Do you want to discuss boring politics? (27 Viewers)

CCFCSteve · May 17, 2024

‘Austerity’ gets banded about a lot these days but the stats don’t really back it up in terms of public spending as a % of gdp.

The real choice we’ve got is are we as a country willing to pay more for better public services ? Or for FP and others with a slightly different view, whether you want to print more money and debase the currency to cover additional government expenditure

Both will get to the same position though, are people willing to accept less in their pocket/less purchasing power for better public services. I personally would but I also expect it to be spent better than it is currently.

No party wants to have this honest discussion though

shmmeee · May 17, 2024

CCFCSteve said:
‘Austerity’ gets banded about a lot these days but the stats don’t really back it up in terms of % public spending per gdp.

The real choice we’ve got to have is are we as a country willing to pay more for better public services ? Or for FP and others with a slightly different view, whether you want to print more money and debase the currency to cover additional government expenditure

Both will get to the same position though, are people willing to accept less in their pocket/less purchasing power for better public services. I personally would but I also expect it to be spent better than it is currently.

No party wants to have this honest discussion though

It’s not that simple though. A lot of the cuts over the last 14 years haven’t actually saved money. The police station closures, failures to hire teachers/doctors because of the wage freeze leading to more locum/supply pay. Lack of investment in infrastructure leading to anemic growth.

I think people are going to have to have tax rises because we need to spend more on defence and because as always with the Tories there’s a massive bill to pay off especially in capital spending.

But really our issue is growth. If any of our politicians took that seriously a lot of problems would be solved. Worrying to see any mention of planning reform seemingly quietly dropped by Starmer.

CCFCSteve · May 17, 2024

shmmeee said:
It’s not that simple though. A lot of the cuts over the last 14 years haven’t actually saved money. The police station closures, failures to hire teachers/doctors because of the wage freeze leading to more locum/supply pay. Lack of investment in infrastructure leading to anemic growth.

I think people are going to have to have tax rises because we need to spend more on defence and because as always with the Tories there’s a massive bill to pay off especially in capital spending.

But really our issue is growth. If any of our politicians took that seriously a lot of problems would be solved. Worrying to see any mention of planning reform seemingly quietly dropped by Starmer.

Don’t disagree with a lot of that. People talk about cuts and there was a lot post financial crisis but government expenditure as % of gdp is worth looking at (UK government spending as a share of GDP 2023 | Statista).

You’ve hit the nail on the head though, we need to find ways to boost growth and productivity, that will obviously then increase the cash available for public spending. I’m not convinced that we and probably a majority of Europe, will return to higher growth economies in the short to medium term though.

Again, no party appears to have a plan or vision about how to achieve this either

skybluetony176 · May 17, 2024

CCFCSteve said:
Don’t disagree with a lot of that. People talk about cuts and there was a lot post financial crisis but government expenditure as % of gdp is worth looking at (UK government spending as a share of GDP 2023 | Statista).

You’ve hit the nail on the head though, we need to find ways to boost growth and productivity, that will obviously then increase the cash available for public spending. I’m not convinced that we and probably a majority of Europe, will return to higher growth economies in the short to medium term though.

Again, no party appears to have a plan or vision about how to achieve this either

Some of that thought is due to our GDP struggling to recover to pre pandemic levels. IIRC it was only at the end of 2023 our GDP finally recovered to pre pandemic levels. We’re still down on 2010 as a percentage and the fact is we need to be spending more to recover from austerity.

Ian1779 · May 17, 2024

shmmeee said:
Fiscal rules are pure politics. Labours is extremely vague “moving towards” and “by the end of five years” a lot.

The idea it’s going to cause austerity is a nonsense. For a start there’s nothing left to cut. But also austerity doesn’t actually save money. It’s just the normal boring “everyone who isn’t Corbyn is actually a Tory” meme.

Austerity doesn’t have to done just by cuts, you can cause just as much misery by simply doing nothing as the cost of everything spirals.

shmmeee · May 17, 2024

Ian1779 said:
Austerity doesn’t have to done just by cuts, you can cause just as much misery by simply doing nothing as the cost of everything spirals.

Austerity is by definition making cuts. That’s what the word means.

Philosoraptor · May 17, 2024

shmmeee said:
Austerity is by definition making cuts. That’s what the word means.

CCFCSteve · May 17, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
Some of that thought is due to our GDP struggling to recover to pre pandemic levels. IIRC it was only at the end of 2023 our GDP finally recovered to pre pandemic levels. We’re still down on 2010 as a percentage and the fact is we need to be spending more to recover from austerity.

Yeah, spot on. We’ve never really recovered growth levels from pre financial crisis so the percentages are skewed a bit (and why I agreed with shmmeee about growth), however, that’s why as a country we then need to decide whether we’re all willing to pay more ?

Nobody’s putting that on the table.

Last time someone tried to be honest like that was May with her ‘death tax’ or whatever it ended up being called as she tried to change social care funding. I’ve said before we then had the increase in national insurance for social care under Johnson I think, where there was uproar. People don’t like being told they’ve got to pay more but that’s the reality. They think we should have fantastic public services and someone else will pick up the tab….the billionaires…it ain’t happening

wingy · May 17, 2024

Ii8888

CCFCSteve said:
Yeah, spot on. We’ve never really recovered growth levels from pre financial crisis so the percentages are skewed a bit (and why I agreed with shmmeee about growth), however, that’s why as a country we then need to decide whether we’re all willing to pay more ?

Nobody’s putting that on the table.

Last time someone tried to be honest like that was May with her ‘death tax’ or whatever it ended up being called as she tried to change social care funding. I’ve said before we then had the increase in national insurance for social care under Johnson I think, where there was uproar. People don’t like being told they’ve got to pay more but that’s the reality. They think we should have fantastic public services and someone else will pick up the tab….the billionaires…it ain’t happening

You sound like a debate on var now with that last comment!🫣

clint van damme · May 17, 2024

CCFCSteve said:
‘Austerity’ gets banded about a lot these days but the stats don’t really back it up in terms of public spending as a % of gdp.

The real choice we’ve got is are we as a country willing to pay more for better public services ? Or for FP and others with a slightly different view, whether you want to print more money and debase the currency to cover additional government expenditure

Both will get to the same position though, are people willing to accept less in their pocket/less purchasing power for better public services. I personally would but I also expect it to be spent better than it is currently.

No party wants to have this honest discussion though

This isn't true in a lot of cases.
We've funnelled a ton of public money towards private entities who've performed badly and not provided the service they were paid to.

I've noticed a lot of spokespeople for them trying to drive the narrative you are in order to plant doubts in the minds of the public and keep themselves on the gravy train.

CCFCSteve · May 17, 2024

clint van damme said:
This isn't true in a lot of cases.
We've funnelled a ton of public money towards private entities who've performed badly and not provided the service they were paid to.

I've noticed a lot of spokespeople for them trying to drive the narrative you are in order to plant doubts in the minds of the public and keep themselves on the gravy train.

I agree that there’s obviously been loads of waste and I’d like to think we can find better ways of spending public monies* but I still believe that with an aging (and unhealthy) population, together with a more dangerous world, we will all need to all put more in the pot

*You sound like the Tories saying no need to spend more, it will all come from ‘efficiencies’

clint van damme · May 17, 2024

CCFCSteve said:
I agree that there’s obviously been loads of waste and I’d like to think we can find ways better spending public monies* but I still believe that with an aging (and unhealthy) population, together with a more dangerous world, we will all need to all put more in the pot

*You sound like the Tories saying no need to spend more, it will all come from ‘efficiencies’

My post definitely had that ring to it!
I agree about putting more in the pot but there's still an opportunity to stop companies siphoning off public money for profit and share dividends.

CCFCSteve · May 17, 2024

clint van damme said:
My post definitely had that ring to it!
I agree about putting more in the pot but there's still an opportunity to stop companies siphoning off public money for profit and share dividends.

You might be surprised but I’m as disgusted as anyone with what’s happened with the water companies (Thames conduct is outrageous) and in more recent times all the ‘covid’/PPE companies (like Mones) that take advantage of/take liberties with the public purse

I also think that a lot of the procurement teams need to sort their shit out

skybluetony176 · May 17, 2024

CCFCSteve said:
Yeah, spot on. We’ve never really recovered growth levels from pre financial crisis so the percentages are skewed a bit (and why I agreed with shmmeee about growth), however, that’s why as a country we then need to decide whether we’re all willing to pay more ?

Nobody’s putting that on the table.

Last time someone tried to be honest like that was May with her ‘death tax’ or whatever it ended up being called as she tried to change social care funding. I’ve said before we then had the increase in national insurance for social care under Johnson I think, where there was uproar. People don’t like being told they’ve got to pay more but that’s the reality. They think we should have fantastic public services and someone else will pick up the tab….the billionaires…it ain’t happening

I don’t think it even needs us all to pay more, it just needs those earning the most to pay their fair share by closing tax loopholes. Let’s get everyone paying the tax due to the latter of the law rather than letting those with enough wealth deciding for themselves what’s within the “spirit” of the law. Reevaluate once we’ve reached that point. If we don’t do that the nett result will be those who can’t afford to pay clever accountants will still disproportionately pay more.

On a personal note I’d happily pay more once we’ve reached that point if needed. I suspect though it might not be needed. Scraping non dom is a start but it’s barely scratching the surface on either a personal level or a corporate level.

Unfortunately I think we’ll always be in a position where we can’t trust governments to spend it wisely. Governments just seem to be wasteful regardless of who’s in.

shmmeee · May 17, 2024

Richer people can 100% be taxed more. Wealth can be taxed better but it’s all locked up in housing so it goes straight to “Granny in £1m London flat she’s lived in all her life can’t afford to live there”. Economically correct, morally correct especially in a small country, but politically impossible.

CCFCSteve · May 17, 2024

shmmeee said:
Richer people can 100% be taxed more. Wealth can be taxed better but it’s all locked up in housing so it goes straight to “Granny in £1m London flat she’s lived in all her life can’t afford to live there”. Economically correct, morally correct especially in a small country, but politically impossible.

Kick granny out and tax her ?

For what it’s worth I also agree that richer people can/should be taxed more but even so, I still think everyone will have to pay more for better public services in future unless someone can quickly solve the growth/productivity puzzle*

I think for parties to pretend that’s not the case is disingenuous

*AI might help but not sure how long it will take

rob9872 · May 17, 2024

So the solution is that those who have prospered should be punished, despite already contributing more than most. Good to see communism alive and kicking on SBT

Those few st the very top that you're hoping to pay more, will generate such a meagre amount yet it's suggested as a fix-all with regularity.

If services cost more and we all need to contribute then sure let's increase the pot (from everyone), but let's also have some regulation on ensuring that entire pot is spent properly. Not on administraters, not even giving more to nurses or teachers, but by improving conditions to make sure we have more nurses, doctors, teachers, police and retain them, which is hopefully more than about pay as they're (imo) generally paid reasonable money.

hamertime · May 17, 2024

shmmeee said:
It’s not that simple though. A lot of the cuts over the last 14 years haven’t actually saved money. The police station closures, failures to hire teachers/doctors because of the wage freeze leading to more locum/supply pay. Lack of investment in infrastructure leading to anemic growth.

I think people are going to have to have tax rises because we need to spend more on defence and because as always with the Tories there’s a massive bill to pay off especially in capital spending.

But really our issue is growth. If any of our politicians took that seriously a lot of problems would be solved. Worrying to see any mention of planning reform seemingly quietly dropped by Starmer.

Well if we wasn’t having to house and pay for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants we would be able to build a police station every day in this country.

SBT · May 17, 2024

hamertime said:
Well if we wasn’t having to house and pay for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants we would be able to build a police station every day in this country.

It’s not hundreds of thousands
We don’t house or “pay for” all of them anyway
Not sure why we need a new police station every day

Other than that…

Ian1779 · May 17, 2024

hamertime said:
Well if we wasn’t having to house and pay for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants we would be able to build a police station every day in this country.

hamertime · May 17, 2024

SBT said:
It’s not hundreds of thousands
We don’t house or “pay for” all of them anyway
Not sure why we need a new police station every day

Other than that…

95,000 arrived in small boats in last 2 calendar years. 87% male. That’s just the ones on boats.

SBT · May 17, 2024

hamertime said:
95,000 arrived in small boats in last 2 calendar years. 87% male. That’s just the ones on boats.

So if we stop illegal immigrants for two years, we can build a police station every day?

rob9872 · May 17, 2024

But then we'll not have enough police to fill them and a judicial system too slow to process them into overcrowded jails. I think this idea needs just a smidgen more thought.

Ian1779 · May 17, 2024

hamertime said:
95,000 arrived in small boats in last 2 calendar years. 87% male. That’s just the ones on boats.

You failed to mention in your analysis that 90% of those arriving made asylum applications which they were legally entitled to do.
Which means they are not illegal immigrants, but in fact legal ones.

Philosoraptor · May 17, 2024

shmmeee said:
It’s not that simple though. A lot of the cuts over the last 14 years haven’t actually saved money. The police station closures, failures to hire teachers/doctors because of the wage freeze leading to more locum/supply pay. Lack of investment in infrastructure leading to anemic growth.

I think people are going to have to have tax rises because we need to spend more on defence and because as always with the Tories there’s a massive bill to pay off especially in capital spending.

But really our issue is growth. If any of our politicians took that seriously a lot of problems would be solved. Worrying to see any mention of planning reform seemingly quietly dropped by Starmer.

Can you just confirm the cause of the cuts again.

Was it 'cause Labour tanked the economy?

clint van damme · May 17, 2024

Philosorapter said:
Can you just confirm the cause of the cuts again.

Was it 'cause Labour tanked the economy?

Can't believe there are people who still think austerity was an economic decision!

Philosoraptor · May 17, 2024

clint van damme said:
Can't believe there are people who still think austerity was an economic decision!

Just trying to proportion blame.

Philosoraptor · May 17, 2024

clint van damme said:
Can't believe there are people who still think austerity was an economic decision!

Got to remember that this is Gordon "no more boom and bust" Brown.

skybluetony176 · May 17, 2024

clint van damme said:
Can't believe there are people who still think austerity was an economic decision!

It was an economic decision. The choices were get the people that crashed the world’s banking system to pay for it or get the plebs to pick up the cost with austerity.

Philosoraptor · May 17, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
It was an economic decision. The choices were get the people that crashed the world’s banking system to pay for it or get the plebs to pick up the cost with austerity.

There was another choice Labour failed miserably with. This was to put controls on the economy when they were actually running the country.

They failed to do this.

And no plan 'B' when it all went to the wall.

Philosoraptor · May 17, 2024

A good video on the austerity from the Tory's.

clint van damme · May 17, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
It was an economic decision. The choices were get the people that crashed the world’s banking system to pay for it or get the plebs to pick up the cost with austerity.

I think it's more part of political ideology that's facilitated the wealth transfer that's happened, and is still happening. ⁹

hamertime · May 17, 2024

Ian1779 said:
You failed to mention in your analysis that 90% of those arriving made asylum applications which they were legally entitled to do.
Which means they are not illegal immigrants, but in fact legal ones.

Do the maths on it dipshit, the figures probably won’t fit on your calculator. And people wonder why there is no money to
Spend on anything else but in their Infinate wisdom they think we should just let more and more people in to country to be paid for by the working public. You think you don’t recognise the country now? Wait 10 years and you will wish you’d done something about it.

skybluetony176 · May 17, 2024

Philosorapter said:
There was another choice Labour failed miserably with. This was to put controls on the economy when they were actually running the country.

They failed to do this.

And no plan 'B' when it all went to the wall.

Firstly I’m not going to say that they couldn’t have done more to protect the country from the effects of a world banking crisis caused by the toxic mortgage industry in America because they certainly could have. For instance under Blair they relaxed controls on bankers which made the UK banking more exposed than it would have been otherwise.

Secondly austerity was implemented by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government and then continued by the tories following the next election.

Finally the fact is up until the US toxic mortgage disaster triggered a worldwide recession Labour had actually overseen the longest period of growth in the UK since records began. If you’re going to talk about the last Labour government and their record on the economy that’s part of it.

wingy · May 17, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
It was an economic decision. The choices were get the people that crashed the world’s banking system to pay for it or get the plebs to pick up the cost with austerity.

Was it or was it simply a belief that it couldn't go on, IE a loss of confidence in the market fuelled by commentators jitters?

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (27 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency