By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
'In many ways, this is old ground for the Labour party. When George Osborne framed post-2010 austerity as a means to fix Labour’s “out of control” benefits bill, the leadership at the time – first Ed Miliband and then interim leader Harriet Harman – adopted the narrative with the air of a sinner looking to repent, culminating in the party abstaining from the vote on the government’s toxic welfare bill. In 2015, Reeves – then shadow work and pensions secretary – famously declared Labour was “not the party of people on benefits”.
Such capitulation is in part a rational response to a media ecosystem in Britain that enables a small group of rightwing newspapers to shape Labour’s policy agenda, painting the party as economically unsound the minute it attempts to make ordinary people’s lives slightly better. But it is also a trap of the party’s own making. Starmer’s narrow emphasis on “fiscal responsibility” – and Reeves’s unnecessary commitment to the government’s flawed fiscal rules – enables the Conservatives to set the agenda and buys into, rather than challenges, established wisdom on the legitimacy of public spending. It is not a coincidence that the spending that is deemed irresponsible is typically for the benefits system or wider welfare state. Tax breaks for a CEO’s investment portfolio are prudent, while funding for a disabled person’s care worker is wasteful.
We see this again when Labour parrots the government’s economic language. In response to the budget, Starmer declared “the national credit card is maxed out” while Reeves opted for the old chestnut, “There’s no magic money tree.” Adopting such framing is not just economically illiterate, it fences Labour in for how a future government can raise funds and spend them. Before you know it, Reeves is announcing that – now that Hunt has taken her non-dom tax revenue policy – she intends to pay for the NHS and school breakfasts through (wait for it) “future savings to public spending”. Who needs a wealth tax when you can squeeze councils facing bankruptcy?'
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
You may be interested to know that Reeves' comment in 2015 caused our membership secretary to write the following letter to members of our executive committee.
"I have to inform you that I am with sadness resigning my Labour Party membership and my role on the executive as Membership Secretary.
In that interview she is quoted as saying “We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work,……. Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.”
As someone who claims benefits only because they cannot work, I feel personally betrayed and insulted by that statement, and I now feel that I am unwelcome within the UK Labour Party.
I must absolutely stress that this is nothing to do with the local Labour Party, every member of which has afforded me nothing but friendship, respect and camaraderie since I joined some years ago.
However you will know that I have had increasing difficulty with my membership of a party which has been on a steadily rightward trajectory for too long.
I am afraid that my leaving the Labour Party has been looking more and more inevitable for some time, and this statement by Reeves has been the last straw.
I genuinely wish you all well in the coming elections, and I feel sorry I won't be able to celebrate a good result with you all.
I will of course be available to assist with a smooth transittion of my duties to a successor and I will hand over all passwords and accounts to the CLP within the next few days."
[Post edited 12 Mar 8:54]
3
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:02 - Mar 12 with 2182 views
an article criticising fiscal responsibility and fiscal constraints that doesn't even mention truss and kwarteng is really economically illiterate. but i agree, it would be lovely if fiscal policy was unconstrained, if budget deficits didn't need to be financed, if debt was free, if interest rates never rose, if people wanted to lend to governments with unfinanced deficits, if the £ never fell and inflation never went up, and transfer payments just magically paid for themsleves. perhaps if we all just wish hard enough it will happen?
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:21 - Mar 12 with 2078 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:16 - Mar 12 by lowhouseblue
an article criticising fiscal responsibility and fiscal constraints that doesn't even mention truss and kwarteng is really economically illiterate. but i agree, it would be lovely if fiscal policy was unconstrained, if budget deficits didn't need to be financed, if debt was free, if interest rates never rose, if people wanted to lend to governments with unfinanced deficits, if the £ never fell and inflation never went up, and transfer payments just magically paid for themsleves. perhaps if we all just wish hard enough it will happen?
Cuts to public spending rather than wealth taxes are definitely the way to go Lowers. Rock on New New Labour.
[Post edited 12 Mar 9:22]
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
However, as I have said before, the electorate has been trained for 40+ years to begin salivating at the ringing of the tax cuts bell. It's what they've come to expect. I think it was a contributory factor to Labour's failure to take advantage of the Theresa May shambles in 2017.
There seems to be a genuine belief that better services can be delivered without bringing in more money, by cutting this or squeezing that. The reality being that, 16 years after the Credit Crunch and with things having tightened for three decades before that, there is no fat left to trim. To gain realistic headroom from Welfare, they'd have to start cutting pensions (which is also a vote loser).
But the problem remains that there is an expectation of constant tax cuts - and the received wisdom among political strategists that this is so. We can deplore it all we like, but that's the environment they're working in.
How can we get over such conditioning? Very difficult, it's deeply ingrained. Plus we have an environment not well suited to debate, with political gamers prepared to make - and the public to accept - wild, unfunded promises they will never be able to keep (if they ever intended to). Also a media environment where the larger outlets are almost all owned by those of a particular position or have had their credibility undermined and outside that is an internet/social media mess of often extreme and wacky views - some of which are mere trolling. The electoral system doesn't help, which keeps big parties together for the bulk benefits (despite the ideologies which formed them having long fallen away) and makes it harder for new ones to gain traction.
Revolution, anyone?
Not an entirely serious suggestion - they often tend to result in shambles, war, dictatorship and/or the restoration of reactionary regimes in the end.
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:16 - Mar 12 by lowhouseblue
an article criticising fiscal responsibility and fiscal constraints that doesn't even mention truss and kwarteng is really economically illiterate. but i agree, it would be lovely if fiscal policy was unconstrained, if budget deficits didn't need to be financed, if debt was free, if interest rates never rose, if people wanted to lend to governments with unfinanced deficits, if the £ never fell and inflation never went up, and transfer payments just magically paid for themsleves. perhaps if we all just wish hard enough it will happen?
What is the point of Starmers Labour Party if it won't stand up for poor, sick or disabled people?
0
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:46 - Mar 12 with 1970 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:33 - Mar 12 by Guthrum
All this is true. And horrendous.
However, as I have said before, the electorate has been trained for 40+ years to begin salivating at the ringing of the tax cuts bell. It's what they've come to expect. I think it was a contributory factor to Labour's failure to take advantage of the Theresa May shambles in 2017.
There seems to be a genuine belief that better services can be delivered without bringing in more money, by cutting this or squeezing that. The reality being that, 16 years after the Credit Crunch and with things having tightened for three decades before that, there is no fat left to trim. To gain realistic headroom from Welfare, they'd have to start cutting pensions (which is also a vote loser).
But the problem remains that there is an expectation of constant tax cuts - and the received wisdom among political strategists that this is so. We can deplore it all we like, but that's the environment they're working in.
How can we get over such conditioning? Very difficult, it's deeply ingrained. Plus we have an environment not well suited to debate, with political gamers prepared to make - and the public to accept - wild, unfunded promises they will never be able to keep (if they ever intended to). Also a media environment where the larger outlets are almost all owned by those of a particular position or have had their credibility undermined and outside that is an internet/social media mess of often extreme and wacky views - some of which are mere trolling. The electoral system doesn't help, which keeps big parties together for the bulk benefits (despite the ideologies which formed them having long fallen away) and makes it harder for new ones to gain traction.
Revolution, anyone?
Not an entirely serious suggestion - they often tend to result in shambles, war, dictatorship and/or the restoration of reactionary regimes in the end.
just to add some difficulties: the tax take as a percent of national income is now at a record high; transfer payments are at a record high; and the percentage of the working age population who are economically inactive is at a record high. that is a huge fiscal deadweight for any future government.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:49 - Mar 12 with 1955 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:46 - Mar 12 by lowhouseblue
just to add some difficulties: the tax take as a percent of national income is now at a record high; transfer payments are at a record high; and the percentage of the working age population who are economically inactive is at a record high. that is a huge fiscal deadweight for any future government.
Absolutely. Despite four decades of tax cut pledges, they've actually gone up. Shows how little such promises are worth.
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:33 - Mar 12 by Guthrum
All this is true. And horrendous.
However, as I have said before, the electorate has been trained for 40+ years to begin salivating at the ringing of the tax cuts bell. It's what they've come to expect. I think it was a contributory factor to Labour's failure to take advantage of the Theresa May shambles in 2017.
There seems to be a genuine belief that better services can be delivered without bringing in more money, by cutting this or squeezing that. The reality being that, 16 years after the Credit Crunch and with things having tightened for three decades before that, there is no fat left to trim. To gain realistic headroom from Welfare, they'd have to start cutting pensions (which is also a vote loser).
But the problem remains that there is an expectation of constant tax cuts - and the received wisdom among political strategists that this is so. We can deplore it all we like, but that's the environment they're working in.
How can we get over such conditioning? Very difficult, it's deeply ingrained. Plus we have an environment not well suited to debate, with political gamers prepared to make - and the public to accept - wild, unfunded promises they will never be able to keep (if they ever intended to). Also a media environment where the larger outlets are almost all owned by those of a particular position or have had their credibility undermined and outside that is an internet/social media mess of often extreme and wacky views - some of which are mere trolling. The electoral system doesn't help, which keeps big parties together for the bulk benefits (despite the ideologies which formed them having long fallen away) and makes it harder for new ones to gain traction.
Revolution, anyone?
Not an entirely serious suggestion - they often tend to result in shambles, war, dictatorship and/or the restoration of reactionary regimes in the end.
The tragic thing is that people in other successful western European countries don't have these sort of attitudes, and realise that decent public services need paying for.
I met a British friend from Paris yesterday who wouldn't touch the NHS with a barge pole because the French system is so much better.
And my wife's sister in Germany had a detached retina a couple of weeks ago, and managed to see a specialist on a Sunday about it, and have an operation the next day. In contrast, I had an issue with my retina a couple of years ago and waited several days to even be seen which delayed the operation I needed and could have been costly to my eyesight.
The problem though is that if Labour doesn't even try to shift the dial slightly when it is so far ahead in the polls, it will never do so.
This country is doomed.
0
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:54 - Mar 12 with 1922 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:46 - Mar 12 by lowhouseblue
just to add some difficulties: the tax take as a percent of national income is now at a record high; transfer payments are at a record high; and the percentage of the working age population who are economically inactive is at a record high. that is a huge fiscal deadweight for any future government.
That's because austerity was a disaster in bringing down debt and in its effect on growth, but our tax take is still lower in percentage terms than other successful western European countries.
In any event, it's all a false economy because god help you if you ever fall ill, become disabled or need social care. And by all accounts, lack of investment in the NHS these last 14 years is a cause of the large number of people not able to work, something that is not an issue in other countries with a properly functioning health service.
[Post edited 12 Mar 10:01]
3
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:00 - Mar 12 with 1892 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:49 - Mar 12 by DJR
The tragic thing is that people in other successful western European countries don't have these sort of attitudes, and realise that decent public services need paying for.
I met a British friend from Paris yesterday who wouldn't touch the NHS with a barge pole because the French system is so much better.
And my wife's sister in Germany had a detached retina a couple of weeks ago, and managed to see a specialist on a Sunday about it, and have an operation the next day. In contrast, I had an issue with my retina a couple of years ago and waited several days to even be seen which delayed the operation I needed and could have been costly to my eyesight.
The problem though is that if Labour doesn't even try to shift the dial slightly when it is so far ahead in the polls, it will never do so.
This country is doomed.
Again, absolutely.
I get the impression that some at Labour HQ are petrified that the polling lead will evaporate during the campaign (perhaps there is some Dreadful Thing which they fear will be revealed). Or they hope for such a large Commons majority they can do what they like. Or they're just natural Conservatives who have ended up in Labour as the former party swung to the right and Momentum was ousted.
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:46 - Mar 12 by lowhouseblue
just to add some difficulties: the tax take as a percent of national income is now at a record high; transfer payments are at a record high; and the percentage of the working age population who are economically inactive is at a record high. that is a huge fiscal deadweight for any future government.
Makes you wonder where they find the money for inflated wages at the top and all these dividend payments doesn't it. It's almost like there's plenty of cash floating around but not the will to distribute it appropriately. It's almost like our economic model is a busted flush that for a bizarre reason some want to cling to.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:00 - Mar 12 by Guthrum
Again, absolutely.
I get the impression that some at Labour HQ are petrified that the polling lead will evaporate during the campaign (perhaps there is some Dreadful Thing which they fear will be revealed). Or they hope for such a large Commons majority they can do what they like. Or they're just natural Conservatives who have ended up in Labour as the former party swung to the right and Momentum was ousted.
I tend to think there is a large degree of ideology involved here, given the Blairites were fairly relaxed with Cameron, Osborne and Johnson (when mayor)* and clearly thought Brown and Miliband were dangerous lefties because of the constant sniping at them.
*I say this because these are the views of a Blairite adviser to Sadiq Khan that a friend of mine knows. But it seems to me to be evident in the case of the actions and utterances of people like Streeting and Reeves.
[Post edited 12 Mar 10:19]
0
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:07 - Mar 12 with 1840 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:59 - Mar 12 by DJR
That's because austerity was a disaster in bringing down debt and in its effect on growth, but our tax take is still lower in percentage terms than other successful western European countries.
In any event, it's all a false economy because god help you if you ever fall ill, become disabled or need social care. And by all accounts, lack of investment in the NHS these last 14 years is a cause of the large number of people not able to work, something that is not an issue in other countries with a properly functioning health service.
[Post edited 12 Mar 10:01]
Kinnock's speech prior to the 1992 election still rings true. The sad thing is it doesn't matter if the Conservatives or Labour win now.
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 09:02 - Mar 12 by leitrimblue
What is the point of Starmers Labour Party if it won't stand up for poor, sick or disabled people? Great question
Lou Reed perhaps summed up best the attitude of the two main parties (and presumably a sizeable number of the population).
Give me your hungry, your tired, your poor I'll piss on 'em That's what the Statue of Bigotry says Your poor huddled masses Let's club 'em to death And get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard
A truly great song.
[Post edited 12 Mar 10:21]
1
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:12 - Mar 12 with 1798 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:06 - Mar 12 by DJR
I tend to think there is a large degree of ideology involved here, given the Blairites were fairly relaxed with Cameron, Osborne and Johnson (when mayor)* and clearly thought Brown and Miliband were dangerous lefties because of the constant sniping at them.
*I say this because these are the views of a Blairite adviser to Sadiq Khan that a friend of mine knows. But it seems to me to be evident in the case of the actions and utterances of people like Streeting and Reeves.
[Post edited 12 Mar 10:19]
Altho Blair himself is discredited, they do have the historical weight of having formed the only Labour government in the last 45 years. The "our way worked" argument*.
Despite the fact that circumstances are somewhat different now.
* Much the same as Tory Johnson supporters holding up his 2019 Brexit-inspired win as "proof" he could do it again.
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:12 - Mar 12 by DJR
Lou Reed perhaps summed up best the attitude of the two main parties (and presumably a sizeable number of the population).
Give me your hungry, your tired, your poor I'll piss on 'em That's what the Statue of Bigotry says Your poor huddled masses Let's club 'em to death And get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard
A truly great song.
[Post edited 12 Mar 10:21]
I grew up on Haverhills Chalkstone Estate, my parents and a lot of my family and friends still live there. If Labour is no longer even pretending to represent people from areas like this then it just leaves an enormous vacuum. You just know this vacuum will be filled by right winger chances like Reform or worse.
2
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:20 - Mar 12 with 1739 views
How is it is forgotten how much the pandemic actually cost the UK!£70B alone on furlough and there were no complaints when that was being paid! Anywhere between £310/410B was the cost of closing down the country for 2 yrs. don’t forget Labour wanted to extend that as well! So really it is no surprise that the country is in a mess and it doesn’t matter who’s in power that money has to be repaid somehow.
0
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:59 - Mar 12 with 1641 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:20 - Mar 12 by bluejacko
How is it is forgotten how much the pandemic actually cost the UK!£70B alone on furlough and there were no complaints when that was being paid! Anywhere between £310/410B was the cost of closing down the country for 2 yrs. don’t forget Labour wanted to extend that as well! So really it is no surprise that the country is in a mess and it doesn’t matter who’s in power that money has to be repaid somehow.
You say 'that money has to be repaid', but it isn't like a personal overdraft. Governments can carry on borrowing pretty much indefinitely, so long as they can service the payments when they fall due (including by further borrowing). Moreover, interest rates at that point were extremely low.
Also, in government budget terms, £70bn is a very moderate amount of money (e.g. the NHS cost every year is nearly three times that).
A far bigger component of the current crisis is the sudden increase in energy costs resulting from Russia's attack on Ukraine. Both directly and as an inspiration for others to raise prices. But the issue is really, at a time of hardship, whether further reductions in public services (making the situation worse for many people) is justified, simply in order to give fairly trivial tax reductions for middle earners and large ones for the most well off.
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 10:59 - Mar 12 by Guthrum
You say 'that money has to be repaid', but it isn't like a personal overdraft. Governments can carry on borrowing pretty much indefinitely, so long as they can service the payments when they fall due (including by further borrowing). Moreover, interest rates at that point were extremely low.
Also, in government budget terms, £70bn is a very moderate amount of money (e.g. the NHS cost every year is nearly three times that).
A far bigger component of the current crisis is the sudden increase in energy costs resulting from Russia's attack on Ukraine. Both directly and as an inspiration for others to raise prices. But the issue is really, at a time of hardship, whether further reductions in public services (making the situation worse for many people) is justified, simply in order to give fairly trivial tax reductions for middle earners and large ones for the most well off.
Also worth noting is that the money pumped into the economy didn't just disappear, it ended up in very few hands.
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 11:01 - Mar 12 by DanTheMan
Also worth noting is that the money pumped into the economy didn't just disappear, it ended up in very few hands.
i'm not sure that's right. the £70bn was the cost of furlough - which was very widespread and particularly went to people in the lower paid service sector. the benefit of the £70bn furlough spend was widely distributed. any excess profits / fraud that occurred was small compared to the cost of furlough, even smaller relative to total public expenditure on covid at some £350bn.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 11:13 - Mar 12 with 1562 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 11:01 - Mar 12 by DanTheMan
Also worth noting is that the money pumped into the economy didn't just disappear, it ended up in very few hands.
I believe there are almost 200 people in the UK worth more then £2billion. I suggest the day after the election their taxed at 75% leaving them with a measly £500 million in the bank but raising a handy £300 billion. Everyone's a winner
0
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 11:17 - Mar 12 with 1522 views
Today's trolling Guardian article. on 11:12 - Mar 12 by lowhouseblue
i'm not sure that's right. the £70bn was the cost of furlough - which was very widespread and particularly went to people in the lower paid service sector. the benefit of the £70bn furlough spend was widely distributed. any excess profits / fraud that occurred was small compared to the cost of furlough, even smaller relative to total public expenditure on covid at some £350bn.
True but you know that was not what DanTheMan was referring to, billions that a more responsible administration would have spent wisely got wasted on defective PPE equipment and the contracts awarded for the supply of that equipment were dubious to say the least.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
