Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Filo on March 06, 2024, 09:25:46 am
-
In my opinion it will be a budget to Frame the next Govt before calling a May election, a 2p cut in NI will ensure there is less in the pot for the NHS and for Pensions, so when the next Govt have to increase NI they will be painted as the bad ones, you can see it coming a mile off
-
The opposition has spents months criticising tax levels (which are not necessarily that high compared to other countries).
So they can't criticise it now, which politically seems a bad position to box themselves in to.
Amazing how we've gone from one pm increasing NI to fund the NHS and another cutting it.
I'd change personal allowances quite substantially if I was changing anything but they've made their choice.
I'm hoping given the noise they'll finally ditch the 50-60k family tax trap this time, one of the worst tax legislations there is.
Annual posting that our tax system is too complex and outdated.
-
Wondering where the windfall tax will be targeted. The very rich have made lots in recent years, including Sunak, so no doubt that will be balanced out.
-
Oh, and the tax on offshore investments. It might complicate things for some, but is an obvious source of revenue.
-
I nearly forgot, increasing CGT to fall in line with income tax.
So many ways to fund a reduction in income tax, or improve services and life quality. Who runs this country after all?
-
BFYP
The problem is that we simultaneously have a)The highest taxes as a proportion of GDP since the War and b) desperately underfunded public services.
That's quite an achievement by this rank excuse for a Government.
-
I nearly forgot, increasing CGT to fall in line with income tax.
So many ways to fund a reduction in income tax, or improve services and life quality. Who runs this country after all?
Oh, go on then, reduce it, that'll keep Sunak's millions rolling in, and still barely any tax to pay. Thank the Lord someone is benefitting.
-
BFYP
The problem is that we simultaneously have a)The highest taxes as a proportion of GDP since the War and b) desperately underfunded public services.
That's quite an achievement by this rank excuse for a Government.
And the answer to it is.......
I fundamentally think our taxes are too high. The budget didn't go far enough but at least there was some movement on the 50-60k trap for those it impacts.
-
If the UK is under performing wouldn't part of the answer be to spend money on the health system to get as many people as possible back to work?
-
The effect of the Child Benefit and NI decisions today.
A family with two kids and one earner on the minimum wage will benefit by £2.30 per week.
A family with two kids and one earner on £60k will benefit by £53 per week.
But the far, far bigger issue is how Hunt is paying for this.
He's making huge real terms cuts in Govt spending, at a time when public services are collapsing around us. Total Govt Department spending is going up by 0.3%, while inflation is over 4%. NHS funding is rising by less than inflation. Defence funding is being cut in cash terms, even before allowing for inflation. And there are HUGE cash terms cuts in Transport, Levelling-Up (yeah...I know...), DEFRA & Business and Trade.
Those cuts are simply not viable. Hunt has deliberately done this to queer the pitch for the next Government. Labour will have to reverse the tax cuts or it won't be able to increase public spending.
They've been like this from start to finish. Zero vision for the country beyond trying to stay in power.
-
The effect of the Child Benefit and NI decisions today.
A family with two kids and one earner on the minimum wage will benefit by £2.30 per week.
A family with two kids and one earner on £60k will benefit by £53 per week.
But the far, far bigger issue is how Hunt is paying for this.
He's making huge real terms cuts in Govt spending, at a time when public services are collapsing around us. Total Govt Department spending is going up by 0.3%, while inflation is over 4%. NHS funding is rising by less than inflation. Defence funding is being cut in cash terms, even before allowing for inflation. And there are HUGE cash terms cuts in Transport, Levelling-Up (yeah...I know...), DEFRA & Business and Trade.
Those cuts are simply not viable. Hunt has deliberately done this to queer the pitch for the next Government. Labour will have to reverse the tax cuts or it won't be able to increase public spending.
They've been like this from start to finish. Zero vision for the country beyond trying to stay in power.
As I alluded to in my OP, he’s laid the ground for them to say we told you they would raise taxes when they are in opposition, no thought at all to the state of the Country
-
The effect of the Child Benefit and NI decisions today.
A family with two kids and one earner on the minimum wage will benefit by £2.30 per week.
A family with two kids and one earner on £60k will benefit by £53 per week.
But the far, far bigger issue is how Hunt is paying for this.
He's making huge real terms cuts in Govt spending, at a time when public services are collapsing around us. Total Govt Department spending is going up by 0.3%, while inflation is over 4%. NHS funding is rising by less than inflation. Defence funding is being cut in cash terms, even before allowing for inflation. And there are HUGE cash terms cuts in Transport, Levelling-Up (yeah...I know...), DEFRA & Business and Trade.
Those cuts are simply not viable. Hunt has deliberately done this to queer the pitch for the next Government. Labour will have to reverse the tax cuts or it won't be able to increase public spending.
They've been like this from start to finish. Zero vision for the country beyond trying to stay in power.
It is ok to right the unjust of the child benefit issue AND also support those throughout the economic spectrum, tapering the child benefit more steadily is a no brainer and it should be based on household income not individuals.
As I said, I'd have gone with increasing PA thresholds personally, but they didn't. NI is at least better than income tax.
Filo, labour support the tax cuts, they can't really go back now;
per Labourlist; Starmer pledged Labour would support cuts to national insurance, because it had “campaigned to lower the tax burden for the whole parliament” - that's pretty clear.
-
I am continually annoyed by the figure that Hunt and the rest of them keep trumpeting is how much they've increased the spending on the NHS.
What they never tell you is that that figure includes all of the billions they threw away on dodgy PPE contracts that the NHS never saw one penny of.
-
It's simple really.
The Tories know they will lose the next election so are doing everything they can to make sure things are as bad as Bradfords pitch for when that happens.
See how many times he goaded the Labour benches about them being the party of higher tax.
He's preparing the ground for opposition.
In the meantime the country can go and play wi it's sen.
And...he's spending the Nom Dom money on tax cuts to stop Labour using it on public services.
Evil.
-
I think we can expect an autumn General Election given the Budget delivered today.
Perhaps with a mini-budget in advance of it passing tax cuts (e.g. inheritance tax?) in April 2025.
Tax cuts which of course would be reversible if Labour get into power.
Giving the Tories their election/damage limitation offer to the blue wall
-
If Gordon Brown had f**ked about like this, he would have chosen not to use fiscal stimulus to pull the country out of the depth of the GFC. Then we'd have had a second Great Depression and the Tories would have had to pick up the pieces.
Of course he didn't, because he's a politician who actually respected the gravity of his job. Unlike this bunch of shites.
Watch the first 3-4 minutes of the Budget speech and see Hunt deliberate goading Labour. They have nothing at all to offer but the desire to stay in power. Clear the f**kers out.
-
According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Sept 2020 the only way to reduce NHS waiting lists and rebuild social care is to increase National Insurance. "Anything else would be irresponsible and dishonest."
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1765419440949100809
And yet the Tory Posh Boys think Labour voters are mugs!!!
Vote Tory - keep the liars in power.
-
Best commentry I have seen on the Budget today:
So much of today's Budget was the political equivalent of Sheffield United issuing their plans for consolidating their place in the Premier League next season.
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1765384448248271155
-
''Tax cuts announced in Wednesday's Budget will not make up for the impact of tax increases and rising prices, a leading think tank has said.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said households would be worse off at the election, expected this year, than they were at the start of this parliament.
The chancellor has announced a cut to National Insurance worth £10bn''
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68489236
The school posted his report rather than allow him to hand deliver it.
1 from 5 of big pledges
-
Can’t wait for a Labour government to get into power and open up our Veins with a £38 Billion annual Green levy,Cough cough!
-
I read an economist on Twitter at the weekend saying: Watch how journalists fall for this Budget. They'll allow Hunt to say he's cutting taxes to grow the economy and will ask him nothing on how public spending will be cut to balance the books. Then they'll ask Labour "Will you reverse these tax rises or cut your planned spending policies."
I've just heard a journalist on R4 doing PRECISELY that. It's awful, lazy journalism. Doing the Govt's job for them without even realising what they are doing.
-
A summary of the pantomime budget dance today;
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2024/03/the-golden-goodbye-budget
The ludicrous idea of "fiscal rules" is the gift that keeps on giving.
Combine that with "maxing out the credit card", and you have comedy gold!
-
Albie.
There IS a logic to fiscal rules in that you cannot pay for day to day spending forever by borrowing. That's effectively why the Truss-Kwarteng Budget was such a catastrophe, because they proposed huge tax cuts without saying how they were going to balance the books. Hunt is taking a vaguely similar stance because he's saying he WILL balance the books by huge spending cuts, but no-one really believes it's possible.
There's no arguing against that. You HAVE TO balance the books on taxing and spending for day to day costs. Corbyn's manifesto in 2017 said that explicitly.
It's different on capital spending, investment, because most economists believe that investment pays for itself in the long run by making the economy more productive. The disaster of the Tory Govt has been that they have slashed capital spending, and our productivity has tanked.
Reeves gets this (although I'm not convinced Starmer does). The problem is, the electorate doesn't. That's why Labour felt forced to ditch the £28bn green pledge, because the Tories were saying "Oh, typical Labour! Borrowing and spending".
My hope is that once they are in power, Labour WILL borrow for capital investment. They'll take a hit from the Tories on that, sure, but the trick will be if it gets the economy firing so that by 2029, we'll all be better off.
-
I read an economist on Twitter at the weekend saying: Watch how journalists fall for this Budget. They'll allow Hunt to say he's cutting taxes to grow the economy and will ask him nothing on how public spending will be cut to balance the books. Then they'll ask Labour "Will you reverse these tax rises or cut your planned spending policies."
I've just heard a journalist on R4 doing PRECISELY that. It's awful, lazy journalism. Doing the Govt's job for them without even realising what they are doing.
Thats Labour painting themselves into a corner.
-
Sorry BST, but your first point is simply incorrect.
Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends.
These rules are revised on a regular basis, once it becomes clear they will not deliver the stated objectives.
Modern versions of fiscal rules are about slightly reducing the overall national debt at the end of a 5 year period, and do not relate solely to day to day spending.
Sometimes governments have looked to reduce the overall deficit (ie, the difference between total spending and total revenues), while another administration may aim for the current deficit (the difference between day-to-day spending and total revenues).
If the overall deficit is the aim that will constrain investment spending. A fiscal rule for the current deficit does not restrict Capex.
The Net Debt rule looks to see debt falling in fifth year of the forecast period, as a % of GDP, (excluding Bank of England).....Why, there is no rational reason for this?
Chancellors have no way of knowing what GDP will be 5 years down the line, it is subject to the wider international economy.
Likewise Public Sector Net Borrowing should not exceed 3% of GDP in the fifth year, another known unknown.
All fiscal rules are set to a policy plan, and intended to be countercyclical, allowing for deficits in recessions but encouraging surpluses in growth phases.
The Tories have no plan, and Labour are not offering one. Having fiscal rules not moored to a development plan is simply irrational in the extreme.
Governments do not have to balance tax and spending over an arbitrary artificial timescale, which is what the fiscal rules are set to do.
It makes no difference because government are borrowing from the Bank of England...it is one part of the state loaning to another, without any requirement to repay on a set schedule.
Taxation should be increased on the top wealth holders to provide capital expenditure for infrastructure, but Labour have ruled that out.
There is no indication that Reeves has understood that if you want to improve growth, then that funded investment must come first.....so say that clearly!
-
https://twitter.com/RMTunion/status/1765374018859704413
''Responding to the Spring budget, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said:
"This is a budget of tax cuts and gimmicks designed to thinly disguise a Tory government only interested in propping up the super rich.”''
-
There is no denying that both albie and bst have great awareness of political financial situations but when you read their contrasting views, is there any wonder that the general public at large and have no idea what really goes on.
In his reply a couple of posts before this one, bst himself acknowledges this.
I have seen both Reeves and Hunt interviewed on the beeb this morning and both seemed unable to provide clear answers to some of the questions put to them. Each tried to suggest they are right and the other was wrong, a bit like on here.
-
Albie.
If you're saying there's no need for fiscal probity, you are 100% wrong.
But I think we are talking at cross purposes. I'm talking about the principle. You are talking about the practical application. At least I hope you are, because if you're denying the principle exists, there's not much point in us carrying on.
1) Fiscal rules AS A PRINCIPLE are absolutely correct. For the reasons I gave above. You cannot permanently find current spending from borrowing. Just like you can't fund a lavish holiday every year by borrowing.
2) You CAN fund current spending by borrowing in an emergency. If you lose your job, you can take out a loan to put food on the table for the next few weeks. BUT, you can only do that temporarily. If there's no prospect of you ever getting off the need to borrow, no sensible lender is going to lend to you. Or if they do, they'll want a kneecap breaking return.
Exactly the same thing happens with Governments. They CAN borrow to fund education and the NHS and defence etc when hard times hit. But only if there's a credible path to rebalancing the books when the economy recovers. It was precisely the lack of that plan that led the markets to demand higher interest payments from the UK following the Kwamikasi Budget.
3) So, it's absolutely indisputable that Governments MUST balance the books in the long term. In that sense, a Fiscal Rule is an ironclad rule of economics.
4) I think the difference between us is on 2 things. 1. There's no definitive timescale of what constitutes the term TEMPORARY I mentioned in point 2. Should we balance the books over 1 year or 10 years? In practice, both Lab (under Corbyn too, remember!) and Con are saying that they want the books to balance over 5 years. And this gets called THE Fiscal Rule,which I agree, it isn't. It's a practical interpretation of the underlying fiscal requirement. 2. As I said last night, any balancing of the books shouldn't include borrowing for investment.
-
Albie
Couple of other points.
1) BoE. It's not as simple as saying it's one part of the state borrowing from another. Because the BoE also has responsibility for inflation. And this is why that complicates things.
BoE lends to Govt effectively by printing money. But that increases the overall supply of sterling. And, all other things being equal, increasing the money supply increases inflationary pressure. Which would require the BoE to increase interest rates to offset that inflation. Which depresses economic activity. Which reduces Govt income from taxes. Which means the Govt needs to borrow more. Doesn't work over the long term.
2) If I may say so, your criticisms of Reeves are based on you assessment of what she should be doing in an ideal world. I agree that we ought to be having a rational discussion on timescales for balancing current books and we should be open in saying that capital spending is different. I couldn't agree more!
Trouble is, down here in the real world, you have to get elected. And the Electorate is not interested in the nuance. Our media has failed the country by painting ALL debt as bad. So all the Electorate want to know is: will you be responsible on Debt?
No-one is interested in engaging on a properly detailed discussion on these points. If you don't believe me, go back to 2010. There was absolutely no question then that we had to be engaging in massive fiscal stimulus to stop the economy flatlining. But that argument simply didn't cut through. Everything was about reducing the deficit.
That's politics. It's a very un-ideal world. As someone once said, most political parties know what to do. They just don't know how to do the right thing AND get elected.
-
Albie: ''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends.
These rules are revised on a regular basis, once it becomes clear they will not deliver the stated objectives''
Cannot find anything to support the first sentence Albie, can you expand on what was being covered up? hope it's not another conspiracy theory.
The Brown policies were a progression and refinement of what went before.
1/ ''Gordon Brown’s first and main policy, when nominated Chancellor in 1997, was to reform the monetary framework by enforcing three major changes dedicated to maintaining price stability. He replaced the inflation target margin by a symmetrical inflation target rate that would correspond to a bearable equilibrium rate supporting growth. He created a Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England; he granted it complete independence in deciding and implementing any measure needed to reach the government’s target. He reinforced forward looking, asking the Committee to forecast inflation rates and to take corrective measures now, so that the rates would match the target in the future'' .............
14/ ''Naturally, Gordon Brown’s construction of a new monetary framework did not come out of the blue. It found its origins in progressive theoretical thinking and recent partial implementation''
https://journals.openedition.org/osb/1124
-
Why does this have to be made so complicated and long winded.
It seems there is a mentality that the more you write, the more you’re right.
-
Interesting discussion above between Albie and BST.
BST highlighted two important points. The issue of avoiding debt as perceived by the public - from my memory, one of the pillars of Thatcher, and the way the MSM colours and pushes this for those that glutton on their wares.
His solution is to adopt the body of "Thatcher"/whoever to get elected, and then what? Presumably to hold power for 15/20 years to enact a drip feed consciousness change on the public whilst at the same time eroding the power of the elites, their grip on information providing. Obviously this cloak of deception would need to be kept on till the end of those 20 years, possibly a very very slow unveil whilst never giving enough away for the public to spot a fake.
Good luck with that plan. I can guarantee you that even if BST has that, or some other? plan in mind, that Starmer and Reeves haven't.
-
Spending is an interesting one, we often talk about spending cuts etc, that's not quite the case is it?
Good stats in here;
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8046/CBP-8046.pdf
-
Why does this have to be made so complicated and long winded.
It seems there is a mentality that the more you write, the more you’re right.
Because the real world isn't simple?
I could write: "There IS a need for a Fiscal rule." That's factually correct, but it doesn't help much, does it?
That is frequently the problem in politics. It's very easy to coin a simple, catchy phrase that captures people's attention. But often, getting the decision right depends on weighing up nuanced arguments.
Guess which one usually wins.
"Take Back Control" sounds good. Discussing the trade off between concessions on sovereignty and trade volume requires an in depth analysis, and bores people.
What do YOU suggest Belton?
-
Spending is an interesting one, we often talk about spending cuts etc, that's not quite the case is it?
Good stats in here;
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8046/CBP-8046.pdf
What do you mean, it's not quite the case?
-
BST,
You are confusing the 5 year political cycle with the economic cycle, a totally different beast.
There is no reason to marry up the two.
Reeves is saying that her fiscal rules take precedence over all spending commitments.
This is complete drivel, as the driver of growth is the stimulus package.
Putting the cart before the horse, it is the spending intention which should then define the parameters for any (variable) fiscal rule in consequence.
A FR which is not flexible is counterproductive, and one which is too pliable is just window dressing.
The £28 billion green growth plan would have made a contribution, but was below the investment required by the energy transition.
Now it has been sidelined in favour of restraint, locking in a form of austerity for a Labour government.
The remaining funding looks likely to be swallowed up by uneconomic nonsense like carbon capture and small nuclear, neither of which work.
These diversions are a distraction strategy promoted by big energy interests, to allow business as usual.
You are also making the assumption that borrowing will be the main source of finance.
This is a category error, which then feeds through into your view of debt.
I have said that taxation should be the main source, with borrowing only topping up when needed at the fringes.
There are many measures to raise additional capital for investment.
One example is to raise capital gains tax to the same level as taxes on income, as many other countries do.
As to public misunderstanding, is it any wonder when Labour are fuelling the fire.
Here is shadow treasury plank Darren Jones talking crap that even the BBC are embarrassed by;
https://twitter.com/andyverity/status/1765352025280115030
This links through to a Guardian comment on the same misrepresentation;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/15/labour-credit-card-analogy-mendacious-tory
Reeves herself was in the Torygraph doing the same mis-information scam;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/shadow-chancellor-rachel-reeves-labour-interview/
Good to know her mum had a currency printing press in the shed, just in case QE was needed for the family budget!
Beyond all words!
-
Spending is an interesting one, we often talk about spending cuts etc, that's not quite the case is it?
Good stats in here;
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8046/CBP-8046.pdf
A very clear effect by all Tories of taking spending down as a proption of GDP. By about 5% each time.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/07/ifs-warns-of-labour-and-tory-conspiracy-of-silence-over-future-tax-and-spending-plans
-
The BBC strikes back.
''Hunt accuses Today presenter of being 'not worthy of BBC' after he suggests budget not enough to revive 'stagnant' economy
Jeremy Hunt has accused a Today presenter of being “not worthy of the BBC” after he suggested the budget did not do enough to revive Britain’s “stagnant” economy.
Towards the end of what was otherwise a relatively good-tempered interview, Amol Rajan said:
This might be, and you’ll say you don’t want it to be, one of your last big acts in politics. Do you really think you’ve read the moment?
This is a country ravaged by economic shocks, at best drifting, at worse, stagnant. We all know about its potential, but we’ve had seven quarters of falling GDP per head, that’s been revised downwards.
We’re hooked on foreign labour, the birth rate is collapsing. Many public services are creaking, councils are going bust.
Interesting discussion above between Albie and BST.
BST highlighted two important points. The issue of avoiding debt as perceived by the public - from my memory, one of the pillars of Thatcher, and the way the MSM colours and pushes this for those that glutton on their wares.
His solution is to adopt the body of "Thatcher"/whoever to get elected, and then what? Presumably to hold power for 15/20 years to enact a drip feed consciousness change on the public whilst at the same time eroding the power of the elites, their grip on information providing. Obviously this cloak of deception would need to be kept on till the end of those 20 years, possibly a very very slow unveil whilst never giving enough away for the public to spot a fake.
Good luck with that plan. I can guarantee you that even if BST has that, or some other? plan in mind, that Starmer and Reeves haven't.
Those are facts, has your budget really come even close to meeting the scale of the challenges this country faces?
In response, Hunt said:
I think the overall characterisation that you’ve just given of the British economy is unworthy of the BBC.
Rajan insisted that there was “no such thing as ‘the BBC’”, because so many different people worked there, and he said he was “just putting to you facts about this country”. But Hunt replied: “It’s unworthy of you Amol.”
From bbc today prog
Faced with a list of stark facts, he says even mentioning them is unworthy of the BBC.
I wonder how long before Amol finds himself presenting some other channel?..
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/07/ifs-warns-of-labour-and-tory-conspiracy-of-silence-over-future-tax-and-spending-plans
Wow, odd that the Guardian article hasn’t been mentioned on here before.
-
''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends''
Albie, do you bump into tyke and others from off-topic when you are trawling for conspiracies about labour?
-
The "political end" was regaining a reputation for economic competence, after 20 years of Labour, rightly or wrongly being seen as untrustworthy on the economy.
Albie here is doing what The Left always does. Decrying those who grubby their hands with the dirty business of actually winning elections instead of debates.
-
The "political end" was regaining a reputation for economic competence, after 20 years of Labour, rightly or wrongly being seen as untrustworthy on the economy.
Albie here is doing what The Left always does. Decrying those who grubby their hands with the dirty business of actually winning elections instead of debates.
Meanwhile we are patiently awaiting BST’s solution to the WAR IN Ukraine!
-
Why does this have to be made so complicated and long winded.
It seems there is a mentality that the more you write, the more you’re right.
Because the real world isn't simple?
I could write: "There IS a need for a Fiscal rule." That's factually correct, but it doesn't help much, does it?
That is frequently the problem in politics. It's very easy to coin a simple, catchy phrase that captures people's attention. But often, getting the decision right depends on weighing up nuanced arguments.
Guess which one usually wins.
"Take Back Control" sounds good. Discussing the trade off between concessions on sovereignty and trade volume requires an in depth analysis, and bores people.
What do YOU suggest Belton?
One of the reasons I come on here is to become more knowledgeable. I have said before that politics is not something I am very well educated on. Graphs and statistics bore the arse off me, as do most posts about politics that are more than two or three paragraphs long. That’s said with no disrespect intended to you or any other likeminded people.
Regarding the budget, I think it was always going to be a case of ‘they are damned if they do…’
We all know the Tories won’t be in power for much longer. I think this budget is pretty meaningless.
My post was merely an observation.
-
No offence taken and none meant in what I'm going to say.
The fact that many, I'd say the overwhelming majority of voters are bored by data and by long winded narratives is a huge weakness of Democracy.
Those people inevitably vote without having a full understanding of the alternatives on offer.
As a result, non-tribal voters tend to gravitate to those parties that are led by leaders better able to win debates or appear trustworthy and charismatic, not those offering the objectively best policies.
But that's absolutely NOT the key skill that we want in our leaders. We want people who can make sober, rational decisions under intolerable pressure.
2010 is a perfect example of where that leads. Gordon Brown had implemented textbook economic policies to avoid a Great Depression in the UK, and literally led the world on the issue.[1]
Cameron sniped from the sidelines as Oppositions do, that Brown's policies were a disaster because they increased Govt Debt and that was the most important thing.
That struck a chord with individuals. If you get into debt as an individual, it's usually bad. So that's an easy line to peddle and an easy one for voters to understand.
The reason why Govt debt is nothing like personal debt is really hard to explain simply. People switch off if you talk about the Zero Lower Bound or the Multiplier Effect or the Paradox of Thrift.
Plus Cameron looked suave and confident, Brown looked like a haggard miserable Kitson.
So who's going to win that vote?
The result was the most insanely destructive choice of economic policy that this country made in a century. We ripped up the textbooks and applied voodoo economics ideas. The failure to get us back on the pre-crisis growth curve (which we had done after every previous post War crisis) has, according to the IFS this week, left us poorer by the total of...
...wait for it...
...£14,000 per year for every worker in the country.
That's what happens when voters can't or won't engage with tough ideas, and you have politicians on one side prepared to exploit that lack of understanding for their and their party's interests.
[1] Apparently when the G20 leaders met in London at the height of the GFC crisis, where it genuinely looked like the global banking and economic system might be about to collapse, Sarkozy was flapping like a demented chicken saying "Nobody has a plan what to do." Obama responded "I think Gordon has a plan, let's listen to him." And they did.
-
I agree that Brown could have been and should have been a good PM for longer than he was.
Like it or not, charisma has been, and always will be a key factor in who runs the country.
Now I think Johnson and Cummings are first class Kitsons who should have been locked up, but the idea was a good one: charismatic front of house while the chef in the back produces the goods. This is why I can’t get on with Starmer. He may have everything that is needed to make the country good again, but he has to be believed in. I don’t believe in him, unfortunately. What he should be doing is working away in the kitchen, letting someone else be the face and voice of Labour.
Though I have no idea who that may be.
-
No other words necessary a budget for the "better off"
Annual saving in 2024/25 for workers under 66 from both NICs changes
Earn - gain
£12,570 or less - £0
£15,000 - £97
£20,821 - £217 (35 hours on new Nat Liv Wage >21)
£30,000 - £697
£35,400 - £913 ('average' pay says govt.)
£40,000 - £1097
£45,000 - £1297
£50,270 or more - £1508
-
I agree that Brown could have been and should have been a good PM for longer than he was.
Like it or not, charisma has been, and always will be a key factor in who runs the country.
Now I think Johnson and Cummings are first class Kitsons who should have been locked up, but the idea was a good one: charismatic front of house while the chef in the back produces the goods. This is why I can’t get on with Starmer. He may have everything that is needed to make the country good again, but he has to be believed in. I don’t believe in him, unfortunately. What he should be doing is working away in the kitchen, letting someone else be the face and voice of Labour.
Though I have no idea who that may be.
Why do we want charismatic leaders
Clem Attlee regularly ranks in the top 3-4 PMs of the 20th century. He was utterly devoid of charisma, but he managed his team and his hand superbly in awful circumstances.
Boris Johnson was full of charisma and was a Kitson.
-
Like it or not, charisma has been, and always will be a key factor in who runs the country.
Really?
John Major,Theresa May,Liz Truss and Rishi?
That statement is absolute boll@x
-
''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends''
Albie, do you bump into tyke and others from off-topic when you are trawling for conspiracies about labour?
Conspiracies? How can there be a conspiracy against a party that doesn't do anything? What is there to conspire about?
-
I get that you like tyke-talks, but he doesn't (same with Albie) do himself any favours dragging shit off the net that are so easily refuted steve.
-
Like it or not, charisma has been, and always will be a key factor in who runs the country.
Really?
John Major,Theresa May,Liz Truss and Rishi?
That statement is absolute boll@x
You have pretty much supported my point there, so thanks for that. Little charisma and little success.
I think of those 4, only Major was voted in by the British public. Of course, he beat Kinnock, who makes Starmer seem like JFK.
-
Kinnock had charisma by the bucketful. He was a brilliant, theatrical public speaker. I saw him speak live twice and I left the building feeling I would die for the man both times.
-
Charisma is a double edged sword. Trump has charisma but he uses it to persuade people of supporting things that aren't good for them.
Ultimately I'm more suspicious of charismatic politicians.
Particularly when I hear the word strong with it. A strong charasmatic leader... That's red lights flashing straight away.
Charisma appeals to emotion above reason.
-
I agree that Brown could have been and should have been a good PM for longer than he was.
Like it or not, charisma has been, and always will be a key factor in who runs the country.
Now I think Johnson and Cummings are first class Kitsons who should have been locked up, but the idea was a good one: charismatic front of house while the chef in the back produces the goods. This is why I can’t get on with Starmer. He may have everything that is needed to make the country good again, but he has to be believed in. I don’t believe in him, unfortunately. What he should be doing is working away in the kitchen, letting someone else be the face and voice of Labour.
Though I have no idea who that may be.
Why do we want charismatic leaders
Clem Attlee regularly ranks in the top 3-4 PMs of the 20th century. He was utterly devoid of charisma, but he managed his team and his hand superbly in awful circumstances.
Boris Johnson was full of charisma and was a Kitson.
You’ve said yourself, non tribal voters gravitate towards charisma.
And just to be clear, I wouldn’t vote Tory just because they had a charismatic leader, but I might not vote for labour if their leader wasn’t selling it to me.
The only thing I am certain about the next election is that I won’t be voting Tory.
-
Kinnock had charisma by the bucketful. He was a brilliant, theatrical public speaker. I saw him speak live twice and I left the building feeling I would die for the man both times.
Was one of them where he said ‘yes’ a lot. That was like a Liz Truss speech.
-
A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.
By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....
In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements
-
A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.
By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....
In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements
He did have £25 billion ish in today’s money given to him on a plate to invest (British share of Marshall plan)!did he spend it wisely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml
-
I can’t really comment on Attlee’s tenure as I just don’t know enough about the history. I do acknowledge, from what I hear people saying, that he was one of the best we’ve had.
I also think that in today’s society, anyone who is completely devoid of character would not get the opportunity that Attlee did back then.
I don’t think it is right, by the way, it’s just how it is.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope Starmer turns out to be as good as Attlee was, but I doubt very, very much that he will be given a chance to be.
-
I agree that Brown could have been and should have been a good PM for longer than he was.
Like it or not, charisma has been, and always will be a key factor in who runs the country.
Now I think Johnson and Cummings are first class Kitsons who should have been locked up, but the idea was a good one: charismatic front of house while the chef in the back produces the goods. This is why I can’t get on with Starmer. He may have everything that is needed to make the country good again, but he has to be believed in. I don’t believe in him, unfortunately. What he should be doing is working away in the kitchen, letting someone else be the face and voice of Labour.
Though I have no idea who that may be.
Why do we want charismatic leaders
Clem Attlee regularly ranks in the top 3-4 PMs of the 20th century. He was utterly devoid of charisma, but he managed his team and his hand superbly in awful circumstances.
Boris Johnson was full of charisma and was a Kitson.
You’ve said yourself, non tribal voters gravitate towards charisma.
And just to be clear, I wouldn’t vote Tory just because they had a charismatic leader, but I might not vote for labour if their leader wasn’t selling it to me.
The only thing I am certain about the next election is that I won’t be voting Tory.
He said it once. And that was all the media reported on. The rest of the speech lasted 30-40 minutes and he had the audience in the palm of his hand, solemnly painting the scale of the social reconstruction that was necessary after Thatcher, reflecting on the post War socialism that had opened up opportunities for working class lads like him, and how those doors were then closing, and finishing with a barn storming appeal to party members to work like hell in the last week of the campaign to get voters out.
It was genuinely mesmerising. He alternately had people pensive, sad, angry, hopeful, elated.
Comparing him as a public speaker with Truss is just silly.
-
It was silly, Billy. I was just trying to add a little humour into the discussion.
-
A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.
By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....
In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements
He did have £25 billion ish in today’s money given to him on a plate to invest (British share of Marshall plan)!did he spend it wisely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml
Like all your posts when you try to criticise Labour, I'll say.. Is that all you've got?
Look at what the Attlee government did with that money, they laid the foundation of a better and fairer society that all of us have benefitted from.
The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.
-
The NHS system is the envy of the world and the tory attempts to trash it will provide most of Labours campaign slogans .............
tories we took out ₤350m a week from the NHS
saw it on the side of a bus
-
The NHS system is the envy of the world and the tory attempts to trash it will provide most of Labours campaign slogans .............
tories we took out ₤350m a week from the NHS
saw it on the side of a bus
I bet you miss our NHS in your new Homeland Syd how does healthcare downunder compare to that which you shunned!
-
A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.
By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....
In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements
He did have £25 billion ish in today’s money given to him on a plate to invest (British share of Marshall plan)!did he spend it wisely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml
Like all your posts when you try to criticise Labour, I'll say.. Is that all you've got?
Look at what the Attlee government did with that money, they laid the foundation of a better and fairer society that all of us have benefitted from.
The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.
So you make out that The Tories fiddled away £25 Billion on dodgy PPE deals? Show me the evidence?
-
The NHS system is the envy of the world and the tory attempts to trash it will provide most of Labours campaign slogans .............
tories we took out ₤350m a week from the NHS
saw it on the side of a bus
I bet you miss our NHS in your new Homeland Syd how does healthcare downunder compare to that which you shunned!
All my healthcare is free, the system is pretty much based on the NHS
-
A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.
By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....
In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements
He did have £25 billion ish in today’s money given to him on a plate to invest (British share of Marshall plan)!did he spend it wisely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml
Like all your posts when you try to criticise Labour, I'll say.. Is that all you've got?
Look at what the Attlee government did with that money, they laid the foundation of a better and fairer society that all of us have benefitted from.
The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.
So you make out that The Tories fiddled away £25 Billion on dodgy PPE deals? Show me the evidence?
You're right Sproty.
It was only a measly £10 billion.
Chicken feed eh?
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/25/uk-government-wasted-nearly-10bn-on-unused-covid-ppe-figures-show?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099814710298&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2Fjan%2F25%2Fuk-government-wasted-nearly-10bn-on-unused-covid-ppe-figures-show
-
A woman on the radio gave a good analogy of the budget.
She said its like leaving a bag of prawns under the ceiling tiles on the last day at school, to stink the place out for the next lot.
By the way Clement Attlee was the best PM ever....
In 2004, he was voted the most successful British Prime Minister of the 20th century by a poll of 139 academics. The majority of those responses singled out the Attlee government's welfare state reforms and the creation of the NHS as the key 20th century domestic policy achievements
He did have £25 billion ish in today’s money given to him on a plate to invest (British share of Marshall plan)!did he spend it wisely?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml
Like all your posts when you try to criticise Labour, I'll say.. Is that all you've got?
Look at what the Attlee government did with that money, they laid the foundation of a better and fairer society that all of us have benefitted from.
The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.
So you make out that The Tories fiddled away £25 Billion on dodgy PPE deals? Show me the evidence?
You're right Sproty.
It was only a measly £10 billion.
Chicken feed eh?
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/25/uk-government-wasted-nearly-10bn-on-unused-covid-ppe-figures-show?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099814710298&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2Fjan%2F25%2Fuk-government-wasted-nearly-10bn-on-unused-covid-ppe-figures-show
The Tories spaffed more than that, in today's money, on dodgy PPE contracts with their mates.
You seem to be alleging that the Tories exclusively purchased PPE from companies that were owned by their personal friends is that correct? To the tune of £10 billion?
-
You just keep on defending the indefensible Sprotyrover.
-
Back to the basics, just tax the rich, reduce inequality, improve society. The budget didn't do this.
-
Back to the basics, just tax the rich, reduce inequality, improve society. The budget didn't do this.
The economy is stagnant and the very wealthy are really the only section of society making money. A simple balance sheet says that wealth must be coming from the rest of us. When the economy isn't growing, it becomes like a game of monopoly, where the winner steadily hoovers up all the assets from everyone else.
This isn't just happening in the UK, it's happening right across the west. As such I think there needs to be international agreements on taxing the superwealthy. For goodness sake, Musk, Bezos and Gates together are worth more than the lower 50% of the US population. It's obscene.
-
''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends''
Albie, do you bump into tyke and others from off-topic when you are trawling for conspiracies about labour?
Conspiracies? How can there be a conspiracy against a party that doesn't do anything? What is there to conspire about?
Scawsby Steve,
It is easy enough to check the history of fiscal rules, if Syd really wanted to;
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/fiscal-rules-history
The article explains that:
"The first fiscal rules in the UK were adopted by the New Labour government in 1997".
Pre 1997 this device was not formally a part of government economic thinking, although some measures to achieve the same ends might have been used in an ad hoc way.
The BBC have several times made this clear, on budget day Economics correspondent Andy Verity explained that Gordon Brown introduced the idea....it did not work, and was later revised.
But this falls on deaf ears by those who wish for a different truth.
Like BST, Syd reverts to smears whenever he does not have a viable argument.
This is par for the course these days.
Divert to mention Corbyn, or the Left, to distract from the poor case for the defence.
Pretend to have "refuted" something when no supporting evidence is produced, and fail to check properly unless he has seen it in the Guardian...sad really!
-
Have you actually read that link you posted Albie?
-
Albie: ''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends.
These rules are revised on a regular basis, once it becomes clear they will not deliver the stated objectives''
Cannot find anything to support the first sentence Albie, can you expand on what was being covered up? hope it's not another conspiracy theory.
The Brown policies were a progression and refinement of what went before.
1/ ''Gordon Brown’s first and main policy, when nominated Chancellor in 1997, was to reform the monetary framework by enforcing three major changes dedicated to maintaining price stability. He replaced the inflation target margin by a symmetrical inflation target rate that would correspond to a bearable equilibrium rate supporting growth. He created a Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England; he granted it complete independence in deciding and implementing any measure needed to reach the government’s target. He reinforced forward looking, asking the Committee to forecast inflation rates and to take corrective measures now, so that the rates would match the target in the future'' .............
14/ ''Naturally, Gordon Brown’s construction of a new monetary framework did not come out of the blue. It found its origins in progressive theoretical thinking and recent partial implementation''
https://journals.openedition.org/osb/1124
Albie, read this including the link.
-
Albie: ''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends''
All you have to do is to explain the above Albie, then we'll know if I impugned you.
-
Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!
-
Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!
they could always flog whats left of the uk's gold reserve
-
Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!
they could always flog whats left of the uk's gold reserve
Get Gordon Brown in he’s an expert in Gold trading!
-
Here you go Syd, from the IFS.
This article explains why the use of fiscal rules is a convenient camouflage option for politicians.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/gaming-fiscal-rules-no-way-make-budget-policy
Surprised you missed this when reading your Guardian, Syd;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/04/the-guardian-view-on-treasury-fiscal-rules-no-way-to-run-a-country
A good explainer of the Hunt budget here;
https://leftfootforward.org/2024/03/why-jeremy-hunts-budget-fails-britain/
I hope this helps!
-
Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!
They haven't yet actually told us what they are going to do? What do they want us to vote for them for? Not being the Tories?
-
Rachael Reeves openly admitted to Kunesburg this morning that there will be no scope for any significant increases in social spending if we get a Labour Government gets in to power,as there are no Piggy banks left to plunder!
They haven't yet actually told us what they are going to do? What do they want us to vote for them for? Not being the Tories?
Not voting for those kitsons is as good a reason as any.
-
BFYP.
Like I keep saying, Oppositions don't win elections. Governments lose them.
You'll be too young to remember, but Blair came to power in a landslide, saying very little about what he wanted to do, and explicitly sticking to the Tories' spending plans.
Thatcher never campaigned in 79 on the policy of having 15% interest rates to crush inflation, which would put 4 million out of work. She won because Labour had lost control in the Winter of Discontent.
-
Here you go Syd, from the IFS.
This article explains why the use of fiscal rules is a convenient camouflage option for politicians.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/gaming-fiscal-rules-no-way-make-budget-policy
It really doesn't explain that at all.
Both the last two articles you've posted, implying that they destroy the idea of a Fiscal rule, do nothing of the sort. They both clearly state the need for A fiscal rule, properly adhered to.
-
During the 1997 general election campaign, a Labour pledge card with five specific pledges was issued and detailed in the manifesto too. The pledges were:
Cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme.
Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing.
Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100,000,000 saved from NHS red tape.
Get 250,000 under-25s off benefits and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities.
No rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5% and inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
-
Conservative Manifesto, 1979
FOREWORD by The Rt. Hon. Margaret Thatcher
1. OUR FIVE TASKS
2. RESTORING THE BALANCE
The control of inflation
Better value for money
Trade union reform
1. Picketing
2. The closed shop
3. Wider participation
Too many strikes
Responsible pay bargaining
3. A MORE PROSPEROUS COUNTRY
Cutting income tax
A property-owning democracy
Industry, commerce and jobs
Nationalisation
Fair trade
Small businesses
Energy
Agriculture
Fishing
Animal welfare
4. THE RULE OF LAW
The fight against crime
Deterring the criminal
Immigration and race relations
The supremacy of Parliament
Northern Ireland
5. HELPING THE FAMILY
Homes of our own
The sale of council houses
Reviving the private rented sector
Protecting the environment
Standards in education
Parents' rights and responsibilities
The arts
Health and welfare
Making sense of social security
The elderly and the disabled
6. A STRONG BRITAIN IN A FREE WORLD
Improving our defences
The European Community
Africa and the Middle East
Rhodesia
Trade, aid and the Commonwealth
7. A NEW BEGINNING Foreword
FOR ME, THE HEART OF POLITICS is not political theory, it is people and how they want to live their lives.
No one who has lived in this country during the last five years can fail to be aware of how the balance of our society has been increasingly tilted in favour of the State at the expense of individual freedom.
This election may be the last chance we have to reverse that process, to restore the balance of power in favour of the people. It is therefore the most crucial election since the war.
Together with the threat to freedom there has been a feeling of helplessness, that we are a once great nation that has somehow fallen behind and that it is too late now to turn things round.
I don't accept that. 1 believe we not only can, we must. This manifesto points the way.
It contains no magic formula or lavish promises. It is not a recipe for an easy or a perfect life. But it sets out a broad framework for the recovery of our country, based not on dogma, but On reason, on common sense, above all on the liberty of the people under the law.
The things we have in common as a nation far outnumber those that set us apart. P> It is in that spirit that I commend to you this manifesto.
Margaret Thatcher
1. OUR FIVE TASKS
THIS ELECTION is about the future of Britain - a great country which seems to have lost its way. It is a country rich in natural resources, in coal, oil, gas and fertile farmlands. It is rich, too, in human resources, with professional and managerial skills of the highest calibre, with great industries and firms whose workers can be the equal of any in the world We are the inheritors of a long tradition of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.
Yet today, this country is faced with its most serious problems since the Second World War. What has happened to our country, to the values we used to share, to the success and prosperity we once took for granted?
During the industrial strife of last winter, confidence, self-respect, common sense, and even our sense of common humanity were shaken. At times this society seemed on the brink of disintegration.
Some of the reasons for our difficulties today are complex and go back many years. Others are more simple and more recent. We do not lay all the blame on the Labour Party: but Labour have been in power for most of the last fifteen years and cannot escape the major responsibility.
They have made things worse in three ways. First, by practising the politics of envy and by actively discouraging the creation of wealth, they have set one group against another in an often bitter struggle to gain a larger share of a weak economy.
Second, by enlarging the role of the State and diminishing the role of the individual, they have crippled the enterprise and effort on which a prosperous country with improving social services depends.
Third, by heaping privilege without responsibility on the trade unions, Labour have given a minority of extremists the power to abuse individual liberties and to thwart Britain's chances of success. One result is that the trade union movement, which sprang from a deep and genuine fellow-feeling for the brotherhood of man, is today more distrusted and feared than ever before.
It is not just that Labour have governed Britain badly. They have reached a dead-end. The very nature of their Party now
prevents them from governing successfully in a free society and mixed economy.
Divided against themselves; devoid of any policies except those which have led to and would worsen our present troubles; bound inescapably by ties of history, political dogma and financial dependence to a single powerful interest group, Labour have demonstrated yet again that they cannot speak and dare not act for the nation as a whole.
Our country's relative decline is not inevitable. We in the Conservative Party think we can reverse it, not because we think we have all the answers but because we think we have the one answer that matters most. We want to work with the grain of human nature, helping people to help themselves - and others. This is the way to restore that self-reliance and self-confidence which are the basis of personal responsibility and national success.
Attempting to do too much, politicians have failed to do those things which should be done. This has damaged the country and the authority of government. We must concentrate on what should be the priorities for any government. They are set out in this manifesto.
Those who look in these pages for lavish promises or detailed commitments on every subject will look in vain. We may be able to do more in the next five years than we indicate here. We believe we can. But the Conservative government's first job will be to rebuild our economy and reunite a divided and disillusioned people.
Our five tasks are:
(i) To restore the health of our economic and social life, by controlling inflation and striking a fair balance between the rights and duties of the trade union movement.
(2) To restore incentives so that hard work pays, success is rewarded and genuine new jobs are created in an expanding economy.
(3) To uphold Parliament and the rule of law.
(4) To support family life, by helping people to become home-owners, raising the standards of their children's education, and concentrating welfare services on the effective support of the old, the sick, the disabled and those who are in real need.
(5) To strengthen Britain's defences and work with our allies to protect our interests in an increasingly threatening world.
-
BST,
No, you are wrong again.
Both articles (the IFS and the IFG) point out that the fiscal rules are a political choice, not an economic necessity.
There is no basis in economic theory for a particular formula for reducing debt as a % of GDP over an arbitrary 5 year timescale.
Likewise, why should Public Sector Net Borrowing be less than 3% of GDP in the fifth year?
This has nothing whatsoever to do with economics, and anyone suggesting it does should explain why.
Hunt (and Reeves) could set other restrictions on spending, and proceed on a case by case basis, as governments tended to do before New Labour.
Equally, they could set out policy objectives and look to increase taxes on assets or wealth to meet those investment priorities.
I don't know of anyone in the profession who would, without heavy caveats, support the arguments you are making in this thread.
-
BFYP.
Like I keep saying, Oppositions don't win elections. Governments lose them.
You'll be too young to remember, but Blair came to power in a landslide, saying very little about what he wanted to do, and explicitly sticking to the Tories' spending plans.
Thatcher never campaigned in 79 on the policy of having 15% interest rates to crush inflation, which would put 4 million out of work. She won because Labour had lost control in the Winter of Discontent.
I would argue that although the Tories lost it, as you say happens, it wouldn’t have been on such a scale if Blair hadn’t taken over as leader after the untimely death of John Smith. He oozed the C word, didn’t he?
Blair got me excited about our prospects and made me want to vote Labour. Of course, history eventually showed us he made some terrible mistakes, but he had us all in the palm of his hand to begin with.
That’s what we should have now: that kind of optimism. The gap should be even wider now than it was then, given the shit we’ve had in recent years. It may still be in terms of landslides, but where’s the optimism for our country this time?
All we’ve got is that at least the Tories won’t be in power anymore.
-
Interestingly, the current conservative government have been failing very badly on all five of Thatchers objectives since 2008.
-
Albie.
You are consistently confusing the principle of A fiscal rule with the specific detail of specific variants of a Fiscal rule.
It is simply unarguable that some form of fiscal rule is required by any and every sensible Govt. The specific detail is critically important of course, but just because Hunt picked a bad one doesn't mean the concept is wrong.
-
The country was offered real change by the Labour Party over the last two elections .
The country chose to stay as we are .
That will almost certainly lead to the country shifting further and further to the Right once this brief 5 years interlude of a centrist Labour government ends .
The previous two elections were in my opinion the last chance saloon before the country descends in to the grip of the Right .
The left are out of the game completely , finished possibly for decades , maybe for ever .
The country always gets the government it deserves .
-
No, I am not confusing the two.
I am saying that whatever rule is adopted is a product of political considerations, and is NOT an iron rule of economics.
There may be reasons to use FR at a particular time, but they are not a generic to be applied above other criteria.
The particular political choice made serves as cover for the administration who makes it, that is the main goal.
The nuances of this are set out here;
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2024/02/one-rule-to-bring-them-all-and-in.html
Please see footnote 1.
Reeves is applying a rule to borrowing as a result of ruling out wealth taxation.
This is completely the wrong way round.
-
Belton.
Blair was astonishingly fortunate. He took over at the perfect time for an Opposition leader.
The Govt was incompetent, riven with infighting and full of crooks. The country had had enough of them.
But.
The economy was being sensibly managed by Clarke, after a decade of mad experimentation with monetarism and pro-cyclical fiscal policy had run us from recession to unsustainable boomto recession again.
The Tories were never going to win in 97. But they'd done the heavy lifting of getting the economy more or less in shape under Clarke.
Blair could cruise to power in 97 to the tune of "Things can only get better" because things WERE going to get better. Not through any massive policy change, not at first anyway. We were at the start of the post Cold War era of Great Moderation, where most countries had sustained growth and minimal inflation and the peace dividend to spend on public services. Blair was the ideal front of house man with his cheesy smile and his bright eyes.
Things could only get better. Capitalism was working. The existential threat of the Cold War had gone. Optimism was the game.
Fast forward 27 years and the scene is totally different.
The economy has been shockingly mismanaged for over a decade. The current Chancellor is engaging in scorched earth policies, giving away tax cuts that no-one believes are feasible.
There's a growing threat to the whole of European peace, and we are going to have to spend far more on defence.
There's social division at home due to Brexit and the Culture War.
Optimism? Yeah I'm optimistic that we can do better than we have done. But also realistic that the next decade is going to be f**king hard work, and possibly the most dangerous in half a century.
Anyone coming in saying we just need a to have belief and be happy would be a f**king idiot in the current circumstances. It's time for sober hard work, and jam tomorrow.
-
Unfortunately I don't think hard work will cut it.
Not when house prices are 8x the average wage. That situation is likely to get worse when interest rates fall back and house prices take off again.
For most young people today, no matter how hard you work, you ain't going to be able to afford a home.
The only way will be to inherit and that doesn't work for many.
-
Belton.
Blair was astonishingly fortunate. He took over at the perfect time for an Opposition leader.
The Govt was incompetent, riven with infighting and full of crooks. The country had had enough of them.
But.
The economy was being sensibly managed by Clarke, after a decade of mad experimentation with monetarism and pro-cyclical fiscal policy had run us from recession to unsustainable boomto recession again.
The Tories were never going to win in 97. But they'd done the heavy lifting of getting the economy more or less in shape under Clarke.
Blair could cruise to power in 97 to the tune of "Things can only get better" because things WERE going to get better. Not through any massive policy change, not at first anyway. We were at the start of the post Cold War era of Great Moderation, where most countries had sustained growth and minimal inflation and the peace dividend to spend on public services. Blair was the ideal front of house man with his cheesy smile and his bright eyes.
Things could only get better. Capitalism was working. The existential threat of the Cold War had gone. Optimism was the game.
Fast forward 27 years and the scene is totally different.
The economy has been shockingly mismanaged for over a decade. The current Chancellor is engaging in scorched earth policies, giving away tax cuts that no-one believes are feasible.
There's a growing threat to the whole of European peace, and we are going to have to spend far more on defence.
There's social division at home due to Brexit and the Culture War.
Optimism? Yeah I'm optimistic that we can do better than we have done. But also realistic that the next decade is going to be f**king hard work, and possibly the most dangerous in half a century.
Anyone coming in saying we just need a to have belief and be happy would be a f**king idiot in the current circumstances. It's time for sober hard work, and jam tomorrow.
Those are very good points.
But for a PM to lead the country through the incredibly difficult times you say we have ahead of us, they need to connect with the country. They need the country (or even just Labour voters like me) to believe they can do it.
I’m not suggesting optimism is all we need, I just want to have someone running the country who I believe has what it takes to deliver. I just don’t see that in Starmer.
-
BFYP.
Like I keep saying, Oppositions don't win elections. Governments lose them.
You'll be too young to remember, but Blair came to power in a landslide, saying very little about what he wanted to do, and explicitly sticking to the Tories' spending plans.
Thatcher never campaigned in 79 on the policy of having 15% interest rates to crush inflation, which would put 4 million out of work. She won because Labour had lost control in the Winter of Discontent.
So what do you think Starmer will do? I can't believe he'd do anything except toughen up on police powers for Denis, send more aid to Israel and reduce taxes on hair gel.
-
Here you go Syd, from the IFS.
This article explains why the use of fiscal rules is a convenient camouflage option for politicians.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/gaming-fiscal-rules-no-way-make-budget-policy
Surprised you missed this when reading your Guardian, Syd;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/04/the-guardian-view-on-treasury-fiscal-rules-no-way-to-run-a-country
A good explainer of the Hunt budget here;
https://leftfootforward.org/2024/03/why-jeremy-hunts-budget-fails-britain/
I hope this helps!
Not at all Albie I'm waiting for you to produce evidence of what you said in your comment that:
''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends''
''These rules are revised on a regular basis, once it becomes clear they will not deliver the stated objectives''
If you read the article I posted there is a graph thingy that shows how inflation adhered to targets right up to the gfc, which GB handled quite well according to the rest of the world.
-
Here you go Syd, from the IFS.
This article explains why the use of fiscal rules is a convenient camouflage option for politicians.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/gaming-fiscal-rules-no-way-make-budget-policy
Surprised you missed this when reading your Guardian, Syd;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/04/the-guardian-view-on-treasury-fiscal-rules-no-way-to-run-a-country
A good explainer of the Hunt budget here;
https://leftfootforward.org/2024/03/why-jeremy-hunts-budget-fails-britain/
I hope this helps!
Not at all Albie I'm waiting for you to produce evidence of what you said in your comment that:
''Fiscal rules were a New Labour invention from 1997, designed to provide a camoflage cover for political ends''
''These rules are revised on a regular basis, once it becomes clear they will not deliver the stated objectives''
If you read the article I posted there is a graph thingy that shows how inflation adhered to targets right up to the gfc, which GB handled quite well according to the rest of the world.
Syd, to help you out (with something you could easily have found for yourself):
From the Institute for Government website:
What fiscal rules have UK governments adopted?
The first fiscal rules in the UK were adopted by the New Labour government in 1997. Those rules applied for over a decade, but since then the UK’s rules have changed more regularly. The current iteration of fiscal rules (set in November 2022) is the ninth set the UK has had. These nine sets of rules between them comprised 26 different rules in total, summarised in the table below.
What fiscal rules have UK governments adopted?
The first fiscal rules in the UK were adopted by the New Labour government in 1997. Those rules applied for over a decade, but since then the UK’s rules have changed more regularly. The current iteration of fiscal rules (set in November 2022) is the ninth set the UK has had. These nine sets of rules between them comprised 26 different rules in total.
-
BFYP.
Like I keep saying, Oppositions don't win elections. Governments lose them.
You'll be too young to remember, but Blair came to power in a landslide, saying very little about what he wanted to do, and explicitly sticking to the Tories' spending plans.
Thatcher never campaigned in 79 on the policy of having 15% interest rates to crush inflation, which would put 4 million out of work. She won because Labour had lost control in the Winter of Discontent.
Doesn't make it right and it's a fair question to ask. I'm sure we'll get more of a general sense of direction than we've got now in the coming months.
-
Like I've said BFYP, the detail of macroeconomic policy are too much to deal with in an election campaign.
When given the choice between trying to understand the Paradox of Thrift, or just being told we've spent more than we can afford, which one are voters going to plump for?
That's not right either, but it has happened regularly in recent elections.