Alex 34021 Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 I feel sorry for ones who didn’t vote for the Tories or Reform. But the ones who did should be fine because they don’t believe in government handouts 👍🏻 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20398 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 So, I'm just letissiering here, just asking questions. Not rhetorical questions, I don't know the answer. I've qualifications in microeconomics but next to none in international macroeconomics, so I don't fully understand the implications of a large debt/GDP ratio. According to this article, we are heading on trippling our debt by 2050, maybe even more. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/12/uk-debt-projected-to-almost-triple-over-next-50-years-watchdog-warns So, Reeves is obviously trying to not head down this direction by sticking to the tory plan to reduce GDP/debt ratio within 5 years and not let it go above 100%. Many on here seem to argue this is artificial and its of no consequence if we scrap this target. Open the chequebook and usher in new era of neo-keynsian economics, and growth will sort out the problem. But will it? I can see the obvious benefits in investing in infrastructure, there may be some utility in an improved NHS, but I can't see how welfare increases will help this metric? See, I guess maybe I am naive but I am fairly trusting that Reeves' CV shits all over mine when it comes to economics, I believe she genuinely has progressive political instincts at heart, and she knows best as to why she is doing what she is. Am I wrong? If we just say fuck it, what will happen? All I know is the economies with very high GDP/debt ratios tend to struggle with the standard of living coming down (Italy, Japan). But that's already happening here. Without European integration, I just can't see a way out of this tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6565 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 I truly believe their "it's much worse than we thought it would be" rhetoric is completely genuine. I also believe that the Tories, knowing the game was up for them 2 years ago have been utterly reckless in both what they've spent, and promised under the guise that the worse they make it for the incoming Labour government, the worse they'll look / sooner the honeymoon period is over. What is disappointing to observe is that people on all sides of the political spectrum appear to have been sucked into their plan and are being openly critical of the calls the new government have had to make. The one thing I am concerned about is the reluctance of the Treasury to release details of the £22bn black hole. Why would they be unwilling to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21273 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 1 hour ago, Renton said: Without European integration, I just can't see a way out of this tbh. the elephant in the room. it's in the post....hopefully. i mean if it isn't, i would be inclined to agree with the rest of your post. the mad thing about it is how fucking scared labour still is of the B word. the truth is, though it may sound a little morbid, voter demographics have changed. a lot of people who voted for brexit are dead now. it wouldn't be that outlandish, during the honeymoon period of this government, to boldly set a direction of travel - to start aligning standards in a load of areas and to begin talks about a customs union arrangement. businesses would LOVE it and it would give the ailing economy a shot in the arm, and hopefully lessen the need for more austerity. we learned from the last lot that you can't cut your economy to grow it. The "benefits of brexit" are mythical. people realise that now. and public opinion has moved on to the point where they no longer need to keep tiptoeing around the issue. no, we're not rejoining the EU anytime soon, if at all. but they should be starting to lay the groundwork for much, much closer alignment and integration. as for the keynsian proposals in the face of rising debt, i'm no macroeconomic expert either, but i'm not sure what other policy levers they have available. what we don't need is another government obsessed with "balancing the books" - let's see some ambition. the country's infrastructure has been left to rot and isn't fit for purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20398 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 3 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: the elephant in the room. it's in the post....hopefully. i mean if it isn't, i would be inclined to agree with the rest of your post. the mad thing about it is how fucking scared labour still is of the B word. the truth is, though it may sound a little morbid, voter demographics have changed. a lot of people who voted for brexit are dead now. it wouldn't be that outlandish, during the honeymoon period of this government, to boldly set a direction of travel - to start aligning standards in a load of areas and to begin talks about a customs union arrangement. businesses would LOVE it and it would give the ailing economy a shot in the arm, and hopefully lessen the need for more austerity. we learned from the last lot that you can't cut your economy to grow it. The "benefits of brexit" are mythical. people realise that now. and public opinion has moved on to the point where they no longer need to keep tiptoeing around the issue. no, we're not rejoining the EU anytime soon, if at all. but they should be starting to lay the groundwork for much, much closer alignment and integration. as for the keynsian proposals in the face of rising debt, i'm no macroeconomic expert either, but i'm not sure what other policy levers they have available. what we don't need is another government obsessed with "balancing the books" - let's see some ambition. the country's infrastructure has been left to rot and isn't fit for purpose. Bring back FoM and you would hugely boost GDP AND cut extra-European immigration. I think it was a huge mistake to include EU countries in immigration figures under FoM in the first place. FoM and visa driven immigration are not the same thing. But that's done now. I cannot for the life of me understand why Starmer won't test the water by bringing back FoM for the under 30s (clling it something else). Standards alignment is happening anyway with us a rule takers, witness another delay to us checking imports and basically scrapping the ridiculous UKCA mark and accepting the CE mark. Wonder how many billions that has cost us. But even if we magically rejoined the EU in full, its not the full answer to the question, with many European countries being in the same boat. On a practical level, what would 200% GDP/debt ratio mean? Interest payments in excess of the NHS? I honestly don't know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4431 Posted September 12 Author Share Posted September 12 So who is Graham Brady’s equivalent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29464 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 2 hours ago, Renton said: So, I'm just letissiering here, just asking questions. Not rhetorical questions, I don't know the answer. I've qualifications in microeconomics but next to none in international macroeconomics, so I don't fully understand the implications of a large debt/GDP ratio. According to this article, we are heading on trippling our debt by 2050, maybe even more. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/12/uk-debt-projected-to-almost-triple-over-next-50-years-watchdog-warns So, Reeves is obviously trying to not head down this direction by sticking to the tory plan to reduce GDP/debt ratio within 5 years and not let it go above 100%. Many on here seem to argue this is artificial and its of no consequence if we scrap this target. Open the chequebook and usher in new era of neo-keynsian economics, and growth will sort out the problem. But will it? I can see the obvious benefits in investing in infrastructure, there may be some utility in an improved NHS, but I can't see how welfare increases will help this metric? See, I guess maybe I am naive but I am fairly trusting that Reeves' CV shits all over mine when it comes to economics, I believe she genuinely has progressive political instincts at heart, and she knows best as to why she is doing what she is. Am I wrong? If we just say fuck it, what will happen? All I know is the economies with very high GDP/debt ratios tend to struggle with the standard of living coming down (Italy, Japan). But that's already happening here. Without European integration, I just can't see a way out of this tbh. Similarly, is the NHS's free at the point of use structure sustainable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20398 Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 14.5% GDP on health when I'm 100 years old doesn't sound too bad at all. In the US, it is already 16.6% of GDP (and it's a much bigger pie), and they have worse health outcomes than us or any other western European healthcare system. Seems to me that this indicates a free at the point of use structure is not only sustainable, but essential. And its clear an insurance based model would be a disaster. But then there's other elephants in the room. State pension, social care. This needs grown up long-term politics to get sorted, but I can see a problem there...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 19289 Posted Saturday at 16:26 Share Posted Saturday at 16:26 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gegy4r9ndo.amp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 42556 Posted Saturday at 16:32 Share Posted Saturday at 16:32 Ex copper. Probably retired at 40 on a full pension too. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 31522 Posted Saturday at 16:59 Share Posted Saturday at 16:59 29 minutes ago, wykikitoon said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gegy4r9ndo.amp Harry Roberts is our friend Is our friend Is our friend Harry Roberts Is our friend He shoots coppers Shoots the bastards with a gun With a gun With a gun Shoots the bastards with a gun. Harry Roberts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29464 Posted Saturday at 17:09 Share Posted Saturday at 17:09 42 minutes ago, wykikitoon said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gegy4r9ndo.amp Fair play to the old doll who gave it to charity, that was the only correct thing to do with it. I remember the look of disbelief I got when I went into the Marie Curie shop with my £100 Covid voucher to give to them. #humblebrag 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 19289 Posted Saturday at 17:40 Share Posted Saturday at 17:40 1 hour ago, Gemmill said: Ex copper. Probably retired at 40 on a full pension too. Ooooooo but they're all starving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 31522 Posted Saturday at 17:43 Share Posted Saturday at 17:43 1 minute ago, wykikitoon said: Ooooooo but they're all starving Harry Roberts is our friend Is our friend Is our friend Harry Roberts Is our friend He shoots coppers Shoots the bastards with a gun With a gun With a gun Shoots the bastards with a gun. Harry Roberts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Whitehurst 854 Posted Saturday at 19:08 Share Posted Saturday at 19:08 (edited) 1 hour ago, ewerk said: Fair play to the old doll who gave it to charity, that was the only correct thing to do with it. I remember the look of disbelief I got when I went into the Marie Curie shop with my £100 Covid voucher to give to them. #humblebrag To pay for all the clobber you bought in the shop? All the while giving it the whole “this is technically legal tender chat”. You should be ashamed of yourself. Edited Saturday at 19:10 by Billy Whitehurst 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3844 Posted Sunday at 07:56 Share Posted Sunday at 07:56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20398 Posted Sunday at 11:27 Share Posted Sunday at 11:27 3 hours ago, spongebob toonpants said: Why are there no exceptions to this rule? Why are there no successful further left wing parties to break the cycle? I mean you've got most the liberal democracies in that cycle. See my posts above about managing national debt, how do we do this? If it's just as simple as tax the rich more, why's nobody done it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3844 Posted Sunday at 12:11 Share Posted Sunday at 12:11 36 minutes ago, Renton said: Why are there no exceptions to this rule? Why are there no successful further left wing parties to break the cycle? I mean you've got most the liberal democracies in that cycle. See my posts above about managing national debt, how do we do this? If it's just as simple as tax the rich more, why's nobody done it? I think your Nordic countries are exceptions to this. Why isn't Labour taxing the rich more? Beats me. Cowardice, their donors don't want it, they actually want to follow tory spending rules. Who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3696 Posted Sunday at 16:17 Share Posted Sunday at 16:17 Well Labour’s garbage in Westminster must be making the SNP feel more comfortable in Holyrood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20398 Posted Monday at 07:32 Share Posted Monday at 07:32 19 hours ago, spongebob toonpants said: I think your Nordic countries are exceptions to this. Why isn't Labour taxing the rich more? Beats me. Cowardice, their donors don't want it, they actually want to follow tory spending rules. Who knows You can't compare the UK, with a population of 60 million and huge issues with geographical and social inequalities, with the nordic countries though. The comparison has to be with the countries in your graphic, surely? Who are experiencing similar problems. "Tax the rich" just seems to be a bit naive and sixth form politics to me, you've not exactly given much detail onhow you would do this. One off wealth taxes won't touch the problem structurally. Higher top level PAYE taxes may help but the super rich will get around this with their accountants like Gemmill. Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are legitimate targets which I think Labour have their sights on, but it will take time and neither will be popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobElliott 1417 Posted Monday at 08:05 Share Posted Monday at 08:05 30 minutes ago, Renton said: You can't compare the UK, with a population of 60 million and huge issues with geographical and social inequalities, with the nordic countries though. The comparison has to be with the countries in your graphic, surely? Who are experiencing similar problems. "Tax the rich" just seems to be a bit naive and sixth form politics to me, you've not exactly given much detail onhow you would do this. One off wealth taxes won't touch the problem structurally. Higher top level PAYE taxes may help but the super rich will get around this with their accountants like Gemmill. Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are legitimate targets which I think Labour have their sights on, but it will take time and neither will be popular. From what Ive heard, Gemmill has only just discovered VLOOKUPS in Excel. He was disappointed it didnt mean something filthy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20398 Posted Monday at 08:08 Share Posted Monday at 08:08 3 minutes ago, RobElliott said: From what Ive heard, Gemmill has only just discovered VLOOKUPS in Excel. He was disappointed it didnt mean something filthy Oh fuck, you've done it now. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 42556 Posted Monday at 08:16 Share Posted Monday at 08:16 9 minutes ago, RobElliott said: From what Ive heard, Gemmill has only just discovered VLOOKUPS in Excel. He was disappointed it didnt mean something filthy VLOOKUPS?! The real ones know that it's XLOOKUP all the way now. Way to EMBARRASS yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 16492 Posted Monday at 08:22 Share Posted Monday at 08:22 15 minutes ago, RobElliott said: From what Ive heard, Gemmill has only just discovered VLOOKUPS in Excel. He was disappointed it didnt mean something filthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3844 Posted Monday at 08:23 Share Posted Monday at 08:23 40 minutes ago, Renton said: You can't compare the UK, with a population of 60 million and huge issues with geographical and social inequalities, with the nordic countries though. The comparison has to be with the countries in your graphic, surely? Who are experiencing similar problems. "Tax the rich" just seems to be a bit naive and sixth form politics to me, you've not exactly given much detail onhow you would do this. One off wealth taxes won't touch the problem structurally. Higher top level PAYE taxes may help but the super rich will get around this with their accountants like Gemmill. Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are legitimate targets which I think Labour have their sights on, but it will take time and neither will be popular. The country is fucked through years of austerity and then leaving the single market. Labour is just promising more of the same Taxing the rich isn't the solution though I'm all for a windfall tax on the power companies and some sort of wealth tax. Increasing income tax certainly isn't the way What they should do is drop following the artificial tory financial rules and spending cuts and borrow for investment. The country is desperate for investment, it leads to growth and renewal and pays for itself in the medium and long term Obviously they should also rejoin the single market, so fucking what if it wasnt in the manifesto, its idiocy and criminally negligent not to. We all know this, the vast majority of the country know this. Starmer and Reeves must also know this, but instead they are farting about the edges as the country continues to drcline 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now