What is left about Labour now?

^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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Box Political

Vox

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.

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?.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

MaizieD

Why are people defending the wealthy?

Why not?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I'm disappointed! Grany isn't the nly one who wants to get rid of Starmer and return to real Labour policies. I might be erything.alittle happier with him if he had stuck to at least one Labour idea, but he's abandoned everything. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a focus on building a good economy whilst at the same time getting rid of things like the bedroom tax, and atleast trying to lift children out of poverty. he doesn't really care about those people though. He's too busy with his new rich friends.

Louella12

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.

It was much, much better under the last Labour Government Louella. Just look at any comparative performance data and you can see that waiting times were far less across all indicators, and additional procedures were carried out which are no longer available on the NHS. It wasn’t perfect, of course, but I don’t know any NHS employees who would say that services have improved since 2910 - and I know many.

“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. “

In both cases they can’t create unlimited money if the BoE did it would loose confidence of investors. Commercial banks are restricted by minimum lending rate and reserves set by BoE.

So the above statement is not true in both cases, you are hanging on to theories that have proved not to work for the UK.