MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Starmer is incapable of the serving the public good. The levers he selects are that of a desperate capitalist drunk at the wheel trying to keep himself in the correct lane.
It doesn't matter what the choices are - none of them are about making things better actually for working people, that he likes to cite so much.
Under Labour growth is flat; unemployment up, inflation up. Which is basically increased cost of living. They are not making decisions to make life better. They are trying to survive by appealing to the same 'morons' the liberal's detest.
That's what it's about. Appeasing the class the liberals hate. He's using the same arguments - but with the lies packed high. Wealth is increasing for the few at the same time many are suffering. The stock-market has become a detached lottery for speculation.
It gets worse from here on in. Here's hoping the left sink him one way or another.
5 years to invest.
After a year, what have we got?
Tory policies with an apology rather than Tory policies with a gloat.
Great.
Well we now have a much clearer Idea of what today's Labour Party actually stands for. And that's quite important I reckon.
I am not sure where you are getting "Tory policies with an apology" from though, I'm not seeing even a hint of remorse. In fact what I am seeing is Starmer doubling down and going as far as punishing Labour MPs who won't back Tory policies which they were elected to oppose.
I see the current UK government as unapologetically right-wing.
After a year, what have we got?
Extra investment in the NHS and SEN stand out for me, but that’s just plugging two holes in a country leaking like a colander. So much to fix. So much of it is about stopping things getting worse though, and they’ll only get praise for big actual improvements. All this when the country is primed (partly Labour’s fault) to see tax rises as betrayal… when any party in government now would need to be raising taxes and increasing spending far more… just to stop the slide.
Here's hoping the left sink him one way or another
Let's hope not as that way Reform leads. The 'left' are not a credible force in British politics other than as protest politicians within the ranks of Labour.
Let's hope not as that way Reform leads.
It's that kind of argument that has led to where we are now.
Let's hope not as that way Reform leads. The 'left' are not a credible force in British politics other than as protest politicians within the ranks of Labour
Doesn't bear up. Last time I checked it was Starmer and the good ship Centrism that was on the rocky seas of fascism. Of course Centrism always chooses fascism over the left.
Botched Centrism has every step of the way lead to the right-wing wonks gaining further traction. Let's face it Starmer has stomped on the left and Reform became stronger. So not sure where your logic came from. He's literally the person responsible for the left split.
If you think this government is the credible alternative then you're not being honest or critical.
This government has set up (as many saw coming) the downfall of itself by being totally useless at every possible intersection.
The policies bear it out, the polls bear it out and further to this everyone bloody hates Starmer because of this.
I mean here we go again - it's looking like OFWAT are going to be replaced by another regulator. FFS. Voted in on change but more rubbish.
At the point a regulator might work - would be the point you may as well nationalise anyway and remove the profit inefficiency.
Let's hope not as that way Reform leads. The 'left' are not a credible force in British politics
No of course the Left are not a credible force in British politics, they have no credible political party for that to be possible. The Left for a long time put all their eggs in one basket based on the now very outdated belief that the Labour Party was still a credible vehicle for change.
Hopefully, thanks to Starmer, that is now starting to change and by the time of the next general election voters will have a genuine choice other than Reform UK's simplistic pseudo "alternative".
Personally I think that Starmer's/McSweeney's latest gaff, removing the Labour whip from Diane Abbott, will likely accelerate the process.
That issue appears to have created two very clear divisions, on the one hand fair-minded rational people can see that the comment Diane Abbott made was perfectly reasonable and on the other hand irrational people on hard-right, such as opinion writers on the Spectator and Daily Telegraph, are celebrating the fact that she has been suspended.
We know which side of that division Starmer is on.....on the side of the hard-right of course.
So the leader of the Labour Party, who recently made a disgusting racist speech echoing Enoch Powell and talked about immigrants causing "incalculable damage", has just removed the Labour whip from a black woman who has faced racism on a daily basis all of her life accusing her of racism.
Could that possibly highlight the need for a new party to confront the relentless drive to the far-right in British politics anymore?
Can you remember the good old days when the Libs enjoyed taking a stake to the heart of Bozza as he dragged democracy kicking and screaming?
Rachel Reeves considers overruling supreme court in £44bn car finance scandal
Exclusive: Chancellor could step in if justices uphold entirety of ruling over commission paid to brokers
"The City has been anxiously waiting to see whether justices fully uphold the appeal court decision that paying commission to brokers who arranged the motor loans"
It's so funny how they will consider intervention in the 'National economy's interest' when it comes to protecting private capital but won't consider intervention say in the BoE interest rate decision. I'd like to bet one of those would have a better outcome for the nation interest.
I was just about to post a link to that article. ^^^
If Reeves lets the lenders off the hook for this it will be one more nail firmly banged into Labour's coffin. We can't let those poor lenders suffer - but it's fine to rip-off borrowers.
Another sign that 'ordinary working people' really are of no concern to them.
Blimey, Sir Keir Starmer is now as unpopular as Jeremy Corbyn. It doesn't seem to bother Labour MPs though, although perhaps they are too scared to say anything?
Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than Keir Starmer, a major poll has revealed.
According to the latest Political Pulse tracker by Ipsos, Sir Keir Starmer’s net approval rating has dropped to minus 34 – a three-point decrease from the previous month and now one point below Jeremy Corbyn’s.
Blimey, Sir Keir Starmer is now as unpopular as Jeremy Corbyn. It doesn't seem to bother Labour MPs though, although perhaps they are too scared to say anything?
You have said the same thing in different ways 14,706 times at this point. Give it a rest. I only visit this place once or twice a week now and post in political threads even more rarely, because they're ruined by you and DrJ.
@Mark << for info the bullying on this place (not necessarily of me) is why I let my premium membership lapse.
they're ruined by you and DrJ.
I think I’ve posted twice in this thread in the last month. I can’t be bothered to look further back. So that’s some pretty effective ruining. Go me! I posted the same in the chickpea curry thread, so you might want to avoid that too.
I only visit this place once or twice a week now and post in political threads even more rarely, because they're ruined by you and DrJ.
So you only visit once or twice a week because the political threads have been ruined by me and DrJ, have you considered looking at any of the non-political threads?
There are only about three active political threads, this one, the Nigel Farage thread, and the Donald Trump thread, maybe broaden your interests and have a look at the other threads?
And the revelation that Keir Starmer is now apparently as unpopular as Jeremy Corbyn is (actually slightly more unpopular) has not been said in 14,706 different ways.
Anyway fire away with your views of the UK government, on the UK government thread, or is that too challenging and ad hominems easier?
The latest opinion poll gives Reform UK an unprecedented 14 point lead over the governing party, you could start with that 💡
There are only about three active political threads, this one, the Nigel Farage thread, and the Donald Trump thread
I think I have never posted on the Trump or Farage threads, so you've ruined those all own your own. Chapeau!
Give it a rest.
He never rests. The only way to avoid that is to avoid the political threads. Just accept it and move on, like so many others have.
and move on, like so many others have.
Except for the 13 other posters just on this page?
I sometimes write exceptionally long posts (you might have noticed) and it amazes me how diligently some people appear to read them, and often the very people who like to inform me of how tedious they find my posts. I know that they carefully read what I have written because they will sometimes pick me up on some vague point I've made buried deep in the rambling post. A bit like how you are reading this post right now. There are a very small number of posters whose posts I find tedious, I generally just don't bother reading them. But then I'm not interested in shutting them up because I don't agree with their opinions, which is obviously what we are talking about here.
No problem with Ernie's posts here, or anyone else's. Other than when posters are too focused on bickering and not the actual issues. Apart from that keep it up everyone. I use these threads as a kind of spring board to see what's going on in the world.
I'm aghast that the thread becomes ruined apparently when a government makes such a hash of everything.
I mean this thread is a reflection of the state of that. The thread is taking the flak as opposed to the government itself.
It's like when this discussion was called joyless - I mean a total reflection of the current state of affairs with Labour.
Sealioning or just wearing everyone else down?
I'm aghast that the thread becomes ruined apparently when a government makes such a hash of everything.
I don't know about ruined but surely it is precisely because the current government is making such a hash of everything that certain individuals want divert attention away with ad hominems ?
A few are clearly deeply embarrassed by Starmer's ineptitude and how he is increasingly alienating voters
Being reminded of Starmer's failures just winds them up and shooting the messenger seems to be their preferred choice rather than attempting to defend what is clearly indefensible. It is an obvious attempt to silence the criticism through bullying.
Can you imagine a similar level of outrage on here if it was a Tory government being constantly criticised by certain individuals? No I can't either.
Anyway getting back to the subject of the UK government, more bad news for Starmer not only is he now more unpopular than Jeremy Corbyn but Corbyn appears to be impressively popular among 18-24 voters:
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1949418305430921557
When you add 16-18 voters I think we can safely say that Corbyn currently has the youth vote nicely buttoned up.
I don't think it's been ruined. The words of others.
I think it's extremely healthy to keep unpacking the mess and what might be a better plan. There's too much at stake to not keep going with discussion, even if the discussion is not what we want to hear.
Yeah the young vote is not going to end up in the mainstream parties grasp.
Credit where credit is due, Starmer has done a stellar job walking the line between Trump and the EU with his hands tied behind his back with our self-imposed brexit restrictions over the last few months.....
...and the chefs kiss 😘 of hosting the EU/USA trade agreement in the UK announced just now.
Credit where credit is due, Starmer has done a stellar job walking the line between Trump and the EU with his hands tied behind his back with our self-imposed brexit restrictions over the last few months.....
What was the net benefit of such flip-flopping?
It seems to me he mostly does nothing and this is somehow a successful position.
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1949578088712712651?t=D8jPWaM2Dq4gU6hPTBFYcQ&s=19
Also I can't pretend I understand all the machinations of Gaza but it appears the Centrist commentariat have just decided the situation in Gaza is now bad enough so let's flip towards that position when we were telling people Israel has the right to defend herself a while back. (Also Lammy you're a pretty flimsy piece of work.)
More examples of Starmer just being absolutely sodding ridiculous unless votes are looking shaky and a tipping point has been decided.
How long have people on the left been going on about this?
Hmmm I think the EU,US trade deal is damage limitation as opposed to anything good.
Starmers involvement probably more damage limitation, do and your damned , do not and your damned.
People thought John Major was dull, but he’s got nothing on Starmer.
Crikey, I have just seen this and I am frankly gobsmacked. It's a big poll too, 2000 Reform voters.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-starmer-reform-polling-farage-b2798820.html
The numbers aren't even close !
The polling saw 65 per cent of Reform voters say Mr Corbyn is more authentic than Sir Keir, compared to 35 per cent who said the opposite. Meanwhile, 61 per cent of Reform voters felt Mr Corbyn understood people like them, versus just 39 per cent for Starmer.
Some 64 per cent see Mr Corbyn as being more honest, versus 36 per cent who felt Sir Keir was. 62 per cent felt Mr Corbyn was stronger, versus 38 per cent for Sir Keir. Almost two-thirds (64 per cent) felt Mr Corbyn was principled, versus 36 per cent for the PM.
Starmer really is in deep trouble if even Reform voters think that a lefty woke cyclist with an allotment is more authentic, honest, and principled, and understands them better, than he does.
To be honest I think this is also probably not very good news for Farage either, I can now see the possibility of Reform hemorrhaging support to Corbyn's new party.
It is obvious that Reform's new level of support which has appeared out of nowhere in the last 14 months is largely down to many voters being really desperate for change and a firm rejection of the status quo.
The Tories, Labour, and the LibDems, only represent the status quo not change. Up until now Farage was unchallenged in suggesting that he could offer something different, I reckon Jeremy the Comeback Kid might end up pissing on Farage's chips.
UK politics is getting a lot less boring.
Well there goes the idea that all Reform voters are just thick racists.
Maybe just maybe Reform captured the rejected and the disenfranchised too.
If only politics was nothing to do with previous governments not supporting its people.
I'm gonna give some credit to people for rejecting this flimsy right-wing version of Centrism 1.2.7 so quickly.
You have to fix material conditions for people to vote for you (or at least convince them of it.).
No one wants Technocracy other than badly informed and the government.
It is obvious that Reform's new level of support which has appeared out of nowhere in the last 14 months is largely down to many voters being really desperate for change and a firm rejection of the status quo.
Yep. And the wonk that is Starmer thought power was attainable by shifting/lying away from his pledges.
it really wasn't the time for right-wing Labour.
Reform hemorrhaging support to Corbyn's new party.
Even as a Corbyn supporter I find that hard to believe, it's all very well that poll revealing what it does but I doubt that it would transfer many votes away from Reform. I think Thatcher was more genuine than Starmer is but she wouldn't have got my vote in a contest between the two.
Well there goes the idea that all Reform voters are just thick racists.
I would say that the basis for this assertion above is shaky.
In any case, Reform voters are not all thick racists. Some are just thick and there are some clever racists too (although most of them are backers rather than true believers).
I would say that the basis for this assertion above is shaky.
Of course it is.
Reform captures all types of people.
In any case, Reform voters are not all thick racists. Some are just thick and there are some clever racists too (although most of them are backers rather than true believers
Okay that's why many don't understand what's going off here.
There may be a core of people that fit that category but many are looking like supporting Farage because he's sold the plan of being against the establishment in the hope that they can offer better. That has nothing to do with racism.
My partner's school the vibe is either Reform or Green from the kids. That's kids.
Anti-EU sentiment was born out of the frustration of the country indirectly not supporting the bottom rung of society. It doesn't start with the racism (in most cases) it starts with deprivation and desperation which fuels things like racism.
Reform hemorrhaging support to Corbyn's new party.
Even as a Corbyn supporter I find that hard to believe, it's all very well that poll revealing what it does but I doubt that it would transfer many votes away from Reform. I think Thatcher was more genuine than Starmer is but she wouldn't have got my vote in a contest between the two.
It's talking about how Reform voters prefer Corbyn to Starmer, which is is as reliable as asking them if they prefer jam or marmalade.
It's talking about how Reform voters prefer Corbyn to Starmer, which is is as reliable as asking them if they prefer jam or marmalade.
Yeah and according to this poll they like jam.
It is obvious that Reform's new level of support which has appeared out of nowhere in the last 14 months
Not out of nowhere BBC has offered air-time far in excess of that their elected representation deserves and the more RW bit of the press has given so much publicity it's no wonder they are doing well. Those who don't look beyond the adverts to what the party stands for have been swayed by this publicity.
I think Thatcher was more genuine than Starmer is but she wouldn't have got my vote in a contest between the two.
You might of missed the point, it was precisely Thatcher's perceived authenticity which helped her win general elections even though she was never actually really liked by voters.
And I say perceived authenticity because she was in reality a fraud. Central to the Thatcher myth is the claim that she cut taxes and government spending when in fact government spending shot up and the tax burden reached new unprecedented levels. All that mass unemployment and a colonial war on the other side of the planet had to paid for somehow.
On the issue of that large poll of potential Reform voters (it is based on people who claim that they will be voting Reform rather than established Reform voters) I think it is ****ing hilarious that Starmer has been trying to seduce them by sounding like Enoch Powell and talking of the "incalculable damage" that immigrants have allegedly done, and in the end they apparently easily prefer the personality of a bleeding heart liberal who keeps banging on about how caring we should be towards asylum seekers 😂
Honestly if you wrote that into the script of some Westminster comedy sitcom like Alan B'Stard the New Statement it would be considered comedy gold because of its absurdity !
Oh what I would give to be a fly on the wall when Sir Keir Starmer is being informed of the polls findings and that the man whose political career he thought he had destroyed, and isn't even supposed to still be an MP, is making him look a like a proper ****, without even trying! 🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Cooper and Starmer are going to end up looking very stupid when the Palestinian Action Ban farce is fully played out.
Rayner and the allotments ...
Jesus H Christ.
Was this plan made on a drunk night out?
So this idea to raise money for cash strapped councils as they say - is a better idea than supplying grants/cash support from central government - for whom money is a key stroke?
Selling off physical assets can only happen once. This is exactly how we got here.
Ladies and Gentlemen - I present the main act of the Labour party; pissed up desperate community destroying Thatcherism.
Rayner in 2022:
'The community allotment is a fantastic initiative for so many reasons. There is the obvious benefit of producing food that is helping to feed the community but it is so much more than that'
However Tories getting annoyed at this should remember the list of stuff they've happily put in the jumble sale.
The state needs more money, more assets and investment not less if we're to thrive and not toss everything to be carved up in the private sector - who have a proven track record in poor value and wealth extraction from necessary facilities.
Ladies and Gentlemen - I present the main act of the Labour party; pissed up desperate community destroying Thatcherism.
No one should be surprised and shocked, the current "Labour" leader made his admiration for Margaret Thatcher clear even before becoming prime minister.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/02/starmer-praises-thatcher-woos-conservative-voters/
Selling off allotments is precisely the sort of thing that Thatcher would have done, after all the whole concept sounds rather socialist.
And yet it took a so-called Labour government for the latest rolling back of socialism.
Obviously all this flies in the face of Sir Keir Starmer's "moral case for socialism" which he proudly announced when he was so so desperate to become Labour leader, but since the party is now very clearly firmly in the hands of self-serving careerists with no commitment to anyone other than themselves it shouldn't come as any great surprise.
Yeah, because selling off the family silver always leads to better outcomes for the paying public.
This CEO of a water firm said it would not be appropriate to take a bonus in 24/25, so her overall remuneration went down by £690k in the year. All good so far, but...
Miraculously she received (drum roll please)... a suspiciously similar amount via some 'holding company' jiggery pokery - £660k. And you know, ultimately, where that money will have come from.
I'd be surprised if she hadn't been given a car or luxury holiday to the value of about £30k too.
Maybe the Fruit and Nut Party isn't such a bad idea after all...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0dnkyd003o
And while we're at it...
Here's the ex chief of the army lobbying for the ban on Palestinian Action on behalf of a private US firm.
Never even joke about voting for the racists; it's the thin end of the wedge.
If you want to make a point of voting for someone else, vote LibDem or Count Binface.
vote LibDem or Count Binface
Binface sure.
LibDems? The Tories are shit. Labour are shit. What makes you think a party that likes to present itself and 'the sensible middle' are going to be unicorn poo instead of just another pile of common or garden human excrement wearing a rosette?
"But I have been clear. We do think there should be greater transparency. We do think more information should be provided, including on issues around nationality, including on some of those asylum issues,” she said.
Yvette Cooper doesn't appear to explain why providing this information to the public might be a useful thing.
I can only assume that her enthusiasm for this is because it is what the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage wants, and what Reform wants Labour now tries its best to satisfy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c860py73pglo
Sir* Ben Wallace on R4 earlier talking a lot of (completely obvious) sense about today being the 80th anniversary of Hiroshima. Including the need to ensure international law is complied with and enforcing it if needs be.
This got me thinking... I'm pretty sure Sir* Ben was part of a government that repeatedly threatened to break international law on a number of issues when the EU wouldn't give in to cake-eatism. I think they did on at least one occasion if memory serves.
I guess this is cake-eatism reheated - we in Blighty can pick and choose which bits of international law we abide by, whilst everyone else is expected to adhere to all of the rules.
Arsehole.
*🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yvette Cooper doesn't appear to explain why providing this information to the public might be a useful thing.
Exactly - innocent until proven guilty, if guilty, then details are released.
Releasing it early just panders to racist prejudices and potentially reduces odds of a fair trial, which I thought was a sign of "British" superiority.
Do these thinktank people live on the same planet as everyone else? Yeah lets just put 5p on income tax when everyone is feeling the pinch while rich asset holders pay next to nothing. Wouldn't surprise me though if Starmer and Reeves fall for it. Increasing income tax to fill a 'black hole' will be the final nail in the coffin, and will probably cost Starmer and/or Reeves their jobs when Labour MPs tell them where to go.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/06/tax-rises-budget-deficit-rachel-reeves-niesr
Beat me to it!
I was about to say...
Just as Reeves is told she needs to put up taxes - and the STW MMT adherent pop up to say that what the rest of the world (mostly) call financial sense is actually just unnecessary and self-imposed damage...
Here's a reminder that there are some other large reasons behind the UK's financial problems that are also self-inflicted.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/05/brexit-disaster-courage-eu-act-starmer
Yeah - just suck more money out of the economy to fill your made-up black hole!!
We can't spend it if we don't have it! So the high street and hospitality will have less money going through their tills.
A year down the line and Labour seem devoid of ideas.
ust as Reeves is told she needs to put up taxes - and the STW MMT adherent pop up to say that what the rest of the world (mostly) call financial sense is actually just unnecessary and self-imposed damage...
Here's a reminder that there are some other large reasons behind the UK's financial problems that are also self-inflicted
The middle class and poor being squeezed is a problem across the Western World. Brexit exacerbated this but reversing Brexit alone won't really do much except decelerate the decline.
I don't adhere to the MMT beliefs and I think it takes away focus from the real issue which is the 'trickle up' economics that has been practiced for at least the last 40 years and has been accelerating significantly in the last 5 or so.
The wealthy need their money and power removed. That is the only solution. How that happens is really up to them.
Okay so thing about all this drivel (thanks Oakwood) is the MMT adherent or anyone who roughly understands how we run deficits (not black-holes) to make money for the public sector - will get that the minute you call them black-holes you are shooting yourself in the foot and it will come back to bite you.
Pretending they're anything other than normal functions of deficit spending s absurd and self-defeating as proven here.
The more we push the idea of fiscal rules, balanced books expect how we interpret the economy to be misinformed at best and catastrophic at worst.
Utter fools.
(Oakwood - like many you misrepresent what many say about taxes. Taxation is the tool to remove spending and hoarding/resource power from the wealthy. EVERYONE in MMT says that. What we do realise is that there is no appetite for enough taxation make a difference. I guarantee a wealth tax would be largely an administrative nightmare deciding what is wealth and wouldn't be set high enough to make a difference. But I'm not against a wealth tax.
Most MPs - especially Labour MPs aren't exactly keen on higher taxation. Because they know its optical suicide. So you can chirp all you want taxation is never going to happen in the way you probably want it.)
You can go on about Brexit all you want but the mechanism for government spending has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU - especially now we are not a member.
(However I will say this the EU largely have their inflation in check due to lower interest rates.)
The wealthy need their money and power removed. That is the only solution. How that happens is really up to them.
Yep which is exactly what MMT says taxation is for!
(MMT describes the process Bruce. You can politically do what you want within that framework. And actually you should be blaming classical economics rather than MMT informed economics for not delivering.)
Brexit is still self-imposed financial damage, though - yes?
Yeah - just suck more money out of the economy to fill your made-up black hole!!
We can't spend it if we don't have it! So the high street and hospitality will have less money going through their tills.
A year down the line and Labour seem devoid of ideas.
Yep.
They're in total disarray and yet they have the fiscal fire power to create genuine growth.
Said it right from day one - spend first - growth - then tax. Thet have it back to front and hinges on Tory logic. Doesn't work. They need to create new money and get it into the economy on the important things.
Labour just won't go there.
We're ****ed.
Brexit is still self-imposed financial damage, though - yes?
Oh totally.
I mean we need the Labour and established trade partnerships of course!
Imports are a net benefit too.
We are bound by a totally self-defeating economy.
It's constrained to do one thing - deliver wealth to the few at the expense of everything else.
Metrics are used to baffle us into thinking there's lack of money and our hands are tied.
And at the same time there is zero appetite for taxation to make it all work!
There is no way out of this scenario for 95% of us other than to extend your own private credit line and get yourself in debt whilst at the same time pouring your own money into someone else's income stream whilst your wages stagnate.
It really does need radical change.
This is why trying to describe the economy accurately is frowned upon. Because when you unravel the fabric and mechanics of the economy you will see the act of money creation currently makes the wealthy wealthy (via interest rates etc) and is not being redirected for public purpose. That's communism apparently when it's done for public purpose.
It's currently lose lose.
If they need to raise money from taxation (which is more about equalising the economic status rather than government spending). Then raise capital gains tax to the same rate as income tax, make NI payable on all earnings, and close the loop holes to allow corporations to offshore taxable incomes, end the protection umbrella for British dependency tax havens.
The right wingers will try and claim that the "opposition" to the farm inheritance changes as evidence that such changes are not possible, and in my opinion that was the real function of those changes. An inconsequential change that enabled a manufactured protest to allow a rightwing government to resist taxing the wealthy.
Income tax raises would be a disaster on every level.
They need to get over themselves and temporarily run a bigger deficit and deal with it. Get that money into the big multipliers and also start helping people with bills by nationalising water and other pricey utils etc. This would help lower inflation too. Get the proper green initiatives going - what happened to GB Energy?
Then rethink the taxation asap. Stop worrying about the wealthy leaving the country with assets they can't actually take.
What happend to working people?
(If a deficit is too small then unemployment will usually rise.)
Income tax raises would be a disaster on every level.
Certainly will be for Starmer and the Labour party. If they want to ensure they lose the next election to Reform I can't think of a better way. I don't even think they'd get to 2029 as they'd be looking at a Thatcheresque poll-tax scenario.
Starmer declines to rule out election pledge-breaking tax rises in budget, after claim Treasury must fill £40bn deficit
Why must they fill it? What will happen if they don't?
They created the totally absurd and unpragmatic rules for this one. Is this is a double black-hole now?
So much nonsense - it's a bloody deficit. And deficts are needed when things fail in the economy. Surpluses are extractive and take money out of the private sector.
Point being deficits are a normal operation. Good governence would be using that money for the right public purpose. But there is no hard-limit on a deficit that means you have to suddenly plug it. The aim is not balanced books but a balanced economy. Reality is we've messed the economy up and a big deficit is needed to fix that mess. That's the sell. But if your vantage point is we need to fix the deficit - I guarantee you that will yield poor outcomes for the majority of people and economy - it probably won't balance the books either.
Given Labour's popularity is getting worse whilst trying to look 'prudent' - I really don't see what they will achieve with this mindset.
Deficits/Surplus by year millions (The way they make the figures up has changed over the years. Excluding or including money to public sector banks for example.) Source ONS
(The treasury - an arm of government - shouldn't claim they MUST fill anything.)
1979 9,364 Deficit
1980 10,041 Deficit
1981 8,825 Deficit
1982 7,359 Deficit
1983 10,582 Deficit
1984 12,169 Deficit
1985 10,290 Deficit
1986 8,652 Deficit
1987 6,272 Deficit
1988 3,914 Surplus
1989 4,150 Surplus
1990 3,883 Deficit
1991 17,976 Deficit
1992 40,155 Deficit
1993 50,869 Deficit
1994 45,945 Deficit
1995 38,603 Deficit
1996 29,240 Deficit
1997 15,555 Deficit
1998 1834 Surplus
1999 12,279 Surplus
2000 20695 Surplus
2001 14,123 Surplus
2002 12,431 Deficit
2003 25,692 Deficit
2004 24,349 Deficit
2005 21,691 Deficit
2006 18,722 Deficit
2007 17,229 Deficit
2008 46,460 Deficit
2009 111,998 Deficit
2010 106,468 Deficit
2011 88,019 Deficit
2012 94,110 Deficit
2013 81,060 Deficit
2014 71,219 Deficit
2015 51,848 Deficit
2016 34,352 Deficit
2017 9,560 Deficit
2018 8,142 Deficit
2019 7,940 Deficit
2020 205,987 Deficit
2021 108,434 Deficit
2022 70,533 Deficit
2023 75,055 Deficit
2024 69,071 Deficit
2025 Est 127,000 Deficit
what happened to GB Energy
They are still trying to run the blairite con that private funding of public services isn't a more expensive form of public debt in a different accounting column. Just more trickle up economics for the donors, although the trickle has become a flood.
They are still trying to run the blairite con that private funding of public services isn't a more expensive form of public debt in a different accounting column. Just more trickle up economics for the donors, although the trickle has become a flood.
For sure.
Does it even get mentioned anymore? I haven't seen much.
They are still trying to run the blairite con that private funding of public services isn't a more expensive form of public debt in a different accounting column. Just more trickle up economics for the donors, although the trickle has become a flood.
For sure.
Does it even get mentioned anymore? I haven't seen much.
They are still trying to run the blairite con that private funding of public services isn't a more expensive form of public debt in a different accounting column. Just more trickle up economics for the donors, although the trickle has become a flood.
For sure.
Does it even get mentioned anymore? I haven't seen much.
PSNB - *I think* not taking into account assets owned at the BoE (Q/E)
2008 88,657
2009 161,765
2010 147,961
2011 121,306
2012 130,358
2013 104,534
2014 104,921
2015 86,719
2016 68,460
2017 54,853
2018 51,910
2019 51, 719
2020 273,115
2021 163,199
2022 108,591
2023 140,750
2024 147,002
It looks like Sir Keir Starmer has learnt the art of shamelessly telling baseless lies from his chums in the genocidal Israeli government :
Presumably targeting Israeli businesses, and specifically those actively involved in helping the Israeli government commit genocide is all that Starmer thinks he needs to claim that they are targeting Jewish businesses.
Unfortunately for Starmer there is growing vocal support from British Jews for Palestine Action :
Although no doubt Starmer would agree with Netanyahu and his far-right government that these Jews are obviously anti-semitic
Why must they fill it? What will happen if they don't?
Yep, a question I regularly shout at the TV. None of the 'journalists' talking to government reps ever seem to ask it though.
It seems very important to the government to the point they have to look at benefits but not so important that wealth taxes should be looked at as that is far too complicated.
Can someone remind me again why still having Sunak and tories in place would have been any different?
Is there any good news from this ridiculous government? All that noise over reforming planning and things will simply snap into place (The Planning and Infrastructure Bill) we're still massively behind on building. We will never catch that 4million houses up and with many building companies starting to feel the pinch. Things are going to get worse.
Even their tinkering at the edges is so bizarre and random I can't get my head around their plans. They simply appear to knee jerk react to anything with a really terrible shoddy plan usually not backed up with resources.
Still we're looking at the likelihood of an interest rate cut today. Which is a good move no thanks to Reeves.
However they're saying longer-term there won't be many more cuts.
It's not the government's fault we've fallen behind in so many areas but it sure as hell is there fault they didn't have a logical economic plan - waiting for growth first 🤪.
Yep, a question I regularly shout at the TV. None of the 'journalists' talking to government reps ever seem to ask it though.
Because it's taken as read that if they don't fill 'the hole' the markets will freak out and bond yields will skyrocket*. Our entire economic, fiscal, and monetary policy is at the mercy of the opinions of a few bond investors and market makers. Of course when the black hole exists because banks have been bailed out and pension funds are propped up the 'markets' (ie those very same bond investors) don't bat an eyelid and it's no problem, but when the deficit is used to help working people and businesses in the real economy they freak out. The entire monetary and financial system is rigged to benefit the city, to the detriment of almost everyone else in the country, and it's high time our politicians started talking about it rather than shrugging their shoulders.
*which wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't use the bond markets as a vehicle for obscuring the fact that the money they spend is generated at source by the central bank. The question we should be asking is not 'why should we fill the black hole?', but 'why do we need the bond markets to fund govt spending?'.
Thing is the bond yields can be controlled by the BoE buying bonds. They love to make it sound like it's all out of control and left to the market. It's not. They create the market conditions and rates tend to follow the central bank rate and speculate where it's going to go.
It's a total farce. That's what the BoE did after the Truss debacle and not quickly enough either. But it fixed it.
This has become the new reason why we can't do things because of a politically optional 'market' that was originally designed to control overnight interest rates - with which that mechanism is now redundant. (That is draining reserves out of the system is not an issue.)
I think public purpose should be above these ridiculous markets. That's where it's wrong.
*which wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't use the bond markets as a vehicle for obscuring the fact that the money they spend is generated at source by the central bank. The question we should be asking is not 'why should we fill the black hole?', but 'why do we need the bond markets to fund govt spending?'.
This X 100.
That's the central misinformation at the heart of our crippling economy and why I'm so loaded on understanding what MMT describes.
Though I would say that the black-hole narratives has now become the new press point. It was a diaster when Labour first bought it up.
I could see it coming miles off.
I mean all this is quickly dealt with with one simple query.
Who do you think 'creates' the money for government spending?
Every answer apart from the BoE is factually incorrect. (The research exists to prove this categorically.)
The article below is part of blog from one of the chaps who research and published the accounting model of thee UK Exchequer. (The only one of its type.)
I've put it up before but it hits the nail on the head.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/euthanise-the-bond-market/
Euthanise the Bond Market: Why It's Time to End the Reign of the Money Changers
The bond market has long been hailed as a vital cog in the machinery of modern economies, a sentinel ensuring fiscal discipline, and a barometer of economic stability. But is this reputation deserved? Recent turmoil in the UK gilt market following Rachel Reeves’s maiden Budget has brought this question into sharp focus. A sell-off in gilts has been framed as the righteous judgment of the “bond vigilantes” sniffing out fiscal imprudence. Yet, this narrative is built on misunderstandings and misplaced reverence for an institution that is neither necessary nor productive.
The Myths of Market Discipline
Let’s break down the received wisdom. We are told that government borrowing is constrained by the willingness of investors to lend. When spending and borrowing exceed some implicit threshold of acceptability, markets “strike back,” driving up yields and demanding fiscal rectitude. According to this view, the UK government’s plans to issue £300bn of gilts this tax year—to cover a deficit augmented by £32.3bn annually over the next five years—represents a breach of that threshold. Bond investors, alarmed by a perceived lack of discipline, have sold off.
None of this is true.
The UK government does not need to “borrow” in any conventional sense. Spending by the government is an act of money creation. When the government credits a bank account, the Bank of England records a corresponding credit and debit on its balance sheet. Taxes operate in reverse, debiting bank accounts along with a corresponding debit and credit recorded on the Bank of England balance sheet. The result is a balancing item in the accounts, which is all ‘government borrowing’ really is - occurring as a natural function of double-entry accounting, not the rapacious whims of financial brigands.
Gilts are not a necessity but a political choice stemming from the outdated “full funding rule.” This policy requires the issuance of bonds to cover deficits, a remnant of an older economic orthodoxy linked to the long-defunct gold standard. In reality, these bonds merely offer investors the option to exchange overnight reserves (which pay the Bank of England’s Bank Rate) for longer-term instruments with a fixed yield.
The Economics of Parasitism
What function, then, do bond investors serve? Advocates might argue they provide discipline, ensuring governments use public funds wisely. Yet this discipline is illusory. The bond yield is simply the market’s expectation of future Bank of England policy rates. Investors do not “set” borrowing costs; they predict them. The entire bond market’s existence rests on the unnecessary act of swapping one type of government liability (reserves) for another (gilts).
Far from being the guardians of fiscal virtue, bond investors resemble the money changers of biblical lore—skimming off the system while adding no value. Their profits are a deadweight loss to the economy. The intricate dance of issuance, trading, and yield curve management consumes resources and employs talent that could be deployed in more productive sectors. Financial engineers who might design systems to combat climate change or improve healthcare instead spend their days shaving basis points off gilt portfolios.
A Political Choice, Not an Economic Necessity
Ending the bond market is not a radical idea but a logical step toward modernising public finance. If the UK government were to eliminate the ‘full funding’ rule, it would continue to settle its obligations just as it has been doing since the 1860s—by directly crediting bank accounts. Private banks would receive the Bank Rate on their deposits held at the Bank of England, and the costly bond issuance process would end.
Critics may raise concerns about inflationary risks or a potential loss of market discipline, but these fears are unfounded. Inflation is determined by the balance between aggregate demand and real economic capacity, not by the actions of bond traders. Ultimately, fiscal “discipline” is a political choice best exercised through democratic means rather than being delegated to unelected financial elites.
Reclaiming Public Purpose
The bond market, far from being an essential institution, is a parasitic appendage—one that has outlived whatever utility it might once have had. By continuing to issue gilts, the UK government perpetuates a system that benefits a narrow class of financial intermediaries at the expense of the broader public. The talents of those currently employed in the bond market could be better used in sectors that address real-world challenges.
It is time to euthanise the bond market—not with malice but with a clear-eyed understanding that its continued existence serves no public purpose. Just as the money changers were driven from the Temple, so must we clear out this vestige of an outdated economic paradigm. The myth of the vigilantes must be dispelled. Only then can we create a monetary system that serves the needs of everyday people.
"Right-wing politicians are hypocrites" shocka
Although I guess that the ones in the Labour Party are even bigger hypocrites than the ones in the Tory Party ....... just having the honesty to join the Tory Party removes one layer of hypocrisy.
The great news though is that Rushanara Ali will almost certainly lose her seat at the next general election. Thanks to her refusal to support a ceasefire and the slaughter of innocent Palestinians whilst in opposition she managed to change one the safest Labour seats in the UK into a Labour marginal seat.
If she even bothers to stand of course.
Oh she's a shocker. I'm glad you posted that. Cue all the "she operated within the law" comments.
Evening giggle.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1953411434655736315?t=H9n9Uz8jDo14z17BdLxGeg&s=19
Oh if there was a general election tomorrow Keir Starmer would very likely lose his seat, especially if Andrew Feinstein stood against him again. I think that would make him the first sitting UK prime minister in history to lose his seat in a general election.
However I think that is highly unlikely to happen. I can't imagine that he will still be PM in four years time and I will be surprised if he still wants to remain in politics after his stint as PM.
This is not a man with any genuine political commitment so I would expect him to focus on a lucrative post prime ministerial career. Hopefully somewhat spoilt by a constant niggling thought that, however unlikely, he might one day face the legal consequences of helping a regime to commit war crimes and genocide.
"Stats for Lefties" 🙂
Nothing to do with me but I'm a stone's from Sheffield so anyone else who's interested in government finances - there's a two day event with Prof Steven Hail - who operates degree courses for MMT online.
https://events.humanitix.com/public-money-mmt-sheffield
There will be a connection to the current government I'm pretty sure.
I'm likely to go - depends on diary and weekend riding of course!
legal consequences of helping a regime to commit war crimes and genocide.
For crying out loud, leave the Gaza stuff in the Gaza thread.
legal consequences of helping a regime to commit war crimes and genocide.
For crying out loud, leave the Gaza stuff in the Gaza thread.
Just like Brexit is discussed in every single thread?
I don't think it's fair to police threads like this unless miles and I mean miles off topic.
And mentioning what the UK government is doing in a thread titled "UK Government Thread" is pretty on topic...