To think this, is how the Tories could win?

[madamreign]

Sunak is setting out his stall as pro-car:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/28/rishi-sunak-expected-to-limit-powers-of-councils-in-england-to-curb-car-use-20mph-speed-limit-traffic-camera-fines

This could actually swing it for him. People sink vast amounts of time and money into their cars, they're aspirational status symbols. The UK loves it's cars.

This debt will take at least two generations to be repaid, regardless of the colour of the government. We were still repaying the debt from WWll until 2006. 61 years that took.

I don’t understand why you think spending on public services which benefit us all is reprehensible while spending on tax cuts is a worthy aspiration. This is Labour’s strategy, Hunt doesn’t have one.

First, I will never undermine our economic institutions. It was the Labour government that gave the Bank of England independence and I will protect it. It was a Conservative chancellor that established the Office for Budget Responsibility and I will strengthen it.

We will guarantee in law that any government making significant, permanent tax and spending changes will be subject to an independent forecast of its impact from the OBR. In the event of an emergency where budgetary changes must be introduced at speed and a forecast cannot be produced in time, the OBR would be allowed to set a date for when it can publish its forecast.

And we will provide much more certainty to businesses by committing to holding a single Autumn budget every year by the end of November, giving companies and families four months to plan for the new tax year. These changes will be put to parliament as a new charter of Budget responsibility. This will introduce a new fiscal lock on Britain’s economic institutions to strengthen our financial stability and security.

Second, I will never spend what we cannot afford. I will introduce a new set of fiscal rules. These rules will apply to every decision taken by a Labour government. We will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending and we will reduce national debt as a share of the economy. I am clear that these rules are non-negotiable. There will be no exceptions. As with our revised charter of budget responsibility, these rules will be put to parliament to back.

Finally, I will always put Britain’s economic interests first. The “mini” Budget was not just a one off — it was the culmination of 13 years of poor decisions coming out of Whitehall. We are missing out on investment because we do not have an industrial strategy. We are not building enough homes because we have failed to reform our broken planning system. And more than a decade of political instability has fuelled economic instability.

As chancellor, I will make different choices. I will back the British industries that strengthen our energy security, cut household bills and create better paid jobs. I want to use the power of the Treasury to get business round the table so that we can unlock billions of pounds of investment into our towns, cities and regions. I will work with, not against, our financial institutions. And I will take the long-term, difficult decisions to bring growth back to our economy.

https://www.ft.com/content/9c1eea5b-4fcc-4828-bd8a-f6e63cfc5b5b

‘We will bring back stability’

I heard Rayner go on about this

She had to skip the stability already apparent with Sunak and was woeful on future plans for increased spending

Rayner isn’t the Shadow Chancellor, Reeves is. Are you going to engage in a proper discussion without the sneering now you have Labour’s fiscal policy laid out for you?

If Reeves can speak while standing up to scrutiny I’m sure I’ll catch it.

I listen to most politicians to see if their approach stacks up

I haven’t heard much from Labour yet beyond criticism that sounds confident on what they’ll do

That was in the Financial Times this week. Surely you’re able to critique and discuss the written word? Anyway the business world appears to be convinced.

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/city-support-for-labour-grows-the-tory-party-is-no-longer-the-voice-it-once-was-for-business-20230217

Debt isn't a huge issue if the economy is growing. We shouldn't look at government debt in the same way we look at a credit card statement or even a companies profit & loss account.

Spending money on infrastructure, public services, even benefits, etc is a good thing - it keeps the economy moving and growing. Productivity increases and it makes us all wealthier. People should have a look at what the multiplier effect is before worrying about how much a government spends.

Your average person on Universal Credit doesn't send their money offshore or hoard it in a bank account, it is usually spent and that keeps the economy growing, people in jobs, etc. Spending money on rebuilding schools, the nhs, trains and all the wages involved in that grows the economy. The money doesn't just disappear into an ether, the governments ends up getting most of it back in taxation anyway and if you have a bigger economy you'll get more money back.

Some research has shown that the austerity policies have left the economy much smaller than it could have been, combine this with the estimated 4% drop in GDP from Brexit and we're not exactly in great shape. This has all happened under Tory ideology too.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/21/uk-economy-100bn-smaller-because-of-austerity-thinktank

That list is no where near enough to provide substance for a decision. I’m sure we all go in to new jobs with nice intentions It’s PR blurb

I’m much more interested in how someone will answer difficult questions, deal with competing strains and interests, of which there will be many

So yes I’ll look out for actual interviews and response not an unchallenged piece of copy. It’s a tiny factor if at all and a wish list

@sally037 yrs it’s good the economy is growing but debt servicing is problematic

It costs in taxpayer funding which could be used elsewhere

It costs in taxpayer funding which could be used elsewhere

Like tax cuts? Shame Sunak didn’t think of that when he was borrowing like the sky was the limit.

Some of us thought of it during the pandemic

Many didn’t want to hear it though

Public demand for that spending was incredibly high, and ultimately why Sunak left as Johnson likely set direction for more

That’s not what Sunak’s resignation letter said. He resigned because of Johnson’s behaviour.

To leave ministerial office is a serious matter at any time. For me to step down as Chancellor while the world is suffering the economic consequences of the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and other serious challenges is a decision that I have not taken lightly.

However, the public rightly expect government to be conducted properly, competently and seriously. I recognise this may be my last ministerial job, but I believe these standards are worth fighting for and that is why I am resigning.

Funnily enough you omitted the relevant paragraph

I firmly believe the public are ready to hear that truth. Our people know that if something is too good to be true then it's not true. They need to know that whilst there is a path to a better future, it is not an easy one. In preparation for our proposed joint speech on the economy next week, it has become clear to me that our approaches are fundamentally too different.

The relevant words are the last I quoted where he literally says he’s resigning for standards worth fighting for.

See, this is what I mean. It’s there in black and white and still you argue the toss. You complain that Labour has no plan, you’re shown it has from the horse’s mouth and you deflect. You’re clearly an intelligent person, why won’t you engage in a reasoned debate?

I'd be very surprised if one issue swung it for the Tories but Labour under Starmer have shown already a willingness to show pragmatism/compromise itself (depending on your point of view) so I wouldn't be surprised if we seem more Labour policies watered down to satisfy swing voters. The Tories have unfortunately reduced everyone's aspirations drastically over the last 13 years.

I'm really not sure how anyone still buys the 2008 economic crash being the responsibility of Labour unless they literally just read the headlines of Tory friendly newspapers and do no other research. Judging by that person's post, which was scant on detail beyond "need I go on?" I suspect that the answer is that they couldn't go on because they couldn't back it up.

Which is why I spoke about growing the economy. Servicing debt is much easier with a bigger economy.

That's why Liz Truss (a Tory PM) sunk the UK, she wanted to use debt to fund tax cuts with her ideology being that those tax cuts will grow the economy. This has been proven over many years to rarely work especially with trickle down economics which is where her ideology lay. The markets responded accordingly as they knew that it would make it much harder for the UK to pay back any debts. Infrastructure spending and public services is the way to go as that's what makes a country richer and the economy bigger.

Thanks for the compliment but no I still disagree with you that it is the sole reason

They both can stand.

In preparation for our proposed joint speech on the economy next week, it has become clear to me that our approaches are fundamentally too different.

This is clear, it focuses on their economic approaches diverging

Johnson was a spender and intended to continue. Sunak knew it was too good to be true, as stated.

Reeves wish list needs to stand up to scrutiny. If anything I’d wonder if a person writing that is aware that a big part of the huge pressures over competing interests. Which is why I will listen out for challenges and answers. That isn’t an unreasonable approach, it’s sensible.

I think they are going to do something with inheritance tax, make the threshold much much higher.

It’s too high. Even with a growing economy

The aging population is getting more an issue every year Hence the projected staffing levels.

We’re maxed out

I do actually think we were over exposed to risk in 2008

So that boom we all enjoyed came at a later cost

I don’t mind if both parties who benefited from a risk-exposed FS sector but that period was a bit enjoy the risk / and credit and pay later

It’s very convenient for Labour to distance themselves from the shocking levels of over spend in the early 2000s. For those of us old enough to remember, it was for this reason that when the shit truly hit the fan in 2008 with the financial meltdown we were in a terrible mess and this country nearly defaulted. It was very nearly game over under Labour!

My dh was called into the office at 2am for emergency meetings for two consecutive nights in 2008, as the country hit the buffers. So don’t you dare come on here and white wash reality!

Labour were an absolute nightmare with overspending and not having any fiscal control whatsoever when they were in power last time.

Why do you think Labour lost the election back then???

We needed the conservatives to come in and steady the ship and restore order and finance, it’s fucking laughable that you now BLAME them for the austerity Labour caused!!
We would be a tin pot country now and totally impoverished without the conservatives stepping in.

As much as you may not like to be reminded of just how shit the Blair government was - apart from taking us into a pointless war and killing thousands of innocent people in Iraq, Blair also ran up huge debts! Blair is a war criminal. Now we have Starmer cut from exactly the same cloth.

@sally037 I agree with many of your points, but the UK cannot operate in a vacuum though. We are part of a global economy and are influenced to a great degree on how that economy is performing. The UK is 5th or 6th in terms of economic strength with 70% of FTSE companies earnings coming from overseas markets.

The UK has to make targeted investments in many things to achieve growth and that may be internal capital projects - which I agree Labour are more likely to succeed at - but most likely will be growth projects overseas. The latter lead to longer term export earnings for the UK.

When considering the level of UK debt - some £100,000 per household - we are in no position to ignore the need to pay that down urgently with longer term rising interest rates. We have to grow the economy and pay down debt at the same time. It will take 30 years to achieve this.

Look at the facts @Lastchancechica.

We’re maxed out

We are indeed. A short phrase, but it cannot be more truly stated.

Cuts in corporation tax for firms making targeted investment is fine. I can see the immediate benefit. Cuts to IHT - complete give away to the richest 4% most of which will do nothing to the UK economy.

Yes we have and Labour are a car crash when it comes to the economy.