Forum menu
(Worth remembering in this debate – inflation isn’t CPI necessarily. And everyone will experience inflation in different ways.)
Also worth noting that slapping 5p back on fuel duty would directly counter the falling fuel prices.
And oil prices have gone up again.
The UK government can over-rule the BoE any time it wants to. Pretending they can’t do anything is a lie.
By the same argument Charlie sets interest rates. In theory yes, in practice they've been given a degree of independence. Even in an MMT world and without a quasi-independent central bank, you'd still have to balance government spending with interest rates to control inflation. In that sense both Truss and the most frivolous socialist* are two sides of the same coin, an imbalance in government spending catalyzed** high interest rates. Interest rates would not be independent regardless of the mechanism.
*assuming spending goes up but tax doesn't
**it's always a stretch to imply direct causation when it was a multifaceted worldwide problem, but we could probably have not made it an apocalyptical financial cliff edge.
Ministers complain to Starmer over spending cuts
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0r8e421y5po
There has been considerable Cabinet disquiet about the spending cuts required to meet the Treasury’s proposed spending limit.
Danny Shaw, a commentator on justice and policing affairs, who has previously advised the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, said cuts of that order would be "devastating" for the justice department.
"It would completely destroy in many ways the criminal justice system in terms of the courts, probation, prisons and legal aid," he said.
I believe that the standard centrist response to that sort of criticism is......."Would you rather have a Tory government?"
There’s nothing left to cut that comes under the Ministry of Justice… it’s all financially **** already.
It's a nightmare, my mate is a witness in a potential attempted murder trial...
Basically one of his neighbours who was already known as a bit of a nutter, smacked another of his neigbours round the head with a crowbar/some sort of metal bar because he didnt like where he parked his car...
Guy was sparked out, hospitalised, but no lasting damage from what I'm told.
It's been going on for 2 years now, and the trial has just been delayed again, as according to the defence, the person who got whacked cant be 100% it was that guy that hit him, (as he was concussed) and his injury may have been sustained not as a result of being hit round the head with a metal bar, but he may have fallen over and hit his head on the floor regardless of the attack.
This is despite the fact that there are witnesess, my friend and one other, (but they didn't see the attack first hand, they came out of thier houses to see what all the ruckus was about) and immediatley knew exactly what happened...
...and the police have recovered the crowbar with the victims blood on it, and said metal bar was recovered from the house of the assailent, with his DNA all over it...
trail delayed for another 6 months now..... it's an absolute joke...
Net resut so far:
A) Victim with no justice
B) A complete nutter still free to cause havock
Legal system totally fubar'd by 14 years of intentional destruction.
instead of fringe ones
Does "fringe" now mean 44% of the public?
"44% believe that Reeves is doing a bad job as Chancellor. This is identical to the percentage that thought former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt was doing a bad job at the last budget in March 2024."
So much in common.
happy with middle of the road policies
You know the problem with being in the middle of the road don't you? Yup, it's not a very safe place to be.
There is no way Justice can take a 20% cut, the minister will need to walk out if asked to make that kind of cut. The alternative is to fail to achieve the reductions AND embed damage in a system that desperately needs repairing while trying.
Even in an MMT world and without a quasi-independent central bank, you’d still have to balance government spending with interest rates to control inflation
Taxation is the main brake for inflation.
Interest rates do not react in the way central banks think they do to control inflation. As I've been saying for ages higher interest rates are partly inflationary as they add more money to the economy to people with money. This has almost certainly driven asset prices.
(Below I put this up recently before it was published.)
Some discussion about UK black-hole balls and why framing taxation for spending never works politically.
Apologies if you've watched it. It was a decent watch and questions are from the UK based Ash Sarker.
Legal system totally fubar’d by 14 years of intentional destruction.
Its not all bad.
If you have the cash/infrastructure up front to arrange for a private prosecution you can not only skip the queue but then recover your costs from the taxpayer.
Hence why private prosecutions are a booming segment of the legal system.
Now thats a proper two tier legal system. At least though we can feel safe there wont be any miscarriages of justice with private prosecutions though since no history of dubious prosecutions.
Can we at least get some Richard Murphy, Stephanie Kelton is just sooo 2023
ernielynch
“44% believe that Reeves is doing a bad job as Chancellor. This is identical to the percentage that thought former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt was doing a bad job at the last budget in March 2024.”
Belief and perception will certainly be important at the next GE but belief isn't tangible in other ways. If her and the governments policies are effective over the next 5 years, beliefs will change.
The recent poll you posted with the Tories only 1 point behind Labour shows just how incredibly short the collective populous memory is. A couple of bad headlines in the Mail and, "the Tories weren't that bad actually after all, were they?" Pretty incredible and more than a little disheartening really.
To quote a wise man, "You can't trust people, Jez."
Virtually no one's lives have changed for better or worse since the election result, which again shows how ephemeral and lacking in basis believes actually are.
I'm no fan of Reeves but I'll give her a chance to bugger things up before I cast actual judgment. 🙂
The recent poll you posted with the Tories only 1 point behind Labour shows just how incredibly short the collective populous memory is.
I have posted a more recent one which actually shows Labour and the Tories tie! It was the first one in about two and a half years that didn't give Labour a lead over the Tories. It's not that popularity for the Tories has increased, it's that Labour's popularity has fallen.
And dissatisfaction with the current Labour Chancellor isn't simply because people have short memories, why do think that apparently a lot of Labour ministers have expressed serious concerns with regards to Rachel Reeves? It obviously isn't because they have forgotten about Jeremy Hunt.
And dissatisfaction with the current Labour Chancellor isn’t simply because people have short memories, why do think that apparently a lot of Labour ministers have expressed serious concerns with regards to Rachel Reeves? It obviously isn’t because they have forgotten about Jeremy Hunt.
I'm willing to bet that most people HAVE forgotten Jeremy Hunt. Probably including Jeremy Hunt!
Out of Government, out of the media, out of mind. I bet the average person in the street can just about remember that Sunak was the previous PM; as to the previous Cabinet, they won't have a clue.
Reeves I kind of have some sympathy for. She's inherited a total ****-up, no doubt about it. You can't come into the tail end of 14 years of corruption and ineptitude (with the final 2 years actively ending in a scorched earth policy) and NOT end up inheriting a total ****-up!
I just think there are better ways of plugging this alleged £22bn black hole.
It's strange cos on the one hand there's actually some reasonably positive stuff coming from certain parts of Government. And then it's usually offset by another own goal from some other corner of Government...
And dissatisfaction with the current Labour Chancellor isn’t simply because people have short memories, why do think that apparently a lot of Labour ministers have expressed serious concerns with regards to Rachel Reeves?
Every ****ing year ministers kick off ahead of the budget to appear to try and protect their departments budgets.
This isn't a Labour/Reeves problem, it's part of the annual kite flying ritual.
I’m willing to bet that most people HAVE forgotten Jeremy Hunt.
I doubt that Labour ministers complaining to Starmer over spending cuts have forgotten about Jeremy Hunt. Do you believe that they are more clueless than the average punter on this thread?
Did you read the article - is that your explanation to why they are complaining?
Every **** year ministers kick off ahead of the budget to appear to try and protect their departments budgets.
This isn’t a Labour/Reeves problem, it’s part of the annual kite flying ritual.
I am assuming that you didn't read the article. The third paragraph:
In what some say is an unusual move, ministers from hard-pressed departments are calling for a last-minute rethink of the Budget, “going over the head” over the chancellor, to address the prime minister directly.
The recent poll you posted with the Tories only 1 point behind Labour shows just how incredibly short the collective populous memory is. A couple of bad headlines in the Mail and, “the Tories weren’t that bad actually after all, were they?” Pretty incredible and more than a little disheartening really.
Yes, I said that way before the election. People soon forget - the only thing that matters to them is how well they think they personally are doing so things need to change a lot for them to think Labour are any better. A lot of people are not as interested in politics as posters on this thread and don't really care who ministers are or what shit they say, they just care about what actually happens to their lives. That is why 'tackling' things such as WFA was such a stupid thing to do as it affects people negatively and for very little gain to anything else, people will remember that and more importantly be reminded of it in years to come.
If you spend loads of money on NHS and for example appointment times come down by average of 5 days most people won't actually notice so Labour are up against it in 5 years time when people ask what the point of Labour was and go back to the good old tory party that this country seems to prefer for many reasons.
That is why some of us wanted Labour to be a lot more ambitious and progressive - not only because we feel that is better for society but also for future chances of winning elections based on the fact they actually improved things noticeably.
Legal system totally fubar’d by 14 years of intentional destruction.
That isn't the whole story, the MoJ has announced a cap of 105,000 on days that the Crown Court will sit for this year. It had been uncapped under the Conservatives for the last four years following covid. In practice "uncapped" was around 107,000 days per year.
The MoJ was predicting 64000 outstanding cases by the end of this financial year (March 2025), so reducing sitting days is unexpected
Barristers rates of pay haven't been tackled by either the previous government or this one, despite it being an issue for a few years
In what some say is an unusual move, ministers from hard-pressed departments are calling for a last-minute rethink of the Budget, “going over the head” over the chancellor, to address the prime minister directly.
I did read the article and I call bollocks. It happens every year, it's reported every year. Just more prominently depending on the paper/government.
As above, ministers are always requested to provide potential reductions prior to any budget, ministers will also openly complain about this, as it's a big bunfight where they want their department to do well out of it.
Up until the actual budget, it's usually all a mystery to what will happen, because the treasury are requesting a lot of data from each department in isolation, and it's the treasury who will come up with several options, and the chancellor and her team who will approve at the end.
As for Reeves ratings, this is governing, not a popularity contest, no government cares that much about making unpopular decisions unless it's within a year of an election, as they're over 4 years away, i doubt it's keeping them up at night that the Mail or Guardian reaaders aren't fans.
I did read the article and I call bollocks.
Ah, the BBC's usual anti-Labour tricks no doubt?
Although I reckon that the BBC's neutrality is a tad more convincing in this particularly instance than yours.
There is nothing "normal" about the Deputy Prime Minister leading a Cabinet revolt against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, let alone to expect it to be something which happens every year:
Angela Rayner leads Cabinet revolt against Reeves’ ‘huge’ Budget cuts
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reeves-keir-starmer-chancellor-budget-b2630710.html
The only reasonable comparison that can be made is with Tory disunity of the last 5 years, which is hardly a good benchmark and one that cost the Tories very dearly in electoral terms - UK voters famously do not like disunity in political parties.
But let's pretend everything is just fine, eh?
So the Independent is part of this anti-Labour media conspiracy too?
Well listen if Cabinet ministers sending formal letters to the Prime Minister complaining about the Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly normal, and happens every year, how about providing an example of when that has previously happened under a Labour government?
It should be extremely easily to provide a link. Any link. Even one in which involves a Tory government, if you can't find one involving a Labour government.
So the Independent is part of this anti-Labour media conspiracy too?
How'd you leap to that conclusion?
The Independent, like every other newspaper just wants to sell copy. It'll use headline to do that, hell, they'll spin things just as hard as politicians do. I'd be willing to bet money that senior ministers have been asked to write to chancellor to justify why the Ministry of Paperclips should be excluded from any swingeing cuts that Reeves (or in reality the treasury since the dawn of time) have got planned for them.
I just think there are better ways of plugging this alleged £22bn black hole.
The problem is they've put themselves in a straitjacket by promising to 'reduce' debt and live within their means. A labour govt is primarily elected by the voters to spend money on things which the tories won't. Stuff like hospitals, schools, roads, railways, public sector wages and more generous benefits. The reason labour are tanking at the polls is because the electorate have figured out that they might as well have elected the real tories rather than the fake ones.
If labout want to be re-elected in 4 years they need to forget about 'balancing the books' and start spending money. It's classic Keynesian stuff even without any MMT-related arguments.
The problem is they’ve put themselves in a straitjacket by promising to ‘reduce’ debt and live within their means.
Same as every chancellor has promised since forever. I'll bet that Reeves reducing the 'bung' that the BoE is paying out 5% interest on bank reserves of 700bn - saves 35bn and will announce it at Budget and no one but the commercial banks will pay attention to it at all. Why is Reeves playing it like she is? To my mind you just need take a look at how things went for Truss/Kwarteng's mini-budget when they didn't do the ground-work at all.
How’d you leap to that conclusion?
Because you categorize the term 'revolt' used by the Independent as 'hyperbole', despite the fact that it is a perfectly reasonable term to use in a political context and you obviously would have no problem at all if it was used to describe developments in a Tory Cabinet.
And no, the Independent does not sell newspapers by misinforming their readers concerning the severity of a Labour Cabinet crisis. In fact I would say the complete opposite is true, ie, their readers will expect a fair assessment from the Independent, unlike Tory leaning newspapers
despite the fact that it is a perfectly reasonable term to use
But only in newspapers, It's also says that Reeves is "scrambling" to find cuts and tax raises of £40m. It's how newspapers speak. Take it at face value if you want, but really it's there for a purpose, and it ain't to aid clarity to a story.
kerley
That is why some of us wanted Labour to be a lot more ambitious and progressive – not only because we feel that is better for society but also for future chances of winning elections based on the fact they actually improved things noticeably.
I agree with all that. I voted for Corbyn twice but even whilst putting that "X" in the box, I left the booth both times knowing it was a lost cause. It was crushing.
For reasons I don't agree with or totally understand, the country wasn't ready to have Corbyn as PM.
I wish it wasn't so but we all live in the reality of the day and like it or not, the UK definitely was ready for Starmer to be PM. Now, as much as I try I can't see Starmer's GE victory as a bad thing. I don't and wont agree with all his policies, the same with Corbyn's had history differed. However, fundamentally, we now have a government that will try to improve the country's fortunes even if we might not agree with how it tries to do it at times.
So, yeah, some might easily forget the constant culture war and turmoil of the Tories but I'm not one of them.
For reasons I don’t agree with or totally understand, the country wasn’t ready to have Corbyn as PM.
On the contrary, in 2017 labour won 40% of the vote which is 6% higher than Starmer and on a par with Blair. The country seemed quite comfortable with Corbyn as PM, it was Labour MPs who didn't want him.
On the contrary, in 2017 labour won 40% of the vote which is 6% higher than Starmer and on a par with Blair. The country seemed quite comfortable with Corbyn as PM, it was Labour MPs who didn’t want him.
We can go round and round on this but it always ends the same way, Corbyn lost. Labour lost. The country also lost imo. We can lay the blame at our election system, the RW press, murky invested interests, it really doesn't matter.
After both GE's I woke up to another Tory government, that's the reality and it's an irrefutable fact of history. I'm not happy about it either but it's what happened. Twice.
We can go round and round on this but it always ends the same way, Corbyn lost. Labour lost.
It wasn't you that brought up Corbyn? Btw the Tories also lost the 2017 general election, no party won that election, just for clarity.
It wasn’t you that brought up Corbyn? Btw the Tories also lost the 2017 general election, no party won that election, just for clarity.
It's at this point that I enact the Honourable Flounce Protocol™ for my and other posters sanity.
Some will agree with my posts, some wont but either outcome is fine with me.
I shall return! 😉
It was actually a serious question......was it not you who brought up Corbyn? If so I don't understand the whinge about 'going round and round and it always ends the same way '.
If it wasn't you my apologies, if it was then perhaps don't mention him, if you believe that it is pointless?
We can go round and round on this but it always ends the same way, Corbyn lost. Labour lost
But your point was that the country wasn't ready for Corbyn. He won more votes than Starmer did irrespective of how many the tories got. Does that mean the country was less ready for Starmer than they were for Corbyn? The number of votes would seem to suggest that.
I’ll bet that Reeves reducing the ‘bung’ that the BoE is paying out 5% interest on bank reserves of 700bn – saves 35bn and will announce it at Budget
That would be very welcome. The irony of pinching one of the main economic policies of the Reform party is not lost however.
Even if the country wasn't ready for Corbyn a lot of people were ready for what he and shadow chancellor were proposing where in 2017 they did well in the election even with Corbyn as leader. What if Starmer was there instead of Corbyn, would they have scraped a win? Who knows and probably mostly who cares as it was 7 years ago.
What the country definitely isn't ready for is more austerity.
Which is presumably why Rachel Reeves is so keen to claim that her austerity isn't austerity at all.
Although all the signs are that voters are not really falling for that remarkable claim. Voters don't appear to be quite as stupid as Tories and centrists like to think they are.
The irony of pinching one of the main economic policies of the Reform party is not lost however.
I've read their policies on the "contract with you" page of their website, a surprising number of things they suggest are not completely barking; not least this bit of financial jiggery-pokery.
The Lord Ashcroft analysis showed Corbyn was streets ahead among the under 50's and it was only the over 75's or something that swung it towards the tories.
Not that the over 75 vote is worth any less, but still I think it's interesting to reflect on the fact that those with the biggest stake in the economy at that time, ie the under 60's, were happy to elect Corbyn on the whole, despite the huge campaign by the right wing media to characterise his politics as being economically suboptimal.
Which is presumably why Rachel Reeves is so keen to claim that her austerity isn’t austerity at all.
Every political party in the western hemisphere tries to balance departmental (day to day) spending with tax revenues. Austerity is when you spend less than the taxes you gather. That our economy is now smaller by a considerable margin than it was (taking a year completely at random) than say 2016 for example; probably shouldn't be something that gets laid specifically at Reeves or this Labour administration.
Not that the over 75 vote is worth any less
It should be. The best voting reform we could ever make is to remove the vote from pensioners.
Like Logan’s Run?