Forum menu
Mel Stride this morning:
"The fact is, for a large swathe of the population, our economy simply has not been working for them for some considerable time.
Incomes have stagnated. Many feel that the system only works for the benefit of others, for large corporations or people from other countries, but not for them and their families.
We must accept that for too long, governments of both colours have failed to free us from this malaise."
Is it just me, or is that statement something that Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell could have said a few years ago? It's quite astonishing that the challenge from Reform appears to be pulling both labour and the tories leftwards on economic issues. That's not something I would have predicted a year ago.
'immigration makes communities worse' ...I've just got back from a walk with two foreigners, an Irishman and a Romanian, they've made the place much worse by being dentists AND doing NHS work.
I was pleased to see that Wilders has flounced, hopefully we'll be seeing the same with these rank amateur Reform councillors finding it too tedious, confusing and complex.
There's no place for 'simply' in that scenario
Well it's only going to get worse the longer we leave it, so might as well get cracking now.
I did have a bit of light relief listening to the news just now, though.
Not just Mel Stride, but Sir Mel Stride, no less.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
For what? Services to mediocrity? Services to brown-nosing and generally staying off the radar?
Whoops there goes another chairman
Whoops there goes another chairman
Muslim window dressing suddenly realises he's in with a gang of racists?
Either he's very stupid. Or he's been on the make...
And quite stupid.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Pig's ear collar on a single breasted jacket is always a sign of poor judgement.
This is more interesting than Yusuf going, to me anyway.
The tech entrepreneur being brought in to lead DOGE UK has also quit with him. From the Beeb:
Tech entrepreneur Nathaniel Fried, who was brought in to lead the Doge unit, said he was stepping down with Yusuf.
"I have a huge amount of respect for the work that the councils are doing to save tax payer money, and reduce wastage," he wrote on X.
But he added that Yusuf "got me in and I believe it is appropriate for me to leave with him".
So our Poundland Musk has quit at almost exactly the same time as Musk has gone rogue too. Lovely.
Bit inconvenient for Reform led Kent County Council... They've cancelled all budgetary meetings till DOGE have "audited" it's spending! Oops.
I can't make out whether that compliment Fried makes us actually complimenting councils and basically acknowledging there is no money being wasted, or not?
Well the Labour win in Hamilton was unexpected - with Reform third. Polls has SNP, Reform and Labour third.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgqzdl8lxyo
This contest turned out to be a tight three-horse race.
Reform were just 3% behind the SNP, I think it is probably fair to say that Reform are now an established major political force in Scotland as they are in the rest of the UK, something which some people doubted would happen.
I think it is probably fair to say that Reform are now an established major political force in Scotland as they are in the rest of the UK
But I thought Reform didn't have any support in Scotland because they were an England-only party? 😉
On another subject, anyone see Badenoch's weird speech on asylum policy this morning? I'm continually amazed the tory party thought she was the best candidate to lead them. Never in my life have I seen such a cold, impersonable and unempathetic politician. She makes Thatcher look like Mother Theresa.
I do find it genuinely frightening all this talk of removal of us from the ECHR - that is proper dystopian policy making.
Looks like most of the Reform vote came from the SNP as well, not from Labour. Oh well it's OK because Scottish voters are different from English voters and aren't at all bigoted or inward looking.
Looks like most of the Reform vote came from the SNP as well, not from Labour. Oh well it's OK because Scottish voters are different from English voters and aren't at all bigoted or inward looking.
Only the rangers fans/unionists, 😉
I do find it genuinely frightening all this talk of removal of us from the ECHR - that is proper dystopian policy making.
yep..
Trouble is first it was the E.U holding us back then it’s the ECHR, it’s always very simplistic solution, apart from actually having a system in place to process immigration applications in a timely manor and having a legal route that doesn’t need people to turn up in dinghy’s on the news every day(which IMHO makes more sense).
I’m not sure attempting to remove you from the ECHR is malice or incompetence 🙂
Duplicate post - self quoting 🙂
Besides hoping to buy (or not hemorrhage) votes, what's the point of a £35k annual income threshold to now receive Winter Fuel Allowance again, in biggest u-turn of the first year?
Haven't got a clue what the point is but people with annual income of £35k who very likely own their house can certainly afford to pay for energy use over winter without the need for benefits.
The £35,000 seems pointless to me, as it catches nearly everyone. Should have either had a lower threshold, or been universal and avoided the admin. Plenty of other ways to get the balance right for those on over £35,000 with small changes to existing taxation.
I'm a heartless bar steward, but I don't see the problem in giving all UK pensioners a tax code £200/300 (depending on if they are over 80) above the personal allowance of £12570 that is freezing in hell until around 2029 iirc.
You know what it reminds of? The dumb individual threshold for families receiving child benefit. Either put a real means test in place, or keep it universal and tax those earning more more. Pointless extra admin for benefits, when changes to tax rules could do the job of redistribution and balancing hand outs for the rich.
EDIT: Scared of complaints about “tax rises for working families”, and “tax rises for pensioners”… just having kids or having retired shouldn’t be political armor against paying back more if you’re a high earner or have a high wealth value.
Definitely tax for removing extra pounds if necessary.
That mechanism already exists.
Means testing is admin heavy, complex and causes issues.
Such a botch of ideas and execution.
General observation - Labour are gradually realising they've absolutely got to spend now. Tomorrow will be interesting.
No more talk of market spooking shite please. Get away from Centrist exposition of Truss. It's a self harm and not comparable to anything approaching reality of where we are.
Get on with job.
(Employment numbers looking a bit shaky.)
General observation - Labour are gradually realising they've absolutely got to spend now. Tomorrow will be interesting.
No more talk of market spooking shite please. Get away from Centrist exposition of Truss. It's a self harm and not comparable to anything approaching reality of where we are.
Get on with job.
(Employment numbers looking a bit shaky.)
Got to giggle at the idea that Labour can now 'afford" the WFA because they've fixed the economy. Lmfao. Don't be ridiculous you're just running a slightly bigger deficit than the Tories.
They don't help themselves.
The harder problem is people currently trusting Reform more than Labour.
The harder problem is getting people to vote who are thoroughly disengaged by this political circus.
A few hundred thousand people turning out in swing states in the US would have changed the next four years; this also applies to the UK
The harder problem is people currently trusting Reform more than Labour.
The harder problem is getting people to vote who are thoroughly disengaged by this political circus.
A few hundred thousand people turning out in swing states in the US would have changed the next four years; this also applies to the UK
Er, you do remember that British voters gave the Labour Party a landslide victory less than a year ago, don't you? Never mind about what happened in swing states in the United States.
Er, you do remember that British voters gave the Labour Party a landslide victory less than a year ago, don't you? Never mind about what happened in swing states in the United States.
Er, we're talking about the next by-elections and GE in the UK. What's passed isn't a guarantee of future performance
General observation - Labour are gradually realising they've absolutely got to spend now. Tomorrow will be interesting.
Says a lot about the political nous of Starmer and his advisors if they've only just realised this. They thought people would be grateful for labour not being the tories, even though they stood on a central platform of 'change'. Now they're realising that voters did actually want them to change stuff, mainly by loosening the purse strings and starting to spend money which hadn't been spent in 14 years. But no, instead of doing what the voters told them, they listened to financiers and economists in the city instead who told them they couldn't do what the voters wanted. There's a lesson there somewhere, not that politicians will ever learn it.
For sure.
I'm guessing the Lizz Truss thing gave them the shits. That's how i read it. Bone-headed logic when you've got stuff falling apart and she was actually pursuing a pointless agenda of tax-cuts.
Labour need to fend of the idea that spending is bad and get their narrative in order - but they came to the podium with too much of the fiscal crediblity thing going off. Of course fiscal crediblity is totally ideological because you trade real outcomes instead, and we can see where that has landed them.
Fiscal crediblity (which is an arbitrary implementation) does nothing to fix real problems - just makes Treasury brains and Bond vigilantes happy for all the wrong reasons, who should really be put in their place.
Er, we're talking about the next by-elections and GE in the UK.
So why are you talking about swing states in the US then?
You seemed to be suggesting that it is difficult to get the electorate to vote correctly. Despite the fact that they totally abandoned the Tories less than a year ago and gave Labour a huge landslide victory.
Er, we're talking about the next by-elections and GE in the UK.
So why are you talking about swing states in the US then?
You seemed to be suggesting that it is difficult to get the electorate to vote correctly. Despite the fact that they totally abandoned the Tories less than a year ago and gave Labour a huge landslide victory.
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Labour's "huge landslide victory" was based on a turnout of only 60%, the second lowest since 1885
I'm suggesting that if we follow the example of the US (63.9% turnout) and fail to vote then strange outcomes are possible.
If Harris had picked up the right mix of 229,726 votes in Michigan (80,103), Pennsylvania (120,226), and Wisconsin (29,397), she would be taking the oath of office on January 20. To put that number in comparison, had Hillary Clinton picked up the right mix of 78,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, she would have won the Electoral College in 2016. Had Trump picked up the right mix of 65,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Nebraska's second congressional district, he would have won the Electoral College outright in 2020. https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers
I don't know what you mean by "difficult to get the electorate to vote correctly", but we should vote and for whoever we want to. We all saw the outcome of "tactical" voting by so-called professional politicians allowing Kemi Badenoch her leadership win.
Spending review then?
More incoherent logic or respond to the looming threat of Reform and collapsing society?
I'm sure they will find a way to get to the 5% GDP defense spending - that's a given but not without some sort of trade-off against something necessary.
They will also claim they've fixed the finances - err 22bn black-hole (never existed) fixed with a 1.4bn WFA cut and then re-instated... Such a silly game to pretend there are 'pay-fors' in government finances.
And a larger deficit now - fine to be expected, but then don't pretend you've filled anything.
Labour's "huge landslide victory" was based on a turnout of only 60%, the second lowest since 1885
I'm suggesting that if we follow the example of the US (63.9% turnout) and fail to vote then strange outcomes are possible.
The reason for the low turnout was because much of the Tory vote stayed at home. The Tories actually received half the vote the vote in 2024 that they had received 5 years earlier, the Labour vote on the other hand remained almost the same.
Depending on what you are trying to achieve a higher turnout is not necessarily the best solution.
A Jewish Labour councillor has been deselected for supporting a ceasefire in Gaza before it became official Labour Party policy (yes that's correct the Labour Party supports a ceasefire in Gaza despite supplying weapons and intelligence to Netanyahu and his far-right government so that they can commit genocide)
My stance on Palestine and what is happening in Gaza has always been a matter of conscience for me and has been long before 7th October 2023. For me and a rapidly increasing number of Jewish people ‘Never again’ means never again for everyone and we see it as our duty to speak out against this genocide and shout it loud and clear “not in our name!”
And councillor Martin Abrams hits the nail on the head with this comment :
“Right now we have a Labour Council in Lambeth, a Labour Mayor of London and now a Labour Government, and after 15 years of Tory destruction there is no longer any justification, locally or nationally, to inflict further cuts or austerity on people."
He is obviously eloquent in speaking as a Labour councillor should be speaking, I have no doubt that is the real reason that he has been deselected, backing a Green Party motion calling for a halt to the genocide in Gaza was simply the excuse. The Labour Party really is rotten, we deserve so much better, especially after 15 years of Tory rule.
Spending Review
My hot take based on info I read earlier and tonight's news.
Overall, I'm pretty happy with what's been announced in the review.
It's not perfect, far from it but few things in life are, particularly when they concern politics and money.
Yeah, about time Labour but better late than never. This is a far, far better direction of travel.👍
Get rid of the 2 child cap and I'll be even happier.
Yes some some spending like this will make a difference - it's not really that much (20bn per year more than the Tories) but it's probably all we can squeeze out of them currently.
I do fear they're constantly looking for clawbacks and who they will target next ...
They desperately need it - growth in April -0.3% is not going to sell well today.
Already, a loony Tory (on radio) was on their case talking shite about spending though he did get something correct inadvertently - he called it "spend first and tax later" - as some sort of a slur, but that's exactly what happens. He needs to ask himself - how do you tax back without spending the money in the first place? It has to exist first. Dumb.
These economic critics are so poorly informed.
he called it "spend first and tax later
I heard him spout that on the news last night and said exactly the same as you said to the OH. Her worry was who they'd be taxing it from though.
Er, you do remember that British voters gave the Labour Party a landslide victory less than a year ago, don't you? Never mind about what happened in swing states in the United States
no - the stupid electoral system did that. The electorate gave them just over 1/3 of the vote
The electorate gave them just over 1/3 of the vote
Which is a lot more than they gave the Tories. How the electorate voted had a direct effect on the election result, unsurprisingly.
Her worry was who they'd be taxing it from though
Yes Labour have got their heads in a mess over this.
I'm less worried at the current time though - get the investment in.
Whilst all this is less than exciting - if they do get some growth out of this further down the line - I hope they get why.
(Not that I'm an advocate of endless growth but they need to prove the system. SPEND>GROWTH>TAX - But ultimately it might not help because the Dems did well on growth but no one took any notice. That's why spending on stuff that changes people's lives at the micro level is extremely important. If people see things happening on their doorstep the Labour vote might not crumble.)
The debate will shift away from the current stuff about migrants etc and the national debt will become the hot topic. Better to fight that one and give people stuff they need.
https://twitter.com/StevenHailAus/status/1932925883964404167?t=We3zXlCELfh2_7C2Hprz0Q&s=19
The attacks will come thick and fast.
Reeves has been a disaster so far for sure but the myths about how the economy works need to be pushed back on irrespective.
Such as this IMF drivel. See the Tory fool here repeating this absolute half-wit myth based logic. The only place you can get £ from is the BoE. Not the IMF - end of.
It's like the Gordon Brown 'sold our gold' pub debate... Without understanding that government's sell off assets all the time.
That gold easily replaced with currency.
https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/can-it-1976-happen-again
Sorry post expired. But here's a very slight summary of why the IMF story doesn't apply today
(The UK was up to its neck in foreign debt such was the overlap from gold standard / bretton woods.)
Doesn't apply today.
yes that's correct the Labour Party supports a ceasefire in Gaza despite supplying weapons and intelligence to Netanyahu and his far-right government so that they can commit genocide
And the government has admitted that it is currently training IDF personnel in the UK as it commits genocide in Gaza
"As part of routine Defence engagement with Israel, the UK is currently training a limited number of Israel Defense Forces personnel on UK-based training courses."
Don't let minor issues such as war crimes and genocide stop "routine" defence engagements from taking place in the UK, eh?
The IMF doesn’t lend in local currency, but in SDRs, which are sort of (over simplification) pegged to a basket of big currencies, dollar being the most important of course. All this “can’t run out of its own currency” talk is both true and irrelevant if a country is in crisis. [ which of course, the UK is not ]
The IMF doesn’t lend in local currency, but in SDRs, which are sort of (over simplification) pegged to a basket of big currencies, dollar being the most important of course. All this “can’t run out of its own currency” talk is both true and irrelevant if a country is in crisis. [ which of course, the UK is not ]
Yeah but it's not stopping the uninformed going gangbusters with it.
Although I don't know why you cite "can't run out of its own currency" as irrelevant. People literally think the country will be going to the IMF for pounds.
When it absolutely will never be the case.
As an aside did you see the screaming Daily Mail headline? They reckon we're on the hook for trillions!
WTF are they talking about? Okay don't issue bonds then. The whole interpretation of the system we have is madness and big fat lie.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1933288402423533650?t=EheLHdiKTiEsleuM1BIAVQ&s=19
In the grand scheme of things this spending review isn't really much. It's just better than what we had. In fact it looks like clawbacks might be in the distance.
This is what drive me crackers, you have a government which was trying to appease the right by looking prudent and still not appeasing them. In some ways we have the worst of both worlds now - a Chancellor that perhaps wants to do some good but feels the need the keep putting lids on things with shonky rules and mysterious taxation plans.
We will only win this argument if we start pushing back against the idea that 'our kids are on the hook for the debt' - which was said as far back as Reagan/Thatcher. Of course no one talked about this during the pandemic - because everyone was scared of real outcomes affecting them.
These people have controlled the narrative for the benefit of a lucky few - at the expense of a crumbling state for decades.
I really wish you could just accept that Stephanie Kelton might not be the final word in all fiscal matters, rone.
It's a bit more complicated than you or even she thinks.
And always remember, Stephanie Kelton sees everything through a US centric view. And yes, the chances of the US dollar being devalued to the point of being worthless is highly unlikely (although Trump has been doing a pretty good job of showing that it's more vulnerable than people have thought up until now).
The pound is not the world's reserve currency. Treating it like it is a dangerous game to play.
That's not to say that investment isn't urgently needed. It's just that if you assume it's as simple as printing money and taxing later then you are going to find a lot of rich people have gotten much much richer while everyone else has gotten much much poorer.
Your focus on MMT takes away focus from the real issue which is that the vast majority of wealth circulates in a closed loop system where people who can pay for privileged access can siphon off a small percentage by having a slight advantage. Thanks to the miracle of compounding gains these people are now rich in a way we can't even comprehend anymore.
Until you solve that problem the system you use to manage government spending is completely irrelevant. Every other post is you preaching about something that is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand.