Politics are moderating in the U.K.

nightowl

Maybe fleurpepper, maybe not. With the present government, it’s Labour’s to take, but we can’t count on them doing it. And if all the parties become central, that reduces choice anyway. Many people might conclude there’s not much point in voting if they’re all the same.

Don’t believe the polls predicting a Labour landslide, the UK could easily elect an awkward coalition, with small parties demanding unreasonable concessions.

Like?

Coalitions don't have to be 'awkward' and concessions don't have to be bad either.

Fleurpepper

Coalitions don't have to be 'awkward' and concessions don't have to be bad either.

That depends which side of the fence you are, the history of coalitions in the UK has not been good

Modern Monetary Theory where the state can create or borrow money with no restriction works well in the US because the US dollar is the global reserve currency and the government controls public spending. The U.K. has been very poor at controlling public spending and the value of sterling has consistently fallen

Katie59

nightowl

Maybe fleurpepper, maybe not. With the present government, it’s Labour’s to take, but we can’t count on them doing it. And if all the parties become central, that reduces choice anyway. Many people might conclude there’s not much point in voting if they’re all the same.

Don’t believe the polls predicting a Labour landslide, the UK could easily elect an awkward coalition, with small parties demanding unreasonable concessions.

Are you an oracle Katie59, you certainly make statements which fly in the face of earthly evidence?

Katie59

Modern Monetary Theory where the state can create or borrow money with no restriction works well in the US because the US dollar is the global reserve currency and the government controls public spending. The U.K. has been very poor at controlling public spending and the value of sterling has consistently fallen

The falling value of sterling has nothing to do with money creation.

Countries with sovereign currencies do it all the time. The UK has been doing it for decades. If it hadn't there wouldn't be enough money to go around in our ever increasing population.

Where do you get your idea from, Katie59?. At least I try to back what I say with my sources.

P.S. MMT doesn't say that money can be created with no restriction. And it's not really interested in borrowing as a source of government spending. It is a description of how state financing actually works.How about doing some reading on it? I'd recommend this website just for starters:

gimms.org.uk/

Grany

Mick Lynch said if Labour gets more moderate it will disappear

Unlikely. There are many more moderates than there are those as far left as you and Mick Lynch, Grany.

General elections are won or lost by a small number of floating voters in a small number of constituencies. It is more likely that extremes will lose numbers than that the centre plus the less extreme will.

MaizieD
“The falling value of sterling has nothing to do with money creation.”

The value of sterling pound has also fallen against the Singapore dollar. When I first met my husband in 1985, £1=$3.85 dollars. Now £1=1.65 dollars, so the pound has lost more than 50% of its value since then.

Out of curiosity, I compare the UK national debt over the years against the exchange rate between sterling/sing dollars over the years.

And this is what I find:-

In 2007, the UK debt as a percentage of GDP is 35% and then there was a massive jump to almost 60% in 2009.
At the same time, the sterling/sing dollars exchange rate dropped sharply from $3 to $2.16

To me, this shows that there is an inverse relationship between level of national debt due to creation of money and the value of the pound.

Am I right?

The amount of public debt - in relation to GDP has mirrored the depreciation of sterling for decades, how can anyone say that is a success.
I’m did not say unlimited money should be created/borrowed I said more should be spent to grow the economy

QE and borrowing has the same effect, it is all time limited often 10yrs then has to be created/borrowed again, it all gets accounted for.

Unlike you Maisie I don’t use sources because most have an agenda of some kind, it is a fact that all borrowing/creation has to have a payback, the U.K. has not been getting a payback, it has just been spent to buy votes.

^In 2007, the UK debt as a percentage of GDP is 35% and then there was a massive jump to almost 60% in 2009.
At the same time, the sterling/sing dollars exchange rate dropped sharply from $3 to $2.16^

That was during the global financial crisis when the pound dropped against the US $, too.

The UK 'debt' has been skewed since then by the fact that some £350billion of Quantitative Easing was injected to rescue the banks, but as it was money issued by the BoE, which belongs to the state, and is really owed to no-one it's not a liability for the state. The same applies to subsequent rounds of QE. They really should be deducted from the UK 'debt' figure.

But if you look at the £ to US$ value since 1974 it has fluctuated significantly over the period, while GDP has held fairly steady

£ to US$
www.macrotrends.net/2549/pound-dollar-exchange-rate-historical-chart

UK GDP

www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-gross-domestic-product

Then look at this debt to GDP ratio
www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/debt-to-gdp-ratio

In this last the ratio remains fairly stable. I can't see anything as far as the debt to GDP ration is concerned that accounts for the fluctuations in the US$ to £ valuations. The value was mostly affected by 'shocks', such as the attack on the £ which forced us to leave the ERM in the 1980 and the Brexit vote in 2016. These seem to me to be more related to pressure from the financial markets and speculation than to the Debt to GDP ratios.

The value of the £ is determined by the foreign exchange market, which not only traders wanting to buy sterling for payment for traded goods, but also speculators wanting to use fluctuations to make money. This

Unlike you Maisie I don’t use sources because most have an agenda of some kind, it is a fact that all borrowing/creation has to have a payback, the U.K. has not been getting a payback, it has just been spent to buy votes.

If you don't use sources what do you base your judgement on? We aren't born with an innate knowledge of economics and national budgets.

QE and borrowing has the same effect, it is all time limited often 10yrs then has to be created/borrowed again, it all gets accounted for.

Government bonds are time limited but QE isn't. There is no reason at all for it to be 'paid back' because it's the government 'borrowing' from itself. It's pure money creation, albeit in a rather roundabout fashion.

The amount of public debt - in relation to GDP has mirrored the depreciation of sterling for decades, how can anyone say that is a success.

Sterling has been 'depreciating' in value over centuries. The pound today won't purchase anywhere near what it purchased 200 years ago. Ratio of 'debt' to GDP doesn't account for that at all.

I’m did not say unlimited money should be created/borrowed I said more should be spent to grow the economy

The only way to spend more at the moment (and I agree with you that we need to spend more to grow the economy) is for the state to issue more. Foreign investment is declining , foreign trade is declining (even though, in theory, a low sterling value should stimulate it) there's no other non governmental source of money.

“ If you don't use sources what do you base your judgement on? We aren't born with an innate knowledge of economics and national budgets.”

Sources are usually biased by whatever agenda they are promoting, statistics are accurate but interpretation is very often biased.
Just because my interpretation is different does not make me wrong. Successive governments have been taking short term views selling off national assets to fund social improvement MMP has allowed them to do that, albeit at a falling value of sterling.
While imports were plentiful that loss was acceptable now shortages are hitting hard. At the same time there has been no incentive to invest in technology, so companies have to follow suit and take a short term view often selling out to foreign buyers, further diluting national interests.

Katie59

The amount of public debt - in relation to GDP has mirrored the depreciation of sterling for decades, how can anyone say that is a success.
I’m did not say unlimited money should be created/borrowed I said more should be spent to grow the economy

QE and borrowing has the same effect, it is all time limited often 10yrs then has to be created/borrowed again, it all gets accounted for.

Unlike you Maisie I don’t use sources because most have an agenda of some kind, it is a fact that all borrowing/creation has to have a payback, the U.K. has not been getting a payback, it has just been spent to buy votes.

If you don't use sources on which to base your opinions, what do you use?

I think she does use 'sources', growstuff, despite saying that she doesn't. Otherwise what is she 'differently interpretating', as stated at 02.09 today?

Why, Katie59, can you not link to those sources that you are interpreting differently?

Nope, just reliable statistics, polititians, experts and activists always have an agenda.

When I see politicians like Braverman in power I tend to doubt politics is moderating.