I'm good until the part where not serving the debt means more reduction in revenue. Makes no sense to me. Reducing the debt is probably impossible, but at minimum Herculean. Cutting any taxes will exacerbate the problem. It's the sort of Reaganite idea that got David Stockman fired.
As someone who worked as a Tory parliamentary assistant who got shouted at if I used the wrong turn of phrase for their speech drafting, it feels utterly perverse that whenever some Labour MPs speak about the gilt market the British public becomes billions poorer is infuriating. Talk about an example of meaning well while being actively destructive.
Yes, massive debt is a dam waiting to burst. And every government over the last 30 years has added to it to provide unearned privileges to the unproductive(*), State-dependent majority and to retain their votes. But the State has no money of its own; it has only what it can extort from the productive minority in the forms of taxes and of future liabilities for unelected debt. There are only two ways out: economic disaster or revolution. The turkeys won’t vote for Christmas.
* By ‘unproductive’, I mean those who cannot sustain their own lifestyle without State support.
“Under the plans of the last Conservative government, we would have borrowed £323 billion over five years”. Nobody believed those plans. The Tories lack of credibility lead to the whitewash that you saw.
When the conservatives came into office in June 2010 the debt to GDP ratio was 66.1%. By the time they left office it was 94.2%. Today it stands at 93.1%. The idea that the Conservative Party had plans to spend less than Labour is just nonsense. The IMF even recently praised the UK for getting a grip on its budget deficit. So laying this blame solely at Reeves’s door is unfair.
Yes - but the conservatives inherited a debt to gdp ratio of 66.1% and by Jan 2020 it was 83.5%. They had almost a decade to sought things out before Covid. Also, the piece moans about Labour giving above inflation pay rises to public sector workers. No mention of the fiscal vandalism that is the triple-lock, introduced by the Conservatives. You may not like it, but Labour have been remarkably fiscally prudent (although I would like to see them do more about reforming benefits).
Well, I guess we won't agree but I think it is interesting that even people like the Resolution foundation (quoted above) are highlighting the massive difference between what Starmer promised in opposition and what he has delivered in government
Along with spending more than we can afford comes the transfer of ownership of property and businesses to foreign interests, piling yet more to the nation's burden, but of course nationalisation is another left wing 'solution'.
While this is all very worrying I have no faith in the conservatives to reign in spending and I get the impression that view is mainstream.
I'm good until the part where not serving the debt means more reduction in revenue. Makes no sense to me. Reducing the debt is probably impossible, but at minimum Herculean. Cutting any taxes will exacerbate the problem. It's the sort of Reaganite idea that got David Stockman fired.
As someone who worked as a Tory parliamentary assistant who got shouted at if I used the wrong turn of phrase for their speech drafting, it feels utterly perverse that whenever some Labour MPs speak about the gilt market the British public becomes billions poorer is infuriating. Talk about an example of meaning well while being actively destructive.
Yes, massive debt is a dam waiting to burst. And every government over the last 30 years has added to it to provide unearned privileges to the unproductive(*), State-dependent majority and to retain their votes. But the State has no money of its own; it has only what it can extort from the productive minority in the forms of taxes and of future liabilities for unelected debt. There are only two ways out: economic disaster or revolution. The turkeys won’t vote for Christmas.
* By ‘unproductive’, I mean those who cannot sustain their own lifestyle without State support.
We have Starmer talking about this, this very day
Starmer ‘to unveil £18bn defence boost’ ahead of leadership contest
Investment is ‘great news,’ say insiders but it falls short of £28bn MoD spending needs
Where is the money coming from on what timescale?
Good question
“Under the plans of the last Conservative government, we would have borrowed £323 billion over five years”. Nobody believed those plans. The Tories lack of credibility lead to the whitewash that you saw.
When the conservatives came into office in June 2010 the debt to GDP ratio was 66.1%. By the time they left office it was 94.2%. Today it stands at 93.1%. The idea that the Conservative Party had plans to spend less than Labour is just nonsense. The IMF even recently praised the UK for getting a grip on its budget deficit. So laying this blame solely at Reeves’s door is unfair.
I wonder what happened in 2020 that caused massive quantitative easing that enlarged the debt?
Yes - but the conservatives inherited a debt to gdp ratio of 66.1% and by Jan 2020 it was 83.5%. They had almost a decade to sought things out before Covid. Also, the piece moans about Labour giving above inflation pay rises to public sector workers. No mention of the fiscal vandalism that is the triple-lock, introduced by the Conservatives. You may not like it, but Labour have been remarkably fiscally prudent (although I would like to see them do more about reforming benefits).
Well, I guess we won't agree but I think it is interesting that even people like the Resolution foundation (quoted above) are highlighting the massive difference between what Starmer promised in opposition and what he has delivered in government
Along with spending more than we can afford comes the transfer of ownership of property and businesses to foreign interests, piling yet more to the nation's burden, but of course nationalisation is another left wing 'solution'.
Which itself would have a cost - unless Burnham is planning to just expropriate people