Forum menu
At the time Starmer was seen as a safe soft-left option which the massively pro-Corbyn membership at the time would see as acceptable.
Yeah that is obvious, he clearly fooled a lot of people with regards to his alleged left-wing credentials, I never forgot that he was instrumental in the very carefully choreographed for the media, and designed to cause Corbyn the maximum damage, mass Shadow Cabinet resignations. One by one they resigned to keep it in the news and in the headlines.
But it is precisely because Starmer has always struck me as someone who is having his strings pulled by others (eg Morgan McSweeney) that I am surprised the plan was to replace by someone who might be their own man.
It still makes no sense to me why McSweeney might want to replace Starmer with Streeting. What's the thinking behind that?
On this thread, every single page, I hear about how everything would be fine if Reeves just spent money into existence. I hear absolutely nothing about wealth taxes.
You obviously missed the dozens of wealth tax posts I've posted. Not just me either. TBH I've changed my view slightly, we still need to tax wealth but already have the tools at our disposal via CGT, IHT and IT rather than creating a brand new tax. Doesn't change the arguments about how the govt invests and spends money though. Combine MMT with wealth-focused taxes and we'd have an economy based on productive work rather than rents and unearned capital gains. If the govt does one thing and one thing only, they need to incentivise people to work, and that's only going to happen with higher wages, lower taxes on workers, a functional health system to keep them healthy and public services like a decent public transport system and other infrastructure (childcare, social care etc) to help them get to and stay in work.
Just taxing income from wealth, ie setting capital gains at the same level as income tax would be a start, as would making NI contributions fairer (it is currently a regressive tax).
For me, it's a sign that the person has given up on wealth redistribution. I remember Richard Murphy stating explicitly, 'You don't have to tax the wealthy to pay for public spending.'
I think you probably only heard part of his argument, that is the observational part of where government spending comes from. He is however very supportive of taxing the wealthy much much more, in fact it is a main stay of most of the output I have heard from him. A direct wealth tax would be very hard to implement, but there are other better ways to tax the wealthy that would be harder to avoid and easier to implement IMO (as above).
Although I find Richard Murphy's vocal delivery extremely annoying so I don't listen to that much of him.
It still makes no sense to me why McSweeney might want to replace Starmer with Streeting. What's the thinking behind that?
Despite his rightwing leanings and dodgy links to private healthcare he's basically a more authentic leader who isn't afraid to speak his mind. He's also a shrewd political operator who can keep his own MPs on side whilst going after the opposition with obsessive enthusiasm which Starmer rarely displays. I'd don't like Streeting but I'd have him over Starmer any day.
OK, should we finally make an MMT thread and ban any mention of it from politics threads?
Are you trying to make that happen by repeatedly banging on about it?
You obviously missed the dozens of wealth tax posts I've posted.
Yes, I did. If I had to guess I'd say it's getting lost in rone parroting Stephanie Kelton every other post (literally sometimes).
I get it. He is adamant that Rachel Reeves is economically stupid and if she would just do what he says everything would start getting fixed.
I disagree. So do lots of other people. If I come across as condescending or dismissive in my posts I'm matching the tone that his pro-MMT/Kelton arguments are being delivered with.
I think the level of discussion on this thread would benefit from not having someone calling everyone who doesn't subscribe 100% to Kelton's thinking ignorant of how economics really works.
I said it before, I've met people who actually understand how economics work (or at least they've read more than one book on the subject) who are far less sure of their views than rone is. And I very much doubt it's because they are stupider or less informed than rone.
Yes, I did. If I had to guess I'd say it's getting lost in rone parroting Stephanie Kelton every other post
That's probably the fifth post today where you've said the same thing about rone and Stephanie Kelton. You don't seem to be practicing what you preach.
Both Neil Kinnock and Jeremy Corbyn
I find it very unfair comparing the reasonable rational forward-looking pro-European Kinnock with that **** Corbyn.
The comparison is that they have both been Labour Party leaders who both lost two general elections, that's the comparison. Which I think is perfectly fair.
Nice use of the C-word btw. Quotes don't go through the swear filter in case you weren't aware.
Back to the budget and Starmer and Reeves' incompetent handling of it. Is it at all possible that we could go a few hours without yet another policy leak? I know this is the way politics and the media work these days but today we started with the news that they'd u-turned on increasing income tax, then it was reported that they'd get the money from lowering thresholds, then we were told it was nothing to do with the Streeting cluster**** and instead it was because the OBR had updated it's forecast to include some new favourable data, then threshold weren't being lowered, but instead frozen. And that's just one day, we've had weeks and months of this sort of shite. Has it at all occured to them that maybe keeping policy under wraps until it is formally announced might at least present the illusion to voters that they know what they're doing?
That's probably the fifth post today where you've said the same thing about rone and Stephanie Kelton. You don't seem to be practicing what you preach.
Like I said, if I'm dismissive and condescending then I'm matching the tone of the comments that are annoying me.
I've been ill at home and bored today. Also, I've not been posting much here lately because I've been working on a project at work that just fell through with about 6 months of work (plus the two years prior to me coming in to try to fix things) so perhaps I'm not in the best of moods and reacting more strongly to things that annoy me*.
I've just been posting here today but I do follow this thread. Seeing the same opinion stated as fact day after day on what is quite a nuanced subject has been grating.
I'm quite happy to leave it if others can accept that maybe there is more to the world than the MMT outlook of economics and maybe accept that not agreeing doesn't necessarily make someone ignorant or an idiot.
*There's any economics question for you. If people spend thousands of hours working on something only to watch it evaporate as if it never even existed, was any economic work done at all. We could have been paid to stay home smoking weed and masturbating for two years and our total actual output would have been exactly the same.
Quotes do go through the swear filter on my screen, and even if they don't I can hardly be accused of swear filter avoidance - but the person quoting me could as they can do something about it or did you which is why all I see is **** even in the quote 🙂
I often type the asterixes myself but couldn't bring myself to in this case.
Corbyn, the man who gave Britain such a long run of Tory rule and is now doing his best to divide and diminish what's remains of Labour.
Is it at all possible that we could go a few hours without yet another policy leak? I know this is the way politics and the media work these days
Budgets were highly confidential and it would have been a dismissal offence to leak details of a forthcoming budget until the early 1980s. Then, that principle evaporated. For ages now, budgets have been preceded by leaks, trial balloons and bullshitters claiming to have an inside line on what's announced - and noone can really tell which is which until it's all actually announced.
You only think they're leaks and U-turns because you're treating them all as credible on their face and you have a predisposition to seeing this government in a certain way.
Corbyn, the man who gave Britain such a long run of Tory rule and is now doing his best to divide and diminish what's remains of Labour.
Yeah sure Corbyn was responsible for the defeats that Labour suffered under both Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, and now Sir Keir Starmer is handing the keys to Number 10 on a plate to Nigel Farage.
It's a funny ol' world innit?
Corbyn, the man who gave Britain such a long run of Tory rule and is now doing his best to divide and diminish what's remains of Labour.
That's the way it goes sometimes when you actually have principles. But now Labour got in and it turns out they are completely indistinguishable from the Tories. So even accepting your ludicrous premise, he didn't do much harm.
Is it at all possible that we could go a few hours without yet another policy leak? I know this is the way politics and the media work these days
They’re not leaks. It’s kite-flying. 2 weeks before a much trumpeted budget
Somebody should suggest that they maybe do the kite-flying before as good as announcing it as policy, only then to back-track on it.
The level of ineptitude and utter incompetence is absolutely off the chart. But apparently they’ve still got time to start an internal fight with their own health minister FFS!
I had the head of our constituency association message me today to ask me to do some leafleting next week ahead of the elections in May. I told him that I won’t be as I’ve given up my party membership in disgust at this ongoing utter shitshow.
It seems, somewhat unsurprisingly, I’m not alone.
That was hard as our local Labour councillors are good people doing a great job for the area. I’ll probably end up doing it anyway on that basis, because there’s a very real chance we could end up with Reform otherwise, which now seems inevitable
I truly just despair! What a total ****ing mess! How on earth do you squander all your political capital in just over a year? You had one job…. try not be as shit as the last mob.
That's the way it goes sometimes when you actually have principles.
They were shit principles, unfortunately. But in any case, Corbyn is off topic for this thread.
Corbyn, the man who gave Britain such a long run of Tory rule and is now doing his best to divide and diminish what's remains of Labour.
Corbyn isn't in the Labour party.
Precisely, he's now jumped ship and founded his own party which is a paracite sucking out what little life blood is left in the party. Divide and diminish were my carefully chosen words.
But in any case, Corbyn is off topic for this thread.
How is he off-topic? He is currently the leader of a party which intends to stand candidates against the governing party.
The best Starmer could have done for himself was to allow Corbyn to lurk on the Labour Backbenches (as he desperately wanted to do) saying all the right things but being totally ineffectual.
But then Starmer (ie Morgan McSweeney) isn't exactly the best tactician ever. Something which is very clear by the fact that despite 3 years of the Tories continuously shooting themselves in the foot he only managed increase Labour's share of the vote by 2% more than the disastrous 2019 election result, only Nigel Farage splitting the Tory vote saved Starmer's bacon.
Now Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski are going to finish off the Labour Party and there a real possibility that Labour won't even come out of the next general election as the official opposition. Well done McSweeney!
Somebody should suggest that they maybe do the kite-flying before as good as announcing it as policy, only then to back-track on it.
How do you do that though?
If we take budgets historically if I leaked something about what was going to be in the budget I would be found and I would be volunteered to see how that budget impacts the unemployed. If I was an MP I might defer that experience to the next election but it would happen.
Now though the "source says" is read by anyone politically aware as "this is what we plan to do but the focus groups werent convinced so lets ask the general public and see how they respond".
Kite-flying only works if its rare and unexpected. Now its the norm.
Precisely, he's now jumped ship and founded his own party which is a paracite sucking out what little life blood is left in the party. Divide and diminish were my carefully chosen words.
I had hoped you would join the dots, but nevermind.
Precisely, he's now jumped ship and founded his own party which is a paracite sucking out what little life blood is left in the party.
That is an interesting take on what actually happened. By interesting I mean batshit insane but lets run with it.
I agree that if Labour is losing real ground to Your Party because people are dissatisfied with Labour, that's Labour's fault and not Corbyn's. Corbyn is a symptom of that dilemma for Labour, not the cause at this point.
Now though the "source says" is read by anyone politically aware as "this is what we plan to do but the focus groups werent convinced so lets ask the general public and see how they respond".
Not true - "source says" also means "here's some rumour someone has some kind of motive to spread". What the motive is can't be divined - is it kite flying? Is it someone wants to paint Reeves as dangerous or indecisive? Is it just barroom bullshit from a half-pissed halfwit showing off? Who knows? Or cares when what really matters is what is actually announced?
Not true - "source says" also means "here's some rumour someone has some kind of motive to spread"
Generally its easy to tell the difference between a "lets test a policy" vs "lets stick a knife in" vs "lets whistleblow"
A good example was when Sunak was manoeuvring. Obvious as hell where the "leaks" were coming from but was amusing seeing right wingers up in arms about the media showing their "lefty" bias when it was right wing infighting.
There may be some cases where it is more subtle but nowadays coming up to the budget it is rather unlikely to be anything other than an "official leak" and it isnt there will probably be a hint in how it is written with regards to the source.
It would be really good if the media turned around and refused to support the unofficial/official sources when its an obvious kite-flying exercise. Unfortunately anonymity has become mixed up with unaccountable.
It would be really good if the media turned around and refused to support the unofficial/official sources when its an obvious kite-flying exercise. Unfortunately anonymity has become mixed up with unaccountable.
That probably reached its peak during covid when Laura Kuenssberg saying ‘a source close to Downing Street’ or some other such bollocks meant she was having everything spoon fed to her by Dominic Cummings and passing it off as journalism
Yeas, a 'leak' is code for:
As a pro jounalist, 'an MP who's pissed off about having their expences claim denied has told me off the record... XYZ' after getting them a bit drunk at lunch time.
There are no leaks, only whispers designed to change the narrative.
You only have to look at the rumours in the 'press' for the upcoming budget...
My prediction, it will be a nothing-burger.
You only have to look at the rumours in the 'press' for the upcoming budget...
My prediction, it will be a nothing-burger.
I just hope that they stop the budget rumours and the U-turn rumours and come up with something sensible. The markets aren't liking the rumour mill, which is making things worse.
Talk about politically naive; make sensible choices and stick with them!
The markets aren't liking the rumour mill, which is making things worse.
Who gives a shit about the markets, in an ideal world they wouldn't even exist. Ooh, government may do something I don't like, quick sell and watch price drop. Next day/week, ooh it wasn't that bad, buy and watch price go back up. A lot of people make money from nothing and on they go.
Take out the stupidity and over 10 years it has gone up so why worry about the stupidity in between it is just a bunch of chancers over reacting to things.
Probably people struggling to pay mortgages, people renting, anyone with debts likely to affected by interest rates. The people still living with impact of the Truss loonacy. The rest of us who dont want to see government borrowing costs go up further. If you haven't noticed we live in a world that is far from ideal. Markets are a fundamental part of it in the same way climate change and political instability are. You cant just ignore them.
You can't ignore them currently but you've got to put it into perspective and Peston getting excited due to 4.4 to 4.6% is peak lunacy.
Did you notice if there were any more homeless, or any more problems on your town? Did anyone get unhinged about it?
The gilt market is a policy choice anyone who believes it to be of real importance doesn't understand the value of the real economy.
Markets are not fundamental in the same way climate change is - that's the most absurd thing I've heard anyone say on here on a long time.
Policy choice. Please this nonsense needs culling or nothing changes for the better - which is why Labour are in a fix.
The gilt market is a waste of resources and talent which could be better applied in society.
Also Stumpyjon you realise the BoE sets the rate - if we want lower rates they can be cut you know?
Totally bizarre take.
Reporters keep dragging up long term gilts as examples and ignoring the virtually non-existence changes of the short term ones.
Steve Keen on Novara last night.
Not an MMTer. But a professor who's modelled money passing through the banking system etc.
It wasn't the best interview but given Novara haven't a clue about all of this there's some interesting bits on the second half.
https://www.youtube.com/live/k68a9TkHyc4?si=ENUjxmgcF7559HuM
The markets aren't liking the rumour mill, which is making things worse.
and over 10 years it has gone up so why worry
...because of the bad things that happen in the intervening 10 years?
A couple of years of economics as part of my Geology with economics course and following what's happened since says Steve Keen is not much of a rebel or contrarian these days. Sure if you go back to economic text books of the 60s what he's saying is fair. But economics has evolved like any other field and I don't hear anything from him that's that rebelious in 2025. He's just a modern but somewhat biased economist with a personal agenda and mixes some intersting stuff with pie in the sky unrealistic stuff.
On the cost of housing you'll find discusion on STW that comes to the same conclusions with comments such as "they aren't making any more land". And "it's just speculation".
On banks we've also covered the fact that banks can create money as they wish till they create money they can't get back and the house of cards come tumbling down as bad debt mounts up and their books are so blindingly obviously bad confidence is lost.
Private debt he claims is too high, I agree in some economies but in some, France and Japan for example, it's balanced by private saving and IMO not an issue.
He says people don't understand government spending, debt, inflation... I think they do and are simply less idealistic and more pragmatic than him because they are the ones actually running the show and have to be. When servicing government debt is such a huge proportion of the government's total buget increasing debt it is just reducing what's left to spend on services and investment further unless that increase in debt creates at least enough revenue to service it, which it certainly won't be in most/all of the things he thinks the government should spend on. Printing money is inflationary as he recognises and carries risks. I disagree with the part on government debt when applied to the current UK economy and think Reeves is more realistic and pragmatic.
His wish to get back to the glorious 50s is complete pie in the sky, a utopia that ignores where we are now.
Building societies were private banks FFS, it's just that lots of individual shareholder customers owned them rather than non customer shareholders. They fulfuled the same role as banks - they weren't government supplied like Freddy or Fanny in the US. It's the deregualtion that changed the way they lent not the ownership model.
I agree transactions should be taxed and all the things he doesn't think should be taxed I think should be taxed too.
On the whole I give the interviewer 9/10 and Keen 7/10. Good interviewer.
Reeves is between a rock and hard place after 14 years of Tory mismanagement.
Who gives a shit about the markets, in an ideal world they wouldn't even exist.
Out of curiosity, in your ideal world how does a company raise money for investment?
I wonder why the Tories didn't do this during their 14 years in government, too soft on refugees?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7970p2wx7ro
She continued: "Illegal migration is tearing our country apart", adding that it was the government's job to "unite our country".
To fair Tommy Ten Names Robinson was making precisely that point with his "Unite the Kingdom" march.
I think that the "Labour" minister, who is tipped to be possibly the next PM, should have gone the whole hog and said that it was the government's job to unite the kingdom. Stephen Lennon would have been so chuffed.
The US and now European NATO allies have pulled out of the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft project.
The project has been subject to deployment delays for the UK (a mere three years to 2026 now) and nobody really knows how much it will cost
A few countries are still in the Boeing project, including the UK, but the withdrawals will inevitably increase costs further because of economies of scale (regardless of MoD optimism).
Just to cap that the UK paid for five AESA radar systems and then reduced the aircraft fleet order to three from the original five, a reduction of 40% capability to save 12% in costs. Anyone want a couple of radar systems, aircraft not included?
The E-7 now stands as another example of MoD procurement failure, marked by unclear initial design, inconsistent leadership, and weak management oversight. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/e7-delays-and-cost-strain-show-uk-procurement-ongoing-issues/
This is mostly a Conservative government disaster, but UK governments really need to grip the MoD
Removing indefinite leave to remain status for successful aslym seekers is inhumane. To spend the rest of your life with the fear of being deported? This is only a paper thin step away from the nut case policies of the Tories and Reform on deporting people with ILM status.
This is mostly a Conservative government disaster, but UK governments really need to grip the MoD
This isn't just a problem with the MOD, its the public sector generally. Look at the bill for hotels for asylum seekers. Who the hell negotiated those contracts? If negotiated is even the word for it. It seems to have involved the hotel owners (I wonder if any of them were Tory donors?) thinking of a number, doubling it, then sticking a few tens (or hundreds) of millions on top, just for shits and giggles. Some hapless civil servant (or corrupt minster) then just signing them off.
They were asking whoever is the immigration minister this week, on Newsnight, why they couldn't renegotiate the contracts to reduce costs and apaprently they're all set up with so many clauses that the private hotel owners simply can't lose. They'd have to pay up the contracts, whatever. There is literally nothing the governemnt can do until these contracts run their course.
From a commercial competence point of view, I'm wondering if they got the same team in who negotiated the players contracts and transfer deals at Manchester United?
The whole system seems set up purely to faciiltate rapatious firms to rinse the taxpayer for every penny we've got!
Removing indefinite leave to remain status for successful aslym seekers is inhumane. To spend the rest of your life with the fear of being deported? This is only a paper thin step away from the nut case policies of the Tories and Reform on deporting people with ILM status.
If they're genuine asylum seekers then they're escaping persecution, war or violence in their home country no? So once that threat ceases to exist they'd surely be jumping on the next plane home anyway?
Removing indefinite leave to remain status for successful aslym seekers is inhumane. To spend the rest of your life with the fear of being deported?
I don't think it is inhumane. The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees always anticipated that refugees should return home if and when the danger from which they needed protection ceased to exist. Article 1(C)(5):
This Convention shall cease to apply to any [refugee] ...if:
...
(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee ...who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;
Refugee status was always intended to be temporary - that's exactly why application for indefinite leave to remain is a separate step.
Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo - all examples of countries from which the UK accepted large numbers of refugees in the past and which are now generally safe. Syria is looking optimistic; it's not out the question that Ukraine could be stabilised soon (in the coming 3 years, say) and its government is not repressive. (Of course it is still possible that individuals could have an individual wel-founded fear of persecution even from "safe" countries). The principle that refugees should return home once it is safe to do so is not inhumane.
How high a priority this is, I don't know. I have no idea what the numbers involved are. Also, cancelling people's existing ILR (absent fraud etc) seems like a hopeless waste of time.
Look an immigrant!
I think it is more a case of "Look we agree with Tommy Robinson, immigrants are tearing our country apart and it is the government's job to unite the country. Please vote for us in next year's local elections".
Immigration is tearing the country apart, its been allowed to be a highly polarising issue. Should it be, no not really, but the beahiour of governments in the last 10 years including the current one not calling out the racists and populists has got us to this point. Current policy changes are too little too late. We've enjoyed the benefits of light touch immigration policies since the war. More effort should been made on integration as well as sellling the cultural and economic benefits of migrants.