[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Machiavelli]

It’s going to take time to fix the mess the Tory’s will leave behind.
The Tory’s themselves can’t even fix the various messes their ever changing leaders leave behind.

Your use of apostrophes is not dissimilar to the aversion to capital letters displayed by @beorhthelm

 

[The Clamp]

There’s as much money as there’s ever been. That’s the benefit of owning your own currency. It’s why we continue to find billions of GBP for things many of us think are utterly absurd.

This idea that we have no money is concocted by politicians to keep the populace under control, by breeding the idea that govt finance is the same as home finance. It absolutely isn’t. It also means they can pit groups against each other and keeps them from giving sensible pay rises to groups like teachers and nurses.

Then again, there are still people that pull out the line that Labour left the country penniless in 2008, because the Chancellor left a note for the new Tory Chancellor saying we had none… something that outgoing Chancellors had been doing for decades.

I can’t pretend to know much about economics but I suspect it’s not just a financial mess we need to untangle the country from.

Our international reputation, for one, is rock bottom.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I can’t pretend to know much about economics but I suspect it’s not just a financial mess we need to untangle the country from.

Our international reputation, for one, is rock bottom.

Absolutely.

I know enough about it (from studies and work) to know most of what you read in the papers and hear from politicians is utter rubbish.

 

[WATFORD zero]

There’s as much money as there’s ever been. That’s the benefit of owning your own currency. It’s why we continue to find billions of GBP for things many of us think are utterly absurd.

This idea that we have no money is concocted by politicians to keep the populace under control, by breeding the idea that govt finance is the same as home finance. It absolutely isn’t. It also means they can pit groups against each other and keeps them from giving sensible pay rises to groups like teachers and nurses.

Then again, there are still people that pull out the line that Labour left the country penniless in 2008, because the Chancellor left a note for the new Tory Chancellor saying we had none… something that outgoing Chancellors had been doing for decades.

You should have a chat with @BenGarfield about tax income, GDP, National Debt, Credit rating etc having absolutely no effect on the economics of a nation. You'll get on like a house on fire

 

[Machiavelli]

Tony Blair inherited a growing economy going into boom times and it's easy to make a political difference when you have the money to do it. Starmer will inherit the worst economic situation in my lifetime with it still deteriorating at an ever increasing pace. Until that is stopped and the economy is turned around, there will be no money to do anything, however well intentioned.

It's no coincidence that the biggest political changes (whether you agree with them or not) were made by Blair on the back of a booming economy, and Thatcher on the back of North Sea Oil and the money from privatising Utilities, Nationalised industries and council housing.

Any political change has to be funded and there is currently f*** all money to do anything and the situation is getting worse by the day

Oh, there's loads of money. You're sitting on a great big pile. And your pile is diddly squat compared to many others. Everyone claims they love transparency until it comes to the question of money, and then they deflect. If there was such a thing as financial transparency, then revenues would be able to rake it in, and all sorts of things could be done.
I have about as much faith in it being done as John Curtice does in the Tories leading the next parliament. And that's because no-one really wants to do anything about it. They just want to posture, stick their head in the sand, both, or take the route of the troll.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

You should have a chat with @BenGarfield about national economics, you'll get on like a house on fire

I love a good chat about economics

 

[Machiavelli]

You should have a chat with @BenGarfield about national economics, you'll get on like a house on fire

Or even try the long forgotten Clement Attlee.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Or even try the long forgotten Clement Attlee.

Now there was a man that cared about his country.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

There’s as much money as there’s ever been. That’s the benefit of owning your own currency. It’s why we continue to find billions of GBP for things many of us think are utterly absurd.

This idea that we have no money is concocted by politicians to keep the populace under control, by breeding the idea that govt finance is the same as home finance. It absolutely isn’t. It also means they can pit groups against each other and keeps them from giving sensible pay rises to groups like teachers and nurses.

Then again, there are still people that pull out the line that Labour left the country penniless in 2008, because the Chancellor left a note for the new Tory Chancellor saying we had none… something that outgoing Chancellors had been doing for decades.

In that case I think we should increase NHS spending next year to £771 trillion

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

In that case I think we should increase NHS spending next year to £771 trillion

Okay, and why do you think that might be a bad idea?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Now there was a man that cared about his country.

Most definitely, a brilliant man

And after the second world war he inherited a national debt of approx £21B, which was a third of GDP (which is also coincidentally, a third of the debt Starmer will inherit which currently stands at £2,654B or 100% of GDP). A bit of wriggle toom then

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Okay, and why do you think that might be a bad idea?

Don't really know. Just think if what you're saying was real, some government somewhere would have tried it

 

[Machiavelli]

Most definitely, a brilliant man

And after the second world war he inherited a national debt of 250% of GDP (coincidentally a third of the debt Starmer will inherit). A bit of wriggle toom then

Corrected for you, for historical accuracy

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Most definitely, a brilliant man

And after the second world war he inherited a national debt of a third of GDP (coincidentally a third of the debt Starmer will inherit). A bit of wriggle toom then

All relative though, right?

And have you noticed how our debt keeps going up and yet we keep spending money like it’s not really a problem?

That’s the funny thing about owning your own debt…

 

[Machiavelli]

UK government debt 2024 | Statista

Public sector net debt amounted to 88.8 percent of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom during the 2023/24 financial year, rising to 97.6 percent when Bank of England is included.

www.statista.com

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Don't really know. Just think if what you're saying was real, some government somewhere would have tried it

You need to regulate your currency. The govt could in theory print off and give us all £1 billion each. But what happens when you do that? What’s the consequence that we’re already seeing because of high levels of quantitative easing post Brexit (much of which was squandered, and continues to be squandered, I might add)? How does this impact our currency against other currencies and, consequently, our ability to trade?

But, just to clarify. We own our own currency. We own the BoE who print our currency. And they print what the govt need them to, when they need it. It’s called quantitative easing. It’s real.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Corrected for you, for historical accuracy

I do apologise, I misinterpreted my source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt#:~:text=By the end of World,one third of annual GDP.

But I still believe that a country in recession with an ever increasing cost of living does not have the resources to make significant investment without increasing debt which will have to be addressed further down the line (and of course even without further investment the debt as a percentage of GDP will grow higher as GDP sinks).

The best thing a new Government could do is to stop the recession, grow the economy and bring inflation under control to enable GDP growth which would support further investment from that increasingly positive financial situation.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

You need to regulate your currency. The govt could in theory print off and give us all £1 billion each. But what happens when you do that? What’s the consequence that we’re already seeing because of high levels of quantitative easing post Brexit (much of which was squandered, and continues to be squandered, I might add)? How does this impact our currency against other currencies and, consequently, our ability to trade?

But, just to clarify. We own our own currency. We own the BoE who print our currency. And they print what the govt need them to, when they need it. It’s called quantitative easing. It’s real.

But there are limits. So we can't just give £771 trillion to the NHS.

And given the BOE are independent and are charges with managing inflation, there's only so much we can rely on QE

 

[Machiavelli]

I do apologise, I misinterpreted my source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt#:~:text=By the end of World,one third of annual GDP.

But I still believe that a country in recession with an ever increasing cost of living does not have the resources to make significant investment without increasing debt which will have to be addressed further down the line. The best thing a new Government could do is to stop the recession, grow the economy and bring inflation under control to enable further investment from that increasingly positive financial situation.

You are Rachel Reeves/Keir Starmer, and I claim my £5*

* all three (one) of this particular unholy trinity need to pay attention to Attlee or even Biden on government spending

And PS, in my initial post, I was pointing to how governments could raise revenue from their rich citizens (and those that they facilitate from offshore) which would not require them to increase debt levels.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

But there are limits. So we can't just give £771 trillion to the NHS.

And given the BOE are independent and are charges with managing inflation, there's only so much we can rely on QE

Right, but those limits are set by the government, not by the bank (who use the only tool they have to curb inflation). Which is why we can, in theory at least, print as much money as we want.

And which is why, circling back to the original point, there’s more than enough money if it’s needed to sort many of the issues out in this country. It’s just a political decision not to by this Tory govt.

Basically, between taxation, QE and borrowing (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/government-debt-economy-bonds-loans/ - just for a bit of background knowledge) we’ve got enough cash.