Westminster Politics

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
 
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?
 
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...

It's the deliberate mixing of "household finances" and macroeconomics that politicians have deliberately pushed for political reasons that is the issue. No one is denying that you have to have a sensible economic policy - i.e. don't heavily borrow and simultaneously cut taxes like Liz Truss.

But spending £28bn a year on "green" industry a) isn't a lot in the grand scheme of government spending - which currently stands at £1.2tn per year and can certainly be afforded without crashing the economy - and b) is a sound investment not only from the obvious environmental perspective, but also a good start at future proofing our energy sector. Especially as this is an investment back into the economy, e.g. building "gigafactories" that should create a significant number of quality jobs.

The last thing is that this "green pledge" would very likely have included spend that is already planned - e.g. flood defences, or subsidising energy companies to continue transitioning to renewable.

So it's clear to me that cutting this has nothing to do with answering your question on "how you fund the borrowing for the expenditure...", but rather sacrificing a relatively cheap flagship policy that is bound to be unpopular with the courted centre-right+ due to anything "green" being considered ideological. It then allows (in theory) Labour to look economically sound and juxtaposition it with Tory waste and corruption.

It is a sound policy that didn't need ditching.
 
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...

The problem with this analysis is that it's looking at only part of the picture. There's a heavy economic cost to underinvestment and the UK perpetually has the/one of the lowest public investment expenditure in the UK. We're talking about making the situation worse, stalling growth meaning less future income, and missing out on the economic benefits of technology such as green tech which is supposed to be a 10 trillion industry by 2050. Labour here are basically going against the OBR and the Treasury who all have issued reviews coming to the conclusion that the multiplier from green investment is substantial and the cost of stalling is economically destructive.

The answer to that of 'Liz Trus in it' doesn't cut it. The idea that borrowing 28 billion is economically harmful is ridiculous it's a tiny amount and it wouldn't touch inflation (never mind that the type of inflation isn't demand driven anyway). The market would be over the moon with such investment because it helps the economy and moves GDP/Debt in the right direction.

If we're talking politically then sure the electorate are idiots and there's an argument for simplifying commitments to a household budget.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
The problem with this analysis is that it's looking at only part of the picture. There's a heavy economic cost to underinvestment and the UK perpetually has the/one of the lowest public investment expenditure in the UK. We're talking about making the situation worse, stalling growth meaning less future income, and missing out on the economic benefits of technology such as green tech which is supposed to be a 10 trillion industry by 2050. Labour here are basically going against the OBR and the Treasury who all have issued reviews coming to the conclusion that the multiplier from green investment is substantial and the cost of stalling is economically destructive.

The answer to that of 'Liz Trus in it' doesn't cut it. The idea that borrowing 28 billion is economically harmful is ridiculous it's a tiny amount and it wouldn't touch inflation (never mind that the type of inflation isn't demand driven anyway). The market would be over the moon with such investment because it helps the economy and moves GDP/Debt in the right direction.

If we're talking politically then sure the electorate are idiots and there's an argument for simplifying commitments to a household budget.
Click to expand...

Talking practically, we don't have wiggle room to implement additional spending without providing justification for how it will be paid back.

Obviously government spending does have a return on investment, in the same way other entities have, but relying on that return to pay for itself is risky and the markets will react. Printing money will add to inflation and raising taxes on working people will both choke the growth off. Taxing the rich is a good idea, but labour have already budgeted for that - I guess they could go harder, I guess, but enjoy the right wing press response to that.
 
Smores said:
The problem with this analysis is that it's looking at only part of the picture. There's a heavy economic cost to underinvestment and the UK perpetually has the/one of the lowest public investment expenditure in the UK. We're talking about making the situation worse, stalling growth meaning less future income, and missing out on the economic benefits of technology such as green tech which is supposed to be a 10 trillion industry by 2050. Labour here are basically going against the OBR and the Treasury who all have issued reviews coming to the conclusion that the multiplier from green investment is substantial and the cost of stalling is economically destructive.

The answer to that of 'Liz Trus in it' doesn't cut it. The idea that borrowing 28 billion is economically harmful is ridiculous it's a tiny amount and it wouldn't touch inflation (never mind that the type of inflation isn't demand driven anyway). The market would be over the moon with such investment because it helps the economy and moves GDP/Debt in the right direction.

If we're talking politically then sure the electorate are idiots and there's an argument for simplifying commitments to a household budget.
Click to expand...

This and the above post by Spark echo my view.
Surely the point is that Labour Green Pledge should have been seen as an investment with associated economic return as opposed to simply government borrowing (which it of course is in its basic form).

Both Reeves and Starmer should have identified the return on capital investment and used that in response to the government.

All the major global economics - China, USA, EU are and have been pouring vast sums of money into the transition to green economic sectors.
Sums that absolutely dwarf the £28bn.
But as always happens, the UK is so obsessed with short term thinking that it completely misses out on the economic benefits of investment in long term beneficial programmes.

All of this goes to show that a Starmer government is not much better than the Tories.
 
Buster15 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are right.
£28bn is nowhere near enough in the first place and reducing it to £5bn is criminal.

It's a tiny figure compared to the overall budget - less than 0.5%.

Doesn't matter whether voters are left, right or centre. There's another wave of totally incompetent people on the way to run the country whichever party wins the election.
 
Buster15 said:
This and the above post by Spark echo my view.
Surely the point is that Labour Green Pledge should have been seen as an investment with associated economic return as opposed to simply government borrowing (which it of course is in its basic form).

Both Reeves and Starmer should have identified the return on capital investment and used that in response to the government.

All the major global economics - China, USA, EU are and have been pouring vast sums of money into the transition to green economic sectors.
Sums that absolutely dwarf the £28bn.
But as always happens, the UK is so obsessed with short term thinking that it completely misses out on the economic benefits of investment in long term beneficial programmes.

All of this goes to show that a Starmer government is not much better than the Tories.
Click to expand...
No, we are not a country with an economy of their scale. The vast majority our "our wealth" leaves the country via private enterprise. Completely different to China and the USA.
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
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.
Click to expand...
As above.
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
No, we are not a country with an economy of their scale. The vast majority our "our wealth" leaves the country via private enterprise. Completely different to China and the USA.
Click to expand...

And France and the rest of the G7? We're way behind all of them in planned green investment or investment of any kind, this isn't a super power issue it's an economic imperative for any sizeable economy. It's not even a choice, we're going to have to pay to mitigate the impacts of climate change at some point and if we don't keep up with green industry we'll be left behind at huge cost.

Your talk above of no headroom isn't true, current treasury reports are pointing to reductions in inflation and increased slack in the economy in the next few years which is why there's a call for investment. There just isn't anything backing up Labours plans here. Politically we need a separate budget for capital investment that is run by the treasury instead of politicians because driving such decisions off short term political optics is just ridiculous. I'm fairly sure the original 28 billion figure came from an OBR or treasury report that concluded we needed a minimum of 300 billion over 10 years.

It's just standard Starmer Labour, they're counting on everyone centre and centre-left to vote for them irrespective so they're pushing a simple narrative to win over the exact same Tory voters who believed the household budget shite.
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
No, we are not a country with an economy of their scale. The vast majority our "our wealth" leaves the country via private enterprise. Completely different to China and the USA.
Click to expand...

The £28bn compared to that of China USA and EU is a tiny fraction.
And it has nothing to do with wealth. But it has everything to do with investing in spend to save and spend to create high value jobs and spend to stimulate new business opportunities.

Transitioning away from the past toward the green business opportunities of the future is not an optional extra. It is essential that the UK is able to secure at least a small part of this.
And that requires government leadership and not a future government that is afraid to do anything other than cuts and austerity. We have had 14 years of that and look at the results. A country where nothing works.
 
Smores said:
And France and the rest of the G7? We're way behind all of them in planned green investment or investment of any kind, this isn't a super power issue it's an economic imperative for any sizeable economy. It's not even a choice, we're going to have to pay to mitigate the impacts of climate change at some point and if we don't keep up with green industry we'll be left behind at huge cost.

Your talk above of no headroom isn't true, current treasury reports are pointing to reductions in inflation and increased slack in the economy in the next few years which is why there's a call for investment. There just isn't anything backing up Labours plans here. Politically we need a separate budget for capital investment that is run by the treasury instead of politicians because driving such decisions off short term political optics is just ridiculous. I'm fairly sure the original 28 billion figure came from an OBR or treasury report that concluded we needed a minimum of 300 billion over 10 years.

It's just standard Starmer Labour, they're counting on everyone centre and centre-left to vote for them irrespective so they're pushing a simple narrative to win over the exact same Tory voters who believed the household budget shite.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. You have put it much more eloquently than me. But my post above says essentially the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Paul the Wolf said:
You are right.
£28bn is nowhere near enough in the first place and reducing it to £5bn is criminal.

It's a tiny figure compared to the overall budget - less than 0.5%.

Doesn't matter whether voters are left, right or centre. There's another wave of totally incompetent people on the way to run the country whichever party wins the election.
Click to expand...

Seems like it doesn't it. I must have been naive to think otherwise.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't blame Starmer for keeping his cards close to his chest at this stage. Labour's biggest asset is they are not Tories, a change is needed, everyone knows it, even I suspect some dyed-in-the wool Tories want some time out of government and the endless bad headlines in order to recuperate; although that just might be wishful thinking on my part.

Labour's worry has to be the size of the majority they might get, just a working majority is not enough to make the big changes needed to give hope to the millions of ordinary folk for the future. Housing is one such area where Labour with a big majority can power through the necessary legislation to change the tide nationwide (forgive the pun). I must admit I have never really been a big supporter of Starmer, but he appears to be handling this preparing for government brief very well, not afraid to 'not answer' when necessary to avoid the political leg-traps set for him; willing to make the right calls, as with the Green budget, but most of all keeping his eye on the prize and his troops in order.
 
Maticmaker said:
I agree, I don't blame Starmer for keeping his cards close to his chest at this stage. Labour's biggest asset is they are not Tories, a change is needed, everyone knows it, even I suspect some dyed-in-the wool Tories want some time out of government and the endless bad headlines in order to recuperate; although that just might be wishful thinking on my part.

Labour's worry has to be the size of the majority they might get, just a working majority is not enough to make the big changes needed to give hope to the millions of ordinary folk for the future. Housing is one such area where Labour with a big majority can power through the necessary legislation to change the tide nationwide (forgive the pun). I must admit I have never really been a big supporter of Starmer, but he appears to be handling this preparing for government brief very well, not afraid to 'not answer' when necessary to avoid the political leg-traps set for him; willing to make the right calls, as with the Green budget, but most of all keeping his eye on the prize and his troops in order.
Click to expand...

So you agree with his decision to do a U turn on Labour Green Pledge. And if so, what do you see as the positives of doing that?
 
Smores said:
And France and the rest of the G7? We're way behind all of them in planned green investment or investment of any kind, this isn't a super power issue it's an economic imperative for any sizeable economy. It's not even a choice, we're going to have to pay to mitigate the impacts of climate change at some point and if we don't keep up with green industry we'll be left behind at huge cost.
Click to expand...

why pay any money now to fix a problem for the future? take all the money now from gas and oil and coal, funnel money into “research papers” from “companies” owned by friends and then when we’re miles behind, tender to someone to come in and fix it, and pick the corporation that promises the biggest under the table kick backs. it’s only tax payer money. we can’t be trusted to spend it wisely. we’d only waste it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.