The Labour Files

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

This one BST?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-embarrassed-by-friendly-message-to-evgeny-lebedev-on-peerage-z7wvtx7dj

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/

Not a good look, this!

They've got to get staff and people in from somewhere.  Are they not better off bringing in specialists no matter how junior than using those who aren't of the right level and skillset?

[normal rules]

Just a reminder on the topic of Tories and the Lords. Only I have to pinch myself on this one regularly because it's so brazen it is scarcely believable.

The Tories gave a peerage to Lord Lebedev of Siberia.

Lord Lebedev's father is an ex-KGB colonel who is blacklisted by several NATO countries as a Putin agent.

It would be too stupid to be a spy thriller plot. But it's there right under our noses.

Your comment could quite easily be a direct lift from the very highest level covert authority document, authorised at the very highest level, by the head of MI6 and the Home Secretary.
“No one in their right mind would suspect him of being at the very highest level of international espionage would they?”
What fantastic cover. His “Legend” would pretty much write itself.
Only three know of his real role. Maybe even only two.
The head of MI6 and his Handler.
Just consider that for a moment.
It’s not as stupid or as far fetched as you think.
Extensive contacts and comms with high level persons in Russia still.  A British and Russian citizen. Bi lingual. Shared interests. Big rewards. Free to travel pretty much where he wants still. No sanctions.
I’d have him on my books if I was in that World. In a heartbeat.
A Putin Agent, if He is indeed one, would make a very good double agent.

But that doesn’t fit with an anti Tory agenda does it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yeah. His dad did a brilliant long term cover job for his son. All them years on the KGB, then making a fortune in the Russian kleptocracy, and working for Putin, all for his bairn's legend.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872

More scaling back from labour, I wonder how many more they'll scale back or scrap?

[albie]

More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/

Not a good look, this!

They've got to get staff and people in from somewhere.  Are they not better off bringing in specialists no matter how junior than using those who aren't of the right level and skillset?

Pud,

The conflicts of interest here are obvious.
The big 4 accountancy companies have client lists that would value inside information on policy developments in advance.

Quite apart from having vested interests with a input steer on economic policy, the potential misuse of privileged access is an avoidable difficulty.

This is particularly the case where the role of the big 4 is contested in terms of the offshore shadow economy and the tax regime. They have been heavily fined for misuse of information previously.

These companies should be nowhere near the internal operations of a political party...it should be unlawful IMO.

[MachoMadness]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872

More scaling back from labour, I wonder how many more they'll scale back or scrap?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/

Not a good look, this!

They've got to get staff and people in from somewhere.  Are they not better off bringing in specialists no matter how junior than using those who aren't of the right level and skillset?

Pud,

The conflicts of interest here are obvious.
The big 4 accountancy companies have client lists that would value inside information on policy developments in advance.

Quite apart from having vested interests with a input steer on economic policy, the potential misuse of privileged access is an avoidable difficulty.

This is particularly the case where the role of the big 4 is contested in terms of the offshore shadow economy and the tax regime. They have been heavily fined for misuse of information previously.

These companies should be nowhere near the internal operations of a political party...it should be unlawful IMO.

I'd question then who are you going to get the consultancy work they offer in many ways completed by?  Perhaps greater control on how they use the information with bigger penalties.  There never will be a world where advance questioning of policies won't find its way to bigger businesses, it's routine conversation and there's as many pros as some of the cons you mention.

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872

More scaling back from labour, I wonder how many more they'll scale back or scrap?

AKA. Having to deal with the real world fallout from Truss and Kwarteng.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Compare government borrowing in the latest forecast to that set in 2021 when the policy was announced.  Over the period it's barely different, in timing yes but not in totality. The government borrowing forecast position isn't much different now to what it was back then at all when you compare it.

In March 21 Public sector net debt was forecast at 2025-26 end to be £2,804b or 103.8% of GDP.

The March 23 forecast had 2,776 at the same time period. or 99.1% of GDP.

So why was it ok back then but isn't ok now?  Perhaps they've simply realised they have to properly cost things afterall?

Edited to add:  I'm not sure the Kwaseng/Truss comparison is valid in this case.  But surely even you can see Labour is at risk of looking at best unclear if it keeps shifting it's policies and backtracking continuously?  As ever, it's harder to be bold if you actually have to implement it....

[albie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872

More scaling back from labour, I wonder how many more they'll scale back or scrap?

A better question is whether the shortfall in funding will be sought from the private sector, and at what cost.
Twitter summary here;
https://twitter.com/MickMcAteer/status/1667149974562299906

Reeves does not appear to understand that the "fiscal rules" can be changed.
She made them up, and she can replace them if the situation warrants it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP.

It's not about the level of borrowing. It's about the perception of the UK as at risk of runaway inflation.

You can borrow and spend what you like when inflation expectations are low. When inflation expectations are high, borrowing and spending risks stoking the fires.

Bizarrely, over the past 50 years, the Tories have four times got that spectacularly wrong:

The Barber and Lawson booms where they set off rampant inflation for years.

The Howe Budget and Austerity where they slashed Govt spending and borrowing during weak economic times and saw massive economic slowdowns.

What you are doing is criticising Labour for seeing the potential danger and avoiding it in advance.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

"Fiscal Rules" are an explicit acknowledgement of some of the fundamental principles of macroeconomics.

Basically, Fiscal Rules accept that you can't run unfunded current account deficits for long periods without major problems arising.

You can no more change them than you can say gravity doesn't exist, therefore you can jump out of the window.

[albie]

BST,

Fiscal rules are set by the government, and as such they are a political choice.
They are an invention of New Labour, to provide a fig leaf to cover the modesty of spending restraint.

Gordon Brown used them as a marketing device, to pull the wool over people who do not understand economics.
There is no immutable basis for these fiscal rules in economic theory.

To see that, look at the history since 1997;
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/fiscal-rules-history

Not only have they been set to new standards at different points, but they have often not been delivered.
The policy actions of governments in power sidestep the rules, because they are essentially a propaganda tool in the neo-liberal economic mythology.

The Labour Treasury team (and Reeves in particular) are in hock to Bank of England orthodoxies, precisely the model that the UK economy needs to be flexible to escape from.
The framework for any economic programme is the revenue base.

Reeves could choose to tax the high earning 5%, using the wealth tax as a mechanism to fund important priorities like the green new deal.
Having foolishly ruled this out, Labour have trapped themselves between a rock and a hard place, and will pivot to a version of austerity based on the backstop of these selected restrictions.

[tommy toes]

Johnson's latest batch of honours is sickening and gives more reasons to abolish the whole thing, including the House of Lords.

[wilts rover]

Just a reminder on the topic of Tories and the Lords. Only I have to pinch myself on this one regularly because it's so brazen it is scarcely believable.

The Tories gave a peerage to Lord Lebedev of Siberia.

Lord Lebedev's father is an ex-KGB colonel who is blacklisted by several NATO countries as a Putin agent.

It would be too stupid to be a spy thriller plot. But it's there right under our noses.

Your comment could quite easily be a direct lift from the very highest level covert authority document, authorised at the very highest level, by the head of MI6 and the Home Secretary.
“No one in their right mind would suspect him of being at the very highest level of international espionage would they?”
What fantastic cover. His “Legend” would pretty much write itself.
Only three know of his real role. Maybe even only two.
The head of MI6 and his Handler.
Just consider that for a moment.
It’s not as stupid or as far fetched as you think.
Extensive contacts and comms with high level persons in Russia still.  A British and Russian citizen. Bi lingual. Shared interests. Big rewards. Free to travel pretty much where he wants still. No sanctions.
I’d have him on my books if I was in that World. In a heartbeat.
A Putin Agent, if He is indeed one, would make a very good double agent.

But that doesn’t fit with an anti Tory agenda does it?

Nor does Johnson being so corrupt he will take money from anyone, anywhere to gain himself power and prestige and damn the consequences. But his fans will still excuse it and the consequences for this country.

If Johnson had not cosied up to the Russians they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. Him allowing stolen Russian money to enter the City was one of the factor that emboldened Putin.

Loads of books about it. Proper ones - not the fantasies you seem to read.

[MachoMadness]

Another day, another U-turn.

Begs the question - what are Labour actually going to do when in power? I appreciate that this far out from an election, it's more about setting broad ideological positions and mood music, maybe a few headline policies at this stage. So far, they don't seem to have an ideology, the headline policies have all been scrapped and the mood music is;

-We'll say whatever to get in power
-We can't afford anything
-Better things aren't possible
-Let us have a go in charge anyway, it's our turn

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/13/labour-rules-out-universal-childcare-for-young-children-in-fiscal-credibility-drive?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Glad the grown ups are back in charge.

[danumdon]

Another day, another U-turn.

Begs the question - what are Labour actually going to do when in power? I appreciate that this far out from an election, it's more about setting broad ideological positions and mood music, maybe a few headline policies at this stage. So far, they don't seem to have an ideology, the headline policies have all been scrapped and the mood music is;

-We'll say whatever to get in power
-We can't afford anything
-Better things aren't possible
-Let us have a go in charge anyway, it's our turn

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/13/labour-rules-out-universal-childcare-for-young-children-in-fiscal-credibility-drive?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Glad the grown ups are back in charge.

The absolute worst thing about all this will be when they finally assume power they will change tack again and say that the conditions and timing are not now right to enable us to apply the fiscal rues that we set out previously, even though we have spent the best part of this parliament telling every man and his dog that our policies will correct the wrongs that are currently affecting us.

Having laid the groundwork constantly, by forever changing tack on what they were telling us last month was the correct policy to follow leads one to think,

Do these people actually know what they are trying to achieve?

If they can flagrantly change tack in opposition who's to stop them continuing in government?

Out of the frying pan and into the fire, Is Reeves any good at cooking?

[scawsby steve]

I've said it on here before; Labour will win the GE, and absolutely nothing will change from the sh*t we're all living in right now.

[BillyStubbsTears]

SS.

Nothing will change quickly. That's not possible and you have to factor that in.

We've had 13 years of awful economic policy.

Austerity
Brexit
Truss/Kwarteng.

You don't fix that in the blink of an eye.

We had the chance for the Govt to borrow to invest in infrastructure at literally negative interest rates. We missed that boat and it's not coming back for a while.

Meantime productivity has flat lined for the whole time this lot has been in power. That's the key issue. If productivity doesn't improve, we don't get better off. That's a cast iron fact of economics. Figuring out what the problem here is, and fixing it has not even been on the agenda.

Labour had a decent inheritance in 1997. By then, the Thatcherite obsessives had  been put to  one side for 5 years and Ken Clarke as Chancellor had run the economy well for that period. Labour built on that and the result was that we had the longest spell of unbroken growth for well over a century. Before the GLOBAL Financial Crash hit everyone, things were unrecognisable from where they were 15 years before.

It's going to take 15 years to sort out the mess we are currently in. What matters now is getting the direction right. If you're driving at 70 miles an hour in the wrong direction and you start to correct that, you don't start driving in the right direction immediately.

[tyke1962]

SS.

Nothing will change quickly. That's not possible and you have to factor that in.

We've had 13 years of awful economic policy.

Austerity
Brexit
Truss/Kwarteng.

You don't fix that in the blink of an eye.

We had the chance for the Govt to borrow to invest in infrastructure at literally negative interest rates. We missed that boat and it's not coming back for a while.

Meantime productivity has flat lined for the whole time this lot has been in power. That's the key issue. If productivity doesn't improve, we don't get better off. That's a cast iron fact of economics. Figuring out what the problem here is, and fixing it has not even been on the agenda.

Labour had a decent inheritance in 1997. By then, the Thatcherite obsessives had  been put to  one side for 5 years and Ken Clarke as Chancellor had run the economy well for that period. Labour built on that and the result was that we had the longest spell of unbroken growth for well over a century. Before the GLOBAL Financial Crash hit everyone, things were unrecognisable from where they were 15 years before.

It's going to take 15 years to sort out the mess we are currently in. What matters now is getting the direction right. If you're driving at 70 miles an hour in the wrong direction and you start to correct that, you don't start driving in the right direction immediately.

We had six years of war between 1939 and1945 the country was devastated and in ruins plus it was bankrupt .

The new incoming government Labour government had the will and balls to provide the country a better future .

If that was possible then don't give me your 15 years now Billy .

Political will to provide the necessary change please .

As for your 15 years , Keith won't do five unless he ups his game .

[MachoMadness]

I'm confused as to where the current Labour party has said they're going to change anything.

Just enabled the Tory anti protest bill, by the way.

[albie]

The plan seems to be let the Tories pass repressive legislation, with just token opposition, and then inherit that position if they win the GE.

The decision to whip in the HoL to abstain on the anti-protest bill is a complete disgrace;
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1668710154286579719?cxt=HHwWjoC2tenCuaguAAAA

This procedure is a slight of hand by the government, and the official opposition fails to support the Greens and oppose.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

It'll be that windfall tax again won't it - "ah it's too late now" as if it was ever viable in the first place!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke.

In 1945, we'd just had 5 years of evidence that central planning was a strong method of getting results.

We'd had a horrifically bad inter War period and there was a cry for a new approach.

Even so, Labour couldn't make the macroeconomic numbers add up with a massive crack down on public consumption. You reckon people today would be up for that? Having bread rationed?

And even THEN, the economy would have caved in without Marshall Plan money.

I've had years of being lectured about "Well in 1945..." by people who evidently don't have the first idea of what actually happened. Transformatory as it was, it's not repeatable.

Here's the issue today. And this is what the lazy snipers from the Left need to take on board.

Labour has been labelled for decades with the badge that they are economically incompetent.

It's a lie.

Over the past half century, most of the disastrous macroeconomic mistakes have been made by Tory Govts.

But that doesn't matter. It's what people THINK is true that matters, not what is actually true.

The only way Labour loses next year is if the Tories can pin the "You Can't Trust Labour" badge on them.

So Labour has to be seen to be spotlessly clean on debt and borrowing.

Do I like it? Of course I don't. It's not optimal for economic policy.

But that's politics. You choose what the real world offers you.

You can have the Tories out of power, ripping themselves apart and unelectable for 15 years, while Labour, quietly at first, moves things the right way. Slower than they should. Slower than I'd like. But in the right way over a long period.

Or, you can throw a strop and scream "Full on Socialism or Nothing."

In which case, you'll get worse than nothing. You'll get the Tories for another decade.

You decide what you want.

[albie]

Poor Billy, as devoted as a spaniel to his master Keith, but sadly deeply deluded.

If you imagine Keith will steer back from the far right to the extreme centre once elected, you have not understood his role in the re-alignment of UK neo-liberalism.

The central principle is to embed the arbitrary "fiscal rules" as a core value to political debate.

From that, if you set rules to accept a presumption in favour of low borrowing analysis, it is a small step to default to austerity as a first economic response.

Any intelligent discussion of raising the revenue base is pushed to the margins.

The ambition is to lock in to a narrative shared by both parties, with the only point of difference being competent management.
There is no clear dividing line on key points of principle.
 
The HoL debacle on the Green "fatal motion" shows this merger of interests.
The excuses given by Labour have no relevance, and are there to passively endorse the Tories in tightening the rules.
https://twitter.com/premnsikka/status/1668872918770540545

Video summary of the issues here:
https://twitter.com/KernowDamo/status/1669024105104908294

The use of "statutory instrument" is a case in point, allowing the government to bypass the need to process a legal change via passing a Bill as primary legislation.

If you can do this in this instance, you can do it again where opposition is raised.
Labour have given tacit consent to the rinse and repeat of this tactic in future.

[tyke1962]

Tyke.

In 1945, we'd just had 5 years of evidence that central planning was a strong method of getting results.

We'd had a horrifically bad inter War period and there was a cry for a new approach.

Even so, Labour couldn't make the macroeconomic numbers add up with a massive crack down on public consumption. You reckon people today would be up for that? Having bread rationed?

And even THEN, the economy would have caved in without Marshall Plan money.

I've had years of being lectured about "Well in 1945..." by people who evidently don't have the first idea of what actually happened. Transformatory as it was, it's not repeatable.

Here's the issue today. And this is what the lazy snipers from the Left need to take on board.

Labour has been labelled for decades with the badge that they are economically incompetent.

It's a lie.

Over the past half century, most of the disastrous macroeconomic mistakes have been made by Tory Govts.

But that doesn't matter. It's what people THINK is true that matters, not what is actually true.

The only way Labour loses next year is if the Tories can pin the "You Can't Trust Labour" badge on them.

So Labour has to be seen to be spotlessly clean on debt and borrowing.

Do I like it? Of course I don't. It's not optimal for economic policy.

But that's politics. You choose what the real world offers you.

You can have the Tories out of power, ripping themselves apart and unelectable for 15 years, while Labour, quietly at first, moves things the right way. Slower than they should. Slower than I'd like. But in the right way over a long period.

Or, you can throw a strop and scream "Full on Socialism or Nothing."

In which case, you'll get worse than nothing. You'll get the Tories for another decade.

You decide what you want.

We will potentially get the Tories for another decade because if Labour don't put some clear daylight between themselves and the Conservative Party and pretty sharpish then nobody will be enthused to go out and vote for them .

It's entirely up to the Labour Party to attract my vote .

You can waffle on all you want about the slow but sure process but it seems to me Labour can't even stick to the few promises they've made in opposition so how you see that as slow progress is beyond me .

Labour have turned so much to the right the majority of its leading figures wouldn't look out of place in a Cameron government .

If I wanted another Cameron government I'd have voted for one in 2010 and 2015 in the first place .

[BillyStubbsTears]

As ever Albie, you lot on the far left ignore the fact that your beautifully crafted schemes are piss and wind if you don't actually win power.

Run by me how you have that "intelligent debate" about taxes without leaving Labour exposed to precisely the wrong public image that I mentioned above (and you totally ignored).

And when you start from the premise that anyone who prioritises getting elected is a class traitor, you'll convince yourself that every Labour govt are class traitors.

[albie]

BST,

Not an iota of rational thinking in the standard responses from the Labour right.....just patronising assumptions about what people value!

You do not seem to have grasped that a wealth tax is supported by a majority of UK voters:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/01/23/three-quarters-britons-support-wealth-taxes-millio

Alongside a wealth tax, Labour could commit to matching Capital Gains Tax with Income Taxes.

As long as it is explained that the funds raised would be directed to restoring the NHS (remember that bus), or to enable the green energy transition, then most would understand the logic.
So the net gain in support for such a policy would be a substantial boost to popularity, but instead Keith prefers to just bin the policy.

What exactly is wrong with saying how you will raise money to promote policies to improve peoples lives?

The idea that Labour should make policy delivery hostage to fortune by restricting ambitions to force fit inside made up "fiscal rules" is bonkers.
It is very bad politics, and completely irrational economics.

As you think this would be the "wrong public image", what is the evidence that the public want a Labour Party with no declared policy intentions which differentiate from Sunak?

[albie]

Another pledge (or was it a mission) thrown overboard by Keith in the Murdoch Sunday Times;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-in-retreat-from-north-sea-oil-pledge-mhhtxjqfk

Green new deal now looking a bit threadbare, given the size of the developing crisis.

So that will set the framework for the next government.
Tories will give consents that Labour will not reverse.