Anyone else waiting with anticipation to see what's in the Govt's plan for the NHS?

Kim19

I find it rather farcical that any party makes very advanced and detailed plans when the probability of them losing power is highly probable. I've always thought it was Labour who left office in financial despair but seems Conservative may be following their awful example. Hope I've got this completely wrong.

I don’t think it’s true that Labour always leave the country in a financial mess but I’m sure others can back that up with facts and figures. I did see a graph but don’t know how to post it. Yes there was a financial crash at the end of the last Labour government but that, I believe, was worldwide. And it’s got worse over the past 13 years. And I’ll never forgive Cameron for waving that note from the treasury around saying ‘there’s no money left’ because it was a joke.

It used to be available for civil cases also and was widely abused. Anyone accused of a criminal offence should be entitled to legal re

Boris Johnson had legal aid to pay for his defence regarding "Partygate".

He did not. The taxpayer paying the costs of the Cabinet Office is not legal aid.

MayBee70

Kim19

I find it rather farcical that any party makes very advanced and detailed plans when the probability of them losing power is highly probable. I've always thought it was Labour who left office in financial despair but seems Conservative may be following their awful example. Hope I've got this completely wrong.

I don’t think it’s true that Labour always leave the country in a financial mess but I’m sure others can back that up with facts and figures. I did see a graph but don’t know how to post it. Yes there was a financial crash at the end of the last Labour government but that, I believe, was worldwide. And it’s got worse over the past 13 years. And I’ll never forgive Cameron for waving that note from the treasury around saying ‘there’s no money left’ because it was a joke.

You are absolutely right Maybee70 although some will choke over their tea when they read this.
theconversation.com/labour-are-much-better-at-running-the-economy-than-voters-think-new-research-162368

Germanshepherdsmum

He did not. The taxpayer paying the costs of the Cabinet Office is not legal aid.

Johnson was represented by a legal team led by Lord Pannick KC, and his legal bill has been reported as £245,000, which will be covered by the UK Government.

Perhaps not but most taxpayers would struggle to see the difference.

Would they really? I expect you at least know the difference.

Kim19

I find it rather farcical that any party makes very advanced and detailed plans when the probability of them losing power is highly probable. I've always thought it was Labour who left office in financial despair but seems Conservative may be following their awful example. Hope I've got this completely wrong.

"I've always thought it was Labour who left office in financial despair ..."

I don't believe that's true and many economists, with the benefit of hindsight, don't believe it either. Just another win for the lies of the right-wing press that so many chose to believe.

It’s something that, unfortunately, has become baked into peoples beliefs I’m afraid.

Germanshepherdsmum

Would they really? I expect you at least know the difference.

"So this is British justice: Boris Johnson gets legal aid and a mother of three on the breadline doesn’t"

From the Guardian 06.06.23 So it's clearly a common misconception?

MayBee70

It’s something that, unfortunately, has become baked into peoples beliefs I’m afraid.

It is MayBee. It shows the poor level of the journalism in our printed media sadly.

DaisyAnneReturns

MayBee70

It’s something that, unfortunately, has become baked into peoples beliefs I’m afraid.

It is MayBee. It shows the poor level of the journalism in our printed media sadly.

It's been debunked on this forum SO many times ... zzzzzzzzzz....

For the last time, Johnson did not get legal aid , foxie. Neither did the Cabinet Office, which was the lawyers’ actual client. If the Guardian of all papers said he did (you haven’t posted a link) then that is woefully poor journalism - or deliberate misinformation.

Germanshepherdsmum

For the last time, Johnson did not get legal aid , foxie. Neither did the Cabinet Office, which was the lawyers’ actual client. If the Guardian of all papers said he did (you haven’t posted a link) then that is woefully poor journalism - or deliberate misinformation.

I said it was a common misconception, obviously shared by the writer of the Guardian article.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/06/british-justice-boris-johnson-legal-aid-mother-breadline-austerity
In another article it has a headline "Johnson is told legal advice funding will stop if he undermines ministers over Covid inquiry" so it's hardly surprising there is a confusion. Please don't get scratchy with me because I post something that annoys you, it's completely unnecessary.

foxie48

Germanshepherdsmum

He did not. The taxpayer paying the costs of the Cabinet Office is not legal aid.

Johnson was represented by a legal team led by Lord Pannick KC, and his legal bill has been reported as £245,000, which will be covered by the UK Government.

Perhaps not but most taxpayers would struggle to see the difference.

Perhaps someone can explain to me where the UK govt. gets its money from, if not from the tax payer? I’d always thought the govt. was supposed to act on behalf of the people. As the Conservatives are in government, maybe they paid the bill?

People here may think I’m being a bit tongue in cheek but I’m not. So please can someone explain or send me a link so I can read about it?

Perhaps someone can explain to me where the UK govt. gets its money from, if not from the tax payer?

Perhaps you should ask that question the other way round, ayse.

"Where does the taxpayer get their money from?"

I started to try to answer that but it gets too complex for a short paragraph.

This half hour video explains it in diagram form. It is very simplified but its basic premise is sound.

It does ignore foreign investment and earnings, that would introduce a further layer of complexity. but I think it's a bit of a weakness.

It is also American, so it needs to be translated into the British equivalents, which is quite straightforward to do.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHQCjFebIf8

To be fair not every economist is convinced by MMT …..

Most are not.

M0nica

Most are not.

All that MMT is is an account of how money is created and gets into the national economy.
Most economists will tell you that a country with a sovereign currency can create money. So where is MMT wrong?

I'm a bit tired of having it sniffed at with no attempt to say where the account goes wrong.

Incidentally, the Bank of England itself agrees that it creates our money. See its Quarterly Bulletin for the 1st quarter 2014.

I'd be happy to be debated with rather than just shut down.

P.S I'd be even happier if someone could give me a coherent alternative explanation of how the amount of money in the UK has been expanded enough to accommodate an increasing population over the years.

I am not arguing the concept. I merely commented that most economists do not accept it. You would need to follow them up to find why.

M0nica

I am not arguing the concept. I merely commented that most economists do not accept it. You would need to follow them up to find why.

What is the concept that you think they don't accept?

I have seen a number of critiques of MMT which are based on the writers' entirely erroneous interpretation.

But what I have never seen is a critique of the fundamental element, which is the account of how money is created by the state. As I have noted earlier, most economists will say that this is so, but they will then proceed with the conventional narrative of 'taxpayers' money' funding state spending when it is patently not only untrue, but is also illogical.

What other economists mostly critique are the economic policies which MMT adherents suggest could follow from correct understanding of how state money is created and spent.

The critics' focus is invariably on the inflationary effect of unlimited money creation. As MMT economists have never called for unlimited money creation I can't find such criticism to be valid.