| Labour’s manifesto 09:21 - Jun 13 with 17593 views | thebooks |
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/13/rachel-reeves-reck
Basically:
- Austerity (“there’s no money left!”)
- Arm waving “growth” led by incentivising more private sector running of infrastructure and the NHS
- Some vague “we’ll be nicer to workers” platitudes
- We’ll fix more potholes
As Ipswich will go to Labour, surely that means a Greens vote for anyone who’s not right/centre right? |  | | |  |
| Labour’s manifesto on 14:09 - Jun 13 with 2864 views | hype313 |
Disappointing, I guess they are hamstrung somewhat, but nothing really innovative, seems to be a continuation of Cameronomics.
I get the impression they genuinely didn't think they would get in for at least a decade after the last election and this manifesto proves it.
Still, it should be enough to get rid of the current shower. |  |
| |
| Labour’s manifesto on 14:20 - Jun 13 with 2823 views | itfcjoe |
| Labour’s manifesto on 13:49 - Jun 13 by smithy91 |
100% want anyone but the tories. But by god are they boring. Wheres the vision?
Continual talk of economic growth, nowt on the wealth inequalities or any kind of redistribution. Someone on this thread slating the green policy, one simple way to stop movement to avoid paying tax is introducing a link to citizenship- if you have are born here/UK passport then you need to pay tax here...apparently something other countries are considering introducing.
Barely any talk of embracing green energy revolution.
Talk of building x new houses (lets be honest mostly cheap/crap quality), nothing about bringing housing back into circulation from all the private landlords/empty homes of the ultra rich/airbnbs. |
When today's Mail headline is
A TORY WIPEOUT RISKS ONE-PARTY SOCIALIST STATE
You can see why they don't want to go too heavy on things like this pre election |  |
| |
| Labour’s manifesto on 14:20 - Jun 13 with 2823 views | DJR |
| Labour’s manifesto on 14:09 - Jun 13 by DJR |
This is Paul Johnson's take on the manifesto.
This was not a manifesto for those looking for big numbers. The public service spending increases promised in the “costings” table are tiny, going on trivial. The tax rises, beyond the inevitable reduced tax avoidance, even more trivial. The biggest commitment, to the much vaunted “green prosperity plan”, comes in at no more than £5bn a year, funded in part by borrowing and in part by “a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants”.
Beyond that, almost nothing in the way of definite promises on spending despite Labour diagnosing deep-seated problems across child poverty, homelessness, higher education funding, adult social care, local government finances, pensions and much more besides. Definite promises though not to do things. Not to have debt rising at the end of the forecast. Not to increase tax on working people. Not to increase rates of income tax, National Insurance, VAT or corporation tax.
One public service where there are big promises is on the NHS. Labour has recommitted to the workforce plan, to getting rid of all waiting times more than 18 weeks, and to more hospitals. Big promises, but that will require big spending too.
All that will leave Labour with a problem. On current forecasts, and especially with an extra £17.5bn borrowing over five years to fund the green prosperity plan, this leaves literally no room – within the fiscal rule that Labour has signed up to – for any more spending than planned by the current government. And those plans do involve cuts both to investment spending and to spending on unprotected public services. Yet Sir Keir Starmer effectively ruled out such cuts. How they will square the circle in government we do not know. |
And this is from the Institute of Government.
|  | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 14:50 - Jun 13 with 2760 views | Swansea_Blue |
Funded through one of the projects I was the project manager for ;)
They deal with microalgae anyway, so won't be interested in Blueas. Queens Uni Belfast would be better. Although the potential for seaweed is through digestion to generate biogas. |  |
| |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:04 - Jun 13 with 2728 views | DJR |
This is the view of Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper's husband. Given how close he is to Gordon Brown, and what Brown has been writing recently, it suggests that both Brown and Ball would not have gone down this route.
"If you are a Labour government, the one thing you cannot afford to do is break your promises on the macro-economy and your kind of tax pledges. You can’t afford to do a Liz Truss.
But I think people will look back on this manifesto – which is now seen as cautious and careful – and think of it as being something which was very constraining, and a potentially risky thing to do for Labour, because this manifesto is absolutely boxing Labour in.
It will be seen as a straitjacket, with tough fiscal rules and limits on borrowing, big commitments not to raise income tax or VAT or national insurance ….
For Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves there are huge expectations, no money, little room for manoeuvre, inherited plans which are very tight, and an economy which isn’t growing. So I think that creates a big set of expectations and that is the consequence of the manifesto strategy. This manifesto makes the first year in government for Labour very difficult." [Post edited 13 Jun 2024 22:02]
| | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:04 - Jun 13 with 2722 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Labour’s manifesto on 13:49 - Jun 13 by smithy91 |
100% want anyone but the tories. But by god are they boring. Wheres the vision?
Continual talk of economic growth, nowt on the wealth inequalities or any kind of redistribution. Someone on this thread slating the green policy, one simple way to stop movement to avoid paying tax is introducing a link to citizenship- if you have are born here/UK passport then you need to pay tax here...apparently something other countries are considering introducing.
Barely any talk of embracing green energy revolution.
Talk of building x new houses (lets be honest mostly cheap/crap quality), nothing about bringing housing back into circulation from all the private landlords/empty homes of the ultra rich/airbnbs. |
Yeah, it's deeply uninspiring. I had been waiting for it to come out before deciding whether to vote for them, and it has made me decide to vote for the Greens. |  | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:11 - Jun 13 with 2706 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:04 - Jun 13 by DJR |
This is the view of Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper's husband. Given how close he is to Gordon Brown, and what Brown has been writing recently, it suggests that both Brown and Ball would not have gone down this route.
"If you are a Labour government, the one thing you cannot afford to do is break your promises on the macro-economy and your kind of tax pledges. You can’t afford to do a Liz Truss.
But I think people will look back on this manifesto – which is now seen as cautious and careful – and think of it as being something which was very constraining, and a potentially risky thing to do for Labour, because this manifesto is absolutely boxing Labour in.
It will be seen as a straitjacket, with tough fiscal rules and limits on borrowing, big commitments not to raise income tax or VAT or national insurance ….
For Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves there are huge expectations, no money, little room for manoeuvre, inherited plans which are very tight, and an economy which isn’t growing. So I think that creates a big set of expectations and that is the consequence of the manifesto strategy. This manifesto makes the first year in government for Labour very difficult." [Post edited 13 Jun 2024 22:02]
|
They should undo the NI cut that the Tories tried to bribe us with. It’s not enough money to make any difference to household budgets, but presumably could be used as extra funding from the NHS. If they framed it as ‘undoing unfunded Tory tax bribes’ it surely wouldn’t be seen as a rise, bringing us back to where we were.
Whilst some have questioned their ‘growth mantra’, if they can kick start the economy and drive up wages, they will still growth the tax base through the frozen income tax bands (which as far as I’m aware they’ve not referenced). This would be a real terms tax increase but optically can be sold as a ‘freeze’. |  | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:37 - Jun 13 with 2652 views | DJR |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:11 - Jun 13 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
They should undo the NI cut that the Tories tried to bribe us with. It’s not enough money to make any difference to household budgets, but presumably could be used as extra funding from the NHS. If they framed it as ‘undoing unfunded Tory tax bribes’ it surely wouldn’t be seen as a rise, bringing us back to where we were.
Whilst some have questioned their ‘growth mantra’, if they can kick start the economy and drive up wages, they will still growth the tax base through the frozen income tax bands (which as far as I’m aware they’ve not referenced). This would be a real terms tax increase but optically can be sold as a ‘freeze’. |
I agree with your first paragraph.
I looked at the bit of the manifesto about growth and it looked a little woolly to me.
Take planning reforms.
How easy will it really be to force through developments that cause local and right wing media outrage?
Will it really lead to 300,000 homes a year?
Where will all the construction workers come from?
Another issue I thought the UK had was low productivity, but a word search of the manifesto reveals no reference to the expression.
As regards the frozen tax bands, it is reported that they are sticking to them, but these are already baked in to IFS warnings about a black hole.
Whatever the position, it does look like growth is really their only hope, but it isn't going to come soon enough to solve the junior doctors strike or raise pay so as to prevent people in vital public services from quitting for a cushier and maybe better paid job.
[Post edited 13 Jun 2024 15:41]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:47 - Jun 13 with 2626 views | thebooks |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:37 - Jun 13 by DJR |
I agree with your first paragraph.
I looked at the bit of the manifesto about growth and it looked a little woolly to me.
Take planning reforms.
How easy will it really be to force through developments that cause local and right wing media outrage?
Will it really lead to 300,000 homes a year?
Where will all the construction workers come from?
Another issue I thought the UK had was low productivity, but a word search of the manifesto reveals no reference to the expression.
As regards the frozen tax bands, it is reported that they are sticking to them, but these are already baked in to IFS warnings about a black hole.
Whatever the position, it does look like growth is really their only hope, but it isn't going to come soon enough to solve the junior doctors strike or raise pay so as to prevent people in vital public services from quitting for a cushier and maybe better paid job.
[Post edited 13 Jun 2024 15:41]
|
Relying on this arm waving idea of growth as opposed to directly investing in infrastructure is crazy. Low productivity has been a problem for decades: nudging and incentivising the private sector just doesn’t work.
Ironically enough, immigration might have helped, but of course since Nige popped up Starmer has decided to take the tough guy approach on that too.
Setting pointless fiscal rules makes it even more difficult. They’re going to be facing huge problems in a couple of years when there’s been no improvement in public services and they have no levers to push and pull. It’ll just play into Reform’s hands. | | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 18:23 - Jun 13 with 2532 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Labour’s manifesto on 11:26 - Jun 13 by StokieBlue |
It could be so much more than that.
Disappointing.
SB |
Colour me shocked. |  |
| |
| Labour’s manifesto on 19:27 - Jun 13 with 2504 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Labour’s manifesto on 12:21 - Jun 13 by lowhouseblue |
the green on newsnight said that billionaires wouldn't leave the country because they were patriotic. i really couldn't tell if he was being sarcastic - but it was the only answer he offered. |
So this is your position on taxing the rich more? Don't? Presumably the same applies to big business too? Governments are so last century aren't they. | |
| |
| Labour’s manifesto on 22:06 - Jun 13 with 2421 views | DJR |
I was listening to Bridget Philippson on the Iain Dale show and it emerged that Labour's industrial strategy is to be decided once they are in government.
As Dale rightly pointed out, given the industrial strategy is a key part of their growth agenda, surely the strategy should have decided before now? [Post edited 13 Jun 2024 22:07]
| | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 00:34 - Jun 14 with 2347 views | Bugs |
Despite the evidence in the Labour parties own history in government, and the last 14 years of Tory austerity, there is a fundamental misconception in the Labour Party leadership that public spending comes after economic growth. When in fact, public spending and investment is what drives growth, especially at times of stagnation and recession. Have they learnt nothing from history, and what is right in front of them from the last 14 years?
More of the same will see the increased rise of the far right at the next elections, a lot of the working class will find the wrong places for the wrong answers, and that is genuinely scary. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 0:36]
|  | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 10:32 - Jun 14 with 2245 views | Ryorry |
Really interesting thread, and v. informative for those of us who don't have a background in economics, thanks all.
What's very obvious to me (& no doubt others) - and I'm surprised KS/Labour aren't banging the drum loud & clear about this - is that after 14 years of the tories' asset stripping and running the country into the ground, partly through putting money into their own pockets instead of into public services (proven stuff like the £billions that went into failed PPE companies run by their chums) - the UK is in such a terrible state that any party coming in now is being handed a poisoned chalice; and that all parties would struggle to revive the UK from being where it is - at one of the lowest ebbs ever in its history. I think if Labour were upfront & honest about this, it would immediately deflect a lot of criticism - the public can observe it for themselves, & would be more likely to cut them some slack.
KS could also make more of putting the UK back into a position of having integrity & respect internationally by publicly re-committing to the ECHR, pledging to work with other countries on the issue of refugees. Not to mention having the theme of greater integrity in public life within domestic politics too (or perhaps people just take it for granted that'll improve under Labour?).
Like others, seriously disappointed with the faint-heartedness shown by Labour now in positing a bold agenda for development of a green economy - so much potential for the renewables industry, they're really missing a trick with that as I reckon it'd be more of a vote-winner than they think, enthusing younger people in particular - I think more people than they realise can now see which way the wind is blowing (sorry!). [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 10:37]
|  |
| |
| Labour’s manifesto on 10:42 - Jun 14 with 2221 views | DJR |
| Labour’s manifesto on 00:34 - Jun 14 by Bugs |
Despite the evidence in the Labour parties own history in government, and the last 14 years of Tory austerity, there is a fundamental misconception in the Labour Party leadership that public spending comes after economic growth. When in fact, public spending and investment is what drives growth, especially at times of stagnation and recession. Have they learnt nothing from history, and what is right in front of them from the last 14 years?
More of the same will see the increased rise of the far right at the next elections, a lot of the working class will find the wrong places for the wrong answers, and that is genuinely scary. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 0:36]
|
Whatever happened to Keynsianism?
Having said that, a friend of mine who studied economics at university tells me that what is taught these days in economics is much narrower, and more neo-liberal conformist, than in his day. That narrowness may well explain why we don't produce people who challenge the prevailing economic consensus, because it seems to me they are not challenged to think.
PPE at Oxford (Reeves, Hunt etc) has a lot to answer for, and economics is only one-third of the degree, so it's not even taught in that much depth..
And given my earlier reference to Chomsky, it is interesting to note his take on education, which accords with my daughter's experience of the current education system, in her first year of teaching in a primary school, where passing tests matters much more than developing children's understanding.
According to Chomsky there is an instrumental approach to education. It is characterized as mindless, meaningless drills and exercise given "in preparation for multiple choice exams". This is evident through the state mandated curriculum where standardized tests are necessary to measure student growth and educational success. Chomsky argues that "the value of education should be placed on students' critical thinking skills and the process of gaining useful and applicable knowledge". However Chomsky's view of the factory model of education is that students are mandated to adhere to state written curricula where standardized tests are necessary. Students are inadvertently pushed to learn through memorization of facts, rather than through critical thinking.
Chomsky suggests that society simply reduces education to the requirement of the market. Students are trained to be compliant workers. The education process is reduced to knowledgeable educators who transfer information to those who don't know rather than to help students formulate higher level thinking skills on their own. In an interview with Donaldo Macedo, Chomsky describes education as "a deep level of indoctrination that takes place in our schools". Teachers are referred to as workers who merely carry out a task they were hired to do. Schools indoctrinate and impose obedience and are used as a system of control and coercion. Chomsky explains that an educated child by society's definition "is one who is conditioned to obey power and structure".
Chomsky complains that children are not taught to challenge and think independently, yet they are taught to repeat, follow orders and obey. Education is described as a period of regimentation and control, with a system of false beliefs. Based on these analyses, the goals of education should be to encourage the development of the child's natural capacity.
EDIT: It looks like History and Economics at Oxford isn't much better, even though half the course is economics.
https://news.sky.com/story/laura-trott-accused-of-not-knowing-basic-facts-of-her
[Post edited 14 Jun 2024 14:04]
| | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 10:54 - Jun 14 with 2176 views | J2BLUE |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:04 - Jun 13 by Clapham_Junction |
Yeah, it's deeply uninspiring. I had been waiting for it to come out before deciding whether to vote for them, and it has made me decide to vote for the Greens. |
Out of interest, if you wish to answer, does the green candidate have any chance of winning where you live or is it a straight Tory vs Labour contest? |  |
| |
| Labour’s manifesto on 11:04 - Jun 14 with 2168 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Labour’s manifesto on 10:42 - Jun 14 by DJR |
Whatever happened to Keynsianism?
Having said that, a friend of mine who studied economics at university tells me that what is taught these days in economics is much narrower, and more neo-liberal conformist, than in his day. That narrowness may well explain why we don't produce people who challenge the prevailing economic consensus, because it seems to me they are not challenged to think.
PPE at Oxford (Reeves, Hunt etc) has a lot to answer for, and economics is only one-third of the degree, so it's not even taught in that much depth..
And given my earlier reference to Chomsky, it is interesting to note his take on education, which accords with my daughter's experience of the current education system, in her first year of teaching in a primary school, where passing tests matters much more than developing children's understanding.
According to Chomsky there is an instrumental approach to education. It is characterized as mindless, meaningless drills and exercise given "in preparation for multiple choice exams". This is evident through the state mandated curriculum where standardized tests are necessary to measure student growth and educational success. Chomsky argues that "the value of education should be placed on students' critical thinking skills and the process of gaining useful and applicable knowledge". However Chomsky's view of the factory model of education is that students are mandated to adhere to state written curricula where standardized tests are necessary. Students are inadvertently pushed to learn through memorization of facts, rather than through critical thinking.
Chomsky suggests that society simply reduces education to the requirement of the market. Students are trained to be compliant workers. The education process is reduced to knowledgeable educators who transfer information to those who don't know rather than to help students formulate higher level thinking skills on their own. In an interview with Donaldo Macedo, Chomsky describes education as "a deep level of indoctrination that takes place in our schools". Teachers are referred to as workers who merely carry out a task they were hired to do. Schools indoctrinate and impose obedience and are used as a system of control and coercion. Chomsky explains that an educated child by society's definition "is one who is conditioned to obey power and structure".
Chomsky complains that children are not taught to challenge and think independently, yet they are taught to repeat, follow orders and obey. Education is described as a period of regimentation and control, with a system of false beliefs. Based on these analyses, the goals of education should be to encourage the development of the child's natural capacity.
EDIT: It looks like History and Economics at Oxford isn't much better, even though half the course is economics.
https://news.sky.com/story/laura-trott-accused-of-not-knowing-basic-facts-of-her
[Post edited 14 Jun 2024 14:04]
|
Keynsianism Is still taught, at least it was on my degree. But he was around at a time when post-war excepted the UK’s debt to gdp was a quarter of where it was now - even in the 70s. Govt spending is not a panacea to growth either as the EU has shown it’s quite possible to rack up debt through spending without generating any real growth. It’s is only 80pc the size of the US economy now despite being level around 15 years ago (and having expanded to more countries in that time). The EU is a great case study for it, the Eurozone and Western European economies have largely been stagnant, with countries in the East such as Poland generating most of the growth. The Eurozone is still being dragged down by insane debt, and interest rates were negative pre-Ukraine to try and inject some growth. Not an argument against spending per se but it has to come through additional taxes.
I know you disagreed with the IMF that Western debt levels need to be brought down, but the US was perilously close to missing a repayment on its debt, the contagion from any major western economy defaulting on it’s debt would be multitudes worse than the sub-prime crisis. Look at the crisis of the Eurozone from Greece - a relatively small economy.
That the UK has performed even worse is down to a multitude of things such as the structural economic weaknesses I wrote about the other day. And of course the elephant in the room - BREXIT. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 11:11]
| | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 11:22 - Jun 14 with 2142 views | DJR |
| Labour’s manifesto on 11:04 - Jun 14 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Keynsianism Is still taught, at least it was on my degree. But he was around at a time when post-war excepted the UK’s debt to gdp was a quarter of where it was now - even in the 70s. Govt spending is not a panacea to growth either as the EU has shown it’s quite possible to rack up debt through spending without generating any real growth. It’s is only 80pc the size of the US economy now despite being level around 15 years ago (and having expanded to more countries in that time). The EU is a great case study for it, the Eurozone and Western European economies have largely been stagnant, with countries in the East such as Poland generating most of the growth. The Eurozone is still being dragged down by insane debt, and interest rates were negative pre-Ukraine to try and inject some growth. Not an argument against spending per se but it has to come through additional taxes.
I know you disagreed with the IMF that Western debt levels need to be brought down, but the US was perilously close to missing a repayment on its debt, the contagion from any major western economy defaulting on it’s debt would be multitudes worse than the sub-prime crisis. Look at the crisis of the Eurozone from Greece - a relatively small economy.
That the UK has performed even worse is down to a multitude of things such as the structural economic weaknesses I wrote about the other day. And of course the elephant in the room - BREXIT. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 11:11]
|
I'll get back to you! But you may not have noticed that I added a bit to my post about Chomsky's view of education just after you posted. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 11:25]
| | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 13:38 - Jun 14 with 2089 views | DJR |
| Labour’s manifesto on 11:04 - Jun 14 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Keynsianism Is still taught, at least it was on my degree. But he was around at a time when post-war excepted the UK’s debt to gdp was a quarter of where it was now - even in the 70s. Govt spending is not a panacea to growth either as the EU has shown it’s quite possible to rack up debt through spending without generating any real growth. It’s is only 80pc the size of the US economy now despite being level around 15 years ago (and having expanded to more countries in that time). The EU is a great case study for it, the Eurozone and Western European economies have largely been stagnant, with countries in the East such as Poland generating most of the growth. The Eurozone is still being dragged down by insane debt, and interest rates were negative pre-Ukraine to try and inject some growth. Not an argument against spending per se but it has to come through additional taxes.
I know you disagreed with the IMF that Western debt levels need to be brought down, but the US was perilously close to missing a repayment on its debt, the contagion from any major western economy defaulting on it’s debt would be multitudes worse than the sub-prime crisis. Look at the crisis of the Eurozone from Greece - a relatively small economy.
That the UK has performed even worse is down to a multitude of things such as the structural economic weaknesses I wrote about the other day. And of course the elephant in the room - BREXIT. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 11:11]
|
I suppose my point is that Keysianism ceased to be the prevailing orthodoxy in the early 1990s in organisations like the Treasury, the World Bank and the IMF, and it is perhaps not surprising that there is maybe lip service played to it these days in universities and the like.
As it is, £3.5 of the £4.7 billion cost of the Labour green prosperity plan is within Labour's (and presumably the Tories') fiscal rule, because the manifesto describes it as "Borrowing to invest within fiscal rules".
This suggests there is a teeny-weeny Keynsian hiding within Rachel Reeves. And my understanding is that the original £28 billion was similarly justified on the basis that it was borrowing to invest.
What seems to have happened is that Labour became scared that the £28 billion figure would be used against it, so Reeves changed direction.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/08/scaled-back-28bn-pledge-marks-a
"It also marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy. No longer is the shadow chancellor arguing for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Instead, she says she wants to achieve Labour’s green targets using as little public money as possible."
Turning to the EU, I would argue that it is the IMF-driven austerity that caused much of the problems the EU is facing, and I am not sure comparisons with the US are totally valid because it appears to have struck lucky when it comes to the digital economy, something perhaps inevitable given its entrepreneurial/academic base and the size of its individual economy. Whatever the position, very little of the growth has filtered down because the average American is no better off than 40 odd years ago. Hence Trump,
Finally, as regards debt, my view is that it does need to be taken seriously. My point is that the fiscal rule is almost Alice in Wonderland in its effect because it requires debt to be falling in the fifth year of a rolling period that never seems to end. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 13:45]
| | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:50 - Jun 14 with 2004 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Labour’s manifesto on 13:38 - Jun 14 by DJR |
I suppose my point is that Keysianism ceased to be the prevailing orthodoxy in the early 1990s in organisations like the Treasury, the World Bank and the IMF, and it is perhaps not surprising that there is maybe lip service played to it these days in universities and the like.
As it is, £3.5 of the £4.7 billion cost of the Labour green prosperity plan is within Labour's (and presumably the Tories') fiscal rule, because the manifesto describes it as "Borrowing to invest within fiscal rules".
This suggests there is a teeny-weeny Keynsian hiding within Rachel Reeves. And my understanding is that the original £28 billion was similarly justified on the basis that it was borrowing to invest.
What seems to have happened is that Labour became scared that the £28 billion figure would be used against it, so Reeves changed direction.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/08/scaled-back-28bn-pledge-marks-a
"It also marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy. No longer is the shadow chancellor arguing for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Instead, she says she wants to achieve Labour’s green targets using as little public money as possible."
Turning to the EU, I would argue that it is the IMF-driven austerity that caused much of the problems the EU is facing, and I am not sure comparisons with the US are totally valid because it appears to have struck lucky when it comes to the digital economy, something perhaps inevitable given its entrepreneurial/academic base and the size of its individual economy. Whatever the position, very little of the growth has filtered down because the average American is no better off than 40 odd years ago. Hence Trump,
Finally, as regards debt, my view is that it does need to be taken seriously. My point is that the fiscal rule is almost Alice in Wonderland in its effect because it requires debt to be falling in the fifth year of a rolling period that never seems to end. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 13:45]
|
You cannot just constantly dismiss debt as ‘not mattering’, because regardless of what domestic fiscal rules we operate to, the debt is external and has to be repaid. The fiscal rules are irrelevant to our external debt obligations. This government has already presided over two sovereign downgrades which not only affects the reputation of a country in term of political risk, and FDI, but also makes borrowing more expensive.
Whilst we still have a lower debt to gdp ratio than some of our neighbours, there comes a point where there just isn’t enough money in the pot to make the repayments, which are compounding year on year. There has to come a point where we get to an unmanageable level. And that is the point when real austerity comes in - just ask any Greek. | | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 16:20 - Jun 14 with 1974 views | thebooks |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:50 - Jun 14 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
You cannot just constantly dismiss debt as ‘not mattering’, because regardless of what domestic fiscal rules we operate to, the debt is external and has to be repaid. The fiscal rules are irrelevant to our external debt obligations. This government has already presided over two sovereign downgrades which not only affects the reputation of a country in term of political risk, and FDI, but also makes borrowing more expensive.
Whilst we still have a lower debt to gdp ratio than some of our neighbours, there comes a point where there just isn’t enough money in the pot to make the repayments, which are compounding year on year. There has to come a point where we get to an unmanageable level. And that is the point when real austerity comes in - just ask any Greek. |
The problem is the whole of government spending has been defined in terms of a constant fear of "doing a Greece"; we're always at a point where there "just isn't enough money in the pot" (a term which belongs with "maxing out the credit card") That is what causes permanent austerity. It is a political rather than an economic statement.
When exactly is that point reached? The debt to GDP ratio after WW2 was 270%, compared to 97% today. Yet we built the NHS.
It is patently wrong to compare the UK to Greece in 2010, or to increase investment in infrastructure - which ultimately will help generate revenue through taxation and productivity increases anyway - with Truss's tax cuts. | | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 16:30 - Jun 14 with 1960 views | DJR |
| Labour’s manifesto on 15:50 - Jun 14 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
You cannot just constantly dismiss debt as ‘not mattering’, because regardless of what domestic fiscal rules we operate to, the debt is external and has to be repaid. The fiscal rules are irrelevant to our external debt obligations. This government has already presided over two sovereign downgrades which not only affects the reputation of a country in term of political risk, and FDI, but also makes borrowing more expensive.
Whilst we still have a lower debt to gdp ratio than some of our neighbours, there comes a point where there just isn’t enough money in the pot to make the repayments, which are compounding year on year. There has to come a point where we get to an unmanageable level. And that is the point when real austerity comes in - just ask any Greek. |
I am not arguing that debt doesn't matter. And as it is, I'd rather the black hole was covered by tax rises. But as it is, we appear to be on a doom loop these last 14 years, and there doesn't seem much prospect to me of our getting out of it. | | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 16:53 - Jun 14 with 1942 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Labour’s manifesto on 16:20 - Jun 14 by thebooks |
The problem is the whole of government spending has been defined in terms of a constant fear of "doing a Greece"; we're always at a point where there "just isn't enough money in the pot" (a term which belongs with "maxing out the credit card") That is what causes permanent austerity. It is a political rather than an economic statement.
When exactly is that point reached? The debt to GDP ratio after WW2 was 270%, compared to 97% today. Yet we built the NHS.
It is patently wrong to compare the UK to Greece in 2010, or to increase investment in infrastructure - which ultimately will help generate revenue through taxation and productivity increases anyway - with Truss's tax cuts. |
It is not political dogma it’s real external sovereign debt markets. We can just put our fingers in our ears:-
“Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that if there are significant fiscal deficits going into investment, we're going to disregard them," he said. "Regardless of what you spend on, the fiscal position is constrained.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/next-uk-government-faces-credit-rating-challeng
Starmer can be braver on taxes - the election is already won, and the Greens have beat him to wealth taxes. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 16:56]
| | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 17:04 - Jun 14 with 1937 views | thebooks |
| Labour’s manifesto on 16:53 - Jun 14 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It is not political dogma it’s real external sovereign debt markets. We can just put our fingers in our ears:-
“Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that if there are significant fiscal deficits going into investment, we're going to disregard them," he said. "Regardless of what you spend on, the fiscal position is constrained.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/next-uk-government-faces-credit-rating-challeng
Starmer can be braver on taxes - the election is already won, and the Greens have beat him to wealth taxes. [Post edited 14 Jun 2024 16:56]
|
The sentence before ends: "...public spending that increases the ability of the economy to grow was important."
Also interesting to note that they reckon the UK's economy will outgrow EU countries because we have more immigration.
Starmer could do more with taxes, but he's not going to. | | | |
| Labour’s manifesto on 18:57 - Jun 14 with 1876 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Labour’s manifesto on 10:54 - Jun 14 by J2BLUE |
Out of interest, if you wish to answer, does the green candidate have any chance of winning where you live or is it a straight Tory vs Labour contest? |
It's a right-wing Labour vs Pro-Gaza Independent contest, so no danger of letting the Tories win. It's a seat which has previously elected Galloway so it probably is quite close, but the independent doesn't seem to be a Galloway-type extremist (he was previously a Lib Dem candidate).
The Green has no chance of winning; the vote is more to register my disgust with the current state of Labour (which I am still a member of, pretty much only to ensure I get a vote in the next leadership contest). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
