Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Kompakted]

I think he responding to your last sentence ie the one where YOU brought up a comparison with the Tories.

I wasn't comparing to the tories. I was airing the increasing sense of disappointment that any hope that the change of party in government represented a change in what we've had to put up with as the general public is being brutally snuffed out by the day. Incidentally, misrepresenting your experience and credentials to develop and deliver an economic policy presented to voters during an election strikes at something so very fundamental and the potential anger about this brewing should be alarming for Labour as the people I've seen really ranting about this are non-political sites. I first learned about the story from a YouTuber who is a mortgage broker that runs an advice channel that helps struggling people get onto the housing ladder. There's a whole thread about it on mumsnet. I think those in political circles get used to the concept of politicians lying and maybe hadn't seen this as a big of a deal at first. But the sort of stuff politicians lie about isn't normally their own competence to do a job or background. I really think this has the potential to be pretty big.

 

[Kompakted]

Given that the last two occupants of the role were Jeremy Hunt and Kwasi Kwarteng I think we’re safe in viewing her as a step up.

Hunt did a frankly incredible job on the economy in a very short period of time. I very much see what Reeves has done with the budget to be an extremely bad move and one very much in the wrong direction. Market confidence in the UK has also died on its arse since, which says it all.

 

[Gutter Boy]

So the left wing papers like the Guardian, the blithering idiots that they are. Are attacking farmers now, claiming that have hoarded land for far too long...

Well, yes... What else are they going to grow food in? Concrete? Imaginary sky land?

What is even worse, is the left crying tax dodgers... The problem is, the only people that can afford to buy the land will be big companies that will farm the land in the interests of profits and lining the pockets of investors, and tax dodge as much as they can.

Clarkson has said it is fine to go after the likes of him and the government should have been more nuanced in their approach and not hit everyone.

This Labour Party are a bunch of clowns.

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

Did you inherit your dad's job? On the basis that his ancestors fought with William in 1066 and that's just what happens? Or did you competitively apply for it?

 

[Batspur]

Is she a serious economist though and are her credentials fine? That's actually the whole point isn't it. You're taking her credentials as read when actually her credentials for what is probably the most significant job in government in terms of direct and immediate impact on people's lives - are being questioned. And they're not being questioned by tory rags, the initial accusations have come from a senior and highly respected director of HBOS who Reeves ultimately lined into during her time there. Unfortunately for Reeves this guy appears to have retired and therefore been able to speak freely and she's subsequently been editing her own experience on her LinkedIn profile, already removing the reference to being an economist at HBOS.

This story is starting to pick up momentum in the mainstream press now and The Times has done some analysis of her Linked In profile and some digging and her role at the Bank of England is being questioned. For example she recently did a piece claiming she worked as an economist at the Bank of England for a decade. But her LinkedIn profile only lists 6 years at the Bank and most of those are junior analyst roles and 1 year year was listed as a period of study leave to undertake her qualifications. Implying that she wasn't a qualified economist at the Bank, but was undertaking junior analytics roles while completing her qualifications. She then left to take up what turns out to be a retail complaints role for HBOS which would not have required any formal qualifications and given the allegations about the circumstances of leaving HBOS do make you wonder.....she took up political roles for the Labour Party directly afterwards.....

Does that sound like a "serious" economist whose credentials aren't in doubt to you?

I'll be honest I'd take her over the previous idiot who destroyed the schools and the health sector before entering number 11. Hunt was a real piece of inadequacy. Then let's look at who he succeeded. Kwarteng is going to cost me a fortune when I get a new mortgage in January. I have a friend who was super unlucky and his mortgage went up by 1500 a month thanks to that taco.

So I'll stick with this one and wait a few months before decrying her CV.

 

[Gutter Boy]

We should just reverse Enclosure, then let the government employ farmers, based on best qualifications at agricultural college.

 

[Mikey10]

Hunt did a frankly incredible job on the economy in a very short period of time. I very much see what Reeves has done with the budget to be an extremely bad move and one very much in the wrong direction. Market confidence in the UK has also died on its arse since, which says it all.

Councils bankrupt; prisons massively underfunded and overspilling; schools skint; the NHS in shreds; universities battling bankruptcy; mortgages soaring; and economic figures which didn’t add up.

It’s quite the economic legacy, for sure.

 

[Kompakted]

I'll be honest I'd take her over the previous idiot who destroyed the schools and the health sector before entering number 11. Hunt was a real piece of inadequacy. Then let's look at who he succeeded. Kwarteng is going to cost me a fortune when I get a new mortgage in January. I have a friend who was super unlucky and his mortgage went up by 1500 a month thanks to that taco.

So I'll stick with this one and wait a few months before decrying her CV.

I'm not decrying her CV. She lied about her CV. It doesn't look like she ever worked as a fully qualified economist. Doesn't that alarm you?

Or if your mum was about to have hip surgery and you found out the surgeon doing it wasn't a qualified surgeon and had actually dropped out of medical school, got a job in a call centre, been sacked from that job then wangled his current job by lying on his CV, would your attitude be "well let's see how it all works out before rushing to judgement"?

 

[SkipRat]

Did you inherit your dad's job? On the basis that his ancestors fought with William in 1066 and that's just what happens? Or did you competitively apply for it?

Why post something as childish as this?

I bet you are the first person to defend African farmers passing their land on to their children or other native people around the world... Because I do.

Nope, we can't allow families to own and the land any more.... We need communisn and everything stays run.

A truely horrendous position to take. Wanting policies that force families from the land they have worked for generations.

Starmer is going to get oblitorated at the next election, and I can't wait.

We should just reverse Enclosure, then let the government employ farmers, based on best qualifications at agricultural college.

What a truly appaling idea.

So not even employ the people working the land for generations... just some wetwipe straight out of college, with zero experience.

 

[Batspur]

I'm not decrying her CV. She lied about her CV. It doesn't look like she ever worked as a fully qualified economist. Doesn't that alarm you?

Or if your mum was about to have hip surgery and you found out the surgeon doing it wasn't a qualified surgeon and had actually dropped out of medical school, got a job in a call centre, been sacked from that job then wangled his current job by lying on his CV, would your attitude be "well let's see how it all works out before rushing to judgement"?

They are politicians. Streeting isn't the best doctor in the land. Bridget isn't the best teacher in the land. Our defence minister isn't the best soldier in the land.

They have experts that are the best in the land...or should be...that makes sure their ideas are workable.

That was the problem with the last rabble. Johnson was an insane liar. Truss was just insane. Sunak was incapable of leading. It was a disaster for 14 years. Cameron thought austerity was the answer. When in fact his chancellor got the maths wrong. Hannah Fry explains it better than me. But he got his maths wrong. He ignored the advice and sunk us into sacking nearly half the army, police and every other public service.

Let's give Rachel a chance to fudge up before we pile on.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Why post something as childish as this?

I bet you are the first person to defend African farmers passing their land on to their children or other native people around the world... Because I do.

Nope, we can't allow families to own and the land any more.... We need communisn and everything stays run.

A truely horrendous position to take. Wanting policies that force families from the land they have worked for generations.

Starmer is going to get oblitorated at the next election, and I can't wait.


What a truly appaling idea.

So not even employ the people working the land for generations... just some wetwipe straight out of college, with zero experience.

My grandad was an officer in the army. Do i therefore have an inherited right to now be in charge of some of our weaponry and soldiers?

Commonland and small holders got taken out centuries ago. The farmers now are just the descedents of the super rich who stole it all from everyone

 

[Kompakted]

They are politicians. Streeting isn't the best doctor in the land. Bridget isn't the best teacher in the land. Our defence minister isn't the best soldier in the land.

They have experts that are the best in the land...or should be...that makes sure their ideas are workable.

That was the problem with the last rabble. Johnson was an insane liar. Truss was just insane. Sunak was incapable of leading. It was a disaster for 14 years. Cameron thought austerity was the answer. When in fact his chancellor got the maths wrong. Hannah Fry explains it better than me. But he got his maths wrong. He ignored the advice and sunk us into sacking nearly half the army, police and every other public service.

Let's give Rachel a chance to fudge up before we pile on.

I'm sorry but I think you're so far down the party rabbit hole you can't see the wood for the trees. It's easy to throw around stuff like "Boris Johnson is an insane liar" because that's what you've heard lots of people that detest him say countless times. He certainly hasn't lied about anything like this, I.e. who he is, his past or his qualifications and/or experience.

On the point about Osbourne: you defend Reeves by saying actually it doesn't matter how honest our politicians are about their experience or even how competent they are, as they just do as they're advised to do. But then you ignore pretty much your entire argument by claiming that Osbourne did his own sums, went rogue and implemented an unnecessary period of austerity. It really beggars believe.

Every country implemented austerity in the wake of the financial crash. In fact, Britain's austerity was mild compared to some. In Greece, which was subject to an ECB bailout, you had civil servants jumping off buildings as their pensions had been taken off them.

I'll try and explain in layman's terms:
- At the heart of the financial crisis, was a loss of liquidity within the banking sector, which meant banks couldn't lend at the rates necessary to sustain normal economic activity. This led to a loss of liquidity within the economy as a whole ("there is no money left").
- in 2010, when Osbourne took office, the UK government was running a budget deficit of around 10% of GDP. This meant it was committed to borrowing 10% of Britain's entire GDP every year unless something changed.
- The huge issue with this is that governments borrow by issuing assets (basically IOUs) to the capital markets and the primary purchasers and traders of these assets are banks. But when a bank purchases a government asset, it locks capital away in the asset and reduces its own liquidity (I.e. banks were having to use a lot of their remaining capital supporting government borrowing rather than doing what the government needed them to do, to arrest the rampant business closures and job losses going on in the economy, and that is to start lending to businesses and each other again.
- The government had to rapidly reduce the budget deficit and couldn't use growth as the means of doing so before recapitalising the banking sector by reducing government borrowing and other means.
- There was absolutely no choice but to reduce the deficit via drastic public spending cuts.
Anyone who says otherwise isn't worth listening to.

 

[thfcsteff]

My grandad was an officer in the army. Do i therefore have an inherited right to now be in charge of some of our weaponry and soldiers?

Commonland and small holders got taken out centuries ago. The farmers now are just the descedents of the super rich who stole it all from everyone

There has to be a middle ground here.

Farmers who have inherited down the decades do not necessarily reflect the implied 'values' of 'stolen land inheritance'. I actually think there's a lot wrong with the way 'big Ag' moves in and squeezes 'local' farmers to death, inposing practices which are appalling both in terms of land stewardship and animal welfare. I suspect you agree with that point.

I think it's too easy to declare that farmers are part of some old world aristocracy, when the seemimng-truth is many are on their tiptoes trying to survive as they 'compete' with big ag and its various nefarious practices.

I feel sure I am missing a nuance here, and am happy to have that pointed out, but not every farmer who has inherited their land is living an Earl of Derby lifestyle. In fact, I'm guessing that many who have inherited farms down the years have ended up with land which is (obviously) valued at way more than they could ever have fathomed, yet have no interest in doing anything other than being farmers. Again, I think there has to be a middle ground here, no?

 

[Mikey10]

My grandad was an officer in the army. Do i therefore have an inherited right to now be in charge of some of our weaponry and soldiers?

Commonland and small holders got taken out centuries ago. The farmers now are just the descedents of the super rich who stole it all from everyone

Heaton’s rarely wrong.

 

[Gutter Boy]

There has to be a middle ground here.

Farmers who have inherited down the decades do not necessarily reflect the implied 'values' of 'stolen land inheritance'. I actually think there's a lot wrong with the way 'big Ag' moves in and squeezes 'local' farmers to death, inposing practices which are appalling both in terms of land stewardship and animal welfare. I suspect you agree with that point.

I think it's too easy to declare that farmers are part of some old world aristocracy, when the seemimng-truth is many are on their tiptoes trying to survive as they 'compete' with big ag and its various nefarious practices.

I feel sure I am missing a nuance here, and am happy to have that pointed out, but not every farmer who has inherited their land is living an Earl of Derby lifestyle. In fact, I'm guessing that many who have inherited farms down the years have ended up with land which is (obviously) valued at way more than they could ever have fathomed, yet have no interest in doing anything other than being farmers. Again, I think there has to be a middle ground here, no?

If the farms are nationalised, farmers can then be given a decent guaranteed salary. Maybe 5 year rolling tenancies to give them a bit of stability. If their livlihoods are so precarious (despite all being millionaires) that could be an improvement?

 

[Kompakted]

If the farms are nationalised, farmers can then be given a decent guaranteed salary. Maybe 5 year rolling tenancies to give them a bit of stability. If their livlihoods are so precarious (despite all being millionaires) that could be an improvement?

In the far future, humanity lives in a utopia, free from war, famine, disease and pollution. An enlightened, happy people live off universal basic income provided by the government to spend as they wish on produce and services owned by, operated by and provided by the government. The government obtains this vast wealth from taxation on the descendents of Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Film broadcast in full color panavision.

 

[Batspur]

I'm sorry but I think you're so far down the party rabbit hole you can't see the wood for the trees. It's easy to throw around stuff like "Boris Johnson is an insane liar" because that's what you've heard lots of people that detest him say countless times. He certainly hasn't lied about anything like this, I.e. who he is, his past or his qualifications and/or experience.

On the point about Osbourne: you defend Reeves by saying actually it doesn't matter how honest our politicians are about their experience or even how competent they are, as they just do as they're advised to do. But then you ignore pretty much your entire argument by claiming that Osbourne did his own sums, went rogue and implemented an unnecessary period of austerity. It really beggars believe.

Every country implemented austerity in the wake of the financial crash. In fact, Britain's austerity was mild compared to some. In Greece, which was subject to an ECB bailout, you had civil servants jumping off buildings as their pensions had been taken off them.

I'll try and explain in layman's terms:
- At the heart of the financial crisis, was a loss of liquidity within the banking sector, which meant banks couldn't lend at the rates necessary to sustain normal economic activity. This led to a loss of liquidity within the economy as a whole ("there is no money left").
- in 2010, when Osbourne took office, the UK government was running a budget deficit of around 10% of GDP. This meant it was committed to borrowing 10% of Britain's entire GDP every year unless something changed.
- The huge issue with this is that governments borrow by issuing assets (basically IOUs) to the capital markets and the primary purchasers and traders of these assets are banks. But when a bank purchases a government asset, it locks capital away in the asset and reduces its own liquidity (I.e. banks were having to use a lot of their remaining capital supporting government borrowing rather than doing what the government needed them to do, to arrest the rampant business closures and job losses going on in the economy, and that is to start lending to businesses and each other again.
- The government had to rapidly reduce the budget deficit and couldn't use growth as the means of doing so before recapitalising the banking sector by reducing government borrowing and other means.
- There was absolutely no choice but to reduce the deficit via drastic public spending cuts.
Anyone who says otherwise isn't worth listening to.

Johnson was sacked for lying. Thats just facts.

Austerity wasnt used by everyone. Although I will concede a groupthink did happen. But it was wrong. Same as covid lockdowns which caused far more harm than it did good. We are still struggling with the insane Johnson rules he put in place. Rules he broke because he knew they were silly.

Capitalism failed, it failed. Institutions should have gone to the wall. But no. We as taxpayers payers had to pick up the tab and pretend it was all ok. One banker from credit suisse got done for this. Its a joke.

Then. Because of their failures we had to lose our libraries, our police, our army our very fabric of society. And do you know why? Because of a mistake by gideon osbourne.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7326976812322393377

Using government money to build infrastructure and services actually grows the economy. Amazing but true. Tearing it down costs the economy.

This isnt rocket science. Its just facts.

 

[Batspur]

One other thing. When the Tories took charge in 2010 the national debt was at 1.2 trillion. When they left it was at nearly 3 trillion.

That means we spent more money in 14 years than in 2000 years. Where is the benefit? Please tell me. Where did that money go?

It’s ridiculous. We doubled our debt by over a trillion yet had to suffer austerity. A trillion pounds went missing on their watch. Its just unbelievable. And still we have schills saying Rachel Reeves lied on her cv thirty years ago.

A trillion pounds was spunked in 14 years and we lost nurses, police the army. Its incredible anyone can stand up for this.

But but kier starmer got a free pair of glasses.

Pathetic. The right wing press has diseased minds and they are still spouting their flimflam

 

[Kompakted]

Johnson was sacked for lying. Thats just facts.

Austerity wasnt used by everyone. Although I will concede a groupthink did happen. But it was wrong. Same as covid lockdowns which caused far more harm than it did good. We are still struggling with the insane Johnson rules he put in place. Rules he broke because he knew they were silly.

Capitalism failed, it failed. Institutions should have gone to the wall. But no. We as taxpayers payers had to pick up the tab and pretend it was all ok. One banker from credit suisse got done for this. Its a joke.

Then. Because of their failures we had to lose our libraries, our police, our army our very fabric of society. And do you know why? Because of a mistake by gideon osbourne.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7326976812322393377

Using government money to build infrastructure and services actually grows the economy. Amazing but true. Tearing it down costs the economy.

This isnt rocket science. Its just facts.

Boris Johnson wasn't sacked. so it isn't "just a fact" is it. In fact, I could accuse you of lying. You were made aware, by the national media, that Boris Johnson resigned, yet you chose to use the word "sacked", therefore you are a liar. This is pretty much what people do with Johnson, they pick up and nitpick over his loose use of language and create a catalogue of "lies".

As to austerity, I go back to the basic point I made: there was no choice. It wasn't "group think", it was unavoidable. Your alternative option of letting banks go to the wall....let's play that out. If a business goes into administration or liquidation, what is the first thing that administrators or liquidators do?

Administrators would consolidate positions with debtors, trying to save the business by clawing back money owed to the business. Liquidators would recall all debt as part of the winding up process.

So you're talking about mass recalls of loans. Mortgages and loans. Repay now or you're out on the street and/or we are taking over your business and selling its assets.

You let half the banking sector in this country go under you let half the businesses and people in this country go under.

It had already started happening before the government stepped in. I remember the Halifax for sale signs dotted about where I lived as the repossessions started happening.

 

[Kompakted]

One other thing. When the Tories took charge in 2010 the national debt was at 1.2 trillion. When they left it was at nearly 3 trillion.

That means we spent more money in 14 years than in 2000 years. Where is the benefit? Please tell me. Where did that money go?

It’s ridiculous. We doubled our debt by over a trillion yet had to suffer austerity. A trillion pounds went missing on their watch. Its just unbelievable. And still we have schills saying Rachel Reeves lied on her cv thirty years ago.

A trillion pounds was spunked in 14 years and we lost nurses, police the army. Its incredible anyone can stand up for this.

But but kier starmer got a free pair of glasses.

Pathetic. The right wing press has diseased minds and they are still spouting their flimflam

As I've explained, in 2010, the budget deficit was 10% of GDP. I.e. the government was committed to borrowing 10% of GDP every year. It took the government until 2017/2018 to bring the deficit down to a figure which could easily be managed without significant annual borrowing (for example via quantitative easing) During that time, national debt increased significantly as you point out. Because every year there was a deficit between what the govt was spending and what it was making via revenue, it had to borrow to plug the difference.

 

[Batspur]

Boris Johnson wasn't sacked. so it isn't "just a fact" is it. In fact, I could accuse you of lying. You were made aware, by the national media, that Boris Johnson resigned, yet you chose to use the word "sacked", therefore you are a liar. This is pretty much what people do with Johnson, they pick up and nitpick over his loose use of language and create a catalogue of "lies".

As to austerity, I go back to the basic point I made: there was no choice. It wasn't "group think", it was unavoidable. Your alternative option of letting banks go to the wall....let's play that out. If a business goes into administration or liquidation, what is the first thing that administrators or liquidators do?

Administrators would consolidate positions with debtors, trying to save the business by clawing back money owed to the business. Liquidators would recall all debt as part of the winding up process.

So you're talking about mass recalls of loans. Mortgages and loans. Repay now or you're out on the street and/or we are taking over your business and selling its assets.

You let half the banking sector in this country go under you let half the businesses and people in this country go under.

It had already started happening before the government stepped in. I remember the Halifax for sale signs dotted about where I lived as the repossessions started happening.

Thats a lot of waffle.

Johnson was sacked by his own party. Thats just facts.

The rest you say is uninformed nonsense.