UK Government Thread

Well it’s great that your criticism is not unconditional however I am sure that Rachel Reeves could also construct the same meaningless defence……..i hate the Tory child benefit cap, and believe me if it was possible to scrap it I do so instantly, unfortunately this is currently impossible due to the appalling state of the economy that we have inherited from a totally incompetent government 

I categorise it in the same vain as “difficult decisions”. Don’t give me that bollocks

I don’t dispute that morally child poverty is probably higher. But if our communications technology fails, either by being shit or by attack from malign actors (and make no mistake we already are under attack) then we have far bigger problems. Hell, the banking comms system might fall over and we wouldn’t be able to make any payments……

Yeah, that must also be in your list of 100s of other things.  They all need to be dealt with and prioritised but for a wealthy country to continue keeping children in poverty when all it needs to do it snap it’s fingers is not even on a priority list, it is just something you do without question.

So they should just fund it. And all of the other must do’s? Or some of them? Which some?

You say meaningless, but that’s your opinion. I don’t like it but I can see a rationale for reviewing to see if there’s another, better, way to achieve the goal.

They all need to be dealt with and prioritised but for a wealthy country to continue keeping children in poverty when all it needs to do it snap it’s fingers is not even on a priority list, it is just something you do without question.

Morally yes. And I agree it should be (should have been).

But real step back, big picture – UKTL or RETSI is a fraction of the cost and with far higher benefits overall. Sorry, it’s a fact. That’s what Gov is, making these choices taking all into consideration. And as I say, I don’t even think it’s just about the 2CBC, is there another means to achieve the same goal?

IDK why Ernie keeps saying that difficult decisions is bollocks. Sensible Gov is all about making difficult decisions. Including this one.

IDK why Ernie keeps saying that difficult decisions is bollocks.

Because he’s a “big hitter”. ?

IDK why Ernie keeps saying that difficult decisions is bollocks. Sensible Gov is all about making difficult decisions. Including this one.

That is the point, it is not a difficult decision.  Some things don’t need to be thought about, prioritised etc, when they were wrong from the start.  This is not anything like deciding whether to do project A or Project B as can’t do both of them.

So you say. And yet.

Which brings my conclusion, it IS a difficult decision. Or maybe, there might be a better decision being worked up.

Or as the bashers would have it, they’re just doing it to be cruel / to send a message about toughness / to demonstrate how shit the finances are / to annoy Rone specifically and make him post something about borrowing again….

Which personally I don’t believe but then I’ll be accused of being an apologist, and I’ll accuse you all of just choosing anything to beat them up about, and we’ll go round and round for ever so why not just call a truce and wait and see.

I was still right about the other priorities though, I hope you enjoyed them facts.

So they should just fund it. And all of the other must do’s? Or some of them? Which some?

I thought that we had both previously agreed that politics, and all the political arguments surrounding politics, was basically about differences in priorities?

I don’t expect Labour and the Tories to have the same priorities, do you?

As for the claim that I “keep saying” that the difficult decision argument is bollocks I am intrigued in knowing how many times I have made it? Making the right decision is never difficult, it’s making the wrong ones which people feel they have a problem with.

And Kramer even small hitters can disagree with something, don’t be shy

And Kramer even small hitters can disagree with something, don’t be shy

There really isn’t much point.

Because someone might disagree? If you have an opinion on the child benefit cap I don’t understand why snidey comments are more constructive.

Because it’s just noise.

On another forum that I used to use, someone called it “willy waving”, and it’s true.

Seriously, it’s not healthy.

I thought that we had both previously agreed that politics, and all the political arguments surrounding politics, was basically about differences in priorities?

It is. Deciding on priorities takes difficult discussions and decisions.

I don’t expect Labour and the Tories to have the same priorities, do you?

I don’t know that I totally agree that they need to have different priorities, there are clearly some (back to eg: NatSec) that are going to be party agnostic, others may be different. But even those that are common, doesn’t always mean the approach to solving and funding has to be the same, and hence there can be adoption of an intent with a change to the how.

Anyway… Yvette Cooper just made a speech to the House of Commons and said that now she’s seen the books, it turns out the total cost of the completely unworkable and ridiculous Rwanda scheme was 700 million quid

700 MILLION QUID!!

She then described it, somewhat superfluously, as the biggest waste of taxpayers money she’d ever seen

James Cleverly actually had the audacity to say that the Labour party scrapped the scheme without an alternatve (which is clearly bollocks), but interestingly he didn’t dispute the figures

The problem with the Rwanda scheme is that its supporters were completely convinced it would work, so in their eyes Labour have given up on illegal immigration.  They can’t see any flaws in the plan.

I’m not sure they thought it would work. I’m not sure they cared. They were just happy that it sounded as if the government were going to be nasty to a class of people they didn’t like. Performative cruelty.

James Cleverly actually had the audacity to say that the Labour party scrapped the scheme without an alternatve (which is clearly bollocks), but interestingly he didn’t dispute the figures

Presumably a sensible alternative to spending 700 million on literally nothing, would be spending no money at all on the same thing?

I’m not sure they thought it would work. I’m not sure they cared.

I had an argument with someone who did. They think Labour is scrapping the perfect solution that would definitely have saved us all.

Im with one wheel.

It was never going to work and they knew it.  The purpose of the rwanda scheme was to make it look like they were doing something and to create an enemy in the judiciary as it was clearly going to get tangled in legal stuff and a stick tobeat labour with

Also to feed raw meat to racists

She then described it, somewhat superfluously, as the biggest waste of taxpayers money she’d ever seen

It’s poor use of public money. The Tories are good at that.

But it’s not tax payer’s money. Then again it’s Yvette Cooper talking.

Labour should concentrate their efforts on fixing things I reckon rather than what the Tories have messed up.

Let’s look to the future? What are they going to do to improve things?

Labour should concentrate their efforts on fixing things I reckon rather than what the Tories have messed up. Let’s look to the future? What are they going to do to improve things?

Labour is fixing the leak of taxpayer money to the Kigali regime by stopping it. That is an improvement. It’s 22 July, they haven’t been in power 3 weeks yet.

Short of adopting your exotic monetary theory in full, is there anything this Labour government could do to win your approval?

Scrapping this bonkers policy… but let’s not talk about it? Why not? This is exactly the kind of change in direction we need.

@rone are you an economist?

This should get some Tory cronies arses twitching…

BREAKING
So so happy
The increasingly impressive ⁦@RachelReevesMP⁩ has just formally announced the appt of COVID CORRUPTION COMMISSIONER will take place within weeks

Many of us have campaigned for this & everyone who has supported (that’s you)…this is great news?? pic.twitter.com/2ZJZIkyWTL

— Carol Vorderman (@carolvorders) July 22, 2024

It doesn’t really matter if they are is or aren’t, it’s not their theory that they are espousing. It’s an alternative theory to the mainstream and I’m not well versed enough to know if it is right or not.

The problem with economics, is that like a science it has the potential to construct theories about how things work, what the effect of doing A is on B, and so on. The specific problem with macroeconomics is that unlike a science it’s hard to run side by side comparisons to see what happens if you do A or don’t do A. I’m sure Rone will say words to the effect that mainstream theory has been shown to not work overall and aspects of MMT have been tried and haven’t crashed the ship; they might be right and consequently I’m not writing it off in the way some do. Others will say it has been tried in places and caused problems, the MMTers counter that it wasn’t done properly. IANAE, IDK.

It is a bit wearing that every third post seems to be reminding us all that Reeves isn’t a fan of the theory. But I hope they are right; it would make writing our business cases way easier.

Dear Chancellor;

It’s clear we need <it> – any fule can see. Just issue some more money and let’s get on with it, save all the hassle?

Rgds;

TOJV

Suella’s amazed they didn’t include it in the KS too.

Erm…..

? NEW: Labour MPs laugh out loud at Suella Braverman after she says the one thing that "struck" her in the King's Speech was not scrapping the two-child benefit cap

One Labour MP: "You voted for it!" pic.twitter.com/XqUZRa8YMq

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) July 22, 2024

theotherjonv
Full Member
Suella’s amazed they didn’t include it in the KS too.

I am immensely happy that she is an opposition back bencher now. Shame she didn’t lose her seat of course but this will do.

The Tories already seem like a bad dream that a morning coffee is gradually wiping from memory.

The problem with economics, is that like a science…

Despite the fact that there are no test tubes involved, economics is a science.

In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.

I guess it is but few proven facts and no consernsus

Its a bit like you have evolution, creationism, intelligent design and pastafarianism  all given equal creedence

theotherjonv
Full Member
In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.

Truss have it a good go though. Lol

In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.

Not necessarily, but it may not go quite as you expect…

In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.

No, it’s like the other social sciences or cosmology etc in that respect. You don’t get to stare at petri dishes, it’s true. But denying the existence of a science isn’t a promising start.  Notably some of the most fervent opinions on this subject are coming from people who not only disagree with the orthodox policy prescriptions (which is fair enough) but actually don’t seem to grasp some of the most fundamental concepts.

Since everyone abandoned the gold standard, money has been entirely imaginary, worth only what the consensus of vested interests decide that’s it’s worth. It’s just a confidence thing. Difficult to build a science on such tenuous foundations.

The problem with economics

I think Churchill summed up its issues well.

” if you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.”

Despite the fact that there are no test tubes involved, economics is a science.

But best viewed as part of the social sciences.  As the underlying subject matter is humans behaving collectively in a social setting.

But denying the existence of a science isn’t a promising start

It isnt a science.

It is a social science.

If you choose to deny why they are separated then that isnt a promising start.

Wasn’t one of the arguments for the 2 child cap that it shouldn’t be more financially viable for the unemployed to have many children, than it is for working people? Seemed like a fair principle, but the practical effects seem not to be pretty.

onewheelgood
Full Member
Since everyone abandoned the gold standard,

Isn’t the value of gold purely down to human perception though?

Ultimately it has held a value due to it being pretty, rare and non oxidising. It’s still just a perception of worth, just like “paper” money.

Since everyone abandoned the gold standard, money has been entirely imaginary, worth only what the consensus of vested interests decide that’s it’s worth.

If it were entirely imaginary, you could just imagine yourself another million quid. Keep pursuing the “consensus” point, though, you’re about to stumble across why it’s a social science and not a natural one!

PS what caused gold to rise and fall in value in that golden era…?

I’m not denying it’s a science, but it is distinct from a pure science like physics. I guess if you want to be absolute, it would be the same if you could if you wanted run experiments but the morals and ethics would be difficult, as well as the detail.

But I suppose that’s not totally different to eg: medicine where experimentation to produce an answer can be difficult as well. That too works (to some extent) by allowing choice and observing the outcomes; even then we don’t know the right answer, and the allegations of “few proven facts and no consensus” can also be made. Is a glass of red wine good for you or not?

So, it might be but it might not be.