Forum menu
Note to Labour: if you want to grow an economy you can't do it by removing money from government spending.
Government spending has increased. It would still have increased if they'd stuck to their guns about making the WFA available only to those that really need it. The increased spending elsewhere could have been a bit bigger if they'd kept the change. In other news...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lnzdndkeo
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1968776998412493247?t=3ubLikR-ekA6aQ8oG2GfiA&s=19
Wow.
That's some grim numbers.
It is certainly pretty grim for Labour and Tories when Green are only 4% behind them. Maybe Labour just need to join with Tories and LibDems to get 45%, after all they are pretty much all the same now anyway.
I really don't think many people would be able to tell the difference whether Tory, LibDem or current Labour Party were in power.
Government spending has increased. It would still have increased if they'd stuck to their guns about making the WFA available only to those that really need it. The increased spending elsewhere could have been a bit bigger if they'd kept the change. In other news...
I think the comments I just made in the Trump thread also apply here
I keep seeing "hypernormalization" mentioned over the past week or so, but I think the point is missed that it is the current extreme financial inequality we live in that has been normalised, an extreme financial system of inflated assets and rapidly diminishing standards of living for the majority, an acceptance of selling the policies that caused the problems as the solutions to the problems and taking them even further and calling that the new normal, taking 14 years of austerity and now making that as the baseline and pretending that a tiny little bit less* austerity is now a great victory.
*although given rather optimistic inflation predictions and where they actually seem to be going that will probably turn out to be more rather than less austerity by the end of this parliament
And a 4.7 percent increase next year in the state pension doesn't seem that much of a problem for me looking at where the current inflation figures are heading, unless you blame people who depend on it for not being rich enough to have made additional provisions available to those with grater wealth. The state pension is hardly a life of wealth and riches, it is once again the normalization of blaming those receive state benefits as the cause of the economic problems that are quite frankly ****ing obviously being driven by the greed of the wealthy.
We are so ****ed.
The best we can hope for at this point is a rainbow coalition with just enough seats to beat Reform.
Best I can hope for is UDI for Scotland after a faragist win 🤣
Government spending has increased. It would still have increased if they'd stuck to their guns about making the WFA available only to those that really need it. The increased spending elsewhere could have been a bit bigger if they'd kept the change. In other news...
It's needs to increase massively, that's why there's no growth. You've got to remember we're on 15+ years of lack of solid renewal - that's not going to be caught up by trimming WFA. It's the economics of people so caught in up in the falsehood of household analogies, and time and time again they're proven to be incorrect. Looking for growth? Not happening. Keep cutting and deleting money out of circulation - shrink the economy.
When the States got their big bumper growth under Biden - it's no secret that the inflation reduction bill was a massive spend that propelled it.
We can debate all day about why the WFA proposals was or wasn't a good move but the reality is stuff like will not fix the economy and should never have been a priority. It's shouldn't even be in the top 50.
It's totally ridiculous to believe anything else.
The only way out of our current dire situation is to enlarge the deficit, get the BoE to trim interest rates and go on a programme of nationalisation for a start. And put the bloody markets in their place by instructing the BoE to buy up bonds during this process. Primary dealers will be forced to take the price due to lack of supply.
You know how boom and bust cycles work - eventually the state will have to spend big like it does whe collapse occurs. Why not now? Labour need to change livelihoods to survive. It's the only game in town or all of us on this forum are looking at a pretty rubbish couple of decades.
Government spending has increased. It would still have increased if they'd stuck to their guns about making the WFA available only to those that really need it. The increased spending elsewhere could have been a bit bigger if they'd kept the change. In other news...
It's needs to increase massively, that's why there's no growth. You've got to remember we're on 15+ years of lack of solid renewal - that's not going to be caught up by trimming WFA. It's the economics of people so caught in up in the falsehood of household analogies, and time and time again they're proven to be incorrect. Looking for growth? Not happening. Keep cutting and deleting money out of circulation - shrink the economy.
When the States got their big bumper growth under Biden - it's no secret that the inflation reduction bill was a massive spend that propelled it.
(There's been about a 20bn deficit enlargement between end of the Tories and Labours new year. Yeah good. But the private sector can't grow on this because of current the state everything's been left in. Starmer getting excited about the US 150bn for 7000 jobs is exactly the reason the government needs to invest its own sterling - and would for 150bn certainly employ many more people. And not have to extract the wealth back to the US. Labour are just utterly obsessed with relying on private foreign money and it's largely a sham for the country.)
We can debate all day about why the WFA proposals was or wasn't a good move but the reality is stuff like will not fix the economy and should never have been a priority. It's shouldn't even be in the top 50.
It's totally ridiculous to believe anything else.
The only way out of our current dire situation is to enlarge the deficit, get the BoE to trim interest rates and go on a programme of nationalisation for a start. And put the bloody markets in their place by instructing the BoE to buy up bonds during this process. Primary dealers will be forced to take the price due to lack of supply.
You know how boom and bust cycles work - eventually the state will have to spend big like it does whe collapse occurs. Why not now? Labour need to change livelihoods to survive. It's the only game in town or all of us on this forum are looking at a pretty rubbish couple of decades.
I agree it needs to “increase massively”, but let’s not paint a picture that isn’t true… the government continues to spend more, and that spending is more than it recovers through taxation etc. This government is trying to play the game of being seen to be in control of “day-to-day” spending while increasing “investment” spending for long term benefit.
I agree it needs to “increase massively”, but let’s not paint a picture that isn’t true… the government continues to spend more, and that spending is more than it recovers through taxation etc. This government is trying to play the game of being seen to be in control of “day-to-day” spending while increasing “investment” spending for long term benefit.
Well all know there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. It's exactly the same money. It's an unnecessary construct. It's like dividing your own single current account and pretending you have two pots of money when ultimate you have the total amount. It makes no difference to the maths. Besides the government performs trickery here by moving funds from one pot to the other to allow the day 2 day pot access to the investment. All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
The government id spending more but the base is so low. The fiscal rules so restraining etc.
If you want a disaster government in 2029 then let's pretend there is no urgency to hit this stuff as hard as possible now with that big majority.
Desperate times Kelvin.
I agree it needs to “increase massively”, but let’s not paint a picture that isn’t true… the government continues to spend more, and that spending is more than it recovers through taxation etc. This government is trying to play the game of being seen to be in control of “day-to-day” spending while increasing “investment” spending for long term benefit.
Well all know there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. It's exactly the same money. It's an unnecessary construct. It's like dividing your own single current account and pretending you have two pots of money when ultimate you have the total amount. It makes no difference to the maths. Besides the government performs trickery here by moving funds from one pot to the other to allow the day 2 day pot access to the investment. All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
The government is spending more but the base is so low. The fiscal rules so restraining etc. Wherever there is stuff to fix it needs to do it.
If you want a disaster government in 2029 then let's pretend there is no urgency to hit this stuff as hard as possible now with that big majority.
Desperate times Kelvin.
Desperate times Kelvin.
This is what I don't get. A year or two ago everyone on here agreed that getting the tories out was the one and only priority. People like myself gritted our teeth and voted Labour despite every instinct screaming that we knew what was going to happen, but we did it anyway. Now I think we can probably all agree that the only priority is to stop a Reform election victory, but Labour apologists flatly refuse to accept what needs to be done and think more tinkering around the edges of a neoliberal economy that fuels the far right is all that is required. This is an emergency, and it needs emergency action.
Labour apologists flatly refuse to accept what needs to be done
Please be specific? Do you mean me? I think we should shift taxation towards those with wealth (and I include property in that). I think it's time to accept we need to look after "the young" in the same way as we look after those that are retired. I think the government should be investing far more (directly) in infrastructure and education. That doesn't mean that I think the government doesn't have to look at and change where and how it spends money while increasing spending overall.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1968776998412493247?t=3ubLikR-ekA6aQ8oG2GfiA&s=19
Wow.
That's some grim numbers.
Bare in mind find out now polls are a consistent outlier in giving reform a higher vote share, due to some assumptions they make about the underlying data which other polling companies don't agree with.
Come election time surely the Tories will have a new leader who will regain some of those votes. Support for reform will naturally fall when their policies, if they even have any, come under mainstream scrutiny in the run up to the election. Starmer should be running rings around Farage in televised debates etc.
Looks like there's enough votes currently split between labour, libdems and greens for a left wing coalition or for a labour win if Starmer can unite them. There's a long way to go and I think it's going to be a lot closer than the polls are now suggesting.
Bare in mind
Do bear in mind this is a family friendly forum with such titivating suggestions.
I actually researched that distinction in the past and came away with the impression that either was fine. Now I see that I was wrong. Teaches me for only putting the bear minimum amount of effort into my writing!
Looks like there's enough votes currently split between labour, libdems and greens for a left wing coalition or for a labour win if Starmer can unite them.
Not sure how that works - Labour are no longer left wing and lib dems never were.
Looks like there's enough votes currently split between labour, libdems and greens for a left wing coalition or for a labour win if Starmer can unite them.
Not sure how that works - Labour are no longer left wing and lib dems never were.
Label it however you want. The end result is the same which is keeping Tories/Reform out of power.
Why bother keeping Tories out of power when Labour and Lib Dems are pretty much the same thing? And why the hell would the Greens join them. Not wanting Reform in government is one thing but fantasies about parties joining together to combat Reform is another.
I don't think they're the same thing at all. The greens would surely be interested in a coalition, it's the only way they're ever going to get a sniff of power, and who else are they going to coalesce with? I can't see a Reform/Green or Tory/Green coalition.
I don't think they're the same thing at all. The greens would surely be interested in a coalition, it's the only way they're ever going to get a sniff of power, and who else are they going to coalesce with? I can't see a Reform/Green or Tory/Green coalition.
I would hope the Green party have learned the lessons UKIP and, on the opposite end of the spectrum of effectiveness, the LibDems have taught us.
That lesson is if you want to really change the country then stay out of power, steal votes from the main parties, and never take yes for an answer.
Why bother keeping Tories out of power when Labour and Lib Dems are pretty much the same thing?
Because despite the narrative on here they are not. Starmer is undoubtedly making a cock up of the communications and making some odd decisions which we we'd all rather he learned from quickly but he's not embraced the populist, racist, insular bigoted agenda the Tories have. Labour might have moved to the right (and not a bad thing in my mind) but the Tories have really lurched right.
I accept he's embraced the small boats / migration issue a little bit too uncritically for my liking but he can't just ignore that sentiment in the country. He gets hammered for following 'populist' polices regarding immigration and yet at the same time gets hammered for not being popular.
It shall be interesting to see how France fares in the next couple of years, they are ay further around the U-bend of denial we are and fiscal reality will catch up with them before us. If it doesn't then I'm prepared to accept the head in the sand, spend , spend, spend approach might actually work. I don't think it will though, France's interest on it's debt is already taking massive amounts out of the economy and were following suit.
Ignoring all the right wing populist nonsense and immigration sideshow rubbish there's two basic schools of thought, the centrist view that we have to balance the number of people who are economically active with the support provided to those who are not and the left wing view that's it's all down to the wealthy hoarding the wealth and we could find more money if we just wanted to.
In reality it will be an element of both, but probably more down to the imbalance between contributors and recipients. Our welfare state and specifically pensions has been ponzi scheme for years, hence the need for economically active migrants to physically do the work no one else wants to and be net contributors to society. The more you provide the more demand is created (expectation might be a better word).
Please be specific? Do you mean me?
No not you specifically, just a general comment that defenders of Starmer and the govt don't seem to understand the scale of what is required to defeat Farage. Delivering the policies which were in the manifesto will not be enough. The rise of Reform and other stuff like far right marches with 100s of thousands openly displaying their ire indicates a level of anger with the status quo among the electorate which will not be assuaged by some nice statistics about A&E waiting times reducing by x%. People want the change they were promised, and so far Labour have delivered more of the same.
You'd think someone would notice the link to the polls and Labour's generally awful performance.
I know it's not just about pleasing people - tough choices FFS. But people have had enough of the tough choices being lumped on them rather than on the people that should take the hit. The people that get the tough choices never see the benefits either.
Labour aren't really for working people - they're for the finance and business class 'cos there oh so desperate for extractive investment 🤪.
far right marches with 100s of thousands openly displaying their ire indicates a level of anger with the status quo among the electorate
A small fraction of the number who went on anti-Brexit protests which I'm guessing you probably derided at the time.
he's not embraced the populist, racist, insular bigoted agenda the Tories have.
Could you explain what he meant by an "Island of strangers" and immigrants causing "incalculable damage"?
A small fraction of the number who went on anti-Brexit protests
Aye but lets be honest, strolling through London waving an EU flag alongside your fellow chattering classes from the suburbs is a world away from going to London dressed in and eng-er-lan flag and identifying yourself with the likes of Yaxley-Lennon and his fellow coked up football hooligans. Before last weekend Yaxley-Lennon never got more than a few hundred idiots on one of his demos, suddenly there's more than a hundred thousand of them marching through the streets singing 'you can stick your Palestine up your arse'. If that doesn't give you cause for alarm nothing will.
he's not embraced the populist, racist, insular bigoted agenda the Tories have.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1960335573677170722?t=2o_2Jwt0MHQeEkVxT4hu9A&s=19
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1954931076020719999?t=gYbwF3NE2skBcRbeX5qfFQ&s=19
I would like to know what "freedoms" have been agreed with the US AI investors to get this investment deal. The government have quite openly been proposing to screw over the creative industries with a lack of protection for some time, and I bet that was to show that they will kowtow, if they treat them like that what have they got lined up for the rest of us.
Conservative MPs are still wanging on about their Rwanda scheme, which aims to remove all right to claim asylum in the UK for those caught up it. Reform are promising that no one would be able to claim asylum here, and they'd deport all asylum seekers, full stop. This government is getting people through the (deliberate?) limbo of what was a stuck asylum system... most are successful and can begin to rebuild their lives here, unsuccessful applicants are being deported. More are being deported only because more are being processed. There's also the (too) slow return to pre-Brexit cooperation with France that's being partly put back in place. So that's three parties with three different policy approaches.
Now then, ignoring actual policy and moving on to the messaging... all the propaganda coming from Labour selling getting on with the work as being "tough" deporting those that fail in their application, and all the bragging about a few people being returned to France... well, it's all hateful isn't it?! In no way is it going to defuse the UK political and social misdirected anger towards immigrants... I can't see how it can do anything but make such sentiments (more) mainstream, and normalise them. What comes next? More hatred towards those Brits that weren't born here, or were born here but don't fit some twisted idea of what a Brit should be. Dark times ahead.
there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. ... All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
It's so weird that someone that talks about economics and high finance so much has such a poor grasp of basic concepts. You really think that spending £1 billion on infrastructure is the same as spending £1 billion on winter fuel allowance benefits because it all "makes its way through the economy and turns the cogs"?
there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. ... All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
It's so weird that someone that talks about economics and high finance so much has such a poor grasp of basic concepts. You really think that spending £1 billion on infrastructure is the same as spending £1 billion on winter fuel allowance benefits because it all "makes its way through the economy and turns the cogs"?
Don't be disingenuous and read it again.
Of course they're not the same end result but all government spending is investment of some sort. A negative government sector is a positive non-government sector. Operationally there is no difference between day to day spending and investment because it comes from the same place.
I'm always clear to point out some political choices are clearly better than others. Do I believe it would be better to spend more on infrastructure than WFA across the board? Yes absolutely. Do I believe there is a taxation system in place to mitigate inflation and remove money from WFA. Yes absolutely. So there's no need to be messing up the WFA like labour did and kicking up a stink in the first few months for no real terms saving. The fact that most people believe this to be saving is just nonsense and that's how it's been framed by a mendacious illiterate government.
Like I said to some other person it's not either/or.
Please don't talk to me about poor concepts.
On a different note. Argentina and balanced budgets. Earlier this year ...
Milei's Argentina seals budget surplus for first time in 14 years
ByReutersJanuary 17, 20254:59 PM GMTUpdated January 17, 2025
https://twitter.com/mbostic0/status/1970182722296651962?t=_HDsbeLxTyaZaqdmbTwfjA&s=19
I think it's useful to think of investment not just a return in terms of money but in the value to people's lives.
That £300-400 should help a good bunch of people in the face of criminally rising bills get through the winter and survive. Maybe less strain on the NHS? Maybe better health outcomes etc?
The return on the money is for public purpose not what simply is the multiplier effect.
For those who in the 'Centrist's version of reality' don't deserve the money - we can tax them to take the money back out at the other end if needs be.
Also there is something clean and sensible about not means-testing and having hard cut-offs in support money.
This is being driven by a desire to balance the books rather than what good it will do - and it won't balance the books and it would have done more harm than good.
Run a country on a spreadsheet instead of real political choices at your peril.
This can all co-exist with a capital spending programme. It's not either / or like Labour have sold it.
Just a programme of removing things - like the Tory mindset is not good for the economy or society.
It's so weird that someone that talks about economics and high finance so much has such a poor grasp of basic concept
@rone grasp of basic concepts is so vague that I skip right past anything they say about economics. Really, you can stare with incredulity at the posts, and even (if you're bored enough) try to engage, but it makes no difference.
On a different note. Argentina and balanced budgets. Earlier this year ..
Argentina's issues have little to nothing to do with cutting Govt Spending, and mostly due to quasi-intuitional reactions to it's on- going Dollar dependency.
there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. ... All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
It's so weird that someone that talks about economics and high finance so much has such a poor grasp of basic concepts. You really think that spending £1 billion on infrastructure is the same as spending £1 billion on winter fuel allowance benefits because it all "makes its way through the economy and turns the cogs"?
all government spending is investment of some sort. ... operationally there is no difference between day to day spending and investment because it comes from the same place.
Operationally there is no difference between urine and semen because they come from the same place.
Apart from urine coming from the bladder and semen from the testicles
Researchers at Opinium have found that 54% of the public now want the Labour leader to step down from his post in No.10, compared to just 24% who want him to stay in place – and 21% who don’t know.
That’s even higher than the 45% who wanted his Tory predecessor Rishi Sunak to quit in April 2024.
Blimey, imagine being so unpopular that the majority of the public are united in wanting you to resign, something which even Rishi Sunak couldn't achieve!
But as we always see with leaders, they can't accept that they are the problem and never voluntarily step down after admitting they have ****ed it.
@ronegrasp of basic concepts is so vague that I skip right past anything they say about economics.
And right there is the problem we're all suffering from. There is more than one way to look at economics than the neo-classical model of assuming we're all rational actors competing with eachother in efficient markets with minimal state intervention. If you arrogantly dismiss anyone proposing an alternative approach all you're doing is reinforcing the problems we can all plainly see.
@ronegrasp of basic concepts is so vague that I skip right past anything they say about economics.
There is more than one way to look at economics than the neo-classical model
That's true. But if you don't understand the difference between investment and consumption then you're not going to grasp any of it, and be constantly confused abour why things don't work the way you want them to.
But if you don't understand the difference between investment and consumption
Oh come off it. Rone understands this just fine, and you know he's talking about something else but instead of engaging with that you prefer to make a pedantic point about semantics. Nickc is even worse, he just dismisses anything rone says because he thinks he knows better.
Rone and others - including myself - who make points about the monetary system and how it can be used to solve real world problems haven't pulled this stuff from their backsides, its comes from lots of serious work by lots of serious, educated and professionally experienced people. You and others may not agree with it but you can't just dismiss it because it doesn't follow the neo-classical model.
Has anyone done the maths on how this would help low to medium income earners (up to say £40k).
Would it actually put money into peoples pockets?
Has anyone done the maths on how this would help low to medium income earners (up to say £40k).
Doesn't look like the intention is to help people who pay NI, rather take more from those that don't pay NI by increasing their tax while balancing those that do pay NI by increasing tax and lowering NI by same amount.
Would it actually put money into peoples pockets?
I think the idea is to take more out of people's pockets rather than the other way round. It raises a bit more from investors and landlords but does very little for anyone working. The problem isn't the amounts, more the optics of breaking their promise not to raise income tax or NI. I doubt voters will accept the nuance of lowering one while raising the other, all they'll see is a raise in income tax and conclude they've broken one of their central manifesto promises. Would be better to abolish NI altogether and adjust other taxes to compensate for its loss.