Forum menu
Should you receive extra money to heat your million pound home? Should pensioners with million pound homes, full state pension, and either a private pension or savings (ie no pension credits)?
Nope, pity you didn't make it to my second paragraph - especially as although I talk crap I do at least keep it short.
Ah, I missed your point. Sorry. I thought you were arguing that property wealth doesn't make you wealthy.
And you think the (short) record of this Labour government can be described like that?
Sorry, is that directed at me? Since I used "new labour" in the previous comment doesnt that answer your question?
It describes Blair&Brown's time in government, in my opinion. Do you think that it also applies to what the current UK Government are doing? I don't (so far).
https://twitter.com/NicholasTyrone/status/1838567016275284022?t=vr8NrlnmVKnMYmQ4yAQeDg&s=19
This is the reality. This is the choice you have to make.
Continuing deregulation, privatisation, continuation of marginalisation of trade unions and increase in “labour flexibility” and a strong liking for centralised power for starters.
I don't recognise that this govt is pursuing any of those policies. Only a couple of days ago Rayner was speaking at conference about repealing laws of strike vote turnout, and min service levels during strikes, and a Worker's rights bill, all of which are Union proposals. Unions have just today led a vote at conference to reject the means testing of Winter Fuel Allowance, that doesn't shout "marginalised" If I'm honest
It makes for a snappy response in a thread, but it really doesn't stand any scrutiny.
Who do you mean by the middle?
I suppose a good example is people who are just over the 40p tax threshold who have seen their marginal tax rates increase over the past 10 years due to the threshold not rising with inflation. They are paying a lot more tax than they used to, but are not rich enough to not have to worry about it. In fact I'd class anyone who earns significantly above the average salary who still has to work as being 'in the middle'. That will vary depending on people's circumstances but people who work generally pay far more in tax than those who don't have to, and that needs to be corrected.
How do you justify someone on 50k having to pay 40% on everything over that when there are people with 10s of millions in the bank who pay <20% (or much less if they take advantage of various avoidance opportunities)?
It describes Blair&Brown’s time in government, in my opinion.
Ermmm yes, since after all that was who I was talking about aka "new labour". The current bunch dont seem to have acquired a name yet beyond maybe new new labour which isnt overly catchy.
For Starmer, well its hard to tell. Currently he does seem to be buying into the deregulation and market approach (see housing and planning "reform") but beyond that he doesnt seem to have much in play beyond broad statements and an unwillingness to really move away from the failed tory policies in all but a handful of easy cases.
It makes for a snappy response in a thread, but it really doesn’t stand any scrutiny.
Whereas your response wasnt snappy but was answering a wildly different point. Perhaps rather than just reacting actually bother to read the context?
Perhaps rather than just reacting actually bother to read the context?
well, explain how this government is perusing policies that trace their history back to Thatcher then rather than a random laundry list. Given that the very first piece of legislation this govt hopes to pass has trade union proposals all the way through it, the claim that the "continuation of marginalisation of trade unions" is obviously incorrect.
This is the reality. This is the choice you have to make.
So labour get a free pass because the alternative is much worse? It's the other way round, the alternative is so much worse that labour can't afford to f*** this up and let them back in again (or even worse Farage), so they need to start doing the things that will make working people's lives easier and start addressing some of the structural inequalites and injustices in our society and economy. Far from giving them a free pass, they need to feel the pressure and be held to account every step of the way.
So labour get a free pass because the alternative is much worse?
Of course not. But talking as if Starmer is the anti-Christ and his party are the legions of hell really isn't helping. Politics, like economics, is just one big confidence trick, and undermining that confidence is a very dangerous thing to do. By all means indulge in some constructive debate, but this relentless slagging off is not that.
But talking as if Starmer is the anti-Christ and his party are the legions of hell really isn’t helping.
I don't think anyone's doing that. Those of us who are being critical are not doing so because we want Starmer and labour to fail, it's the very opposite. We can see the direction this is all heading and know what the result will be, a tory govt in 5 years or earlier.
well, explain how this government
No I dont need to because I wasnt referring to the current government. I tell you what I will leave an empty line and then you can invent something else new I said so you can come up with a superior argument.
""
Enjoy.
Not nit picking, just honestly clarifying, which policies do you mean?
There you have it. There are none, one completely debunked, the rest is just word salad, so there are no actual policies or ideals that this Govt are perusing that @dissonance can directly trace back to Thatcher or the hard right.
No I dont need to because I wasnt referring to the current government.
Apologies. It was me that was wondering if you were making a point about the current government. In my defence, my reason for asking was because... well... I thought this thread was about the current government.
Damn, that now reads like I'm making a snide comment, rather than apologising for the confusion. It's not meant that way. Sorry.
Continuing deregulation, privatisation, continuation of marginalisation of trade unions and increase in “labour flexibility” and a strong liking for centralised power for starters.
Cheers for clarifying and sorry as I had also assumed it was a comment in regard to the current Labour government hence my self inflicted confuzzlement!
If I’m reading this correctly, the government are in the wrong for not doing things that should be covered in a budget that hasn’t happened yet?
also, this makes them as bad as the Tories. Or possibly worse.
But talking as if Starmer is the anti-Christ and his party are the legions of hell really isn’t helping.
I don’t think anyone’s doing that
You might not think anyone is doing that. That's not always how it comes across to some of the rest of us.
Some of Starmers critics on here do come across as approaching desperation or hysteria for a government that has not had three months yet nor had a chance to deliver a budget. While directing the criticism very much at Starmer as an individual, rather than at the government as a whole. While cherry picking the policies they disagree with and not mentioning those that they presumably do agree with.
While directing the criticism very much at Starmer as an individual, rather than at the government as a whole
Tbf his personal decision making has been questionable at best.
Tbf his personal decision making has been questionable at best.
Yeah don't understand why this is such a sticking point for many.
It's been a rubbish start for Labour and Starmer.
I don't think it's just a few of us on a forum who are frustrated too. Take a look out of the window.
Some of Starmers critics on here do come across as approaching desperation or hysteria for a government that has not had three months yet nor had a chance to deliver a budget.
That's because things keep turning out worse than expected, not better.
I don't think we need to hold back there's too much resting on it all.
I mean with gems like this ...
Liz Kendall this morning: "Let me tell you conference, this Labour govt has done more to help the poorest pensioners in the last 2 months than the Tories did in 14 years"
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1838886518720479560?t=i0N7zIYUnjmCQufG_XW0lQ&s=19
Every party needs a Truss screaming guff down a mic.
(It's a total and flat out lie.)
And .
Keir Starmer’s promised tax crackdown on non-doms could yield no extra funds for the Treasury, leaving a £1bn hole in the government’s planned spending for schools and hospitals.
Lol you lot started the junk about black-holes. It's just a greatest hits of how to make everything worse because didn't think much through did you?
Keir Starmer’s promised tax crackdown on non-doms could yield no extra funds for the Treasury, leaving a £1bn hole in the government’s planned spending for schools and hospitals.
Lol you lot started the junk about black-holes. It’s just a greatest hits of how to make everything worse because didn’t think much through did you?
"He should crack down on non-doms"
"Oh, he's cracking down on non-doms, what a loser"
FFS - he could cure cancer, create world peace and lift the entire world population out of poverty and some of you would still be "Ah, but...."
FFS – he could cure cancer, create world peace and lift the entire world population out of poverty and some of you would still be “Ah, but….”
Paying for his own stuff would be a start.
If I’m reading this correctly,
I am not sure how you managed to reach the conclusion you did. Which brings us neatly onto.
Some of Starmers critics on here do come across as approaching desperation or hysteria
Given your inability to do anything than massively misrepresent people perhaps its you suffering from desperation and hysteria.
I don’t think it’s just a few of us on a forum who are frustrated too. Take a look out of the window.
Public seems to be confused; undoubtedly Ernie will be along soon to remind us that in number terms a minority of people voted for them and since then Starmer's popularity has fallen badly, and I'm not denying that optics have been poor.
Yet at the same time - there's general consent, even among you lot* that we shouldn't just be paying WFA to rich pensioners, and when it comes to the 2CBC, a majority of people actually support that too.
So while they seem to be screwing up the optics, they're not getting the policies as badly wrong as the rhetoric on here and in the press would make you believe. Noting too that these policies aren't actually enacted yet; the 2CBC or an alternate solution is still on the table potentially when the child poverty taskforce makes recommendations; the WFA is there for nearly a million more of the poorer pensioners if they claim it (and if 'you lot' stop putting them off claiming it by persisting with the myth that it's ridiculously hard), etc.
Plans are still being drawn up, until we've seen the budget and the spending review outcomes it's still too early to say if they've got the big decisions right.
* I know I'm not allowed to say that but Rone started it.
Public seems to be confused; undoubtedly Ernie will be along soon to remind us that in number terms a minority of people voted for them and since then Starmer’s popularity has fallen badly, and I’m not denying that optics have been poor.
No, I'm having a little holiday from this thread ATM, I am finding the level of hypocrisy shown by some quite staggering. Wardrobegate was an eye-opener and made me realise that for a some individuals there is absolutely nothing that the politicians currently in power now can do which they think is worthy of criticism, because apparently the Tories are worse.
Although in the case of Wardrobegate v Wallpapergate, a perfectly legitimate comparison, the moral implications are absolutely identical. And the only practical difference is that two different extremely wealthy Lords paid for different luxury items to two different greedy party leaders, all within the rules. The same people who are dismissing Wardrobegate now as an alleged non-story were castigating Tory greed over Wallpapergate.
How can you have any sort of sensible debate when you are confronted with that level of hypocrisy? How can you have any sort of sensible debate with individuals who castigate the Tories for being racist in their attitudes towards asylum seekers in small boats, and yet praise Starmer's alleged pragmatism in asking for advice from far-right Italian racists who are happy to see asylum seekers in small boats drown?
I will no doubt add links and comments to this thread in the future but for now at least I can't arsed to engage with the weapons grade hypocrisy of so-called centrists.
I think most would agree that the optics are dreadful and Starmer should be making efforts to be whiter than white. I said in a post before that daft spat a couple of nights ago, that IME - genuine and verifiable - gov with a small g, the junior ministers, advisors, CS are being badly let down by their leadership but on the ground are actually doing a very thorough and professional job, that will see the light in the budget and SR.
There is however one major difference, and that's that one took money and hid it/where it came from until found out and exposed; one declared it according to the rules.
Donations, tickets, loans of flats - are all in the rules; I disagree with at least some of the rules and it's particularly annoying when espousing being careful with spending. Not declaring it - that's what the problem was and is morally quite different, definitely not "absolutely identical"
Debate with the reasonable, skip past those whose opinions you don't respect. Is that not the usual advice?
I will no doubt add links and comments to this thread in the future but for now at least I can’t arsed to engage with the weapons grade hypocrisy of so-called centrists.
Nailed it 🙂
Always amazed how so much derision is directed at the so called 'sixth formers' on here when the supposed grownups are transparently tribal and unmoving in their opinions. And then they post comments about how they're can't be bothered posting because no one agrees with them. It's infantile.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1839052676530627038
Looks promising. There's a big but though.
v
v
v
I've checked and he can get a Flixbus for about £25, any more than that and he'd better be paying for it himself.
No rules were broken in the case of Wallpapergate, although that didn't make it acceptable.
Here is another example of where no rules were broken, but it's not really acceptable and if she was a Tory, not Labour minister, can you imagine reaction?
https://www.instagram.com/newsnightbbc/reel/DATMMb4IgMK/
Sarah Jones won her seat from the Tories in 2017, I actually helped in that campaign. And to be fair imo Sarah Jones's problem stems mostly from poor judgement rather than being an arsehole, unlike her fellow Croydon MP Steve Reed who puts the "C" in centrists. Sarah Jones actually helped me with a case concerning a young Bangladeshi girl in an unhappy marriage. I doubt that I would have approached a Tory MP, or Steve Reed for that matter.
And then they post comments about how they’re can’t be bothered posting because no one agrees with them. It’s infantile.
If that's at me. I said I wasn't posting not because you don't agree with me, but because all 'you lot' were posting was the same stuff over and over and then all agreeing with each other. There was no debate and as above, when I've tried to talk about how small g government is going, it just comes back to the same stuff again.
And then the other night, you started taking already bad optics stuff and then twisting it further out of shape where frankly, I think some of you were deliberately and knowingly misrepresenting. So I challenged on it, and TBH you still haven't actually addressed the challenge (ignoring it for 4 days and then going 'but that was 4 days ago' doesn't address the issue and just gets backs up, as does the deny, divert, deride tactic)
And so yes, I decided to start doing it back, and then you got all annoyed and started name calling, as per above.
If you want a playground argument, then you're infantile too. If you want to debate points, then let's do that.
No rules were broken in the case of Wallpapergate,
Apart from the one about declaring it.
What a weird thing to be chasing her for on Newsnight*. Are we doing Glastonbury MPs next?
My view? MPs should be turning down offers of tickets, seats, boxes, upgrades, whatever if it can be seen as just for their own private entertainment. Yes, that includes Starmer as opposition leader getting an upgrade to a safer but more expensive seat at football matches. He should have had the sense not to do that. Something key in an MP’s seat or the area (local show etc) is different, they should be attending public events. Same goes for national stuff where they can speak to the public. More so for ministers with a relevant brief.
[ *Newsnight is dead, no team of journalists, no deep dive, it’s just a chat show now ]
Apart from the one about declaring it.
Starmer initially didn't declare the megabucks spent by Lord Alli on his clothes and glasses etc, claiming instead that was "private support for the office of the leader of the opposition", I can't imagine why, can you? He changed that a month later.
Starmer also didn't declare the money that Lord Alli spent on his wife Victoria's wardrobe, despite the fact that the rules very clearly stipulate that gifts to family members must be included. His Downing Street office claims that it was an "error".
But yeah I know, Keir Starmer isn't Boris Johnson so he allowed to do stuff because he isn't a Tory, apparently.
You might think that shit like that can be dismissed so easily but even Starmer realises that it can't be, which is why he has announced that it won't be happening anymore. But you carry on defending it anyway.
No, not defending it, just pointing out that it isn't 'absolutely identical' to what Johnson did.
I still note that by objective measures he didn't hide donations, he declared them and then his office realised they had been wrongly declared. But - he has to be even better than that. So I am fully critical of Starmer for those errors / omissions / delays, he needs to be (let's paraphrase my previous post) 'whiter than white, and is letting his small g government down dreadfully'. If that's defending, what do you want me to do to criticise?
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/keir-starmer-gifts-ethics
Meanwhile - still no answer on your 'misleading' facts about the TW/Teddington report?
It's funny how a party of protest is somehow derided whilst a party of free-loading, scatty, greedy and total incompetence is good.
All this could have mostly been avoided if they'd have hit the ground running with a stonking well thought-out budget late summer instead of delivering the random - abominable black-hole driven fiscal approach to *saving* a utterly pointless 1.4bn.
One thing for sure this is a Labour driven mess - no point crying about the media and public's response to Labour's terrible decision making; not helped by their own approach to scrutinising constantly the previous government on competence instead of ideas, which has put them in the spotlight for the same thing.
(Conference was a shit show too. )
Oh my - free broadband seems eight lifetimes ago.
The Labour brand is trashed. I can't see how it survives this. Even if the budget is just okay - faith has gone.
They've got to seriously pull something out of the hat and Reeves has not indicated anything like that.
Agreed. If rules are so hard to understand that a lawyer and army of advisors aren't able to understand them in a timely manner then they're too complex. Simplify, if necessary to stopping them completely.
No, not defending it, just pointing out that it isn’t ‘absolutely identical’ to what Johnson did.
'Spilt milk under the bridge' as Jeremy Irons says in Margin Call.
It's not a way to start a new government where everything was pinned on its chances of being 'change.'
If I were a Starmer supporter now I wouldn't be looking to upturn and check the absolute details - because it won't end favourably.
Simplify, if necessary to stopping them completely.
Yep.
That's the issue and why I feel annoyed.
From my little enclave on the inside, I see a lot of good work happening, that will come to light in the budget and SR. Will it be exactly what 'everyone' wants - by definition no because people want different things. Is it being done diligently and professionally. Yes. Is it being overshadowed by these totally avoidable rows, yes.
That's not asking for a let off, and it's annoying too (but a feature of our media today) that every day another scandal drops, but that's all this discussion became / has become. "But MMT! But wardrobegate! It's not a discussion of policies or thinking, it's infantile name calling, and I'm deliberately guilty but you lot (whoops!) started it.
Example. I posted that a 2:1 majority of the public actually support the 2cbc. Barely a comment? But 3 pages of the same back and forth.
I still note that by objective measures he didn’t hide donations, he declared them
It's true that the LP did declare a £4m donation from a Cayman Islands hedge fund with investments in arms and fossil fuels. I'm sure it was purely coincidental that the timing allowed Labour to declare it well after the general election.
Ah, still see it's all pessimistic stuff from the usual suspects, every statement at the party conference is bad, if only labour did what they wanted them to do it would all be rosy. The thing that cracks me up is that the stuff on here is exactly the same rubbish the right wingers are posting via GBNews and the likes, it's almost as if the extremes from either side have more in common than they do with the centrist scum ;o)
Yup, off-shore donations should be banned out right. Getting campaign funds in within the law to defeat the Tories is one, very dirty, thing… but with a change of government and a different make up of parliament, the rules can now be changed. And should be. UK election (and referendum) campaigns should not be funded from outside the UK… that’s UK democracy for sale… and should be stopped.
Rarely do I read a political comment piece which nails all the issues in a few hundred words but this does. Seems some in the Starmer camp get it too, so why are they allowing Reeves to run the show?
People want big quick fixes. You don’t need polling expertise to understand that. That isn’t what they were promised, for good reason.
I know what people don’t want - A govt that tells them they can’t do anything because it’s all too difficult. If Labour don’t get their heads around this they’ll be out at the first opportunity, possibly even earlier.
It’s all very well telling people how bad everything is and how it’s going to take a decade to fix but they don’t want to hear it. They’ve got two years to make some big material differences to peoples lives. Anything less just shows how politically naive they are.
A govt that tells them they can’t do anything because it’s all too difficult.
Which government is that? What we have is a government that acknowledges where the UK currently is, and how long it will take to turn around. There is no "can't do anything", that's just the usual histrionics over "can't do everything, all at once, all in one go".
It’s all very well telling people how bad everything is and how it’s going to take a decade to fix but they don’t want to hear it. They’ve got two years to make some big material differences to peoples lives. Anything less just shows how politically naive they are.
That's a problem with the population, not the government.
Anyone with a brain knows we are a decade away from being in "a good place". Spelling it out is expectation management. Idiots not understanding the real world and wanting quick and easy soundbite solutions is how we had 14 years of Tory government.
So what we have is a government (on this instance) demonstrating political maturity to a population who are politically naive.
I agree that they need to be showing some progress in the first two years, and that needs to start when the spending review and budget come out.
Falling into a trap over gifts etc was politically naive and stupid. Everyone still banging on about it a week later shows the power of the right wing press to influence and shape opinion, rather than focusing on the more important national issues.
That’s a problem with the population, not the government.
Ha! And you call us lefties the idealogues!?
Like I said it's political naivety. If Starmer/Labour wasn't prepared to accept that they'd have to make real progress quickly then they shouldn't be in govt. If they don't accept it and do something about it, they won't be in govt for very long. That's the simple fact of the matter. Telling people it's all to difficult and they'll need 10 years is a fantasy.
Everyone still banging on about it a week later shows the power of the right wing press to influence and shape opinion
Yeah, blame the right-wing press, it's the classic knee jerk reaction. So who do you blame for Wallpapergate which is widely seen as being the beginning of the end for Boris Johnson?
Starmer received over £100,000 in personal gifts and freebies from wealthy admirers since 2019, more than any other UK MP, including obviously more than 300 Tory MPs. The next highest amount was £40,000 given to another, yup, Labour MP.
And all this comes out against a backdrop of Labour telling everyone how shit things are but unfortunately there is very little they can do (I believe that the latest figures show that Labour inherited a low inflation growing economy, the sixth largest in the world) and things are going to stay tough for years.
But yeah, Labour totally understands the hardships which ordinary people are facing. It's Austerity Dave and his sidekick Nick Clegg "We're all in this together" bollocks all over again.
The damage this is doing Labour isn't due to a right-wing press conspiracy some of the most vocal criticism has come from the opinion pages of the Guardian. They get it, even if you don't, or at least pretend not to.
Edit: I don't know if the Sky News' Westminster Accounts project is part of this "right-wing press" conspiracy but here is an example of what people are reading:
There's a nice video clip in that link explaining in detail the issue
Sam Coates very much is part of the "right-wing press". A good journalist, but very much a right wing one.
The context to the story above is mostly about the upgrade from season ticket for the stands to a box at football matches. Something Starmer should have rejected. If it was about security, he should have made the sacrifice of no longer attending matches. Hard luck. Naive not to have seen that coming. He's failed when it comes to managing that. For sure. But the story absolutely is about right wing journalists creating an "all the same" narrative with false equivalence.... and it is notable who wants to join in with that on here. Notable, but unsurprising. In addition there are campaign costs, all very exciting if you want it to be.
The additional context is that Coates was only looking at "current" MPs, and what happened in the last parliament... ignoring all the MPs we've got rid off, especially those who had been in government, and giving a free pass to those who are new to house.
Search the Sky database for Boris Johnson... £6.4 million... and that's already out of date. Yet the story is that Starmer "received two-and-a-half times more gifts and hospitality than the next MP"... for £100k of tickets and campaign costs.
If Starmer/Labour wasn’t prepared to accept that they’d have to make real progress quickly then they shouldn’t be in govt.
They have done plenty already (and not just gone to the football)
And again a reminder - about 90d in, approaching the benchmark first 100 but about 5% of their term. A month or so away from the budget. This is still early days, that annoyingly are being characterised by unpopular policy indications (although, are they that unpopular except to the very vocal people that oppose them) and legitimate but optically dodgy donations.
To the comment (I think Rone) on they should have had a plan for the spending on day 1. That's before they found the accounts. Part of the issue about Brexit is having made a decision, then realised what a crap decision it was 'we' were too stubborn to stop and think about it. "No, we made a decision, we have to see it through now!"
Having found the 22bn black hole, any plan they had goes back to the drawing board, that's the sensible thing to do. And while you can (and undoubtedly will) say that the black hole is irrelevant that is a theory that Reeves does not buy into* and the model she does buy into means that a review of the ins and outs of the budget is required. To plough ahead with the D1 plan would be daft in that context.
* even then i said weeks ago that I wouldn't be surprised that she might have to soften that because things are so bad. And what was said earlier this week.....
Sam Coates very much is part of the “right-wing press”.
I read about a lot of this stuff in Private Eye.
The level of delusion on this thread/forum about politics is astonishing quite frankly. Do you guys know what people out there in the real world are saying? They're not sayiing 'it's early days, we need to give them a chance because we know it's really difficult', they're saying 'they're no different to the tories, they're looking after themselves as usual and have no interest in us'. I don't usually talk about politics IRL (I save that for here) but when it crops every now and again down the pub or on a bike ride or something, this is what I hear from almost everyone.
It's like brexit all over again. A load of chattering middle class educated types telling each other 'they couldn't possibly vote us out, it would be economic suicide' whilst everyone else is thinking 'f*** it, what have we got to lose?'. Hope you're all looking forward to the Tory-Reform govt in a few years with Farage as PM or chancellor.
Having found the 22bn black hole
Even if we accept this assertion (we shouldn't), context is important. £22bn is about 5% of COVID related public expenditure and less than 2% of annual public expenditure.
So you want a government led by public opinion and popularity, should Labour come up with some type of britains got talent style voting system?
It’s like brexit all over again. A load of chattering middle class educated types telling each other ‘they couldn’t possibly vote us out, it would be economic suicide’ whilst everyone else is thinking ‘f*** it, what have we got to lose?’.
Oh, Labour absolutely can lose the next election... but promising things they can't deliver... lying about the likely outcomes of decisions... that won't head off a defeat, it'll make it more likely. This isn't the Brexit referendum... promising easy wins and milk and honey rather than hard work and progress will be found out before voters get another say (and they will get another say).
and when it comes to the 2CBC, a majority of people actually support that too.
The majority of people supported Brexit and 40% still want hanging. A disincentive to have kids in a country with a birth rate below 2 since the 70s and currently 1.56, in a country that also hates immigration is ****ing stupid. Quite apart from the morality and ethics of child poverty. The majority are selfish arses and don't want anything paying for they don't benefit from directly, and sometimes they'll cut off their nose to spite their face rather than see other people benefit from something that they'd benefit from too.
To the comment (I think Rone) on they should have had a plan for the spending on day 1. That’s before they found the accounts.
Sorry that doesn't reflect reality.
There is nothing stopping them spending what they need to spend other than a phoney self-imposed restriction.
They don't 'find the accounts.' It's not how it works. Governments don't wander into office and look at a ledger or budget and and find they haven't got the money to do that. It simply wouldn't work and it's not how it works.
Irrespective of any sort of black-hole story - new government spending is not based on old government budgets.
Remember when Liam Byrne left the note from the last Labour government in 2008 saying there was no money left - well since then there's been an accumaltive spend of around 16 trillion. Every single bit of that spending was created by new money, day in day out.
Having found the 22bn black hole, any plan they had goes back to the drawing board, that’s the sensible thing to do.
They didn't find anything that would stop them from spending - otherwise there would be no spending today. And to add insult to injury - they thought 1.4bn would plug the gap how?
Let's be honest they didn't have a plan and they've lied to gain politcal capital and it's back-fired.
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1839028754737168552
So you want a government led by public opinion and popularity, should Labour come up with some type of britains got talent style voting system?
But we're not being led by sound decision making. Public opinion has been shaped by terrible policy, and worse lies about the state of the finances.
but promising things they can’t deliver
It's the opposite - they're simply not promising much by not offering anything that will materially improve people's lives. You don't start a government by reducing the spending power of the population by 1.4bn to try and plug a 22bn black-hole.
Dumb politics and dumb maths. It makes no sense at all. None.
So you want a government led by public opinion and popularity, should Labour come up with some type of britains got talent style voting system?
You are going to be mortified when you find out what "general elections" are about.
Bourgeois democracy has very little appeal to me but that unfortunately is the best that human society can come up with at this stage of its development.
There is nothing stopping them spending what they need to spend other than a phoney self-imposed restriction.
I think you might have made the point, once or twice. The results of deciding to do that is disputed though. And need to be controlled, and a plan to do so must be in place (even though it'll need to be "adaptable"). Spending more needs to occur. Having everything in place (including changes to future tax take, an industrial strategy, directed spending and recovery) to prevent the negative effects of that spending not wiping out the possible benefits (and making us all poorer, again) is absolutely necessary though.
I think you might have made the point, once or twice.
Labour have tried to sell the 22bn black-hole to every single interview I've seen - so forgive my repetition on such bullshit when people just repeat what they've heard.
Spending more needs to occur. Having everything in place (including changes to future tax take, an industrial strategy, directed spending and recovery) to prevent the negative effects of that spending not wiping out the possible benefits (and making us all poorer, again) is absolutely necessary though.
That's the bit where they have had years to come up with a plan. Years, Kelvin.
It's not good enough. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows the first 100 days is critical. Labour couldn't have had a worse start.
State services are in deep deficit - how much longer do you want to wait?
That’s the bit where they have had years to come up with a plan.
Sorry Rone, you have a very clear idea of one economic theory, but appear to have little idea about how a government and all its departments work.
rone
Full Member
It’s funny how a party of protest is somehow derided whilst a party of free-loading, scatty, greedy and total incompetence is good.
Not sure I agree to be honest.
How many perpetual strikes have been resolved within weeks? I'll put money on the nursing one being resolved within weeks too.
Rwanda scrapped.
Far right riots delt with.
Staff being hired to actually process the huge backlog of asylum seekers, a Tory manufactured problem.
Actually trying to rebuild bridges with the EU rather than treat them as enemies.
Continued support for Ukraine.
50£ billion being found down the back of the sofa just as many of us predicted even before the election.
Going after the huge monies fraudulently claimed during Covid.
Real commitment to build more housing.
Rebalancing renters rights against landlords rights.
Breaking with allies to ban arms sales to Israel, as far a UK government can do so as there are ties with overseas manufacturers out of its control.
I bet others on here can fill in the ones I've forgotten??
Frocks, glasses, 14k parties? Wrong, wrong, wrong and it needs to end but to assert that's all the government have done in a few months is objectively wrong.
They aren't incompetent but their PR and political naivety have been shown. Luckily they have plenty of time to learn from this and they will.
Another thing since the attack line NOW is all about the press. Yawn.
The right-wing press didn't just start. They've given Starmer an easy ride up until he started putting his hand in the exciting governmental equivalent of the Aldi speical offers aisle.
(Strangely we were told by many Centrists you can't go left as the press will take you apart - well Labour haven't gone left at all, so get used to the plan.)
50£ billion being found down the back of the sofa just as many of us predicted even before the election.
Wouldn't disagree but that's a fault - not a fix, due external pressure of many pointing out lack of spending will be deadly.
Very little in your list that is tangible to the people that have suffered under the hands of the Tory government, and what is useful on that list will probably fail due to expecting the private sector to simply pick the slack up.
Oh they are totally incompetent or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
What's the plan again?
We seem to have forgotten about House Building, NHS investment, Poverty, Climate etc.
new government spending is not based on old government budgets.
You inherit the income and expenditure commitments in the short term at least. Then you do a budget / SR which for the love of god, is what is happening now. You can't just turn them off on D1, And again, I know you say the 22bn deficit is irrelevant by size or theory, but that's not the approach Reeves believes in and so simply posting another Kelton MMT tweet is pointless. She's not doing that, and simply posting it over and over won't make it happen.
Do you guys know what people out there in the real world are saying? / The majority of people supported Brexit and 40% still want hanging.
Just merely saying that while wardrobe / Arsenalgate has driven popularity down, 'the public' doesn't seem so against the actual substance of what they're doing as a few loud voices would indicate. I wasn't saying I think the 2CBC decision was a good thing personally, although I'd refer to previous posts where I say that they instead have set up a CP taskforce to look at all options and that may well come back and say that lifting the 2CBC is the right thing to do. I do think means testing WFA is the right thing, and indeed most on here seem to agree. Let's pose that directly - who thinks rich pensioners should be given the £300 anyway?
Governments don’t wander into office and look at a ledger or budget and find they haven't got the money....
https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-government-blackhole-public-finances/
You inherit the income and expenditure commitments in the short term at least.
Why didn't Reeves commit to the WFA then for everyone? At least be consistent.
She’s not doing that, and simply posting it over and over won’t make it happen.
Let's never point anything out becuase we can't affect it on a forum. I love it when poeople try to silence the solutions to problems because it exposes the current government.
Look the IFS / Paul Johnson work on figures that imply the government can run out of money. It's beyond ridiculous to cite it as evidence. The IFS and the OBR both basically offer up austerity as solution. If that's what you want then you've probably got the correct party.
Labour have tried to sell the 22bn black-hole to every single interview I’ve seen – so forgive my repetition on such bullshit
It's not BS. It's a verified OBR fact. You can argue they should have predicted a deficit, or that it's irrelevant because Kelton says so, but it is a clear fact that the Chancellor and the Head of the OBR did not have visibility of the actual overspend against DEL until well after the election.
and when it comes to the 2CBC, a majority of people actually support that too.
I think that entirely depends how you ask the question:
"Do you think people should be able to exploit the benefit system by having more children?"
v's
"Do you think children in poverty should suffer more if part of a large family?"
or
"Do you think people who find themselves in unexpected hardship should get more support if they have more dependants?"
or
"If two single people each with 2 kids get together and live as one family, would you cut the total amount of tax/benefit support available to them?"
and
"When determining the size of family to have, how much did you consider the UC and CTC in your family planning decisions?"
who thinks rich pensioners should be given the £300 anyway?
I do, but I wouldn't call it a fuel subsidy I'd call it a state pension increase which every pensioner (including the rich) would get in relation to their NI contributions record. I'd go a step further and have a universal income for anyone over 18 (or 16 if living independantly) which would top up low/zero incomes to bring people out of poverty. Giving the very poorest money is never going to turn into an economic "withdrawal" and is money that will be recycled in the ecomony to the benefit of all. Being stingy with the poorest is a poor economic choice.
The yougov poll that i have quoted with the 2:1 preference is here
While I accept the phrasing of the question can drive the answers, the question seems pretty neutral to me?
Currently there is a two child limit on the
number of children parents can claim
child‑related welfare benefits for. Do you think
this limit should be kept, or should it be
abolished?