These lengthy prison sentences for rioters

So now are we supposed to sing "things can only get worse"

No. I simply read Dickens’ post where she doesn’t claim to know
the exact truth of economics, but I am certain that if Reeve's tough decisions result in another round of Austerity by any other name, then people will do what they always do when their rent, mortgages, food, energy, and other bills, increase or become unaffordable - and their wages stagnate - they will stop spending, which will result in the private sector ultimately cutting back on production, employment, and investment, for both commodities and services.

So you’re right. It won’t be called austerity-except by the media, but it will mean the same thing.

Ilovecheese

So now are we supposed to sing "things can only get worse"

Of course, we have to wait for the budget, but the signals - the 'warnings' so far - are not encouraging are they Ilovecheese?

Which economic theory is Reeves pursuing with her talk of black holes and tough decisions? Settling the recent pay disputes was, I admit, a pleasant surprise, but being told that things will get worse before they get better has a familiar ring-tone. Accepting that change cannot be brought about at short notice - just how much worse are 'things' going to get, because I think many people who have been struggling for the last 14 years or so, are already at rock-bottom.

Starmer and the LP have talked about growth - sustained growth is his mantra. I just wonder where that growth is going to come from if these tough decisions mean that we have less disposable income - and, for some, no disposable income, which well might be the case for many of those pensioners who are just above the PC line, who are one of the first to discover the meaning of those tough decisions - in a couple of months or so.

The truth is that for at least the last 20yrs we have not earned the lifestyle we have we have had it on credit.

Now we are being told we have to pay for our lifestyle or do you think that foreigners owe us what we can’t pay for.

Surely people understand that if we want better public services, more nurses, midwives, GPs, teachers, police on the streets, etc. then we have to pay for this.

Austerity equalled cuts in services with no noticeable improvement to public services - indeed the opposite.

Yes we have to pay and the money has to come from somewhere - taxes which I’m happy to pay to help us all

That’s how I feel Iam64.

I’m glad s many people are happy to pay taxes or more taxes, but surely even The most willing taxpayer can see that Politicians claiming expenses, fuel allowances, subsidised meals etc should be showing the way by giving up some of that.

If I want to School dinner, I have to pay for it, which is fine but maybe politicians should have their food cooked with the same level of expenses allowed for school dinners and they should pay.

At least there isn't a couple of helicopters in the mix as well now.

The expenses are not just since Starmer has been pm.

MissAdventure

At least there isn't a couple of helicopters in the mix as well now.

The expenses are not just since Starmer has been pm.

Of course they aren’t just since Starmer has been pm, but if he’s cutting down on expenses to fill the black hole we’re told he didn’t know about, why doesn’t he start with MPs?

I asked the same question during the last 14 years as well.

Mollygo

I’m glad s many people are happy to pay taxes or more taxes, but surely even The most willing taxpayer can see that Politicians claiming expenses, fuel allowances, subsidised meals etc should be showing the way by giving up some of that.

If I want to School dinner, I have to pay for it, which is fine but maybe politicians should have their food cooked with the same level of expenses allowed for school dinners and they should pay.

I’m glad s many people are happy to pay taxes or more taxes, but surely even The most willing taxpayer can see that Politicians claiming expenses, fuel allowances, subsidised meals etc should be showing the way by giving up some of that.

I don't know what the total cost saving would be - can't find up to date figures - if these expenses, allowances and subsidies were cut, but yes - why don't they lead by example because there is a principle involved.

The savings might be relatively small - but the effect on ministerial individuals will not have the same effect as similar cuts made to services, etc, that the already impoverished rely on.