Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
I know this is the UK government thread, not the USA one, but there is an important cross-over.... Harris has stated pretty clearly that a two state solution is the only way out of this. And I agree.
An internationaly brokered new border, with an officially internationaly recognised state of Palestine. That will be a massive argument in itself with the various 'illegal' land-grabs thathave taken place over time, most recently, in particular, but it's the only sensible and logical solution I can think of.
This has been 'casual policy' by many western governments but never really enforced via sanctions or whatever... that needs to change, and IMO, fast.
So you think that the far-right government in Israel is above international law and those accused of war crimes should not face the consequences?
Sigh.
So you think that the far-right government in Israel is above international law and those accused of war crimes should not face the consequences?
Nope, but as i was responding to the previous poster who asked about what people thought, i gave my opinion of the outcome, which is that a sitting leader would not be brought to task, the ICC can pass judgement, but they are powerless to enforce, and count on states to do that for them, how many states will say they'd do it is one thing, how many states that would actually go through with it is another.
Btw although relatively unpopular with the Israeli people Netanyahu’s popularity has been growing significantly in recent months, if you are arguing that Israelis should deal with him themselves
Yes, and the reason for that is how he is 'hitting back at Hamas' for their atrocity, Netanyahu was a man who was passed his sell by date, fighting corruption charges and running out of friends, then the Hamas attack took place and this is the outcome, if that attack hadn't have happened, i dare say Netanyahu may well have been out of politics now with the trial against him having concluded a lot quicker and less friendlier than it'll do now.
Harris has stated pretty clearly that a two state solution is the only way out of this. And I agree.
Maybe but that is a whole different argument, right now the priority must be to stop the killing by the IDF and to stop all the deaths through starvation, lack of shelter, lack of medical care, etc
And in that respect the current Labour government's decision to reverse the previous Tory government's attempt to block the International Criminal Court from issuing an arrest warrant for war crimes is a very welcome move.
The more the perpetrators of war crimes are held to account the less likely they are to openly commit them.
a sitting leader would not be brought to task,
The ICC arrest warrant would be valid until the day he dies. It will be far less effective if the ICC waits until after Netanyahu is no longer in power before issuing an arrest warrant, the alledged war crimes are happening right now. Besides I see no problem with a sitting leader being arrested, they certainly have been in situations of war.
Lammy has got this right imo.
Edit: And btw the arrest warrants are not just for Netanyahu
**** all will happen to Netanyahu unless the US want it.
Of course he should stand trial for war crimes. He's a million miles beyond the threshold for collective punishment (a war crime in itself). But in the real world, only the US can make it happen.
A bit like MMT working in an imaginary world in people's heads where the other hundred and fifty odd economies in the world (including the issuer of the de facto world currency) just let you do whatever you want and don't react to it to preserve their own interests.
The UK government's change of stance will definitely put pressure on the United States.
There is no logical reason why the United States should protect Netanyahu come what may. In fact there are very good reasons why they should abandon him, even if it is just for their own self interests
Yep, It's a welcome statement, on the surface by both the UK and the USA.
Unfortunatly as I'm sure you'll agree it dosn't do much to stop the current genocide Israel is inflicting on Palestine.
I don't know why you appear to think that Netanyahu's government is doing whatever it wants in Gaza.
IMO they aren't, they are doing what they believe they can get away with. And certainly issues such as the amount of food and other aid that getting through is dependent on how much pressure they feel they are under.
The regime in Tel Aviv is deeply concerned at the thought of being isolated internationally, and they certainly don't dismiss the threat of ICC arrest warrants as inconsequential, Netanyahu is livid.
I find it strange that some people who claim to be concerned about the situation should be so dismissive about an important step made by the new Labour government. Obviously much more needs to done but if it is established that those in positions of responsibility have a case to answer with regards to war crimes the next steps will be easier to achieve.
The current Labour government was only elected this month and already important steps have been taken over the issue of Palestine.
I find it strange that some people who claim to be concerned about the situation should be so dismissive about an important step made by the new Labour government.
I literally said "Yep, It’s a welcome statement, on the surface by both the UK..."
Learn how to read?
Learn how to read?
Nice. Maybe you should read what I wrote. I said "dismissive".
I consider this :
Unfortunatly as I’m sure you’ll agree it dosn’t do much to stop the current genocide Israel is inflicting on Palestine.
To be dismissive. And no I don't agree. IMO every bit of pressure helps to minimise what Netanyahu feels he can get away with. I have already made that point.
A nice bit in today's Guardian editorial:
In the UK, where Labour’s perceived indifference to Palestinian lives cost it votes and seats in the election, there is already movement. The new government has thankfully resumed funding to Unrwa, the Palestinian relief agency, long after others did so. Downing Street confirmed on Friday that the UK has dropped its opposition to the international criminal court issuing an international arrest warrant for Mr Netanyahu over alleged war crimes.
David Lammy, the new foreign secretary, will soon decide whether to publish legal advice on the supply of arms to Israel. Sources have told the Guardian he is preparing to announce a partial ban on the sale of weapons. He should do both.
I have already made that point.
In multiple threads. It was only a matter of time before this one was dragged down this path too.
That's me, always singing the praises of Labour politicians, I'm well-known for it.
And in more good news (imo) from the new Labour government:
Edit: Although I remain deeply unimpressed with Labour not following economic policies significantly different to the Tories and I am very impressed with some of the purely ethical stances they have taken in the first 4 weeks since forming a government. That definitely seems to be significantly different to the previous Tory government, and up to this point at least more than I had dared to hope for.
Good stuff! Hopefully we’ll be seeing the back of all the Tories other pointless, badly-drafted, culture war bullshit
It literally was all they actually did while in power (especially the last 5 years) bar the looney few weeks where Liz Truss drove the economy off a cliff.
If you discount all that sort of nonsense it’s as if, from 2019 until a couple of weeks ago, we didn’t actually have a government at all. They ‘ruled’ without a trace, while the public sector crumbled around them
Hopefully we’ll be seeing the back of all the Tories other pointless, badly-drafted, culture war bullshit
Exactly my thoughts. And what I have to admit surprises me is that in doing so they don't appear be, at the moment at least, to be too concerned by the threat of a right-wing press backlash.
With the majority Labour have got and with the Tories about to start a massive insular, navel-gazing scrap for 'the soul of the party' (whatever that is?), theres very little point in the right wing press piling in. I believe they're busy having a go at the French instead
I also hope we've seen the back of the Orwellian use of language too. The 'Freedom of Speech' Bill, which could be more accurately called 'the Freedom for Government to dictate who can and can't say what and ban the stuff we don't like people saying' bill, which admittedly isn't as snappy a title
It's going to get tiresome I imagine, spending more time undoing all the stupid and insane shit that bunch of chancers installed.
I'm sure certain quarters are remaining quiet as it's still too close to the point of impact to start gobbing off, they'll be back soon calling for heads on spikes.
That bill sounds very American, which is a point of distaste before you even get into the detail. Much less of that required moving forward please.
Edit: Weird stuff going on...... deleted double post
@relapsed_mandalorian - it was indeed th Americans who started all this nonsense with language, really ramped up by Dubya who brought in things like 'The Clear Skies Act' which basically removed environmental protections and allowed their petrochemical donors to pollute with impunity, and then of course 'the War on Terror'.
If you fancy a good read on the subject of how this corruption of language all started, then progressed to what we have today with government by three-word-slogan, this is a great book (yes, I am that boring)
‘the War on Terror’.
Sadly well versed in that area. GWOT still makes my teeth itch.
This is worth sharing and probably sums up what the Tories can expect with their protestations in parliament for the forseeable future...
https://Twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1816778960211980784
I've had a right old spring in my step today.
Until this thread I didn't realise we could sort all our problems by adding a couple of zeros on a spreadsheet and lived in a world where a maniacal Israeli leader would realise the error of his ways as a result of a sharp word from the UK.
It's a lovely world to inhabit.
To be fair, MMT in theory should be beneficial, and during recent crises, all western nations (including the EU via the ECB) have all used a similar way of working to fight against it, my big concern is a single country, like the UK doing it in isolate, i see a lot of others fighting it, and causing the UK a lot of headaches, so basically, the system looks like it functions well, but then it fails the humanity test!
MMT or classic Keynesian. Now is the time to borrow to invest in either model I think
Thats Revves is resistant to this puts her in the wrong
To be fair, MMT in theory should be beneficial, and during recent crises, all western nations (including the EU via the ECB) have all used a similar way of working to fight against it, my big concern is a single country, like the UK doing it in isolate, i see a lot of others fighting it, and causing the UK a lot of headaches, so basically, the system looks like it functions well, but then it fails the humanity test!
Communism failed the humanity test too. In theory a fantastic way of doing things (and will ultimately be the way things have to go for humankind to live sustainably), but in the end people couldn't make it work.
The neoliberal version of capitalism we are currently living through is also failing, the asset bubble is basically borrowing from future generations. And now we are starting to live the payback period, where the young and those not already in profit from the past inflation are paying the costs.
Unless the effort that is currently being put into keeping the bubble inflating is redirected to creating far greater financial equality, I fully expect a complete collapse of the system in my lifetime.
There's plenty of 'systems' that are going to fail as humankind runs out of options for continuing as we are.
Yep, pretty clear that humans species on the whole has ****ed it up. Time to almost completely die off and start again just as other species who over consume what they are dependant on and grow too big to support.
Back to my hobby horse again 🙂
Starmer has said in the past that he favours looking at end of life care / assisted dying with a free vote in the commons. As DPP he will have been involved with various cases where carers where prosecuted for helping someone commit suicide usually when they helped someone to go to Dignitas. At some point there was a change in policy at in his office whereby the presumption changed from always prosecute to rarely prosecute ( I cannot remember the various legal terms). I think that may have been his decision.
AS DPP he will have an interesting insight to all this and the legal issues around it all and understand the real human suffering.
An interesting test of his moral compass. It will be a bruising fight to get the law thru particularly with COE bishops in the lords. We know the public is overwhelmingly in favour. We also know the religious lobby will lie, misrepresent and do anything they can to stop it and are very well funded mainly buy American fundamentalist churches and pretty much all of the UK churches also oppose.
Jersey, Isle of Man and Scotland all have laws working thru their parliaments at the moment and the Scots law which I have knowledge of would be a good model to follow - ie the hard work of formulating a law has been done. There is also a private members bill being introduced in the Lords
I do not expect this to be a top priority but I do expect it in this parliament.
Now is the time to borrow to invest in either model I think
That would've been a few years back when interest rates were literally zero.
Thats Revves is resistant to this puts her in the wrong
Is this the latest stick you've decided to beat this govt with after the hysteria over the twp child cap has mysteriously died away?
The two child cap issue is not going to go away.
Reeves economic straitjacket she wants to wear has been roundly criticized.
|However I did think we have debated these issues a lot. I thought a new issue might be interesting to debate as in my post above.
Just to show I'm even handed / fair minded in this debate, and provide info that goes against my arguments. Just saying....
So decisions CAN be made before the Spending Review, decisions which I suspect the various Depts (DSIT in this case) have already ringfenced and know what is well above where their cutoff line may come. If other decisions by other Depts (like 2CBC) aren't being funded in the same way yet I can only surmise that they aren't well above the line for whatever reason - and let's not do that loop again, I too think it should be, while noting there's a review taskforce as well.
For note
Funding for last round of hubs is coming to an end and without this follow on the researchers and post docs have to find other work, such as new grants at their Universities, grants at other Universities, or out to Industry. So there's a strong necessity here to not have a gap, because there's other countries or companies that would snap them up.
The funding is £100m and I'm pretty sure that's multi year, possibly 4 - so a tiny amount in comparison to other demands.
Have a read of the 'pen pictures' of the Hubs and their purpose, but I draw attention to one part, given I was asked previously to justify why spending on these is in the big picture/with 'morality removed' more important than child poverty
Much of the UK’s critical infrastructure relies on the accurate measurements of time, direction and speed which enable us to stay in constant contact with communications satellites. Currently, those connections are vulnerable to disruption through technical problems or deliberate malicious actions like signal-jamming.
If those connections are lost for any reason, it would have a huge impact on key industries like energy, finance, communications and transport, causing an estimated economic loss of a billion pounds a day until service is restored.
£100m in *4* years, across 5 hubs; assume all equal that's £13k per day for the PNT hub against £1bn/day risk.
That's why I call it a no brainer, and yet it still is / has been under review for affordability.
So decisions CAN be made before the Spending Review
Yes, and even more easily for emergency things where money can be found immediately without having to wait for any cycle.
So goes back to the point about if having children in poverty in the UK in 2024 is seen as an emergency by the government as if they want to start fixing it they can do so.
Removing the cap won't remove that many kids from poverty and even then they will be just above the line so not a lot of difference. If we want a much more equitable society big things that will take a long time need to be done. Better starting those earlier. A few weeks into the new parliament isn't the time for simplistic headline grabbers.
They clearly have a reason for not removing the cap now and I doubt it's because they are worried about a right wing back last given their majority and the implosion of the Tories. According to Ernie even the Daily Fail is behaving.
Communism failed the humanity test too. In theory a fantastic way of doing things (and will ultimately be the way things have to go for humankind to live sustainably), but in the end people couldn’t make it work
MMT is not an ideology. Both political parties currently operate within this system. It's a description or lens of the current fiat monetary system for spending.
Labour and Tories both operate within it - badly. As it stands.
(Keynesian economics is not MMT but does share the concept that if fiscal space can me made and the private sector isn't growing - you could or should expand the state. MMT is the description of how.)
Reeves and Labour are tying themselves in knots over this.
The MMT lens says we can optimise spending without the constraint that we need private money to fund the state.
Basically this whole 20bn argument fails on every level. They are going to make everything worse by using the narrative.
(Which is false by the way.)
Labour have had a long time too see this coming, economist and new Labour MP Torsten Bell - flagged it a while ago. So why he didn't tell Reeves - ahem. Give us a break.
Labour are about discover that messing with the electorate or keeping them in the dark has a downside (certainly through the myth of tax and spend.)
We can blame the Tories for lots of issues for sure, but not for what the current government can spend.
Total horse-shit.
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1817200780971024435?t=9BB9Nfw2329rFCYuK0nucw&s=19
They clearly have a reason for not removing the cap now and I doubt it’s because they are worried about a right wing back last given their majority and the implosion of the Tories. According to Ernie even the Daily Fail is behaving.
It's not a very good or practical reason though.
They prefer a good kicking of the left.
Government can spend what it wants any time it wants. (That's covered in parliamentary law through the supplies and appropriations act.)
Any sort of spending review is often just a way of reinforcing the Tory narrative of finite money. (Not saying they don't have to pass budgets. Of course they do but it is only a formality, not a restriction.)
Spending reviews - akin to looking for savings. That process has already been done. Pared to the bone.
Let's face it - being kind - Labour are treading water over all the stuff they've made up to gain power.
You've got the majority - let's start putting things in place please and get on with fixing stuff.
The papers will give you a hard time over debt - so what?
The USA has done well out of vast government stimulus.
Get on with it. Take the bit from Biden and his team that worked.
So goes back to the point about if having children in poverty in the UK in 2024 is seen as an emergency by the government as if they want to start fixing it they can do so.
An interesting idea/thought from a mate earlier.
If estimates are right of £3-3.5bn per year, each month of not lifting the cap saves £250m approx. Just context against the cost of 5 quantum hubs above.
The thought was - for most in poverty, the costs of heating in the colder months are the crippling factor. Heating vs eating, I believe they say. In the 2-3 months that it'll take the taskforce to come to a conclusion - and as I have said I'd be surprised if there isn't a lifting of the cap or similar from that - that's 0.5-0.75bn - or 1-2 hospitals.
Is it an emergency right now or is there a bit of thinking time with lower impact?
Anyway - round and round we go.
Anyone want to comment on Starmer and assisted dying / euthanasia / end of life care? ( See my post on the previous page)
Will he have the moral conviction to see this thru? Will he advocate for it? Will it lose out to legislative logjam or will he push it thru?
For it to go thru it needs someone with conviction to drive it thru
I do not expect this to be a top priority but I do expect it in this parliament.
Let’s hope so. While there are people who need the law changed NOW, and many more who needed it changed earlier (widows and widowers being treated as criminals while grieving is an inhuman injustice), the new laws and support need carefully framing and putting in place, not rushing. I hope Starmer will have the understanding to appreciate how essential law change is, but also how crucial it is to get it right.
Anyone want to comment on Starmer and assisted dying / euthanasia / end of life care? ( See my post on the previous page)
We live in a democracy, Starmer is not the supreme leader, he is one voice on any decision taken on this, and it will be assessed through the appropriate department and their leads before being sent up through the chain to vote if required.
Is it possible that the current anouncements of how bad the economy really is could be laying the groundwork as a reason for a u-turn on the fiscal rules. "We didn't realise it was this bad, so we are going to have to borrow more"?
It’s looking that way, but if they’re going to increase tax it’s not going to be income tax/VAT/National Insurance but ‘wealth’ taxes like capital gains and inheritance tax, which unless you’re Rishi Sunak I can’t see effecting that many people. Not that that’ll stop the right wing press going into meltdown, obviously
cost is less than half that.
According to who?
And you didn't actually address the point, when energy (unit costs and usage) are low is there a significant impact of a 3 month delay?
MMT is not an ideology. Both political parties currently operate within this system. It’s a description or lens of the current fiat monetary system for spending.
Yes it is. The money creation part of MMT is perhaps the least controversial. MMT says 1. Govts that have a central bank, a robust and resilient economy and their own money creating ability (USA, Canada, UK, Japan etc) can probably run a larger deficit that current orthodoxy suggests. 2. The only real measures a government needs to pay attention to are inflation and and full employment, and 3, in order to maintain full employment, should act as the employer of last resort.
It's a macro economic theory, of course its ideology.
The two child cap issue is not going to go away.
Sure, but lets remind ourselves that it's been in existence for 7 years, is a Tory creation and in that time hasn't been mentioned once by any poster on any thread at any time, and all of a sudden it's the thing you're criticising Starmer for not getting rid off? If it walks and quacks...
We live in a democracy, Starmer is not the supreme leader, he is one voice on any decision taken on this, and it will be assessed through the appropriate department and their leads before being sent up through the chain to vote if required.
Oh for sure. But its a big step to have a PM that has that sort of statement on his record. Very significant. gives me hope.
Actually nickc I have mentioned it before. Mo0re than once. 🙂
But you're also a self-described "Deep Green" and you've also said on any number of climate-change threads that the single biggest impact on climate-change any individual can have is the decision not to have children, and yet here you are criticising this govt for not financially supporting parents with larger families. Those two things are incompatible.
Anyone want to comment on Starmer and assisted dying / euthanasia / end of life care?
I will TJ as I agree it's an important issue. It's complex but causing untold misery to many people. Hopefully we can now have a grown up discussion about it realising there is no perfect solution but the current situation can not be allowed to continue. This is exactly the sort of thing we need government to be taking a sober view on and implementing carefully thought through legislation. Hopefully this will be the antitheist of Tory knee jerk piss poor rushed legislation. Go Labour.
End of life care also needs to be addressed, I think it was one of the medical professionals who said on here we need to stop medicallising death, you get to a point where ongoing active medical intervention is almost abusive, not in the patient's best interests and soaks up huge amounts of resources. We need to create a proper end of life care system and not rely on a hotpotch of charitable palliative care hospices.
I think morally, assisted dying has won the case. I'm hesitant to say it should come into law. As soon as you say to one group of people, "you are a special case, and we'll allow it for you" the very next thing is a legal challenge by the next group who also want that ability, and morally you pretty much have to concede it.
Canada has seen their assisted dying numbers go from about a thousand in 2016, to over 13,000 now. It accounts for 4% of deaths. I think here in the UK, we really do need to think carefully.
I'd be really surprised if only 4% of deaths were abusively cruel.
“you are a special case, and we’ll allow it for you” the very next thing is a legal challenge by the next group who also want that ability, and morally you pretty much have to concede it.
Its an interesting point. Under Canadian law there was a challenge to the supreme court who decided under equalities legislation which treated mental illness as a disability that mentally ill folk should be able to access MAID with their mental illness as the reason for accessing maid (canadian name). At them moment there is a stay on enacting this while the government considers this.
In the proposed Scots legislation mental health is not a criteria and the courts cannot expand that criteria was the view from the top legal bods. So what happened in Canada with the courts expanding the limits could not happen here.
Netherlands has very wide limits but for mental illness the criteria is ( to paraphrase) "Intolerable suffering over many years when all treatment options have been tried"
Its certainly a political decision as to where the limits should lie. The scots legislation is "terminal illness of sound mind" so a fairly tight definition
there is also the question of "doctor assisted" or not. The scots law is "not" ie the person has to take the potion themselves
I am surprised Canada is only 4% of deaths. I would expect more under a mature law. Many would be hastening the end by days I would have thought
I'm for it, very pro-choice.
There was an interesting article on the radio though the other day - to have assisted dying, as a choice, we have to get an awful lot better at palliative care as well. Because if the choice is between assisted dying or a terrible death then that's not a choice either.
It didn't make me change opinion but did reframe it for me somewhat.
Palliative care in the UK is generally not bad. There are holes in the net but the general level is not bad at all.
This may be an apt place to drop this video, excellent watch.
Simon Kuper has been a journalist at the Financial Times for three decades - so he’s seen up close how Britain works, and who it works for.
In his latest book, ‘Good Chaps: How Corrupt Politicians Broke Our Law and Institutions’, Kuper chronicles changes in the instincts of Britain’s ruling class - and how corruption came to be increasingly normalised.
What do these elites believe? When did those beliefs change? And who are the people, places and policies that led to such shifts? Watch the conversation to find out
Palliative care in the UK is generally not bad. There are holes in the net but the general level is not bad at all.
Happy to accept that; I have no real expertise, just repeating the comment I'd heard (in the way I'd interpreted it). I don't think it was an anti choice position but they weren't over positive about the provision, and made me think.
Even if it is good currently, there's still then a caution, that we absolutely must not let it deteriorate because there's a safety net of being able to reach for the assisted dying button.
The point is perfectly valid. Provision could be much better and a focus on it would be right as you say. People need a proper free choice not Hobsens choice.
I was more interested in the political ramification given this is a political thread. I can see some of the press being very anti and running scare stories. There will be a backlash from both the estabilised church and evangelicals. Medical professions are split tho probably pro overall. Many tories will be very much against I would think tho it does have crossbench support in Holyrood
Will labour expend some political capital? Will Starmer want to play a role? Maybe its best done as a private members bill if there is someone willing to drive it through? The fact Stramer has said he is in favour of a vote is significant. Will he come out in favour? His line was something like " there should be a free vote in the commons on a conscience vote"
It will be interesting to see how Starmer handles it, would be easy to ignore it but of all the governments his has the most chance of getting something decent through, he doesn't care about the right wing backlash and hopefully and issues with the bishops in the Lords will just accelerate their departure from the Lords.
They can **** right off with the "oh my god there is a missing £20 billion in the finances" bollocks, they’ve known about it for months
They can **** right off with the “oh my god there is a missing £20 billion in the finances” bollocks, they’ve known about it for months
This was widely predicted on this thread.
Oh yeah we all sorta knew about it, that's not really what's boiled my piss so to speak, what's "irked" me is the "£20bn black hole" headlines in all the news papers.....what the actual ****?.........they've known about for a couple of months yet I don't remember any of the so called premier league journalists actually pulling them up about it in the previous few weeks before the election.
But ahead of the election they were fighting what was in the public domain - numbers the tory govt were presenting. We always wondered why Sunak went for a GE out of the blue, maybe this is why.
If you knew there was a big hole in the numbers you wouldn't scare the horses ahead of the election. Using that info post election to justify tweaking borrowing rules and policy variation from manifesto is probably a pragmatic strategy.
I think possibly it's just good politics/positioning, they're really smashing home that "tories left the country in a state" message using very familiar messaging that'll probably work well for a lot of people and which directly counters tory and tory press messaging. It's not true, or honest, but maybe it's a case of hate the game not the player- it's not like the tories will ever hesitate to use the same tactics and they can be brutally effective. I'd like for governments to be able to be completely honest about public finances but I can hardly demand it if it's electoral suicide.
The question is whether they'll use the fictions to excuse cuts etc as tories would, or if they'll use it purely to bash them.
The question is whether they’ll use the fictions to excuse cuts etc as tories would, or if they’ll use it purely to bash them.
You got that answer this morning - yes cuts are on the cards. But then we knew what Labour were going to be like with Reeves as chancellor - increase some taxes (IHT and CGT not a bad thing) and start some cuts (closer to austerity - a bad thing)
All because of the 20 billion "black hole" eh. Guess it will fool most people and the country will be sooo much better off when that hole is gone.
This is all so self defeating and moronic.
The evidence that things don't work is out there - crumbling away. Physical stuff that we use and rely on. Tangible stuff at the heart of society.
That's your clue that things need fixing with government money. Not PFI not future growth - but public money. At no real cost to any of us.
And Reeves is conducting a ridiculous possible set of cuts because of what? Some fictious understanding of how money works. Something that is backed by nothing other than numbers and a promise to pay. Something the government is in control of and has the levers to make it all work.
All money is debt - it can be government debt or private sector debt.
Government debt operates at no real cost to anyone but the surplus that it generates in the private sector is what makes things happen in the real economy. Growth etc.
So the grown-ups (yawn) might be back in charge but good Christ they haven't got a clue how to optimise our economic well-being.
Reeves is a menace - she needs to go - she's obsessed with the Thatcherite way of taxation and spending. The absolute last thing we need right now.
Any right minded Labour voter ought to be seeing this rather than obfuscating with the Tory narrative of finances.
This is not a political chess move either - this is just dumb mechanics.
I caveat this with of course it's early days but you would expect those early days to be primed with examples of solid economic ideas rather than this old-school Tory muck that Labour are throwing around.
On a lighter note. Let's not worry about cuts because the top Centrist commentators like Dunt know what are important political scoring points.
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1817185728549261631?t=RaGoj4_rIpWa__b29mQNLQ&s=19
Fools.
Some fictious understanding of how money works.
No, political positioning. This is all just to remind the public that the Tories cannot be trusted. In the same way that incoming Tories made a point about the "There's no money left" note.
In the same way that incoming Tories made a point about the “There’s no money left” note.
Good point Nick, Rachel Reeves is simply using the old tried and tested Tory tactic of blaming the previous government for the current government's austerity policies.
It worked for the Tories why wouldn't it work for Labour?
That’s your clue that things need fixing with government money. Not PFI not future growth – but public money. At no real cost to any of us.
Recently had a tradesman cancel on me and all other upcoming work as he'd moved to just doing public sector work.
Made me think, if the public sector is spending a lot, does that mean there's less goods and services available for individuals to buy? Even if that spending is not with money taken from individuals through tax.
On a lighter note. Let’s not worry about cuts because the top Centrist commentators like Dunt know what are important political scoring points.
Whats your problem with that? I thought it was quite funny as it was obviously a reference to this
But ahead of the election they were fighting what was in the public domain
They had access to the OBR statistics and forecasts. So unless their figures are wrong which would prove problematic for the tories then its a difficult argument to make.
Whats your problem with that?
I think he's suggesting that while Reeves and her govt are confirming that they are going to be yet another one delivering thatcherite austerity economic policies when the exact opposite is needed, their centrist supporters are celebrating the fact that Starmer is capable of wearing appropriate clothing when it's raining. It's a perfect allegory for the centrist mindset of frilling round the edges rather than solving the big problems.
But you’re also a self-described “Deep Green” and you’ve also said on any number of climate-change threads that the single biggest impact on climate-change any individual can have is the decision not to have children, and yet here you are criticising this govt for not financially supporting parents with larger families. Those two things are incompatible.
Nic - TJ is big enough to fight his own battles, but I think you are wrong that the 2 child cap discourages larger families and thus is a "green" policy. If there's real data to support that it would be fascinating. In reality:
- I don't believe that most families who would benefit from the policy have an ecconomic discussion about children;
- it ignores the families where family units have broken up and reformed often resulting in a new "larger" family;
- the people who suffer most are the children - who had no choice to be born or not, and which family they would arrive into. Punishing children for the actions of their parents is barbaric;
- creating a generation of ghetoised kids in the very poorest circumstances is not the solution to climate change.
Apparently there is a popular support for a "2 child benefit cap" in society - presumably fueled by media stories 20 years ago about a few edge cases who were exploiting the system. I suspect most of those people have absolutely no idea on what the rules are - e.g. a couple of experienced teachers earning £45K pa each with 4 kids will still be getting their full "Child Benefit" for all 4 kids (£331/month) - living a pretty comfortable middle class lifestyle. But a single parent with 4 kids and a bunch of health issues will have all their benefits capped at £1835/month.
It’s a perfect allegory for the centrist mindset of frilling round the edges rather than solving the big problems.
Nonsense, "Centrists" want big problems solving, they just see the means and the priorities differently to right or left-wingers.
I don’t believe that most families who would benefit from the policy have an ecconomic discussion about children;
Not quite where you were going with it, but I hear conversations from our kids and their friends in their late teens and early 20s where the ability to afford to have kids does affect plans for the future. Not that I think it is a justification for the 2CBC.