You cannot cut your way out of a recession. We are in deep and we need to invest.
This is 2010 all over again, Labour needs to be on the correct side this time
Was the UK in recession in 2010?
I agree there shouldn't be cuts this year BTW, we are in recession now. But after this virus and recession is over the deficit will need dealing with.
No thanks to Gordon Brown we'd recovered. Osborne's ideological experiment undid that and almost put us into another one.
We hadn't recovered, we had a 10% deficit. Until that's gone you can't say we'd "recovered".
Osborne's fantastic stewardship of the economy helped lay the foundations for a decade of growth, elimination of Brown's deficit, full employment, faster growth in the UK over the decade than the rest of our continent and the EU we were within and yet you still object.
No deficit is not the sign of a healthy economy. Or do you think every other Tory Government that ran a deficit is also a failure?
A deficit over the cycle at or below growth is fine. There doesn't need to be zero deficit but it needs to be managed. 10% is not managed.
Going into this recession the UK debt-to-GDP was falling because the deficit had been brought down and was below growth.
What percentage do you consider managed?
Depends upon the stage of the economic cycle but about 2% as a long term average. Long term economic growth averages at about 2% so about that is acceptable but it should be countercyclical - below that (or falling) during growth times and above that during emergencies.
So presumably you opposed Thatcher who ran 2.88% in 1983, Major who ran 3% in 1991, Cameron who ran 4.6% in 2015, May 2.5% in 2017 and Johnson 2.1% in 2019.
Blair ran no deficit in 1999, 2000 and 2001, you must be a great supporter of his.
In 1983 the UK had major economic issues and was still within 1% of that target I set. Over the cycle the deficit was below that on average . . . between 1987 to 1990 it was below target or a surplus.
1991 the UK went into recession, so yes countercyclical borrowing.
4.6% in 2015 was a major reduction from 5.6% in 2014 and 9.3% in 2010. Brown's deficit couldn't be eliminated overnight.
Yes Blair running no deficit in 1999, 2000 and 2001 was entirely sensible and responsible. My only vote ever for Labour was in 2001 precisely because at the time I respected what the Government was doing. The issue is what happened afterwards before the following recession hit.
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
The truth is we are all MMT-ers now. The blurred line between fiscal and monetary policy has entirely disappeared. And the deficit hawks look like deficit dinosaurs.
The problem is that thanks to Corbyn the Tory coalition is so broad that it has advocates of entirely contradictory economic policies contained within it. Deficit hawks, free market fundamentalists, radical tax cutters, and tax and spenders all on the same benches. And with a PM of no fixed ideology who likes to be liked by all of them. Not ideal.
The Liberal Democrats under Ed Davey are now more fiscally conservative than the Tories under Boris Johnson
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
Indeed, the Tories already destroyed the welfare state and public sector. There isn't anymore to cut.
Labour now needs to articulate the next 20 years, not the previous 20.
If they are destroyed then why are we spending over £200bn on social security, over £150bn on the NHS and why does the public sector employ nearly six million people ?
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
The truth is we are all MMT-ers now. The blurred line between fiscal and monetary policy has entirely disappeared. And the deficit hawks look like deficit dinosaurs.
The problem is that thanks to Corbyn the Tory coalition is so broad that it has advocates of entirely contradictory economic policies contained within it. Deficit hawks, free market fundamentalists, radical tax cutters, and tax and spenders all on the same benches. And with a PM of no fixed ideology who likes to be liked by all of them. Not ideal.
The Liberal Democrats under Ed Davey are now more fiscally conservative than the Tories under Boris Johnson, not one Tory Cabinet Minister was in Cameron's Coalition government but Ed Davey was
You cannot cut your way out of a recession. We are in deep and we need to invest.
This is 2010 all over again, Labour needs to be on the correct side this time
Was the UK in recession in 2010?
I agree there shouldn't be cuts this year BTW, we are in recession now. But after this virus and recession is over the deficit will need dealing with.
No thanks to Gordon Brown we'd recovered. Osborne's ideological experiment undid that and almost put us into another one.
We hadn't recovered, we had a 10% deficit. Until that's gone you can't say we'd "recovered".
Osborne's fantastic stewardship of the economy helped lay the foundations for a decade of growth, elimination of Brown's deficit, full employment, faster growth in the UK over the decade than the rest of our continent and the EU we were within and yet you still object.
No deficit is not the sign of a healthy economy. Or do you think every other Tory Government that ran a deficit is also a failure?
A deficit over the cycle at or below growth is fine. There doesn't need to be zero deficit but it needs to be managed. 10% is not managed.
Going into this recession the UK debt-to-GDP was falling because the deficit had been brought down and was below growth.
What percentage do you consider managed?
Depends upon the stage of the economic cycle but about 2% as a long term average. Long term economic growth averages at about 2% so about that is acceptable but it should be countercyclical - below that (or falling) during growth times and above that during emergencies.
As virtually any reputable economist would answer, it completely depends on the level of real interest rates. The answer is completely different if they are 10% or, as now, -1%.
No it doesn't depend upon that. Real interest rates are important but not the be all and end all.
The government has trillions of pounds of debt, it needs to to rollover hundreds of billions of pounds of debt per annum. The stage of the economic cycle and the state of the economy as a whole matters much more than just the level of real interest rates in isolation.
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
Indeed, the Tories already destroyed the welfare state and public sector. There isn't anymore to cut.
Labour now needs to articulate the next 20 years, not the previous 20.
If they are destroyed then why are we spending over £200bn on social security, over £150bn on the NHS and why does the public sector employ nearly six million people ?
Over half the social security spending is pensions. How much would you cut pensions by? Percentage is OK.
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
The truth is we are all MMT-ers now. The blurred line between fiscal and monetary policy has entirely disappeared. And the deficit hawks look like deficit dinosaurs.
The problem is that thanks to Corbyn the Tory coalition is so broad that it has advocates of entirely contradictory economic policies contained within it. Deficit hawks, free market fundamentalists, radical tax cutters, and tax and spenders all on the same benches. And with a PM of no fixed ideology who likes to be liked by all of them. Not ideal.
The Liberal Democrats under Ed Davey are now more fiscally conservative than the Tories under Boris Johnson
Great point. I hadn't realised that.
A majority of LD MPs represent seats Cameron won in 2010 and 2015 while a large number of Tory MPs now represent seats won by Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn in 2010, 2015 and 2017
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
Indeed, the Tories already destroyed the welfare state and public sector. There isn't anymore to cut.
Labour now needs to articulate the next 20 years, not the previous 20.
If they are destroyed then why are we spending over £200bn on social security, over £150bn on the NHS and why does the public sector employ nearly six million people ?
Over half the social security spending is pensions. How much would you cut pensions by? Percentage is OK.
Start off by eliminating the triple lock and freezing them. That'd be a start.
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
Indeed, the Tories already destroyed the welfare state and public sector. There isn't anymore to cut.
Labour now needs to articulate the next 20 years, not the previous 20.
If they are destroyed then why are we spending over £200bn on social security, over £150bn on the NHS and why does the public sector employ nearly six million people ?
Over half the social security spending is pensions. How much would you cut pensions by? Percentage is OK.
What's that got to do with anything ?
Do you think the welfare state and public sector have been destroyed ?
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
Yeah this ain't the election winning wedge it might have been for the GOP back in 1985 or some such.
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
It’s possible to support abortion and also think it should be a state issue.
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
Do the people of Maine oppose deciding what abortion laws they want in Maine ?
I wonder if they understand that there are countries around the world which manage to have legal abortion without RvW.
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
Indeed, the Tories already destroyed the welfare state and public sector. There isn't anymore to cut.
Labour now needs to articulate the next 20 years, not the previous 20.
If they are destroyed then why are we spending over £200bn on social security, over £150bn on the NHS and why does the public sector employ nearly six million people ?
Over half the social security spending is pensions. How much would you cut pensions by? Percentage is OK.
Start off by eliminating the triple lock and freezing them. That'd be a start.
What do you think?
I would agree. It is neither morally justifiable, given that we've gone through this largely for the benefit of the old at the expense of everyone else, nor affordable. However, that is a freeze. Where are cuts to be found? Those who propagate "austerity" as the answer need to be challenged to outline in detail what they would cut. Not what they would merely freeze. The scale of the problem is daunting. Labour is rightly regularly challenged to say how they would pay for stuff. Well those proposing cutting spending as the only (Not part of) answer need to do similar. It is all very well quoting raw spending figures. They are big numbers commensurate with the task. And "social security" does not mean skiving bludgers. It means pensioners.
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
It’s possible to support abortion and also think it should be a state issue.
That might be the case but Roe v Wade is one of those cases which was seismic and there’s not much grey in American politics. This is also about more than just abortion. It’s also going to become about Obamacare which is now more popular and which the Dems used to good effect in the mid-terms .
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
Actually looking at that data every state where a majority think abortion should be legal voted for Hillary bar Florida, Michigan and Alaska.
6 southern states plus West Virginia have a majority saying abortion should be illegal.
Most states have no majority for abortion either being legal or illegal, so therefore it is all about whether Trump can get evangelicals out there or the Democrats pro choice voters
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
Indeed, the Tories already destroyed the welfare state and public sector. There isn't anymore to cut.
Labour now needs to articulate the next 20 years, not the previous 20.
If they are destroyed then why are we spending over £200bn on social security, over £150bn on the NHS and why does the public sector employ nearly six million people ?
Over half the social security spending is pensions. How much would you cut pensions by? Percentage is OK.
What's that got to do with anything ?
Do you think the welfare state and public sector have been destroyed ?
I didn't say that. Do you think there is enough in there to be cut to solve our economic woes? If so how much and where?
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
Actually looking at that data every state where a majority think abortion should be legal voted for Hillary bar Florida, Michigan and Alaska.
6 southern states plus West Virginia have a majority saying abortion should be illegal.
Most states have no majority for abortion either being legal or illegal, so therefore it is all about whether Trump can get evangelicals out there or the Democrats pro choice voters
Excellent insight on here tonight to yet another problem the government faces coming down the tracks. The scale of the economic problem dwarfs any possible cuts that can be conceivably made. There isn't much fat to be trimmed. Yet a faction still believe in a quasi-mystical fashion that that is the only way. And that it is just and proper too. @stodge was right earlier. The world has changed utterly. We need new thinking, but many want desperately to reach for the old comfort blankets.
Indeed, the Tories already destroyed the welfare state and public sector. There isn't anymore to cut.
Labour now needs to articulate the next 20 years, not the previous 20.
If they are destroyed then why are we spending over £200bn on social security, over £150bn on the NHS and why does the public sector employ nearly six million people ?
Over half the social security spending is pensions. How much would you cut pensions by? Percentage is OK.
What's that got to do with anything ?
Do you think the welfare state and public sector have been destroyed ?
I didn't say that. Do you think there is enough in there to be cut to solve our economic woes? If so how much and where?
I think we need a general rebalancing of the economy and living within our means - which will be painful for many.
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
Actually looking at that data every state where a majority think abortion should be legal voted for Hillary bar Florida, Michigan and Alaska.
6 southern states plus West Virginia have a majority saying abortion should be illegal.
Most states have no majority for abortion either being legal or illegal, so therefore it is all about whether Trump can get evangelicals out there or the Democrats pro choice voters
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
Actually looking at that data every state where a majority think abortion should be legal voted for Hillary bar Florida, Michigan and Alaska.
6 southern states plus West Virginia have a majority saying abortion should be illegal.
Most states have no majority for abortion either being legal or illegal, so therefore it is all about whether Trump can get evangelicals out there or the Democrats pro choice voters
The state list abortion preference is favourable from a Democrat perspective. Only really the blood red states where people are in favour.
In Texas though 50% think abortion should be illegal with only 45% for keeping it legal, in Ohio and Arizona and Wisconsin 47% and 46% and 45% think abortion should be illegal too, that is a wedge issue Trump can use to drive up turnout in those swing states
If people are interested in opinions in the USA to abortion by state , the much respected Pew Research site is the place to go . Regardless of Susan Collins sitting on the fence statement which isn’t fooling anyone she might aswell start packing because Maine won’t be supporting any candidate who would enable the overturning of Roe v Wade . The last study there showed 64% supporting abortion in most or all cases .
Actually looking at that data every state where a majority think abortion should be legal voted for Hillary bar Florida, Michigan and Alaska.
6 southern states plus West Virginia have a majority saying abortion should be illegal.
Most states have no majority for abortion either being legal or illegal, so therefore it is all about whether Trump can get evangelicals out there or the Democrats pro choice voters
The state list abortion preference is favourable from a Democrat perspective. Only really the blood red states where people are in favour.
In Texas though 50% think abortion should be illegal with only 45% for keeping it legal, in Ohio and Arizona and Wisconsin 47% and 46% and 45% think abortion should be illegal too, that is a wedge issue Trump can use to drive up turnout in those swing states
This is the kind of question that depends a lot on how it's worded, eg here's some fairly recent Texas polling phrased as "do you agree with Roe vs Wade" and that has 57% in favour vs 36% against, and the 36% will be quite heavily GOP in the first place.
As states across the South pass laws to make abortion less accessible, a majority of Texas voters polled said they agree with the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which establishes a woman's right to have an abortion. The poll found 57% of Texas voters agree with the decision, while 36% of voters disagree. Only 34% of GOP voters agreed with the decision, while 80% of Democrats support a woman's right to have an abortion.
Typical Trump. Claims Tik Tok is now a majority US owned company and now safe, but Tik Tok is actually still owned by the Chinese, they still get to keep the algorithm secret, but a Trump supporter gets a stake. https://twitter.com/sherman4949/status/1307474641271894016?s=20
On topic, this approach seems sensible: - Avoids making blue-state GOP incumbents take a difficult vote before the election - Excites the base by trailing the pick - Gives any wavering conservatives a rational reason to vote for Trump (OK, strictly speaking it doesn't matter because they have a lame duck session either way, but electorally the details don't matter too much) - Riles up the Dem base less than actually confirming a nominee - Keeps the Dem base trying to put their candidates on the spot over court-packing and filibuster reform, when they'd be better advised to STFU and keep their options open until after the election
Good take, I think - or more likely, none of the events matter, unlike in 2016, when there were two candidates who were bad in incomparable ways and no incumbent, the voters have nearly all made up their minds.
Good take, I think - or more likely, none of the events matter, unlike in 2016, when there were two candidates who were bad in incomparable ways and no incumbent, the voters have nearly all made up their minds.
I do think austerity 2.0 is inevitable with the Tories but who it falls on, well that's for them to decide
Austerity is inevitable under any party of government
Quite so. Even Starmer says tax rises now are off the agenda so the deficit needs to be tackled somehow.
It doesn't. We can live with it. The Bank of England can create the money to fill the gap. There's no risk of inflation in the foreseeable future - the reverse in fact.
It’s good to know the steep increases in food prices, and the impending rise in fuel prices, are all in our imagination.
Yes you are correct. They are in your imagination.
No, they are not in my imagination. If you’d bothered to read the article you would notice that the inflation figure was distorted by short term government initiatives which have now ended. Food prices have gone up, and with global harvests next year also like to be poor will keep going up.
Not that the inflation figure used by the Treasury has ever remotely reflected reality.
As for the suggestion there will be deflation, I’ll have what you’re having. You don’t get deflation when governments are over leveraged and have to print money.
Comments
In 1983 the UK had major economic issues and was still within 1% of that target I set. Over the cycle the deficit was below that on average . . . between 1987 to 1990 it was below target or a surplus.
1991 the UK went into recession, so yes countercyclical borrowing.
4.6% in 2015 was a major reduction from 5.6% in 2014 and 9.3% in 2010. Brown's deficit couldn't be eliminated overnight.
Yes Blair running no deficit in 1999, 2000 and 2001 was entirely sensible and responsible. My only vote ever for Labour was in 2001 precisely because at the time I respected what the Government was doing. The issue is what happened afterwards before the following recession hit.
The government has trillions of pounds of debt, it needs to to rollover hundreds of billions of pounds of debt per annum. The stage of the economic cycle and the state of the economy as a whole matters much more than just the level of real interest rates in isolation.
How much would you cut pensions by?
Percentage is OK.
What do you think?
Do you think the welfare state and public sector have been destroyed ?
I wonder if they understand that there are countries around the world which manage to have legal abortion without RvW.
However, that is a freeze. Where are cuts to be found?
Those who propagate "austerity" as the answer need to be challenged to outline in detail what they would cut. Not what they would merely freeze. The scale of the problem is daunting.
Labour is rightly regularly challenged to say how they would pay for stuff. Well those proposing cutting spending as the only (Not part of) answer need to do similar.
It is all very well quoting raw spending figures. They are big numbers commensurate with the task.
And "social security" does not mean skiving bludgers. It means pensioners.
6 southern states plus West Virginia have a majority saying abortion should be illegal.
Most states have no majority for abortion either being legal or illegal, so therefore it is all about whether Trump can get evangelicals out there or the Democrats pro choice voters
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/21/do-state-laws-on-abortion-reflect-public-opinion/
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1307461841854050304?s=21
https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/19/tiktok-deal-terms/
Typical Trump. Claims Tik Tok is now a majority US owned company and now safe, but Tik Tok is actually still owned by the Chinese, they still get to keep the algorithm secret, but a Trump supporter gets a stake.
https://twitter.com/sherman4949/status/1307474641271894016?s=20
- Avoids making blue-state GOP incumbents take a difficult vote before the election
- Excites the base by trailing the pick
- Gives any wavering conservatives a rational reason to vote for Trump (OK, strictly speaking it doesn't matter because they have a lame duck session either way, but electorally the details don't matter too much)
- Riles up the Dem base less than actually confirming a nominee
- Keeps the Dem base trying to put their candidates on the spot over court-packing and filibuster reform, when they'd be better advised to STFU and keep their options open until after the election
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1307491919384260609
De jure opening, De facto lockdown
https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1307520662635008000
There was never a snowball's chance in hell of this going through before the election.
In theory it could be done in a day.
I think it equally likely it will simply be a lot of people voting to kick Trump out. Which wouldn’t be weird at all.
Not that the inflation figure used by the Treasury has ever remotely reflected reality.
As for the suggestion there will be deflation, I’ll have what you’re having. You don’t get deflation when governments are over leveraged and have to print money.