Do you want to discuss boring politics? (168 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

That sums up why Britain at the moment is an embarrassment.

 

---

[CCFCSteve]

Some interesting ideas at a glance.

Very interesting you mention the economy because economic management probably won't change under Labour. For all the laughing and joking around Liz Truss's tenure as a squatter in No. 10, it sent a massive warning shot to Labour as well. Any 'unfunded' public expenditure (or tax cuts) promises will spook financial markets which could trigger a crisis in bond markets/pensions capable of bringing down a government.

Spot on. I said at the time, for all the shambles of the ‘Truss era’ it was interesting, and a little concerning, how much the markets dictated and will continue to dictate, policy where bonds/borrowing is involved (obviously can do what you want if you’re running a surplus). The alternative is QE but there’s still worries that inflation is not currently fully under control and could come back if triggered

Unfortunately I think we’ll continue to see examples of this over the coming years as borrowing is at crazy high levels, interest rates are currently very high and inflation in some countries, like US, is not fully under control (this can have ripple effects here and EU).

Gut feel though is rates might be kept too high for too long which ties government hands and might cause a recession. We’ll see though

ps didn’t see shmmeees post that you copied in but agree with a majority of it, needed to get things moving/improving in the country

 

[David O'Day]

Last night seems to have proper backfired on the tories

Seems someone kept the receipts that proves their main attack line was a lie.

 

[David O'Day]

Mad, did I watch a totally different debate?!

Sunak was openly laughed at, came across tetchy and entitled. Looked lost Keir when brought up the fact there is new data about the tax costings.

What more does Starmer have to do other than remind people that it's been 14 years of Tory government that has got us where we are.

Sunak claiming he has big ideas but they just seem like desperate Hail Mary's to try and secure the grey vote. Labours hands will be full for years untangling the mess the Tories have left. I don't want crazy ideas I want sensible honest leadership and no more shady fuckers feathering their mates nests on the sly.

look beyond the headline poll which has been modelled anyway to remove the don't knows, people hated Sunak

 

[StrettoBoy]

Starmer doesn’t seem to have an answer to the accusation that that under Labour each family will pay £2,000 p.a. in extra taxes.

If it is true he should admit it and explain what it will be spent on and what benefits will result. If it is false then he should explain why.

Perhaps we will get answers when Labour publishes its manifesto but I’m not holding my breath.

There are also questions for Sunak to answer, such as how the proposed tax cuts will be funded.

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

I didn't watch it live, but the coverage of it on the news was enough to bore me to tears......

Its gonna take far more Ale & weed to see me through to the 14th June......

 

[fernandopartridge]

Spot on. I said at the time, for all the shambles of the ‘Truss era’ it was interesting, and a little concerning, how much the markets dictated and will continue to dictate, policy where bonds/borrowing is involved (obviously can do what you want if you’re running a surplus). The alternative is QE but there’s still worries that inflation is not currently fully under control and could come back if triggered

Unfortunately I think we’ll continue to see examples of this over the coming years as borrowing is at crazy high levels, interest rates are currently very high and inflation in some countries, like US, is not fully under control (this can have ripple effects here and EU).

Gut feel though is rates might be kept too high for too long which ties government hands and might cause a recession. We’ll see though

ps didn’t see shmmeees post that you copied in but agree with a majority of it, needed to get things moving/improving in the country

The markets are fine with deficit spending, why wouldn't somebody want a rock solid government bond?

With Truss the point was that she was proposing massive tax cuts with very little lead in that had no particular clear aim. It's quite different to using deficit spending to deliver infrastructure or improve the provision of services.

 

[skyblueelephant76]

Starmer doesn’t seem to have an answer to the accusation that that under Labour each family will pay £2,000 p.a. in extra taxes.

If it is true he should admit it and explain what it will be spent on and what benefits will result. If it is false then he should explain why.

Perhaps we will get answers when Labour publishes its manifesto but I’m not holding my breath.

There are also questions for Sunak to answer, such as how the proposed tax cuts will be funded.

He did have an answer, he said it was total rubbish.

He also explained it was based on incorrect Tory assumptions. The top civil servant has confirmed this morning that the costings should not be presented as being produced by the civil service - maybe Sunak should explain why he repeatedly lied on live TV?

 

[StrettoBoy]

He did have an answer, he said it was total rubbish.

He also explained it was based on incorrect Tory assumptions. The top civil servant has confirmed this morning that the costings should not be presented as being produced by the civil service - maybe Sunak should explain why he repeatedly lied on live TV?

View attachment 36000

Hardly an explanation. The letter you quote simply states that the Civil Service was not involved in the production of the figures, which doesn’t mean that they are false.

We need more honesty and transparency from both leaders. It would be nice if Starmer didn’t keep doing u-turns on just about every one of his policies and if Sunak would give us the evidence that the proposed tax cuts are affordable.

 

[David O'Day]

Hardly an explanation. The letter you quote simply states that the Civil Service was not involved in the production of the figures, which doesn’t mean that they are false.

We need more honesty and transparency from both leaders. It would be nice if Starmer didn’t keep doing u-turns on just about every one of his policies and if Sunak would give us the evidence that the proposed tax cuts are affordable.

Given the attack line was that the figures were treasury figures as stated by both the PM and the minister who did the morning tv rounds and it turns out the Treasury had told them not to do so then yes it's a fucking lie which is currently kicking them in the face.

What more can you say than "No that is not true?" It's pretty clear

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Spot on. I said at the time, for all the shambles of the ‘Truss era’ it was interesting, and a little concerning, how much the markets dictated and will continue to dictate, policy where bonds/borrowing is involved (obviously can do what you want if you’re running a surplus). The alternative is QE but there’s still worries that inflation is not currently fully under control and could come back if triggered

Unfortunately I think we’ll continue to see examples of this over the coming years as borrowing is at crazy high levels, interest rates are currently very high and inflation in some countries, like US, is not fully under control (this can have ripple effects here and EU).

Gut feel though is rates might be kept too high for too long which ties government hands and might cause a recession. We’ll see though

ps didn’t see shmmeees post that you copied in but agree with a majority of it, needed to get things moving/improving in the country

Ironically, I think interest rates being normalised at historically low levels has damaged the economy. Cheap money has fuelled many people to live lives they can’t actually afford (e.g. in my last two jobs I’ve managed people with flashier cars than myself and my bosses). Hence personal debt rising. On housing, it’s helped fuel exponential property value growth. 5-7% interest rates are historically normal, but politically dangerous in our times because the cost of running a house takes up a higher proportion of household expenditure. In the 70s, when interest rates reached around 17%, the average household spent about 15-20% of their income on running a house and now that figure is approaching 50%. That’s why historically modest interest rates had a near apocalyptic impact on the economy.

I’m not an economist but quantitive easing was brought in as a short term measure… 14 years later. Apparently QE makes it more difficult to sell bonds on the open market and therefore, the ability for governments to raise capital. I’m not an expert so don’t understand the nuances, but it makes sense how that could be a policy outcome.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'm sure I'll regret this in time but...

Of course you can stimulate an economy by printing money and finding infrastructure projects, it's been done many times before and Brown actually did very well in heading off the worst of the global financial crash by using QE. Of course what you can't do that is turbocharge it and just spend cash for the hell of it - if you could, then every government would do it and we'd all have whatever we wanted! This system doesn't allow that however...

For more cash in the system means more inflation, which you might want a little bit of inflation to stimulate, but you don't want everything devalued to a spiral - then in the extreme we're in Zimbabwe or 1930s Germany territory.

Of course with inflation, the actual value of money invested goes down, unless you raise interest rates which you need to do in order to stop everybody withdrawing their savings and spending it quick, therefore increasing demand and accelerating inflationary pressures... in which case you raise interest rates, then debt repayments go up - somebody ends up the loser in such a scenario, and it tends to be poorer areas of society, where a greater proportion of their wealth is spent just existing.

And if interest rates go up, then that means the cost of servicing rock solid bonds goes up too. It should be noted that although we're still a good bet, the ratings agencies aren't as sure about us as a country as they used to be - that means a higher interest rate to incentivise as there's slightly more risk. So when cost of borrowing goes up, the government then needs to print more money to pay for it if they don't want to raise taxes, which means inflation goes up... and we're in that cycle all over again.

Of course cataclysm is the extreme, but it's fair to say that ultimately, a certain level of fiscal responsibility needs to happen. Now that can be tax and spend to fund infrastructure beyond relatively limited amounts, it doesn't have to be cut and cut and cut again. And the consequences are pretty mad if you turbocharge everything to the limit, so you always have to have a balance - you can't just say we need that, lets spend on it, you need to consider the consequences of that too and if the payoff is worth it.

 

[PVA]

Hardly an explanation. The letter you quote simply states that the Civil Service was not involved in the production of the figures, which doesn’t mean that they are false.

Huh?

The letter says that the figures were basically made up by Tory spads and presented as facts.

It was an outright lie by Sunak, that was repeated over and over and unfortunately probably did it's job of cutting through to some people. But it was an outright lie on live television, and was rightly labelled as nonsense by Starmer.

 

[David O'Day]

Huh?

The letter says that the figures were basically made up by Tory spads and presented as facts.

It was an outright lie by Sunak, that was repeated over and over and unfortunately probably did it's job of cutting through to some people. But it was an outright lie on live television, and was rightly labelled as nonsense by Starmer.

It's all over the news sites now as a lie so it's massively backfired, they clearly didn't know that someone already had asked the treasury about it and had that letter.

 

[CCFCSteve]

The markets are fine with deficit spending, why wouldn't somebody want a rock solid government bond?

With Truss the point was that she was proposing massive tax cuts with very little lead in that had no particular clear aim. It's quite different to using deficit spending to deliver infrastructure or improve the provision of services.

I know they are. I’m not saying we can’t run a deficit (we need to). I’ve also said if it’s on infrastructure its likely to be far more acceptable/supported by the markets than random tax cuts. My point was that the markets will determine/dictate what is deemed acceptable and this will be reflected in cost of borrowing/rates ie they have a far bigger influence on policy than I believed previously. If they don’t believe we have control over spending we will be punished for it

 

[CCFCSteve]

I'm sure I'll regret this in time but...

Of course you can stimulate an economy by printing money and finding infrastructure projects, it's been done many times before and Brown actually did very well in heading off the worst of the global financial crash by using QE. Of course what you can't do that is turbocharge it and just spend cash for the hell of it - if you could, then every government would do it and we'd all have whatever we wanted! This system doesn't allow that however...

For more cash in the system means more inflation, which you might want a little bit of inflation to stimulate, but you don't want everything devalued to a spiral - then in the extreme we're in Zimbabwe or 1930s Germany territory.

Of course with inflation, the actual value of money invested goes down, unless you raise interest rates which you need to do in order to stop everybody withdrawing their savings and spending it quick, therefore increasing demand and accelerating inflationary pressures... in which case you raise interest rates, then debt repayments go up - somebody ends up the loser in such a scenario, and it tends to be poorer areas of society, where a greater proportion of their wealth is spent just existing.

And if interest rates go up, then that means the cost of servicing rock solid bonds goes up too. It should be noted that although we're still a good bet, the ratings agencies aren't as sure about us as a country as they used to be - that means a higher interest rate to incentivise as there's slightly more risk. So when cost of borrowing goes up, the government then needs to print more money to pay for it if they don't want to raise taxes, which means inflation goes up... and we're in that cycle all over again.

Of course cataclysm is the extreme, but it's fair to say that ultimately, a certain level of fiscal responsibility needs to happen. Now that can be tax and spend to fund infrastructure beyond relatively limited amounts, it doesn't have to be cut and cut and cut again. And the consequences are pretty mad if you turbocharge everything to the limit, so you always have to have a balance - you can't just say we need that, lets spend on it, you need to consider the consequences of that too and if the payoff is worth it.

Spot on. This is also why I found it bizarre that Labour ruled out any increases to the major taxes over the next Parliament. Firstly, I don’t believe it will be possible and secondly, people are that frustrated by the poor public services, most would be willing to pay a bit more for improvement

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Spot on. This is also why I found it bizarre that Labour ruled out any increases to the major taxes over the next Parliament. Firstly, I don’t believe it will be possible and secondly, people are that frustrated by the poor public services, most would be willing to pay a bit more for improvement

I don't. People seem absurdly reluctant to want to pay for things nowadays - always somebody else's problem with a quick fix always possible, apparently!

 

[CCFCSteve]

I don't. People seem absurdly reluctant to want to pay for things nowadays - always somebody else's problem with a quick fix always possible, apparently!

Maybe, you know me though, ever the optimist

 

[StrettoBoy]

Huh?

The letter says that the figures were basically made up by Tory spads and presented as facts.

It was an outright lie by Sunak, that was repeated over and over and unfortunately probably did its job of cutting through to some people. But it was an outright lie on live television, and was rightly labelled as nonsense by Starmer.

There appears to be some twisting of the facts by both parties.

The Conservative Party document “Labour’s tax rises” states that it is “largely” (so not exclusively) based on Treasury analysis. It also includes some figures from other independent sources.

Where Labour produced a range of costings the lower figure was used and even on this basis the figure was £2,100 not £2,000.

My take is that the figure is substantially true but like all forecasts it won’t be entirely accurate.

Where I think Sunak was wrong was in claiming that I would cost “every working family” £2,000. That may well be true as an average figure but in practice it won’t quite work out like that because (a) the tax burden will inevitably fall more heavily on the better off (as it should) and (b) part of the tax burden will be borne by corporate rather than personal taxes.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I love an election campaign fought around a complete fallacy, who'd have seen this coming

 

[Northants Sky Blue]

My take is that the figure is substantially true but like all forecasts it won’t be entirely accurate.

 

[skyblueelephant76]

There appears to be some twisting of the facts by both parties.

The Conservative Party document “Labour’s tax rises” states that it is “largely” (so not exclusively) based on Treasury analysis. It also includes some figures from other independent sources.

Where Labour produced a range of costings the lower figure was used and even on this basis the figure was £2,100 not £2,000.

My take is that the figure is substantially true but like all forecasts it won’t be entirely accurate.

Where I think Sunak was wrong was in claiming that I would cost “every working family” £2,000. That may well be true as an average figure but in practice it won’t quite work out like that because (a) the tax burden will inevitably fall more heavily on the better off (as it should) and (b) part of the tax burden will be borne by corporate rather than personal taxes.

The figure is based on Tory assumptions and not reliable. It would be the same if it was the other way around.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

When's the £2,000 bus doing a tour, then?

 

[skybluetony176]

Hardly an explanation. The letter you quote simply states that the Civil Service was not involved in the production of the figures, which doesn’t mean that they are false.

We need more honesty and transparency from both leaders. It would be nice if Starmer didn’t keep doing u-turns on just about every one of his policies and if Sunak would give us the evidence that the proposed tax cuts are affordable.

Problem is the Tory figures are not independently verified and experts are lining up to dismiss them as fantasy. It seems that they’re based on the worst case scenario for everything happening in the country during the next parliament regardless of who is government forcing them to have to put taxes up. Sunak is basically betting against the country again. He knows the next government will not be a Tory one so he’s crossing his fingers hoping that we’re in recession for the entirety of the next parliament, there’s a world war and another once in a lifetime pandemic closing the country etc etc. Literally the only way Sunak can be proven correct is if the whole world goes to complete shit. Just because he thinks you’re stupid enough to buy it doesn’t mean you have to indulge him.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Can someone stick it in their manifesto to make supermarkets stock fruit and veg that doesn't rot within 24 hours of purchase? Getting ridiculous

 

[skybluetony176]

There appears to be some twisting of the facts by both parties.

The Conservative Party document “Labour’s tax rises” states that it is “largely” (so not exclusively) based on Treasury analysis. It also includes some figures from other independent sources.

Where Labour produced a range of costings the lower figure was used and even on this basis the figure was £2,100 not £2,000.

My take is that the figure is substantially true but like all forecasts it won’t be entirely accurate.

Where I think Sunak was wrong was in claiming that I would cost “every working family” £2,000. That may well be true as an average figure but in practice it won’t quite work out like that because (a) the tax burden will inevitably fall more heavily on the better off (as it should) and (b) part of the tax burden will be borne by corporate rather than personal taxes.

By independent sources you mean right wing Tufton street “think” tanks. The same people who masterminded Truss’ budget that crashed the economy.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Can someone stick it in their manifesto to make supermarkets stock fruit and veg that doesn't rot within 24 hours of purchase? Getting ridiculous

Not sure if it’s a myth but I always wash bananas as soon as I get home to get any ripening agents off them. Keep most of the other stuff in fridge whether advised to or not

ps surprised if it’s not in Lib Dem’s manifesto though

 

[David O'Day]

There appears to be some twisting of the facts by both parties.

The Conservative Party document “Labour’s tax rises” states that it is “largely” (so not exclusively) based on Treasury analysis. It also includes some figures from other independent sources.

Where Labour produced a range of costings the lower figure was used and even on this basis the figure was £2,100 not £2,000.

My take is that the figure is substantially true but like all forecasts it won’t be entirely accurate.

Where I think Sunak was wrong was in claiming that I would cost “every working family” £2,000. That may well be true as an average figure but in practice it won’t quite work out like that because (a) the tax burden will inevitably fall more heavily on the better off (as it should) and (b) part of the tax burden will be borne by corporate rather than personal taxes.

It's not true though is it ffs, the £2000 figure is an invention

You take is frankly fucking stupid

 

[PVA]

It's not true though is it ffs, the £2000 figure is an invention

You take is frankly fucking stupid

It's the take of someone who has been conditioned by years and years of the Tory line that Labour will just tax everyone to oblivion.

 

[David O'Day]

Looks like the Statistics watchdog is investigating Sunak

 

[fernandopartridge]

Ironically, I think interest rates being normalised at historically low levels has damaged the economy. Cheap money has fuelled many people to live lives they can’t actually afford (e.g. in my last two jobs I’ve managed people with flashier cars than myself and my bosses). Hence personal debt rising. On housing, it’s helped fuel exponential property value growth. 5-7% interest rates are historically normal, but politically dangerous in our times because the cost of running a house takes up a higher proportion of household expenditure. In the 70s, when interest rates reached around 17%, the average household spent about 15-20% of their income on running a house and now that figure is approaching 50%. That’s why historically modest interest rates had a near apocalyptic impact on the economy.

I’m not an economist but quantitive easing was brought in as a short term measure… 14 years later. Apparently QE makes it more difficult to sell bonds on the open market and therefore, the ability for governments to raise capital. I’m not an expert so don’t understand the nuances, but it makes sense how that could be a policy outcome.

Cheap money has fuelled the house price boom but without it for capital purchases like cars and expensive household goods, the economy would be in an even worse state.

The government does not need the private sector to raise capital, jesus wept.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I'm sure I'll regret this in time but...

Of course you can stimulate an economy by printing money and finding infrastructure projects, it's been done many times before and Brown actually did very well in heading off the worst of the global financial crash by using QE. Of course what you can't do that is turbocharge it and just spend cash for the hell of it - if you could, then every government would do it and we'd all have whatever we wanted! This system doesn't allow that however...

For more cash in the system means more inflation, which you might want a little bit of inflation to stimulate, but you don't want everything devalued to a spiral - then in the extreme we're in Zimbabwe or 1930s Germany territory.

Of course with inflation, the actual value of money invested goes down, unless you raise interest rates which you need to do in order to stop everybody withdrawing their savings and spending it quick, therefore increasing demand and accelerating inflationary pressures... in which case you raise interest rates, then debt repayments go up - somebody ends up the loser in such a scenario, and it tends to be poorer areas of society, where a greater proportion of their wealth is spent just existing.

And if interest rates go up, then that means the cost of servicing rock solid bonds goes up too. It should be noted that although we're still a good bet, the ratings agencies aren't as sure about us as a country as they used to be - that means a higher interest rate to incentivise as there's slightly more risk. So when cost of borrowing goes up, the government then needs to print more money to pay for it if they don't want to raise taxes, which means inflation goes up... and we're in that cycle all over again.

Of course cataclysm is the extreme, but it's fair to say that ultimately, a certain level of fiscal responsibility needs to happen. Now that can be tax and spend to fund infrastructure beyond relatively limited amounts, it doesn't have to be cut and cut and cut again. And the consequences are pretty mad if you turbocharge everything to the limit, so you always have to have a balance - you can't just say we need that, lets spend on it, you need to consider the consequences of that too and if the payoff is worth it.

Well, we seen what happened when interest rates approach 6%… Genuine calls to support/bailout people with mortgages. Imagine what 7-10% would look like? A lot of people would lose their homes.

Unfortunately, this is limiting what governments could do, left or right. If you want ‘unaccounted’ tax cuts or public spending, you genuinely risk a housing crisis. We’re on the path of perpetual tax rises and public spending cuts. Labour have to really careful in the early days of government to keep financial markets on side. Which will disappoint many Lab voters who are hoping for radical (as some put on here) change.

The house issues links to so many issues in our economy and it’s particularly dysfunctional in this country.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Cheap money has fuelled the house price boom but without it for capital purchases like cars and expensive household goods, the economy would be in an even worse state.

The government does not need the private sector to raise capital, jesus wept.

Who do you think buys government bonds?

I have a suspicion you’re going to be left really disappointed when Labour win and admit the state can’t intervene everywhere and/or increase public expenditure significantly.

With respect, Socialists have never had the best reputation for economic management.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Who do you think buys government bonds?

I have a suspicion you’re going to be left really disappointed when Labour win and admit the state can’t intervene everywhere and/or increase public expenditure significantly.

With respect, Socialists have never had the best reputation for economic management.

Have you seen the state of the country you stupid tory c**t

 

[skybluetony176]

Looks like the Statistics watchdog is investigating Sunak

The excellent Dan Hodges also suggesting that Sunak may have broken the civil service code as well.