If only it were true.....

[Bentley Bullet]

....And things COULD only get better!

[rich1471]

Number 10 is where he's going to.

[roverstillidie91]

As much as I am extremely anti-tory I still don't know what Labours plan is?

[IDM]

As much as I am extremely anti-tory I still don't know what Labours plan is?

Ok so you’re using the internet.  This was on the bbc website last week, and probably on the tv news too:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-69016719

You may have missed it when published, which is fine; but if you wanted to know Labours plans it’s not rocket science to find out.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Plus, Rachel Reeves has set out in detail what Labour's economic plan is:

In a nutshell, it is a very long term plan for growth. Balance the current account but allow borrowing for investment. It's the classic remedy for an economy that has spent too long living on consumption and not investing.

It's not going to solve our problems in 1 year, or even 5 years. But it's setting the right direction for the next 30 years.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And Reeves slipped in a very, very clever point in her Mansion House speech in March.

Currently, the OBR's economic predictions work on the principle that Govt investment doesn't increase economic output.

Why they do that, God alone knows because it's batshit. If we build a new railway line, or houses where they are needed, of course economic activity increases.

Reeves said she will require the OBR to change that rule. That means when she borrows to invest, the OBR's predictions of GDP five years down the line will be much higher than they would be under current rules.

So, because predicted GDP will be higher, she'll be able to spend more on both current costs and capital investment without breaking the Fiscal rules she has signed up to.

It's very clever politics and appears to have gone straight over the heads of the "They're just Red Tories" bunch.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

And Reeves slipped in a very, very clever point in her Mansion House speech in March.

Currently, the OBR's economic predictions work on the principle that Govt investment doesn't increase economic output.

Why they do that, God alone knows because it's batshit. If we build a new railway line, or houses where they are needed, of course economic activity increases.

Reeves said she will require the OBR to change that rule. That means when she borrows to invest, the OBR's predictions of GDP five years down the line will be much higher than they would be under current rules.

So, because predicted GDP will be higher, she'll be able to spend more on both current costs and capital investment without breaking the Fiscal rules she has signed up to.

It's very clever politics and appears to have gone straight over the heads of the "They're just Red Tories" bunch.

All well and good until you don't achieve the growth though.  It depends on the definition of economic activity.  Build a new rail line and it may add absolutely nothing (bar building it), hence assuming not can be the right metric.  It's perfectly viable to adjust the process but it's a little riskier.

[Bristol Red Rover]

The perfect puppet for the UK of today.

[bpoolrover]

Plus, Rachel Reeves has set out in detail what Labour's economic plan is:

In a nutshell, it is a very long term plan for growth. Balance the current account but allow borrowing for investment. It's the classic remedy for an economy that has spent too long living on consumption and not investing.

It's not going to solve our problems in 1 year, or even 5 years. But it's setting the right direction for the next 30 years.

bst if the tories had said that you would have said the need to spend massive now, borrow lots and invest! You were all over bidens plan in america, now labour are getting into power by saying what the tories say you seem to have changed your tune slightly

[danumdon]

And Reeves slipped in a very, very clever point in her Mansion House speech in March.

Currently, the OBR's economic predictions work on the principle that Govt investment doesn't increase economic output.

Why they do that, God alone knows because it's batshit. If we build a new railway line, or houses where they are needed, of course economic activity increases.

Reeves said she will require the OBR to change that rule. That means when she borrows to invest, the OBR's predictions of GDP five years down the line will be much higher than they would be under current rules.

So, because predicted GDP will be higher, she'll be able to spend more on both current costs and capital investment without breaking the Fiscal rules she has signed up to.

It's very clever politics and appears to have gone straight over the heads of the "They're just Red Tories" bunch.

So Reeves wants the rules changing so they give a more favourable long term "prediction" so in the meantime she can borrow more cash on the strength of it, ermm.

This sounds something like the policy way back when work placements were introduced for kids that had left school with very poor or no formal qualifications. get them into the scheme, it gives them a job for a year, you can then massage the employment figures and make it look like the trend is downwards but in reality the "created job" kicks out the individual at the end of the year and gives it to another struggling school leaver. Looks like your being proactive but in reality its a mirage and not a good substitute for creating solid and permanent long term jobs and growth.

Massaging the figures didn't work then and will more than likely not work now.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And Reeves slipped in a very, very clever point in her Mansion House speech in March.

Currently, the OBR's economic predictions work on the principle that Govt investment doesn't increase economic output.

Why they do that, God alone knows because it's batshit. If we build a new railway line, or houses where they are needed, of course economic activity increases.

Reeves said she will require the OBR to change that rule. That means when she borrows to invest, the OBR's predictions of GDP five years down the line will be much higher than they would be under current rules.

So, because predicted GDP will be higher, she'll be able to spend more on both current costs and capital investment without breaking the Fiscal rules she has signed up to.

It's very clever politics and appears to have gone straight over the heads of the "They're just Red Tories" bunch.

All well and good until you don't achieve the growth though.  It depends on the definition of economic activity.  Build a new rail line and it may add absolutely nothing (bar building it), hence assuming not can be the right metric.  It's perfectly viable to adjust the process but it's a little riskier.

The overwhelming majority of Govt capital investment leads to economic boosts. That's why Austerity flatlined us for three years, because the biggest cuts were in capital investment.

Let's see where we are in 4-5 years time.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD.
And there you go again.

It's got f**k all to do with "massaging the figures". It's about correcting a glaring error that every economist worth their salt (other than a few batshit far right ideologues) knows is currently wrong.

You DO see what you do, don't you? You start from the assumption that every single thing Labour does or doesn't do is wrong. Then you ignore all the evidence and arguments and insist you are right.

Then you complain that our politics isn't better, when parties have to suck up to people like you.

[drfchound]

Yet another very condescending reply.

[roverstillidie91]

And Reeves slipped in a very, very clever point in her Mansion House speech in March.

Currently, the OBR's economic predictions work on the principle that Govt investment doesn't increase economic output.

Why they do that, God alone knows because it's batshit. If we build a new railway line, or houses where they are needed, of course economic activity increases.

Reeves said she will require the OBR to change that rule. That means when she borrows to invest, the OBR's predictions of GDP five years down the line will be much higher than they would be under current rules.

So, because predicted GDP will be higher, she'll be able to spend more on both current costs and capital investment without breaking the Fiscal rules she has signed up to.

It's very clever politics and appears to have gone straight over the heads of the "They're just Red Tories" bunch.

in other words fiscal means more austerity and more public sector cuts?

[selby]

For every £1 the government put in like every other time Labour have got in  more will leave the country  with the non Doms and investment in business being invested abroad because of the tax liabilities on companies.
  When that happens as usual the labour government will put up the working populations tax with fuel duty masked as saving the planet, raids on pensions, one off (regular raids on bank profits), and business rates.
  Best of luck lads, its going to be a hard five years, if they last that long.

[SydneyRover]

For every £1 the government put in like every other time Labour have got in  more will leave the country  with the non Doms and investment in business being invested abroad because of the tax liabilities on companies.
  When that happens as usual the labour government will put up the working populations tax with fuel duty masked as saving the planet, raids on pensions, one off (regular raids on bank profits), and business rates.
  Best of luck lads, its going to be a hard five years, if they last that long.

Deal or no Deal is a game show selby, not politics