[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[Weststander]

Someone earlier in the thread suggested the UK deficit was 4%. I'm not sure where those figures came from. It's 101% according to the IMF. If the UK was a business it would be insolvent. Technically it is and has been for some time.

Threads like this often get petty and ignore the real elephant, or herd of elephants in the room. I'll make one contribution further.

The tax burden in the UK is possibly the highest since the 1950s. I'm guessing at that, but I'm sure stats won't be far off. There is a reason for this. Not because the government is greedy, but because it cannot afford to meet its commitments.

Think of like this. Thatcher was correct when she said running a country is like is running a household. Money in, money out. The UK has maxed its credit cards but keeps getting new ones. The tax burden is still not enough.

Nothing the Tories or Labour have done is making the cold hard facts go away. Other countries can do it cheaper. Why ? because most don't have the same living standards as us or they make stuff that people want, often cheaper. Trump knows this, with the U.S running an even higher deficit. That's why he's acting like he is.

No amount of political posturing will change this. We have a health service we cannot afford, a welfare system we cannot afford, a willy waving defence budget we cannot afford and just about everything else we cannot afford. The only hope is to downsize. But governments won't do that because it loses them elections and people don't like to have social responsibilities that have once been offloaded elsewhere. Developing countries will simply look at us and say 'diddums'

So if folk don't like being taxed then offer an alternative. If folk think everything Labour are doing is awful then ask why a lot what they are doing is not reported in the press. We know why. It's not reported because the media has a right wing bias and the elephant is somehow hidden.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know it's unlikely to get better. I don't know if this government is any better than the last, but the truth is a lot of society's failings are little to do with the government. They are just a convenient scapegoat to deflect from individual responsibility. Why might crime figures be up ? Not because Khan is running London, but because we still have a society with a lot of wankers. That's our fault, not his.

Over 1,000 posts on this thread and still the elephant stands there. And no amount of 'My Dad's better than yours' will make it better. The government is not a parent. It is a steward of the nation's finances. And I suspect the treasury are sitting there staring blankly at the wall every day not knowing how to balance the books. The only way it can be done is by introducing hardship, or more social responsibility. At the risk of sounding a bit 'right wing' in my view of this, and seemingly advocating small government, I do advocate such things when looking at reality but my view of government is the polar opposite. One of it's primary functions is to protect the welfare of its citizens, especially the vulnerable. The primary emphasis should always be on being the facilitator of life's basics and not an unequal greedy nation. But it can no longer be expected to do it alone via the credit cards. Your grandchildren will not thank you.

And if anyone wants to know why Sunak called an election he was clearly going to get thumped in, the current situation is the answer. They saw it coming.

Two different metrics:

The UK’s annual government budget deficit is 4.4%. It spends more in 2024/25 than it raises in taxes by that %age.

UK public sector debt as a %age of our gdp is 98.1%. [France 112%, Italy 138%]. It‘s not victimless/harmless to deliberately increase this on a vast spend for example. Two reasons …. interest rates are high, we pay £116b in hard cash to service that each year, money not spent on services or new infrastructure. The global markets attack countries doing so ….. other than the mighty US.

 

[Weststander]

Absolutely spot on.

One small aspect is people like me being goaded into defending ludicrous comments about Labour
This all seems to be part of the matrix now.

I have never been one to say it is all the fault of the tories.
Till his cabinet went venal and he started randomly privatising things Major was *OK*.
Till he took that great Brexit gamble, even 'Call me' Dave was *OK*
It seems that everything got bad after the financial crash because instead of getting on with it the nation got Brexit fever.

My question is this.
Who wins from all this chaos and instability and malcontent?
Whose agenda is being served by the creation of an unsatisfiable electorate?
An electorate that wants only what it cannot have (low taxes, high level public services and low crime)?
Whose game are we playing here?

Farage, Putin and Musk. Genuinely!

 

[Chicken Run]

Yeah, the global financial crash that created problems in the U.K. far worse than many other countries also affected.

This was the country which knighted Fred Goodwin, saw the demise of Bradford and Bingley, Northern Rock, and the merger of HBOS with Lloyds.

It’s why Ed Balls, the chancellor (I know the noughties were absolutely hatstand) apologised in the HoC.

the Guardian

Ed Balls: I'm sorry for Labour failures on bank regulation

Balls seeks to restore public trust in Labour by apologising for failures that contributed to 2008 banking crisis and refusing to make premature tax and spending pledges

search.app

I’m guessing you were too young to remember what really happened.

Nah, he’s not

 

[cunning fergus]

Tony Blair!

Do keep up up at the front.

Hmm him and Brown did turbo power PFI…….

The Independent

The great PFI heist: How big banks launched the takeover of UK plc

PFI debt for the British taxpayer is more than £300bn for infrastructure projects, with a value of £54.7bn. To put it into perspective, the PFI debt is four times the size of the budget deficit used to justify austerity

search.app

What a game…….

 

[Eeyore]

Absolutely spot on.

One small aspect is people like me being goaded into defending ludicrous comments about Labour
This all seems to be part of the matrix now.

I have never been one to say it is all the fault of the tories.
Till his cabinet went venal and he started randomly privatising things Major was *OK*.
Till he took that great Brexit gamble, even 'Call me' Dave was *OK*
It seems that everything got bad after the financial crash because instead of getting on with it the nation got Brexit fever.

My question is this.
Who wins from all this chaos and instability and malcontent?
Whose agenda is being served by the creation of an unsatisfiable electorate?
An electorate that wants only what it cannot have (low taxes, high level public services and low crime)?
Whose game are we playing here?

Sadly you, like me, know the answer to the questions you pose. I don't wave any political flag as I believe that my own vales as a person is enough. I have enough trouble keeping those without trying to support a political party's ideology.

The main thing I worry about within the political spectrum is the lurch towards populism being fueled by people devoid of any humanity. There was a disturbing survey published today which suggests the agenda of division and male aggression has permeated the minds of younger folk in this country more than perhaps we think. I'm completely off social media now, apart from here, so I don't see it. But it's worrying.

My biggest fear in 2016 was not BREXIT the theory, but a worry that it might lead to a new right wing resurgence in the UK. For a while I thought I was wrong. I don't now. I was also concerned about a cultural shift away from the more enlightened age we are in, which has its faults, but is way better than the 1930s lite which seems to be on its way via subtle, and not so subtle, rhetoric.

 

[Curious Orange]

I would love an environmental reset and several other things.
As it happens I am not sure that reopening the coal mines is a great plan.
Even if it would allow Scargill to buy himself a new Crown Topper.

Trouble is all we are hearing right now is the screeching of right wing arse-hats claiming that Labour have tanked the economy.
Apparently Starmer is the worst prime minister for 50 years.
And the Home Secretary is even more dangerous that the Luftwaffe.

It is hard to have an adult conversation with all these noisy wankers shouting their mad bollocks.

I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealist. Energy cost is an issue at the moment, and it's security is also more important now as the global political scene is a little unsettled.

I think transitioning to cleaner sources of energy is important, but needs to be carefully managed to not have a negative economic impact. In this respect drawing political lines in the sand for stopping using certain sources based on the assumption that alternatives are going to be ready to replace them is unhelpful. I also don't think we need to stop the use of fossil fuels in their entirety, just reduce their use in the UK to a point where their impact globally is even more insignificant than it currently is.

I'm not advocating reopening coal fired power stations by the way, as that would be a retrograde step, so a wholesale reopening of the coal mines is not needed. I do think that it is more environmentally responsible to service our limited national requirements for coal from our own stock though.

 

[Eeyore]

Two different metrics:

The UK’s annual government budget deficit is 4.4%. It spends more in 2024/25 than it raises in taxes by that %age.

UK public sector debt as a %age of our gdp is 98.1%. [France 112%, Italy 138%]. It‘s not victimless/harmless to deliberately increase this on a vast spend for example. Two reasons …. interest rates are high, we pay £116b in hard cash to service that each year, money not spent on services or new infrastructure. The global markets attack countries doing so ….. other than the mighty US.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I see it was a reference to year on year as opposed to the whole

My concern is the year on year increase is unsustainable and will bite two generations down. I won't be here to see that, but it seems unfair. The books have to be balanced somehow for their sake. It would be even better if the debt could be reduced. But this involves hard choices and my belief in smaller government but an increased sense of social responsibility kicks in there.

My worry is that the 'political' climate is toxic at the moment and the wrong people are in the wrong places. I wasn't so worried before 2016 and, although I wouldn't have voted for them, I felt things better under Cameron. But I am worried now.

For me it's less about economics and more about social cohesion. And with the opposition we have gaining such traction it becomes more concerning.

 

[Weststander]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I see it was a reference to year on year as opposed to the whole

My concern is the year on year increase is unsustainable and will bite two generations down. I won't be here to see that, but it seems unfair. The books have to be balanced somehow for their sake. It would be even better if the debt could be reduced. But this involves hard choices and my belief in smaller government but an increased sense of social responsibility kicks in there.

My worry is that the 'political' climate is toxic at the moment and the wrong people are in the wrong places. I wasn't so worried before 2016 and, although I wouldn't have voted for them, I felt things better under Cameron. But I am worried now.

For me it's less about economics and more about social cohesion. And with the opposition we have gaining such traction it becomes more concerning.

Trying to avoiding being party political, like you …. I think Reeves is trying to hit a sensible middle ground. So difficult for any Chancellor though.

Traditionally, the sweet spot, deficits like now were for the recessions, surpluses (reducing debt) were for economic booms. Despite propaganda from zealots on both sides, we’ve been running annual deficits for an age, both blue and red have been big spenders. Many factors beyond their control eg a virus from Wuhan.

The independent IFS’s view is that overall taxation should be increased substantially more. But their thing often seems to be public services and I’ve a big question mark … are they able to quantify the effect of millionaires and billionaires departing the UK?

Reeves (and Sunak, Hunt) … what a hellish job!

 

[BadFish]

Yeah, the global financial crash that created problems in the U.K. far worse than many other countries also affected.

This was the country which knighted Fred Goodwin, saw the demise of Bradford and Bingley, Northern Rock, and the merger of HBOS with Lloyds.

It’s why Ed Balls, the chancellor (I know the noughties were absolutely hatstand) apologised in the HoC.

the Guardian

Ed Balls: I'm sorry for Labour failures on bank regulation

Balls seeks to restore public trust in Labour by apologising for failures that contributed to 2008 banking crisis and refusing to make premature tax and spending pledges

search.app

I’m guessing you were too young to remember what really happened.

Your response to the crash caused more problems than anywhere else.

You literally had member of the previous labour government travelling the world advising nations how to navigate the problems caused. Meanwhile at home you had Dave and his austerity prolonging the agony for working people and ending with the country shooting itself in the face (economically of course) with brexit and having Nigel Farage as the second favourite to lead the country.

2008 is a distant memory in ost countries around the world while for the UK it is still throwing grit into your lube while it gleefully fucks you. 'it was worse for us!' you Scream while it does.

Yesh it was because you made it worse you silly silly sausages.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

if you can trade the quota, it wouldn't help emissions, just increase price of flights for some.

Let me explain again. For example, let’s suppose there are currently 100 million seats on flights per year and we want to reduce flight emissions by 50%. That means we have to enforce an upper limit of 50 million seats on flights per year. We give everyone the UK an allowance of 1 flight. Now, not everyone wants to fly, so if you want to have an extra flight you can buy someone else’s allowance from them. You get your extra flight, someone who doesn’t fly gets some money, and emissions are cut by 50%.

While we’re at it, I’d also introduce a fat tax for heavier passengers.

 

[Is it PotG?]

While we’re at it, I’d also introduce a fat tax for heavier passengers.

What are the thresholds?

I'd tax the dickheads with cabin luggage 1mm within the limit stuffed with boulders apparently.

 

[Curious Orange]

Let me explain again. For example, let’s suppose there are currently 100 million seats on flights per year and we want to reduce flight emissions by 50%. That means we have to enforce an upper limit of 50 million seats on flights per year. We give everyone the UK an allowance of 1 flight. Now, not everyone wants to fly, so if you want to have an extra flight you can buy someone else’s allowance from them. You get your extra flight, someone who doesn’t fly gets some money, and emissions are cut by 50%.

That all sounds nice, but doesn't it assume 100% occupancy on all flights can be achieved, and those flights are all going to the right destinations?

 

[Rdodge30]

Your quote is there, in full, completely unedited, exactly as you wrote it

And, as you say, very well known on here, posting the exact same views, from the same one and only account, for over 20 years, whilst multiple other accounts come and go

“Hands forced” … you see, that’s more the line of the Starmer/Reeves apologists.. that their actions are because of 14 years of Conservative Government, you yourself have implied as much. My post was to say, let’s not imagine that the country was better off under Gordon Brownn because by the few metrics quoted he indeed left the country worse off than Sunak did.

That’s got nothing to do with me saying anything about Truss Johnson et al whatsoever but you jump straight in with the same old rubbish.

You have been spouting this rubbish on my posts since BEFORE the election!!
Anything I ever post which is in the least bit critical of Starmer and off you go “ Oh Well I suppose you would sooner have Truss and Johnson then”

I used to think you were deliberately winding me up because it seemed so preposterous but now I think you just don’t understand. Because you are so entrenched in your own brand of “two legs bad four legs good ra ra ra we’re going to thrash the rich” politics, you genuinely seem to think that I am somehow equally as entrenched. I’m not.

 

[Hiheidi]

Can somebody make Ed look presentable for a mere $41,000 ?

Ed Miliband hiring taxpayer-funded photographer

The energy secretary is advertising for a £41,000-a-year role, despite previously criticising David Cameron for doing the same

www.thetimes.com

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yeah, the global financial crash that created problems in the U.K. far worse than many other countries also affected.

This

Yeah, the global financial crash that created problems in the U.K. far worse than many other countries also affected.

This was the country which knighted Fred Goodwin, saw the demise of Bradford and Bingley, Northern Rock, and the merger of HBOS with Lloyds.

It’s why Ed Balls, the chancellor (I know the noughties were absolutely hatstand) apologised in the HoC.

the Guardian

Ed Balls: I'm sorry for Labour failures on bank regulation

Balls seeks to restore public trust in Labour by apologising for failures that contributed to 2008 banking crisis and refusing to make premature tax and spending pledges

search.app

I’m guessing you were too young to remember what really happened.

I’d be surprised if you even read that you clown.

 

[cunning fergus]

Your response to the crash caused more problems than anywhere else.

You literally had member of the previous labour government travelling the world advising nations how to navigate the problems caused. Meanwhile at home you had Dave and his austerity prolonging the agony for working people and ending with the country shooting itself in the face (economically of course) with brexit and having Nigel Farage as the second favourite to lead the country.

2008 is a distant memory in ost countries around the world while for the UK it is still throwing grit into your lube while it gleefully fucks you. 'it was worse for us!' you Scream while it does.

Yesh it was because you made it worse you silly silly sausages.

What are you going on about, Gordon Brown was PM from 2007 to 2010. The 2008 car crash was nothing to do with Cameron or Brexit.

I doubt nations around the world took much attention to the financial guidance provided by man who said he had abolished boom and bust in the U.K. and knighted Fred Goodwin for his services to banking.

It’s like asking Peter Sutcliffe for advice on the best tools for DIY.

 

[Weststander]

What are you going on about, Gordon Brown was PM from 2007 to 2010. The 2008 car crash was nothing to do with Cameron or Brexit.

I doubt nations around the world took much attention to the financial guidance provided by man who said he had abolished boom and bust in the U.K. and knighted Fred Goodwin for his services to banking.

It’s like asking Peter Sutcliffe for advice on the best tools for DIY.

We didn’t invent QE, even in its 21st Century use.

Quantitative easing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We started in March 2009, US in 2007 (the same crisis), Japan in 2001.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sadly you, like me, know the answer to the questions you pose. I don't wave any political flag as I believe that my own vales as a person is enough. I have enough trouble keeping those without trying to support a political party's ideology.

The main thing I worry about within the political spectrum is the lurch towards populism being fueled by people devoid of any humanity. There was a disturbing survey published today which suggests the agenda of division and male aggression has permeated the minds of younger folk in this country more than perhaps we think. I'm completely off social media now, apart from here, so I don't see it. But it's worrying.

My biggest fear in 2016 was not BREXIT the theory, but a worry that it might lead to a new right wing resurgence in the UK. For a while I thought I was wrong. I don't now. I was also concerned about a cultural shift away from the more enlightened age we are in, which has its faults, but is way better than the 1930s lite which seems to be on its way via subtle, and not so subtle, rhetoric.

You are a wise and considered man.
I wish more people thought like you

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

“Hands forced” … you see, that’s more the line of the Starmer/Reeves apologists.. that their actions are because of 14 years of Conservative Government, you yourself have implied as much. My post was to say, let’s not imagine that the country was better off under Gordon Brownn because by the few metrics quoted he indeed left the country worse off than Sunak did.

That’s got nothing to do with me saying anything about Truss Johnson et al whatsoever but you jump straight in with the same old rubbish.

You have been spouting this rubbish on my posts since BEFORE the election!!
Anything I ever post which is in the least bit critical of Starmer and off you go “ Oh Well I suppose you would sooner have Truss and Johnson then”

I used to think you were deliberately winding me up because it seemed so preposterous but now I think you just don’t understand. Because you are so entrenched in your own brand of “two legs bad four legs good ra ra ra we’re going to thrash the rich” politics, you genuinely seem to think that I am somehow equally as entrenched. I’m not.

Wow.

Give your head a wobble FFS.

It makes sense to play the man from time to time, but in this case....

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That all sounds nice, but doesn't it assume 100% occupancy on all flights can be achieved, and those flights are all going to the right destinations?

I agree there’s still some wrinkles to iron out, but the principle is sound.