passionately hope that Labour achieves a staggeringly huge majority in this year’s general election.

So do I as it will help rein in the authoriatrian wing of the party. More herding cats required for a really big majority not a piffling 80 or so but 100+ will do the job of spiking “The Croydon Wing” (for want of a better description).

I’m suggesting the vote was won, based on benefits that would take years to deliver.

No, it was won based on sentiment.  People use sentiment to evaluate everything. Both positions are justifiable – “we want something done now” or “we are prepared to wait a decade” – and it’s much too complex for most people to rationally evaluate. So they accept whichever position is being told them by the person they support – and they support the people who give off the vibe that they identify with.  It’s all about emotion, nothing to do with rational thought.

More herding cats required for a really big majority not a piffling 80 or so but 100+ will do the job of spiking “The Croydon Wing”

The flaw with this plan is the new candidate list is being filled centrally to avoid any awkward types being elected. Sure some will get through but the higher the majority the more they will be swamped by the Starmerites.

This unfunded things has gotten out of hand to the detriment of all of us now.

Instead of debating what we could spend money on – what is urgent. Silly politicians have laid the groundwork for the unfunded/funded nonsense that will hold us back.

God, this is all so bloody ridiculous.

The problem is that ‘the markets’ will punish governments for borrowing huge amounts, currency will sink & inflation will increase, I still dont see how this can be avoided

we wasted the opportunity to invest when borrowing was cheap

This, from Rachel Reeves' Mais lecture, is absolutely spot on. Meanwhile the architect of this economically illiterate batshit swans round earning millions from podcasts, directorships pic.twitter.com/UvxmsbaeT3

— Jonathan Eley (@JonathanEley) March 20, 2024

“The flaw with this plan is the new candidate list is being filled centrally to avoid any awkward types being elected. Sure some will get through but the higher the majority the more they will be swamped by the Starmerites.”

Wasn’t the experience in our seat. There really wasn’t any “Starmerite” candidates at all. Starmer doesn’t really seem to have many followers in the party the way other recent leaders have. And the candidate thought to be the preference of the national leadership lost the vote (no one I know voted for him).

What is true is that candidates that support more cross party cooperation on “the left” (think of the Clive Lewis types) are struggling to get on to short lists. A shame in my opinion. Especially here, where the Green party stood down their candidate at the last General Election and some members doorstepped for Labour.

^^^that’s the same bit of Reeves’ speech I put on the previous page. Anyway, reposting this from today’s Guardian on PMQs as some will appreciate it:

“The cleverest question of the day came from the SNP’s Stephen Flynn, who found a zinger that managed to skewer the Conservative and Labour (the SNP’s main threat in Scotland). He asked Sunak:

With his backbenchers looking for a unity candidate to replace him, which of the now numerous born-again Thatcherites on the Labour frontbench does he believe best fits the bill?”

(I mean I don’t agree with the premise, obv, but it is funny.)

“With money comes competently trained people, funding and materials.”

You know how long it takes to train doctors and nurses? Social workers? Teachers? Build schools, hospitals etc?

“The problem is that ‘the markets’ will punish governments for borrowing huge amounts, currency will sink & inflation will increase, I still dont see how this can be avoided

we wasted the opportunity to invest when borrowing was cheap”

While i get the “sovereign country/bank and print the money” concept, the rest of tne world we have to exist with is less keen on the idea, and thats where, in my uneducated view, it falls down.

You know how long it takes to train doctors and nurses? Social workers? Teachers? Build schools, hospitals etc?

Import the people you need, build things quickly – all easily possible within a year if you have the will to do so and have the money to do so.

Import the people you need, build things quickly – all easily possible within a year if you have the will to do so and have the money to do so.

Only possible within a year if you have all the designs and contracts sorted. I’ve worked on major construction projects, you can easily be three years in design and contracting before you get a single spade in the ground, and that’s on a ‘simple’ project.

The money doesn’t always speed things up, some things take time to get right so you don’t have to fix them again later. Proper engagement leads to better projects, ice seen piss poor examples where designers weren’t encouraged to consult with end users to speed things up and then have had to go back in and completely rebuild areas to get it right

The key thing is to have a budget and a clear outcome in mind.

Yes you can staff up from migration (and should do), but again you need a plan to do it properly and sustainably so that you encourage skilled labour to come here andb want to stay here

“The problem is that ‘the markets’ will punish governments for borrowing huge amounts, currency will sink & inflation will increase, I still dont see how this can be avoided

This is simply not true.

The ‘markets’ should not sit above a democratic government’s political will to do things for its people. And the government should have the resolve to see through what it wants – because the markets don’t alway behave in the interests of what is necessary and need to be accountable to government. Secondly the government enables the markets not the other way around. Hold this thought.

Are markets going to dicate policy because of this? Nope – shouldn’t be part of the picture should it. We need to fix things – not operate on a whim to what markets believe is good for the rest of us.

(P.S when a big market collapses – it’s usually the government that comes to rescue. That tells you the actual order of things.)

Currency markets largely move up or down for lots of reasons – after 7 trillion stimulus the dollar enjoyed a strong bull run for instance.

Taxation is the opposite of government spending and is a mechanism to remove money from the economy if inflation rears its head. Inflation can be mitigated by simply making sure resources are available.

While i get the “sovereign country/bank and print the money” concept, the rest of tne world we have to exist with is less keen on the idea, and thats where, in my uneducated view, it falls down.

Any monetarily sovereign country with its own central bank issues money every time it spends. That is a fiat system. So that would include USA, JAPAN, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA and the UK for example. The term ‘printing money’ has made things appear exceptional – but it’s quite a normal daily operation for the countries listed above. It’s better explained by not using the term ‘printing money’  rather issuing currency with digitally marked up accounts. Adding reserves. We’ve been doing it this way for 40 years.

It doesn’t fall down because all these large economies operate pretty much the same system – central bank issues money to the government to spend by marking up accounts, government then issues debt (Gilts) to match the spending.   The debt is not necessary to fund the spending. It’s just a reserve drain of private money to save with the government. Throw-back to gold-standard thinking but not essential in a modern fiat economy. And does preserve the illusion of ‘borrowing’ money.

we wasted the opportunity to invest when borrowing was cheap”

Totally irrelevent.

The Government can always meet its obligations to pay and rolls over any debt and interest with new money creation.

Rememember MMT is a framework for analysis and not ‘printing money.’

P.S when a big market collapses – it’s usually the government that comes to rescue. That tells you the actual order of things.

Yup. The reason that the second most important minister in government after the Prime Minister is the Chancellor of the Exchequer is precisely because the markets cannot be left to their own devices.

If they could be the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the easiest job in government.

A “free market” economy needs constant and unrelenting government intervention. Every general election is basically a choice concerning how the government will manage the economy.

P.S when a big market collapses – it’s usually the government that comes to rescue. That tells you the actual order of things.

Yup. The reason that the second most important minister in government after the Prime Minister is the Chancellor of the Exchequer is precisely because the markets cannot be left to their own devices.

If they could be the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the easiest job in government.

A “free market” economy needs constant and unrelenting government intervention. Every general election is basically a choices concerning how the government will manage the economy.

“The reason that the second most important minister in government after the Prime Minister is the Chancellor of the Exchequer is precisely because the markets cannot be left to their own devices.”

That sounds lifted from Reeves’ speech.

I found this critique quite interesting

Echoes of Rishi Sunak in Rachel Reeves’s rite of passage speech

https://news.sky.com/story/echoes-of-rishi-sunak-in-rachel-reevess-rite-of-passage-speech-13098144

“But we’re left wondering if there are any sizeable Labour policies after a speech that was deceptively similar to one that Rishi Sunak gave two years ago.

While the shadow chancellor talks approvingly about the US Democrats’ subsidy schemes for boosting green investment, there is no hint that the UK will do anything similar. Indeed, Ms Reeves has just recently cancelled her plan to increase annual government green investment to £28bn a year.

Perhaps the simplest accusation one can direct at Ms Reeves is that her plan sounds deceptively similar to the ones proposed by the current government.”

So do I as it will help rein in the authoriatrian wing of the party

I see this as the opposite.   A big majority means labour  leadership can ignore rebellions as they do not mean a vote loss is likely

Import the people you need, build things quickly – all easily possible within a year

Where are you going to import them from?  EU staff ate not going to return without freedom of movement.   Stripping developing nations of staff is unethical.

“It worked in 2016… and we’re at 8 years without even the hint of blossom on the trees, never mind fruit to make Jam with.”

There are trees?

The ‘markets’ should not sit above a democratic government’s political will to do things for its people. And the government should have the resolve to see through what it wants – because the markets don’t alway behave in the interests of what is necessary and need to be accountable to government. Secondly the government enables the markets not the other way around. Hold this thought.

Are markets going to dicate policy because of this? Nope – shouldn’t be part of the picture should it. We need to fix things – not operate on a whim to what markets believe is good for the rest of us.

I don’t disagree, it shouldn’t be part of the picture, but it very much is, the real question is how do you change that?

There’s no mention of how you can  regulate against the markets doing what they want to do

Taking Truss as an example, the markets weren’t njust punishing her for uncosted tax cuts, they were pricing in that she would need more austerity to ‘pay’ for them, and that was politically untenable, the markets were pricing in her stupidity

I think that’s part of the reason Labour are going to such lengths to paint themselves as responsible (Though i think they should be planning big on green infrastructure investment and the markets would still get that)

The flaw with this plan is the new candidate list

Everyone has a plan up until they get punched in the mouth – M Tyson.

I’ve met reasonably intelligent folks who would struggle to put Labour/Tory into the correct left/right paradigm

Back in the 2015 election campaign, a far from stupid work colleague working for a world leading civil engineering firm asked me “which party should I vote for if I don’t like immigration?”.

I know some will dismiss it because of the author, but it’s worth reading this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/21/labour-party-cancelling-membership-policies

Jones has always been a good critic of government policy of the day, and I’m sure he would be if Labour won whether he stayed in the party or not… but it’ll be easier for him to continue his job if he’s not a member… I’ll keep reading him.

Read it this morning over coffee, my immediate reaction is “at least wait until they’re in power?” But then I’ve not been a member for years now either, so who am I to criticize?

He’s done a YouTube piece too.

Doesn’t surprise me – I’m pretty much aligned to his logic (apart from his tax and spend confusion he’s always piped out.)

I know plenty of moderates who have this opinion too. In fact i know no one who actively supports Starmer (maybe one mate actually.)

Plenty of disillusioned people around.

“Import the people you need, build things quickly – all easily possible within a year”

What could go wrong with treating people like commodities, spending large amounts of money quickly in a tight and complicated market, and building very complex long-lifed infrastructure in a rush?

You’re proposing a hybrid of Windrush, HS2 and the COVID VIP fast lane all at once!

“You’re proposing a hybrid of Windrush, HS2 and the COVID VIP fast lane all at once!”

Apart from that, a brilliant plan!

What could go wrong with treating people like commodities, spending large amounts of money quickly in a tight and complicated market, and building very complex long-lifed infrastructure in a rush?

And what continues to go wrong if you don’t do it and plan it for 10 years but only if we have the “right growth and the public finances are good”

I said make 5 big issues better within a year – give me the money and I will do it.  They may not be fully better but they will be noticeably better and the electorate will be the ones who notice allowing me to continue.

You lot don’t sound like the sort of people I want on my team….

What could go wrong with treating people like commodities, spending large amounts of money quickly in a tight and complicated market, and building very complex long-lifed infrastructure in a rush?

As opposed to the decades long doing nothing useful – playing lip service to the city, add value to nothing whilst stripping away anything that’s good.

I mean wtf do you think the current monetarist system does – it uses unemployment as a backstop  to inflation! FFS.

The very definition of exploitation and being used like pawns.

Got us nowhere.

There is a difference between a rush and getting on with things.

Stop protecting the status-quo. It’s failed.

You lot don’t sound like the sort of people I want on my team….

As with most political discussions, this thread (and all the others on here) suffers from an enormous failure of imagination. Politics used to be about ideas and the problems they will solve. Now it seems it’s only about the problems, and our inabilty to do anything about them. And we wonder why people show no interest or take the reactionary route towards populists.

It just appears to me we have a whole group of pretend progressives wedded to conservatism – but have got fed up with the current brand so would prefer Labour just makes the transformation and continuation policies.

This is what happens when you build your entire argument for politics about personality, and ignore the ideology because some prat dismissed having a plan as ‘ideologically pure.’

Please stop drinking the Conservative kool-aid on the economy.  You’ve just had several senior Labour politicians jump into bed with Thatcher (even adopt one of their exact fiscal rules) and you’re still defending Labour!

It’s totally bizarre.

ransosFree Member
I know some will dismiss it because of the author, but it’s worth reading this article:

Yep, good article, can’t disagree nor take issue with a single word he says, it highlights Starmers utter hypocrisy and shape shifting, then again he’s being gently coaxed by that odious Mandleson skulking around like a shit Voldemort.

“Politics used to be about ideas and the problems they will solve. Now it seems it’s only about the problems, and our inabilty to do anything about them”

Which is not what we have said, the claim was that things would be better within a year and we are pointing out that that is unlikely to be achievable. Two years you might see some progress.

I’m sorry you disapprove of some of us feeling that realistic timeframes are better to set expectations. But we’re electing governments in the real world, not a fairy godmother in a mythical land far far away.

But we’re electing governments in the real world, not a fairy godmother in a mythical land far far away.

And governments (and oppositions) in the ‘real world’ tell us that all these problems can’t be solved when we know they can. Apparently there’s no money for the NHS or to solve homelessness. Yet only a couple of years ago there was plenty money for both. There’s no money to invest in our industries and training/eduction, but there’s loads of money to bail out failing banks and pension funds. There’s no money to fix our crumbling infrastructure but plenty to send weapons to foreign countries which are then used to destroy infrastructure somewhere else. The real world is a nonsense*. Stop telling yourselves that it can’t be changed.

*It’s not even real because they can’t even be honest about how it actually works and feed us bollocks about national credit cards and government ‘debts’.

Hell yes brother, the national debt and budgets are all fake news, just print more money and spend, spend, spend, anyonw with even half a brain knows MMT is the saviour for the UK!

You ok argee?

@argee who did we borrow all that money from?  Honest question, I have no idea.

“There is a difference between a rush and getting on with things.”

How closely involved have you been with the construction of hospitals to think that you can knock one out in a year?

You can’t “knock one out in a year” but I didn’t say that is what I would do in a year.  I can reduce waiting times in a year though by getting the staff required, increasing wages to retain staff.  In the background the hospitals will be being built as required and better training plans, recruitment incentives etc,. will be happening.

I can do this because I am the government but I could also not do it and just use some BS excuses about public finances.

What do you think is the better outcome for the people of the country and as a byproduct the productivity of the country?

who did we borrow all that money from?  Honest question, I have no idea.

Mostly from commercial banks in the form of BoE quantitative easing. But also others in the form of gilts.

A nice simple explanation from BBC

How does the government borrow money?

The government borrows money by selling financial products called bonds.

A bond is a promise to pay money in the future. Most require the borrower to make regular interest payments over the bond’s lifetime.

UK government bonds – known as “gilts” – are normally considered very safe, with little risk the money will not be repaid.

Gilts are mainly bought by financial institutions in the UK and abroad, such as pension funds, investment funds, banks and insurance companies.

The Bank of England has also bought hundreds of billions of pounds’ worth of government bonds in the past to support the economy, through a process called “quantitative easing”.