Westminster Politics

Don't Kill Bill said:
Out of context and wrong as usual. I was addressing why a good idea you could afford before might not be a good idea if you find out you are billions and billions of pounds further in debt.

Never let the facts change your mind though do you Sweet and when you can't answer the point attack the poster that is great form too. Well done very consistent.
Click to expand...
I think you just genuinely don’t understand climate change. It’s not something you can put off to the side and deal with later. In fact the longer it takes to even attempt to deal with climate change the more costly it will be.

We’ve just had the hottest January ever observed. We are going to need mass global coordination and at least some “radical” reforms. Anything less than this is climate denialism because and this might be a shock to some.……the climate doesn’t care about the markets.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Read my post above. Don't spook the market. If Labour does then we will be just as fecked as we were by Truss' budget.

How does Starmer help anyone or any of the issues you want addressing if we push the limit on borrowing any further because what scares me is how quickly people forget just how bad that was.

Look at the debt level and interest payments and explain to me how you are going to raise tax levels high enough to afford a wish list of spending commitments?

Over time, with great difficulty and still loads of hardship to come for most people, Labour can turn this around by doing the right things. There isn't any short cut and more borrowing for growth only works if you are not already massively in debt to the limit the markets will allow. Which we pretty much are right now.

Its depressing but sometimes the truth is depressing. Hiding from it doesn't help, and you better believe that things can and will get much worse if we try.
Click to expand...

So you think that moving towards a green economy is a... wishlist.
At some point, it is going to have to be done. And investing in a green economy is going to give some return on investment. Obviously I can't put a figure on that. But the quicker we move the quicker the return.
A couple of examples.
Who is the world leader in solar panel production.
Who is the world leader in EV battery production.
China.
 
Frosty said:
I'm glad they discovered they had money for this, given all the things we apparently cannot afford. Who needs free school meals when your kids can be fed with this instead?
Click to expand...
Dude, stop being so cynical. This is to counter the possibility that when the school concrete crumbles and falls on our kids head, they might start empathising with Palestinians.
 
TheGame said:
Why is he smirking when talking about a serious matter? I really despise this cnut.

Click to expand...


He's such a fecking tool. Yes it was legitimate to point out U-Turns, but not needed to point out the trans issue

Why is he not being questioned on that part of his answer
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Read my post above. Don't spook the market. If Labour does then we will be just as fecked as we were by Truss' budget.
Click to expand...

I can never figure out why any amount was stipulated by the Labour Party that far out from the GE. Surely the thing to say was "that we will borrow for spending on a Green economy, how much will depend on conditions at the time".

Suspect Starmer is trying to foresee which 'big sticks' the Tories will use to come after him with at the GE and shorten them, or otherwise neutralise them as much as he can.
Perhaps it was Ms Reeves learning on-the-job, or as it appears, Sir Keir is accepting 'collective responsibility.'.. it is the right thing to do at this juncture.
 
Maticmaker said:
I can never figure out why any amount was stipulated by the Labour Party that far out from the GE. Surely the thing to say was "that we will borrow for spending on a Green economy, how much will depend on conditions at the time".

Suspect Starmer is trying to foresee which 'big sticks' the Tories will use to come after him with at the GE and shorten them, or otherwise neutralise them as much as he can.
Perhaps it was Ms Reeves learning on-the-job, or as it appears, Sir Keir is accepting 'collective responsibility.'.. it is the right thing to do at this juncture.
Click to expand...

It could be politicking before the election, Yes.

We don't know what information/predictions he is being given as to the state of finances though. My concern isn't that he has suddenly changed his mind on climate change, as that seems far fetched to me, the bigger worry is that he knows we just don't have and can't raise the money to do it. Could be he wants to commit to another big promise (lets say on housing for example) and knows it won't be credible with this money assigned to the green deal.

Guess work at the moment.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pexbo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sweet Square said:
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.

Click to expand...



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

economically illiterate loony left idiot said:
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
Click to expand...

Lots of the second. None of the first, for that is "Blah, blah, blah"
 
Last edited:
Don't Kill Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...

How do you think Rachel Reeves wants to finance her across the board tax cuts?
 
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.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Ekkie Thump said:
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"
Click to expand...


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?
 
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.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Badunk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.