| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... 23:17 - May 31 with 10562 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 21:00 - Jun 6 with 1791 views | DJR |
Playing devil's advocate, I'm actually in favour of what he states in the article is his first objective, namely, proportional representation.
Asked about cheating Labour of a majority, Galloway replied:
"I would treat that as a considerable triumph. Our goal here is a hung parliament and whomesoever is the biggest party would then have to negotiate with all the other forces in the House of Commons about a programme for government. It wouldn’t be a coalition but it will be a price list and the first item on that price list would be a reform of our electoral system so that seats in the House of Commons were allocated proportionally according to the vote that they have achieved." |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 04:12 - Jun 7 with 1715 views | Ryorry |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 19:07 - Jun 6 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Sadly for us all Ryorry some people get off their backsides every 5 years, vote, and think that's it. Well guess what absolutely nothing of any importance actually changes.
Also, some call it growing up, others see it as giving up. The World needs more idealism. |
So you’re not going to actually do anything to actually change anything then. What a waste. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:29 - Jun 9 with 1599 views | DJR |
| 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]
|
Even Paul Johnson of the IFS thinks it a nonsensical fiscal rule. This is what he is reported as having said today.
"Both parties have tied themselves to the, in my view, rather bizarre fiscal rule which is they want debt down." | | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:43 - Jun 9 with 1572 views | J2BLUE |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 19:07 - Jun 6 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Sadly for us all Ryorry some people get off their backsides every 5 years, vote, and think that's it. Well guess what absolutely nothing of any importance actually changes.
Also, some call it growing up, others see it as giving up. The World needs more idealism. |
The world needs more grown ups.
Idealism on here seems to be give me exactly what I want or nothing. I genuinely think some of you would prefer no progress than a little progress just so you could keep moaning and feeling superior. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:54 - Jun 9 with 1550 views | WeWereZombies |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:43 - Jun 9 by J2BLUE |
The world needs more grown ups.
Idealism on here seems to be give me exactly what I want or nothing. I genuinely think some of you would prefer no progress than a little progress just so you could keep moaning and feeling superior. |
I think it is possible to be idealistic and pragmatic at the same time, the idealism gives you direction and the pragmatism gives you the ability to follow that direction, especially through difficulties. Just being grown up can lead to an dull trudge into a survivalist rabbit hole. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:59 - Jun 9 with 1545 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:43 - Jun 9 by J2BLUE |
The world needs more grown ups.
Idealism on here seems to be give me exactly what I want or nothing. I genuinely think some of you would prefer no progress than a little progress just so you could keep moaning and feeling superior. |
It isn't progress though is it. It is just varying levels of decline. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:03 - Jun 9 with 1519 views | J2BLUE |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:54 - Jun 9 by WeWereZombies |
I think it is possible to be idealistic and pragmatic at the same time, the idealism gives you direction and the pragmatism gives you the ability to follow that direction, especially through difficulties. Just being grown up can lead to an dull trudge into a survivalist rabbit hole. |
Kind of arguing against a point I never made there. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:06 - Jun 9 with 1499 views | WeWereZombies |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:03 - Jun 9 by J2BLUE |
Kind of arguing against a point I never made there. |
More advice than argument...I would argue. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:11 - Jun 9 with 1483 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:43 - Jun 9 by J2BLUE |
The world needs more grown ups.
Idealism on here seems to be give me exactly what I want or nothing. I genuinely think some of you would prefer no progress than a little progress just so you could keep moaning and feeling superior. |
Indeed. Something I read from Bonnie Greer sums it up perfectly. She said “ Labour is not perfect. Quite the opposite. But I vote for a Party that can form a government close to what I can live with. I don't go to the ballot box as a form of self-expression, protest, rancour or dreams.
Because when I do that the other side gets in”. [Post edited 9 Jun 2024 11:59]
|  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:01 - Jun 9 with 1423 views | J2BLUE |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:06 - Jun 9 by WeWereZombies |
More advice than argument...I would argue. |
Let's hope Bankster takes it. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:13 - Jun 9 with 1376 views | DJR |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:11 - Jun 9 by GlasgowBlue |
Indeed. Something I read from Bonnie Greer sums it up perfectly. She said “ Labour is not perfect. Quite the opposite. But I vote for a Party that can form a government close to what I can live with. I don't go to the ballot box as a form of self-expression, protest, rancour or dreams.
Because when I do that the other side gets in”. [Post edited 9 Jun 2024 11:59]
|
That may be true if your vote makes a difference but if it doesn't (whether because of it being a safe seat, or likely safe seat, either way) is it so wrong to stand by your principles?
In any event, this whole issue brings to the fore that in a two party system, many people vote not so much for a party as against another, which is why we need PR? [Post edited 9 Jun 2024 12:18]
| | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:16 - Jun 9 with 1348 views | Ryorry |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:13 - Jun 9 by DJR |
That may be true if your vote makes a difference but if it doesn't (whether because of it being a safe seat, or likely safe seat, either way) is it so wrong to stand by your principles?
In any event, this whole issue brings to the fore that in a two party system, many people vote not so much for a party as against another, which is why we need PR? [Post edited 9 Jun 2024 12:18]
|
Vote tactically. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:17 - Jun 9 with 1342 views | Ryorry |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:59 - Jun 9 by BanksterDebtSlave |
It isn't progress though is it. It is just varying levels of decline. |
Which you're doing nothing whatsoever (that you've told us about anyway) to change or halt. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 13:23 - Jun 9 with 1281 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:29 - Jun 9 by DJR |
Even Paul Johnson of the IFS thinks it a nonsensical fiscal rule. This is what he is reported as having said today.
"Both parties have tied themselves to the, in my view, rather bizarre fiscal rule which is they want debt down." |
But more debt means more servicing cost - we are already spending ~$100bn on such costs annually. Money which would be much better spend on public services, not only to improve standards of living, but boost economic growth. To that end the IMF is advising advanced economies (mainly the US/UK/EU) to reduce their debt, and instead to increase the tax base to boost growth.
https://www.ft.com/content/134cc7f3-f2df-43c9-b1b1-e58e6363781a
The IMF’s second-in-command has urged the US to shrink its mounting fiscal burden, saying strong growth in the world’s largest economy gave it “ample” room to rein in spending and raise taxes.
“The temptation to finance all spending through borrowing really is something that countries should avoid,” Gopinath said. The IMF said in its benchmark Fiscal Monitor, published in April, that it expected the US to record a fiscal deficit of 7.1 per cent next year — more than three times the 2 per cent average of other advanced economies. It warned that fiscal deficits in both the US and China posed “significant risks” for the world economy.” |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 13:58 - Jun 9 with 1243 views | DJR |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 13:23 - Jun 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But more debt means more servicing cost - we are already spending ~$100bn on such costs annually. Money which would be much better spend on public services, not only to improve standards of living, but boost economic growth. To that end the IMF is advising advanced economies (mainly the US/UK/EU) to reduce their debt, and instead to increase the tax base to boost growth.
https://www.ft.com/content/134cc7f3-f2df-43c9-b1b1-e58e6363781a
The IMF’s second-in-command has urged the US to shrink its mounting fiscal burden, saying strong growth in the world’s largest economy gave it “ample” room to rein in spending and raise taxes.
“The temptation to finance all spending through borrowing really is something that countries should avoid,” Gopinath said. The IMF said in its benchmark Fiscal Monitor, published in April, that it expected the US to record a fiscal deficit of 7.1 per cent next year — more than three times the 2 per cent average of other advanced economies. It warned that fiscal deficits in both the US and China posed “significant risks” for the world economy.” |
The IMF?
https://theconversation.com/we-were-wrong-imf-report-details-the-damage-of-auste | | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:04 - Jun 9 with 1226 views | WeWereZombies |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:16 - Jun 9 by Ryorry |
Vote tactically. |
On the contrary, I would always advise a voter to cast their vote for the candidate who they think will represent their interests best, otherwise we just keep fuelling this Punch and Judy charade with Members of Parliament effectively wearing straight jackets that prevent them doing anything apart from what the whips tell them to do. Vote for the best candidate and keep engaging with them, if they win (and if they don't say to the winner what you would have said to your woman, or man) keep engaging to press them to do all they can to represent you. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:15 - Jun 9 with 1209 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
They aren’t proposing austerity- merely saying any increase in spending must come from tax increases so as not to stifle economic growth. The US claim close to defaulting on it’s debts last June, such a scenario would make the sub-prime crisis look like a walk in the park. | | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:28 - Jun 9 with 1166 views | DJR |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 13:23 - Jun 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But more debt means more servicing cost - we are already spending ~$100bn on such costs annually. Money which would be much better spend on public services, not only to improve standards of living, but boost economic growth. To that end the IMF is advising advanced economies (mainly the US/UK/EU) to reduce their debt, and instead to increase the tax base to boost growth.
https://www.ft.com/content/134cc7f3-f2df-43c9-b1b1-e58e6363781a
The IMF’s second-in-command has urged the US to shrink its mounting fiscal burden, saying strong growth in the world’s largest economy gave it “ample” room to rein in spending and raise taxes.
“The temptation to finance all spending through borrowing really is something that countries should avoid,” Gopinath said. The IMF said in its benchmark Fiscal Monitor, published in April, that it expected the US to record a fiscal deficit of 7.1 per cent next year — more than three times the 2 per cent average of other advanced economies. It warned that fiscal deficits in both the US and China posed “significant risks” for the world economy.” |
I noticed that you downvoted my response.
As it is, I am not saying there needs to be no fiscal rule, or that spending should be anything other than partly financed by debt, just that the current rule is rather artificial because it is a rolling one, and only requires debt to be falling in the fifth year. So I think there is a case for easing the fiscal rule very slightly, but much more importantly raising taxes on wealth.
In any event, without tax rises the current fiscal rule means austerity not far short of that under the coalition.
As regards the IMF itself, this from one of its own pamphlets is interesting.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:
•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.
•The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.
[Post edited 9 Jun 2024 14:41]
| | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:48 - Jun 9 with 1136 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:28 - Jun 9 by DJR |
I noticed that you downvoted my response.
As it is, I am not saying there needs to be no fiscal rule, or that spending should be anything other than partly financed by debt, just that the current rule is rather artificial because it is a rolling one, and only requires debt to be falling in the fifth year. So I think there is a case for easing the fiscal rule very slightly, but much more importantly raising taxes on wealth.
In any event, without tax rises the current fiscal rule means austerity not far short of that under the coalition.
As regards the IMF itself, this from one of its own pamphlets is interesting.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:
•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.
•The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.
[Post edited 9 Jun 2024 14:41]
|
But if you keep recklessly borrowing now, not only you are wasting public money which would better be spent on infrastructure and services. We are already spending more on interest than we do on our entire education system. That is not helping the country it’s enriching bond holders and ensuring austerity further down the line. That labour is not proposing tax rises is dishonest and will lead to real terms fall in public spending and hinder growth.
The downvote was the slightly smeary post regarding the IMF posted with no context. I think it’s poor discrediting them on hindsight changes of policy. Much like people do with the pandemic response now. | | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:51 - Jun 9 with 1133 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:17 - Jun 9 by Ryorry |
Which you're doing nothing whatsoever (that you've told us about anyway) to change or halt. |
All these decades of watching millions vote and things get worse....hmmmmmm, I wonder who is in denial here!
You might even think that as simple a thing as some environmental voluntary work and running a school gardening club has had more of a positive impact than voluntarily giving your power away to charlatans. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:28 - Jun 9 with 1103 views | DJR |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:48 - Jun 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But if you keep recklessly borrowing now, not only you are wasting public money which would better be spent on infrastructure and services. We are already spending more on interest than we do on our entire education system. That is not helping the country it’s enriching bond holders and ensuring austerity further down the line. That labour is not proposing tax rises is dishonest and will lead to real terms fall in public spending and hinder growth.
The downvote was the slightly smeary post regarding the IMF posted with no context. I think it’s poor discrediting them on hindsight changes of policy. Much like people do with the pandemic response now. |
Apologies for my terseness, and for not engaging properly with your response.
I wasn't advocating reckless borrowing or even much in the way of extra borrowing, and I think we are on the same page when it comes to tax rises as being the main way forward.
As regards hindsight, I was someone who didn't buy austerity (or at least the version we were sold) so I feel justified when organisations like the IMF subsequently admit they got it wrong whether in whole or in part. So my reaction was more schadenfreude than smeary.
As it is, I am not an economist but would have preferred what I took to be the Keynsian approach to the financial crash. Indeed, a friend of mine who had studied economics at university took this view too. But the prevailing view in organisations like the IMF changed in the early 1980s, and I think there is a good case for saying that the deregulation agenda (taken to extremes) led to the financial crash, something that virtually no economist predicted. [Post edited 9 Jun 2024 15:38]
| | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 16:25 - Jun 9 with 1041 views | DJR |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:28 - Jun 9 by DJR |
Apologies for my terseness, and for not engaging properly with your response.
I wasn't advocating reckless borrowing or even much in the way of extra borrowing, and I think we are on the same page when it comes to tax rises as being the main way forward.
As regards hindsight, I was someone who didn't buy austerity (or at least the version we were sold) so I feel justified when organisations like the IMF subsequently admit they got it wrong whether in whole or in part. So my reaction was more schadenfreude than smeary.
As it is, I am not an economist but would have preferred what I took to be the Keynsian approach to the financial crash. Indeed, a friend of mine who had studied economics at university took this view too. But the prevailing view in organisations like the IMF changed in the early 1980s, and I think there is a good case for saying that the deregulation agenda (taken to extremes) led to the financial crash, something that virtually no economist predicted. [Post edited 9 Jun 2024 15:38]
|
Further to this, I remember a staff meeting my Permanent Secretary had in 2010. This was shortly after the coalition agreement and followed a meeting he had had with other Gus O'Donnell and the other Permanent Secretaries.
He told us there was no alternative to austerity and the cuts, and I challenged this strongly given this was not the view of a number of influential economists.
Sadly, I was not able to change the course of history. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
