Forum menu
what happened to GB Energy
They are still trying to run the blairite con that private funding of public services isn't a more expensive form of public debt in a different accounting column. Just more trickle up economics for the donors, although the trickle has become a flood.
They are still trying to run the blairite con that private funding of public services isn't a more expensive form of public debt in a different accounting column. Just more trickle up economics for the donors, although the trickle has become a flood.
For sure.
Does it even get mentioned anymore? I haven't seen much.
They are still trying to run the blairite con that private funding of public services isn't a more expensive form of public debt in a different accounting column. Just more trickle up economics for the donors, although the trickle has become a flood.
For sure.
Does it even get mentioned anymore? I haven't seen much.
They are still trying to run the blairite con that private funding of public services isn't a more expensive form of public debt in a different accounting column. Just more trickle up economics for the donors, although the trickle has become a flood.
For sure.
Does it even get mentioned anymore? I haven't seen much.
PSNB - *I think* not taking into account assets owned at the BoE (Q/E)
2008 88,657
2009 161,765
2010 147,961
2011 121,306
2012 130,358
2013 104,534
2014 104,921
2015 86,719
2016 68,460
2017 54,853
2018 51,910
2019 51, 719
2020 273,115
2021 163,199
2022 108,591
2023 140,750
2024 147,002
It looks like Sir Keir Starmer has learnt the art of shamelessly telling baseless lies from his chums in the genocidal Israeli government :
Presumably targeting Israeli businesses, and specifically those actively involved in helping the Israeli government commit genocide is all that Starmer thinks he needs to claim that they are targeting Jewish businesses.
Unfortunately for Starmer there is growing vocal support from British Jews for Palestine Action :
Although no doubt Starmer would agree with Netanyahu and his far-right government that these Jews are obviously anti-semitic
Why must they fill it? What will happen if they don't?
Yep, a question I regularly shout at the TV. None of the 'journalists' talking to government reps ever seem to ask it though.
It seems very important to the government to the point they have to look at benefits but not so important that wealth taxes should be looked at as that is far too complicated.
Can someone remind me again why still having Sunak and tories in place would have been any different?
Is there any good news from this ridiculous government? All that noise over reforming planning and things will simply snap into place (The Planning and Infrastructure Bill) we're still massively behind on building. We will never catch that 4million houses up and with many building companies starting to feel the pinch. Things are going to get worse.
Even their tinkering at the edges is so bizarre and random I can't get my head around their plans. They simply appear to knee jerk react to anything with a really terrible shoddy plan usually not backed up with resources.
Still we're looking at the likelihood of an interest rate cut today. Which is a good move no thanks to Reeves.
However they're saying longer-term there won't be many more cuts.
It's not the government's fault we've fallen behind in so many areas but it sure as hell is there fault they didn't have a logical economic plan - waiting for growth first 🤪.
Yep, a question I regularly shout at the TV. None of the 'journalists' talking to government reps ever seem to ask it though.
Because it's taken as read that if they don't fill 'the hole' the markets will freak out and bond yields will skyrocket*. Our entire economic, fiscal, and monetary policy is at the mercy of the opinions of a few bond investors and market makers. Of course when the black hole exists because banks have been bailed out and pension funds are propped up the 'markets' (ie those very same bond investors) don't bat an eyelid and it's no problem, but when the deficit is used to help working people and businesses in the real economy they freak out. The entire monetary and financial system is rigged to benefit the city, to the detriment of almost everyone else in the country, and it's high time our politicians started talking about it rather than shrugging their shoulders.
*which wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't use the bond markets as a vehicle for obscuring the fact that the money they spend is generated at source by the central bank. The question we should be asking is not 'why should we fill the black hole?', but 'why do we need the bond markets to fund govt spending?'.
Thing is the bond yields can be controlled by the BoE buying bonds. They love to make it sound like it's all out of control and left to the market. It's not. They create the market conditions and rates tend to follow the central bank rate and speculate where it's going to go.
It's a total farce. That's what the BoE did after the Truss debacle and not quickly enough either. But it fixed it.
This has become the new reason why we can't do things because of a politically optional 'market' that was originally designed to control overnight interest rates - with which that mechanism is now redundant. (That is draining reserves out of the system is not an issue.)
I think public purpose should be above these ridiculous markets. That's where it's wrong.
*which wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't use the bond markets as a vehicle for obscuring the fact that the money they spend is generated at source by the central bank. The question we should be asking is not 'why should we fill the black hole?', but 'why do we need the bond markets to fund govt spending?'.
This X 100.
That's the central misinformation at the heart of our crippling economy and why I'm so loaded on understanding what MMT describes.
Though I would say that the black-hole narratives has now become the new press point. It was a diaster when Labour first bought it up.
I could see it coming miles off.
I mean all this is quickly dealt with with one simple query.
Who do you think 'creates' the money for government spending?
Every answer apart from the BoE is factually incorrect. (The research exists to prove this categorically.)
The article below is part of blog from one of the chaps who research and published the accounting model of thee UK Exchequer. (The only one of its type.)
I've put it up before but it hits the nail on the head.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/euthanise-the-bond-market/
Euthanise the Bond Market: Why It's Time to End the Reign of the Money Changers
The bond market has long been hailed as a vital cog in the machinery of modern economies, a sentinel ensuring fiscal discipline, and a barometer of economic stability. But is this reputation deserved? Recent turmoil in the UK gilt market following Rachel Reeves’s maiden Budget has brought this question into sharp focus. A sell-off in gilts has been framed as the righteous judgment of the “bond vigilantes” sniffing out fiscal imprudence. Yet, this narrative is built on misunderstandings and misplaced reverence for an institution that is neither necessary nor productive.
The Myths of Market Discipline
Let’s break down the received wisdom. We are told that government borrowing is constrained by the willingness of investors to lend. When spending and borrowing exceed some implicit threshold of acceptability, markets “strike back,” driving up yields and demanding fiscal rectitude. According to this view, the UK government’s plans to issue £300bn of gilts this tax year—to cover a deficit augmented by £32.3bn annually over the next five years—represents a breach of that threshold. Bond investors, alarmed by a perceived lack of discipline, have sold off.
None of this is true.
The UK government does not need to “borrow” in any conventional sense. Spending by the government is an act of money creation. When the government credits a bank account, the Bank of England records a corresponding credit and debit on its balance sheet. Taxes operate in reverse, debiting bank accounts along with a corresponding debit and credit recorded on the Bank of England balance sheet. The result is a balancing item in the accounts, which is all ‘government borrowing’ really is - occurring as a natural function of double-entry accounting, not the rapacious whims of financial brigands.
Gilts are not a necessity but a political choice stemming from the outdated “full funding rule.” This policy requires the issuance of bonds to cover deficits, a remnant of an older economic orthodoxy linked to the long-defunct gold standard. In reality, these bonds merely offer investors the option to exchange overnight reserves (which pay the Bank of England’s Bank Rate) for longer-term instruments with a fixed yield.
The Economics of Parasitism
What function, then, do bond investors serve? Advocates might argue they provide discipline, ensuring governments use public funds wisely. Yet this discipline is illusory. The bond yield is simply the market’s expectation of future Bank of England policy rates. Investors do not “set” borrowing costs; they predict them. The entire bond market’s existence rests on the unnecessary act of swapping one type of government liability (reserves) for another (gilts).
Far from being the guardians of fiscal virtue, bond investors resemble the money changers of biblical lore—skimming off the system while adding no value. Their profits are a deadweight loss to the economy. The intricate dance of issuance, trading, and yield curve management consumes resources and employs talent that could be deployed in more productive sectors. Financial engineers who might design systems to combat climate change or improve healthcare instead spend their days shaving basis points off gilt portfolios.
A Political Choice, Not an Economic Necessity
Ending the bond market is not a radical idea but a logical step toward modernising public finance. If the UK government were to eliminate the ‘full funding’ rule, it would continue to settle its obligations just as it has been doing since the 1860s—by directly crediting bank accounts. Private banks would receive the Bank Rate on their deposits held at the Bank of England, and the costly bond issuance process would end.
Critics may raise concerns about inflationary risks or a potential loss of market discipline, but these fears are unfounded. Inflation is determined by the balance between aggregate demand and real economic capacity, not by the actions of bond traders. Ultimately, fiscal “discipline” is a political choice best exercised through democratic means rather than being delegated to unelected financial elites.
Reclaiming Public Purpose
The bond market, far from being an essential institution, is a parasitic appendage—one that has outlived whatever utility it might once have had. By continuing to issue gilts, the UK government perpetuates a system that benefits a narrow class of financial intermediaries at the expense of the broader public. The talents of those currently employed in the bond market could be better used in sectors that address real-world challenges.
It is time to euthanise the bond market—not with malice but with a clear-eyed understanding that its continued existence serves no public purpose. Just as the money changers were driven from the Temple, so must we clear out this vestige of an outdated economic paradigm. The myth of the vigilantes must be dispelled. Only then can we create a monetary system that serves the needs of everyday people.
"Right-wing politicians are hypocrites" shocka
Although I guess that the ones in the Labour Party are even bigger hypocrites than the ones in the Tory Party ....... just having the honesty to join the Tory Party removes one layer of hypocrisy.
The great news though is that Rushanara Ali will almost certainly lose her seat at the next general election. Thanks to her refusal to support a ceasefire and the slaughter of innocent Palestinians whilst in opposition she managed to change one the safest Labour seats in the UK into a Labour marginal seat.
If she even bothers to stand of course.
Oh she's a shocker. I'm glad you posted that. Cue all the "she operated within the law" comments.
Evening giggle.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1953411434655736315?t=H9n9Uz8jDo14z17BdLxGeg&s=19
Oh if there was a general election tomorrow Keir Starmer would very likely lose his seat, especially if Andrew Feinstein stood against him again. I think that would make him the first sitting UK prime minister in history to lose his seat in a general election.
However I think that is highly unlikely to happen. I can't imagine that he will still be PM in four years time and I will be surprised if he still wants to remain in politics after his stint as PM.
This is not a man with any genuine political commitment so I would expect him to focus on a lucrative post prime ministerial career. Hopefully somewhat spoilt by a constant niggling thought that, however unlikely, he might one day face the legal consequences of helping a regime to commit war crimes and genocide.
"Stats for Lefties" 🙂
Nothing to do with me but I'm a stone's from Sheffield so anyone else who's interested in government finances - there's a two day event with Prof Steven Hail - who operates degree courses for MMT online.
https://events.humanitix.com/public-money-mmt-sheffield
There will be a connection to the current government I'm pretty sure.
I'm likely to go - depends on diary and weekend riding of course!
legal consequences of helping a regime to commit war crimes and genocide.
For crying out loud, leave the Gaza stuff in the Gaza thread.
legal consequences of helping a regime to commit war crimes and genocide.
For crying out loud, leave the Gaza stuff in the Gaza thread.
Just like Brexit is discussed in every single thread?
I don't think it's fair to police threads like this unless miles and I mean miles off topic.
And mentioning what the UK government is doing in a thread titled "UK Government Thread" is pretty on topic...
*which wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't use the bond markets as a vehicle for obscuring the fact that the money they spend is generated at source by the central bank. The question we should be asking is not 'why should we fill the black hole?', but 'why do we need the bond markets to fund govt spending?'.
The article below is part of blog from one of the chaps who research and published the accounting model of thee UK Exchequer. (The only one of its type.)
I've put it up before but it hits the nail on the head.
Another link and another repost? Ambassador, you are spoiling us!
Keir Starmer exercising his inner “Trump”, merely an authoritarian reach around to massage those ignorant of facts out there
And mentioning what the UK government is doing in a thread titled "UK Government Thread" is pretty on topic...
Totally agree. If someone posted a load of stuff on here about Israel's specific actions in Gaza, it is probably off-topic enough to warrant a retort. But if, for example, it was then contextualised into a criticism of the UK government's actions in supplying military hardware, it is 100% on-topic.
Trying to shut down certain avenues of debate on the basis of which thread they exist in on a mountain bike forum is pretty laughable.
A Venn diagram would be handy here.
PCA 🤣 don't read it dude. Just skip past.
I mean if I see something I don't want to engage with I don't point it out. It's a waste of my time.
Keir Starmer exercising his inner “Trump”, merely an authoritarian reach around to massage those ignorant of facts out there
It's crackers this - we have the most ridiculously anti-EU (in practice) and anti-migrant PM and yet the Centrists never seem to notice.
But Corbyn... 7/10
I jumped in the car just now and made the mistake of driving off without checking what was on the radio, with the result that I had to listen to 20 minutes of Any Questions on R4. The panelists were two dribbling old fools from the main parties, some nonentity whose name I didn't catch, plus the ghastly Oakeshot woman. What struck me was that although every word that came out of her mouth was a hideous lie, Oakshit spoke in a much more persuasive and compelling way than the dinosaur Andrew Mitchell and the halfwit Charlie Faulkner, who did nothing to rebut the points she attempted to make, or to present a more reasonable argument. I can easily imagine that if this programme was all you heard about the subject, and combined with your own life experience of, eg the shit-show that is our health service(*) you might well be persuaded to vote Reform. If the other parties don't seriously up their game, then I suspect I won't be the only one thinking this. It feels like we are slipping down a slope with one outcome.
(* I speak as a patient unable to get treatment, and as the parent of a nurse unable to get a job)
It feels like we are slipping down a slope with one outcome.
Absolutely looks nailed on now. Labour have done little to combat the argument of two cheeks and have picked up the baton of austerity from the Tories.
I have my doubts about the efficacy of any left wing party seen to be associated/allied/kindred spirts with protest movements like Just Stop Oil or Stand Up To Racism. Home owners don't like being called Nazi scum and told migrant hotels in their neighbourhoods are good for them so STFU. No more holibobs for you, it's just for celebs and rich people who deserve it. If you can't afford a leccy car, solar panels, heat pump, new boiler and plumbing tough tits we are going screw you for every tiny drop of energy you consume, whilst handing out subsidies to people who can afford it. I suspect they will come out in numbers to vote against both agendas and the people who jump up and down and scream thick racists at them.
For crying out loud, leave the Gaza stuff in the Gaza thread.
Well you are going to be rather disappointed to see that I am going to mention this current government's attitude to the genocide taking place in Gaza (and the West Bank) some more. You obviously don't have to read my comment but I suspect that you simply can't help yourself.
As an ultra-zonist when Suella Braverman was Home Secretary she desperately tried to create a hostile and toxic environment towards those demonstrating against the genocidal Israeli regime.
Braverman put pressure on the Met to ban demos, and she wanted those waving Palestinian flags arrested for anti-semitism, she suggested that chanting "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" was a hate crime.
It all however came to nothing and Braverman was unable to use the powers at her disposal to harass, vilify, and create a hostile environment for those disgusted by the UK government's continued support for a genocidal regime which carries out war crimes on a daily basis.
Then along came a "Labour" Home Secretary to show Suella Braverman how it should all be done. With the greatest of ease Yvette Cooper has criminalised those who are speaking out against Netanyahu's genocide. Cooper has created the hostile environment which Braverman so desperately wanted to create.
And quite remarkably Yvette Cooper has actually managed to get people opposed to the genocide currently taking place in Gaza treated as some sort of terrorists.
Today, thanks to Yvette Cooper, the Met police arrested 365 people under terrorist legislation for holding up placards saying “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”. More are expected to follow as the Met goes through video footage. They face imprisonment and all the other consequences of being labelled terrorists.
Suella Braverman would have wet her knickers just at the thought of 365 arrests at a pro-Palestine demo, never mind that they would be charged under anti-terrorist legislation, when she herself was Home Secretary.
It took a so-called Labour Home Secretary to achieve what an extreme right-wing Tory Home Secretary could not achieve. But I am nevertheless sure that being the ultra-zionist that she is Braverman will be hugely satisfied by what Cooper has done.
Obviously the political consequences for Labour will be dire, and it will certainly encourage people to join and/or support the new Sultana-Corbyn party, but the right-wingers in charge of the Labour Party seem mostly unbothered by the long-term consequences of their disastrous and extremely unLabour behaviour.
You can oppose what is happening in Gaza. And loudly. If you need to tie that to supporting a banned group while doing so, that’s your choice… which comes with consequences.
Yup, it's a trick that Suella Braverman missed. I bet she wishes she had thought it. But who would have thought that non-violently opposing something could have you labelled a terrorist? Braverman obviously didn't!
It is frankly genius, if you are a right-wing supporter of a genocidal regime, as Suella Braverman and Yvette Cooper obviously both are.
You can oppose what is happening in Gaza. And loudly.
Apparently you can’t, as the woman arrested by Kent police just now showed. The police determined that any sign or whatever saying “Free Gaza” gave reasonable suspicion of support for PA and was thus a terrorist offence. So the hideous Yvette Cooper can claim that our right to protest is not infringed by her proscription of PA, but it’s simply a lie. Another lie.
You can still demonstrate about Gaza though. I agree that PA shouldn’t be proscribed, but if demonstrators keep openly supporting the people of Palestine, and an end to the attacks and siege on them, rather than get distracted by those that use criminal damage to make their (quite different) point, they will be heard and supported up and down the UK.
The police determined that any sign or whatever saying “Free Gaza” gave reasonable suspicion of support for PA and was thus a terrorist offence.
Well, they were wrong. Not on its own. I guess she was freed without charge, and there’s been no repeat of that over step?
“Free Gaza” 🇵🇸
Well, they were wrong
I’m sure that’s a huge comfort to someone traumatised by a wrongful arrest for a serious crime.
Well, they were wrong. Not on its own. I guess she was freed without charge, and there’s been no repeat of that over step?
Apart from the fact that the supposedly lawful arrests which occured today are likely to have violated international human rights law, the unlawful actions taken by the Kent coppers reflect the toxic and hostile environment which the Labour Home Secretary has now created for people who are opposed to a genocide which is killing innocent men women and children.
Amnesty International sums it up here better than I can :
“Today’s mass arrests of peaceful protesters under UK terrorism law are deeply concerning.
“Peaceful protest is a fundamental right. People are understandably outraged by the ongoing genocide being committed in Gaza and are entitled under international human rights law to express their horror.
“The protesters in Parliament Square were not inciting violence and it is entirely disproportionate to the point of absurdity to be treating them as terrorists.
“We have long criticised UK terrorism law for being excessively broad and vaguely worded and a threat to freedom of expression. These arrests demonstrate that our concerns were justified.
“Instead of criminalising peaceful demonstrators, the Government should be focusing on taking immediate and unequivocal action to put a stop to Israel’s genocide and ending any risk of UK complicity in it.”
I agree that PA shouldn’t be proscribed, but if demonstrators keep openly supporting the people of Palestine, and an end to the attacks and siege on them, rather than get distracted by those that use criminal damage to make their (quite different) point, they will be heard and supported up and down the UK.
People can hold opinions about 2 things simultaneously - the plight of Gaza, and the extension of the state’s power into areas that encroach on our democracy.
“Peaceful protest is a fundamental right. People are understandably outraged by the ongoing genocide being committed in Gaza and are entitled under international human rights law to express their horror.
Absolutely.
People can hold opinions about 2 things simultaneously - the plight of Gaza, and the extension of the state’s power into areas that encroach on our democracy.
Of course they can.
But there is nothing stopping anyone protesting about Gaza.
But there is nothing stopping anyone protesting about Gaza.
Apart from fear of being arrested - wrongly or otherwise - by some over-zealous plod fired up by Yvette Cooper’s alarmist rhetoric.
(That’s apart from the police restrictions on where and when you can protest)
The stupidity of all this is that from a Labour government perspective this will undoubtedly cost Labour support.
The Tory Shadow Home Secretary has given his full support for the hundreds of arrests of suspected terrorists which took place today. According to Chris Philp those arrested "should feel the full force of the law".
But people are not going to rush to vote Labour because of it. If they agree with Chris Philp that it's a great idea to arrest these people then they will probably vote Tory or for Reform.
And if they think it is a shite idea to arrest people and accuse them of terrorism for holding a sign saying "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action" then they will are more likely to be driven into the arms of the Sultana-Corbyn party.
It is a lose-lose situation for Labour.
More laws and rhetoric from "Labour" to bolster Nigel Farage's agenda and make him a very happy man.
“Our message is clear: if you abuse our hospitality and break our laws, we will send you packing,” she said.
The mechanism for the deportation of foreign criminals of course existed, quite rightly, during the previous 14 years of Tory governments. But it obviously wasn't tough enough to satisfy our current right-wing authoritarian government.
Bearing in mind that terrorist related offences are considered among the most serious I think it is reasonable to assume that any foreign national holding up a sign saying "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action" faces the possibility of deportation from the UK.
A truly both farcical and terrifying situation for anyone who supports the concept of liberal democracy, at least it should be, but one which undoubtedly Nigel Farage and Donald Trump can relate to.
Well done Labour !
Labour are clearly doing the thing that because you are failing at fixing the fundamentals of the economy and society - it's much easier to whip a storm and keep the authoritarian headlines going.
Imagine voting for them and getting the opposite of what you expected. A sort of Reform/Tory top ten with tool-maker lies.
(However they don't have the economic reach of Reform even.)
it's much easier to whip a storm and keep the authoritarian headlines going.
Yup, it is very easy. Unfortunately it hands the narrative over to your political opponents who appear to be settling the agenda. This was Nigel Farage 3 weeks ago :
Sir Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper have gone some way to satisfying Nigel Farage's current agenda with regards to dealing with the issue of the expanding prison population which they are helping to create (nearly 500 suspected terrorist sympathizers arrested yesterday in the London) but it would be interesting to know Labour's views on Farage's idea of "nightingale" prisons and bringing in the army.
Involving the army in setting up emergency prisons must surely be an attractive proposition for a right-wing authoritarian government, especially when they are dealing with so many suspected terrorist sympathizers?
It's coming to something when a country's army is less militant right wing than that country's government, official opposition and largest current opposition.
I had to spend a minute or two thinking about whether to post this link here or in the Farage thread (which is telling in itself). Anyhow - every bloody word of this:
The galling idiocy of it all is that posting hectically about immigration and rolling out hardline measures is self-defeating. It doesn’t even work to instil confidence in Labour as the only credible party on immigration. The more Labour presses the issue, the more it reinforces the validity of anti-immigration rhetoric, empowering Reform as the specialised vehicle of crackdown. To voters mobilised by this, Labour can never be better than the real thing.