What is left about Labour now?

Why on earth would Starmer want to get the NHS back to how it was under Labour control?

It was shocking then as well.

The 4 hour A&E wait? That just meant moving folk to a different room, certainly didn't mean not waiting longer than 4 hours.

Also has anyone read the wonderful book, This is Going To Hurt? Written by a junior doctor, Adam Kay, and turned into a series for TV.

Did you think the horrors that faced junior doctors were during a Conservative government? They weren't. It was diaries written by the junior doctor from 2004 - 2010. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were at the helm then. Labour. Life was not this bunch of roses and nor will it ever be.

So let's hope that Karmer isn't aiming to return to those days. I'd prefer it wasn't Karmer at all to be honest. Whoever takes over will have a job on its hands but let's stop thinking life will be all milk and honey under Labour because it won't be.

Iam64

Grany is the current poster whose sole aim is to undermine the Labour Party under Starmer. The names change but the style remains the same.

That’s True

Stop Starmer

Starmer Out

Unseat Starmer

We need another leader

Whitewavemark2

Ilovecheese

Whitewavemark2

I’m not yet convinced that Starmer will increase social spending - at least for the initial few years, but I think reform will be the main focus.

Reform generally means worse services.
E.g. the reforms that the train companies want to introduce are driver only trains and no ticket offices.

Before you make those sort of statements, I would recommend any one of Starmer’s speeches about various areas in the U.K.

You can do no better than read his speech about reform in the NHS, of course he recognises that spending is essential, but he wants to get back to the sort of standards we expected and got 13 years ago.

Starmer’s speeches, changes his mind from one day to the next, says one thing, then next time the complete opposite
He Lies
flip flops
Bringing more privatisation into the NHS is not the answer will not help the NHS. Just saying.

I would be very surprised indeed if a Labour government did not increase social spending, and pay for it by increasing taxation. The main burden would fall on the wealthy because they have the cash to pay.
There is nothing wrong with increasing taxation to fund social spending, it far more efficient than “trickledown” policies.

Grany is the current poster whose sole aim is to undermine the Labour Party under Starmer. The names change but the style remains the same.

JPB123

MaizieD

Why are people defending the wealthy?

Why not?

Perhaps because the wealthiest 1% have grabbed 54% of the total new wealth during the last decade and the top 1% hold more wealth than 70% of people in the U.K.

The wealthy do not need defending, they are doing it very nicely for themselves.

MaizieD

Why are people defending the wealthy?

Why not?

Grany

Same polices as Tories.
Starmer, and his shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves, have both said they will not impose any policies that change the current status quo that is making the super-rich much richer, driving working people and the poor further into poverty, and ushering privatisation into public services to make them cash cows for fat cats (as we’ve seen with energy and water).

It’s actually worse than ‘Tory Fibs’ is suggesting. Starmer, Reeves and the rest don’t just want power for its own sake – they want it in order to ensure that power cannot be taken by anybody with plans that would actually improve the quality of life here, with public services that actually serve the public well, fair pay for everyone and a social security system that doesn’t persecute people who need help.

Influential people are now starting to accept that this is the situation. It is the reason academics have contacted Starmer, urging him to change his mind.

They urge Starmer to turn

from an out of date, economically and socially destructive approach towards a model which improves wellbeing, works in alignment with our environment, and achieves social justice.

Failure to table an alternative will mean not only wasting that opportunity but many lives and futures as well.

Starmer Labour’s current approach is out of date.

It is economically and socially destructive.

And the party’s current policies will destroy many lives.

Grany you do my head in. What have you forgotten to do yet again?
When you copy somebody else’s words you must quote your source.

Grany

Same polices as Tories.
Starmer, and his shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves, have both said they will not impose any policies that change the current status quo that is making the super-rich much richer, driving working people and the poor further into poverty, and ushering privatisation into public services to make them cash cows for fat cats (as we’ve seen with energy and water).

It’s actually worse than ‘Tory Fibs’ is suggesting. Starmer, Reeves and the rest don’t just want power for its own sake – they want it in order to ensure that power cannot be taken by anybody with plans that would actually improve the quality of life here, with public services that actually serve the public well, fair pay for everyone and a social security system that doesn’t persecute people who need help.

Influential people are now starting to accept that this is the situation. It is the reason academics have contacted Starmer, urging him to change his mind.

They urge Starmer to turn

from an out of date, economically and socially destructive approach towards a model which improves wellbeing, works in alignment with our environment, and achieves social justice.

Failure to table an alternative will mean not only wasting that opportunity but many lives and futures as well.

Starmer Labour’s current approach is out of date.

It is economically and socially destructive.

And the party’s current policies will destroy many lives.

Destroy more lives than the current government have done, are doing and will continue to do?

Ilovecheese

Whitewavemark2

I’m not yet convinced that Starmer will increase social spending - at least for the initial few years, but I think reform will be the main focus.

Reform generally means worse services.
E.g. the reforms that the train companies want to introduce are driver only trains and no ticket offices.

Before you make those sort of statements, I would recommend any one of Starmer’s speeches about various areas in the U.K.

You can do no better than read his speech about reform in the NHS, of course he recognises that spending is essential, but he wants to get back to the sort of standards we expected and got 13 years ago.

Whitewavemark2

I’m not yet convinced that Starmer will increase social spending - at least for the initial few years, but I think reform will be the main focus.

Reform generally means worse services.
E.g. the reforms that the train companies want to introduce are driver only trains and no ticket offices.

Katie59

You’re clutching at straws Maisie your previous statement was that spending precedes taxation, furthermore that spending creates jobs the salaries are subject to taxation which creates growth.

It does create growth but at a fraction of spending, you can’t decouple taxation from spending what happens in practice is that extra money is borrowed in addition to tax revenue.

I will agree that for many years the government has not created growth, will Starmer create growth in addition to increasing social spending?.

The government doesn't have to tax or borrow before it spends. That is the essential tenet of MMT.

I am completely at a loss to understand what is so hard about this for you to take in,

The Bank of England can, just like the commercial banks, create as much money as it needs without having to get it from any other source. Banks do this all the time, every time they make a loan. They do it under licence from the BoE. You don't seem to have a problem with accepting that.

Or do you, but you just haven't got round to it yet?

The BoE can pay any government bill that parliament tells it to pay. It cannot go bankrupt because it can create its own money, our sovereign currency.

Where am I clutching at straws? I'm just stating a fact. An empirically proven fact. Government spending precedes taxation.

will Starmer create growth in addition to increasing social spending?.

What do you mean by 'social spending'? I am talking about spending in every area of the public sector and investing in development of green industries and related areas, such as grants for insulation, solar panels etc. etc. And anything else which might benefit from state investment. Is that your understanding of 'social spending'?

The only way anyone, government or business, can create growth in an economy is by investing money in it. There is no magic growth powder for Starmer to to sprinkle on it. Do I have to, yet again, recite how investment in the public sector sustains and grows the private sector?

I’m not yet convinced that Starmer will increase social spending - at least for the initial few years, but I think reform will be the main focus.

You’re clutching at straws Maisie your previous statement was that spending precedes taxation, furthermore that spending creates jobs the salaries are subject to taxation which creates growth.

It does create growth but at a fraction of spending, you can’t decouple taxation from spending what happens in practice is that extra money is borrowed in addition to tax revenue.

I will agree that for many years the government has not created growth, will Starmer create growth in addition to increasing social spending?.

Thanks to all of you for a very enlightening thread. I enjoyed reading it. I think Sir Keir will win the next election. I wish him well with his premiership.

Vox

Box Political

Same polices as Tories.
Starmer, and his shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves, have both said they will not impose any policies that change the current status quo that is making the super-rich much richer, driving working people and the poor further into poverty, and ushering privatisation into public services to make them cash cows for fat cats (as we’ve seen with energy and water).

It’s actually worse than ‘Tory Fibs’ is suggesting. Starmer, Reeves and the rest don’t just want power for its own sake – they want it in order to ensure that power cannot be taken by anybody with plans that would actually improve the quality of life here, with public services that actually serve the public well, fair pay for everyone and a social security system that doesn’t persecute people who need help.

Influential people are now starting to accept that this is the situation. It is the reason academics have contacted Starmer, urging him to change his mind.

They urge Starmer to turn

from an out of date, economically and socially destructive approach towards a model which improves wellbeing, works in alignment with our environment, and achieves social justice.

Failure to table an alternative will mean not only wasting that opportunity but many lives and futures as well.

Starmer Labour’s current approach is out of date.

It is economically and socially destructive.

And the party’s current policies will destroy many lives.

The reality is that the extra borrowing/creation on money has only increased the taxation revenue by a fraction of the cost and MMT is failing the UK by a wide margin.

It isn't MMT

It isn't MMT

It isn't MMT

It is nothing to do with MMT

How many times do I have to repeat this?

MMT says that governments spend before taxing. The research paper I linked to earlier, proves that banks create money when making a loan. The Bank of England creates money to pay government bills and doesn't need taxation or borrowing to fund it.

There will be no increase in tax receipts if no agency, either the government or business, is investing in the UK economy. Businesses won't invest if they can't see a return. That leaves only the government to do it. They will get much of what they invest back in the resulting increase in taxation.

GDP will not increase unless the government invests in the UK economy.

2+2 = 22 according to the Tory economics I will concede that Brexit and Covid were not in the original plan ( if there was one) and a lot of the borrowing /creation was in response to those crises so had to be done.

The UK taxation revenue/GDP at 38% is at the lower end of the European scale so there is scope for possibly an extra 5% overall which would be a step in the right direction.

The reality is that the extra borrowing/creation on money has only increased the taxation revenue by a fraction of the cost and MMT is failing the UK by a wide margin.

To quote MaizieD
"Until a government is prepared to invest in the state sector, and into new industries, such as green energy and its related activities, the deficit will continue to grow."

Yes.

And to misquote slightly

I can understand why Labour is being cautious about its spending plans (Labour wants to keep Conservative plans) , "but if it proposes to continue with austerity, as it appears to be, there is no hope for improving the economy."

^The UKs debt has increased from £900bn to £2400bn yet the GDP has only increased by £400bn only 25% of borrowing, even if you exclude the £800bn QE it’s still only a 50% return on GDP*

You're not putting 2 + 2 together, Katie59.

GDP has been poor because, thanks to tory austerity, which cut opportunity for growth by massively cutting the public sector, economic activity which would have contributed to GDP was severely curtailed. Did you know that the public sector usually contributes to about a third of GDP? Had austerity not happened, GDP would have been much higher and the percentage of GDP to 'borrowing' would have been much lower.

The deficit continues to grow because the 'borrowings' are not being directed at meaningful economic activity in the public sector, or at effectively distributing wealth among all UK citizens Companies aren't investing in the UK because, their potential consumers being poorer, they don't see much prospect of making any profit from their investment.

Also, Brexit has meant that many of our profitable financial services, which made a big contribution to GDP, have moved to Europe, contributing to EU countries' GDP, not to the UK's.

Until a government is prepared to invest in the state sector, and into new industries, such as green energy and its related activities, the deficit will continue to grow.

I can understand why Labour is being cautious about its spending plans, but if it proposes to continue with austerity, as it appears to be, there is no hope for improving the economy.

A Labour government offers the only alternative to more years of chaos under this government. To change things you have to get elected.

MaggsMcG

It doesn't seem to make much difference who gets into Parliament as far as I can tell. Over the last 50 years or so it seems to me that the rich get richer the poor get help and the everyday working people pay for it all. It just doesn't pay for working people to help themselves as they are better off if they don't. What needs to be done is to make is much more worth while for people to work than it is to not work. That would be a good start.

It's not just the rich getting richer. Back in 1953 home ownership was 31% of the housing. In 2022 it had increased to 64%.

Part of the 33% in 1953 were my GPs and also my in laws. Both couples lived in ordinary semis of the kind that you see all over the country. They were firstly blue collar and later white collar workers, similar to thousands of people across the country.

In 1980, by which point I imagine that the baby boomers, if they were able to do so, had bought their home. At that point the rate of owner occupation was 56% . The highest percentage of owner occupation was 69% in 2000 and it then started to drop. There are a number of reasons for this - high mortgage rates between 1980 and 1990, sudden increases in house prices - 1980, 1985, 2000 and 2022 and earnings for many not increasing at the same rate. Also a lack of affordable housing.

Please don't forget all the council houses which were originally purchased by the workers who occupied them.
Unfortunately things have gone badly wrong in the UK. The recent hikes in interest rates have cause many in the buy to let market to reduce their portfolios or perhaps sell up. Many of these owners will be ordinary people who have sought to future proof their income by going into the property market, perhaps forgetting that interest rates do go up.

My point is that it's not just everyday working people who have to pay. It's nearly all of us although some people will be hit rather later than others.

I also take issue with your statement "to make it much more worthwhile for people to work" So a few figures - taken from the ONS for the quarter ended June 2023.

Unemployed 1,439,000
Economically inactive 8,693,000

Of the inactive, 13% are retired; 25 % are students; 18% are looking after home and family, 32% are long term sick and 12% don't want a job.

There are a number of reasons why people don't want a job at any given time - moving home, haven't yet started looking for a job, waiting for the results of a job application or don't need or want a job. There are also some who have not given reasons.

My conclusions - there are very few people who find in not worthwhile to work.

I agree Diamond Lilly.