Forum
Please register! If you are registered, please log inagain !
[NB: your old dvd forums / digitalfix login will not work]
I'm not seeing what you are. The energy help was a good thing, but the windfall tax was implemented in a way that meant that we essentially guaranteed the profits of the energy companies rather than take back the unearned profits and use that to fund the help. The fracking U-turn is good, but then it was a manifesto policy so it itself was a U-turn (does that make it/ them a doughnut?). I can't think of anything else recently they've done that was good, so feel free to remind me.
Just for a bit of balance, and to please jezzer, the gap between Labour and the tories has narrowed a little, as expected.
Not said the opposite either have they, when every single news article posted in this thread is anti tories and anti Brexit its not hard to see where the general line of thinking is.
jezzer, if you are as keen on balance as you claim to be, how is it that in the JK Rowling thread you only ever post things detrimental to the G+ cause?
I broadly support your support for women's rights, but if I was crusading for balance, as you seem to be, I'd seek out some pro-trans, or anti trans-hatred material.
Why do you not think balance is important in that thread?
It's just another instance of you saying you believe in one thing but continually posting material that contradicts that claim.
Whilst there is undeniably an awful lot of Tory criticism in this thread, isn't that mostly because they are
a) In power
b) Frankly making a shocking hash of it?
I would like to think that if/when Labour get into power, this thread would be pointing out all the things they get wrong as well (and they would undoubtedly get things wrong). It doesn't have to be 'lefty' vs Tory in here, and I'm all for balance (c) Banus - but I do genuinely struggle to see much the current government are doing well, or literally *any* real benefit of Brexit, it's a complete and utter clusterf*ck
It's a week old but popped up today on the BBC news front page.
It's basically about the brain dead dinosaurs that comprise the membership of the tory party, bleating on about how democracy has been defeated by their not getting a vote on the new PM.
They really are so stupid that they don't see the irony of claiming that the way things worked out, they were denied a vote, whereas if they had worked the way they wanted, many millions wouldn't get a vote.
Several million people voted for the tory MP's, so it at least it was their representatives who selected the new PM, not a few thousand near brain dead old dinosaurs.
This is still very relevant today ...
https://twitter.com/EddieBurfi/status/1436619155613028356?s=20&t=9d_iPGAqQEQCGrQsVb7U5g
I don't pretend to fully understand this, but here's an excellent 4min summary from Newsnight.
To add, it does look like the Tories are deliberately belt-tightening, and that will cause a recession. When compared to the other G7, it's completely unnecessary. This is a choice, just like the Cameron/Osbourne failed austerity measures.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1591203893261705216
It's an interesting one. On one hand, the projected cuts to the lazy Public Sector will play well with the Tory voters (and they can then complain that the reduction in services they are then receiving just shows how lazy the Public Sector is), but the proposed pension cuts won't be so popular. It could really backfire.
It's an interesting one. On one hand, the projected cuts to the lazy Public Sector will play well with the Tory voters (and they can then complain that the reduction in services they are then receiving just shows how lazy the Public Sector is), but the proposed pension cuts won't be so popular. It could really backfire.
Yes, and guess what .... Hunt has been meeting with Osbourne, Mr Failed Austerity himself! ?
>
I get the gist here, but the details are confusing !
Jeremy Hunt is saying we cannot max out the national credit card. This is total nonsense. There is no national credit card. Instead it’s the job of government to make the money we use. And since it can always make that money it can never max out on credit.
Hunt wants you to believe that we max out the national credit card. But no gov’t can do that because it’s an organisation unlike any other, with it’s own bank, which means it has no credit limits. Instead, the question is: should it be creating more money for the common good?
The answer to that is that of course the government should be creating more money right now. When households have less to spend, and when business investment is falling, so banks aren’t lending and exports are knackered by Brexit, only gov’t spending can get us out of recession.
But Jeremy Hunt does not understand the macroeconomics of running a national economy. Instead he pretends he’s running a household or business. They can’t max out the credit card without consequence. But governments don’t have credit cards, for a start.
Nor do governments have credit limits. There are no rules that say that they should either, and many governments borrowings are a lot bigger than those the UK has. Instead, the role of government is to spend when no one else is able to do so, to prevent the harm recessions cause.
Either Hunt does not understand this, or he does and he is lying. I think it the second option. Why would he do that? To make things worse, of course, so he can crush the NHS and education, and prepare them for privatisation at cost to us all.
Hunt and this government are deliberately creating a recession they want you to believe is unavoidable. But they are not telling the truth about its causes and why austerity is needed, when it isn’t. And never believe there is no money, because that is never true for the gov’t.
But more importantly, never forgive them for imposing the hardship and suffering to come on millions, when none is needed.
The first detailed academic analysis of the mechanics of the UK's spending, taxation and borrowing mechanics.
Please spread the word. We need to end the 'state is like household' analogy. The main constrain on govt. spending is the productive capacity and resources in the economy and the risk of inflation - not the size of the budget deficit.
Household analogies of public finances should be a thing of the past. Not because the UK govt is like an extraordinarily creditworthy household, but because it spends by creating new money.
tldr; The government always creates new money when it spends.
The Consolidated Fund is the institution via which all spending and revenue collection flows. The CF has an interest free account at the BoE, with no limits. When govt. spends, this is debited & BoE credits govt. accounts in commercial banks. This creates new deposits.
Taxation reverses this process. Any outstanding balances are swept up in to a different account (National loans Fund). Bonds are either issued or sold to bring this balance to zero and prevent disturbances to monetary policy. This means the CF always starts each day at zero.
In other words, the state never 'uses' existing balances to spend. It does not intermediate. It always creates new money. It is not dependent on the BoE - the BoE is obliged by law to turn the CF's IOUs in to reserves and then deposits.
But: this 'full funding rule' (FFR) is no long necessary given the BoE's QE program and that it now pays interest on banks' holdings of reserves. Not entirely clear why this FFR convention continues but clearly certain parties make a lot of money out of it.
PDF "The self-financing state: An institutional analysis"
hehe ... you may say it like that, but I prefer his own bio > "Professor of Accounting Practice, Sheffield University. Chartered accountant. Political economist." And he pretty much limits himself to financial issues - his actual area of expertise.
Besides, only the first link is Richard's, cos he speaks of complex ideas in plain English - the other 4 links are to different sources (2 study authors, and their paper).
Anything specific you take issue with?
Hehe ... and in your defence, you cite Snowdon (who I've never heard of) who seems to be *checks bio* an "energy expert and military strategist, lifestyle economics at the IEA" ... ie: a BP-funded right-wing think tank with a love of Trussonomics !
The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has issued publications arguing climate change is either not significantly driven by human activity or will be positive. The group is one of the most politically influential thinktanks in the UK.
No wonder he's so vocally against Richard Murphy (and George Monbiot, and James O'B). But in fairness to Snowdon, he can string a good sentence together, so I can see how people get sucked in.
I won't get into COVID - that's been done to death (literally) - but it might surprise you to know that Murphy is very critical of Labour too, eg: How could a party headed by Starmer form a credible government?
