Westminster Politics

Don't Kill Bill said:
He was a Kennedy Scholar for a year at Harvard University, and then earned a PhD degree in economic history from the University of Cambridge in 2000,

Guess who?
Click to expand...

A shithawk with a platform nobody voted for. He probably got a phd in economic history because he was too shit at maths to do straight economics. Rising to Chancellor basically means he was hand picked from a small group of followers by an unelected loony possessing a worse degree than me. By contrast rising to the top of the IMF means consistently meeting orthodox, institutional, professional standards. Look at the guy's resume. It's not that he can't be wrong, but he's at the apex of economic orthodoxy and that means for a centrist like yourself he's probably worth listening to. It's not that there isn't an argument in favour of being super cautious either, it's just that it's perfectly ok and within economic orthodoxy to be concerned about the other side of the ledger. In fact it's essential to be so. Just because the opportunity cost of not investing in health and education isn't easily tallied doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the dangers are any less severe than failure to prioritise debt management.

You can't dismiss difficult to tally costs as "blah blah blah" and "dreamland". It's easier to do that, sure, but it's not a serious position to take.
 
Last edited:
NotThatSoph said:
Yes, she's not commiting to a number, but she plans to increase spending. You're talking about the difficulty people on more than £100 000 per year are having, and I'm sure it's a tough life, but every time Labour announces a cut you talk about how important it is to be fiscally responsible and to not promise things when money aren't there. Why the sudden change?
Click to expand...

Not true.

I'm talking about the need for a sound plan on spending which doesn't have the Liz Truss effect of pissing money down the drain.

If things improve or we have the headroom to spend, then I am happy for that to happen. I think caution on the spending promises before the election and using the term affordable, like you are a broken record is the right approach.

I might be wrong though.
 
Frosty said:
I don't even think there is a donation. They knew the Tories would attack the pledge, and Starmer's instinct is to back down and ensure there is no policy to attack. We have seen this time and again. The judgment is always that a U-turn is better than defending a policy that could be criticised (so any policy really).
Click to expand...
Tbh I might be giving Starmer too much credit by saying it’s changed due to bribery. Your probably right. It would some insane electoral judgment.

The same is happening in the US where Biden is worried about getting attacked on border security so just gave the Republicans everything they wanted. This stuff really should be seen as extreme centrism.
 
things may look bad now but think how bad they’d be if corbyn is elected and your kids are forced to be russian.
 
Frosty said:
You are talking nonsense. We would get a free car every time one of them dies in Putin's wars. A free car!
Click to expand...

my two kids would think i was the coolest if i had two brand new cars.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
A shithawk with a platform nobody voted for. He probably got a phd in economic history because he was too shit at maths to do straight economics. Rising to Chancellor basically means he was hand picked from a small group of followers by an unelected loony possessing a worse degree than me. By contrast rising to the top of the IMF means consistently meeting orthodox, institutional, professional standards. Look at the guy's resume. It's not that he can't be wrong, but he's at the apex of economic orthodoxy and that means for a centrist like yourself he's probably worth listening to. It's not that there isn't an argument in favour of being super cautious either, it's just that it's perfectly ok and within economic orthodoxy to be concerned about the other side of the ledger. Just because the opportunity cost of not investing in health and education isn't easily tallied doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the dangers are any less severe than failure to prioritise debt management.

You can't dismiss difficult to tally costs as "blah blah blah" and "dreamland". It's easier to do that, sure, but it's not a serious position to take.
Click to expand...

I do think the idea that we can borrow our way out of this and raise all the money needed to fix all the problems you want fixing immediately is probably dream land at the moment. I think the Liz Truss budget showed the limit and you might want the UK to go and test it again but I don't.

I would bet the IMF chair wouldn't disagree with me either but you can always find a quote from some economist somewhere to support your view.

I am going to remember your support for the IMF though and your championing of it here.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I do think the idea that we can borrow our way out of this and raise all the money needed to fix all the problems you want fixing immediately is probably dream land at the moment. I think the Liz Truss budget showed the limit and you might want the UK to go and test it again but I don't.

I would bet the IMF chair wouldn't disagree with me either but you can always find a quote from some economist somewhere to support your view.

I am going to remember your support for the IMF though and your championing of it here.
Click to expand...

It's literally the quote of the moment from the IMF's latest analysis of the UK's economic outlook on 30th January. I do not happily champion the IMF, but that's not my aim; my aim is to present you with a preeminent orthodox economist of the sort a centrist should respect arguing in favour of increased spending. This is evidence that it is not a lefty dreamland concept but an eminently conceivable and executable centrist economic position.

I agree that Liz Truss did show the limit. An unelected PM presented an unheralded, uncosted, ideologically driven budget and the markets took fright. This is at great odds with a costed plan presented to the public months before it is voted on and providing markets with the scope to digest it. The fact that there are calls for governmental investment from moderate economic institutions lessens the chance that markets take flight precisely because these calls demonstrate it to be an orthodox economic decision.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
It's literally the quote of the moment from the IMF's latest analysis of the UK's economic outlook on 30th January. I do not happily champion the IMF, but that's not my aim; my aim is to present you with a preeminent orthodox economist of the sort a centrist should respect arguing in favour of increased spending. This is evidence that it is not a lefty dreamland concept but an eminently conceivable and executable centrist economic position.

I agree that Liz Truss did show the limit. An unelected PM presented an unheralded, uncosted, ideologically driven budget and the markets took fright. This is at great odds with a costed plan presented to the public months before it is voted on and providing markets with the scope to digest it. The fact that there are calls for governmental investment from moderate economic institutions lessens the chance that markets take flight precisely because these calls demonstrate it to be an orthodox economic decision.
Click to expand...

It is a different type of limit. I would say there is a difference between spending tens of billions on unfunded tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest which would guarantee public sector cuts in the medium term, and borrowing to invest on necessary projects and technologies which would save money in the long term
 
Frosty said:
It is a different type of limit. I would say there is a difference between spending tens of billions on unfunded tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest which would guarantee public sector cuts in the medium term, and borrowing to invest on necessary projects and technologies which would save money in the long term
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree.
 
Frosty said:
It is a different type of limit. I would say there is a difference between spending tens of billions on unfunded tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest which would guarantee public sector cuts in the medium term, and borrowing to invest on necessary projects and technologies which would save money in the long term
Click to expand...

It is the same bottom line though. Yes you might get more growth one way than the other but that is factored into the bond market reaction. Will the extra growth be enough to pay the creditors back and what do they charge in interest for the risk of default.

Look at Greece or Argentina. Or the countless other occasions some even in UK history. Liz Truss isn't the only example, just the most recent.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
It is the same bottom line though. Yes you might get more growth one way than the other but that is factored into the bond market reaction. Will the extra growth be enough to pay the creditors back and what do they charge in interest for the risk of default.

Look at Greece or Argentina. Or the countless other occasions some even in UK history. Liz Truss isn't the only example, just the most recent.
Click to expand...

Green technology and skills development, infrastructure, education, and healthcare/social services are easily the best long term investments any government could make right now and as the posts above are saying, economic orthodoxy generally agrees. If you want to worry about Argentina getting shafted by the US / spunking their money on corruption go ahead, but it's totally irrelevant to the UK Labour party's one clear policy that they used to have and the fact that it was pretty sensible, both economically and socially.
 
It's impressive how the BBC have taken a reduction on spending from a planned manifesto pledge made three years ago, and turned it into major headline news about a "U-turn". I say planned manifesto pledge because it's not like they've actually been elected on it. And yet Sunak can feck up the country even more than Boris and Truss did but it's in and out of the front page faster than the u-turns they themselves make each month, completely eradicating the things they were elected on *checks notes* three Prime Ministers ago.
 
Yep. The amount of times politicians have compared public spending to household finances, it was bound to take effect eventually, even on Labour.
 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
Average labour voter in 2024

Click to expand...


Quality vid, absolute classic. Love that the way the bloke talks is as if all economics can be boiled down to a couple sentences. “You have money. You spend money you have. You do not spend money you do not have. Economics, completed it”.

Anyway to bring it back to the present, yeah, we’re fecked.
 
Spark said:
Quality vid, absolute classic. Love that the way the bloke talks is as if all economics can be boiled down to a couple sentences. “You have money. You spend money you have. You do not spend money you do not have. Economics, completed it”.

Anyway to bring it back to the present, yeah, we’re fecked.
Click to expand...

Yes the question is how you fund the borrowing for the expenditure at a time when inflation is an issue and we've seen the impact that a lack of responsibility in budgeting can have on the markets.

Rebalancing the economy to make ourselves more open to trade and making the tax system fairer (more money in lower earners pockets) is a first step unless you want to pass on the cost to working people with inflation or taxes, which basically amounts to the same thing
 
When do we revolt?
 
Sweet Square said:
David Cameron said the same thing after the 2008 crash. Genuinely bad answer and depressing so many labour voters fall for it.


Click to expand...


Most people would agree that pretty much everything in the UK is broken and doesn't work effectively.
And all of that is the result of government spending cuts and government lack of investment.
This directly from the Cameron Osborne austerity programme.

This country is desperate for real leadership and direction. And Labour Green Agenda was at least some kind of direction.

The inevitable effects of man made climate change are staring us in the face NOW. And only government leadership and investment is going to get us on the path towards mitigation the worst effects.

So to Sir Kier Starmer, your U Turn is a complete mistake. You can not blame the government. You want to be the next PM.
And if you get a kicking in the forthcoming By Elections, then it is your fault for being so weak and ineffective when the country was looking to you for leadership.
 
Drainy said:
Yes the question is how you fund the borrowing for the expenditure at a time when inflation is an issue and we've seen the impact that a lack of responsibility in budgeting can have on the markets.

Rebalancing the economy to make ourselves more open to trade and making the tax system fairer (more money in lower earners pockets) is a first step unless you want to pass on the cost to working people with inflation or taxes, which basically amounts to the same thing
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
Billionaire tax maybe? Taxes on social media stuff? Energy companies? There are loads of places to raise money other than the working Joe Bloggs.
 
Sweet Square said:
David Cameron said the same thing after the 2008 crash. Genuinely bad answer and depressing so many labour voters fall for it.


Click to expand...

God the left is bad at politics. Like, really horrific and no wonder they cannot get into power. Just honestly, beyond useless.

Just have an aversion to power and want fairytales.
 
Sweet Square said:
David Cameron said the same thing after the 2008 crash. Genuinely bad answer and depressing so many labour voters fall for it.


Click to expand...

There's a really interesting book I read years ago when I was in uni (and lucky enough to see the author in a lecture).

The Problem With Interest Tarek Diwany : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This is a free copy, but I'd buy a hardcopy and give it a read. He's a scholar in Islamic finance, but the overlap between Islamic finance and what we call in the UK 'ethical' finance is pretty much the same. It removes debt and subsequently interest from the equation, and has a better spread of risk from the 'borrower' to the 'lender' to encourage entrepreneurship and enterprise (in inverted commas as they are technically investor and investee in this model).

Where it can be applied most readily to the UK is in our housing market - and there have been a few companies that have started using shared ownership (and 0 debt) to encourage first time buyers - there's a few companies in that start up space currently (Kuflink, Wayhome, Pfida) (the government shared ownership scheme from a few years ago only solved the problem halfway).

But yea, worth a read.
 
The Tory vandals have fecked the country, run up debt, deficit, tanked the economy so we can't liberally borrow our way out of the challenges we face, smashed all the institutions that glue the country together, make everything unworkable, and then be brazen enough to confirm they will remove what little financial headroom we have as a nation to literally f*ck Labour coming into power.

They know they're losing power so they want to make it easier for them in opposition so they can waltz back in after four years and continue their little project, destroying this country and getting rich.

They only care about power.
 
The Corinthian said:
There's a really interesting book I read years ago when I was in uni (and lucky enough to see the author in a lecture).

The Problem With Interest Tarek Diwany : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This is a free copy, but I'd buy a hardcopy and give it a read. He's a scholar in Islamic finance, but the overlap between Islamic finance and what we call in the UK 'ethical' finance is pretty much the same. It removes debt and subsequently interest from the equation, and has a better spread of risk from the 'borrower' to the 'lender' to encourage entrepreneurship and enterprise (in inverted commas as they are technically investor and investee in this model).

Where it can be applied most readily to the UK is in our housing market - and there have been a few companies that have started using shared ownership (and 0 debt) to encourage first time buyers - there's a few companies in that start up space currently (Kuflink, Wayhome, Pfida) (the government shared ownership scheme from a few years ago only solved the problem halfway).

But yea, worth a read.
Click to expand...
Usury right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.