Todays budget

[belton rover]

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.

[Bristol Red Rover]

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.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[albie]

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!

[Bristol Red Rover]

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.

[bpoolrover]

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/07/ifs-warns-of-labour-and-tory-conspiracy-of-silence-over-future-tax-and-spending-plans

[River Don]

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?..

[drfchound]

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.

[SydneyRover]

''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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Sprotyrover]

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!

[belton rover]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[belton rover]

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.

[ravenrover]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Iberian Red]

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

[scawsby steve]

''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?

[SydneyRover]

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.

[belton rover]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[River Don]

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.

[belton rover]

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.

[belton rover]

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.

[tommy toes]

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

[Sprotyrover]

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

[belton rover]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.