4 ms·

>> We all know there's not much money left. > Not sure what that means. What it means is: 1. The UK national debt is high, about 7% of public spending is on

>> We all know there's not much money left. > Not sure what that means. What it means is: 1. The UK national debt is high, about 7% of public spending is on interest payments. The debt-to-GDP ratio is the worst it's been in 60 years. 2. The current overall tax rate is the highest it's been since the 1960s. We might be able to get some extra money by going after tax cheats and suchlike, but it's probably not going to be easy; we don't have the money yet. 3. Previously we've tried cutting back on public services to get the debt down - "austerity" as it was called - and it was not regarded as a big success. 4. In fact, there have been loads of strikes and a long period of under-investment in public services. So we could probably spend quite a chunk of money just stopping the roofs falling down on the schools we've already got, to say nothing of building anything new. 5. Previous attempts to move public debt off the books, like PFI contracts, turned out to cost the taxpayer more in the long term. 6. Truss attempted to spur GDP growth to improve the debt-to-GDP ratio, and it went terribly. 7. Individuals aren't any better, with the high levels of mortgage debt and student loan debt, rising fuel bills and a cost-of-living crisis. We're a hardy nation, we've dealt with worse and we'll get through this - but the reality is Starmer doesn't have a lot of cash to splash around.

smcl 2y ago
So what do you do in times like this? Do you continue austerity and cutbacks - something that has worsened the UK economy over the last 14 years - or do you invest in public infrastructure - something which is near universally accepted as improving the health of an economy?
panick21_ 2y ago
I'm baffled why everything I consume from Britain is damn pessimistic. So, you can't invest in HS2 because money and debt. But anytime you try to save money it also doesn't work. So best do nothing and start drinking I guess??? > We're a hardy nation, we've dealt with worse and we'll get through this Well the people wont all just move. And UK wont collapse. But the question is, will it be as a nation as rich as Nordics or more like Italy. > but the reality is Starmer doesn't have a lot of cash to splash around. Many nations have higher debt then Britain. HS2 and BritishRail can turn Britain from a subpar train country into one of the best. Its just a matter of actually doing it. If that not worth investing in, then nothing is.
- michaelt 2y ago
  > I'm baffled why everything I consume from Britain is damn pessimistic. I'm just saying, although we've recently elected a centre-left government, we shouldn't expect a free-spending, state-expanding government. In their election campaign they spent a lot of time marketing themselves as the party of stability and fiscal rules. The first bill announced in the King's Speech was a "Budget Responsibility Bill" requiring them to get independent assessment of major tax and spending bills. > start drinking I guess??? Now you're talking my language!
  - smcl 2y ago
    I think describing Starmer's Labour as centre-left is a bit of a stretch. They want to crack down on immigration and suspended seven MPs who voted in favour of a pretty minor amendment to scrap the 2-child benefit cap (that overwhelmingly failed ... because the rest of Labour voted against it). They've also got Wes Streeting as Secretary of State for Health and he seems very keen privatisation of the NHS - in fact the party themselves love PFI. They were once the party of workers and a strong voice for the UK left, but that time has long passed.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      I would say they are to the left of the previous government, because they don't want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda. And they're substantially to the left of what American readers would consider the centre, because American politics is crazy. I agree that they're nowhere near as far to the left as they were in the 1970s - and nowhere near as left-wing as they were under previous party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
      - panick21_ 2y ago
        > because they don't want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda That was such a batshit insane plan. Like any government that comes up with shit like that has just seriously lost the plot.

smcl 2y ago

So what do you do in times like this? Do you continue austerity and cutbacks - something that has worsened the UK economy over the last 14 years - or do you invest in public infrastructure - something which is near universally accepted as improving the health of an economy?

panick21_ 2y ago

I'm baffled why everything I consume from Britain is damn pessimistic. So, you can't invest in HS2 because money and debt. But anytime you try to save money it also doesn't work. So best do nothing and start drinking I guess??? > We're a hardy nation, we've dealt with worse and we'll get through this Well the people wont all just move. And UK wont collapse. But the question is, will it be as a nation as rich as Nordics or more like Italy. > but the reality is Starmer doesn't have a lot of cash to splash around. Many nations have higher debt then Britain. HS2 and BritishRail can turn Britain from a subpar train country into one of the best. Its just a matter of actually doing it. If that not worth investing in, then nothing is.

michaelt 2y ago
> I'm baffled why everything I consume from Britain is damn pessimistic. I'm just saying, although we've recently elected a centre-left government, we shouldn't expect a free-spending, state-expanding government. In their election campaign they spent a lot of time marketing themselves as the party of stability and fiscal rules. The first bill announced in the King's Speech was a "Budget Responsibility Bill" requiring them to get independent assessment of major tax and spending bills. > start drinking I guess??? Now you're talking my language!
- smcl 2y ago
  I think describing Starmer's Labour as centre-left is a bit of a stretch. They want to crack down on immigration and suspended seven MPs who voted in favour of a pretty minor amendment to scrap the 2-child benefit cap (that overwhelmingly failed ... because the rest of Labour voted against it). They've also got Wes Streeting as Secretary of State for Health and he seems very keen privatisation of the NHS - in fact the party themselves love PFI. They were once the party of workers and a strong voice for the UK left, but that time has long passed.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    I would say they are to the left of the previous government, because they don't want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda. And they're substantially to the left of what American readers would consider the centre, because American politics is crazy. I agree that they're nowhere near as far to the left as they were in the 1970s - and nowhere near as left-wing as they were under previous party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
    - panick21_ 2y ago
      > because they don't want to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda That was such a batshit insane plan. Like any government that comes up with shit like that has just seriously lost the plot.