The continuation of the first 100 days.

The WFA issue continues to rumble in the background.

Both Starmer and Streeting have said that no impact assessment on the consequences of the cut have arrived on their desk.

Apparently, Reeves must supply details of the impact of her budgetary decisions at the time of the budget.

The move towards preventative health measures

Starmer delivered a speech at the King’s Fund after a report by Lord Darzi, a former health minister, concluded that the health service was “in critical condition” after years of neglect by successive governments.
The prime minister said he was prepared to take “much bolder” action on preventing illness. “There’s diet, there’s healthy lifestyle, we are going to have to get into that space. I know some prevention measures will be controversial but I’m prepared to be bold, even in the face of loud opposition,” he said. “Some of our changes won’t be universally popular, we know that, but I will do the right thing for our NHS, our economy and our children.”
Starmer and Wes Streeting, the health secretary, want the NHS to take a more proactive role on prevention, including through the health check programme in workplaces. The programme provides people with checkups at work with a view to preventing heart disease, kidney disease and diabetes.

Other measures to be planned include

Junk food advertisements will be banned from television before the 9pm watershed, the government has announced. Online ads for products that are high in fat, salt and sugar will be banned altogether. Both measures, which are intended to help tackle childhood obesity, will come into force in a year’s time.
Plans to ban children from buying high-caffeine energy drinks, which form part of the same public health drive and appeared in Labour’s election manifesto, are expected to be announced next month.
In the coming months, the government plans to introduce a strengthened tobacco and vapes bill, which is likely to extend the indoor ­smoking ban to pub beer gardens.
Ministers are also looking at expanding water fluoridation to improve dental health, and giving councils enhanced powers to block the development of fast food outlets near schools to tackle obesity. Further measures are being looked at, with government officials canvassing the public health sector for policy ideas.

Russia and Putin

The FO (Lammy) and Starmer have been involved in a number of FO activities lately and today Starmer is in USA having talks with Biden.

Responding directly to threats earlier by the Russian president, Starmer told reporters: “Russia started this conflict. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Russia can end this conflict straight away. Ukraine has the right to self-defence.”
The UK, he added, had provided “training and capability” – a reference to weapons – to help Ukraine repel the Russian invasion and said that he was visiting the US president partly because “there are obviously further discussions to be had about the nature of that capability”.
A day earlier, the Guardian revealed that the US and UK had agreed, in conjunction with other allies, to allow Ukraine to strike military targets inside Russia with Storm Shadow missiles, which have a range of at least 190 miles, a longstanding demand of Kyiv’s.
On Thursday, Putin said any western move to let Kyiv use such longer-range weapons against targets inside Russia would mean Nato would be “at war” with Moscow – a dramatic escalation of his rhetoric about the war which began with the Russian invasion in February 2022.
“This would in a significant way change the very nature of the conflict,” Putin told a state television reporter. “It would mean that Nato countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia,” he said, adding that Russia would take “appropriate decisions based on the threats that we will face” as a result.

There are really important developments likely in the next few weeks and months, both in Ukraine and the Middle East, and therefore a number of tactical decisions ought to be taken,” the prime minister said.
David Lammy, the foreign secretary, appeared to go a step further on Thursday night, saying Britain and the US should give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defeat Russia. “This is a crucial period in the fight because you are setting things up to stop Russia getting the advantage over winter,” he told the Daily Telegraph while ­visiting Kyiv.
“We are here also, of course, at a time when it is crystal clear Russia is escalating with its friend Iran, taking a consignment of ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles that will be used in the winter, sadly, against the Ukrainian people and which will cost lives.
“So, of course, we’re here to strategise, to understand how we can put Ukrainians in a position to win and what is needed.”

The prime minister will first have a short one-to-one meeting with the president, who is due to step down in January, before switching to a wider meeting involving David Lammy, the foreign secretary, and other key officials, UK ambassador to the US Karen Pierce and Tim Barrow, the national security adviser.

Oreo

£2, 700 isn’t much less than the figure quoted £3,000 tho is it?
That’s what RR claimed on her office and residential expenses according to your link.

Said it was 3700 for heating expenses

I hear Starmer has not discounted stopping the reduction in Council Tax for single occupant households - double whammy for pensioners losing the WFA

⬇️

Any government “should” create money for the well-being of the nation but for the last 10 yrs and probably longer the UK government has used borrowing to give social improvement and giveaways to voters, with very little actually used to create growth, This has resulted in a decline in value of sterling and a borrowing of close to 100% of GDP, in my opinion that is not what the MMT should be used for.

I have no argument with borrowing in an emergency like Covid or with the aim of increasing Growth, it should not be used for social give aways, or unrealistic vanity projects much of which was blatant Gerimandering.

A prudent government would make sure that the expectations of the population were matched by taxation levied on them. Borrowing can then be used for infrastructure improvements and economic development.

I’d be interested to know which government in the world apart from possibly China uses MMT as an economic model.

MMT isn't an economic model. It's a description of how the fiat monetary system works when a nation has its own sovereign currency.

That is what the 'Self financing State' paper that I linked to makes explicit.

Without the power of the government to issue its currency the country would be in trouble because it wouldn't be able to expand the money supply as the population increases and, as people (particularly the more wealthy) have a propensity to save their surplus money, which reduces the amount circulating in the economy, it wouldn't be able to make up the loss of available money incurred by money being saved. The stock of the nation's money would dwindle...

As it is, money is created all the time, by state spending and by commercial bank loans (banks create money under licence from the government). Bank loans, too, tend to diminish the stock of money as banks require that not only is the principle repaid, but the borrower must also pay interest on the money loaned to them. As those of us who have, or have had, a bank mortgage, are well aware.

The only external source of money is from foreign exports, but as we import more than we export they don't add to our stock of money.

The theoretical element of MMT comes with the use to which governments put their ability to create their own currency. That depends on their ruling ideology and their methods of regulation. They can run a system like the UK or the US, where money tends to flow up to the already wealthy, by way of little regulation of profit and favourable tax regimes or they can try for a more equable distribution of money and a curb on the upward flow. It's their choice.

Of course MMT proponents tend to be in favour of the latter course of action because they see that many people don't benefit from the prevailing orthodoxy. But it isn't the only use of the state's ability to create its own money. Putin is using Russia's money creation ability to manufacture more and more weaponry...

Yes, although I agree with the Magic Money Tree I do not agree with the way the UK has been using it.

Isn't the bank note in my purse a unit of debt which the Central Bank owes me?
It states that it promises to pay the bearer the amount on the note.

I realise I can't go to the Bank of England and ask for gold in exchange any longer.

Any savings I might have eg Premium Bonds, National Savings, are a debt the Bank owes me. I expect (hope) to be paid interest on my loan.

It is a unit of exchange too but still continues to be a unit of debt passed from one person to another.

Or am I totally confused (could be likely).

I’d be interested to know which government in the world apart from possibly China uses MMT as an economic model.

Whilst I am a firm believer in the Keynesian economic theory of growth through government spending in certain circumstances, I cannot accept the argument over fiat currency and government debt. I have real issues with the argument that money is a unit of debt - and not one of exchange, which I believe to be the case.

It is an interesting model though and certainly has its proponents, although not convincing enough for western governments to be follow its theory, nor yet something I am convinced by.

Its thanks to MaizieD that I have looked more closely at Government economics and I am extremely grateful for her posts and links 👏

David49

Mollygo

It will fail because demand is infinite, if there is no limit on ever more expensive procedures funding will run out.

The number of people accessing NHS care has risen incredibly over the last few years and will keep rising with increasing demands that didn’t even get a mention years ago.
e.g. The increasing number of people needing help for mental health issues, drug abuse, gender reassignment and reversal, long Covid issues, neurodiverse issues, etc. etc.
Where is the money from that going to come from once he has exhausted the single occupant, and pensioners pathway?

If he tries to maintain existing levels of service there is only one place it can come from, OUR POCKETS, either taxation or direct charges.

Starmer is not a magician

I hope you read MaizieD's post, David1949

MaizieD

Starmer is not a magician

He's not an economist, either!

But he does have access to the very real Magic Money Tree.

Only for things he wants money for?

Interesting post MaizieD.

Starmer is not a magician

He's not an economist, either!

But he does have access to the very real Magic Money Tree.

It is commonly claimed that the UK Government has no agency to create money and must instead obtain funding from taxpayers or lenders; to put it in the currently favoured political parlance:
‘There is no magic money tree.’ The antagonism informed by mainstream economics towards monetary financing (defined as the purchase of government bonds on the primary market or overdrafts) reflected in the Maastricht Treaty from 1992 and in the shift towards central bank independence has further re-enforced the perception that the government cannot independently finance its own spending. These views are informed by the three-sources view of public spending which portrays monetary financing as an inflationary alternative to prudent tax finance and risky bond finance.

In this paper we have shown that this theory does not accord with the institutional reality in the UK. In fact, the UK Government is fundamental to the sterling monetary system, including the creation and issuance of monetary instruments and guarantees that underpin the entire public/private monetary framework.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

Mollygo

^It will fail because demand is infinite, if there is no limit on ever more expensive procedures funding will run out.^

The number of people accessing NHS care has risen incredibly over the last few years and will keep rising with increasing demands that didn’t even get a mention years ago.
e.g. The increasing number of people needing help for mental health issues, drug abuse, gender reassignment and reversal, long Covid issues, neurodiverse issues, etc. etc.
Where is the money from that going to come from once he has exhausted the single occupant, and pensioners pathway?

If he tries to maintain existing levels of service there is only one place it can come from, OUR POCKETS, either taxation or direct charges.

Starmer is not a magician

MaizieD I agree with your post, my problem as such is the way the Government ministers are trotted out on the news interview circuit perpetuating the budget myth and banging on about the Black Hole.

They are saying that in order to commit to other areas the pensioners should take one for the team which in my opinion is wrong.

Sorry if my earlier post was unclear.

Allira

^Yes of course but it’s not enough it it.^

That wasn't my point.

The point was that older people who may be retired and not working may be paying income tax and certainly other taxes which mainly fund the NHS. Around 80% is funded by general taxation, the rest, about 20% comes from NI contributions.

People erroneously think that they have paid in through NI and that those who are retired aren't funding the NHS any longer because they don't pay NI.

They do.

Thanks, that’s the first time I’ve seen the 20% from NI, makes sense.

Yes of course but it’s not enough it it.

That wasn't my point.

The point was that older people who may be retired and not working may be paying income tax and certainly other taxes which mainly fund the NHS. Around 80% is funded by general taxation, the rest, about 20% comes from NI contributions.

People erroneously think that they have paid in through NI and that those who are retired aren't funding the NHS any longer because they don't pay NI.

They do.

GrannyGravy13

I think this is the correct thread to post my thoughts on:-

I am already fed up to the gills of every Labour MP trotting out £22 billion black hole (how can a Country owe money to itself, is another story?)do they think the electorate is too stupid to realise that their policies are contributing to and making it bigger!

Climate Change oversees budget £12 billion, Train Drivers pay rises in the billions, but it’s ok to remove £1.4 billion from pensioners?

I'm fed up with the ;black hole', too, GG13, but to address your other points:

do they think the electorate is too stupid...

The electorate as a whole (and influential economists and commentators) believe completely in Thatcher's 'taxpayers ,money' myth. Whether or not they are 'stupid' is up for debate, but your subsequent logic, based on this belief, is impeccable their policies are contributing to it and making it bigger

However, as you are all aware, I would argue that the belief they have is stupid and entirely untrue. It has been untrue since the early 1970s, when the gold standard was abandoned on which the issue of money had been constrained by the value of the gold and silver reserves a country had to back it. We now have a 'fiat' ('let it be') currency, the issue of which is constrained only by the resources available for purchase with it and inflation controlled through taxation.

In fact, the implementation of pay awards for rail workers and some public sector is the only ray of sunshine in the darkness that Labour is threatening us with.

Let's not worry about where it comes from, let's think about what its effect will be on the domestic economy.
Importantly, much of it is sure to be spent, especially that which has gone to the poorest workers. This will promote economic activity as the recipients buy goods and services. This economic activity will mean that, unless some of the money is saved by the recipients, most of it will return to the Treasury via director indirect taxation.

The cuts we are threatened with make no sense. Surely we can remember what tory 'austerity' did for the country post 2010. Government contracts reduced ,people thrown out of employment and a long haul back to meaningful 'growth, though with areas of the country still 'left behind'.

I find it very hard to see Labour making the same mistakes, based on faulty economic premises, when our public services are in disarray and the private sector reluctant to invest because they can't see much profit coming from consumers who can barely manage to afford basic necessities.

As to overseas aid, this is a vital component of the UK's 'soft power' when it comes to international relations. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

It will fail because demand is infinite, if there is no limit on ever more expensive procedures funding will run out.

The number of people accessing NHS care has risen incredibly over the last few years and will keep rising with increasing demands that didn’t even get a mention years ago.
e.g. The increasing number of people needing help for mental health issues, drug abuse, gender reassignment and reversal, long Covid issues, neurodiverse issues, etc. etc.
Where is the money from that going to come from once he has exhausted the single occupant, and pensioners pathway?

“Retired people pay taxes too.

The NHS is funded from taxes not just National Insurance.”

Yes of course but it’s not enough it it.

Starmer is saying that the NHS and care system will be reformed, it been reformed several times, they all failed, his will fail too. It will fail because demand is infinite, if there is no limit on ever more expensive procedures funding will run out.

No other country has a fully funded health system, even Norway which has a much stronger economy than us, you do contribute directly to access health care. In addition general taxation there is also higher than the UK.

Most countries have an insurance backed system where you pay a % of your treatment cost, we have NI which covers pension and health care but it’s not enough, even robbing todays working population it’s not enough.

For once Starmer presented well. I felt that he had a genuine commitment to improving the NHS even if demanding 10 years to achieve it. Some small hope then.

Today’s news is the NHS report and Starmer will be speaking on it…

David49

ronib

Nobody gets the NHS for free.

No it’s paid for by those of working age, we have long since used up what we paid in.

Retired people pay taxes too.

The NHS is funded from taxes not just National Insurance.

Even those who may not be eligible to pay income tax are still paying tax - on most things they buy, on the services they use, except for food and a few other items which are exempt.