Forum menu
Read that back, slowly.
It's not a great look on a thread where we're supposed to be discussing the government.
Go on then, read back slowly....... today I brought up two fairly important developments concerning the current government. One relates to the announcement of tens of billions of pounds being ploughed into the North and the Midlands, and the other one concerns the government's attorney general.
The whinging centrists on here have zero interest in discussing these issues preferring instead to engage in ad hominem arguments with the "pub bores" which they repeatedly assure us that they have absolutely nothing they want to discuss with.
Well I say they have zero interest in discussing these issues the most vocal self-identified centrist on here claims that Labour's leveling up policy "absolutely stinks".
What is it about hypocrisy which attracts centrists so much whether they be in government or on a MTB forum?
Read that back, slowly.
It's not a great look on a thread where we're supposed to be discussing the government.
Go on then, read back slowly....... today I brought up two fairly important developments concerning the current government. One relates to the announcement of tens of billions of pounds being ploughed into the North and the Midlands, and the other one concerns the government's attorney general.
The whinging centrists on here have zero interest in discussing these issues preferring instead to engage in ad hominem arguments with the "pub bores" which they repeatedly assure us that they have absolutely nothing they want to discuss with.
Well I say they have zero interest in discussing these issues the most vocal self-identified centrist on here claims that Labour's leveling up policy "absolutely stinks".
What is it about hypocrisy which attracts centrists so much whether they be in government or on a MTB forum?
What about being centrist makes you think I, or others think the sun shines out of Starmers bum?
I'm only giving him +0.5 because he hasn't crashed the economy or further sullied our relationship with the EU. Yet.
Things I think he's been terrible on:
Echoing the 'stop the boats' rhetoric whilst not offering any long term solution.
The winter fuel allowance - this should have been really easy - means test it like any other benefit... got more than £16k in cash or investments? no fuel allowance for you.
Inviting a rapist on a state visit.. I mean, really? will we be seeing Andrew Tate addressing parliament next? lol
That's just three things off the top of my head.
Yeah, it's all those thin skinned over reacting centrists shouting down the poor lefties.
Lets look back shall we at the bile filled threads at anyone who supported Corbyn, tories or voted brexit shall we? When in doubt binners spewed his hilarious memes (mostly nicked from the daily mail and other right wings rags but since his fan club wouldnt deign to look at those sites they seem convinced that he was a comic genius) to kill off any conversation.
Its because even the dimmest supporter for starmer has slowly caught up that he might just possibly not be representing them that it has slowly died off and since Binner doesnt have people to bow down to his comic genius he is left venting in a rage that people dont match his ideological purity.
Since they managed to drive off anyone rightwing that basically leaves the leftwing.
The theotherjonv occasionally makes an effort with posts that hurl abuse and then pats himself on the back that people might respond to him in kind.
There's been plenty of bile spewed on all sides over the last couple of years.
I'm only giving him +0.5 because he hasn't crashed the economy or further sullied our relationship with the EU. Yet.
There is no technical definition of crashing the economy btw. Despite it repeated constantly.
Anything that Truss did was resolved very quickly because that's the nature of fiat currencies. They go down and someone buys them up. Labour also falsely conflated the BoE interest rate policy with Truss's performance. Blaming her rather than the BoE's needless endeavour with interest rate rises.
If Labour were so appalled at interest rates they could have lowered them any time they wanted to. The BoE works for the government not the other way around.
You see this is the issue - despite Truss being ridiculous - your metric appears to be - how good are the financial markets performing? rather than how bad are public outcomes in the real world which extends to more than looking at fiat currencies bobbing up and down.
These are the lenses Centrists use instead of how many homeless people did we see today? Why is the energy market not fit for purposes. Why are hospitals failing. Etc.
That's why Centrism is hopeless. It doesn't deal with fixing the real world it's just there to maintain the status-quo from financial perspective because it believes the financial markets sprang into existence to tell the government how to behave.
We will always be a pathetic mess of a country if the government dare not invest - because of errr Truss.
So therefore Starmer is good because he didn't do a Truss. Great what is he going to do then?
Until they chose to understand that centrism simply means someone who doesn't hold extreme views in any particular direction, the clue is in the name,
Its a title taken by a certain groups to try and present themselves as the reasonable option hence why the other phrases often used include "moderate" and "pragmatic".
If you look at it it obviously runs into the problem of, as the political compass attempts to address, that there are many different centres as there are positions. It would be rather odd for someone to be truly centrist on everything after reasonably considering each in turn.
Which is why in the UK its generally taken as "left" on social issues and "right" on economical issues as portrayed by Blair and Cameron (hug a hoodie anyone?) even if it was more in promises vs actions. We can look onwards to May and Johnson who also offered a more what would be considered left wing platform although didnt quite, to put it mildly, deliver.
It is also clear that the definition of what is centre per policy vs over time and by country. If we take economic issues we can see we have ended up with what would have been considered extreme policies pre Thatcher/Reagan being considered centrist now. Its always educational to look at the people described as "centrist" or "moderate" in the USA.
Another example would be slavery. Hopefully no one here takes a "centrist" view on it but instead we all agree on the extreme view that it should be banned?
Once you deal with those minor problems we could then move onto the problem of extremism of views vs extremism of deed. The Russian revolution being a good example where the most "extreme" left wing parties actually lost out to the more "moderate" Bolsheviks since the latter were rather more keen on extremism of deed.
What about being centrist makes you think I, or others think the sun shines out of Starmers bum?
I haven't claimed that you do. In fact I can't imagine why anyone would think that the sun shines out of Sir Keir Starmer's arse.
I am claiming that you, and the other vocal centrists on here, don't want to discuss the subject of this thread, ie, the UK government.
There is a high probability, thanks in no small part to Starmer, that in 4 years time we will have some sort of Reform-Tory government. And as a consequence there is also a high probability that the UK will leave the European Convention of Human Rights.
IMHO that would be an absolute disaster and today there was a news story concerning the government's Attorney General who was pointing out the dangers this would have and how regressive it would be.
I provided a link but none of the usual suspects wanted to discuss it, instead they wanted to spend their time on the thread bickering with "the pub bores" informing them how much they didn't like engaging with them.
So much ironing
Still here, still whinging. It's your MO, isn't it
I'd probably accept whinging more than hurling abuse, but I don't think either are particularly accurate. I'd say I've provided a reasoned explanation of why 'the centrists' don't engage much any more and even some suggestion that might change that.
But part of self awareness is listening to other's opinions so thanks for your comments, I'll try to be be less whingy and abusive.
What do you think your MO is?
I haven't claimed that you do. In fact I can't imagine why anyone would think that the sun shines out of Sir Keir Starmer's arse.
Indeed I think the suggestion is more the opposite with the previous supporters who kept telling everyone not voting for him was voting for tory have gone quiet.
I mean we could go with that they are now too highbrow and self respecting to engage in spats/insults/repetitive discussion but a cursory look at the Corbyn, Johnson/tory and Trump threads doesnt show a track record of that. Just a tailing off during Starmers PMship as it becomes increasingly difficult to support him.
"There is no such things as the government's money there is only tax payer's money" - said Thatcher years ago. Despite the clueless witch making stuff up and ignoring the fact it says "BoE" on all notes.
And every centrist believes it still. Thatcher literally defined your understanding of money so the 'right' and the moderate right could put a murdeous squeeze on government spending.
Right-wing economics has become accepted as the correct framework rather than a failed framework that has delivered the likes of Reeves to where she is.
I'd probably accept whinging more than hurling abuse,
I haven't accused you of hurling abuse so why bring it up?
What do you think your MO is?
I will happily admit I respond in kind. Which gives a problem if you consider your approach reasonable and balanced and I consider it an extreme case of passive aggressiveness. Just to take a few quotes
"you know when the loudmouths arrive "
"loudmouths need to actually consider whether they ARE the problem"
"so-called 'six' and their accolytes"
I am not sure I have read anything from you which isnt basically throwing punches but also combined with a complaint someone might respond to you throwing those punches in kind although possibly less veiled.
I do suspect you and others dont quite think about the phrases you are using whilst not you, at least in the last few pages, the use of "grown ups", "pragmatic", "realist" and so forth are all extremely loaded statements implying that anyone who doesnt hold the same views are the opposite.
Until they chose to understand that centrism simply means someone who doesn't hold extreme views in any particular direction, the clue is in the name,
Its a title taken by a certain groups to try and present themselves as the reasonable option hence why the other phrases often used include "moderate" and "pragmatic".
If you look at it it obviously runs into the problem of, as the political compass attempts to address, that there are many different centres as there are positions. It would be rather odd for someone to be truly centrist on everything after reasonably considering each in turn.
Which is why in the UK its generally taken as "left" on social issues and "right" on economical issues as portrayed by Blair and Cameron (hug a hoodie anyone?) even if it was more in promises vs actions. We can look onwards to May and Johnson who also offered a more what would be considered left wing platform although didnt quite, to put it mildly, deliver.
It is also clear that the definition of what is centre per policy vs over time and by country. If we take economic issues we can see we have ended up with what would have been considered extreme policies pre Thatcher/Reagan being considered centrist now. Its always educational to look at the people described as "centrist" or "moderate" in the USA.
Another example would be slavery. Hopefully no one here takes a "centrist" view on it but instead we all agree on the extreme view that it should be banned?
Once you deal with those minor problems we could then move onto the problem of extremism of views vs extremism of deed. The Russian revolution being a good example where the most "extreme" left wing parties actually lost out to the more "moderate" Bolsheviks since the latter were rather more keen on extremism of deed.
I'm not sure what you want me to say... I'm not responsible for others misinterpretations.
Another example would be slavery. Hopefully no one here takes a "centrist" view on it but instead we all agree on the extreme view that it should be banned?
If you think abolition of slavery is an extremist view, (I'd simply call it 'not being evil') then you are truly lost.
If you think abolition of slavery is an extremist view, (I'd simply call it 'not being evil') then you are truly lost.
At the time it was, though. Owning slaves was “centrist”. Stoning adultresses to death is “centrist” in some places. In our time and culture eating meat is centrist. Maybe in future that will be considered “being evil”. Not all times and not all cultures have the benefit of your insight into The Truth.
I haven't accused you of hurling abuse so why bring it up?
I didn't. That was what another poster accused me of, effectively therefore saying that's their opinion of my MO, so I addressed both together.
m so I have haven't even bothered answering]
So to dissonance, who at least has given opinion of why they feel I hurl abuse; if comparing some of the behaviour on here to the pub bore / loudmouth and the kind of insult coming back is 'responding in kind' then I'll try even harder.
Finally "whilst not you, at least in the last few pages" - thank you, that is very important to me. As I put in my long post, I was guilty in the past, went and sat and thought about it, and then didn't post for a long time. Since back, at the risk of annoying, I've not participated in the political discussion but have commented on why I and others don't any more. In doing that I have tried hard to not be abusive, passive aggressive, loaded, whatever - just to speak my opinion which yes, has called out some behaviours. But from your comment "I am not sure I have read anything from you which isnt basically throwing punches" (please go back and see if that's really the case) it seems that you think that I still haven't got that right so I will reflect further and try harder. But it's not just me that needs to do it.
If you think abolition of slavery is an extremist view, (I'd simply call it 'not being evil') then you are truly lost.
At the time it was, though. Owning slaves was “centrist”. Stoning adultresses to death is “centrist” in some places. In our time and culture eating meat is centrist. Maybe in future that will be considered “being evil”. Not all times and not all cultures have the benefit of your insight into The Truth.
Nonsense.
You are confusing societal "norms", for want of a better phrase, with a political position, when they are two different things.
@theotherjonv I think we've reached the "leave 'im, it's not worth it" stage. They're dragging you down to their level and beating you with experience.
You are confusing societal "norms", for want of a better phrase, with a political position, when they are two different things.
No they really aren’t, and it’s perverse to imagine that they could be. Is apartheid a “societal norm” distinct from political viewpoint? Access to free education? Universal healthcare? Anything?
Let's really just face it. Centrism is not really doing anything for fear of doing something that might change the world for the better.
So in that case you're just letting all the muck of Conservatism float to the top and supporting it.
(And then complaining about it endlessly.)
My favourite though is 'Centrists are just Tories that don't want to pay for their own healthcare.'
So the radical policy of the abolition of slavery was actually a centrist position? Blimey, whatever next..... the 1945 Labour government wasn't left-wing at all, it was pursuing "centrist" policies when it created the first free national health service in the western world?
As I said previously, "centrist" is a euphemism for right-winger, Sir Keir Starmer has in the last few months proved that spectacularly.
Unlike Lefties Righties are generally embarrassed by their political position. Calling someone a right-wing is often seen as an insult, calling someone left-wing rarely so.
MCTD - wise words as always and I think you're right, but with one caveat.
We have a mantra at my workplace "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept"
The comment yesterday - I tried to respond with (admittedly barbed) humour, but there was no follow up. At the time I was very annoyed but rather than respond again, I promised myself I'd sleep on it and look again. Which I did, and I still find it offensive.
If accidental (and it was a deliberate choice of words / avoidance of 'hold your nose' which makes me wonder how accidental it could be) then it still requires calling out.
If it was deliberate then irrespective of difference in opinion of political or debating style, I would hope that others would call it out as unacceptable.
[or I'll give another option - if that sort of comment is considered OK and I'm overreacting then tell me so - but be careful at the standards you are walking past]
You are confusing societal "norms", for want of a better phrase, with a political position, when they are two different things.
No they really aren’t, and it’s perverse to imagine that they could be. Is apartheid a “societal norm” distinct from political viewpoint? Access to free education? Universal healthcare? Anything?
Apartheid was a racist, right wing policy. It was not a societal norm, nor was it a centrist position in South Africa.
MCTD - wise words as always and I think you're right, but with one caveat.
We have a mantra at my workplace "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept"
The comment yesterday - I tried to respond with (admittedly barbed) humour, but there was no follow up. At the time I was very annoyed but rather than respond again, I promised myself I'd sleep on it and look again. Which I did, and I still find it offensive.
If accidental (and it was a deliberate choice of words / avoidance of 'hold your nose' which makes me wonder how accidental it could be) then it still requires calling out.
If it was deliberate then irrespective of difference in opinion of political or debating style, I would hope that others would call it out as unacceptable.
[or I'll give another option - if that sort of comment is considered OK and I'm overreacting then tell me so - but be careful at the standards you are walking past]
That's a great post about yourself, anything to say about the subject matter of this thread?
As I said previously, "centrist" is a euphemism for right-winger, Sir Keir Starmer has in the last few months proved that spectacularly.
Unlike Lefties Righties are generally embarrassed by their political position. Calling someone a right-wing is often seen as an insult, calling someone left-wing rarely so.
You are deliberately making shit up to support your own agenda.
@theotherjonv - I've hit the report button a few times but not followed it through. Might be time for the mods to lock the tread for a few days.
You are deliberately making shit up to support your own agenda.
You mean it's true the term Righty like Lefty is a widely used term and accusing people of being left-wing is a common insult?
Are you sure?
Centrism is not really doing anything for fear of doing something that might change the world for the better.
Where as being leftwing seems to involve screaming into the void about how easy it would be to just fix everything based on not living with reality.
Plus ca change
ps I think Starmer could learn a thing or two about presentation, however I'm ultimately broadly happy with the government's direction but then I subscribe to the we have limited resources school of thought and as a society we can't keep increasing the number of people who don't contribute but consume from the rest of us. Oh and the amount of those resources tied up in the hands of a tiny minority is sickening but I've no idea how as a small sovereign state we tackle that, it's a global problem that needs tackling globally but there's no mechanism to do that.
If we want long term improvement in people lives more short term benefits isn't the answer, housing and energy costs need to be tackled and Starmer has policies for both those issues, whether they succeed is another matter. What the lefties refer to as fear of change is really the grinding reality of the complexities and time required to make real sustainable change, particularly when you have right wing populists stirring shit all the time. It would great being able to bulldoze policies through against the will of the idiots they will ultimately benefit but again reality gets in the way.
Of course while not being above dishing out a few barbs of your own
Barbs - yes guilty. But I would hope I have stopped well before the line that I believe you have crossed. Whether accidental or deliberate.
OK, I've reported your post and STW/the Mods can decide.
Apartheid was a racist, right wing policy. It was not a societal norm, nor was it a centrist position in South Africa.
You'll have to explain how the transition from slavery to segregation to apartheid took place while the "centre" remained constant.
I've got to agree with the lefties on this one, the centre does move. The left view of the world 100 years ago was much more to the right than it is now. Generally western society has been moving left for the last 150 years, the current swing to the right will hopefully correct itself at some point.
OK, I've reported your post and STW/the Mods can decide.
Hopefully the mods are aware that smelling salts and scented hankies were commonplace in Georgian times for men and women(*), and there is no homophobic implication in mentioning them. Perhaps the mistake says more about you than about ransos?
(*) I confess to only knowing about this due to watching Bargain Hunt, where "vinaigrettes" - boxes for smelling salts and perfume - often make good money.
Doesn't the term centrist just mean you broadly agree with the way society currently functions?
In contrast to centrists you have radicals who want an overhaul and fundamental change to the way society is run?
If that definition is correct then is the main conflict on this thread between those who think society is broadly OK, just needing a few tweaks, and those who feel society is fundamentally breaking and needs radical change.
If all that is true then I can see why people are getting so upset with each other. We aren't talking about a relatively simple left/right argument. We're talking about fundamentally different ways of viewing the world that can never be reconciled.
Fun times.
Hopefully the mods are aware that smelling salts and scented hankies were commonplace in Georgian times for men and women(*), and there is no homophobic implication in mentioning them. Perhaps the mistake says more about you than about ransos?
The mods think I'm being argumentative.... they don't seem to think I'm a raging homophobe though. So the centrists are free to pursue their gaslighting, memes and insults, and I won't be answering back.
The mods think I'm being argumentative....
Blimey, what must they think of mattyfez and all the other angry moderates?
Anyway any chance of moving away from personal grievances against individuals and moving onto politics?
Yesterday's announcement that the government intends pumping a hundred billion pounds into the North and the Midlands reminded me of this "signed pledge" by Starmer :
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1227500629439873027
Which made me think isn't it time to make a bold radical (centrist) commitment to regional parliaments with substantial budgets to spend as democratically decided by the people of the regions, instead of leaving it all to the personal whims of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing Street?
Edit. : Apologies, I don't know how pledge number 7 got included with pledge number 8
An interesting analysis here :
"The deep dissatisfaction among Labour MPs with the direction and performance of the government, which has spread to even some of Starmer’s most loyal supporters, has created a febrile atmosphere where his future is being called into question."
Oh how Taliban-esque with their ideological purity!
"Nearly 200 Labour MPs are said to oppose them ahead of a crunch vote expected in June"
So whilst STW has just "The Six" the House of Commons has "The Nearly 200" awkward Lefties. The centrists in parliament should come here for solace.
I loved this comment :
Starmer is safe in his position for as long as he wants it. “The Labour party doesn’t do regicide,” one said
Someone tell Jeremy Corbyn!!
If that definition is correct then is the main conflict on this thread between those who think society is broadly OK, just needing a few tweaks, and those who feel society is fundamentally breaking and needs radical change.
That's one of most insightful posts in quite awhile. I'll raise that to a 3rd group which I'm guessing many of the STW sit in, I certainly do. I think the principles behind our society are OK but it is not working, a few at the top hoarding wealth, many at the bottom unable (people on in work benefits*) or unwilling to contribute their fair share. Trouble is we dont believe radical change is realistic or would work. No wonder we're all miserable.
* if someone working full time can not pay for a basic standard of living without benefits somethings fundamentally broken. Raising the minimum wage is not the answer, reduce the cost of living is.
Raising the minimum wage is not the answer, reduce the cost of living is.
I think it is a bit of both. The first can be done easily enough but the second is pretty much impossible. A lot of money goes on housing for most people and to make that substantially lower it would require a market crash. Not so bad for me as I bought my house 25 years ago but not great for someone who bought one last year and ends up with massive negative equity. Without a market crash, or massive government intervention supply houses for under market price, I am not sure how houses are ever going back to be close to a reasonable price, building a few extra ones is not going to cut it.
It's going to take a lot of building and at least 20 years, might as well start now though. The trouble with continually putting up the minimum wage is the cost of the person will outweigh the economic added value the person gives to their employer. It also makes the payback for automating low skilled jobs ever more attractive. Either way the number of minimum wage jobs will decrease. It's already happening and AI will accelerate the trend.
Energy costs are the other big one and something a government can influence with investment and proper regulation. If we can delink electricity prices from fossil fuel costs energy will come down and that affects every part of the economy.
Alright, with my centrist, voted for Starmer hat on - they've been a ****ing disappointment. Failed to create a vision for people to vote for at the election. Got in on the back of an anti-Tory vote that split with Reform. Have then turned right wing on many of the big high profile issues to foolishly try and keep the perceived threat from Reform at bay, while quietly doing a few more left wing minor things.
They've been clueless, spineless, and next to useless. The fact that they are possibly less toxic than the Tories would have been is scant consolation.
This could not have summed up my own viewpoint any better.
The thing that makes me chuckle is the ability of the likes of Mandelson and McSweeney to cast themselves as electoral gurus. 1997 and 2024 GEs were won by Labour because they were the only alternative to a Tory government that had run out of road and become a farce.
True, Mandelson ran a slightly slick campaign in 97, but the gutter press had utterly turned on the Tories and was splashing their hypocrisy and scandals all over the front pages rather than burying them as they had done previously.
But Starmer had such a mandate for change. He has a huge majority. But his political instincts are terrible. He's chasing lost causes (Reform voters) whilst losing 2-3 times that number of moderates. He's very lucky the Tories have gone too far down the Brexity culture war rabbit hole now to flip back to being so-called one nation.
The problem in 2029 is going to be "not Labour" will be Reform. Why these ****wits at Labour HQ can't see this and know how to counter it, I genuinely don't know.
It's not so much even radical things that are needed just a simple understanding that the way we have wired up the economic system (both fiscal and monetary) has been built on the most frail and illogical understanding that delivers poor outcomes.
Because we've done it for so long - many accept it to be the correct way despite to the results and lack of evidence for many common accepted norms. (I.e Interest rate policy controlling inflation. )
The longer we leave it the harder it becomes to change things because we keep expecting it to get better when it's by design going to deliver badly on public purpose and convince us there is less and less money available - which is simply a lie.
We need to make two things happen:
First select the things to do that have a big multiplier effect and fix the deepest problems. Massive infrastructure plus green investment.
Second understand that financing is the easy part but resourcing is the hard bit. Can we do it?
(The tax system then needs a big fix. But doesn't need immediate attention in terms of priority.)
People also need to understand that capital flight doesn't really exist too - the pounds and assets are always owned by someone. Every seller has a buyer.
However for Labour to even get close to this they would have to have wholesale changing in thinking and spend a whole lot more than 30-40bn a year.
I'd say time is running out politically too - if you're against Reform then you need to be critical of Labour instead of just thinking they are doing a decent job.
It really wasn't hard to see Reform were quickly going to fill the gap - created by the Tories if Labour didn't act. (As long as two years ago.)
Let's see what the June spending review brings.
Probably not much.
I subscribe to the we have limited resources school of thought
The problem is the reference point of what resources we have has been completely reset since 2010. Austerity was utterly devastating and disproportionately so for the areas of the country that were already poor. We can't just say austerity has finished and move on, we need to reverse it in a targeted way that fixes the inequality in the country - that means investing and spending, not just abandoning people because the Tories successfully persuaded everyone we can't afford it.
E.g.
Alright, with my centrist, voted for Starmer hat on - they've been a ****ing disappointment. Failed to create a vision for people to vote for at the election. Got in on the back of an anti-Tory vote that split with Reform. Have then turned right wing on many of the big high profile issues to foolishly try and keep the perceived threat from Reform at bay, while quietly doing a few more left wing minor things.
They've been clueless, spineless, and next to useless. The fact that they are possibly less toxic than the Tories would have been is scant consolation.
This could not have summed up my own viewpoint any better.
The thing that makes me chuckle is the ability of the likes of Mandelson and McSweeney to cast themselves as electoral gurus. 1997 and 2024 GEs were won by Labour because they were the only alternative to a Tory government that had run out of road and become a farce.
True, Mandelson ran a slightly slick campaign in 97, but the gutter press had utterly turned on the Tories and was splashing their hypocrisy and scandals all over the front pages rather than burying them as they had done previously.
But Starmer had such a mandate for change. He has a huge majority. But his political instincts are terrible. He's chasing lost causes (Reform voters) whilst losing 2-3 times that number of moderates. He's very lucky the Tories have gone too far down the Brexity culture war rabbit hole now to flip back to being so-called one nation.
The problem in 2029 is going to be "not Labour" will be Reform. Why these ****wits at Labour HQ can't see this and know how to counter it, I genuinely don't know.
True, it's like he's doing a Cameron by getting spooked and pandering to the far right... and look how far that got him.
Especially with starmers mandate and majority, and the long length of time left in this term... this is the perfect time to be doing good things that can start bearing fruits to show before the next election, and ignoring the farrages.
Just seems like a wasted opportunity to me so far, sure starmers done some stuff well, but there's a whole bunch of stuff he really hasn't, and needlessly IMO.
IFS says tough public spending choices unavoidable
Form BBC
Jesus Christ haven't these type of institutions done enough harm?
It's always the same, and always going to be the same - the people, the regular voter is constantly getting shafted because of these obnoxious ill-informed institutions designed to wreck havoc on an already crumbling society.
Does no one learn? - years now with suppression of the public finances leads to decay and contraction - more of the same will go exactly the same way and then it will be tighten the purse strings again.
It's a vicious downward spiral.
The idea that like the OBR such a body is working in anyone's interest other than a spreadsheet rather than real outcomes is beyond me.
Government finances are not designed to balance because they have the daily capacity to create money. They are not drawing on limited finances. And a deficit is just the opposite side of the positive flow of money into the public sector.
Both the OBR and IFS start with the incorrect model that the government doesn't have total and exclusive access to the BoE's direct monetary current account backed up by the ways and means account.
If you start with the logic that central government financing comes front the private sector (impossible) as they can't create currency then expect seriously confused interpretations of what reality should be like.
Which is exactly why we are where we are.
I subscribe to the we have limited resources school of thought
That's a fact for sure but I'm sure you dont believe that they're currently being distributed, shared and allocated equitably.
Upward Inflation is the indicator that resources are tight.
Taxation is the mechanism adjust that at a fiscal level.
Broad strokes.