Keir Starmer

[Don Karleone]

Interesting question, how would the ex-DPP deal with these people?

As always, I’ll put my thoughts out there and with the understanding that Starmer stands for socialism, I have no issues in voting for the party.

The question is, are you?

How does he stand for socialism?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Interesting question, how would the ex-DPP deal with these people?

As always, I’ll put my thoughts out there and with the understanding that Starmer stands for socialism, I have no issues in voting for the party.

The question is, are you?

Starmer is not a socialist. He's a liberal that is happy to position himself as a least worst (anything but Tory) option. I imagine this will get him where he wants to be.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Have a nice evening.

 

[Vic]

Fuck all what's your point

Then your pointless argument is with metalblue who thinks it's a good thing they've done.

 

[bluenova]

Two cheeks, one arse.

If and it is an enormous if, Starmer wins and refutes austerity and employs Keynsian economic thinking, then he may turn out half decent, problem is his Chancellor, nutjob Reeves is a neo liberal, she hates the working class,imagine a Labour chancellor hating the working class????? She hates the undeserving poor and her securenomics is Osborne reborn

Labour under Starmer is a liberal left party, and the liberal left do not care about the working class left, He thinks he is appealing to the working class by being anti immigration, all he is doing though is making himself look silly. A middle class fool assuming what the working class think.

I am voting Count Binface, count on the Count, he is the only sensible politician in the country

Why do you think Rachel Reeves hates the working class?

We won't know till Labour win (hopefully) if they will follow through, but Reeves has said there won't be a return to austerity. Clearly different economists have differing views on whether that's possible, but it's certainly up for debate. Certainly, the fiscal rules she's talked about have some flexibility, and she's also spoken of separating investment from day to day expenses to give more freedom.

I know she got a lot of criticism before her recent lecture, because it was briefed that she'd be mentioning Thatcher. Momentum got all giddy denouncing her, and I've seen plenty of reports since suggesting her plans were based on Thatcherite economics. Of course, she actually said that everything Nigel Lawson did was wrong, and we're still feeling the effects of an "unprecedented surge in inequality". She said the only thing she wanted to recreate was that she wanted to have as big an impact on the country, but in a much more positive way.

She's clearly not Che Guevara, but I don't think she's anything close to Osborne.

 

[Pedestrian]

Two cheeks, one arse.

If and it is an enormous if, Starmer wins and refutes austerity and employs Keynsian economic thinking, then he may turn out half decent, problem is his Chancellor, nutjob Reeves is a neo liberal, she hates the working class,imagine a Labour chancellor hating the working class????? She hates the undeserving poor and her securenomics is Osborne reborn

Labour under Starmer is a liberal left party, and the liberal left do not care about the working class left, He thinks he is appealing to the working class by being anti immigration, all he is doing though is making himself look silly. A middle class fool assuming what the working class think.

I am voting Count Binface, count on the Count, he is the only sensible politician in the country

It’s one step closer to your ideal to vote labour.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Why do you think Rachel Reeves hates the working class?

We won't know till Labour win (hopefully) if they will follow through, but Reeves has said there won't be a return to austerity. Clearly different economists have differing views on whether that's possible, but it's certainly up for debate. Certainly, the fiscal rules she's talked about have some flexibility, and she's also spoken of separating investment from day to day expenses to give more freedom.

I know she got a lot of criticism before her recent lecture, because it was briefed that she'd be mentioning Thatcher. Momentum got all giddy denouncing her, and I've seen plenty of reports since suggesting her plans were based on Thatcherite economics. Of course, she actually said that everything Nigel Lawson did was wrong, and we're still feeling the effects of an "unprecedented surge in inequality". She said the only thing she wanted to recreate was that she wanted to have as big an impact on the country, but in a much more positive way.

She's clearly not Che Guevara, but I don't think she's anything close to Osborne.

I have to say it’s quite interesting to see the sort of language that people use around Labour’s proposed fiscal rules, and how they perceive that what’s proposed won’t equate to austerity, simply because it will be a Labour Chancellor. The facts don’t back that up.

The key fiscal rule proposed by Reeves is exactly the same as is currently in operation, namely for government debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP by the fifth year of the forecast horizon. The only commitment here is for there to be a projected decline, rather than actually achieving it, and given that it’s a rolling projection the fiscal rule effectively can’t be broken as long as the OBR forecasts a decline five years’ out. But this flexibility around the rule will be the same under Reeves as it is currently.

The secondary part of Labour’s rule is for the current budget (headline borrowing minus investment) to be in balance, although there’s no timeframe around this. In theory this allows for investment to rise within the framework, but the fiscal rules operated by Hunt right now also allow for this. And any increase in investment will still be constrained by the overall need for debt to be seen as falling in five years, the same as under a Conservative or Labour Chancellor.

So the flexibility on investment will be very limited, and balancing the current budget will be extremely difficult. It’s running a deficit of 2% of GDP now and given that Labour are ruling out major tax hikes, spending growth on departments etc will remain very weak. If anything the current budget aspect of Labour’s plans, if they implement it, actually makes austerity around departmental spending and welfare over the next parliament more likely than what we have now.

 

[hilts]

I have to say it’s quite interesting to see the sort of language that people use around Labour’s proposed fiscal rules, and how they perceive that what’s proposed won’t equate to austerity, simply because it will be a Labour Chancellor. The facts don’t back that up.

The key fiscal rule proposed by Reeves is exactly the same as is currently in operation, namely for government debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP by the fifth year of the forecast horizon. The only commitment here is for there to be a projected decline, rather than actually achieving it, and given that it’s a rolling projection the fiscal rule effectively can’t be broken as long as the OBR forecasts a decline five years’ out. But this flexibility around the rule will be the same under Reeves as it is currently.

The secondary part of Labour’s rule is for the current budget (headline borrowing minus investment) to be in balance, although there’s no timeframe around this. In theory this allows for investment to rise within the framework, but the fiscal rules operated by Hunt right now also allow for this. And any increase in investment will still be constrained by the overall need for debt to be seen as falling in five years, the same as under a Conservative or Labour Chancellor.

So the flexibility on investment will be very limited, and balancing the current budget will be extremely difficult. It’s running a deficit of 2% of GDP now and given that Labour are ruling out major tax hikes, spending growth on departments etc will remain very weak. If anything the current budget aspect of Labour’s plans, if they implement it, actually makes austerity around departmental spending and welfare over the next parliament more likely than what we have now.

Blair walked into the job just as the economy was about to boom. This and borrowing allowed him to do some decent stuff. The financial crisis hit and Labour went.

Unfortunately since then the Tories have caused untold damage. We have gone so far backwards that unless Labour get lucky, we rely on global economies, you would need someone who is not risk averse to have any chance of meaningful improvement.

Keith doesn't have a risky bone in his body. I expect a decade of waiting for the 'time being right'

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Vic]

I have to say it’s quite interesting to see the sort of language that people use around Labour’s proposed fiscal rules, and how they perceive that what’s proposed won’t equate to austerity, simply because it will be a Labour Chancellor. The facts don’t back that up.

The key fiscal rule proposed by Reeves is exactly the same as is currently in operation, namely for government debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP by the fifth year of the forecast horizon. The only commitment here is for there to be a projected decline, rather than actually achieving it, and given that it’s a rolling projection the fiscal rule effectively can’t be broken as long as the OBR forecasts a decline five years’ out. But this flexibility around the rule will be the same under Reeves as it is currently.

The secondary part of Labour’s rule is for the current budget (headline borrowing minus investment) to be in balance, although there’s no timeframe around this. In theory this allows for investment to rise within the framework, but the fiscal rules operated by Hunt right now also allow for this. And any increase in investment will still be constrained by the overall need for debt to be seen as falling in five years, the same as under a Conservative or Labour Chancellor.

So the flexibility on investment will be very limited, and balancing the current budget will be extremely difficult. It’s running a deficit of 2% of GDP now and given that Labour are ruling out major tax hikes, spending growth on departments etc will remain very weak. If anything the current budget aspect of Labour’s plans, if they implement it, actually makes austerity around departmental spending and welfare over the next parliament more likely than what we have now.

So how has Hunt managed to cut NI? Or are you saying it's OK for a Tory chancellor to break his rules but a Labour chancellor has to follow them?

 

[inbetween]

I have to say it’s quite interesting to see the sort of language that people use around Labour’s proposed fiscal rules, and how they perceive that what’s proposed won’t equate to austerity, simply because it will be a Labour Chancellor. The facts don’t back that up.

The key fiscal rule proposed by Reeves is exactly the same as is currently in operation, namely for government debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP by the fifth year of the forecast horizon. The only commitment here is for there to be a projected decline, rather than actually achieving it, and given that it’s a rolling projection the fiscal rule effectively can’t be broken as long as the OBR forecasts a decline five years’ out. But this flexibility around the rule will be the same under Reeves as it is currently.

The secondary part of Labour’s rule is for the current budget (headline borrowing minus investment) to be in balance, although there’s no timeframe around this. In theory this allows for investment to rise within the framework, but the fiscal rules operated by Hunt right now also allow for this. And any increase in investment will still be constrained by the overall need for debt to be seen as falling in five years, the same as under a Conservative or Labour Chancellor.

So the flexibility on investment will be very limited, and balancing the current budget will be extremely difficult. It’s running a deficit of 2% of GDP now and given that Labour are ruling out major tax hikes, spending growth on departments etc will remain very weak. If anything the current budget aspect of Labour’s plans, if they implement it, actually makes austerity around departmental spending and welfare over the next parliament more likely than what we have now.

I don't really know what people expect to happen? This is 2024 and not 2019. The world has changed considerably since COVID and COVID itself may be history but the aftershock is still here. GDP debt is twice what it was 10 years ago however our economy has not grown twice over. We therefore can't spend infinitely more unless we bring in infinitely more but that isn't going to happen in this global climate no matter how much we spend. There has to be a limit.

Austerity is forced spending cuts within the public sector and we don't want that but controlled spending is still important. The socialist utopia peddled by the likes of Corbyn represents unrestrained spending funded by a combination of borrowing and money printing which would essentially bankrupt the country and kill off the pound.

Labour hopefully will be measured by controlling spending but unlike the Tories they'll direct that spending at people. Instead of tax cuts for rich people we'll get a railway system that works again. Instead of removing barriers on bankers bonuses we'll get an energy system that provides energy and not profit.

These are choices that can be made selectively even if we are heavily limited economically. The Tories were clearly good at chopping spending however they were absolutely awful at spending what remained. Cutting spending and services to fund tax cuts for example is utterly moronic. Keeping taxes the same and directing that to fund critical services with the resources they need is sensible.