Keir Starmer

[bluenova]

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.

There are plenty of economists who disagree with you, so there's not a huge point in discussing "facts" because the facts support multiple readings. Economics is fascinating, but it's part science, part politics, and the maths generally gets bent to the will of the politics, rather than the other way round.

I also think 'austerity' has become so ubiquitous, and applied to so many situations, that it's almost meaningless. Anyone who doesn't say they're going to push up taxes, or nationalise every industry, or immediately increase benefits is apparently exactly the same as George Osborne.

Osborne's "austerity" was a specific policy of deliberate cuts to the state. He was quite open about wanting to cut the size of the state, because he believed it would unleash the private sector.

I wouldn't even put Jeremy Hunt* in that category, never mind Rachel Reeves.

*Hunt has argued that the state needs to shrink to avoid(!) austerity, which is probably a good example of how "political" economics works.

 

[BrianW]

The economy is so fucked by Covid, Ukraine and above all, Brexit, plus many years of self-defeating austerity before that, that no government and chancellor has much scope for manoeuvre. Even tax-raising is difficult when most working people are struggling at some level. (The struggle on 100k is less than the struggle on 15k, but as we all tend to live up to our income, it's still a struggle.)

What is left is the ability to make choices on what to do with little free money there is. That depends, inter alia, on what your philosophy is and where you think you will get the most bang for your buck.

I think we have to be realistic. Progress will, at best, be slow and steady. You might just see a better world in a decade, if we haven't all been blown to fuck first. (A not unimaginable possibility.)

 

[metalblue]

Er - they've frozen thresholds, bringing lots more people into paying tax (at a cost to HMRC), and most pensioners will be over the threshold even if it's raised to cover the state pension.

Furlough - OK apart from all the people who didn't qualify on technical grounds.

Ukraine - they've probably exploited Ukraine as an excuse for inflation more than the cost of supporting Ukriane.

Vaccines? The only thing they did different was getting Astra Zenica tio break their contract with the EU.

Global tax regime? Some might think Brexit was to avoid the EU attempt at a level playing field.

Gay marriage? As pointed out, only carried because of Labour MPs

You don’t think they’re good things the government achieved. I do. Zero point responding otherwise as neither of us will change our mind.

 

[metalblue]

I understand, but in 14 years there isn't really a single Tory policy that genuinely stands out.

I don't even have to make political points, or argue the ins and outs of what they did - they just didn't really do anything.

When I typed the list out I have to say that was one thing that popped in to my head. Not a long list for 14 years.

I considered that a large portion of Parliament time was taken up with Brexit and 3 items were outcomes of things (significant things) outside any governments control. i.e they were reactionary policies.

You then have to think about what they maintained, funding increases versus decreases. That’s probably neutral give or take and you’ll think they did the right thing or otherwise depending on your political bias or personal objectives.

Then they did plenty wrong. Given the public a vote on Brexit was beyond daft (but the Tory government expected to win and settle an internal argument) and in all honesty has taken up far too much time that could have been spent serving the people. For clarity I voted leave because I was fundamentally opposed to the TTIP and the risks it presented to the NHS and I would vote the same again tomorrow for exactly the same reasons and principles.

But no postmortem of the last 14 years can be complete without discussing Johnson. Johnson had missions and he was stubborn to boot - he had personality and was the emperor baring gifts. HS2 wouldn’t have been scraped however daft it was or wasn’t, he was building his hospitals some of which were new centres rather than entirely new (to digress a moment, my area is benefiting from 2 new ones, 1 of which Mrs MB works at now and it’s fantastic how they are building a new hospital around the old one so it keeps working without interruption), he would have seen levelling up happen. We’d probably be building a bridge to Ireland by now as well! But he was a disaster in many ways.

To get back on topic, Starmer may not be a disaster (almost certainly won’t) but he has no mission. His lack of morales and his thirst for power is a toxic mix IMHO. As I’ve said previously Corbyn had morales - you may have disagreed with his politics (and I did) but I can’t fault him for standing up for what he believed in even if it cost him votes - I like that in a politician (and it wasn’t a trait that Johnson had).

Anyway I’m getting a Tory government whatever happens.

 

[kaz7]

Neither, he's just Raynor's woman

Because she said it was ok for abbott to stand probably because the decision was already made and she was first on the airwaves ?

 

[metalblue]

The only thing that counts is getting into No 10, anything else is a failure. Doing it with a majority will be the icing on the cake for Labour as they will be able to act without having to cozy up to anybody else.

Changing the plan and being pragmatic when needed is all part of good business, sitting on your laurels thinking you’ve made it, is not.

This is where it gets surreal. You’re hoping his lying when he lies.

Will the real Keir Starmer please stand up. There are so many different versions it’s small wonder the electorate don’t know who he is.

 

[bluenova]

When I typed the list out I have to say that was one thing that popped in to my head. Not a long list for 14 years.

I considered that a large portion of Parliament time was taken up with Brexit and 3 items were outcomes of things (significant things) outside any governments control. i.e they were reactionary policies.

You then have to think about what they maintained, funding increases versus decreases. That’s probably neutral give or take and you’ll think they did the right thing or otherwise depending on your political bias or personal objectives.

Then they did plenty wrong. Given the public a vote on Brexit was beyond daft (but the Tory government expected to win and settle an internal argument) and in all honesty has taken up far too much time that could have been spent serving the people. For clarity I voted leave because I was fundamentally opposed to the TTIP and the risks it presented to the NHS and I would vote the same again tomorrow for exactly the same reasons and principles.

But no postmortem of the last 14 years can be complete without discussing Johnson. Johnson had missions and he was stubborn to boot - he had personality and was the emperor baring gifts. HS2 wouldn’t have been scraped however daft it was or wasn’t, he was building his hospitals some of which were new centres rather than entirely new (to digress a moment, my area is benefiting from 2 new ones, 1 of which Mrs MB works at now and it’s fantastic how they are building a new hospital around the old one so it keeps working without interruption), he would have seen levelling up happen. We’d probably be building a bridge to Ireland by now as well! But he was a disaster in many ways.

To get back on topic, Starmer may not be a disaster (almost certainly won’t) but he has no mission. His lack of morales and his thirst for power is a toxic mix IMHO. As I’ve said previously Corbyn had morales - you may have disagreed with his politics (and I did) but I can’t fault him for standing up for what he believed in even if it cost him votes - I like that in a politician (and it wasn’t a trait that Johnson had).

Anyway I’m getting a Tory government whatever happens.

Putting aside political preferences, it is genuinely amazing how difficult it is to put together even a short list after 14 years.

 

[metalblue]

Putting aside political preferences, it is genuinely amazing how difficult it is to put together even a short list after 14 years.

It is.

 

[Brewster's millions]

There are plenty of economists who disagree with you, so there's not a huge point in discussing "facts" because the facts support multiple readings. Economics is fascinating, but it's part science, part politics, and the maths generally gets bent to the will of the politics, rather than the other way round.

I also think 'austerity' has become so ubiquitous, and applied to so many situations, that it's almost meaningless. Anyone who doesn't say they're going to push up taxes, or nationalise every industry, or immediately increase benefits is apparently exactly the same as George Osborne.

Osborne's "austerity" was a specific policy of deliberate cuts to the state. He was quite open about wanting to cut the size of the state, because he believed it would unleash the private sector.

I wouldn't even put Jeremy Hunt* in that category, never mind Rachel Reeves.

*Hunt has argued that the state needs to shrink to avoid(!) austerity, which is probably a good example of how "political" economics works.

There's no need to talk about "facts", as you put it, as everything I've said fact.

I've simply outlined Labour's proposed fiscal rules, which essentially mean no change at all if you focus on the primary rule, or actually imply more scrutiny around departmental spending and welfare expenditure if they commit to a balanced current budget. Anyone who is properly aware of the Labour proposals would agree with me.

As for bending the maths, that doesn't really happen now with the OBR in place. So if we have a current budget deficit at the moment of 2% of GDP, and Labour wants to remove that without raising taxation, then what does that imply for spending?

Labour could get very fortunate with the economic cycle and Bank Rate and have more room for policy measures, but that's an unknown. What we know at the moment is that they've signed up for a fiscal framework which is either exactly the same as the current one, or a in fact bit more challenging.

I do however agree with you about the misuse of the austerity term, although on Osborne I would argue that any Chancellor would need to make cuts when they inherit a deficit of more than 10% of GDP, which he of course did.

 

[bluenova]

There's no need to talk about "facts", as you put it, as everything I've said fact.

I've simply outlined Labour's proposed fiscal rules, which essentially mean no change at all if you focus on the primary rule, or actually imply more scrutiny around departmental spending and welfare expenditure if they commit to a balanced current budget. Anyone who is properly aware of the Labour proposals would agree with me.

As for bending the maths, that doesn't really happen now with the OBR in place. So if we have a current budget deficit at the moment of 2% of GDP, and Labour wants to remove that without raising taxation, then what does that imply for spending?

Labour could get very fortunate with the economic cycle and Bank Rate and have more room for policy measures, but that's an unknown. What we know at the moment is that they've signed up for a fiscal framework which is either exactly the same as the current one, or a in fact bit more challenging.

I do however agree with you about the misuse of the austerity term, although on Osborne I would argue that any Chancellor would need to make cuts when they inherit a deficit of more than 10% of GDP, which he of course did.

Osborne was very clear that the cuts were in his eyes a good thing, and not simply because he didn't have the money.

He banged on about the "crowding out" theory, every chance he got.

In hindsight, the "Labour didn't leave us any money" line became more prominent, as there was no obvious success for his actual reasons.