These lengthy prison sentences for rioters

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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s how I feel Iam64.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Who is saying yes to austerity? Is it you, Molly? I don't really understand your post.

I don't want to see Austerity, and I don't think others on this thread are saying that they do either. I'm tired though, so maybe I'm picking things up wrongly.

Yes for austerity-if it’s RR who recommends it.
Yes to things are going to get worse before they get better if KS says it.
It’s very déjà vu.

The magic Money Money Tree exists, the government can use it, if it is used responsibly there isnt a problem. In the past much has been used, for social give aways, vanity projects or just wasted

Well, so do I remain relieved that the Tories are in opposition, but I did think that there would be some sense of urgency from a Labour Government to alleviate child poverty, not actively discourage the idea.
I will see if this speech Starmer is to make gives any clear idea of their vision to improve the lives of the not so wealthy.
And hope for the best.

Tried to avoid but give in - I’m with Doodledog and Wyllow. They were elected after being clear they’d be facing challenging times. I wasn’t expecting a rose garden and I remain relieved the tories are in opposition

Again, Doodledog, you have spoken what I feel.

Again, I feel, it's too early days to know the long term plans. We may get austerity plus some borrowing. RR was left in an appalling situation in July. No quick fixes.

I'm not making a case for Austerity. I'm just tired of the idea that anyone not agreeing with Modern Monetary Theory is illiterate or stupid. To be honest, I don't know whether I agree with it or not, as I don't know enough about it. What I do know is that someone like RR who has a degree in PPE from Oxford and a Masters from LSE will know enough about it to decide whether or not to follow one course or another. She may have made the wrong choice - time will tell on that - but she is not economically illiterate.

Not puzzling at all energy is a free market the government limited the price increases that we paid when it sky rocketed due to Ukraine, now we pay back the cost of that. Whether we ever get back to the cheap prices before is doubtful.

I don't understand the remark about Gransnet being like Trump's America. I thought we were doing all right on this thread when I left it last night, different opinions yes, but not attacks on other posters.

I am no economics expert either, having only studied it at a basic level and that was some years ago. But austerity didn't work when it was imposed by George Osborne, and I don't believe it will work now, if what we are aiming for is a better life for everyone in the country, not just the very wealthy.

I also understand and agree that the new Government have only been in place for a few weeks but what has struck me is that in that short time they have suspended MPs who wanted to alleviate child poverty and taken away the heating allowance for pensioners, while nodding through a large increase in energy costs. I just find that puzzling and depressing.

I don't 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.

The ultra wealthy are obviously not constrained - but where do they spend their money other than investing in land, property, the market, and private banks.

Will that grow the economy?

It must be amazing to feel that you are the only one with access to The Truth.

I don’t, but I get the impression that so many posters on GN feel that only they have access to what you describe as The Truth.
And before I get criticised for so many posters
leaving people wondering if it means them . . . if you wonder that, then it probably does.

Thanks again Doodledog. We really need to encourage discussion and debate, to accept there may be merit in points of view other than our own. It’s felt scarily like Trump’s America on gransnet recently.

I am one that endorses Starmers plans so far, he seems to have a realistic view of economics, whether politics allows him to carry out his plans is an entirely different matter.

Since Thatchers was PM UK politics has been all about
gerrymandering votes - give aways to pressure groups, we have not earned todays lifestyle we have borrowed it.

Nobody owes the UK a living, we have very little control over companies because so many are foreign owned, that means that most of the profit goes overseas, whatever technology was developed in the UK was exploited overseas. We need more renewable energy, but we have virtually no renewable industry.

Successive governments have taken the easy option, neglecting investment in the economy, for short term political gain.

(been)