If he has one major strength, it is that he fundamentally believes in the rule of law. That should be a given for the leader of a democratic country, but it is a commodity in rare supply.
5 Likes
1 Like
Busy month for solicitorsâŚ
1 Like
Morning,
In good spirit, I must say I disagree with the sentiments of your second paragraph and infact, could suggest the same about your own responses. But letâs move on from that.
I am not disputing that Thatcher played a massive part in the downfall of the manufacturing industry. The point I made was that New Labour concentrated on making the UK a Service based economy. Following on from Peter Smith, New Labour under Blair/Brown/Mandelson as you stated followed Thatchers ideology, so much so that she even complimented Blair.
If New Labour were focused on an Industry lead economy why did the Countries GVA decline by 8% under Blair/Brown? more than under Thatcher?
New Labour didnât instigate massive deregulation, they just never applied any regulation. Which is why along with other Countries we had the banking crisis in 2008, 11 years into a âLabourâ Government. Which Government knighted Sir Fred the Shred?
In the end, as a Country where we are, in terms of manufacturing? only able to compete in specialised areas.
I wasnât criticising New Labour for focusing their initiative on a Service based economy, I actually stated that it may put the UK in a better position globally. How can the UK compete with China?
Germany is struggling, the US is imposing Tariffs. Our Labour and Energy costs can never ever compete with China. The UK Government insists on UK Steel companies being more âGreenerâ then as a Country we import cheap unregulated Chinese Steel.
Regarding voting, I had voted Labour and switched to Tories, I think in 2016 but may well have been the Election before.
Anyhow, truth be told and as much as people try to deny it Labour have been a weak opposition for 14 years and in my opinion (stats may back it up) are only in power because people grew disillusioned by the Tories. Did they change their vote to Labour? No, they went to Reform. Starmer, got elected with a lower public vote than Corbyn. 
I didnât vote in the last general election either because I couldnât bring myself to. People say that if you donât vote then you lose your right to complain, because your vote could have made a difference. The truth is, my vote will not make a difference, I will still be paying more, year on year in terms of taxes and be fed the same old line of blaming the previous government.
There are posters on this forum continually making excuses for Labour lack of progress in their period of Government so far, on the fallout of 14 years of Tory Government.
This may well be true, but if Starmer/Labour didnât believe they could change the countries fortunes then why put themselves up for Election??
As it stands, I have zero confidence in Labour getting re-elected for a 2nd term. Am I happy with that? Not at all. Not because I am party aligned and want a Labour Government to Fail and a Tory Government in power, but because it represents another Term of failure. Another 4/5 years of inaction to be followed by another Term of changing ideas, back tracking and wasting of Money.
Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem, Green Party, etc. I would vote for any of them if I believed in them.
Iâm guessing Lynch04 has already bought both their tickets :0)
6 Likes
Have you looked at the UK national debt figure recently?
Iâve just jotted it down but have no understanding of how much it actually is.ÂŁ3,132,850,600,500. Itâs like trying to comprehend the scale of the Universe. And itâs growing all the time to the tune of ÂŁ5170 a second.
So at what point did there stop being any money? Not when Covid came around for sure, the Toryâs found ÂŁ75 billion to fund the furlough scheme and tens of billions more to line the pockets of their mates.
As I see it being another ÂŁ100 billion in debt is like me having a ÂŁ250,000 mortgage and the bank telling me theyâre adding another 3 quid to it.
4 Likes
Prior to the financial crisis the UKâs public sector debt to GDP (think of this as size of the economy) ratio was about 35% rising to 63% in 2010 as the government intervened to minimise the fallout from the financial crisis. It continued rising to about 80% in 2019. Then following the Covid spend jumped again to about 100% of GDP.
Growth of the economy during this period has got a lot slower and the cost of borrowing has increased significantly, so the governmentâs revenue is not increasing as fast as it has done previously while the amount of its income being taken up by the cost of that borrowing is growing. Also, as that older debt falls due it gets rolled over at higher interest rate costs.
More borrowing is possible but it will mean that even more of the governmentâs revenue will be taken up by interest costs, if its spending doesnât generate enough growth to offset that additional cost.
4 Likes
Do you not think that boat has already sailed?
To be fair, they had to do something during Covid. Every state that could, did that. The question is however what the furlough scheme should have covered, what it covered and what it did not cover or if there should have been a another varient of a solution. Bu society shut down on orders of government and then you either let everyone and everything go bankrup that do not have deep pockets, which is disastrous for recovery of economy as well as socially, or you borrow or you have a fund etc. for support. And there you can attack them for a lot indeed.
2 Likes
The other factor to consider with covid debt is that when virtually every economy is doing it, the consequences/costs are actually smaller. Interest rates and inflation did not react to debt issuance as they would in normal times, likely because the money had nowhere to go - it was happening everywhere.
The challenge across the West has been pulling back from that spending and returning to the more traditional relationship between debt levels and interest rates. Canada has made a mess of that, but probably no G20 has screwed it up more than the UK.
6 Likes
Damn right! To be honest I was hoping for a 4 man booth with And this is the problem.
Excusing the current Governmentâs inactivity on the basis that there is no money and at the same time blaming the Tories for 14 years of Austerity. Why 14 years of Austerity? Maybe because there was no money in the first place.
In fact was in not ex-chief to the secretary Liam Byrne, who left a note saying there was no money left.
The words were: âDear Chief Secretary, Iâm afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck! Liam.â
So you are more than happy to state the Tories failed us for 14 years, 14 years worth of austerity because they had no money but want to excuse Labour on the same premise.
You will no doubt dismiss my point by saying I have some RW agenda. But, I am just airing the words Liam Byrne used.
The Government intervened as a result of its own failures.
So 35% to 70% in a 2-3 year period in part to the Worlds greed. It was then retracting despite of Brexit until the Pandemic/energy crisis. Where it spiked but remained under 95%.
So for comparison:
French debt 2007 1.2 trillion - 2024 3.3 trillion - 113% GDP.
UK debt 2007 815bn - 2024 2.7 trillion - 97.3% GDP.
Population pretty similar. 68m
So since 2007, France has found itself in more debt than the UK. However, the UK handled COVID incorrectly and at the same time saw its economy destroyed by BrexitâŚ.
I accept that the UK is a shit show at the moment and that different decisions could have resulted in a better (at the same time worse) scenario. However, why is everyone so pessimistic.
This board is generally Labour, so embrace it positively. Have expectations of your Government and donât hide behind excuses.
I am genuinely not trying to antagonise anyone here, but I am directing this to you @Mascot and other Labour voters. The âThey canât do anythingâ comment is a defeatist attitude, if that is your belief then why vote for them? Why bother getting out of bed? Does it give you satisfaction to just whine and blame everyone else?
If you believe in Labourâs policies and Starmer himself, then show it. As it stands Labour/Starmer are not going to get a 2nd term and you know it, so why is that? If Labour voters donât believe, then why expect the rest of the Country to?
Maybe get Hatton and Anderson on board for some money making tips
1 Like
Austerity in 2010 was an ideological choice. The country was recovering from the global financial crash, but the nations finances we relatively healthy compared to where we are now.
Seriously, stop reading right wing shit.
It has been a long-standing treasury joke that whenever there is a change of Government the outgoing lot leave a note in a drawer saying there isnât any money for the new ones. Thatâs been going on for about 70 years now.
The Tories, being the fucking scum they are, chose to take that note and, despite fully knowing itâs context, make it a media story to justify the cuts they were about to make to public services.
Idiots lapped it up, took it seriously and blamed Labour for everything the Tories did.
I voted for them because they are the only fucking grown ups in a parade of children. I was saying before the election - you can go back and find this - they is not a lot that they can do in the first term other than just provide stable government and stop us lurching from crisis to crisis.
Even if you have greater aspiration than that, they have been in power less than a year, and are trying to turn around 14 years of the worst governance the UK has ever had.
Put it this way the world is in a crisis point and careering towards world war three. Who do you want running the UK, while Trump is running amok in the whitehouse and Putin acting like Hitler? Kemi Badenoch? Nigel Farage? Keir Starmer?
Have a think before you answer.
5 Likes
2 Likes
Expecting any significant improvements by any government in one year is by any standards, unfair.
But I am just curious from your stance, at the end of Labour first term, would it be your stance that if there are significant improvements, the Labour will be lauded as performed a miracle and if the country comes out worse or status quo, the blame will still be squarely on the 14 years of inept Tory government?
Nope, austerity was about stripping the state. Basically what are seeing in the US but over a longer timescale.
They could have borrowed as rates were crazy low and pumped GDP, but they decided to shut it down, drag GDP into the gutter and filter contracts into the private sector for bugger all return. The economy has been stuck there ever since as interest rates have risen so the option of borrowing has fallen away. Then brexit came and basically killed off our best chance dragging GDP forward. Truss was another hurray at throwing yet more cash into pockets of the rich. They were struggling after 2016.
It was a political choice, three times.
And Farage would follow Trumpâs lead and basically kill us off properly.
3 Likes
Yes, the Country was recovering from the Global Financial crisis. So if it was an ideological choice why do you reference it so much?
No shit, our finances along with a number of big Countries were better off in 2010 than they are now. The UK is not on its own here.
If it is a 70 yr old tradition (which the article backs up). Why does he feel the need to justify himself? Why is he remorseful? Why is the article 5 years after the event?
It may well be âtraditionâ and yes the Tories may well have jumped on it but how far from the truth was it? You are happy to lap up everything Labour sayâs and blame it on the Tories? Are Labour not justifying their cuts to public services on 14 years of Austerity?
John Cotton, Labour Council Birmingham only the other day blamed rising Council Tax on 14 years of Tory Austerity. Like âall partiesâ they have failed to take responsibility for their own faults. Birmingham has been financially mismanaged for decades and yet I am fed the Austerity rhetoric. It is getting abit boring now.
Letâs be honest, you voted for Labour because you are a Labour supporter. Cut the shit about grown ups and children, as evident by every single post you have made in this thread you hate everything the Tories stand for and are happy to blame everything on them. Why am I not surprised you once again blamed everything on 14yrs.
Read the article I posted by Liam Byrne, he clearly states that he was tasked with cutting expenditure.
Here;
But the recession slashed Treasury tax receipts by over ÂŁ40bn, forcing us to borrow to keep public services on the go and get Britain back on its feet. And because the deficit was big, the responsible thing to do was draw up a long-term plan to cut spending.
So Labour were already in the process of cutting spending. Right or wrong? I mean, iv given you a Left Wing article which quotes the man himself. âThe responsible thing to do was draw up a long-term plan to cut spendingâ. How would you define cutting spending?
Look, both the Tories and Labour have fucked us up as a country but It has happened. The financial crisis, Covid, Brexit, etc, they are not solely down to one party. Also, we are not the only Country suffering.
I have stated numerous times, to turn around the Countries fortunes is not a quick fix. It is at minimal a 2 term process. I want Starmer to succeed, I want any British Government to be successful, whether it be lead by Starmer, Farage or Daffy Duck. Why because I donât care which Party is in control. I have no bias.
But you do!!
In response to your question, who would I want in charge. Firstly, is the world in crisis? Trump running amok and Putin being the modern day Hitler, World war 3 itâs a bit dramatic isnât it? How did you come to that conclusionâŚThe right wing media?
I cannot give you an answer because you wonât like it. Your own answer is already determined on your Party loyalty so by being honest with you, it would just lead to me being judged on your own âopinionâ.
So a few questions for you, please answer honestly.
Do you believe Starmer is a strong leader?
Do you believe Labour will be re-elected for a 2nd term?
Did Labours mandate stipulate that there is not a lot they can do in their First term?
I would imagine that he regrets it, because he followed accepted parliamentary protocols and it was weaponised as propaganda against him.
Most of the handover between governments is done by the civil service, but there is some contact between the outgoing and incoming administrations because their loyalty is meant to be to King and country rather than party and sponsors. Light hearted banter like this is seen as part of that process.
The fact is that Gordon Brownâs administration had guided the economy through a serious global crisis and it was on course to return to previous prosperity. The Blair government also benefited from a sound footing from John Majorâs administration. Itâs a sad fact that party politics doesnât allow them to acknowledge that.
2 Likes
Because he stupidly assumed that there was good faith within the incoming government to continue a little in joke that had been going for years.
Go and Google âtreasury note traditionâ
1 Like