| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... 23:17 - May 31 with 10560 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
....it will just be more of the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/31/faiza-shaheen-labo
'But after months of being isolated and bullied, including being stripped of paid organiser support when I was seven months pregnant, I should have known this was coming. The real reason for it all? I’m too interested in wealth inequality, public ownership and Palestine to be welcomed in today’s Labour party.'
Edit....personally I will have no part in it....a plague on all their houses. [Post edited 31 May 2024 23:22]
|  |
| |  |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:39 - Jun 6 with 1903 views | DJR |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 20:33 - Jun 5 by J2BLUE |
If you must?
What's the alternative? Are you really going to claim they would not be even 1% better than the Tories? For most of the country this is a binary choice. |
I suppose it could be said that 1% of a £33 billion black hole is not great, but this is the position we are in given Labour has committed itself to what has been described as the nonsensical fiscal rule, and has ruled out taxing wealth more, something which even a former economic adviser to Blair has called for.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/04/uk-faces-33bn-hole-in-f
James Smith, the Resolution Foundation’s research director, said: “The state of the public finances has dominated the election campaign so far, with the inevitable arguments over how each spending pledge is funded. But this narrow focus risks distracting the electorate from the bigger question of how each party would manage the uncertainties facing the public finances.
“This question is crucial, as whoever wins the election could be confronting a fiscal hole of £12bn, if today’s uncertainties turn into bad news after the election. And if the next government wants to avoid a fresh round of austerity, that black hole could rise to over £33bn.”
The budgets for NHS England, education, defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are ringfenced, but this would result in inflation-adjusted, per-person spending cuts to unprotected departments – such as justice, the Home Office and local government – of 13% between 2024-25 and 2028-29. Cuts on this scale – equivalent to £19bn – would amount to repeating nearly three-quarters of the cuts made during the 2010-2015 parliament.
“Delivering these cuts in the face of already crumbling public services and the public desire for more, not less, spending on public services would likely prove very challenging,” the Resolution Foundation said. [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 8:43]
|  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:41 - Jun 6 with 1873 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:27 - Jun 6 by The_Flashing_Smile |
We know your thoughts, you don't have to stink the board up with them every day. |
The beauty of democracy is that everyone is free to air their opinion. I disagree with banksy’s views on most things, but I defend his right to post them. Even if he has more repeats than UK Gold. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:44 - Jun 6 with 1870 views | WeWereZombies |
Blimey, that's a blast from the past... |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:48 - Jun 6 with 1842 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:39 - Jun 6 by DJR |
I suppose it could be said that 1% of a £33 billion black hole is not great, but this is the position we are in given Labour has committed itself to what has been described as the nonsensical fiscal rule, and has ruled out taxing wealth more, something which even a former economic adviser to Blair has called for.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/04/uk-faces-33bn-hole-in-f
James Smith, the Resolution Foundation’s research director, said: “The state of the public finances has dominated the election campaign so far, with the inevitable arguments over how each spending pledge is funded. But this narrow focus risks distracting the electorate from the bigger question of how each party would manage the uncertainties facing the public finances.
“This question is crucial, as whoever wins the election could be confronting a fiscal hole of £12bn, if today’s uncertainties turn into bad news after the election. And if the next government wants to avoid a fresh round of austerity, that black hole could rise to over £33bn.”
The budgets for NHS England, education, defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are ringfenced, but this would result in inflation-adjusted, per-person spending cuts to unprotected departments – such as justice, the Home Office and local government – of 13% between 2024-25 and 2028-29. Cuts on this scale – equivalent to £19bn – would amount to repeating nearly three-quarters of the cuts made during the 2010-2015 parliament.
“Delivering these cuts in the face of already crumbling public services and the public desire for more, not less, spending on public services would likely prove very challenging,” the Resolution Foundation said. [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 8:43]
|
Yep, there are lots of noises from finance types that Labour’s rules are unrealistic given the poor state of the national finances. Yet they could adapt as time goes on, if they get in. They can’t do anything if they don’t win (obviously) and we know the Tory plans guarantee us another hit of austerity and we know they’ll ruthlessly follow through irrespective of the personal and national cost.
It’s a chance worth taking imo. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:48 - Jun 6 with 1842 views | giant_stow |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:39 - Jun 6 by DJR |
I suppose it could be said that 1% of a £33 billion black hole is not great, but this is the position we are in given Labour has committed itself to what has been described as the nonsensical fiscal rule, and has ruled out taxing wealth more, something which even a former economic adviser to Blair has called for.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/04/uk-faces-33bn-hole-in-f
James Smith, the Resolution Foundation’s research director, said: “The state of the public finances has dominated the election campaign so far, with the inevitable arguments over how each spending pledge is funded. But this narrow focus risks distracting the electorate from the bigger question of how each party would manage the uncertainties facing the public finances.
“This question is crucial, as whoever wins the election could be confronting a fiscal hole of £12bn, if today’s uncertainties turn into bad news after the election. And if the next government wants to avoid a fresh round of austerity, that black hole could rise to over £33bn.”
The budgets for NHS England, education, defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are ringfenced, but this would result in inflation-adjusted, per-person spending cuts to unprotected departments – such as justice, the Home Office and local government – of 13% between 2024-25 and 2028-29. Cuts on this scale – equivalent to £19bn – would amount to repeating nearly three-quarters of the cuts made during the 2010-2015 parliament.
“Delivering these cuts in the face of already crumbling public services and the public desire for more, not less, spending on public services would likely prove very challenging,” the Resolution Foundation said. [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 8:43]
|
So we're bvggered basically - assuming Labour do get in, I hope people, particularly on the left, keep this in mind. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:50 - Jun 6 with 1829 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:39 - Jun 6 by DJR |
I suppose it could be said that 1% of a £33 billion black hole is not great, but this is the position we are in given Labour has committed itself to what has been described as the nonsensical fiscal rule, and has ruled out taxing wealth more, something which even a former economic adviser to Blair has called for.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/04/uk-faces-33bn-hole-in-f
James Smith, the Resolution Foundation’s research director, said: “The state of the public finances has dominated the election campaign so far, with the inevitable arguments over how each spending pledge is funded. But this narrow focus risks distracting the electorate from the bigger question of how each party would manage the uncertainties facing the public finances.
“This question is crucial, as whoever wins the election could be confronting a fiscal hole of £12bn, if today’s uncertainties turn into bad news after the election. And if the next government wants to avoid a fresh round of austerity, that black hole could rise to over £33bn.”
The budgets for NHS England, education, defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are ringfenced, but this would result in inflation-adjusted, per-person spending cuts to unprotected departments – such as justice, the Home Office and local government – of 13% between 2024-25 and 2028-29. Cuts on this scale – equivalent to £19bn – would amount to repeating nearly three-quarters of the cuts made during the 2010-2015 parliament.
“Delivering these cuts in the face of already crumbling public services and the public desire for more, not less, spending on public services would likely prove very challenging,” the Resolution Foundation said. [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 8:43]
|
It’s not just about money though. It’s about decency, honesty and the direction of the country in how it treats immigrants and asylum seekers. No flights to Rwanda will already be more than a 1% difference to the tone of the debate. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:01 - Jun 6 with 1816 views | Cotty |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 22:06 - Jun 5 by BanksterDebtSlave |
And the big difference to our lives will be..... |
I'm not very excited about very much in the labour announcements so far apart from one massive thing. The nationalised green energy plan looks fantastic and it is what is required now and for the next generations. Sunak on the other hand looks to be a climate change sceptic at best, sociopath at worst. |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:17 - Jun 6 with 1787 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:01 - Jun 6 by Cotty |
I'm not very excited about very much in the labour announcements so far apart from one massive thing. The nationalised green energy plan looks fantastic and it is what is required now and for the next generations. Sunak on the other hand looks to be a climate change sceptic at best, sociopath at worst. |
He probably isn’t a climate change sceptic. He’s just saying these things to appeal to those who are and may be tempted to vote Reform.
This is where we are. A government which stands for nothing, is in power for power’s sake and campaigns on the whim of a minority of swivel eyed loons, whilst relying a score vote of people who have always voted Tory and always will. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:22 - Jun 6 with 1772 views | lowhouseblue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:48 - Jun 6 by giant_stow |
So we're bvggered basically - assuming Labour do get in, I hope people, particularly on the left, keep this in mind. |
the fiscal position is pretty dire and the problem is that it's dire even with a record tax take. we've seen with truss what happens if you don't have fiscal credibility - prior to that lots of the left thought that 'fiscal credibility' was some some sort of inconvenient posh nonsense - but truss proved them wrong. BUT things can change quickly - falling interest rates, growth ticking up and then there is wriggle room. the choice couldn't be clearer in terms of what the parties will do when fiscal options emerge - the tories will cut taxes and let everything else rot - labour will prioritise health, public investment and green investment. labour don't have fairy dust to sprinkle on government finances but their priorities are completely different from the tories. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:26 - Jun 6 with 1756 views | J2BLUE |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 07:29 - Jun 6 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Do you think that if turnout in an election gets to less than 50% that the winners would have a legitimate right to govern?
Edit....on a related point do any polls record the option of 'not intending to vote for any party?' [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 7:33]
|
Legitimate right or not, they would govern.
You can't just stamp your feet and wish for a different reality. You know there are only two possible outcomes to this election. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:38 - Jun 6 with 1692 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:34 - Jun 6 by giant_stow |
The thing is, the left of party had their chance and fcked it right up.
I have to problem with Shaheen running as an independent though and if its split the vote / Ids gets back in, that's on head office. She's a local, went to the school up the road* and the collage just nearby - she's a perfect potential MP for the area.
* fun fact: its the same one Beckham went to. Maybe Harry kane too, but not sure about him
Edit: just googled and Kane did go there too - maybe I should have sent the boy there! Just seemed a little strict. [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 8:44]
|
But the thing is the party machinery did everything they could to make sure it happened...Koonters might suggest you read the Forde report. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:41 - Jun 6 with 1680 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:41 - Jun 6 by GlasgowBlue |
The beauty of democracy is that everyone is free to air their opinion. I disagree with banksy’s views on most things, but I defend his right to post them. Even if he has more repeats than UK Gold. |
Phil has me on pay per view during the quiet times here!!
Edit....and so far I have resisted the latest Israeli atrocity!! [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 9:42]
| |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:44 - Jun 6 with 1661 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 08:48 - Jun 6 by giant_stow |
So we're bvggered basically - assuming Labour do get in, I hope people, particularly on the left, keep this in mind. |
Now you've got me confused. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:48 - Jun 6 with 1645 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:22 - Jun 6 by lowhouseblue |
the fiscal position is pretty dire and the problem is that it's dire even with a record tax take. we've seen with truss what happens if you don't have fiscal credibility - prior to that lots of the left thought that 'fiscal credibility' was some some sort of inconvenient posh nonsense - but truss proved them wrong. BUT things can change quickly - falling interest rates, growth ticking up and then there is wriggle room. the choice couldn't be clearer in terms of what the parties will do when fiscal options emerge - the tories will cut taxes and let everything else rot - labour will prioritise health, public investment and green investment. labour don't have fairy dust to sprinkle on government finances but their priorities are completely different from the tories. |
The dream lives on....
 | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:49 - Jun 6 with 1640 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:26 - Jun 6 by J2BLUE |
Legitimate right or not, they would govern.
You can't just stamp your feet and wish for a different reality. You know there are only two possible outcomes to this election. |
Only if we let them. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:51 - Jun 6 with 1636 views | Ryorry |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:17 - Jun 6 by GlasgowBlue |
He probably isn’t a climate change sceptic. He’s just saying these things to appeal to those who are and may be tempted to vote Reform.
This is where we are. A government which stands for nothing, is in power for power’s sake and campaigns on the whim of a minority of swivel eyed loons, whilst relying a score vote of people who have always voted Tory and always will. |
You could also have been describing Netanyahu and his government in that post. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:53 - Jun 6 with 1633 views | victorywilhappen |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:38 - Jun 6 by BanksterDebtSlave |
But the thing is the party machinery did everything they could to make sure it happened...Koonters might suggest you read the Forde report. |
Its obvious we are in a Post Ford era. Who is Koonters? Why are you trying to create an alternative division that may stop folks voting to get the Tories out?
Did you get your windows sorted out? Daylight robbery I am sure? As long as you pay your VAT on them to help support the system and the things it does..... (Consume, consume consume) it will always supply food for some angst and regrets.
Have a good one. |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:02 - Jun 6 with 1603 views | Ryorry |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 07:29 - Jun 6 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Do you think that if turnout in an election gets to less than 50% that the winners would have a legitimate right to govern?
Edit....on a related point do any polls record the option of 'not intending to vote for any party?' [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 7:33]
|
Seems to have escaped your notice that just about every government over the past several decades has been voted in on a minority of the vote owing to our FPP system (I’m not saying that’s a good thing, change to a good form of PR would be preferable). | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:04 - Jun 6 with 1599 views | CoachRob |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:22 - Jun 6 by lowhouseblue |
the fiscal position is pretty dire and the problem is that it's dire even with a record tax take. we've seen with truss what happens if you don't have fiscal credibility - prior to that lots of the left thought that 'fiscal credibility' was some some sort of inconvenient posh nonsense - but truss proved them wrong. BUT things can change quickly - falling interest rates, growth ticking up and then there is wriggle room. the choice couldn't be clearer in terms of what the parties will do when fiscal options emerge - the tories will cut taxes and let everything else rot - labour will prioritise health, public investment and green investment. labour don't have fairy dust to sprinkle on government finances but their priorities are completely different from the tories. |
I'm guessing this is the usual Neoclassical economics nonsense you learnt at uni. Can you tell us whether there is going to be a financial crisis in the next year? Could we afford to bail out banks and non-bank financial intermediaries if it happened?
"BUT things can change quickly - falling interest rates, growth ticking up and then there is wriggle room
Why are you guessing at what might happen if you understand how the economy works, why not clearly state the outcome now? Economists were completely lost on inflation, Biden's fiscal spend and growth of the US economy, austerity, oh and predicting financial crashes. Even its Nobel Prize winners are coming out criticising the lack of direction in the field and the EJMR scandal that even a sycophant like Krugman worried about. It is incredible to me how despite repeatedly being wrong about things, even there own empirical work disproves their own theories, that there is a group of people who uncritically accept all this nonsense. Is that you feel you can't learn anything new or just feel it is better to go down with this sinking ship? |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:42 - Jun 6 with 1522 views | lowhouseblue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:04 - Jun 6 by CoachRob |
I'm guessing this is the usual Neoclassical economics nonsense you learnt at uni. Can you tell us whether there is going to be a financial crisis in the next year? Could we afford to bail out banks and non-bank financial intermediaries if it happened?
"BUT things can change quickly - falling interest rates, growth ticking up and then there is wriggle room
Why are you guessing at what might happen if you understand how the economy works, why not clearly state the outcome now? Economists were completely lost on inflation, Biden's fiscal spend and growth of the US economy, austerity, oh and predicting financial crashes. Even its Nobel Prize winners are coming out criticising the lack of direction in the field and the EJMR scandal that even a sycophant like Krugman worried about. It is incredible to me how despite repeatedly being wrong about things, even there own empirical work disproves their own theories, that there is a group of people who uncritically accept all this nonsense. Is that you feel you can't learn anything new or just feel it is better to go down with this sinking ship? |
did you see what happened with truss? do you still think fiscal credibility is nonsense neoclassical economics? (also, things like fiscal credibility are actually extremely keynesian).
you seem to think that economics comes as some sort of absolutist instruction booklet and you disagree with that instruction book. "Why are you guessing at what might happen if you understand how the economy works, why not clearly state the outcome now?" really? jeez. you've read a text book and you think that's economics, but skipped over the bits about methodology, abstraction, simplification, the limits of modelling etc. it's a field of study - eg how people interact through exchange and markets - and it is characterised by debate, disagreement, uncertainty, multiple schools of thought and an evolving understanding just like any other social science. it has all the complexity associated with trying to model human behaviour. you're dismissing a whole discipline when what you're really upset about is a simplified and bastardised version of one school.
you seem to want certainty and determinant outcomes. "Can you tell us whether there is going to be a financial crisis in the next year?" in the context of economics or any social science that's a nonsense question - perhaps in maths it's what people expect. economics is providing a framework for policy debate - different economists will reach different conclusions. scarey eh. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:48 - Jun 6 with 1496 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:38 - Jun 6 by BanksterDebtSlave |
But the thing is the party machinery did everything they could to make sure it happened...Koonters might suggest you read the Forde report. |
Have you read the Forde report in full? | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:19 - Jun 6 with 1461 views | leitrimblue |
Reading political posts on here over the last few days what really stands out for me us how many people feel unrepresented by current UK politics.
I can't help but think how potentially dangerous this is going forward. If this site is in anyway representative of the UK as a whole then large swathes of the UK are going into an election without any political representation. |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:36 - Jun 6 with 1427 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:19 - Jun 6 by leitrimblue |
Reading political posts on here over the last few days what really stands out for me us how many people feel unrepresented by current UK politics.
I can't help but think how potentially dangerous this is going forward. If this site is in anyway representative of the UK as a whole then large swathes of the UK are going into an election without any political representation. |
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need proportional representation and a break up of the two main political parties. With a Labour landslide looking very likely, I don't see either happening in my lifetime. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:44 - Jun 6 with 1388 views | Ryorry |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:19 - Jun 6 by leitrimblue |
Reading political posts on here over the last few days what really stands out for me us how many people feel unrepresented by current UK politics.
I can't help but think how potentially dangerous this is going forward. If this site is in anyway representative of the UK as a whole then large swathes of the UK are going into an election without any political representation. |
I very much doubt that this site is representative of the UK as a whole - if anything, I'd say it's more educated & deeper thinking - at least going by those who post, rather than those who only read it. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:44 - Jun 6 with 1373 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:42 - Jun 6 by lowhouseblue |
did you see what happened with truss? do you still think fiscal credibility is nonsense neoclassical economics? (also, things like fiscal credibility are actually extremely keynesian).
you seem to think that economics comes as some sort of absolutist instruction booklet and you disagree with that instruction book. "Why are you guessing at what might happen if you understand how the economy works, why not clearly state the outcome now?" really? jeez. you've read a text book and you think that's economics, but skipped over the bits about methodology, abstraction, simplification, the limits of modelling etc. it's a field of study - eg how people interact through exchange and markets - and it is characterised by debate, disagreement, uncertainty, multiple schools of thought and an evolving understanding just like any other social science. it has all the complexity associated with trying to model human behaviour. you're dismissing a whole discipline when what you're really upset about is a simplified and bastardised version of one school.
you seem to want certainty and determinant outcomes. "Can you tell us whether there is going to be a financial crisis in the next year?" in the context of economics or any social science that's a nonsense question - perhaps in maths it's what people expect. economics is providing a framework for policy debate - different economists will reach different conclusions. scarey eh. |
Not to mention that unlike many sciences/doctrines, economics is highly susceptible to unforeseen geo-political events. Wars, elections, coups, threats to supply chains, etc cannot always be predicted. Economists also never get credit when they are correct, for example Brexit they projected the economic impact to a tee. Nobody trashes medical science because doctors failed to predict COVID19.
The banking crisis was also a failure of regulation rather than an unforeseen event. The recent bank failures in the US (e.g SVB) were bourne out of US light touch oversight, the capital requirements in the UK are far more stringent, hence there was no contagion. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
