The time to replace him would be 2027ish so you can blame most of it on him but still have time to start putting policies in place.
That would be the best time if the primary concern is the Westminster political game, if we want politics that actually recognises that there is more to life that the Westminster bubble, that it is meant to be about changing peoples lives for the better noy just soundbites between freebies, then he needs to go much much sooner.
If you refuse to watch AI (which I heartily agree with, well done) I would recommend Garys Economics.
My objection to rone's contributions on here (and I probably agree with 90% of what he says) is that he is the equivalent of an LLM with the prompt "You are Stephanie Kelton, explain economics to me".
Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Stephanie Kelton (and again, I agree with a lot of what she says but she has some major blind spots in her views, mostly that not every country has the World reserve currency as their fiat currency) is dismissed as an idiot who is just ignorant of economics.
To me, the problem begins and ends with the fact that over the last 40 to 50 years the ultra-wealthy have stolen all the money and we are now approaching the point where there is simply no more money left to steal.
Money is just an (imperfect) representation of the total assets and work done with those assets in an economy. How you describe that representation is very much secondary to how the assets are distributed.
The focus should be, 'We have nothing anymore because the ultra-wealthy have stolen it all". My objection to rone's posts is that he spams this thread and others with, 'We have no money because the stupid politicians who don't understand economics won't create it by spending it into existence*.'
While there are some things Stephanie Kelton is correct about, having her views parroted in a particularly patronising way on every single ****ing page of this thread is getting really tiresome. And, more importantly, it distracts from the only issue that matters which is that the ultra-wealthy have stolen all the money and we need to get it back.
*I know that that my characterisation of rone's views is going to result in a 17 point explanation on why I am ignorant of both his views and economics in general but I don't really care.
I can't decide if Stephanie Kelton has just seized on a model to describe the economy as a solution to societies problems or, putting my tinfoil hat on, she is actually a Peter Thiel plant.
Her model describes the way an economy works pretty well. I do wonder though if she has seen the major problem in society, ie, that the ultra wealthy are stealing all the assets and no government has the will or ability to actually take those stolen assets back, and said, 'Hey, maybe the governments don't actually have to take those assets back!'
My problem with MMT enthusiasts is that they always draw attention away from the real issue, thinking they are the only ones who can see the real solution. When it's pointed out that the real issue is the theft of assets from society as a whole, it's always waved away with a, 'Well of course we can tackle wealth inequality as part of this but...'
No, you can't just hand wave away wealth inequality. Discussions about MMT-type solutions have taken so much oxygen out of the room that there is very little left to focus on the actual issue.
Honestly, MMT is such a useful tool to distract from the real issue it has genuinely got me wondering if Stephanie Kelton is actually one of the most effective weapons the billionaire class have to continue their relentless acquisition of assets.
Gary Stephens has uses zero evidence, research or papers to make his views. The lack of irony in citing a millionaire to criticise MMT for helping billionaires is preposterous. He's popular amongst jaded centrists. But he hasn't a clue about how the government spends. It's fascinating you would choose a popular youtuber instead of a professor to make your point.
What you're saying is plain silly. Of course MMT recognises distributional issues - it's literally about the idea that private capital doesn't fund the state. Resources are front and centre.
Kelton (Bell) didn't stumble on anything as such - she set to prove to herself years ago whether bonds and taxes did fund spending, she discovered through evidence (Fed documentation, TGA papers etc.) they didn't.
https://share.google/Fs9vk5PN2ftuLyAnQ
MMT 'enthusiasts' just want people to know how their public finances work. The amazing thing is how we all (myself included) simply just accepted Thatcher's lies that there is only tax payers money - without said evidence.
What you have are governments crippling society because of false neoliberal constraints where the intention is the fabrication of the scarcity of money. That's why everything is falling apart.
This morning's cracker is it looks like income tax rises are not going ahead.
Well only because Labour need to save their skin not becuase they actually need that money. Which is what we've been saying all along.
So no rise in income tax then...
I'm actually quite surprised by their level of incompetence, which is in itself surprising given the level of incompetence seen so far.
From the article:
The FT reported Reeves may now look at thresholds at which people pay tax, which is likely to be seen as an income tax rise by stealth.
I'm sure the end result of 'looking at the thresholds' will be completely different to a tax rise.
rone, can you please stop being an inadvertent mouthpiece for billionaires and focus on the real problem which it the ultra wealthy stealing all the assets.
rone, can you please stop being an inadvertent mouthpiece for billionaires and focus on the real problem which it the ultra wealthy stealing all the assets.
Jeez. You've got to fix the foundations of society before you get to that one Brucy. Shall i drop in my local A+E and tell the guy on the tray in the waiting room we can't fix him immediately because we've go to sort billionaires out first?
A well invested public infrastructure, health and social system = mouth piece for billionares.
(To answer you plainly - tax the **** out of billionaires 🤪)
Ooh look at those gilts this morning!
I mean who cares but they will.
Have a plan darlings.
I'm feeling a bit of a global shit storm brewing...
Fairly massive gap down on gilts this morning - Truss would be proud.
Fairly massive gap down on gilts this morning - Truss would be proud.
Well it's always pleasing that trying to keep the city happy helps us fix society's foundations.
Don't worry about gilts - BoE can easily fix that if it wants to. We have to keep the pretence of a market.
MMT 'enthusiasts' just want people to know how their public finances work. The amazing thing is how we all (myself included) simply just accepted Thatcher's lies that there is only tax payers money - without said evidence.
OK rone, since you seem so keen on patronizingly educating the rest of us, let me patronizingly educate you.
Forget about money. It isn't real. Money is anything that has value but has no intrinsic use. You can't build with it, you can't eat it, you can't burn it for energy, etc.
Assets are real things. It could be raw materials, it could be raw materials that have had word done on them to increase their value, it could be a process that only you have access to, it is basically a 'thing' that you control that has 'real' value.
Money is simply how we assign relative value of assets. Some money the market controls the value (gold and bitcoin, for example) and some money is controlled (to a greater or lesser extent) by the issuing government. That's it. Stephanie Kelton does a pretty good job explaining how governments control the relative value of their currency, but she assigns far too much importance to the effect of playing with this relative value.
The household budget analogy is oversimplified but it is largely correct, even at a national level. If you want something, you have to buy it. When you buy something, you are trading one asset for another. Even if you use money as an exchange mechanism. Buying something means trading assets.
If you already have sufficient assets, you can just sell your current asset and buy the one you want. Or, alternatively, you can borrow against the value of your current assets and pay interest with the assumption that the value generated by your new asset is going to be more than the interest.
The problems start to arise when you don't have enough assets to fully secure a loan. Then the interest payment has to be higher to reflect the increased risk. This is where the bond markets come in.
The UK government, and governments across the Western World, have been steadily reducing the assets they own and giving much of them to the billionaire class through various mechanisms.
The UK government is now at a point where it has no more assets to secure loans against or to sell. It's only option is to borrow at extremely high interest rates. Interest rates that are so high the return of investment is unlikely to exceed the cost of interest payments. Lenders know this so the interest rate becomes even higher as they know borrowing is going to eventually leave the UK in a worse situation.
Thatcher wasn't necessarily lying about the household budget analogy. What she lied about was the UK's ability to borrow cheaply because it was an extremely low risk debtor. She used that lie to sell assets to 'friends' at a disproportionately large discount, who were then able to use their increased wealth to increase it even further.
Forget money. It's not real. It's a proxy that we use to measure value. Focus on assets. Assets are the only thing with any real value. The UK no longer has a fraction of the assets it had 40 years ago because the ultra wealthy have siphoned them all away. That is why there is now nothing left to pay for the investments that are so badly needed.
Please for the love of god stop spamming this thread with your partially correct and damaging opinions and let us focus on the real issue of getting our assets back from the people who have taken them so we can actually start paying for the investments that are so badly needed.
Forget about money. It isn't real. Money is anything that has value but has no intrinsic use. You can't build with it, you can't eat it, you can't burn it for energy, etc
We can have an abstract conversation about money for sure. Or we can accept it gets its value through the guarantee by the state and taxation redemption. And money is created and and also dies on a computer balance sheet.
It just so happens we use money for transactions though. What are you paying your mortgage with, your taxes in etc? The pound exists to redeem itself via taxation and for the government to provision itself.
Everything else is commercial bank money or credit.
Assets are real things. It could be raw materials, it could be raw materials that have had word done on them to increase their value, it could be a process that only you have access to, it is basically a 'thing' that you control that has 'real' value.
Front and centre in all my points and MMT explanations. (Assets are often intangibles.) I think you mean resources.
I keep posting explanations or rebuttals where i can (like a few weeks ago when you tried to catch me out about Argentina and had to explain to you it had a dollar peg. Etc.)
But you've clearly got a stuck in the mud position and you're not willing to accept how it all fits together.
I'm wasting my time with you. No hard feelings.
(like a few weeks ago when you tried to catch me out about Argentina and had to explain to you it had a dollar peg. Etc.)
And then when I had to explain to you it didn't.
You are not as informed as you think. You have read a single book and taken it as gospel. And now, like all zealots, you feel the need to spam every single page with the same partially correct but ultimately wrong conclusion about what the solution to the UK problems are.
Interestingly, I do like how your rebuttal to the Gary Economics video is he is a 'popular youtuber' and not a 'professor'. I think there's a word for that kind of argument.
Sorry, but his message (that for years the poor have been getting squeezed and now the middle classes are getting squeezed and we are going to eventually see all the assets irreversibly concentrated in the hands of a handful of billionaires if we don't reverse this trend now) is more important than you telling us every single page that if Rachel Reeves was smart and understood economics like you there would be plenty money to pay for everything we could possibly need.
It is literally magical thinking where you think there is an infinite money hack to side step the hard problem of getting our assets back. There isn't.
But you've clearly got a stuck in the mud position and you're not willing to accept how it all fits together.
I'm wasting my time with you. No hard feelings.
Actually, my position has evolved over the years and continues to evolve as I continue to learn more (and yes, I learned a great deal from Stephanie Kelton). You're the one that has been spouting the exact same point, unaltered, for years.
So yes, one of us is definitely stuck in the mud.
Farewell cycle-to-work schemes now. Yes, it is a tax dodge that disproportionately benefited the middle-to-well-off, but the long term cost savings thanks to the health benefits vastly outnumbered the loss in tax revenue.
Says who, tho?
Rumours that they might also target salary sacrifice but that might dissuade pension saving.
Or we can accept it gets its value through the guarantee by the state and taxation redemption.
Sorry, just one more point on this as I was thinking about it.
Like I said, one of my biggest criticism's of Stephanie Kelton is that her analysis is based primarily on a US-centric viewpoint. At first glance, it seems like everything I was saying about how if a country has sold off most of it's assets it will struggle to borrow without a clear case on how this borrowing is going to lead to growth is wrong because the USA seemingly contradicts it.
One of the central ideas of MMT is that a sovereign currency will always have value simply because it is guaranteed by the state and tax redemption. The US Government seemingly doesn't own much in the way of real assets and yet the USD still manages to act as its own guarantee.
The reason that is possible is because the USD is the world reserve currency. Other countries are obliged to own dollars to a greater or lesser extent.
This didn't happen because people like the USA. The US has 128 foreign military bases. These bases are there to guarantee security for US 'Allies'. How countries become allies is very much dependent on what they can provide for the US. And a large part of that is by simply agreeing to pay for things in dollars.
At first glance, the US dollar seems to magically support itself regardless of the US government seemingly not owning many assets. Honestly, if I had to describe the US economic system, it's probably closer to an organised crime syndicate where protection is bought and provided by the US industrial complex.
Whether it's offering protection or directly fighting in a conflict, the US military supports the US dollar. That is where the seemingly magical ability of the US dollar always have value comes from and a lot of where the 'intangible value' arguments actually come from.
The UK's ability to extort protection money from its 'allies' to be paid in GBP? Yeah, not so much.
It is literally magical thinking where you think there is an infinite money hack to side step the hard problem of getting our assets back. There isn't.
Bruce I've never interpreted rone's posts as dismissing the damage done by billionaires and corporations accumulating too much money. I agree the core problem is the channelling of too much money to the top 1%, I've said it many times, the ultra-rich are nothing more than parasites feeding on our economy. However that message easily co-exists with the MMT stuff rather than diminishing it. MMT isn't a political solution, it's a model describing how fiat currencies and govt finances work, which allows us to break free from the myth that finite money restricts what govts can do. Nowhere does it say it's ok to allow all that money to end up in the pockets of billionaires, quite the opposite in fact, MMT promotes the use of fiscal policy to enact redistribution.
I prefer talking about the billionaire problem because people can understand it better. The rich getting rich on the backs of the poor is a timeless message that everyone can understand, much more than 'we can create fiat money to fund the govt as long as the economy has the resources to spend it'. But it doesn't mean the latter message is wrong, it's just more difficult to understand for people who don't pay much attention or have no interest in economics.
Nowhere does it say it's ok to allow all that money to end up in the pockets of billionaires, quite the opposite in fact, MMT promotes the use of fiscal policy to enact redistribution
Like I said I agree with what a lot or rone says, particularly how MMT works in terms of the value of a Sovereign Currency relative to the value of real assets.
What I don't agree with is spamming every single page of this thread with 'Rachel Reeves doesn't understand economics!'
I'd say Rachel Reeves understands economics better than rone. I'd say she understands that without investement the UK economy is going to whither, slowly at first and then seemingly all at once. Same as every other economy in the Western World.
I'd say she also knows she can't do anything about it without the billionaire class attacking her everywhere from mainstream media to botfarms posting on reddit.
Where I disagree is that the fix to this problem can be enacted if you skip the step where you take the assets that have been stolen over the last four decades back into collective ownership.
That is my fundamental disagreement with rone and spamming this thread with message after message that everything would be alright if Reeves just spent money into existence is wrong and counterproductive.
Not to mention it's getting really ****ing boring.
Whether it's offering protection or directly fighting in a conflict, the US military supports the US dollar.
Stretching here a bit I think. The dollar is the reserve currency because it's what the major oil producers use to trade their oil, and it's propped up by the world's largest economy. Yes the military stuff is relevant but it's not the driving factor behind the dollar being the global reserve currency. Equally the pound is also a reserve currency (obviously less so than the dollar) because it is propped up by the world's sixth(?) largest economy. I agree the MMT stuff falls down if a country has a weak currency, but the UK is nowhere near that. As long as the UK maintains itself as a stable, fully developed economy then the pound will maintain it's value and the MMT model will hold.
Where I disagree is that the fix to this problem can be enacted if you skip the step where you take the assets that have been stolen over the last four decades back into collective ownership.
Totally agree. There's no point creating more money if all goes to the mega-rich. I don't think that's what rone is saying though. Doesn't it go without saying that if MMT is going to work then the money created by govts needs to end up in the real economy? If the Gary's economics bloke is claiming that MMT doesn't want to address the ultra-rich problem I think he's being extremely disengenuous. I've never heard a single MMT advocate say we shouldn't tax the rich more.
Not to mention it's getting really ****ing boring.
It's equally boring to see people trot out the usual nonsense about Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany, the pound collapsing and the bond markets freaking out because the govt decide to spend a bit of cash on the NHS or building a railway, but that doesn't get challenged like the MMT stuff does.
Fairly massive gap down on gilts this morning - Truss would be proud.
Already back to where they were on Monday. Not very exciting.
It's equally boring to see people trot out the usual nonsense about Zimbabwe
That seems to be the trigger response to the constant MMT posts, maybe if ALL the pseudo-economists (and pseudo is doing a lot of lifting there) give it a rest everyone will be happier. Or maybe not.
Already back to where they were on Monday. Not very exciting.
It would have been very exciting for anyone holding a long/short position overnight. It's not so much the number that's exciting, but the fact that the chart is now going down instead of up. Down obviously being bad and up being good for the government. Will we now see continued selling into the budget? The lesson is that moronic behaviour has consequences.
Ian Dunt today summed up pretty much exactly what I and I’m sure many others are feeling after this shambles of a week
and I’m sure many others are feeling after this shambles of a week
Yup , I guess that explains why the latest poll (fieldwork 2 days ago) puts Labour in 4th place.
This must surely be unprecedented for Labour. Well done Starmer, although I'm sure that it is someone else's fault 🙄
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-12th-november-2025/
I've picked the wrong time to be watching Years&Years for the first time, that's for sure.
I'm not sure about this part of Dunt's piece though...
It could act - not to install left-wing figures in place of right-wing ones, but to block a future reactionary government from trying to break these institutions.
We've seen what happens... the "Right" install their people to shift things rightwards and/or disrupt, the "Left" (or Centre Right if others insist) then don't counter that, just tighten up rules... and then when back in power the "Right" ignore/change those rules and put their people in and shift things further rightwards and neuter the organisations. Even more effectively in the USA. But key figures in the UK are over there a lot dealing with and learning from those pushing that path.
Should the government try and make the BBC and others more insulted from political interference? Yes. Can they make that stick beyond their term in office? I very much doubt it.
Or we can accept it gets its value through the guarantee by the state and taxation redemption.
One of the central ideas of MMT is that a sovereign currency will always have value simply because it is guaranteed by the state and tax redemption. The US Government seemingly doesn't own much in the way of real assets and yet the USD still manages to act as its own guarantee.
The reason that is possible is because the USD is the world reserve currency.
1) "Taxation redemption" is a term I haven't come across before.
2) Much as it pains me to prolong this conversation or seem to give support to the Magical Money Tree argument...I don't think the idea is that the US government owning "real assets" is particularly what persuades investors of the value of its bonds or currency.
It's the ability of the US Government to tax 340 million of the world's richest people and however many corporations that's the compelling factor. Compare that to the Falkland Islands - they've got 20 people and a million sheep to tax. Virgin Money wouldn't give the Falkland Islands Government a credit card (if it didn't have HMG guarantees in the background).
(Also, the US Govt does has massive real assets, but that's immaterial).
Who'd have thought it after only 16 months.
But then again these people have been an embarrassment ever since the 10 pledges.
You could see it coming.
Top tip: have a good plan that fixes the foundations and stick to it - stop pretending you can be pragmatic when the country has been wrecked by the Tories. It requires more than pragmatism.
Come on on Zack force this mad version of the Labour party into extinction.
(P.S we don't need the income tax rises for that black-hole any more. Cos we didn't need it in the first place.)
Ladies and Gentlemen the Truss 'government' was warm up act for the sheer incompetence on show and policy making on the hoof of this boxed-in dynamic duo who haven't got a sodding clue.
1) "Taxation redemption" is a term I haven't come across before.
Money is returned via taxation where it's destroyed. All money is an IOU. I'm sure there's much you haven't come across. Same with me. (Maybe I should have said government money is redeemed via taxation.)
Much as it pains me to prolong this conversation or seem to give support to the Magical Money Tree argument.
It's not an argument - it's an accurate description.
But keep clinging and supporting the same idea that Reeve's does - that private money funds the state. Rather than the monopoly issuer of the currency.
.I don't think the idea is that the US government owning "real assets" is particularly what persuades investors of the value of its bonds or currency.
Of course it's not - its the fact that saving with the government is 100% safe (or as close as), and backed which is why there is always demand for bonds.
A very interesting and plausible article from Neal Lawson today :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/13/keir-starmer-labour-prime-minister-corbyn-mps
The plan, hatched by a tiny clique of rightwing faction fighters, was this: find a candidate on whom they could fake a continuation Corbynism project to win the leadership. Then kick the ladder away from the people who backed them and the promises they made.
But they needed Starmer as the only person who could break the grip of Corbynism precisely because he had promoted it. What the membership wanted was a professional version of Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer was the man. But it was only meant to be a temporary deal.
Despite a 169 seat majority, Labour is finding it impossible to govern, because it has no vision of where it is taking the country and no ability to deliver on it even if it did.
Labour’s crisis is not a temporary blip. It is structural and fundamental.
There is no loyalty to each other because there is nothing to be loyal to, other than self-belief. They have all the cunning, skills and cynicism to make it to the top of the greasy pole, but none of the awareness, the boldness or the humility to lead Labour or the country to a better place.
I think much in the article is self-evident but the suggestion that Starmer was only supposed to be a temporary leader is new to me. Sure in 2019 Labour could not have reasonably expected to win the following general election. In UK politics no party that had won a "landslide" was expected to lose the subsequent one, although that very much changed in 2024 and looks certain to change again in 2029.
UK voters have become erratic and unpredictable as never before.
OK, should we finally make an MMT thread and ban any mention of it from politics threads? Because if rone keeps spamming the same message over and over again people are going to keep saying, Weimar Republic, Sri Lanka, etc and I'm going to keep saying we can't apply the US model because the US economic model is basically just an extortion racket with the aim of supporting its currency.
Although if people aren't allowed to say that everything would be fine if Reeves would just open the taps, I guess I'm not allowed to say everything would be fine if the Left could just articulate a vision for the country that involved a long hard desperate struggle to claw back assets from the billionaire class that we will probably lose anyway as history has shown that the period from 1945 to ca.1980 was a brief blip in the historical average levels of wealth inequality and what seems to be happening now is simply a return to the norm unless we can finally take the revolutionary step of actually baking the concept that wealth inequality is harmful to everyone into the collective zeitgeist of the human race?
Maybe we should start two threads.
BTW, I didn't post the videos of Gary Economics as a rebuttal of MMT (even though some of what he says seems to contradict what Stephanie Kelton says). As far as I know he has never even mentioned MMT. I posted it because I genuinely believe he is able to identify and articulate clearly the problems that the Western World is facing (and it is every single country in the Western World which is the other thing that makes me think if there is an obvious and easy solution why hasn't one country figured it out yet?).
If this government was able to articulate any kind of coherent message, I'd like it to be that, 'We along with much of the rest of the Western World enjoyed a post-war period of record lows in wealth inequality. That wealth inequality has been increasing again since the 80s and is now in real danger of being so firmly entrenched in society that we can expect our children and grandchildren to grow up in levels of poverty not seen since the Victorian era. We have a chance to finally seize this reduction in wealth inequality and make it a permanent state of being.'
Yeah, maybe not. Although I do think it's fun to point out to the nostalgia merchants that the golden age of the 50s, 60s, and 70s they want to go back to is a period where society experienced the lowest levels of wealth inequality ever. So basically they are hankering after a leftist socialist utopia.
Also, as far as the UK being a strong stable economy, just remember the quote:
- How did you go bankrupt?
- Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.
I always assumed Starmer was a stop gap leader... didn't everyone expect him to loose the last election (at the time the leadership campaign was taking place)?! Changing/repairing the party ready for a future Labour leader to have a reasonable chance to become PM was the goal I thought had been handed to him. That he went so much further was I suspect was just as surprising to his backers as it has been to me.
private money funds the state. Rather than the monopoly issuer of the currency.
You consistently confuse fiat currency for money. This is not sarcastic but is admittedly condescending: You should do a night class in conventional economics. You clearly have a passion for the topic and the time to pursue it. You might not agree with much but you'd at least get to grips with some of the fundamental analytical tools and concepts before disagreeing with some of the conventional implications (which is fair enough).
didn't everyone expect him to loose the last election (at the time the leadership campaign was taking place)?!
I don't think anyone serious genuinely expected Labour to lose the last election, whoever the leader was.
I always assumed Starmer was a stop gap leader... didn't everyone expect him to loose the last election
Yes, it was unprecedented for a governing party to lose the first general election after a landslide win, but why would that make Starmer a stop-gap leader?
If Labour did very well despite not winning in 2024 why would Starmer have been expected to resign? Both Neil Kinnock and Jeremy Corbyn didn't resign after their first general election failures precisely because they did reasonably well, although Corbyn's first general election failure was much better than Kinnock's
Because keeping a leader who loses a general election is a foolish mistake (as illustrated by both Kinnock and Corbyn). If you've gained seats... great... then pass on the baton so your party can build on that.
Anyway, back in 2019 I thought Starmer didn't have what it takes to become PM, but ironically did have what it takes to run a government without fuss. So far I've been shown to be wrong on both counts.
Because keeping a leader who loses a general election is a foolish mistake
Maybe a foolish mistake but that is what the Labour Party has traditionally done if their leader has significantly increased the Labour vote. I don't understand why the "tiny right-wing clique" in Neal Lawson's article thought that they could easily replace Starmer with their preferred choice following a general election in which Labour did as well as was expected by party members.
Anyway, back in 2019 I thought Starmer didn't have what it takes to become PM, but ironically did have what it takes to run a government without fuss. So far I've been shown to be wrong on both counts.
You weren't wrong on former imo. What you probably hadn't factored in though was the possibility that the Tories would go into the last general election with someone like Rishi Sunak.
I think much in the article is self-evident but the suggestion that Starmer was only supposed to be a temporary leader is new to me.
Suprised at that. There was a lot of stuff going around back in 2019 suggesting Starmer was a caretaker who didn't have a chance of winning and the real candidate for PM was Streeting. At the time Starmer was seen as a safe soft-left option which the massively pro-Corbyn membership at the time would see as acceptable. I think I even posted something about it. It's ironic that the supposed 'success' of the labour right wing's machiavellian plan looks like it's now going to be its downfall. I guess that's why they're desperate to get Streeting in before they lose to Reform.
It's a pity Starmer and Burnham hate each other because that's the obvious stop-Streeting option. Starmer could wave through Burnham standing somewhere in Manchester and then pave the way for him to take over before the next election. Looks now though that Burnham's chances are negligible as becoming an MP will be the barrier.
Both Neil Kinnock and Jeremy Corbyn
I find it very unfair comparing the reasonable rational forward-looking pro-European Kinnock with that **** Corbyn.
Sorry, back to MMT for a minute. For me, it's a sign that the person has given up on wealth redistribution. I remember Richard Murphy stating explicitly, 'You don't have to tax the wealthy to pay for public spending.' To me, that's someone who has given up on the idea of actually reversing the trend and clawing back some of the wealth. Like I said, the clawing back step is bypassed (but will presumably somehow sort itself out in the future).
Wealth taxes are interesting in just how little they are discussed in the UK at the moment. We just had an election in Norway that was called a de-facto referendum on the wealth tax (Norway decided it likes the wealth tax, more or less). But it was interesting the people who supported it and who opposed it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/07/wealth-tax-norway-election
Predictably, the FRP (Reform equivalent) wanted the wealth tax abolished. Like Reform, a lot of FRPs support comes from the people who benefit most from wealth inequality not being allowed to grow too large (although in Norway like everywhere else, wealth inequality is growing).
To me, wealth tax is simply a no brainer. If billionaires want to leave, let them. Oh, and remember to implement an exit tax.
Like I said, I never hear wealth taxes being discussed regarding the UK (except the right wing press telling everyone that Norwegian billionaires have abandoned Norway and now we live in an Ayn Rand hellscape where suddenly no one understands how trains work).
On this thread, every single page, I hear about how everything would be fine if Reeves just spent money into existence. I hear absolutely nothing about wealth taxes.
The rightwing really has cowed the left into irrelevance.
Except Zack Polanski, of course.
At the time Starmer was seen as a safe soft-left option which the massively pro-Corbyn membership at the time would see as acceptable.
Yeah that is obvious, he clearly fooled a lot of people with regards to his alleged left-wing credentials, I never forgot that he was instrumental in the very carefully choreographed for the media, and designed to cause Corbyn the maximum damage, mass Shadow Cabinet resignations. One by one they resigned to keep it in the news and in the headlines.
But it is precisely because Starmer has always struck me as someone who is having his strings pulled by others (eg Morgan McSweeney) that I am surprised the plan was to replace by someone who might be their own man.
It still makes no sense to me why McSweeney might want to replace Starmer with Streeting. What's the thinking behind that?
On this thread, every single page, I hear about how everything would be fine if Reeves just spent money into existence. I hear absolutely nothing about wealth taxes.
You obviously missed the dozens of wealth tax posts I've posted. Not just me either. TBH I've changed my view slightly, we still need to tax wealth but already have the tools at our disposal via CGT, IHT and IT rather than creating a brand new tax. Doesn't change the arguments about how the govt invests and spends money though. Combine MMT with wealth-focused taxes and we'd have an economy based on productive work rather than rents and unearned capital gains. If the govt does one thing and one thing only, they need to incentivise people to work, and that's only going to happen with higher wages, lower taxes on workers, a functional health system to keep them healthy and public services like a decent public transport system and other infrastructure (childcare, social care etc) to help them get to and stay in work.
Just taxing income from wealth, ie setting capital gains at the same level as income tax would be a start, as would making NI contributions fairer (it is currently a regressive tax).
For me, it's a sign that the person has given up on wealth redistribution. I remember Richard Murphy stating explicitly, 'You don't have to tax the wealthy to pay for public spending.'
I think you probably only heard part of his argument, that is the observational part of where government spending comes from. He is however very supportive of taxing the wealthy much much more, in fact it is a main stay of most of the output I have heard from him. A direct wealth tax would be very hard to implement, but there are other better ways to tax the wealthy that would be harder to avoid and easier to implement IMO (as above).
Although I find Richard Murphy's vocal delivery extremely annoying so I don't listen to that much of him.
It still makes no sense to me why McSweeney might want to replace Starmer with Streeting. What's the thinking behind that?
Despite his rightwing leanings and dodgy links to private healthcare he's basically a more authentic leader who isn't afraid to speak his mind. He's also a shrewd political operator who can keep his own MPs on side whilst going after the opposition with obsessive enthusiasm which Starmer rarely displays. I'd don't like Streeting but I'd have him over Starmer any day.
OK, should we finally make an MMT thread and ban any mention of it from politics threads?
Are you trying to make that happen by repeatedly banging on about it?
You obviously missed the dozens of wealth tax posts I've posted.
Yes, I did. If I had to guess I'd say it's getting lost in rone parroting Stephanie Kelton every other post (literally sometimes).
I get it. He is adamant that Rachel Reeves is economically stupid and if she would just do what he says everything would start getting fixed.
I disagree. So do lots of other people. If I come across as condescending or dismissive in my posts I'm matching the tone that his pro-MMT/Kelton arguments are being delivered with.
I think the level of discussion on this thread would benefit from not having someone calling everyone who doesn't subscribe 100% to Kelton's thinking ignorant of how economics really works.
I said it before, I've met people who actually understand how economics work (or at least they've read more than one book on the subject) who are far less sure of their views than rone is. And I very much doubt it's because they are stupider or less informed than rone.
Yes, I did. If I had to guess I'd say it's getting lost in rone parroting Stephanie Kelton every other post
That's probably the fifth post today where you've said the same thing about rone and Stephanie Kelton. You don't seem to be practicing what you preach.
Both Neil Kinnock and Jeremy Corbyn
I find it very unfair comparing the reasonable rational forward-looking pro-European Kinnock with that **** Corbyn.
The comparison is that they have both been Labour Party leaders who both lost two general elections, that's the comparison. Which I think is perfectly fair.
Nice use of the C-word btw. Quotes don't go through the swear filter in case you weren't aware.
Back to the budget and Starmer and Reeves' incompetent handling of it. Is it at all possible that we could go a few hours without yet another policy leak? I know this is the way politics and the media work these days but today we started with the news that they'd u-turned on increasing income tax, then it was reported that they'd get the money from lowering thresholds, then we were told it was nothing to do with the Streeting cluster**** and instead it was because the OBR had updated it's forecast to include some new favourable data, then threshold weren't being lowered, but instead frozen. And that's just one day, we've had weeks and months of this sort of shite. Has it at all occured to them that maybe keeping policy under wraps until it is formally announced might at least present the illusion to voters that they know what they're doing?
That's probably the fifth post today where you've said the same thing about rone and Stephanie Kelton. You don't seem to be practicing what you preach.
Like I said, if I'm dismissive and condescending then I'm matching the tone of the comments that are annoying me.
I've been ill at home and bored today. Also, I've not been posting much here lately because I've been working on a project at work that just fell through with about 6 months of work (plus the two years prior to me coming in to try to fix things) so perhaps I'm not in the best of moods and reacting more strongly to things that annoy me*.
I've just been posting here today but I do follow this thread. Seeing the same opinion stated as fact day after day on what is quite a nuanced subject has been grating.
I'm quite happy to leave it if others can accept that maybe there is more to the world than the MMT outlook of economics and maybe accept that not agreeing doesn't necessarily make someone ignorant or an idiot.
*There's any economics question for you. If people spend thousands of hours working on something only to watch it evaporate as if it never even existed, was any economic work done at all. We could have been paid to stay home smoking weed and masturbating for two years and our total actual output would have been exactly the same.
Quotes do go through the swear filter on my screen, and even if they don't I can hardly be accused of swear filter avoidance - but the person quoting me could as they can do something about it or did you which is why all I see is **** even in the quote 🙂
I often type the asterixes myself but couldn't bring myself to in this case.
Corbyn, the man who gave Britain such a long run of Tory rule and is now doing his best to divide and diminish what's remains of Labour.
Is it at all possible that we could go a few hours without yet another policy leak? I know this is the way politics and the media work these days
Budgets were highly confidential and it would have been a dismissal offence to leak details of a forthcoming budget until the early 1980s. Then, that principle evaporated. For ages now, budgets have been preceded by leaks, trial balloons and bullshitters claiming to have an inside line on what's announced - and noone can really tell which is which until it's all actually announced.
You only think they're leaks and U-turns because you're treating them all as credible on their face and you have a predisposition to seeing this government in a certain way.
Corbyn, the man who gave Britain such a long run of Tory rule and is now doing his best to divide and diminish what's remains of Labour.
Yeah sure Corbyn was responsible for the defeats that Labour suffered under both Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, and now Sir Keir Starmer is handing the keys to Number 10 on a plate to Nigel Farage.
It's a funny ol' world innit?
Corbyn, the man who gave Britain such a long run of Tory rule and is now doing his best to divide and diminish what's remains of Labour.
That's the way it goes sometimes when you actually have principles. But now Labour got in and it turns out they are completely indistinguishable from the Tories. So even accepting your ludicrous premise, he didn't do much harm.
Is it at all possible that we could go a few hours without yet another policy leak? I know this is the way politics and the media work these days
They’re not leaks. It’s kite-flying. 2 weeks before a much trumpeted budget
Somebody should suggest that they maybe do the kite-flying before as good as announcing it as policy, only then to back-track on it.
The level of ineptitude and utter incompetence is absolutely off the chart. But apparently they’ve still got time to start an internal fight with their own health minister FFS!
I had the head of our constituency association message me today to ask me to do some leafleting next week ahead of the elections in May. I told him that I won’t be as I’ve given up my party membership in disgust at this ongoing utter shitshow.
It seems, somewhat unsurprisingly, I’m not alone.
That was hard as our local Labour councillors are good people doing a great job for the area. I’ll probably end up doing it anyway on that basis, because there’s a very real chance we could end up with Reform otherwise, which now seems inevitable
I truly just despair! What a total ****ing mess! How on earth do you squander all your political capital in just over a year? You had one job…. try not be as shit as the last mob.
That's the way it goes sometimes when you actually have principles.
They were shit principles, unfortunately. But in any case, Corbyn is off topic for this thread.
Corbyn, the man who gave Britain such a long run of Tory rule and is now doing his best to divide and diminish what's remains of Labour.
Corbyn isn't in the Labour party.
Precisely, he's now jumped ship and founded his own party which is a paracite sucking out what little life blood is left in the party. Divide and diminish were my carefully chosen words.
But in any case, Corbyn is off topic for this thread.
How is he off-topic? He is currently the leader of a party which intends to stand candidates against the governing party.
The best Starmer could have done for himself was to allow Corbyn to lurk on the Labour Backbenches (as he desperately wanted to do) saying all the right things but being totally ineffectual.
But then Starmer (ie Morgan McSweeney) isn't exactly the best tactician ever. Something which is very clear by the fact that despite 3 years of the Tories continuously shooting themselves in the foot he only managed increase Labour's share of the vote by 2% more than the disastrous 2019 election result, only Nigel Farage splitting the Tory vote saved Starmer's bacon.
Now Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski are going to finish off the Labour Party and there a real possibility that Labour won't even come out of the next general election as the official opposition. Well done McSweeney!
Somebody should suggest that they maybe do the kite-flying before as good as announcing it as policy, only then to back-track on it.
How do you do that though?
If we take budgets historically if I leaked something about what was going to be in the budget I would be found and I would be volunteered to see how that budget impacts the unemployed. If I was an MP I might defer that experience to the next election but it would happen.
Now though the "source says" is read by anyone politically aware as "this is what we plan to do but the focus groups werent convinced so lets ask the general public and see how they respond".
Kite-flying only works if its rare and unexpected. Now its the norm.
Precisely, he's now jumped ship and founded his own party which is a paracite sucking out what little life blood is left in the party. Divide and diminish were my carefully chosen words.
I had hoped you would join the dots, but nevermind.
Precisely, he's now jumped ship and founded his own party which is a paracite sucking out what little life blood is left in the party.
That is an interesting take on what actually happened. By interesting I mean batshit insane but lets run with it.
I agree that if Labour is losing real ground to Your Party because people are dissatisfied with Labour, that's Labour's fault and not Corbyn's. Corbyn is a symptom of that dilemma for Labour, not the cause at this point.
Now though the "source says" is read by anyone politically aware as "this is what we plan to do but the focus groups werent convinced so lets ask the general public and see how they respond".
Not true - "source says" also means "here's some rumour someone has some kind of motive to spread". What the motive is can't be divined - is it kite flying? Is it someone wants to paint Reeves as dangerous or indecisive? Is it just barroom bullshit from a half-pissed halfwit showing off? Who knows? Or cares when what really matters is what is actually announced?
Not true - "source says" also means "here's some rumour someone has some kind of motive to spread"
Generally its easy to tell the difference between a "lets test a policy" vs "lets stick a knife in" vs "lets whistleblow"
A good example was when Sunak was manoeuvring. Obvious as hell where the "leaks" were coming from but was amusing seeing right wingers up in arms about the media showing their "lefty" bias when it was right wing infighting.
There may be some cases where it is more subtle but nowadays coming up to the budget it is rather unlikely to be anything other than an "official leak" and it isnt there will probably be a hint in how it is written with regards to the source.
It would be really good if the media turned around and refused to support the unofficial/official sources when its an obvious kite-flying exercise. Unfortunately anonymity has become mixed up with unaccountable.
It would be really good if the media turned around and refused to support the unofficial/official sources when its an obvious kite-flying exercise. Unfortunately anonymity has become mixed up with unaccountable.
That probably reached its peak during covid when Laura Kuenssberg saying ‘a source close to Downing Street’ or some other such bollocks meant she was having everything spoon fed to her by Dominic Cummings and passing it off as journalism
Yeas, a 'leak' is code for:
As a pro jounalist, 'an MP who's pissed off about having their expences claim denied has told me off the record... XYZ' after getting them a bit drunk at lunch time.
There are no leaks, only whispers designed to change the narrative.
You only have to look at the rumours in the 'press' for the upcoming budget...
My prediction, it will be a nothing-burger.
You only have to look at the rumours in the 'press' for the upcoming budget...
My prediction, it will be a nothing-burger.
I just hope that they stop the budget rumours and the U-turn rumours and come up with something sensible. The markets aren't liking the rumour mill, which is making things worse.
Talk about politically naive; make sensible choices and stick with them!
The markets aren't liking the rumour mill, which is making things worse.
Who gives a shit about the markets, in an ideal world they wouldn't even exist. Ooh, government may do something I don't like, quick sell and watch price drop. Next day/week, ooh it wasn't that bad, buy and watch price go back up. A lot of people make money from nothing and on they go.
Take out the stupidity and over 10 years it has gone up so why worry about the stupidity in between it is just a bunch of chancers over reacting to things.
Probably people struggling to pay mortgages, people renting, anyone with debts likely to affected by interest rates. The people still living with impact of the Truss loonacy. The rest of us who dont want to see government borrowing costs go up further. If you haven't noticed we live in a world that is far from ideal. Markets are a fundamental part of it in the same way climate change and political instability are. You cant just ignore them.
You can't ignore them currently but you've got to put it into perspective and Peston getting excited due to 4.4 to 4.6% is peak lunacy.
Did you notice if there were any more homeless, or any more problems on your town? Did anyone get unhinged about it?
The gilt market is a policy choice anyone who believes it to be of real importance doesn't understand the value of the real economy.
Markets are not fundamental in the same way climate change is - that's the most absurd thing I've heard anyone say on here on a long time.
Policy choice. Please this nonsense needs culling or nothing changes for the better - which is why Labour are in a fix.
The gilt market is a waste of resources and talent which could be better applied in society.
Also Stumpyjon you realise the BoE sets the rate - if we want lower rates they can be cut you know?
Totally bizarre take.
Reporters keep dragging up long term gilts as examples and ignoring the virtually non-existence changes of the short term ones.
Steve Keen on Novara last night.
Not an MMTer. But a professor who's modelled money passing through the banking system etc.
It wasn't the best interview but given Novara haven't a clue about all of this there's some interesting bits on the second half.
https://www.youtube.com/live/k68a9TkHyc4?si=ENUjxmgcF7559HuM
The markets aren't liking the rumour mill, which is making things worse.
and over 10 years it has gone up so why worry
...because of the bad things that happen in the intervening 10 years?
A couple of years of economics as part of my Geology with economics course and following what's happened since says Steve Keen is not much of a rebel or contrarian these days. Sure if you go back to economic text books of the 60s what he's saying is fair. But economics has evolved like any other field and I don't hear anything from him that's that rebelious in 2025. He's just a modern but somewhat biased economist with a personal agenda and mixes some intersting stuff with pie in the sky unrealistic stuff.
On the cost of housing you'll find discusion on STW that comes to the same conclusions with comments such as "they aren't making any more land". And "it's just speculation".
On banks we've also covered the fact that banks can create money as they wish till they create money they can't get back and the house of cards come tumbling down as bad debt mounts up and their books are so blindingly obviously bad confidence is lost.
Private debt he claims is too high, I agree in some economies but in some, France and Japan for example, it's balanced by private saving and IMO not an issue.
He says people don't understand government spending, debt, inflation... I think they do and are simply less idealistic and more pragmatic than him because they are the ones actually running the show and have to be. When servicing government debt is such a huge proportion of the government's total buget increasing debt it is just reducing what's left to spend on services and investment further unless that increase in debt creates at least enough revenue to service it, which it certainly won't be in most/all of the things he thinks the government should spend on. Printing money is inflationary as he recognises and carries risks. I disagree with the part on government debt when applied to the current UK economy and think Reeves is more realistic and pragmatic.
His wish to get back to the glorious 50s is complete pie in the sky, a utopia that ignores where we are now.
Building societies were private banks FFS, it's just that lots of individual shareholder customers owned them rather than non customer shareholders. They fulfuled the same role as banks - they weren't government supplied like Freddy or Fanny in the US. It's the deregualtion that changed the way they lent not the ownership model.
I agree transactions should be taxed and all the things he doesn't think should be taxed I think should be taxed too.
On the whole I give the interviewer 9/10 and Keen 7/10. Good interviewer.
Reeves is between a rock and hard place after 14 years of Tory mismanagement.