Forum menu
This thread is about Farage and Reform. You clearly hate the present government, but just imagine what a Reform one would look like
I'm not comfortable with this logic.
We have a bad governance. One many on here chose (for the correct reasons) - a government that has done its best to borrow from Reform whilst not addressing its remit for fix the country.
One does have to ask Centrists what sort of solutions do you actually want? Because if you don't want progressive solutions then why does Reform bother you so much?
Labour are closer to Reform than the greens.
So what do you want?
For the love of god can ‘the 6’ not just turn every thread into another one with you lot indulging in your competitive Starmer slagging? 🙄
Well go on then, this is your opportunity to tell everyone what a great job Sir Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister. Where do you want to start?
Btw it's a bit more than 6 people that think SKS is a doing shite job, apparently only 18% think he is doing well, which is about the same who say they would vote Labour if there was a general election now.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-prime-minister-approval
(I did think Labour had lost Binners anyway!)
Just noticed Reeves called Brexit an 'ill-concieved one.' Told ya - she won't go in on Brexit. Just this version.
The solution to all this mess is definitely ID cards.
(I did think Labour had lost Binners anyway!)
Yeah but apparently people aren't allowed to criticise his fallen hero.
It must be hard waiting 14 years for the 'grown ups' to be in charge only to find they are even worse as at least with tories and reform you know what you are going to get.
Anyway, Reeves is telling the public how it is. They won’t like it.
And that's exactly the problem. The public expect their politicians to represent their interests and ensure a level playing field so the work and effort they put in are rewarded. Reeves is doing nothing more than confirming to the public that they're being f##### over by a system which she has no intention of changing. The public in response will quite rightly say 'well f### you then, we'll get someone else in who will do something about it'.
We all know the corruption the tories allowed to happen shifting vast sums to a select few will take some sorting out. I do believe that tax increases should be focused on those who gained from that.
Dividends should be taxed at the same rates as income. The loopholes that allow so much avoidance need sorting out. That there is a whole industry dedicated to exploiting the loopholes just shows how many and beneficial they are to those rush enough to be able to exploit them
The public in response will quite rightly say 'well f### you then, we'll get someone else in who will do something about it'.
And that, I suspect, is going to be the big challenge next election. There is no party at the moment who is willing to play the long game and initiate the fundamental overhaul that needs to happen across the big hitters of the public finances eg tax, welfare and health.
kow-towing high finance (which doesn't fund the state) through bond markets which the government enables
could you explain this, because i don't see a way through that doesn't see the bond markets punishing us if she ditches her rules ala Truss
Anyway, Reeves is telling the public how it is. They won’t like it.
And that's exactly the problem. The public expect their politicians to represent their interests and ensure a level playing field so the work and effort they put in are rewarded. Reeves is doing nothing more than confirming to the public that they're being f##### over by a system which she has no intention of changing. The public in response will quite rightly say 'well f### you then, we'll get someone else in who will do something about it'.
Unfortunately there is no changing the system that has been in place throughout the western world since WW2 without full cooperation from every country, good luck with that due to the rise of A.I and companies such as blackrock/palintir etc essentially buying governments
kow-towing high finance (which doesn't fund the state) through bond markets which the government enables
could you explain this, because i don't see a way through that doesn't see the bond markets punishing us if she ditches her rules ala Truss
Okay so first thing is Truss didn't singularly cause the bond market 'melt down.' A string of things did -bad timing with the BoE and Pension leverage (LDI) using gilts as collateral were more of the weakness there. Truss was certainly a drunken sailor but the ship was a wreck. The BoE ahead of Truss signalled large scale selling of bonds. This was the start of the melt-down as this signals to traders to unload. Gilt yields are already on the way up by now.
Then Truss announces her budget. Couple this bonkers tax cutting affair and you've got a nasty reaction in the markets. Had the BoE been in communication with Truss as they should then this wouldn't have happened.
There now follows big margin calls on those LDIs causing even further chaos.
That's a simplified version but is more comprehensive than Truss crashed the market. Which has just become political simplicity.
You have to remember the bond market is a construct of government. Meaning without government it doesn't exist. So it sits under democracy and government. Truss was weak - and she could have implemented what she wanted but her resolve was pathetic (and misguided as the market thought her tax cuts would drive up inflation and thus higher rates needed. Hence the yields shifting.)
Also remember that the BoE corrected the 'truss' melt-down within days buy mopping up bonds and restoring order. Had they been more on it - it might not have even happened.
The whole interplay is a silly misuse of resources to give life to a market that really is controlled by government via the BoE.
Our bond market is entirely optional - it is not a necessity to exist. It's a construct for safe money to accrue interest as opposed to being reserves
It needs us we don't need it. There is large demand for bonds because of the security for funds. After all the money is guaranteed - by government.
The money used to purchase bonds is prior government spending circulating around the system.
So again, it can't exist on private credit - it needs government spending.
So the idea that we are beholden to it is tripe. It needs government spending, it needs market rules and constructs - further to that the price at auction is based on where the primary dealers think the interest rate is heading. Set of course by the BoE. (Government).
So it's totally impossible for the bond market to lecture the government on its power. It's power is false and assumes ignorance of how it works.
That said I'm not stupid enough to realise they are a big player and Pension rely on it.
The market simply needs telling in clarity what the government is going to do forcefully with the support of the BoE. They simply have no choice then to get in line.
What is happening now is the government hands then the power superficially. Because it's an easy get out. We can't do that because xyz.
If Reeves wanted to she could do much more.
Ultimately we don't really on market to find the state. So what are we scared of?
It seems to me that the government are happy to accept it normal that the country is in pieces - but never willing to tell the bond market their place.
So what's the future?
We can never fix anything because of a market construct that is entirely unnecessary to government spending?
Does that sound like a good solution?
No.
Sorry a few typos as I tried to edit the piece for clarity but ran out of time.
I rewrote the end paragraph of my previous post.
What is happening currently is the government hands the bond market power superficially. Because it's an easy get out. We can't do that because 'markets'.
If Reeves wanted to she could do much more.
Ultimately we don't rely on the market to fund the state. The government funds it. So what are we scared of?
It seems to me that the government are happy to accept it being normal that the country is in pieces - but never willing to put the bond market in its place. Decaying infrastructure is fine but bond market wobbles are not! That mentality is bonkers. Truly insane.
So what's the future? We can never fix anything because of a market construct that is entirely unnecessary to government spending?
Does that sound like a good solution?
No.
Murphy did a good piece on this budget stuff today.
Unfortunately there is no changing the system that has been in place throughout the western world since WW2 without full cooperation from every country
Don't be silly. The financial system we have now is incomparable to Bretton Woods. Bretton Woods was based on Gold Standard currencies, war bonds (to both fund the war and rebuild), strict controls on the movement of capital and the tight regulation of the financial sector. All that was dismantled in the 70s/80s to move to a world of fiat currencies, cheap credit, monetarism and privatisation. Then it changed again in 2008 to a system propped up by central banks via QE combined with austerity and low interest rates. Then covid happened and they doubled down on QE to directly prop up the entire economy. Now they're trying to row back to something that looks like pre-2008 and the system can't cope hence massive paranoia about govt devt, bond yields and resultant stagnant growth.
The financial system has been through approx four cycles of change since Bretton Woods so trying to claim it cant be changed is clearly nonsense. We need a new system, and it's the job Reeves and others to figure that out.
The financial system has been through approx four cycles of change since Bretton Woods so trying to claim it cant be changed is clearly nonsense.
True. Are you arguing about cooperation from/with other countries though? The truth is a maverick reforming of the system by the UK alone isn't going to end well. That's the sticking point.
Are you arguing about cooperation from/with other countries though?
The vast majority of the stuff we need to change is within our own control. We have our own fiat currency which is a major reserve currency backed up by a thriving (despite it's problems) fully developed modern economy with a GDP of approx 3.5 trillion per year. Almost all transactions within our economy use GBP and the govt has full legislative control over the Central Bank, (it's independent in name only), fiscal policy and the markets which operate in the UK. We have all the power we need to reform the system internally so that it works for the benefit of everyone rather than a tiny few investors, traders, bankers and corporate executives. Don't fall for the lie that there is no alternative. It's nonsense.
Decaying infrastructure is fine but bond market wobbles are not! That mentality is bonkers. Truly insane.
Even announcing that you plan to 'fix' the bond market would likely lead to a wholesale meltdown, interest rates up and inflation kicking people in the nads
Obviously the BoE could do more by buying up government debt , but then is that not the same QE trap that Dazh is talking about? If the BoE is buying the debt itself, then its because we have a fiat currency that the £ would devalue hugely and inflation would skyrocket
I The truth is a maverick reforming of the system by the UK alone isn't going to end well. That's the sticking point.
thats another thing I dont see a way around, the investors buying this debt have plenty of other options to buy from , if they walk away the government (the UK ) is boned
its the same with a wealth tax, maybe if we were still members and you had the whole of the EU on board you could make it work, but because the way the tax burden falls highest on the few very rich earners (>25% of tax take from the top 1%- which I have no problem with!) then it would only take a small number of them moving to make a big dent in finances
Greens can have a few more points.
Especially if Reeves funds cuts to renewable energy policy costs from the warm homes budget. This idiotic move will put up energy prices in the long run.
of course an AI driven stock market collapse will end up with all plans in tatters
True. Are you arguing about cooperation from/with other countries though? The truth is a maverick reforming of the system by the UK alone isn't going to end well. That's the sticking point.
I think the idea that the UK is a (metaphorical) island because it has a sovereign currency is a massive oversimplification. Any solution to the current problems is going to have to be an international solution. The right are already aligning (see Trump propping up Argentina for the most recent example) and it would be nice if leftwing governments started declaring and supporting their international partners.
Or actually, it would be nice if we even had any leftwing governments instead of centrist governments LARPing with some socialist symbolism.
The problem is the world's elite continue stealing everyone's money. An international effort is the only way to fix this.
On the subject of Argentina, any MMT experts want to weigh in on how Argentina is not an example of MMT principles gone wrong?
I see Shabana Mahmood is the latest to be drawn into the false narrative that illegal working is primarily down to illegal immigration. So, in their race to the bottom with Reform and their obsession with immigration she will be going after illegal working. But which kind, Shabana? Just the nail bars and food delivery services, or the (far bigger) cash in hand, lose the VAT, don't put it through the books kind?
No, not that kind of illegal working. 🙄
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/04/shadow-economy-britain-migrants-labour-reform
On the subject of Argentina, any MMT experts want to weigh in on how Argentina is not an example of MMT principles gone wrong?.
Yeah simply - it's mostly the exact opposite of that.
I think the idea that the UK is a (metaphorical) island because it has a sovereign currency is a massive oversimplification
That the relationships between spending, borrowing and tax matters is not changed by the fact that you don’t have to first collect tax before government spending can happen. Yes, the government doesn’t collect money in taxation and then spend it. And tax and spending do not need to be equal (they never are). That doesn’t negate the need to collect tax (or to change how much tax is collected) to avoid negative effects being felt by the public.
Increasing public spending, and also increasing taxation, can improve more lives by transferring wealth from the private sector to public services. Something right wingers are dead against. Unfortunately the UK public are quite right wing about taxation, even when it isn’t paid by them or anyone they know. Labour will not find a route back to popularity through tax increases (see the response to tax increases for estate owners and private education). Labour are about to write their obituary budget I fear.
It doesn't even qualify as an 'MMT example' because it has a large debt denominated in a foreign currency and is pegged to the dollar. (And there's no taxation in dollars.)
Define large.
The UK is quite high on this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
And not particularly high on this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position
So I think assuming Liz Truss could have stayed the course if she had just stuck with it is wrong. The UK has a massive footprint in terms of assets but also external debt. That makes it particularly vulnerable to any kind of loss of confidence in the £. Or loss of confidence in the government.
Also, the Argentinian peso hasn't been pegged to the dollar since 2002. Although there have been shenanigans to 'manage' it, whatever that means.
Note that Argentina can feed itself, and does. The UK doesn't, and can't. The value of the £ matters in your shopping basket.
And debt costs aren't just a problem for the government directly, if they get this wrong you'll feel it in your housing costs.
Define large.
The UK is quite high on this list.
There are no government issued securities denominated in anything other than sterling, whereas Argentina has issued dollar denominated government bonds and borrowed from the IMF and the US.
Are you seeing it yet?
Define large.
The UK is quite high on this list.
In the UK there are no government issued securities denominated in anything other than sterling, whereas Argentina has issued dollar denominated government bonds and borrowed from the IMF and the US.
Are you seeing it yet?
Those lists tend to group public and private liabilities together. Sovereign liabilities are what we are talking about. Private liability - if they can't pay they go bankrupt. Debt is wiped.
As an aside we definitely have a private debt problem.
But we're talking about the government in the case of the UK and the Argentina.
(Double post)
Hilarious. Shutting down debate rather than offering an alternative.
To be fair Jamz did offer an alternative.......apparently the cause of the UK's alleged decline (it's the sixth wealthiest nation on Earth) is due to "welfare", according to Jamz
Hilarious. Shutting down debate rather than offering an alternative.
To be fair Jamz did offer an alternative.......apparently the cause of the UK's alleged decline (it's the sixth wealthiest nation on Earth) is due to "welfare", according to Jamz
Welfare oh yeah - 'a requirement of capitalism.'
Funny how neoliberal governments require a stock of unemployed people to keep wages suppressed/inflation in check - so easier and cheaper to pay welfare?
Doesn't Jamz know the features of his own ideology?
Hilarious. Shutting down debate rather than offering an alternative.
To be fair Jamz did offer an alternative.......apparently the cause of the UK's alleged decline (it's the sixth wealthiest nation on Earth) is due to "welfare", according to Jamz
Seems a waste of a post to be annoyed at a post or a poster.
Contribute or scroll down.
So I think assuming Liz Truss could have stayed the course if she had just stuck with it is wrong. The UK has a massive footprint in terms of assets but also external debt. That makes it particularly vulnerable to any kind of loss of confidence in the £. Or loss of confidence in the government.
Agree on truss. She was wrong. But I said at the time this will scare progressive governments for all the wrong reasons.
But you need to separate out private debt and government 'debt' when talking about macro issues related to MMT government spending.
Loss of confidence in the pound is misplaced these days. There's always a seller and there's a buyer. And it goes up and down. Often recovering a few days later.
So what?
Private debt is a whole other thing.
I think the key difference is between internal and external debt.
MMT tends towards thinking of government finance as a closed loop system. And when you are the World's reserve currency it pretty much is a closed loop system (although the US government is doing its best to lose the USD's status as such, as far as I can see).
Countries with large amounts of external debt (which is most countries) can't really afford to act as if no one has any option but to hold their currency.
Are you seeing it yet?
I can't tell if you are on the way up the first peak of the Dunning-Kruger curve or if you have only ever read what Stephanie Kelton has to say about economics and simply aren't interested in reading anything else.
Your absolute confidence of your assessment of international finances (honestly, you are far more confident than people I've met with PHDs in economics) doesn't strike me as someone who has read widely on the subject. You seem to have a 100% guaranteed answer for everything and I'm pretty sure none of these answers has ever disagreed with anything Stephanie Kelton has said.
I hear Chris Mason practically blowing his load on R4 now - about the latest erroneous prisoner release. 🙄
Yup, “the story of the day”, apparently, according to Evan Davies on the same show. Nothing much else happening in the UK.
James Cartlidge used up every question at PMQs today on it (hoping we’ve all forgotten how our justice and prison services got so damn broken). Jenrick very excited about it as well, obviously.
the usual right wing grifters wik be frothing with excitement that its another asylum seeker sex offender,nit pays nicely into farage's Broken Britain line too
iiirc there were over 200 prisoners released in error last year, no one wil care that the Tories broke the system
^^ Guy on channel 4 news said that around one person a day is released accidently, it's just that it's only been making the news recently.
So what's the bets on 'Rachel fom accounts'? anouncement?
I don't think they will hit S&S ISAs, and they already hit employers with NI last time...
I'm betting they will hit the middle/lower class on CGT/IHT whilst casualy ignoring the very rich, which are the 'greenest meadows to plough' in terms of generating tangible tax revenues, in my opinion.
could you explain this,
Oh God, please... no
😆
Hilarious. Shutting down debate rather than offering an alternative.
No-one's ever shut you down. This thread has *pages and pages* of you banging on about your esoteric views about currencies, government borrowing and money supply. That's what makes the request for more information so amusing!
I hope it is CGT/IHT, especially the former. If your earnings are from assets rather than employment, why should you be taxed at a lower rate than those working hard with no assets? Taxation is currently skewed against working people and in favour of those with wealth.
CGT is already 22% for a 'normal' person, though, the big problem, IMO, are those offshore multi 'illionaires who pay NOTHING.
The money is there in spades, it's just held by the ultra rich who can afford to offshore or have very good accountants.
But no government would dare to tax the biggest multi-national cash cows, (grab the bull by the horns if you like) that are ironicaly hurting society the most, as that's who are furnishing their very own wallets.
iiirc there were over 200 prisoners released in error last year, no one wil care that the Tories broke the system
Yep, the important bit of data is which type of prisoners are being accidentally released and from where. Can only assume that rapists, murderers, serious criminals and the like are not being accidentally released?
Can only assume that rapists, murderers, serious criminals and the like are not being accidentally released?
I fear you're underestimating how decimated the justice system is
Im willing to bet that 1 thing Reeves doesn't have in her giant Budget Excel sheet is £100s of millions in the Justice System column