Forum menu
@somewhere above.
Keep on doing everything badly and getting increasingly poor results then just like our Chancellor's version of reality'.
(Skip past but enough to comment. Got ya.)
Blinkered.
The point s anything referenced to MMT is built on evidence - a body of work with the only peer reviewed process of government spending and central bank financing. There isn't a neoclassical version of that.
Everything else that has been sold to you about spending is not backed up with evidence. Centrists and some leftists have adopted right-wing framing of this process and seem particularly stubborn with not dealing with reality.
It's amazing that when it comes to many political things Centrists demand evidence but not here.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4890683
The self-financing state: an institutional analysis of government expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance operations in the United Kingdom
"Vague."
Lmfao.
But if you don't understand the difference between investment and consumption
...you prefer to make a pedantic point about semantics...
The difference between investment and consumption is absolutely foundational to an understanding of economics. You wouldn't listen to someone waffling about nutrition when they don't know the difference between blood and urine.
The difference between investment and consumption is absolutely foundational to an understanding of economics.
And misrepresenting something someone says on an internet forum is foundational to having a decent discussion.
Will the last Labour voter please turn out the light
The difference between investment and consumption is absolutely foundational to an understanding of economics
Jeez this guy.
Just for clarity the political emphasis is what makes the difference. Not the spend. The spend is the same pot split into two.
What you mean or what you should mean is the difference between capital spending and day-2-day spending. (Still same pot.) Government carves it up so it can manipulate its budget.
When it comes to government spending all public spending can be viewed as 'investment' because money going into the economy effectively is what boosts a consumer economy and adds to growth. For instance giving people energy subsidies to help when the market has ****ed it up is probably a good investment. People will put the heating on keep themselves well - hopefully. You have a healthier happier population - in broad strokes.
Giving people money to say spend on fags would probably not be a great investment but but would still add to GDP etc.
Again it's political choices. The return on the investment for government spending should be viewed in outcomes. Does it solve a problem? Does it increase growth? What's the multiplyer effect? Is it a good for public purpose? Does it correct flaws in the market economy? Does it make the population healthier?
Anyway today's topic or yesterday's:
Half of us having been banging on for years about fixing material conditions - way before Labour came to be in 2024. But it's only now Labour (in the face of terrible polling and public discourse) have come to the conclusion that you need to spend some money in communities with their version of levelling up.
The other half have been going on about black-holes and balancing budgets. Good luck with that (see Argentina.) But as we've explained that ignorance leads to Brexit type reactions and crime increases.
Well it does appear, probably a little to late but welcome. Starmer is about to put the money in.
This is exactly what they should have come to power doing. And it's welcome.
They will get the money from exactly the same place as always but expect in the budget all manner of horeshit about how and why.
Let's see. Also funds being created for JLR.
Sigh it's all so painfully obvious and could have been prevented!
(Still think Burnham is in the rear view mirror.)
Burnham is definitely on the move. From what I've heard he has a good plan too. Public control of housing, energy and transport with the core aim to bring down living costs, and higher taxes for rich to fund it. In other words traditional Labour policies which directly benefit working people. Who would have ever thought this sort of stuff would be seen as radical or out of the ordinary for a Labour govt?
They should plan these policies, then swap leader and roll them out so they look like the new leader's policies. It's no good doing them now because Starmer's credibility is finished, so voters will find ways to moan about them. That said, these policies need implementing ASAP and you don't want to swap leader too soon before the election. 2 years probably. When you're sure all the groundwork has been done, you can put someone else in to capitalise on it and the outgoing leader can take the bad sentiment with him. That's assuming the party works as a team rather than being driven by egos, of course.
330 deprived areas will receive tens of millions of pounds over a decade to be spent on renewal schemes
10's of millions each or between them, because if it is the later it's is barely a grain of sand on a 10 mile long beach.
It's truly astonishing that regular observations about the idea of funding the country properly have now turned into the almighty power of the bond markets over government.
This is truly pathetic and inaccurate.
They all cite the Truss debacle incorrectly (fixed in a few days) as being why we can't have nice things - but never once cite the 15+ years that the illusionary power of markets have had over a decaying infrastructure and country - and have delivered appalling results for most.
It's mind-blowing that people are falling for this.
Once again the government sits at the top of the market- it issues the currency that bonds are purchased with, it sets the rate effectively at auction and can buy and sell bonds to control the market. The market's power is false and not a naturally occuring phenomenon - it is a construct of government, law and money creation. It is also a policy choice that is not a compulsory requirement to fund government spending. (As it was a while ago.)
This rhetoric needs beating back into its box now or we never improve.
Only Burnham speaks sense here. Everyone else talking shite.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1971137890953404561?t=FgT0iwFurim_nym9IdM4Hw&s=19
330 deprived areas will receive tens of millions of pounds over a decade to be spent on renewal schemes
10's of millions each or between them, because if it is the later it's is barely a grain of sand on a 10 mile long beach.
Very true. This is bare minimum stuff.
The trouble with these levelling up schemes the way they are interpreted at local level is exactly that! Round Chesterfield/ Clay Cross/North East Derbyshire there are grand schemes involving demolishing fantastic old buildings (the levelling bit) then building back (the up bit) with buildings that will be only successful briefly as people have a limited amount of spare money.
Cafes, small independent shops and business hubs will open with enthusiastic people going into debt or spending their savings to follow their dreams aided by grants and rate relief. A couple of years later the reality will bite and they will shut the doors to end the pain..
The only people who benefit from a lot of this cash are the construction companies who have got their noses well in the trough, the schemes are run by unelected business owners rather than councils, prices are rigged and their mates make fortunes.
This is not speculation, there were many businesses in North East Derbyshire found to be price rigging (for some obscure reason I was invited to one of their breakfast meetings), they were fined but as far as I know are still the corrupt entities they always were.
Any “cash” given out needs democratic, community control.
Off me soapbox now!
10's of millions each or between them, because if it is the later it's is barely a grain of sand on a 10 mile long beach.
don't be so harsh - 10 million over a decade divided by 330 is, uh, £3,030 per deprived area! Per year!!!
If they really want to help small local businesses, they need to end the tax advantage that corporations have over them and frankly move it a bit in the other direction. Property prices/rentals are also as big a problem for small start-ups/local businesses as they are for people trying too get on the housing ladder.
If they really want to help small local businesses, they need to end the tax advantage that corporations have over them and frankly move it a bit in the other direction. Property prices/rentals are also as big a problem for small start-ups/local businesses as they are for people trying too get on the housing ladder.
Capital grants would go a long way.
We had a couple under the Tories.
This Burnham job is gathering a bit of momentum and I still think he's got that failed Centrism take in his head - maybe that's harsh but he's likely the best option currently in Labour. Purely because I think he's 'liked' and he's recognised the value of fixing your environment.
I don't think Starmer was liked from the off. I don't like to talk about personality but in this situation I think they need this sort of help.
It would go a long way.
This Burnham job is gathering a bit of momentum and I still think he's got that failed Centrism take in his head
It's a damn sight better than the unbridled market conservatism peddled by Starmer, Reeves and Streeting so i'll take it. Also liking the anti-Westminster slant of what he's saying. That may well be just PR so he can claim to be outside the establishment but if he gets in and does half of this stuff it's going to be quite revolutionary. PR, more regional devolution, regional redistribution of local taxes etc. I guess he's not called the King of the North for nothing.
Still think he won't get in before Farage does though. Starmer and his cronies will opearate a scorched earth strategy to stop him getting into parliament so he'll probably have to wait til Starmer is gone after he loses the next election.
Starmer and his cronies will opearate a scorched earth strategy to stop him getting into parliament so he'll probably have to wait til Starmer is gone after he loses the next election.
You believe that Starmer will likely still be Labour leader by the time of the next general election?
That would absolutely guarantee electoral armageddon for Labour. I can't imagine even the MPs hand-picked by Morgan McSweeney agreeing to that.
I also very much doubt that Starmer gives a shit who takes over after him.
This isn't a man with any sort of political vision or ideological commitment.
I am sure that Starmer would be perfectly happy bailing out, handing over the reins to whoever, and getting on with the next stage of his personal career.
When it comes to government spending all public spending can be viewed as 'investment' because money going into the economy effectively is what boosts a consumer economy and adds to growth.
“Consumer economy” could mean more yachts in Monaco if the money is going into the pockets of the wrong people. Or straight into offshore accounts of investment landlords without controls and taxes to prevent that. The idea that where the money goes, and what it’s spent on, isn’t absolutely crucial (economically not just socially) is crack pot thinking. Just as ruling out any and all tax changes is. Spending more in total is absolutely not enough to achieve growth. The UK government has been leaking money to the wrong people, and wrong industries, for decades. Too early to see whether this government will do better… but a focus on how and where the money is spent is the correct one. As is addressing taxation.
I think a lot rests on the budget.
If this takes them off another cliff - there will be carnage.
But then again leaders seem to do a good job of hanging on in there.
Honestly what a waste of time - all that opportunity for rebuilding post Tory.
I am sure that Starmer would be perfectly happy bailing out, handing over the reins to whoever, and getting on with the next stage of his personal career.
...perhaps one day, if he tries hard enough - he'll become a toolmaker! 🤩
Failing government = bring in ID cards.
My god this will drop them another 2 PTS.
Tossers.
FUQ-A-DUCK - he's bloody clueless!! 😱😱
Lots trailed about this at LibDem conference… oddly. Talk there was about dropping opposition to it. If it’s about expanding NI numbers so they can be used for all income, I don’t hugely see the problem (apart from possibly yet more negative noise around “immigrants” rather than reducing tax dodging and HRMC mistakes). Talk of “services” worries me greatly. If linked to NHS services it could be very dangerous (and expensive).
Failing government = bring in ID cards.
My god this will drop them another 2 PTS.
Tossers.
It's no drama at all. I've already bought a fake one off TEMU for a tenner.
It seems very popular with the public, Tony Blair and Morgan McSweeney have obviously done their homework
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/digital-id-cards-tony-blair-institute-b2832661.html
Some 67 per cent said they would use it to report potholes, while 61 per cent said they would use the app to inform the council about missed bin collections or fly-tipping.
Plus it will stop illegal foreigners from reporting that their bins haven't been emptied.
I've already bought a fake one off TEMU for a tenner.
I don’t expect there to be a physical card. If there is, I won’t be carrying it, except on day one of a new job.
My god this will drop them another 2 PTS.
Give it a chance. The very latest opinion poll might give Reform UK a 16 point lead over Labour but it's still early days yet. You wait until it filters through to voters that despite rising food and energy prices they will be able to report their missed rubbish collection with the minimum of fuss.
Unless Nigel Farage can come up with a better gimmick 🤔
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-24th-september-2025/
How much will "THE WAR ON ID CARD FRAUD" cost?
I've cut starmer a lot of slack but this is an idea that I will not tolerate. Even Thatcher was against them.
My immediate concern is how are digital IDs going to be kept secure on a mobile with internet access?
What if someone pinches my mobile?
What if someone clones my ID number for dodgy activities?
What stops friends/family borrowing mobiles with suitable ID clearance to do things that their own ID prevents?
And how is this new ID going to be so much better/secure than NI cards, passports, driving licenses etc?
There is the cost to setup and renew a digital ID scheme, but primarily it's the security that jumps out at me right after this announcement.
The Times reporting this as ID cards for workers getting a job, although it’ll be the thin of a mighty wedge IMO. Interestingly The Time is running a poll on it and 8,000 votes in and it’s 80% in favour - not what I was expecting.
I really can't understand what the problem with an ID card is. You realise that most countries Europe, and in fact most countries in the world, have ID cards. Is using bank statements or utility bills really an efficient way of proving who you are and where you live?
My immediate concern is how are digital IDs going to be kept secure on a mobile with internet access?
Do you never pay with your phone?
And how is this new ID going to be so much better/secure than NI cards, passports, driving licenses etc?
I expect it’s more like the GDV/GOV.UK One Login (which can be linked to NI numbers) but not used by HRMC etc for everyone (yet). It’s currently far from simple… and not everyone has existing ID for set up… so a single digital ID could streamline it so everyone could use it everywhere. Many adults don’t have either a passport or driving licence (or residence permit).
My immediate concern is how are digital IDs going to be kept secure on a mobile with internet access?
Do you never pay with your phone?
Never used my mobile for payments.
There is a very big philosophical difference between compulsory ID cards and compulsory carrying of ID cards. I can't really see a problem with the former but have a big issue with the latter.
Unfortunately with a digital solution its going to blur the lines as most people carry a phone most of the time. If this was brought in I'd have to think carefully whether I wanted it on my main phone or just on my laptop, or even a burner phone I just carry when needed. If it was a compulsory carry, I'd almost certainly refuse and so would many others - I can't see a Labour govt sanctioning the arrest of British Citizens for non compliance, it would be Poll Tax x 100 - obvs if its a Reform led coalition then all bets are off but then I'd be moving to Europe in that scenario anyway.
Never used my mobile for payments.
Fair enough. You know that people do though, yes? Same as that.
You realise that most countries Europe, and in fact most countries in the world, have ID cards.
Yes but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good idea. In most countries in Europe and the rest of the world the police routinely carry firearms, I wouldn't want that to happen in the UK though.
The UK has had a long history of being less bureaucratic and more relaxed than many other countries. IMO that has been severely eroded in recent decades, compulsory ID cards appears to be part of that trend.
For the record I don't have particularly strong views on the issue, although my primary concern is probably with relation to people getting harassed to prove that they have a legal right to be in the UK and the inconvenience of not being able to produce a compulsory ID card when required, for whatever reason, such as a flat phone battery.
...perhaps one day, if he tries hard enough - he'll become a toolmaker!
I heard someone say his father was one.
Quite happy to own a government issued ID card, not so happy if expected to carry it around with me. But it's a very easy way to deal with the illegal labour market so if the dodgy car wash is raided and the owner can't show the evidence that he checked the IDs of his workers, then the book can easily be thrown.
Long term if it becomes difficult to get casual work then this will presumably have an impact on the number of illegal economic migrants.
I will be interested to see what they do about people who don't have a mobile phone or have an ancient dumb phone?
MY partner's mother is mid 90s and has never had a mobile phone or computer, she can't be the only one.
If it’s for digital services, then anyone in their 90s might struggle anyway I suppose. You can’t really deal with the HRMC for example without the use of a computer (or modern phone). Access to digital services is a big issue for many (be that through age, poverty, language or impairment), but I don’t see this making that any worse. Of course if they tried to mandate its use to access the NHS and other necessary services then that could have horrific negative effects.
If it’s for digital services, then anyone in their 90s might struggle anyway I suppose. You can’t really deal with the HRMC for example without the use of a computer (or modern phone). Access to digital services is a big issue for many (be that through age, poverty, language or impairment), but I don’t see this making that any worse. Of course if they tried to mandate its use to access the NHS and other necessary services then that could have horrific negative effects.
I think that's the main thing... the government already has your tax record, your national insurance number, your address, etc, etc.
Most people already have digital ID whether they know it or not, bus pass, drivers licence, passport...etc.
It's not the concept I have a problem with, because the all the data is already there so it's a moot point...it's the implementation...
Petition against digital ID rapidly approaching 250k signatures, not that these things are anything but the illusion of democracy in action.
No doubt the cross over between people who don't want ID cards and don't want migrants is pretty large.
Personally I've no issue with it. Would prefer it was optional, in reality if it's a decent scheme it will make most peoples lives easier and will have a pretty positive uptake. Making it compulsory just gives the moaners something else to moan about.
this will presumably have an impact on the number of illegal economic migrants.
Won't illegal workers carry on working illegally like they do today? Employers already have to check right to work. I don't see how this affects illegal workers. Whereas it does affect everyone else.
Keir Starmer is mad to be introducing this.