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.

 

[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 bitch

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.