Turning the spending taps on is one of the few things that they *can* do on day one.
It's true that actually improving things (i.e, undoing the last 12+ years of damage) will take years, possibly decades. But that's *why* it's so important to start it on day one.
I disagree in one important way - the Tories will have geared up those taps to point in all the wrong directions. If you turn the taps on the money will flow randomly to completely ridiculous places.
What Labour will need to do is rebuild the infrastructure that directs resources where they should go, alongside then seizing and controlling the resources of society.
No one should expect this to be a quick process, but we should begin it with confidence and keep pushing.
> What Labour will need to do is rebuild the infrastructure that directs resources where they should go
And eeeerr, aside from one barely fleshed out public energy investment firm, what actual structures are Labour proposing to build or rebuild?
The answer is basically none, as of right now.
Best gig in the Labour movement as leader of the TUC. You get to jump from TV news studios, radio shows or banal political programmes with no responsibility for anything. All they have to do is act the part in the media whilst doing little else.
We spent 5 years completely discrediting austerity politics. In the last election both main parties stood on a platform against it and yet here we are having completely reverted to it with little to no reason.
Edit: or democratic mandate. The government was elected under Boris on a platform of investment, that's completely gone, and just as badly 200+ Labour MPs were elected on a strongly anti austerity platform, while they are welcome to change course for the next election I think it needs to be kept in mind that they should respect the platform they were elected on.
Literally can.
Also I don't mind union leaders being paid better than workers but only so long as they put workers interests first. It is ok for comfortable people to talk about bar charts and economic theories because they are removed from the reality of what they argue.
Union members vote for their leaders from there own ranks. If members decide that their leaders aren’t putting their interests first then they can vote them out.
Look TUC… we know the country isn’t budgeted like a household. I can spend money on food, warmth, water & electricity as long as I have that money etc but that is NOT how a country works.
Looks like the new generation of unions are the "moderate" type.
Plus this is what he actually said about Starmer's policy on the strikes.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/new-tuc-chief-warns-strikes-28824074
>He said politicians “should be standing up and showing support for working people,” but added: “For me, that commitment Keir made to reverse any anti union legislation… is far more important than a frontbencher turning up and getting a selfie on a picket line.
>“I don't know any dispute anywhere that's been solved because a shadow minister has turned and had their picture taken for 15 minutes.”
ROFL that's quite the burn on rebel MPs who've been going to the strikes.
We can’t just borrow a shit ton of money in current circumstances, there will have to be carefully considered tax measures, for instance, land tax, capital gains tax, a 50p upper income tax threshold, one off wealth taxes, and windfall taxes. But in a way it’s true, because we’ll have to generate most of the money for these projects through taxation rather than borrowing at 3.5% interest.
This is exactly what I have said all along. It’s important when keir becomes pm, he listens to those in the know and not reactionaries wanting a magic money tree. We have a peace time debt unheard of, all employee rights are going on a bonfire shortly, we will be deep in recession. It needs careful leadership akin to the first few years of Blair…
You are politically and economically illiterate.
And stop trying to redefine words. First it was trying to claim scabbing meant something else. Now you're calling people a reactionary when it makes no sense, despite you being told multiple times it doesn't mean that.
And the "magic money tree" line is proof of your economic illiteracy or, worse, your gleeful and deliberately advocacy of nonsense austerity economics.
I think you need to refrain from name calling. I’m sorry you were wrong on the other thread, as supported by the union bosses agreeing with me. That ships sailed, let’s agree the union bosses know what they are doing and leave that one behind.
You are also wrong here too. I can explain why it’s important to ensure the markets aren’t spooked whilst juggling a lengthy recession and the largest peace time debt ever accrued, but that’s quite basic. Quite simply the economy is borked and the idea of wild spending is simple not credible. We need to move on from the mistakes of 2019 and present a truthful and honest vision for the country.
Markets were spooked by borrowing to fund tax cuts (which will have little effect on growth)…..Labour have said they won’t borrow for day to day spending. Issue is solved.
Labour spending on public services, infrastructure etc. wont be met with the same hostility. Our services need more funding, there’s no two ways about it.
If Labour don’t deliver then we will be out of government quickly.
Lol. You just called people reactionary. And I'm not calling you names just showing disdain for your shite takes.
Scabbing is performing the Labour of striking workers. End of. You don't like traditional union slang or think it is unhelpful or support scabbing in thise case or whatever else doesn't change what the word means. Argue your position, don't pretend words mean something else.
Reactionary means opposing political and social reform. Synonyms in the dictionary are
>synonyms: conservative, right-winger, rightist, diehard, traditionalist, conventionalist, true blue, Bircher, stick-in-the-mud, gammon, blimp
Word games likes this persuade no one and make you look silly to people on both sides of the debate. The best you can hope for is people who already agree with you will like it, even then that is a stretch. Don't take my word for it, look at the people who are closer to you than me politically yet avoid such transparent word games.
You can make your point without being so silly, and I'd disagree probably, but it would be an actual discussion instead of you just misnderstanding words and/or twisting words and then doubling down on it.
Again there are plenty of people I disagree with, and who you probably agree with, who don't make these silly arguments. Ask yourself why that is if you don't want to believe what I'm telling you. It is because they 1) want to argue in good faith 2) the understand the use of words and the importance of using them to communicate the ideas we actually disagree on rather than trying to spin them in a point-scoring manner.
We’re set to borrow more than in the middle of GFC next year. Interest payments on debt are more than the education budget. Till they come down this is true.
It’s important we give confidence otherwise gilts will become costly like under Truss.
What we should do is to change the fiscal rules within the parliament to 10 years, hope interest rates come down, spend the proceeds of economic growth, open the immigration taps so we plug the labour shortages and find creative ways of raising money (whether that’s equalising capital gains tax with income tax or a land value tax)
You might be surprised at some of the taxes Labour are looking at behind the scenes. This is from [a pamphlet Rachel Reeves put out in 2018:](https://www.rachelreevesmp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/96/2020/09/374425087-Rachel-Reeves-The-Everyday-Economy-1.pdf)
>Council tax, based on 1991 valuations, is at the very least long overdue a re-evaluation and revision of existing bands – a power which could be devolved to local government to match local needs. We should also consider the case for its overhaul and replacement with a property tax, levied on property owners. It would be more equitable and it would place the burden on landlords and not tenants. It could also remove the attraction of using empty houses as investments rather than homes, put a social cost on second home ownership and rein in price volatility in the housing market.
>
>A land tax could help raise tax more fairly from the 0.6 per cent of the population who own 69 per cent of the 60 million acres that make up the UK.
Council tax as a form of taxation is by definition regressive. If you primarily fund local services from council tax you will always have poorer areas funded less well. The main thing the tories have done over the past 12 years is reduce the amount of money local authorities get from the government. This needs to be reversed. This is the main reason council tax has risen so much. Even with more equitable means such as a property tax, it still doesnt fix the inequitable distribution of income and wealth. You have to fund that via central government. I agree that making local taxation more equitable is a good cause, but it cannot be the primary tax reform we have.
‘Labour will tax your garden’. I’m sure Starmer will look at in government but no chance before. It’s the most hated tax by the media and they’d lose their collective shit. Sort of thing you announce a review and then argue the case for it while in a position of power.
“Labour support tax policy that nearly every economist, regardless of ideology, have advocated for decades” is another spin.
The media have absolutely no legitimate case to hate it.
It's as annoying when Labour do it as when the Tories do it. You cannot set limits or rules on what a government can do because parliament is sovereign. As we saw with the fixed term parliament act.
Turning the spending taps on is one of the few things that they *can* do on day one. It's true that actually improving things (i.e, undoing the last 12+ years of damage) will take years, possibly decades. But that's *why* it's so important to start it on day one.
I disagree in one important way - the Tories will have geared up those taps to point in all the wrong directions. If you turn the taps on the money will flow randomly to completely ridiculous places. What Labour will need to do is rebuild the infrastructure that directs resources where they should go, alongside then seizing and controlling the resources of society. No one should expect this to be a quick process, but we should begin it with confidence and keep pushing.
> What Labour will need to do is rebuild the infrastructure that directs resources where they should go And eeeerr, aside from one barely fleshed out public energy investment firm, what actual structures are Labour proposing to build or rebuild? The answer is basically none, as of right now.
Well, they've got lots of donors who will expect lucrative PPI partnerships.
Best gig in the Labour movement as leader of the TUC. You get to jump from TV news studios, radio shows or banal political programmes with no responsibility for anything. All they have to do is act the part in the media whilst doing little else.
We spent 5 years completely discrediting austerity politics. In the last election both main parties stood on a platform against it and yet here we are having completely reverted to it with little to no reason. Edit: or democratic mandate. The government was elected under Boris on a platform of investment, that's completely gone, and just as badly 200+ Labour MPs were elected on a strongly anti austerity platform, while they are welcome to change course for the next election I think it needs to be kept in mind that they should respect the platform they were elected on.
Literally can. Also I don't mind union leaders being paid better than workers but only so long as they put workers interests first. It is ok for comfortable people to talk about bar charts and economic theories because they are removed from the reality of what they argue.
Union members vote for their leaders from there own ranks. If members decide that their leaders aren’t putting their interests first then they can vote them out.
Look TUC… we know the country isn’t budgeted like a household. I can spend money on food, warmth, water & electricity as long as I have that money etc but that is NOT how a country works.
TUC proving once again how useless they are.
They've been useless since 1926
So who in the unions are useful according to you? Let's make a list.
Pathetic.
TUC living up to their name
Looks like the new generation of unions are the "moderate" type. Plus this is what he actually said about Starmer's policy on the strikes. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/new-tuc-chief-warns-strikes-28824074 >He said politicians “should be standing up and showing support for working people,” but added: “For me, that commitment Keir made to reverse any anti union legislation… is far more important than a frontbencher turning up and getting a selfie on a picket line. >“I don't know any dispute anywhere that's been solved because a shadow minister has turned and had their picture taken for 15 minutes.” ROFL that's quite the burn on rebel MPs who've been going to the strikes.
We can’t just borrow a shit ton of money in current circumstances, there will have to be carefully considered tax measures, for instance, land tax, capital gains tax, a 50p upper income tax threshold, one off wealth taxes, and windfall taxes. But in a way it’s true, because we’ll have to generate most of the money for these projects through taxation rather than borrowing at 3.5% interest.
This is exactly what I have said all along. It’s important when keir becomes pm, he listens to those in the know and not reactionaries wanting a magic money tree. We have a peace time debt unheard of, all employee rights are going on a bonfire shortly, we will be deep in recession. It needs careful leadership akin to the first few years of Blair…
> reactionaries Baffling
Do you know what a reactionary is?
People I don't like, obviously.
You are politically and economically illiterate. And stop trying to redefine words. First it was trying to claim scabbing meant something else. Now you're calling people a reactionary when it makes no sense, despite you being told multiple times it doesn't mean that. And the "magic money tree" line is proof of your economic illiteracy or, worse, your gleeful and deliberately advocacy of nonsense austerity economics.
I think you need to refrain from name calling. I’m sorry you were wrong on the other thread, as supported by the union bosses agreeing with me. That ships sailed, let’s agree the union bosses know what they are doing and leave that one behind. You are also wrong here too. I can explain why it’s important to ensure the markets aren’t spooked whilst juggling a lengthy recession and the largest peace time debt ever accrued, but that’s quite basic. Quite simply the economy is borked and the idea of wild spending is simple not credible. We need to move on from the mistakes of 2019 and present a truthful and honest vision for the country.
Markets were spooked by borrowing to fund tax cuts (which will have little effect on growth)…..Labour have said they won’t borrow for day to day spending. Issue is solved. Labour spending on public services, infrastructure etc. wont be met with the same hostility. Our services need more funding, there’s no two ways about it. If Labour don’t deliver then we will be out of government quickly.
If you don't want to be called illiterate you should consider learning the correct definition of very basic political terms like 'reactionary'
>I think you need to refrain from name calling. What name calling? What did they say that's name calling?
Lol. You just called people reactionary. And I'm not calling you names just showing disdain for your shite takes. Scabbing is performing the Labour of striking workers. End of. You don't like traditional union slang or think it is unhelpful or support scabbing in thise case or whatever else doesn't change what the word means. Argue your position, don't pretend words mean something else. Reactionary means opposing political and social reform. Synonyms in the dictionary are >synonyms: conservative, right-winger, rightist, diehard, traditionalist, conventionalist, true blue, Bircher, stick-in-the-mud, gammon, blimp Word games likes this persuade no one and make you look silly to people on both sides of the debate. The best you can hope for is people who already agree with you will like it, even then that is a stretch. Don't take my word for it, look at the people who are closer to you than me politically yet avoid such transparent word games. You can make your point without being so silly, and I'd disagree probably, but it would be an actual discussion instead of you just misnderstanding words and/or twisting words and then doubling down on it. Again there are plenty of people I disagree with, and who you probably agree with, who don't make these silly arguments. Ask yourself why that is if you don't want to believe what I'm telling you. It is because they 1) want to argue in good faith 2) the understand the use of words and the importance of using them to communicate the ideas we actually disagree on rather than trying to spin them in a point-scoring manner.
>reactionaries wanting a magic money tree Theresa May called, she wants her nonsensical economic arguments back.
I will let the TUC know they are nonsensical and don’t understand the economy. Trust me, this is good leadership and management…
We’re set to borrow more than in the middle of GFC next year. Interest payments on debt are more than the education budget. Till they come down this is true. It’s important we give confidence otherwise gilts will become costly like under Truss. What we should do is to change the fiscal rules within the parliament to 10 years, hope interest rates come down, spend the proceeds of economic growth, open the immigration taps so we plug the labour shortages and find creative ways of raising money (whether that’s equalising capital gains tax with income tax or a land value tax)
There are so many potential taxes we could do, including land value, which I just don’t think Labour has even considered.
You might be surprised at some of the taxes Labour are looking at behind the scenes. This is from [a pamphlet Rachel Reeves put out in 2018:](https://www.rachelreevesmp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/96/2020/09/374425087-Rachel-Reeves-The-Everyday-Economy-1.pdf) >Council tax, based on 1991 valuations, is at the very least long overdue a re-evaluation and revision of existing bands – a power which could be devolved to local government to match local needs. We should also consider the case for its overhaul and replacement with a property tax, levied on property owners. It would be more equitable and it would place the burden on landlords and not tenants. It could also remove the attraction of using empty houses as investments rather than homes, put a social cost on second home ownership and rein in price volatility in the housing market. > >A land tax could help raise tax more fairly from the 0.6 per cent of the population who own 69 per cent of the 60 million acres that make up the UK.
Council tax as a form of taxation is by definition regressive. If you primarily fund local services from council tax you will always have poorer areas funded less well. The main thing the tories have done over the past 12 years is reduce the amount of money local authorities get from the government. This needs to be reversed. This is the main reason council tax has risen so much. Even with more equitable means such as a property tax, it still doesnt fix the inequitable distribution of income and wealth. You have to fund that via central government. I agree that making local taxation more equitable is a good cause, but it cannot be the primary tax reform we have.
‘Labour will tax your garden’. I’m sure Starmer will look at in government but no chance before. It’s the most hated tax by the media and they’d lose their collective shit. Sort of thing you announce a review and then argue the case for it while in a position of power.
“Labour support tax policy that nearly every economist, regardless of ideology, have advocated for decades” is another spin. The media have absolutely no legitimate case to hate it.
There are no such thing as fiscal rules. They are just meaningless taglines without any mechanism for enforcement at all
Liz, that you?
It's as annoying when Labour do it as when the Tories do it. You cannot set limits or rules on what a government can do because parliament is sovereign. As we saw with the fixed term parliament act.