The Labour Government

[Hgblue2]

"C"(untservatives).

Easiest targets for cuts are?

This is what is known in the Bluemoon Politics Forum as a leading question. However I answer this question my proposals will be impossible/unworkable/malevolent/insufficient. It's a no win question, because there are no easy targets for cuts, that's the honest answer.

So we're down to the uneasy targets for cuts which I mentioned in my previous reply to you, which will require political courage and a degree of unity from the public to come together and solve these issues. We're definitely not there yet, but as this crisis becomes ever more obvious hopefully we will be.

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

We are in a sorry state as a country to be fair with the spectre of stagflation waiting around the corner for the unwary chancellor… I’m curious to see how she thinks she’ll get out of the current mess they’ve made ….more tax? wouldn’t surprise me ..

 

[Hertzblue]

I'm not sure any party would be able to go near much of this. It's a list of stuff that will be almost universally unpalatable across the electorate as well as the political establishment for many reasons.

Just starting with your first point:

"We must raise taxes initially"-which taxes, on whom, for how long, how is the extra income spent?

£50bn off the welfare budget: most "welfare" goes on the state pension, other pensioner benefits and benefits for those IN WORK.

I get your gist but this is probably a 20 year project rather than anything a single party can ever contemplate.

Thanks for the time and effort though, it's certainly a good change to those that snipe without ever having a constructive thought in their brains(welcome back Big Joe).

I think we are fast approaching the point where the medicine must be taken whether it is unpalatable or not. If we refuse to take it the IMF / Markets will force it upon us in any event, continuing as we are will not be a choice that is available to us. I would prefer we face into the difficult decisions and remain in charge of our own destiny. It can be done but only with a leader with the political courage to make some very unpopular decisions.

 

[Vic]

This just about sums up the thread's attitude:

UK Fastest Growth in the G7 in 2025 But No one Impressed​

UK Fastest Growth in the G7 in 2025 But No one Impressed - Economics Help

https://youtu.be/qJbEjrS0v1M After this week’s GDP statistics, the UK government could try to boast the fastest growth in the G7 during 2025 so far (depending on Japan data to come). It’s a bit like winning a beauty contest amongst your seven ageing friends; it doesn’t mean much. The bigger…

www.economicshelp.org

 

[Vic]

I think we are fast approaching the point where the medicine must be taken whether it is unpalatable or not. If we refuse to take it the IMF / Markets will force it upon us in any event, continuing as we are will not be a choice that is available to us. I would prefer we face into the difficult decisions and remain in charge of our own destiny. It can be done but only with a leader with the political courage to make some very unpopular decisions.

The IMF you say?

• An economic recovery is underway. (UK) Growth is projected at 1.2 percent in 2025 and will gain momentum next year, although weak productivity continues to weigh on medium-term growth prospects.
• The authorities’ fiscal plans strike a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability. It will be important to stay the course and deliver the planned deficit reduction over the next five years to stabilize net debt and reduce vulnerability to gilt market pressures. Further refinements of the fiscal framework could help minimize the frequency of fiscal policy changes. In the longer term, the UK will face difficult choices to align spending with available resources, given ageing-related expenditure pressures.
• The Bank of England (BoE) should continue to ease monetary policy gradually, while remaining flexible in light of elevated uncertainty. Calibrating the monetary policy stance has become more complex, given the recent pickup in inflation, still fragile growth, and higher long-term interest rates.
• The authorities’ Growth Mission focuses on the right areas to lift productivity. Given the breadth of the agenda, prioritizing and sequencing of structural reforms, along with clear communication, will be key to success.

 

[Hertzblue]

The IMF you say?

• An economic recovery is underway. (UK) Growth is projected at 1.2 percent in 2025 and will gain momentum next year, although weak productivity continues to weigh on medium-term growth prospects.
• The authorities’ fiscal plans strike a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability. It will be important to stay the course and deliver the planned deficit reduction over the next five years to stabilize net debt and reduce vulnerability to gilt market pressures. Further refinements of the fiscal framework could help minimize the frequency of fiscal policy changes. In the longer term, the UK will face difficult choices to align spending with available resources, given ageing-related expenditure pressures.
• The Bank of England (BoE) should continue to ease monetary policy gradually, while remaining flexible in light of elevated uncertainty. Calibrating the monetary policy stance has become more complex, given the recent pickup in inflation, still fragile growth, and higher long-term interest rates.
• The authorities’ Growth Mission focuses on the right areas to lift productivity. Given the breadth of the agenda, prioritizing and sequencing of structural reforms, along with clear communication, will be key to success.

The key bit is .

• It will be important to stay the course and deliver the planned deficit reduction over the next five years to stabilize net debt and reduce vulnerability to gilt market pressures. Further refinements of the fiscal framework could help minimize the frequency of fiscal policy changes. In the longer term, the UK will face difficult choices to align spending with available resources, given ageing-related expenditure pressures.

They aren't, Welfare reform in the bin , no stomach for the " difficult choices" . Let's see what she does in the Budget, but if as expected it is all tax rises and nothing meaningful on reduced spending then even the IMF will have trouble polishing that turd.

 

[Vic]

The bitterness of some of you lot knows no bounds does it.

That Jesus was so bitter with his story of the guy building bigger barns. ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

(I know the answer. His relatives, aka the undeserving rich.)

 

[Vic]

The key bit is .

They aren't, Welfare reform in the bin , no stomach for the " difficult choices" . Let's see what she does in the Budget, but if as expected it is all tax rises and nothing meaningful on reduced spending then even the IMF will have trouble polishing that turd.

I forgot the IMF doesn't read the papers so didn't know about the backtracking on welfare cuts.

 

[Hertzblue]

I forgot the IMF doesn't read the papers so didn't know about the backtracking on welfare cuts.

Reality check, the role of the IMF is to promote global economic stability, it is not given to be alarmist as that is self defeating to its goal. Read the messages - " reduce vulnerability to gilt market pressures" , " face difficult choices", just because it is couched in comforting tones and sandwiched between a few positives doesn't lessen the serious nature of the situation.

 

[Vic]

Reality check, the role of the IMF is to promote global economic stability, it is not given to be alarmist as that is self defeating to its goal. Read the messages - " reduce vulnerability to gilt market pressures" , " face difficult choices", just becomes it is couched in comforting tones and sandwiched between a few positives doesn't lessen the serious nature of the situation.

Well, obviously we need "only with a leader with the political courage to make some very unpopular decisions".

And what leader will get elected on that manifesto? Do you have anyone in mind?

 

[Hertzblue]

Well, obviously we need "only with a leader with the political courage to make some very unpopular decisions".

And what leader will get elected on that manifesto? Do you have anyone in mind?

Easier to reply with a copy of my post from 8th August .....

I don't think any party can offer any short term fixes to our public finances, certainly not Reform. Unfortunately as a nation we live way beyond our means and I think we all need to brace for an impact on our living standards in the short term until we find our way back to a sustainable path.
For me I am not looking for any party to offer me personally any greater prosperity, I am looking for who can put the country back on that sustainable path, who has the political will and courage to tackle the seemingly intractable issues that have locked us into this state of decline. I believe those issues are Immigration, Welfare reform, Civil service reform, Re-shaping our workforce /Education reform, Housebuilding, Energy strategy and cultural reform - Free speech and roll back of anti colonialist / Woke initiatives in our society.
I am not fussed who takes this on , it could be Reform, it could be the Conservatives , it is unlikely to be Labour but if Corbyn and Jezbollah take the internationalist progressive on all things types out of the Labour Party and we see a different Labour Party that looks something like the Maurice Glassman Blue Labour group i.e economically left but socially conservative and focused on the working people of this country , it could even be them.
Whoever forms the next government it will be a hell of a job .

 

[hampshireblue]

I think we are fast approaching the point where the medicine must be taken whether it is unpalatable or not. If we refuse to take it the IMF / Markets will force it upon us in any event, continuing as we are will not be a choice that is available to us. I would prefer we face into the difficult decisions and remain in charge of our own destiny. It can be done but only with a leader with the political courage to make some very unpopular decisions.

Political courage you say? Fine, but the electorate are simply not up for any changes that will make them a penny worse off. Unfortunate but true. Ultimately the vast majority of the electorate look at how any policy will affect them directly and will vote accordingly.

 

[Brewster's millions]

I forgot the IMF doesn't read the papers so didn't know about the backtracking on welfare cuts.

The cut off date for the Article IV report, which is what you’re actually quoting, was July 1, the same day as the vote on the welfare bill.

So it’s highly unlikely that the shambles which ensued that day is reflected in the report’s comments on the need for tough fiscal choices, given the very limited fiscal headroom. And of course further concessions were given on the welfare bill after the IMF report was completed.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Seems I may have misunderstood your position thought you were saying population was currently reducing.

If you remove Africa from the equation then the global population has been in decline for most of this century.

To say that the global population will be reducing by the end of this century is akin to saying CD sales have been in decline for its first quarter. The extent of this decline will be severe, precipitous and catastrophic for many countries, and quite possibly humanity as a whole, at least for a couple of generations, if not ad infinitum. The rate of reduction is going to be mind blowing.

The impact on matters such as social care, as there simply won’t be the numbers of people of working age to deliver it, will be profound and may require a complete revaluation of how we assess matters such as ageing, euthanasia and life itself. AI may provide some solution to this issue in the form of robotics, although it’s hard to see how that will assist in making the elderly feeling less isolated and lonely, but that may be the only practical solution short of adopting a Logan’s Run type future.

The issues currently being debated in this thread are a microcosm (and the start) of what awaits us and I find myself in agreement with posters with whom I don’t always share the same political outlook, but we have to face up to reality.

Some resolution may come from taxing property and the very wealthiest in society, but to suggest that is a complete panacea, and not without risk, is completely misguided. It certainly isn’t a complete solution, despite what some posters seem to believe.

I think stagnant or weak growth are likely to be endemic going forward. It seems too embedded and long-standing now for that not to be the case. I certainly don’t think it’s wise to make any economic assumptions based around late ‘90s levels of growth as a predication for spending levels.

Defence spending absolutely has to increase along the lines already committed to, as we are currently at war with Russia and that is highly unlikely to change for the foreseeable. I don’t agree that net zero should be abandoned as I think it’s in the nation’s medium and long term strategic best interests to pursue that course, and it is achievable. I feel the issue of illegal immigration isn’t substantive enough (in financial terms) to warrant forming a significant part of this discussion. And any country that substantially reduces education spending is failing to invest in its future.

So that leaves health and welfare, not least because they represent such an overwhelming percentage of overall expenditure and one way or another this is where the savings will have to be made. Obviously this needs to be done in a way that avoids the greatest injustice, but it will be sadly painful for lots of people. The political messaging needs to be faithful to this reality, but that will require a level of courage not currently on display.

These challenges will be faced by most developed counties btw. A combination of the foregoing demographic changes and the decline in western hegemony are both combining to create a reality that has to be faced up to.

Ignoring it won’t make it go away.

 

[Metal Biker]

I can only imagine you're not on minimum wage fella, you sounded a tad Tory there if I may be so bold.

I was half expecting the line "Well, if they aren't paid enough in their current job, they should get a better one!"

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Quite interesting watching Labour supporters having to come to terms with a Labour government cutting welfare spending and grappling with the unintended consequences of minimum wage increases.

Their rhetoric when Conservatives were talking about the need to address these issues was that we were nasty, evil, fascists who had zero empathy for the plight of the less well off.

Not true, never has been true, we want many of the same things, just have different ideas about how we get there. Would be nice if we could return to the good old days when political disagreements weren't so toxic.

Yes, but the Tories campaigned about reducing taxation if they won the 2024 GE, which anyone with more than four brain cells can see was a total lie, as it was completely unrealistic. The notion that the tax burden can be decreased given all the challenges we face, and the current state of our post Covid finances, is utterly preposterous.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Yes, but the Tories campaigned about reducing taxation if they won the 2024 GE, which anyone with more than four brain cells can see was a total lie, as it was completely unrealistic. The notion that the tax burden can be decreased given all the challenges we face, and the current state of our post Covid finances, is utterly preposterous.

They didn’t campaign on reducing the tax burden overall, only certain taxes.

In 14 years of government they delivered 29 official budget statements and 28 of them, including the last to be delivered, called for a rise in the tax burden. The one that didn’t (November 2017) looked for the tax burden to remain unchanged by the end of the forecast horizon.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

They didn’t campaign on reducing the tax burden overall, only certain taxes.

In 14 years of government they delivered 29 official budget statements and 28 of them, including the last to be delivered, called for a rise in the tax burden. The one that didn’t (November 2017) looked for the tax burden to remain unchanged by the end of the forecast horizon.

Sunak expressly and repeatedly differentiated future tax increases under Labour, with what the Tories would do if they were elected, where he emphasised the Tories’ inveterate tax reducing instincts. This was one of his totemic GE campaign mantras and gave the clear impression, by way of electoral campaigning, of tax reduction in the event of a Tory GE victory.

So either that mantra was misleading and dishonest, or reflected the policy in the manifesto, but either way if repeatedly presented as such by the party leader then it sits in all fours with the notion of campaigning on reducing the tax burden, irrespective of how it accorded with the particulars of the manifesto.

Which makes Sunak a rat faced, lying ****.

 

[metalblue]

Yes, but the Tories campaigned about reducing taxation if they won the 2024 GE, which anyone with more than four brain cells can see was a total lie, as it was completely unrealistic. The notion that the tax burden can be decreased given all the challenges we face, and the current state of our post Covid finances, is utterly preposterous.

But is it not the case that reducing taxation can ultimately increase the treasury’s revenue? Growth reduces debt, growth increases tax takes, increasing taxes reduces growth (so long as that tax is on money being put to some use in the UK).

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Sunak expressly and repeatedly differentiated future tax increases under Labour, with what the Tories would do if they were elected, where he emphasised the Tories’ inveterate tax reducing instincts. This was one of his totemic GE campaign mantras and gave the clear impression, by way of electoral campaigning, of tax reduction in the event of a Tory GE victory.

So either that mantra was misleading and dishonest, or reflected the policy in the manifesto, but either way if repeatedly presented as such by the party leader then it sits in all fours with the notion of campaigning on reducing the tax burden, irrespective of how it accorded with the particulars of the manifesto.

Which makes Sunak a rat faced, lying ****.

You missed again off the end of your post.

You're welcome.