Westminster Politics

[Pexbo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So fecking infuriating. National budgets are not a credit facility. You’re creating money to invest which in turn grows your economy. In the case of green investment you are investing in your future to reduce and mitigate the impacts of climate change so to not invest is an absolutely catastrophic decision economically. It’s farcical to say you don’t have the money to invest in it.

 

[Sweet Square]

So fecking infuriating. National budgets are not a credit facility. You’re creating money to invest which in turn grows your economy. In the case of green investment you are investing in your future to reduce and mitigate the impacts of climate change so to not invest is an absolutely catastrophic decision economically. It’s farcical to say you don’t have the money to invest in it.

Agree. I also wish someone would ask him if the reason is the economy why was he supporting the pledge only two days ago.

Tbh I’m guessing the answer is the party has received a big donation from some oil company. The same thing happened when he got rid of the tax on tech companies.

 

[Frosty]

Agree. I also wish someone would ask him if the reason is the economy why was he supporting the pledge only two days ago.

Tbh I’m guessing the answer is the party has received a big donation from some oil company. The same thing happened when he got rid of the tax on tech companies.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

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).

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Here's noted know nothing and Chief Economist of the IMF Pierre Gourinchas embarrassing himself in public:

Now, in this context, what we are saying also in the U.K. and in a number of other countries, is there is a need to put in place medium term fiscal plans that will accommodate very significant increase in spending pressures.

In the case of the U.K., you might think of spending on healthcare and modernizing the NHS, spending on social care, on education, you might think about critical public investment to address the climate transition, but also to boost growth. And so it's very important to have in place medium term fiscal plans that accommodate these pressures, at the same time ensuring that debt dynamics remain stable and contained.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Article...ipt-of-january-2024-weo-update-press-briefing

Lots of the second. None of the first, for that is "Blah, blah, blah"

 

[NotThatSoph]

Blah blah blah says a man in a dream world. We can't pretend away the reality that we have to borrow the money to run things as they are and those lending that money will stop doing so if you don't cost your plans.

You are just the other side of the coin of Liz Truss special thinking.

How do you think Rachel Reeves wants to finance her across the board tax cuts?

 

[Frosty]

Here's noted know nothing and Chief Economist of the IMF Pierre Gourinchas embarrassing himself in public:



Lots of the second. None of the first, for that is "Blah, blah, blah"

The IMF are well known for being run by the leftist blob who also control the BBC, so enough of the propaganda please!

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

She said: “We will back plans to cut taxes on working people that are affordable because it is important that everything is consistent with fiscal rules. “I'm not going to make unfunded commitments because that would be irresponsible, but my instincts are to have lower taxes.”

In the context of a cost of living crisis and the highest tax burden working people have ever had, just before an election, is it a bad idea to signal an understanding of the difficulty people are having?

It is almost like you don't want them to be elected.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

She said: “We will back plans to cut taxes on working people that are affordable because it is important that everything is consistent with fiscal rules. “I'm not going to make unfunded commitments because that would be irresponsible, but my instincts are to have lower taxes.”

In the context of a cost of living crisis and the highest tax burden working people have ever had, just before an election, is it a bad idea to signal an understanding of the difficulty people are having?

It is almost like you don't want them to be elected.

tax cuts = "Signalling an understanding of the difficulty people are having"

Funding a struggling education, health and social system to help people in difficulty = "blah blah blah"

Frankly I'll elect Starmer whatever because the others are literally too bad to have anywhere near office. I'm not gonna be some nodding dog in the back of his car though. Labour's lack of policies suck

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Here's noted know nothing and Chief Economist of the IMF Pierre Gourinchas embarrassing himself in public:



Lots of the second. None of the first, for that is "Blah, blah, blah"

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?

 

[Badunk]

We don't build much except weapons. We rely on imports but we left the biggest, most successful trading bloc in the world that was on our doorstep. Our aging population has been brainwashed by our billionaire media barons into hating the immigrants that are so desperately needed to run the country's crumbling healthcare and other infrastructures. We elect absolute twats everywhere, who either haven't got a backbone or are barely concealed eugenicists. Every top rung in every ladder in every industry you can name - from the armed forces to the civil service, from the police to the clergy, from sports to farming, from banking to the arts - is filled with double-barrelled ballbags who all went to the same schools. And there's no plan for the future because all anyone cares about is right now.

Welcome to the UK. But only if you've paid a fortune to get in.

 

[NotThatSoph]

She said: “We will back plans to cut taxes on working people that are affordable because it is important that everything is consistent with fiscal rules. “I'm not going to make unfunded commitments because that would be irresponsible, but my instincts are to have lower taxes.”

In the context of a cost of living crisis and the highest tax burden working people have ever had, just before an election, is it a bad idea to signal an understanding of the difficulty people are having?

It is almost like you don't want them to be elected.

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?

 

[Buster15]

We don't build much except weapons. We rely on imports but we left the biggest, most successful trading bloc in the world that was on our doorstep. Our aging population has been brainwashed by our billionaire media barons into hating the immigrants that are so desperately needed to run the country's crumbling healthcare and other infrastructures. We elect absolute twats everywhere, who either haven't got a backbone or are barely concealed eugenicists. Every top rung in every ladder in every industry you can name - from the armed forces to the civil service, from the police to the clergy, from sports to farming, from banking to the arts - is filled with double-barrelled ballbags who all went to the same schools. And there's no plan for the future because all anyone cares about is right now.

Welcome to the UK. But only if you've paid a fortune to get in.

A sobering description of the UK in the 21st century. And from my perspective difficult to argue with.

To the last sentence in your last but one paragraph, I would add.... because all anyone cares about is right now and only about themselves.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

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?

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.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

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?

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.

 

[Sweet Square]

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).

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.

 

[rimaldo]

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]

things may look bad now but think how bad they’d be if corbyn is elected and your kids are forced to be russian.

You are talking nonsense. We would get a free car every time one of them dies in Putin's wars. A free car!

 

[rimaldo]

You are talking nonsense. We would get a free car every time one of them dies in Putin's wars. A free car!

my two kids would think i was the coolest if i had two brand new cars.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It's not all doom and gloom. When Starmer's made brexit work and signed a FTA with Bingo Bongo Land , in fifteen years time there will be enough money to insulate three more houses.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

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.

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.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Ekkie Thump]

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.

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.

 

[Frosty]

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.

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

 

[Ekkie Thump]

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

I absolutely agree.

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

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

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.

 

[TwoSheds]

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.

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.

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[SalfordRed18]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

That's a great answer tbf.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mr Pigeon]

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.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

That's a great answer tbf.

Smashed it

 

[Oldyella]

That's a great answer tbf.

Very much so.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Say what you like about him, Streeting was exceptional on Question Time.

 

[Jericholyte2]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Oh for the love of…

 

[4bars]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Does Sunak has a massive head or kids shoulders?

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

David Cameron said the same thing after the 2008 crash. Genuinely bad answer and depressing so many labour voters fall for it.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sweet Square]

Average labour voter in 2024

 

[Cloud7]

Does Sunak has a massive head or kids shoulders?

I've never seen him in real life but based on pictures he looks like a very small guy