Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Things can only get better (Starmer hopes) – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,355
    Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
    https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226

    Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,597
    stodge said:

    Apologies if this has been covered but Trudeau’s Liberals have suffered a Sunakian drubbing in a federal by election in the beautifully named Cloverdale - Langley City riding.

    The riding was unexpectedly lost by the Conservatives in the 2021 election but Tamara Jensen, the unsuccessful Conservative candidate, has had their revenge on the Liberals turning a 3-point loss into a 49-point lead on a 26% swing.

    That’s about double the swing in the current federal polling which shows the Conservatives set to win a landslide at the next election on a swing of 12-13% from the September 2021 election.

    The last election for the Liberals pre-Trudeau they got 34 seats, perhaps he's just trying to return them to the same point for whoever follows him?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,597
    Nigelb said:

    Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
    https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226

    Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.

    Something for Trump to take credit for in due course.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,391
    There is time for Kier to turn things around, but of course, he won't!

    This only ends one way - Which is Labout being ejected in 2029.

    What we don't know is who will be replacing them!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,364
    Foxy said:

    How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?

    How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?

    And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?

    I'd go for 1). I think Labour did start with some goodwill.

    I don't think Labour have got the hang of comms from govt. Previously there was a tory cockup every week which made them look good.

    I think in the modern era, they have to be interesting to cut through.
    And currently they're too technocratic to get a hearing.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592
    Pulpstar said:

    I don't think Hunt would have specifically raised employer NI. Other taxes, maybe but not E'er NI to the crippling degree Reeves has.
    The problem is that Reeves ruled out every other tax increase and refused to actually backtrack and increase one of the taxes she promised not to increase.

    The irony is that she could have done so if she waited until March because by then Trump’s demand to increase military spending would be a vague justification
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592
    algarkirk said:

    This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.

    Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.

    The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.
    An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitions
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,992
    edited December 17

    Yes.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/16/the-conservatives-are-the-1-10-favourites-to-win-the-next-general-election/
    Thank-you. It's more than I month ago so I forgot what had gone across my desk.

    I should be the next leader of the Conservative Party :wink: .

    If there's value this morning I'd say it's possibly the Liberals at 11/1 for the next Election. But it's volatile !
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,951
    ...

    Staff christmas parties? Centralise purchasing of stationery? Am I nearly there yet?
    No, Doctors, Nurses, Bobbies on the beat. Not quite there yet but heading in the right direction.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,355
    kle4 said:

    Something for Trump to take credit for in due course.
    Well he will need a few of those.
  • Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.

    But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592

    Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.

    But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?

    See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.

    The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.

    Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
  • AnthonyTAnthonyT Posts: 96
    Gosh: a prissy, unimaginative and bossy lawyer is not popular!

    One for the No Shit, Sherlock! award.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,992
    Nigelb said:

    Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
    https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226

    Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.

    That looks like another positive trend under Mr Biden for which Mr Trump will try and take credit.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Nigelb said:

    Big drop is US overdose deaths during the last twelve months.
    https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1868747796486275226

    Mainly the synthetic opioids, but a significant decrease in deaths from other drugs, too.

    This coincides with liberal cities giving up on "harm reduction" strategies and shifting resources back to prevention. Though too early to say it's the cause though.
  • AnthonyT said:

    Gosh: a prissy, unimaginative and bossy lawyer is not popular!

    One for the No Shit, Sherlock! award.

    Lawyers are the best, look at this chart.



    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/10/20/the-scale-of-the-tory-challenge-and-why-being-a-lawyer-helps-jenrick/
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 489
    The silly bugger has chosen a strategy that makes nobody happy. Look at his EU strategy: the few remaining brexiteers hate it and the pro-EU crowd hate it.... That is some god damn achievment. That seems to be the template for everything starmer does.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,199
    eek said:

    An awful lot of us wanted to be inside the single market but either outside the EU or suitably detached from its long term ambitions
    Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,225
    algarkirk said:

    There is a downside as well to a lack of loyalty to political brands. Firstly because it displays the inadequacy of the brands themselves in conveying a philosophy, principle and policy deal which is credible, achievable and distinctive. Secondly it suggests they are all somehow the same. Thirdly it gives extra space to a Trumpian demagogue to work.

    I think many on PB feel homeless politically. I am one, after a lifetime of moderate Tory support. I think this is sub optimal.
    I feel reasonably at home in the Lib Dems, with the occasional grumble (usually about opportunistic NIMBYism or specific unintelligent policy positions). I know we'll never be the government but I'm happy to be one of the 13% as it makes not a blind bit of difference in any elections where I live anyway.

    It's like opting for the country cottage at the end of Game of Life, rather than attempting the millionaire's mansion.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,095
    MattW said:

    Thank-you. It's more than I month ago so I forgot what had gone across my desk.

    I should be the next leader of the Conservative Party :wink: .

    If there's value this morning I'd say it's possibly the Liberals at 11/1 for the next Election. But it's volatile !
    I see the Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has now resigned before Trudeau could demote her.

    She wanted to prepare Canada for a trade war coming with Trump's US next year and has already been trashed on social media by Trump, while Trudeau wanted a spending splurge.

    If Trudeau resigns or is pushed she would likely be his replacement now
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-freeland-post-1.7412270
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,095
    edited December 17

    Lawyers are the best, look at this chart.



    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/10/20/the-scale-of-the-tory-challenge-and-why-being-a-lawyer-helps-jenrick/
    With 6% less than Corbyn got in 2017 and just 1% more than Corbyn got in 2019. Labour now under 30% in almost all polls due to white working class voters lost to Reform
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,072

    Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.

    But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?

    Yes. I have no doubt they would have been. Even if it was a smaller majority than they get.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,225

    The silly bugger has chosen a strategy that makes nobody happy. Look at his EU strategy: the few remaining brexiteers hate it and the pro-EU crowd hate it.... That is some god damn achievment. That seems to be the template for everything starmer does.

    I disagree about this. He's managing to keep EU policy off the grid. Europe as an issue helps no major party but it helps Reform, the Lib Dems and the SNP. Treading an unsatisfactory but largely boring middle path on EU relations is probably the most politically sensible thing to do.

    I say probably, because as we saw with Boris and his 2019 pitch, there is an outside chance that embracing re-entry as a divisive rallying call would see Labour climb up the polls against a split Eurosceptic right.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,910
    biggles said:

    Don’t disagree, but that’s all gone now. The issue for those advocating we align with the EU and ECJ is that the gains are marginal, but the risks quite high. We can already see it is taking silly positions on things like AI, and other major divergences are foreseeable. All that makes any long term alignment unsustainable, and we know we will never join the EU now. That’s a given because of the Euro, Schengen, etc.
    The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,597

    Also I totally agree. The biggest mistake Reeves made was boxing herself in to the taxes she could raise.

    But would Labour have been elected if she hadn’t?

    Probably, but they were never going to risk it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,992
    FPT:
    Taz said:

    I used to watch his Youtube channel quite regularly. It was good and informative. However this is merely how Youtube now operates. Sensationalist headlines to drive clicks.

    I used to follow a couple of finance channels. They used to be fine then it would be "TESLA stock to go to Zero - Act Now" and you would click on the link and it would be nothing of the sort.

    I suspect it says more about the audience for this than the content makers.
    I'd say Daniel ShenSmith ie BBB is following the Matt Goodwin track.
  • eek said:

    See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.

    The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.

    Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
    To be able to get the bad news dealt with early requires a new government to be properly prepared and to have some courage.

    This government generally, and Reeves in particular, failed on both counts.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,910
    Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    algarkirk said:

    The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.
    Hypothetical so there is no way to be sure.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,095
    UK diplomats meet rebel leader in Damascus
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd40pd1g7lo
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,910
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    I'd say Daniel ShenSmith ie BBB is following the Matt Goodwin track.
    Yes, I watched a few following a recommendation; and while there is a point in much of what he says, it gives an appearance of being ultra critical of everything the government does without much nuance or balance.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    algarkirk said:

    Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?

    It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,910

    Hypothetical so there is no way to be sure.
    True, but the state in which you are within the SM trade relationship and not within the political 'ever closer union' is the closest available, even if not very close, to the views of a plurality of UK voters.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    HYUFD said:

    UK diplomats meet rebel leader in Damascus
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd40pd1g7lo

    Rebel or new incumbant?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    edited December 17
    eek said:

    See my point about waiting - all she needed was a decent justification.

    The next election is 2028/9 she had 3 years during which the tax increases would have been forgotten during which time things may have improved to ensure people forgot about them.

    Get all you bad news dealt with early is something this government is failing to do and it’s going to bite them
    It does appear that they’ve managed to burn through a disproportionate of political capital, compared to the amount of money raised for the Treasury.

    It would have been way easier to say that the last government left a totally unsustainable budget, so income tax was unavoidably going up to 22% and 42% for the duration of this Parliament, and that they were planning to undo the rises ahead of the next election.

    Yes they’d have taken the immediate hit, but instead they’ve managed to piss off a load of specific groups (pensioners, farmers etc) who can organise themselves, while making every other group think they might be next.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,910

    It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
    Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?

    This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,948
    algarkirk said:

    Yes, I watched a few following a recommendation; and while there is a point in much of what he says, it gives an appearance of being ultra critical of everything the government does without much nuance or balance.
    I agree wholeheartedly. I use to watch and like him but not anymore. I would suggest he is moving towards the Maga/reform conspiracy theory audience. I find his comments about the TV licence very similar.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,992
    edited December 17
    FPT:
    Taz said:

    I used to watch his Youtube channel quite regularly. It was good and informative. However this is merely how Youtube now operates. Sensationalist headlines to drive clicks.

    I used to follow a couple of finance channels. They used to be fine then it would be "TESLA stock to go to Zero - Act Now" and you would click on the link and it would be nothing of the sort.

    I suspect it says more about the audience for this than the content makers.
    I'd say Daniel ShenSmith ie BBB is following the Matt Goodwin track, but is being driven heavily by wanting his one million subs (currently 600k or so).

    Before he followed there was an audience bleed over from the likes of certain motor channels of the anti-LTN stripe, and others I would characterise as Far-Right adjacent ie Reform / Musk type rhetoric, but with which verdict some PBers would disagree.

    One guy who dove into this particular swamp the other day was an "American reacts" channel called Tyler Rumple. He chose to do a TLDR News segment * on "Why Starmer is so unpopular", and had a lot of people telling him to check out things like Tousi TV, and so on.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y75n5Jm0PNw

    His previous one was looking at UK adverts, including the Smash Aliens.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1hMcFFTvCA

    * TLDR are from a setup called Nebula, who are reputable but this particular channel feels to me like auto-collated boiled down talking points with no context.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    Sandpit said:

    It does appear that they’ve managed to burn through a disproportionate of political capital, compared to the amount of money raised for the Treasury.

    It would have been way easier to say that the last government left a totally unsustainable budget, so income tax was unavoidably going up to 22% and 42% for the duration of this Parliament, and that they were planning to undo the rises ahead of the next election.

    Yes they’d have taken the immediate hit, but instead they’ve managed to piss off a load of specific groups (pensioners, farmers etc) who can organise themselves, while making every other group think they might be next.
    Yes they will struggle to retain the votes of the few hundred farmers who voted Labour this year next time around.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 699
    edited December 17
    algarkirk said:

    The Norway option was always the best available, and still is.
    Totally disagree, that is worse than both of being fully in or fully out. Norway have to do as they're told, more or less. If we have to obey the rules, we should be inside the club setting them. Otherwise, stay out properly and set our own. That we haven't is the fault of the Brexiteers for not actually having any ideas.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,391

    Worth remembering the Conservatives returned to office after a long hiatus with overt promises to substantially reduce spending.

    Starmer and Labour could have promised tax rises and gained a political mandate to do so. The Conservatives were destined to be kicked out and had atrocious, and persistently atrocious, polling.

    Indeed!

    If they'd actually been honest about their plans they may only have had a majority of 40 rather than 180 but would still have been perfectly workable and they would be a lot better placed now.
  • It seem unlikely, barring some massive windfall a la Norway, that we intend to clear the national debt. We have run a national debt for centuries including when we were the richest country in the world. Lenders are obviously aware of this. Countries finances are not the same as household finances.
    Not the same but the fundamentals are similar.

    More debt leads to higher interest payments at both national and household level.

    And the higher the initial debt level the lower the scope for borrowing in an emergency.

    Which leads to a requirement to reduce the debt level after an emergency so that there is scope for more borrowing if there is a future emergency.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    algarkirk said:

    Noted. And in good times it is fine to borrow more. But what is the rationale for borrowing more when we are already having to tighten our belts to pay the interest on the debt?

    This has not been communicated very well to the voters.
    The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.

    I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,333
    Maybe it shows that Labour are serious about tackling immigration.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,391

    Lawyers are the best, look at this chart.



    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/10/20/the-scale-of-the-tory-challenge-and-why-being-a-lawyer-helps-jenrick/
    It just shows that generally this country elects Conservative governments, but when it swings against the Conservatives it REALLY swings against the Conservatives...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,747
    TimS said:

    I disagree about this. He's managing to keep EU policy off the grid. Europe as an issue helps no major party but it helps Reform, the Lib Dems and the SNP. Treading an unsatisfactory but largely boring middle path on EU relations is probably the most politically sensible thing to do.

    I say probably, because as we saw with Boris and his 2019 pitch, there is an outside chance that embracing re-entry as a divisive rallying call would see Labour climb up the polls against a split Eurosceptic right.
    That would be exciting. But I think Starmer has at the top of his political priorities not losing the red wall to Reform so he's likely to steer clear of anything that smacks of undoing Brexit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046

    The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.

    I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
    Yes, government investment should run counter-cyclical where possible.

    Boom-time investment is almost always more expensive, and in a recession borrowing usually gets cheaper for those with good credit ratings.

    The problems are governments being unwilling to run a surplus during the good times, preferring instead to splash the cash, and the natural counter-cyclical increase on welfare that comes with higher unemployment. Welfare spending isn’t “investment”, looking at you Gordon Brown.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    edited December 17

    Pay growth jumps for first time in more than a year

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkx36dpzmxo

    Since we’re doing Tory partisanship again, why don’t I balance things out a bit.

    Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.

    Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
  • The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.

    I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
    Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.

    The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.

    So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.

    A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156

    Counter cyclical investment might also benefit from lower labour and material costs.

    The current situation though is one of higher labour and material costs.

    So, despite the need for infrastructure investment, this has not been a good time for it economically.

    A shift from current consumption spending to infrastructure investment spending by government would be required.
    Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.
  • Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got over by now, but clearly not.

    Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
    They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422
    algarkirk said:

    Question, WRT borrowing. UK plc is in debt to the tune of 2 trillion. The policy is that it is fine to 'borrow to invest', which in general is good. But is it good to do this when you already have borrowed so much, and don't seem to have a scheme for paying it back? If you don't have a plan for paying back what you already owe, how can you borrow more?

    It "depends". The £2 Tn is sunk, so any additional borrowing ought at least try to produce a real pounds and pence return in the medium to long term. The thing is when Labour say they are borrowing to "invest" I'm not actually sure they mean that they are "investing" in assets that will produce an actual return.
  • Yes we should be spending on infrastructure, largely new housing and the stuff that needs to go with it. And perfectly reasonable to borrow for that.
    But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.

    And that's where they need to show some political courage.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,539

    Yes, this place has been a PB Tory group therapy session since the election. It really is becoming extremely dull. One would have hoped they’d have got the eff over it by now, but clearly not.

    Still, 20mph in Wales and cash-only parking meters or something.
    You must be reading a different forum....
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    edited December 17

    They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.
    The weirdo obsessions with 20mph zones, parking apps and forcing businesses to accept cash are little/nothing to do with Sir Keir. Group therapy, as I say.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156

    But to justify the increased investment spending governments need to cut the consumption spending.

    And that's where they need to show some political courage.
    I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,747

    The underlying thing is that when the economy is struggling the private sector is less likely to invest. Govts can borrow cheaper so the best time for government investment is actually in tough times not when we can afford it.

    I agree it is counter intuitive and not well explained.
    It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,184
    HYUFD said:

    Which he will almost certainly lose at the next GE on current polls
    Which of course means absolutely nothing, except for any consequences in the short term of our ruling politicians feeling a bit of, very remote, pressure
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,072
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    I'd say Daniel ShenSmith ie BBB is following the Matt Goodwin track.
    I'm sorry to see that. His content used to be really good.
  • Oh dear.. Mrs Jarvis doesn’t normally keep sheep in the front yard


  • I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
    That's just an excuse for always feeling entitled to borrow more to spend on your own 'pet projects'.

    And what happens when everyone feels entitled to borrow more to spend on their own pet projects ?

    When there has to be some reductions elsewhere it leads to rather more rigour in spending decisions.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,072
    edited December 17

    They're not going to stop when Starmer and Reeves are making it so easy to mock Labour's failings.
    Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.

    Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.

    Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,951
    kinabalu said:

    It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
    Should we blame Gordon Brown?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156

    That's just an excuse for always feeling entitled to borrow more to spend on your own 'pet projects'.

    And what happens when everyone feels entitled to borrow more to spend on their own pet projects ?

    When there has to be some reductions elsewhere it leads to rather more rigour in spending decisions.
    There is often less rigour in decisions when budgets are being cut. That is why we paying doctors £3,000 per overnight shift rather than giving them a pay rise. It is an absurd waste of money.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,883

    No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.

    If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
    Shecorns is criticised for their robotic, half-lobotomised, half-there-are-no-tanks-in-baghdad tone more than for the content.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,539

    No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.

    If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
    Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger... ;)
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,143
    Taz said:

    Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.

    Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.

    Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
    Just a look at the day in day out front pages shows how much this new govt. are struggling.

    You'd think they were 4 years 6 months into a term, not 6 months.

    But life comes at your fast when you have to do something, rather than just oppose.
  • kinabalu said:

    It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
    We loaded up for consumption instead.

    The UK has had a cumulative balance of payments deficit of over a trillion quid during the last twenty years.

    You could have a lot of investment for that.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,958
    kinabalu said:

    It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
    How much difference would that make, given that the debt will need to be refinanced later when interest rates will be higher?
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,328
    kinabalu said:

    It's a shame we didn't load up (for investment) during the recent era of near zero interest rates.
    The problem with counter-cyclical investment is that the cycle itself a product of our efforts to tame it. It works in theory when the trade cycle is the result of some uncontrollable astronomical event (cf. the medieval harvest) but in the connected modern world it's confounded by 'other people'. When the US was superdominant we took our lead from Wall Street or Washington according to taste but other players are now eyeing the mighty dollar and thinking in terms of a new reserve currency backed by oil (and beyond US/European control).

    An interesting consequence of the rise of crypto-currencies is both their volatility and lack of central bank influence. Someone should write a PhD thesis on 'the potential use of cryptocurrency for economic demand management'. It may be very short but the consequences could be profound.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,072

    Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger... ;)
    I would just like to point out, whatever Herbie goes to Monte Carlo thinks, my politics are left of centre and I am not right wing and I voted Labour at the last election like every other election since the first one I voted in, 1987.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156

    We loaded up for consumption instead.

    The UK has had a cumulative balance of payments deficit of over a trillion quid during the last twenty years.

    You could have a lot of investment for that.
    Biggest impact government can make on balance of payments is to get loads of foreign students in.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,794
    edited December 17
    SKS and Labour are way less entertaining than the tory collapse was. From the 2022 Hartlegrad by-election it was just shit all the way down until Big Rish fucked everything up with the GE. We got a bit spoilt and this government does very little to stimulate our jaded palates.

    The pb tories are full of more shit than a Christmas Goose though. As if more toryism were the answer to fucking anything. I'd rather have the Fukkers in power.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,355
    edited December 17
    MaxPB said:

    This coincides with liberal cities giving up on "harm reduction" strategies and shifting resources back to prevention. Though too early to say it's the cause though.
    Does it not also correlate with an increase in the availability of methadone for treating addicts ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,539
    Taz said:

    I would just like to point out, whatever Herbie goes to Monte Carlo thinks, my politics are left of centre and I am not right wing and I voted Labour at the last election like every other election since the first one I voted in, 1987.

    We are all PB Tories now, comrade! :)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,951

    Post that abuses named right-wingers then accuses right-wingers of abusing a left-winger... ;)
    Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,072
    Mortimer said:

    Just a look at the day in day out front pages shows how much this new govt. are struggling.

    You'd think they were 4 years 6 months into a term, not 6 months.

    But life comes at your fast when you have to do something, rather than just oppose.
    Exactly and the "govt in waiting" they presented themselves as has rather fallen apart with unforced error after unforced error and upthread Eek/Horse are exactly right about Reeves. She boxed herself in needlessly before the election making commitments not to raise certain taxes or go for the Triple Lock or change council tax bands.

    Should have simply said "no plans", got into office, done what is needed without hammering employers with a jobs tax, and took the short term hit as in 3 years time it will be a different picture.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,539

    Of course you are right and the sooner we can rid the site of all these disrespectful off message centrist dad (and mum) posters the better the site becomes. I'd start with @Mexicanpete, @Shecorns88 Horse and Anabob. There are a handful of others that have no business being here either. Make PB Great Again!
    I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,910
    PJH said:

    Totally disagree, that is worse than both of being fully in or fully out. Norway have to do as they're told, more or less. If we have to obey the rules, we should be inside the club setting them. Otherwise, stay out properly and set our own. That we haven't is the fault of the Brexiteers for not actually having any ideas.
    This is convincing as Norway is a complete basket case.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,951
    edited December 17

    I'm amazed you can get that reading from what I wrote.
    I'm a snowflake.

    I'm right though aren't I? The PB GROTS campaign. "Get rid of traitorous scumbags".
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,747
    edited December 17

    Should we blame Gordon Brown?
    Of course.

    He sold the gold!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,228
    malcolmg said:

    One total arsehole gone , hopefully many to follow
    Ben Harp : ….Guess we must just have ourselves an asshole shortage, huh?
    Johnny Utah : [quietly] Not so far.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,948
    kinabalu said:

    Of course.

    He sold the gold!
    There's a great routine by Stewart Lee about Clarkson and Brown, worth listening to, but a little blunt...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,539

    I'm a snowflake.

    I'm right though aren't I? The PB GROTS campaign. "Get rid of traitorous scumbags".
    Your comment is so over-the-top I'd be surprised if you had not just obtained the entirety of the world's helium supply... ;)
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,225
    edited December 17

    I disagree conceptually, they are separate things. The level of consumption spending and tax rates are a matter of choice and preference. Whether those stayed the same or changed I would still be in favour of borrowing to invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
    Now is a particularly auspicious time for government to invest, because:

    - The UK's creditworthiness relative to other major economies is quite solid, and the cost of debt is starting to fall / Sterling is getting a tad strong
    - The UK's economy lacks spare infrastructure capacity and has done for ages, so there is very little risk of this triggering an investment bust and surplus capacity
    - Other Western countries, with the exception of the US which is able to keep splurging because of its reserve currency, are not looking hugely investable at the moment. Japan is slowly picking itself up but France and Germany are in the doldrums, Italy remains difficult, Korea is politically volatile, China has surplus capacity, Saudi funds itself and Russia is off limits.
    - Business investment remains low so there's an argument for government to step in to take up some of the slack
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,747

    How much difference would that make, given that the debt will need to be refinanced later when interest rates will be higher?
    Well the longer the better.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,951
    kinabalu said:

    Of course.

    He sold the gold!
    Sorry! I didn't add you to my persona non grata list.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Taz said:

    I would just like to point out, whatever Herbie goes to Monte Carlo thinks, my politics are left of centre and I am not right wing and I voted Labour at the last election like every other election since the first one I voted in, 1987.

    A lifelong Labour voter.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,910
    Pulpstar said:

    It "depends". The £2 Tn is sunk, so any additional borrowing ought at least try to produce a real pounds and pence return in the medium to long term. The thing is when Labour say they are borrowing to "invest" I'm not actually sure they mean that they are "investing" in assets that will produce an actual return.
    To an ordinary person paying attention what is unmistakeable is that we are borrowing £100 bn pa, and also paying interest of £100 bn pa on previously acquired debt. However you dress it up, it looks like we are borrowing to pay the interest, as once that is paid there is nothing left of what you borrowed. In the end there is only one sort of money.

    Nor is there a plan to improve that fiscal picture. Is it possible that the fiscal emperor has no clothes?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    Taz said:

    Exactly and the "govt in waiting" they presented themselves as has rather fallen apart with unforced error after unforced error and upthread Eek/Horse are exactly right about Reeves. She boxed herself in needlessly before the election making commitments not to raise certain taxes or go for the Triple Lock or change council tax bands.

    Should have simply said "no plans", got into office, done what is needed without hammering employers with a jobs tax, and took the short term hit as in 3 years time it will be a different picture.
    That’s indicative of the wider problem, that the whole lot of them come across as passengers led by events rather than leading the agenda, and being surprised that the policies they do announce aren’t simply welcomed by everyone.

    They really need to get an Alistair Campbell back in to run the No.10 press operation, keeping everyone on the same page on a daily basis - notwithstanding that a much more fragmented media in the past 25 years makes that job considerably harder than it ever used to be.

    Yes, they should have got all of the bad news out almost immediately (income tax up 2p, sorry but the last lot left a big mess, NI down 2p anyway so most won’t notice it) and now be concentrating on public policy rather than everyone the lack of fuel allowances about to drop on 10m pensioners’ doors.
  • Shecorns88Shecorns88 Posts: 291
    British Government takes MOD Housing Stock back off Rachmanesque Guy Hands Terra Firma 36000 properties for £6bn

    Another unholy mess perpetrated by Major on 1996 and subject of Legal action after successive Tory Governments fecked it up still more.

    Win for Servicemen
    Win long term as will save MOD money

    For Country
    Not Party

    Not short term bollocks
    Long term planning
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,225

    Your comment is so over-the-top I'd be surprised if you had not just obtained the entirety of the world's helium supply... ;)
    I did quite enjoy the dawn chorus comment though.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,951

    Your comment is so over-the-top I'd be surprised if you had not just obtained the entirety of the world's helium supply... ;)
    Imagine what an improved site we would have if every post was a "Reeves is shit" post. That has to be the aim for 2025.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,072

    A lifelong Labour voter.
    Unlike you, of course.

    In general elections, I most certainly am and, although this govt has not really done anything to justify it I am quite happy with the performance of Luke Akehurst, who seems to be doing a good job locally so far, and have corresponded with him and his office a couple of times.


  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,564
    Taz said:

    Unless you are 100% on message, happy clappy, about this labour govt there are a handful of people who deem you to be a Tory. Even if you have never voted for them in your life. It's like the Neocon Dubya view of nations, you're either with us or against us. A ridiculous mind set only deserving of being laughed at.

    Real life is not that black and white. People can vote for a Party and dislike some of what they do or recognise the stupidity of some of their policies.

    Rachel Reeves stewardship so far has proven to be poor. It needs to be called out the damage being inflicted. Especially at the sharp end.
    Nobody here had a good word to say about the last government, in the two years or so prior to the election. Nor did they deserve a good word.

    People simply complain about bad governments (which this one is, like the last one).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,095

    No he's reading the same one as me. Every morning with the dawn chorus the Field Marshal starts the day with a sneering "Reeves is shit" post, normally quoting the Telegraph. Taz piles in and then Leon wakes up and the onslaught begins. It's a right wing site so fair enough.

    If anyone should dare defend the Government like @Shecorns88 they are abused mercilessly.
    I would say Starmer has more supporters on here percentage wise than he does amongst the general UK population
Sign In or Register to comment.