Is Keir really credible?

[sparkie]

He doesn't even need to be credible now.


He just needs to be less worse than the economy-wrecking Truss.

A bar which is so low it is actually underground.

 

[beorhthelm]

A far left fiscal policy? Abandoning the top rate of tax? Lifting rules on bankers bonuses?

No no

A far left policy would involve higher taxes and higher redistribution. Not lower taxes and concentrating wealth at the top.

you're distracted by the tax rates. traders and investors abroad dont care much about the 45%. the issue is the borrowing that arises, because they are not planning any spending cuts, so debt has to bridge the gap. worryingly, Starmer seems to be going with the same numbers, exception for the headline grabbing 45% (worth about 5bn).

example, Reeves has just promised to spend the revenue raised from 45% on NHS, overlooking the cut is funded from debt. books arent balanced by either party.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Thanks very much.

I took over managing my modest pot a while back, to escape 1.6% AMC's and poor performance getting nowhere at all.

My IFA has been a mate for over 30 years and I get mate's rates (my regular reviews always start very professionally and end up with us pissed in some restaurant or other, often with our other halves) . My investments seem to be performing well compared to various trackers and I did check with a couple of other IFAs I know and he apparently has a good reputation.

Besides I'd be shit at it and always hated doing financial accounts, always know your limits

 

[Weststander]

My IFA has been a mate for over 30 years and I get mate's rates (my regular reviews always start very professionally and end up with us pissed in some restaurant or other, often with our other halves) . My investments seem to be performing well compared to various trackers and I did check with a couple of other IFAs I know and he apparently has a good reputation.

Besides I'd be shit at it and always hated doing financial accounts, always know your limits

I do remember that you mentioned that before. A wealthy friend has 7-figures invested via Cazenove's, it's done very well over the years even during the Pamdemic/Lockdowns, he's similar minded to you in leaving it to the experts.

 

[Bakero]

It has the same effect as a far left fiscal policy ie bigger Government borrowing and consequent higher interest rates. The other stuff is detail, albeit politically important. I prefer economics to politics. Limits on banker bonuses have little to do with redistribution. They exist to disincentivize consequence free risky behaviour and for that reason should still be in place. Abandoning the top rate of tax is economically illiterate as that money will be saved not spent and not on investment. Trickle down economics is imo nonsense. It is pointless like pretty much everything in last week’s budget. The consequences for the economy may be fairly similar to those which would have followed the election of a Corbyn Government.

Borrowing by a Corbyn government would have been spent on core infrastructure not on tax cuts for the rich though. What Truss and Kwarteng are doing is far more reckless.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I agree with point 2, but the con / lib dem coalition hardly inherited a great economy in 2010.

Most incoming governments inherit a crap economy, its way the last lot got booted out.

I take your point about the 2010 coalition (which was one of the better governments of recent times) but I do think the position in 2024 could be desperate. Years of chronic underinvestment in public services, rampant inflation and a deficit so large you can't add to it. This shit show on top of covid could tip it all over the edge.

 

[CheeseRolls]

you're distracted by the tax rates. traders and investors abroad dont care much about the 45%. the issue is the borrowing that arises, because they are not planning any spending cuts, so debt has to bridge the gap. worryingly, Starmer seems to be going with the same numbers, exception for the headline grabbing 45% (worth about 5bn).

The little rascals, they should really be playing nicely at this point and announcing all their unpopular policies.

It isn't just about the borrowing, the markets don't like the lack of transparency, accountability and scrutiny.

The Starmer line is that a plan to balance the budget now is meaningless, when they have zero ability to influence the direction of travel. There have been labour leaders in the past who lacked credibility on the economy, but I doubt you could find a labour government as reckless and ideology bound as the current incumbents.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

I am not seeing anything from either party on food security, energy security, financial security or national security. We are so screwed.

 

[Surf's Up]

No.

 

[ozzygull]

Yes

 

[Gwylan]

I am not seeing anything from either party on food security, energy security, financial security or national security. We are so screwed.

Well, apart from Starmer's speech focusing entirely on moving the country to be self-sufficient in energy. Blimey, it was only a day ago - missing that is some record, even by NSC standards

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Labour need to consolidate this lead. Get rid of Starmer and get Burnham in. Two years later we'll have a cracking PM and some hope at last.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It has the same effect as a far left fiscal policy ie bigger Government borrowing and consequent higher interest rates. The other stuff is detail, albeit politically important. I prefer economics to politics. Limits on banker bonuses have little to do with redistribution. They exist to disincentivize consequence free risky behaviour and for that reason should still be in place. Abandoning the top rate of tax is economically illiterate as that money will be saved not spent and not on investment. Trickle down economics is imo nonsense. It is pointless like pretty much everything in last week’s budget. The consequences for the economy may be fairly similar to those which would have followed the election of a Corbyn Government.

Again. Nope. If poorer people have money they will spend it in the real economy if it goes to the rich, they'll likely offshore it or buy more oil stocks or property or something.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

you're distracted by the tax rates. traders and investors abroad dont care much about the 45%. the issue is the borrowing that arises, because they are not planning any spending cuts, so debt has to bridge the gap. worryingly, Starmer seems to be going with the same numbers, exception for the headline grabbing 45% (worth about 5bn).

example, Reeves has just promised to spend the revenue raised from 45% on NHS, overlooking the cut is funded from debt. books arent balanced by either party.

They care about the over-riding impression that the UK is being run by a party with a heady combination of ideological fervour, detachment from economic reality and rank stupidity

And yes i'm distracted and upset by the 45% tax rate. It's morally wrong and economically stupid and at some point me and my kids and probably their kids are going to have to pay back the incredible debts and fix the gigantic mess that this appalling tory government is responsible for.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Labour need to consolidate this lead. Get rid of Starmer and get Burnham in. Two years later we'll have a cracking PM and some hope at last.

He would of course need a seat

As luck would have it, there is one likely to be available soon, due to an MP stepping down, but personally I don't see Starmer parachuting Burnham into it

 

[Mellotron]

To answer the original question, he's certainly more credible than most of the muppets who've been in powerful positions for the last few years. When it comes to something as important as running the country, dull but intelligent and reliable is fine by me.

This. I have absolutely no idea why people feel the leader needs to be "exciting" or a "character". Have we learnt nothing from the problems with electing leaders on a cult of personality?

We need someone who is dull, grey, and just gets on with the job.

 

[Gwylan]

He would of course need a seat

As luck would have it, there is one likely to be available soon, due to an MP stepping down, but personally I don't see Starmer parachuting Burnham into it

Burnham has said that he's not interested in it

 

[Horses Arse]

You'd be hard pushed to find anyone not credible when its the likes of Truss, Johnson, May, Piggy fiddler that are being compared against.

The problem is that this nation seems intent on voting in complete frauds and failures, they just keep doing it.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Again. Nope. If poorer people have money they will spend it in the real economy if it goes to the rich, they'll likely offshore it or buy more oil stocks or property or something.

Well, I did say that later in my post you have quoted. I’m not sure why you are arguing as I am saying much the same as you but coming from a slightly different angle…

 

[JackB247]

I will start off by stating that I am not aligned to any political party at the moment. I am currently at Labour Conference in Liverpool with work, and there is a real buzz about the place, feels like the next Government in waiting (which of course they probably are given Liz and co's antics).

The number of big businesses here with reps and stands, certainly seems that there is a clear view that Keir and the party are credible.