Keir Starmer

Crikey moses, its a start, a few ideas to throw out as he keeps getting attacked from the blue benches now his own side aren’t happy. You do realise anything he puts forward he can’t enact anyway. All sensible suggestions. I guess if people give up they presumably are happy with a continued tory government.

I presume what people really mean is lets have some proper left wing policies attacking big business, higher taxes for the wealthy (which only leads to higher prices for the poor anyway), driving some companies away for fear of higher taxation to other areas where taxation is lower along with labour costs, leading to increased job losses and lower tax recovery and increased burden on the state? Nationalise industries so that the state controls and runs everything and has greater power over its people (not a good look in many countries where this is the case, power corrupts after all).

We do need wealth distribution to be fairer, we do need the big companies like Amazon, Starbucks, Google, Facebook et al to pay more in tax and look after employees a tad better, but we need to create entrepreneurs, create and improve skilled jobs, improve infrastructure and level up parts of the country. We need the wealthy on board too, we do need state interventions, but it is about balance, most of the country will vote tory if Labour returns to a Corbyn style of leader. The average Brit believes they will end up paying more for a significant revolution through higher taxes and higher prices. Just a laymans view I have via my centrist binoculars. People do not like radical change, they do like realistic tweaks to everyday life that appear tangible, affordable and realistically achievable a vision that deals with their worries but wont leave them financially worse off via their pay packets or their shopping choices. Most want less personal taxation rather than the risk of paying more.
 
What politicians don't tell us - but more and more economists are starting to reveal - is that we don't have to pay it back. Ever.

Broadly speaking I agree. It’s the enormous mistake that we made after the financial crisis. It does rely on a proper growth strategy for the economy though which, again, was hardly the vision being espoused today.

Even if we go down that path however, and I’m as Keynesian as they come, we still need to recognise that the cost of servicing the debt in the short-term will have risen as a proportion of public spending. If we’re to avoid spending cuts, that inevitably requires some taxation measures. There are fair (and unfair) ways of imposing those, which Starmer could have articulated today.
 
It's a policy but no (visionary) strategy. His answer to what the savings would go into was a woolly "could go into infrastructure for instance".

Sounds like the stuff the public have been lapping up for 10 years now. He could be on to a winner. Corbyn tried visionary and got laughed at by the majority of the country.
 
Even if we go down that path however, and I’m as Keynesian as they come, we still need to recognise that the cost of servicing the debt in the short-term will have risen as a proportion of public spending.
Not necessarily - interest rates are so low that the proportion of public spending allocated to service the debt may reduce. If the government can refinance at extremely low interest rates this could help enormously.
 
What politicians don't tell us - but more and more economists are starting to reveal - is that we don't have to pay it back. Ever.
I am an economist, and of that persuasion. It's called modern monetary theory (MMT). It doesn't apply to every government - you need to have a sovereign currency, a flexible exchange rate and 'borrow' in your own currency (we do, Middlesbrough council or Italy doesn't). It's not consequence-free, either. Here's a clear 5-minute explainer from Stephanie Kelton
 
Corbyn tried revolutionary and got laughed at by the majority of the country.


1997: Blair: 13,518,167 - Following 13 years of Thatcher/Major.
2001: Blair: 10,724,953
2005 Blair: 9,552,436
2010: Brown: 8,609,527
2015: Miliband: 9,347,273
2017: Corbyn: 12,878,460 - With the executive and right wing MP's in his own party working against him to lose.
Corbyn: 10,269,051 - ditto.

I think a transformative (not revolutionary) approach with an on board team and fewer snouts in the trough would win but the current Labour Party doesn't have that ambition.
 
1997: Blair: 13,518,167 - Following 13 years of Thatcher/Major.
2001: Blair: 10,724,953
2005 Blair: 9,552,436
2010: Brown: 8,609,527
2015: Miliband: 9,347,273
2017: Corbyn: 12,878,460 - With the executive and right wing MP's in his own party working against him to lose.
Corbyn: 10,269,051 - ditto.

I think a transformative (not revolutionary) approach with an on board team and fewer snouts in the trough would win but the current Labour Party doesn't have that ambition.
Number votes mean nothing. Percentage of votes is a better stat to use.

how much did the population grow between 97-07. That’s just using stats to a preconceived point
 
I am an economist, and of that persuasion. It's called modern monetary theory (MMT). It doesn't apply to every government - you need to have a sovereign currency, a flexible exchange rate and 'borrow' in your own currency (we do, Middlesbrough council or Italy doesn't). It's not consequence-free, either. Here's a clear 5-minute explainer from Stephanie Kelton
That is a very good film and fits in with just about everything I have read in recent months. When I left school in 1973 the country was in the red (as it has been for about 300 years) but I didn't feel that my parent's generation had burdened me with a hefty debt that I was repaying when I started to pay tax, in the same way that my children don't feel they have a millstone around their necks from my generation.

Our national debt includes National Savings and Investments which is an ultra safe place for investors. Pension and LIfe Assurance companies buy into it and it also makes Premium Bonds possible. In fact without national debt we couldn't even have currency. £71 billion in notes and £5 billion in coins is part of our national debt. All this tosh about maxing out the credit card is just that. Governments are taking advantage of the economic illiteracy of the people but more experts are now speaking out about it.

Everybody should watch that film.

Two more useful links:


 
That is a very good film and fits in with just about everything I have read in recent months. When I left school in 1973 the country was in the red (as it has been for about 300 years) but I didn't feel that my parent's generation had burdened me with a hefty debt that I was repaying when I started to pay tax, in the same way that my children don't feel they have a millstone around their necks from my generation.

Our national debt includes National Savings and Investments which is an ultra safe place for investors. Pension and LIfe Assurance companies buy into it and it also makes Premium Bonds possible. In fact without national debt we couldn't even have currency. £71 billion in notes and £5 billion in coins is part of our national debt. All this tosh about maxing out the credit card is just that. Governments are taking advantage of the economic illiteracy of the people but more experts are now speaking out about it.

Everybody should watch that film.

Two more useful links:



That’s really interesting BBG.

If you look at the 11 years since 1945 where there has been some element of repayment of national debt, 7 of those occurred under Labour governments. There were 3 successive years (and you could probably argue 4) under the Attlee government which, when you consider what they achieved and the economic situation of the country, is incredible.

I realise, of course, that your argument would be that they didn’t need to do that. I just think it further exposes the myth that the Tories are the party of sound bookkeeping.
 
I’d been prepared to give the guy a chance Randy, but I am starting to think that those on here who said he’d just be a bland centrist were right.

What I’d have been really interested in hearing are his views on how (and who) we should pay for all the public borrowing. There’s a real opportunity to set out how Labour would ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden, whilst we know that the Tories will eventually return to spending cuts, penalising the young and looking after the interests of the wealthy.

But no, we got offered any flavour we want as long as it’s vanilla.
His reaction to everything the government have done throughout the pandemic had made my mind up. I was really hoping he could be the one to help bring back some Labour votes including mine but I'll be voting independent again.
All he's done is a disagree with government but when it comes to the crunch votes with them anyways or fails to come up with a different strategy.
 
Take bow mate (y)

Tory Cowards, cut budgets and point the locals baying for blood to the local council raising their council tax
It's the ultimate deception from the Tories and they get away with it. Cut funding which impacts the Local Authorities in already struggling areas the most. Blame said Authority for failures. Then scare everyone that Labour are bad.
 
Back
Top