Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Finney Is Back]

Almost everything you’re saying comes back to the Government cutting spending.I totally respect your opinion on that, I just think we had a long austerity experiment which yielded nothing much. And meanwhile real people suffered a lot.

Real people rely on the NHS. And just to take your child poverty point, plenty of other data suggests that keeping kids in poverty actually costs the state more in the long run. If they’re hungry, and can’t study, there’s a massive argument that that is what keeps them entrenched in that lifestyle. I’m not sure the data on whether the two child cap impacted people’s propensity to have children supports that it altered anyone’s behaviour?

As for the ‘public finances not being as bad as Reeves told us they were’, if the argument being put forward is that actually things are great, I’m just not buying it. She did what she did to give herself over 20bn of headroom, and the OBR saying things were slightly better than anticipated didn’t remove the necessity to do that. As I said, I accept that she could have got there with spending cuts. I just think that real people rely on this spending, and it’s time they got some relief. We had the Tories for 14 years and we had austerity for definitely 6, arguably 9 of those years. We’ve then had Brexit, Covid, Truss (who from what it sounds like you would actually agree a lot with her program) and a global cost of living crisis.

Did we have ‘austerity’? People talked about austerity but the UK was still spending more than it was bringing in. That is not austerity at all IMO.

All we are doing is loading our children and grandchildren with more and more debt that they will have to fund in the future (either through real austerity or large tax increases)

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Did we have ‘austerity’? People talked about austerity but the UK was still spending more than it was bringing in. That is not austerity at all IMO.

All we are doing is loading our children and grandchildren with more and more debt that they will have to fund in the future (either through real austerity or large tax increases)

Did we have some form of austerity from 2010-2016 or even 2010-2019 in your view?

 

[Finney Is Back]

On growth, I think getting to the headroom they did which will reduce their cost of borrowing will be a plank of the growth strategy. But clearly it’s something they’re speaking a lot more about today and will do going forward.

On the OBR, I’m struggling a bit with what the issue is. Reeves still wanted to get to over 20bn of headroom. OBR said she would have had about 4bn. She’s somehow being criticised for bringing more stability to the public finances. It feels like a way to criticise a Labour chancellor where she’s damned either way. You know if she didn’t get to that level of headroom it would be ‘same old Labour, can’t be trusted with the finances’ but because she did, there’s some weird confected row about it anyway.

The reason she didn’t have most of that headroom is because Labour have chosen to do several things that were not part of their manifesto (not tackling welfare as they said they would, doing a u turn over winter fuel allowance and abolishing 2 child benefit cap).

Reeves was framing the budget as needing to increase taxes due to poorer than expected revenues when the reality is that she has increased taxes to spend more on welfare.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Did we have some form of austerity from 2010-2016 or even 2010-2019 in your view?

No. We reduced the ridiculous level of spending versus income that was all.

The country badly needs austerity. Every political party knows this but won’t implement it as their rivals will continue to pick from the magic money tree,

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

The reason she didn’t have most of that headroom is because Labour have chosen to do several things that were not part of their manifesto (not tackling welfare as they said they would, doing a u turn over winter fuel allowance and abolishing 2 child benefit cap).

Reeves was framing the budget as needing to increase taxes due to poorer than expected revenues when the reality is that she has increased taxes to spend more on welfare.

Welfare but also to get to the headroom she wanted right?

Looks like they’ll have another crack at welfare reform too.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Welfare but also to get to the headroom she wanted right?

Looks like they’ll have another crack at welfare reform too.

I think the headroom has been created to allow Labour to give some pre election bribes in 3 years time, but that’s a whole new story….

But yes, taxes rising to fund both increased welfare and to increase headroom (that would’ve been significantly increased anyway if not for the welfare u-turns)

 

[monkeybarry]

This is pretty scary. We can never be British enough for them

We know it doesn't stand up to the most basic of scrutiny - by her own logic Bojo isn't British (cry me a river isn't the strongest argument!)

As far as the tiger analogy goes.......hahahaha.
Check it's passport.....I think it's in its mouth

 

[monkeybarry]

And not to mention the spiralling rent costs out there and the drop in wages. Its not the land of Milk and Honey it once was

The milk would go off and the honey run everywhere

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

I think the headroom has been created to allow Labour to give some pre election bribes in 3 years time, but that’s a whole new story….

But yes, taxes rising to fund both increased welfare and to increase headroom (that would’ve been significantly increased anyway if not for the welfare u-turns)

I agree with you they need to do something on welfare, and frankly I can’t understand the previous attempt to get it through their back benchers. It seemed like an incredibly dumb / naive way of going about it. And clearly they understand they need to do something. Both because Starmer is saying it’s a moral mission, but also because like immigration if they don’t do it they will be attacked relentlessly for it. And if they don’t get reforms through, considering the cack handed initial attempt, I’d say whatever happens to them is deserved.

On headroom though, you have to acknowledge that while it might fund sweeteners, it’s also going to help the UK withstand any other unanticipated shocks? And that in turn is going to drive down UK borrowing costs, which will positively impact interest rates, which should have businesses etc etc?

 

[P.D.]

On growth, I think getting to the headroom they did which will reduce their cost of borrowing will be a plank of the growth strategy. But clearly it’s something they’re speaking a lot more about today and will do going forward.

On the OBR, I’m struggling a bit with what the issue is. Reeves still wanted to get to over 20bn of headroom. OBR said she would have had about 4bn. She’s somehow being criticised for bringing more stability to the public finances. It feels like a way to criticise a Labour chancellor where she’s damned either way. You know if she didn’t get to that level of headroom it would be ‘same old Labour, can’t be trusted with the finances’ but because she did, there’s some weird confected row about it anyway.

But if the result of your policies are that a) companies stop investing and hiring b) spending continues to go up which is what we're seeing now then bang goes your growth. Ultimately we have a spending problem and no one seems to want to admit it, we borrow something like £200m per day just to keep the country running - I don't know how people think that's sustainable and the bond markets don't because rates are still pretty high.

That being said I do think borrowing costs are likely to come down anyway as globally economies are doing badly and will likely roll over within the next year or 2.

I think the OBR thing, the press conference, the continual leaks, late budget leading to more speculation over what's going to be in or out has been handled really badly and the criticism is valid. Why give a press conference to basically say income tax is going up then backtrack for example - as I said it's clear they've broken the manifesto but try and use some clever wording to get around it which no one believes. The reason their headroom was lower is because of the choices this government has made, they can't keep blaming everyone else. They u turned on winter fuel, welfare, raised inflation, gave out big pay rises while requesting nothing in return.

Have you read this? https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/economic-with-the-truth-the-mis-selling-of-the-budget - not exactly a smooth operation.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

But if the result of your policies are that a) companies stop investing and hiring b) spending continues to go up which is what we're seeing now then bang goes your growth. Ultimately we have a spending problem and no one seems to want to admit it, we borrow something like £200m per day just to keep the country running - I don't know how people think that's sustainable and the bond markets don't because rates are still pretty high.

That being said I do think borrowing costs are likely to come down anyway as globally economies are doing badly and will likely roll over within the next year or 2.

I think the OBR thing, the press conference, the continual leaks, late budget leading to more speculation over what's going to be in or out has been handled really badly and the criticism is valid. Why give a press conference to basically say income tax is going up then backtrack for example - as I said it's clear they've broken the manifesto but try and use some clever wording to get around it which no one believes. The reason their headroom was lower is because of the choices this government has made, they can't keep blaming everyone else. They u turned on winter fuel, welfare, raised inflation, gave out big pay rises while requesting nothing in return.

Have you read this? https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/economic-with-the-truth-the-mis-selling-of-the-budget - not exactly a smooth operation.

If this is a 5 year program for government, the policies outlined in the budget aren’t going to be the only policies they put forward in order to spark more growth. And even so, didn’t they beat the growth projections by 50%?

Borrowing costs will come down because of the headroom Reeves has now put in place. Does she earn any credit for that whatsoever?

I absolutely agree it’s choices that they made. I say earlier in the thread they need to reform welfare. But they are the government, they are elected. If they want to spend on lifting kids out of poverty, they get to do that. Equally, if they want to leave themselves 20bn of headroom (when they’d be criticised to the hilt for leaving less headroom, and when it will have the benefit of lowering UK borrowing costs) then they can do that too.

What would you have liked them to request when giving pay rises to, I assume you’re referring to doctors? Train drivers? What conditions should the government have gotten? I hear this all the time, and it feels like a stick to beat the government with because a ton of strikes got sorted. When private sector wages went up and public sector wages didn’t, I see why they did it.

Lastly I’m not going to defend the leaking. I’m frankly bemused at what has happened. I’m bemused that some government minister apparently thinks it helps them to brief The Times that they weren’t informed enough about the budget, as if briefing anonymously does them any good whatsoever. The whole thing is weird. I think the government wanted to float potential income tax rises, to then say on the day because of their decisions they no longer have to. So I think some of the leaking was the government, some of the leaking was not from them. It was a mess. But it makes no sense that Reeves would hold that press conference and then leak her own rabbit.

I think in general there’s something very odd about the media at the moment. It’s extremely hostile to the government, and I can’t work out whether it’s because it’s Labour, or whether it’s because in this social media age everything needs to be treated like a scandal to drive engagement, and any government of the day would get it. I respect everyone’s opinions on politics, and I can always see all sides on the substance of reasonable policy choices. I cannot for the life of me understand why this Reeves thing is such a scandal today. Cameron and Osborne told the UK that a global financial crisis was Labour’s fault for not fixing the roof while the sun was shining. They told that story in order to enact heavy cuts to the state. On the substance, I’m not sure why that’s any different to what we see today. Either they’re all liars, so it’s equal. Or it’s all just politics, so it’s fine. But it seems every single day there’s some conferred ‘scandal’ or ‘chaos’ about this particular government, and I just don’t buy that it’s half as bad as is being made out.

 

[johnola]

Borrowing costs will come down because of the headroom Reeves has now put in place. Does she earn any credit for that whatsoever?

No - none at all. She is forcing people to pay for this spending out of salaary and savings and discretionary spending will now be brick over Christmas.

The fact government debt might be sold at better rates doesn’t matter to those of us who are now working additional weeks entirely for the benefit of the government to make it so.

This direction of travel is not going to reverse with this government. Expect surtaxes on income and fresh wealth taxes on capital to bloat out the public sector even more now they have dropped the pretence they are looking at cost savings.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

No - none at all. She is forcing people to pay for this spending out of salaary and savings and discretionary spending will now be brick over Christmas.

The fact government debt might be sold at better rates doesn’t matter to those of us who are now working additional weeks entirely for the benefit of the government to make it so.

This direction of travel is not going to reverse with this government. Expect surtaxes on income and fresh wealth taxes on capital to bloat out the public sector even more now they have dropped the pretence they are looking at cost savings.

So no credit at all. But if it makes it easier for the government to borrow to invest, and if it drives interest rates down generally, ultimately gets more investment into the country from outside, if business confidence improves, and that creates jobs, and so on and so on, there’s no credit due there? It’s literally just a pure negative for you?

Public services were on their knees, and 500,00 kids were in poverty. She could have cut there to get to the same headroom. I’m not sure it would have been fair considering the raw deal the people who benefit from that have had from the country in the last 14 years.

We had years of lower public spending, and then we had madness. It was plainly obvious the country was not in a good state. Nothing worked, there was anaemic growth, and everyone was miserable. The country needed a government willing to invest in it IMO. It also has to take steps to pay back Covid era borrowing.

 

[Gutter Boy]

No - none at all. She is forcing people to pay for this spending out of salaary and savings and discretionary spending will now be brick over Christmas.

The fact government debt might be sold at better rates doesn’t matter to those of us who are now working additional weeks entirely for the benefit of the government to make it so.

This direction of travel is not going to reverse with this government. Expect surtaxes on income and fresh wealth taxes on capital to bloat out the public sector even more now they have dropped the pretence they are looking at cost savings.

Have you tried accessing healthcare, education, transport or any other services over the past decade? Can you not see they have been starved to 2nd world standards? Primarily because the 450 people who own half the wealth dont pay tax on it

 

[P.D.]

If this is a 5 year program for government, the policies outlined in the budget aren’t going to be the only policies they put forward in order to spark more growth. And even so, didn’t they beat the growth projections by 50%?

Borrowing costs will come down because of the headroom Reeves has now put in place. Does she earn any credit for that whatsoever?

I absolutely agree it’s choices that they made. I say earlier in the thread they need to reform welfare. But they are the government, they are elected. If they want to spend on lifting kids out of poverty, they get to do that. Equally, if they want to leave themselves 20bn of headroom (when they’d be criticised to the hilt for leaving less headroom, and when it will have the benefit of lowering UK borrowing costs) then they can do that too.

What would you have liked them to request when giving pay rises to, I assume you’re referring to doctors? Train drivers? What conditions should the government have gotten? I hear this all the time, and it feels like a stick to beat the government with because a ton of strikes got sorted. When private sector wages went up and public sector wages didn’t, I see why they did it.

Lastly I’m not going to defend the leaking. I’m frankly bemused at what has happened. I’m bemused that some government minister apparently thinks it helps them to brief The Times that they weren’t informed enough about the budget, as if briefing anonymously does them any good whatsoever. The whole thing is weird. I think the government wanted to float potential income tax rises, to then say on the day because of their decisions they no longer have to. So I think some of the leaking was the government, some of the leaking was not from them. It was a mess. But it makes no sense that Reeves would hold that press conference and then leak her own rabbit.

I think in general there’s something very odd about the media at the moment. It’s extremely hostile to the government, and I can’t work out whether it’s because it’s Labour, or whether it’s because in this social media age everything needs to be treated like a scandal to drive engagement, and any government of the day would get it. I respect everyone’s opinions on politics, and I can always see all sides on the substance of reasonable policy choices. I cannot for the life of me understand why this Reeves thing is such a scandal today. Cameron and Osborne told the UK that a global financial crisis was Labour’s fault for not fixing the roof while the sun was shining. They told that story in order to enact heavy cuts to the state. On the substance, I’m not sure why that’s any different to what we see today. Either they’re all liars, so it’s equal. Or it’s all just politics, so it’s fine. But it seems every single day there’s some conferred ‘scandal’ or ‘chaos’ about this particular government, and I just don’t buy that it’s half as bad as is being made out.

I think it's a matter of what policies will bring a better long term effect, I don't think large tax hikes and increased spending is the way to go personally and we can see the results of it with sentiment down badly and companies put off investing and hiring.

The OBR looked at all their policies to date and not just those in the budget such as planning and concluded they won't have much effect on growth. I'm not sure what growth figures are up 50% but I'm guessing it's from a low bar e.g. 0.2% to 0.3% or something like that. We should really be looking at GDP per capita anyway - living standards are only expected to go up by 0.5% this parliament, the second lowest ever (lowest being the last government) so the evidence so far for a turnaround isn't great.

On the strikes they haven't resolved anything, doctors are continuing to strike. The tube was shut for 3 days the other month - they need to lock in longer term agreements or come up with something or else they'll keep requesting more and more.

The media are indeed pretty hostile but I think that's just reflecting the nations mood - people are suffering big time at the moment and really for the majority there's no end in sight with tax thresholds being frozen for 9 years. The cost of living has gone sky high with food prices, mortgages etc all remaining stubbornly high which doesn't leave a lot for much else. I earn a reasonably decent wage and am really feeling the pinch at the moment - every time my food delivery comes it feels like you're getting way less for your money and I've had to cut back a fair bit so I can only imagine how tough things are for those on lower incomes.