician doing politics".
So far I do have a few concerns but I'm willing to see how things play out.
The end of October will provide a lot of answers.
Fact is she had that text written weeks ago but wasn’t going to share it with the rest of us because she knew it would scare the horses.
Yeah, that's kind of how politics and government works.
I'm not sure I've seen anyone trying to justify how the previous government were planning on plugging these holes? It's all just Labour's problem?
Yes it is clearly now a Labour problem but how it can be solved and how urgent it is to solve are where things can be done differently.
I hope that in the next few years Labour are brave enough to simplify and straighten out the tax system. The fewer rules, the fewer the loopholes. I don't actually object to paying a bit more tax - in fact, as a relatively high earner I tend to feel that I get away with it quite well with anything that's salary sacrifice basically being discounted by 62%, including part time.
Certainly the most irritating people that I work with are complaining noisily about the statement by Rachel Reeves, so it must have something right. Provided that an increase in taxation is applied fairly to everyone (ie no special exemptions for the public sector), then it's likely worth it.
Labour didn't campaign on a platform of radical reform, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it's mostly a case of steady as she goes. Even if the ship is sinking!
The government spending on health continues to increase. In the past this has been covered by a certain extent by cuts in other areas, particularly defence. There isn't much left to squeeze, so surely something has to give?
Cancelling major infrastructure projects isn't going to help the countries productivity problem.
Just catching up with channel 4 news.
I tell you what, Labour are being (shhhhhhhh!) pretty radical (shhhhhh!) in their plans to reform planning and get huge house building schemes pushed through.
Are we going to see the death of nimbyism? Or rather it'll still be there but "no shizzle given, it's being built, deal with it"?
I hope that in the next few years Labour are brave enough to simplify and straighten out the tax system. The fewer rules, the fewer the loopholes
I made one of our Policy guys squirm when I asked why the last round of reform of our corner of the tax maze had made it more complicated, not less. Didn't seem to be even on the radar that making it simpler makes it harder to fiddle, either freeing up time to investigate other problems or - God forbid - making it easier use AI to risk cases.
KISS clearly a radical new concept in the Civil Service.
I think the Tories deserve the last few weeks of being told how shit they were, we've had 14 years of them blaming the last labour government for everything. Reap what you sow....
KISS clearly a radical new concept in the Civil Service.
Careful the PCS will be round to have a word and explain that simple = less need for HMRC staff!
I tell you what, Labour are being (shhhhhhhh!) pretty radical (shhhhhh!) in their plans to reform planning and get huge house building schemes pushed through.
Hardly radical but something that does need to be sorted out. As discussed before though, all comes down to where the people are coming from who are building the houses and even with the backup plan of the government stepping in and taking over from developers (because they cannot make enough money out of it) the same problem exists especially as the reason they cannot do it may partly be because the manpower is not there to do it and they can't control that.
I tell you what, Labour are being (shhhhhhhh!) pretty radical (shhhhhh!) in their plans to reform planning and get huge house building schemes pushed through
Tinkering to make it appear so.
Believing the private sector will just step in and do all this stuff is for the birds.
I don't understand this version of radical either.
I tell you what, Labour are being (shhhhhhhh!) pretty radical (shhhhhh!) in their plans to reform planning and get huge house building schemes pushed through
Tinkering to make it appear so.
Believing the private sector will just step in and do all this stuff is for the birds.
I don’t understand this version of radical either.
You don't think developers will take the opportunity to line their own pockets getting involved with hastily pushed through housing developments?
Believing the private sector will just step in and do all this stuff is for the birds.
They will if there are incentives, besides who better to get to re-build council housing stock?
