MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
deficit is fundimentally different from issuing money to pay for things. A deficit is simply spending more than you collect in tax – thats pretty common amongst most modern countries. That shortfall can be met in two ways
1. borrowing more (extremely common)
2. issuing curency
I'm sorry this it mostly incorrect though I appreciate the effort to discuss rather dismiss MMT.
The UK government never borrows to spend.
They always issue currency when they spend - it's a matter of technical record that they do.
Always. Every single time.
The borrowing which is not borrowing in the sense of the word as such - which is issuing bonds never pays for anything - it acts to match the spending that has taken place, if a deficit should occur.
It is a throwback back to gold standard financing and has been kept in place because it's an anachronism which helps with interest rates and reserve drains.
The government doesn't need to borrow what it issues.
Yet again - a link to the only peer review paper conducted into central bank and government financing.
https://twitter.com/spatchcockable/status/1817605543596302395?t=fZUnSeaBE5R1AJmb7TOdVw&s=19
Summary:
This paper provides the first detailed institutional analysis of the UK Government’s expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance processes. We show that public expenditure is always financed through money creation rather than taxation or debt issuance. Spending involves the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from a core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund. The Bank of England then debits the Consolidated Fund's account at the Bank and credits other government accounts held at the Bank; a practice mandated in law. This creates new public deposits which are used to settle spending by government departments into the economy via the commercial banking sector. Only the UK parliament can mandate expenditures from the Consolidated Fund. Revenue collection, including taxation, involves the reverse process, crediting the Consolidated Fund’s account at the Bank, thereby offsetting past injections. Similarly, gilts have been issued to temporarily withdraw money to assist in achieving the monetary policy interest rate target. Under the current conditions of excess reserve liquidity, however, the function of debt issuance is best understood as a way of providing safe assets and a reliable source of collateral to the non-bank private sector. The findings support neo-Chartalist accounts of the workings of sovereign currency-issuing nations and provide additional institutional detail regarding the apex of the monetary hierarchy in the UK case.
A Labour guy (think a past one) on LBC just said the government would be fine if it didn't need to borrow £££ from the foreign financial markets.
Good Christ. Seriously. He doesn't appear to know it has its own line of credit and Bank.
No wonder the public don't get it.
We shouldn't be arguing much at all these days about government spending mechanisms as you'd be ignoring all the money created during COVID.
The bond issuance that they matched to COVID spending was effectively netted with Q/E.
So no borrowing or taxation took place from the private sector.
(The spending that took place in Covid follows the exact same mechanism for day to day spending even if the scale was huge.)
Seems to me most folk are ignoring the evidence because they're not actually comfortable with what they're being told.
Think of it like this: Reeves is now taking money out of the economy with the WFA farce and simultaneously wanting growth.
The government needs to add money to the economy to get growth not taken it away.
It's really not complex at this level.
The complex bit is politically what things require the spending. The normal debates we have.
Reeves is now taking money out of the economy with the WFA farce
Is she?
She's decided not to spend it on that, in order to spend it on something else. You say she's taking out, she's just not opting to put any more in. Correct me if I'm wrong, while we supposedly run a 'household model' they are actually putting in more than they get back already - it's just you want them to put more in?
She’s decided not to spend it on that, in order to spend it on something else.
She's spending it on a black hole isn't she?
We don't know, they're in the process of working out what the must-do things are (YMMV) and how much they cost, and how to pay for them - or if not affordable, what can they do instead that may be more cost effective. At the moment there's a difference in spending plans left by the outgoing admin, and what they think we can afford to spend, emotively called a black hole to make the point.
Literally what I hope they'd be doing after 59 days now, rather than just chucking money at whatever the media says is most important.
rather than just chucking money at whatever the media says is most important.
Isn't that the whole point of an election manifesto?
Otherwise the alternative is "just vote for us and after we have won the election we'll tell you what we are going to do".
It all sounds arse-about-face to me. And not very democratic.
theotherjonv - what they should be doing is twofold - protecting the poorest with significant benefit improvement and spending money on infrastructure - both will prime the economy for growth. doing what they are doing is going to cut growth and cause further issues
the economy is crying out for a stimulous.
The UK postwar housing boom wasn’t financed by the United States.
The US loaned the UK nearly $4 billion dollars to keep the economy afloat in 1946/7. The Canadians also chipped in another $1.5 billion, and this was on top of Lend Lease throughout the wartime period.
what they should be doing is twofold – protecting the poorest with significant benefit improvement and spending money on infrastructure
And they may do. We haven't had the SR yet (which might be a 1 year interim one while they really sort out priorities with a larger one to follow next year). I know eg: 2CBC, but there's a taskforce looking at the bigger picture that may recommend reinstating, or may have a better / more cost effective idea. It's day 59.....
Isn’t that the whole point of an election manifesto?
In which they had a set of costed priorities rather than specific line by line activities. Costed by laying out where they thought there were savings and where they felt they would spend more.
And even then - it was costed on assumption of an existing financial position that now they've seen the books properly isn't the case. The stuff that is committed to can't be paid for (except by printing more money, I get it, but Reeves doesn't want to stretch that at this point).
Why are we being so critical of a Gov that is currently evaluating where they are and working out how to deal with it. Jeez, I even get the point now of 'they don't need to, just print more money and accept it' - but just for a minute live with the fact that whether YOU think the approach being taken is right or wrong, it's the approach being taken and they are doing it carefully and diligently.
There all in rich donors pockets.
Which "rich donors" want to increase taxes on the better off and increase the salaries of key public sector workers after a long period of their pay being held back?
Anyway... single word Ofsted grading being scrapped now...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/sep/02/ofsted-single-word-school-ratings-scrapped
The US loaned the UK nearly $4 billion dollars to keep the economy afloat in 1946/7. The Canadians also chipped in another $1.5 billion, and this was on top of Lend Lease throughout the wartime period.
Yes I am aware of US loans to the UK. I repeat that the UK postwar housing boom wasn’t financed by the United States. I have already pointed out that house building is largely self-financing through rents and mortgages and the fact that it hugely stimulates an economy.
A housing building boom makes perfect economic sense when a country is broke as the UK was postwar. In fact any large construction programme does. They help to "keep the economy afloat"
Where have this government said they aren't planning an increase in home building? They have said that's exactly what they're planning, and the suspicion is that it is precisely because it is now possible without much in the way of increased gov spending (as you say) that they back this for growth stimulus.
I thought the weird little argument about the post war situation is the idea that the UK gov just waved its hands and massive investment occurred and negative effects were avoided by the power of issuing our own currency... when it happened precisely because we were supported by the USA in terms of both funding (new lending, huge discounts and extended terms) and through direct action to protect our currency. It's not an example of MMT and the power of the UK to do whatever it wants, it's an example of how international politics and cooperation can be absolutely key to national renewal.
Where have the government said they aren’t planning an increase in home building?
As far as I am aware no one has claimed that they aren't planning to increase house building. In fact I understand that they the government intends to liberalise planning rules precisely to encourage this.
The reference to the massive postwar housing boom was in relation to the question of where does money come from to do stuff.
Well, in that situation we were bailed out (and our currency protected) by the USA, so we could build homes, produce (non-war) things again and keep eating and heating. Just issuing more money without that help would not have allowed us to rebuild. Brits would have stayed starving in tents. The vision and work of the post war government should not be underestimated, and we should learn from it, but it shouldn't be allowed to feed another "Britain stands alone" myth/narrative.
EDIT: taxation played a big part as well... tax the rich... even if they're retired...
Have they? council housing or housing association or just encouraging builders to build more?
I certainly have seen no announcements from them about this. Got any links?
I’m sorry this it mostly incorrect though I appreciate the effort to discuss rather dismiss MMT.
The UK government never borrows to spend.
They always issue currency when they spend – it’s a matter of technical record that they do.
Always. Every single time.
I disagree. if you issue a bond (which is a way of borrowing some money), and then spend the exact same amount of money, you have not issued currency. Nothing has been created, nothing has been destroyed. Someone (an investor) has lent you the money you are spending.
Always. Every single time.
just because you have the ability to issue currency (which I agree the BoE has), does not mean that they do it.
Yet again – a link to the only peer review paper conducted into central bank and government financing.
clearly factually incorrect statements like that just degrade any chance MMTers have of winning people over. Peer review also doesn't make something true - I can't find any of the actual review of that paper to see if their peers agree, but given the number of established economists who believe in MMT is extremely low, it seems unlikely.
In the mean time, here's some other peer reviewed papers about how central bank and government financing work
https://ideas.repec.org/a/mes/jeciss/v55y2021i1p225-245.html
So no government built housing there Kelvin. Just private builders. This is NOT what is needed
I’d go for a large publicly owned building plan as well, but that’s not how Labour said they plan to speed up building. More than one way to get on with it though.
but it shouldn’t be allowed to feed another “Britain stands alone” myth/narrative.
Well that's an interesting development....... providing a counterargument to an argument which literally no one has made.
This was the counter argument :
Just issuing more money without that help [ from USA in term of funds, extended loans, discounts and currency protection ] would not have allowed us to rebuild.
I’d go for a large publicly owned building plan as well, but that’s not how Labour said they plan to speed up building
Well yes thats the problem. The method they are proposing is basically the same as the tories.
Removal of planning regulations because its well known that the only thing stopping the housing companies building lots of affordable houses vs the more profitable mcmansions is planning regulations.
Well that’s an interesting development……. providing a counterargument to an argument which literally no one has made.
The subtext of MMT is that you don't have to worry about the wider international community. Just create more money and it'll sort itself out in the wash. Increase taxes once you're at 100% employment. Easy.
It is quite possibly is that way for the US but the British Pound is not the global reserve currency.
Liz Truss's budget probably wouldn't have caused much in the way of problems had she been Speaker of the House (or much in the way of short term problems at least). But she wasn't, she was PM of the UK.
It's worth reading Stephanie Kelton's comments on Truss' budget. It really makes me think there might be someone out there more unhinged than Truss. Or perhaps not, and it's just that Kelton's theories quickly fall apart once she goes beyond the US border.
You can get shovels in the ground on more sites without granting permissions for more “McMansions” and/or removing the requirements for genuinely affordable housing (as the Tories did). The details of the NPPF will be crucial (and I’m not ready to dismiss it before the consultation period has even completed).
would not have allowed us to rebuild.
Rebuild? What on earth are you talking about? Are you now suggesting that what was destroyed during WW2 would have remained unbuilt if it hadn't been for the United States?
Your gratitude to the Americans is touching. Should we also thank them for funding our socialist healthcare system?
We should thank them for the support and financial shelter they gave us yes, or at least acknowledge it rather than try and rewrite history to make a point about the UK currency that doesn’t apply to that period (even if it might today, but even that is debatable… hence this debate keeps occurring in every politics thread we have).
You can get shovels in the ground on more sites without granting permissions for more “McMansions”
Well yes but the rather crucial detail is there is no real motivation for the builders to do so.
Why would a company risk its market by building lots of cheap affordable housing? They will make less money and also have to mark down their landbanks. Not exactly good business sense is it?
rather than try and rewrite history to make a point
Which is exactly what you have tried to do. Postwar US loans to the UK were not the reason for the massive house building programme, there had been massive house building programmes in the 1930s despite all the financial woes of that time and no "US loans".
The postwar US loan was to mitigate the lack of UK exports due to the economy being geared for total war, not global trade. It was earmarked to maintain British imperial presence globally.
Ok so let's build more McMansions or rather more realistically relatively small 3 bedroom family homes with a bed sized cupboard. Surely if they are selling it means smaller more affordable housing is freed up? A terrace may not be asappealing as newbuild starter homes but they are pretty good first homes.
Why would a company risk its market by building lots of cheap affordable housing? They will make less money and also have to mark down their landbanks. Not exactly good business sense is it?
A company will build lots of cheap affordable homes because it makes them money. Cheap affordable homes can, unsurprisingly, be cheap and quick to build. And cramming a lot of cheap housing onto a not very large plot can be more lucrative than building just one large mansion on the same plot.*
The issue imo is exploiting a chronic shortage and overcharging for the finished product so that it becomes unaffordable for many.
Anyway that's straying further OT and I am sure that there are surveyors on STW who can give a better critique than that, but maybe not on this thread.
Edit: * Think.....1 plot = 4 bed detached house v 4 one bed flats
Correct - and that does not pump money into the economy like council house building does. We desperately need affordable secure rentals in this country which are best provided by governments
it doesn't really matter what size house you build, its the quantity of homes which is important. Obviously you can build fewer 4 bed detatched houses per acre than you can 2 bed terraces (and fewer still compared to low-rise apartment blocks), but pure land supply isn't particularly limited in this country (land you can build on currently is).
Regardless of what the goverment do, there simply aren't enough skilled trades in the country to build significantly faster than we currently are, so the danger is the same problem that's hitting the free nursery placements - not enough reasonably priced labour to staff the need. That pushes prices up, which in turn makes everything less affordable.
there had been massive house building programmes in the 1930s despite all the financial woes of that time and no “US loans”
We’re moving to prewar building now are we? Also not paid for by simply issuing more UK currency.
Post war rebuilding was possible due to the help given to the UK, it did not do it by simply printing money in isolation. The power of the dollar was as important, if not more so, than the power of having our own currency. It is not an example of MMT in action, that is not what the likes of Keynes facilitated. Of course that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done now. Just one big red herring.
Also fair rents and rent controls on private landlords, with secure tenancies.
Not much risk of this when a Labour mp is a slum landlord.
there simply aren’t enough skilled trades in the country to build significantly faster than we currently are
It's not difficult to train building trades and relatively quick.
Edit: There can be a planning permission provision that the contractors employ one apprentice per four tradesmen, or whatever preferred ratio, or failing that they pay a levy to fund building trades training.
Postwar there was a huge skills shortage in construction but the issue was dealt with. Skill shortage has never been a reason not to build.
It’s not difficult to train building trades and relatively quick.
Train who? The shortage isn’t just in training, it’s in people (of the right age and inclination).
and inclination
LOL! Pay the money and people will be inclined.
Surely if they are selling it means smaller more affordable housing is freed up? A terrace may not be asappealing as newbuild starter homes but they are pretty good first homes.
OK so why not build the terraced houses to begin with and then instead of one new home we get two? What you are proposing is a one for one release and one where there is an incentive to sell those "pretty good first homes" for as much as possible to afford the move up.
The fundamental problem with the right wing dream of deregulating the planning system is it doesnt solve the problem that the building companies simply arent incentivised to use that to build a large number of affordable houses vs a smaller number which keeps their profits high. Remember these are the companies who at the time of booming profits broadened the use of leasehold in order to ramp up profits further.
If we want to solve the housing crisis then the current housing giants aint the solution. They are a major part of the problem.
Now if the government were talking about limited planning reform combined with actually trying to address the supply issue both in terms of the vested interests and also how to get the workers (modern prefabs would probably play a large a large part) then it would be interesting.
As it is though its the right wing fantasy of deregulation resulting in magic.
LOL! Pay the money and people will be inclined.
I don’t post much here but this is fantasy talk. We’ve tried for years, decent pay and conditions. Also just because it’s ‘trades’ doesn’t mean you can throw a useless **** in one end, throw in some money and get a decent skilled guy out the other.
I know if I had my time again I’d not go near site work.
Crap hours, often treated like 2nd class citizens, sweating your arse off in PPE etc etc.
We’ve tried for years, decent pay and conditions.
Not enough pay then. If you pay the money trades will come to you, they will leave other contractors to work for you.
Crap hours, often treated like 2nd class citizens, sweating your arse off in PPE etc etc.
I agree with the PPE comment. 2nd class citizens? I have no idea what you are referring to. And the hours are fine imo.
Edit: I will add that I have never ever heard of a building project being abandoned because there it was considered impossible to find the labour. Skills shortages might slow down completion but it certainly won't stop it.
As I said, during the postwar building boom there was a huge shortage of labour, it didn't stop the building boom though. Lack of labour is not an acceptable excuse for not building.
I have no idea what you are referring to. And the hours are fine imo.
Edit: I will add that I have never ever heard of a building project being abandoned because there it was considered impossible to find the labour. Skills shortages might slow down completion but it certainly won’t stop it.
2nd class citizens:-
which way is the toilet?
Oh contractors have to use the toilets on level 3.
I have a meeting with such and such. Oh contractors have to come in the loading bay with the bins.
I have 50kg of equipment on a trolly to bring in. Oh you’ll have to wheel it round the back and carry it up the stairs.
There’s a lift just there. Can I use that? No contractors through main reception.
Projects get completed because the guys are usually there working late doing long hours near the end, if they want to or not.
If you live anywhere near London, projects are a whole other level of arse ache. Because everyone loves driving a van in central London, they’re not all big get everything delivered to site the let the train take the strain jobs.
Then if, as I am you get injured you can’t earn money.
Well yes but you are simply referring to the treatment of the manuel working-classes in our society. It doesn't mean that a big house building programme cannot not be launched because there won't be the labour to do the work.
One project can take people from another project by offering higher rates and better conditions, but if the idea is to increase building in the UK as a whole, you still need more people here doing the work. And pay isn’t the complete answer, much of the UK workforce is too old, or simply not prepared to do the work.
Yeah you have already made that claim. A shortage of skilled labour is not going to be an unsurmountable obstacle if there is a determination to launch a massive house building programme.
It is one of the least difficult problems to solve if such a building programme was launched and It has been of the reoccurring problem in the past which hasn't stopped building booms.
The construction industry isn't tailored to suit the available workforce, the workforce is tailored to suit the construction industry's needs.
It’s gonna need some of those pesky immigrants that the outgoing government made such a big thing of. That and are the facilities to train even there anymore?
The first year of my apprenticeship was at a local technical college, full time.
It got demolished years ago.
I remember once a ‘business development manager’ asking what courses a new starter would need. I said ideally day release, whatever the current equivalent of a City and Guilds is.
He said “I was more thinking of a two day course or something”
Which sums up the attitude towards trades and skills. It’s also pretty insulting.
A shortage of skilled labour is not going to be an unsurmountable obstacle if there is a determination to launch a massive house building programme.
Agreed. It is a constraint though, especially as to the speed that construction can be ramped up. So much for this government to get on with, and everywhere you look the effects of Brexit look like trying to accelerate with the hand brake on.
https://www.ft.com/content/d100d2cc-ff5d-4eab-9f7e-bc0eee0ab8db
This article is interesting if the link works and it isn't behind a paywall
Edited:
Actually no - not going down this ridiculous rabbit hole.
and everywhere you look the effects of Brexit look like trying to accelerate with the hand brake on.
Of course it is. Its cost us billions and continues to do so. I believe history will view his brexiteer stance as a great mistake
Of course it is. Its cost us billions and continues to do so. I believe history will view his brexiteer stance as a great mistake
He's not a Brexiteer. He just believes he has to go along with the nonsense to avoid upsetting certain parts of his voter base.
I don't know what's worse - the actual stupidity of Brexit itself or the way it forces intelligent politicians to have to pretend to believe in the stupidity.
Kafka would have a field day with it.
I don’t believe you can discern someone’s inner beliefs other than through their actions and words. And even if you could, what would be the point? It’s what he says and does that actually has impact in the world. Doesn’t matter whether he’s a pastafarian or believes the moon is made of cheese, at least until he plans a space mission to mine the stuff.
Through his actions and words, he’s a brexiter.
Of course he is a brexiteer. He even keeps repeating the brexiteer lies " we will make the most of the opportunities" "We will create closer engagement with the EU without any of the 4 freedoms"
He is constantly lying and gaslighting over brexit and refuses to even consider any steps to reverse it
The vast majority of labour voters want it reversed, the vast majority of the country want it reversed,
Through his actions and words, he’s a brexiter.
Yawn. Are we still using that redundant label? Obviously Starmer was not and is not a brexiteer. No one did more than he did to overtun the referendum, and he realised the futility of that when it resulted in labour losing all their traditional working class seats in the midlands and the north. Staying away from the EU issue is pretty much the only thing he has got right, and it's played a huge part in him gaining back those seats labour lost and winning their current majority.
As for labour shortages, the answer is in the power of the market. Unfortunately a lot of british businesses and CEOs don't understand how the market works. They think they can continue to pay 'manual' workers minimum wage (or thereabouts) and they will still come and work for them. Well they won't, they'll exercise their market power and go and work somewhere else for better pay and conditions. And then we'll be back to the immigration debate.
The vast majority of labour voters want it reversed, the vast majority of the country want it reversed
TJ there's a huge difference between thinking brexit was a mistake, and wanting to rejoin the EU. Just my opinion but I think the vast majority in the UK have no enthusiasm for Europe to become the major issue in our politics again. There are far more important things to be getting on with than rehashing decades old arguments between europhiles and eurosceptics. We've just been through an election campaign where Europe was barely mentioned by either side, and I reckon most people are relieved about that.
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1830655358743757023?t=1FP5IriAU-j0FT4jeamUNw&s=19
Wow is this even a thing?
Good god. (Not confirmed so let's give them a bit of rope.)
Starmer was definitely right about things getting worse. Only he's the chief architect.
Absolute shit show of a government.
I see his ratings and Labour's polling is heading south.
So far I can see some basis for MMT but when then when I ask about the bits I don’t get, the tone of answer becomes dismissive one words or “I don’t get why you don’t understand
Fair enough.
What do you want to do know? I will do my best to answer.
Brexit was done in a fashion to make going back almost impossible, for the current government to try and roll back on Brexit would cost billions and take up a good amount of their time, we would never get anywhere near to the benefits we had when we left, other EU nations now have those, and will not give them back to a country crawling back.
What the government are doing looks good on paper, going to Germany to get some better agreements, then work their way round the other larger nations for the same, make best use of any mutually beneficial ways ahead and try and be as much of an EU nation, without joining.
Renewable energy auction secures enough power for 11m UK homes
Baby steps. But we were at a standstill with this before the election.
What the government are doing looks good on paper, going to Germany to get some better agreements
Germany desperately needs someone to buy their stuff. That's the only basis I can see.
Baby steps. But we were at a standstill with this before the election.
I was 'near' Hornsea One at another power station project - the other day doing some work.
The engineer who worked with me said they're pretty desperate for government help and can't do it alone - speaking generally.
Fwiw.
Yeah, Hornsea One has been up for 5 years now. Latest higher value auction finally kicks off Hornsea Three & Four IIRC, after 2 years of the government trying to get them cheaper than was realistic.
Excellent news, Kelvin. Small step - right direction. Nothing the Tories weren't already doing though.
Germany desperately needs someone to buy their stuff.
They need us more than we need them. Anyway, all this is pointless to discuss really, beyond accepting that it is what is, and planning policy (and trade policy) needs to be set with our real situation in mind... be that the speed that the construction industry can realistically ramp up, or the difficulty of more of your customers being behind borders than in the past.
Nothing the Tories weren’t already doing though.
The Labour government will make record amounts of funding available to clean energy developers after it increased the value of its summer subsidy auction by 50%, to £1.5bn.
The addition, compared with figures previously announced, means the total budget is seven times the amount available at last year’s auction, the government said.
The move aims to reignite investment in the UK’s clean energy industry after the previous government failed to award a single new offshore wind contractlast year or remove the blocks on onshore wind.
Yeah, Hornsea One has been up for 5 years now. Latest higher value auction finally kicks off Hornsea Three & Four IIRC, after 2 years of the government trying to get them cheaper than was realistic
I don't know a whole lot about all this stuff. But we did some filming work as it was it was all being connected up maybe 6 or more years ago.
This project I was doing recently at Immingham was about a new hydrogen facility. Humber H2ub.
This "clean energy auction" what does that actually mean? What exactly are they auctioning, is this just a bidding process for the contracts of supplying energy? Where is the extra money coming from? or is it just another PFI under a different name?
1.5bn with the looks of it.
Won't touch the sides in the grand scheme of things.
They need us more than we need them.
Have you seen how many german cars are on our roads? It was always the case that Germany needed us (and lots of other countries besides) to continue to buy their goods. Pretending it was going to stop after brexit was always a remainer fantasy.
Where is the extra money coming from?
Its bidding for guaranteed contract prices for a set period. So the money will be coming from energy bills for the length of the contracts.
Have you seen how many german cars are on our roads? It was always the case that Germany needed us (and lots of other countries besides) to continue to buy their goods. Pretending it was going to stop after brexit was always a remainer fantasy.
Finance companies will fill the gap anyway. The average Brit will just stand any extra (5,10,15%) on credit and deal with the consequences later.
German cars are desirable and decent quality. Brexit or lack of it has bugger all to do with it.
Germany desperately needs someone to buy their stuff. That’s the only basis I can see.
Pretty irrelevant. The withdrawal agreement and existing EU charter will have copious pages on what a recalcitrant former member is allowed to do with respect to sneaky side deals with individual member states.
Brexit is like digging a moat across a six lane motorway, filling it with water, then trying to build a rope bridge across. Utter stupidity.
Pretty irrelevant
It's not irrelevent to Germany looking at the state of their economy.
Lucy Powell - dear me.
https://twitter.com/meadwaj/status/1830892940656291942
Germany has the same problem as the rest of the world, China. Watching German TV news last night there was a report on VW not being able to compete with Chinese EVs either on quality or price, and being faced with laying off and even closing plants in Germany which it's never had to do before.
When a country is dumping protectionist retaliation is in order. The EU is heading that way, the UK needs to too.
Rail bill third reading in the commons yesterday.
Voted through... Tories bleating about "ideology" and this being rushed... reality looks like it's going to be a long slow process once the bill passes the Lords... but at least they've immediately got on with the legal changes to crack on with this...
Who said that two months in government wasn't enough time for Labour?
Rachel Reeves has barely sat down at her desk and already this :
UK set to be the ‘standout performer’ among major economies
https://www.cityam.com/uk-set-to-be-the-standout-performer-among-major-economies/
“The UK’s outlook is looking better than Europe’s, but also the US’s,” the analysts noted.
I reckon Rachel Reeves was just pulling our plonkers with all this doom and gloom about the state of the economy. She's a proper wind-up merchant.
https://twitter.com/premnsikka/status/1831582025137975604
Jamie Dimon - my god.
If you could pick one person who represents what is bad about capitalism - it would be him.
“The UK’s outlook is looking better than Europe’s, but also the US’s,” the analysts noted.
I reckon Rachel Reeves was just pulling our plonkers with all this doom and gloom about the state of the economy. She’s a proper wind-up merchant.
Oh right all good then? Lets get that investment in.
City A.Ms articles make my teeth bleed.