Rachel Reeves

[roverstillidie91]

Where's the plan to tackle poverty ?

Where's the plan to save local government ?

What about the NHS ?

These are not exactly small ticket issues .

How much will that cost? Where will the money come from?

Are you seriously proposing that Labour fight a GE on how much they will raise taxes?

tax the billionaire's and stop robbing and demonising the poorest

[albie]

So what you appear to be saying is Laswon (and tax cuts) has nothing to do with the thatcher era Albie.

No Syd,

I am saying Lawson and Thatcher sold off the public infrastructure, like Water, Energy, Rail, at a discount.
Once done, it can't be done again.

So now the options are different.
Neoliberal poiticians have to find a new way to bolster the interests of their backers.

Reeves has locked into the tax system Labour will inherit, which includes the biases that the Tories have introduced.
There is no need for further tax cuts, when it has been done before the GE.

The issue for Labour is reversing those changes, but RR won't do it!

Just be aware that if you are supporting RR then you are backing a new version of austerity, with the add on that growth will deliver "trickle down" benefits.
It never has before, has it?

[SydneyRover]

Albie, what you were actually promoting was the idea that RR was channelling thatcher in her speech, remember? I have put forward two main planks from that era tax cuts and lawson to whom she gave a caning, so if you want to continue with that idea (which I assume you do) why not critique the speech and show directly where this channelling is occurring.

That would then provide the basis for a reasonable discussion.

[albie]

An explanation from economist Grace Blakeney why Rachel Reeves obsessive dedication to "fiscal rules" is a complete distraction from the real issues;
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1798338675761397760/vid/avc1/1280x720/YkXhX_3JtIrpHIzF.mp4?tag=14

Reeves keeps parroting out this guff as though it were handed down in the tablets of stone, rather than something she has just made up.

Alongside refusal to tax the top 5%, Reeves is just the prisoner of dogma.

[SydneyRover]

An explanation from economist Grace Blakeney why Rachel Reeves obsessive dedication to "fiscal rules" is a complete distraction from the real issues;
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1798338675761397760/vid/avc1/1280x720/YkXhX_3JtIrpHIzF.mp4?tag=14

Reeves keeps parroting out this guff as though it were handed down in the tablets of stone, rather than something she has just made up.

Alongside refusal to tax the top 5%, Reeves is just the prisoner of dogma.

I'll watch it if you post the manifesto for the party you are going to vote for Albie

[Sprotyrover]

An explanation from economist Grace Blakeney why Rachel Reeves obsessive dedication to "fiscal rules" is a complete distraction from the real issues;
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1798338675761397760/vid/avc1/1280x720/YkXhX_3JtIrpHIzF.mp4?tag=14

Reeves keeps parroting out this guff as though it were handed down in the tablets of stone, rather than something she has just made up.

Alongside refusal to tax the top 5%, Reeves is just the prisoner of dogma.

Hey Albie, I watched the video by MOMENTUM simply advocating a liz Truss let’s Bankrupt the country plan and drive up interest rates, I think Rachel Reeves is right about fiscal rules, Liz Truss caused chaos, the country runs on Financial institutions that’s our strength and they as demonstrated by The Truss Car crash, call the Tune!
Borrowing money to invest in Quangos is also a bad idea we would lose our Credit rating and instead of paying 5% interest we would be paying 7% and boy would that hurt!
As for ‘Taxing the rich’ you have to quantify the definition of rich, the wealthy millionaires have been dodging taxes for centuries and will continue to do so!
The folks in the tax target are folks who are earning over 50K they can be ruthlessly taxed and they won’t be able to do much about it except, sell the Car, Downsize and don’t bother with a holiday. Or even get a less stressful job!

[albie]

Right, so what happens if the fiscal rules constrain growth to limit economic development.
As they are basically the same as those of Jeremy Hunt, they have already been shown not to work in promoting growth.

Reeves is saying that growth is the key to reformation, and has ruled out higher taxes on the top 5%.
Aside from the fact growth depends on developments in the wider international economy, which Reeves does not control, at the same time she is restricting the only possible levers she has to kick start the UK economy.

It makes no sense at all, as Blakeney points out.

Ps Sproty, it doesn't advocate a Truss style approach at all.
Watch the video again!

[Sprotyrover]

Right, so what happens if the fiscal rules constrain growth to limit economic development.
As they are basically the same as those of Jeremy Hunt, they have already been shown not to work in promoting growth.

Reeves is saying that growth is the key to reformation, and has ruled out higher taxes on the top 5%.
Aside from the fact growth depends on developments in the wider international economy, which Reeves does not control, at the same time she is restricting the only possible levers she has to kick start the UK economy.

It makes no sense at all, as Blakeney points out.

Ps Sproty, it doesn't advocate a Truss style approach at all.
Watch the video again!

Albie there was a lesson in the Liz Truss affair for all who are interested in not bankrupting the country.
By not upsetting the financial sector!
The only realist tax grab is the top 5% of earners , which won’t include to the top 1% who will dodge as they always do!

[BillyStubbsTears]

That Blakeney video.

I've heard people saying she's grown up now, but that video is as selective and unserious as she ever was.

Just from the first "reason" I'll give you this.

1) She doesn't differentiate between Reeves' policy of getting the CURRENT budget into balance, and the policy of allowing a deficit on the CAPITAL account. So she says that Labour won't be able to invest in the Green Economy. But most of that investment will be capital, so yes they can.

I really don't get why supposedly intelligent commentators on the Left insist on being blind to this point. And I'll repeat: Corbyn's fiscal policy was to balance the current account and allow borrowing for capital investment. Weird int it? He's the visionary God that Labour betrayed and Reeves is a Red Tory.

2) She makes a facile comparison to what the Attlee Govt managed to achieve in the teeth of a much bigger debt. But seems to forget that was underpinned by screwing down consumption (by extending rationing) having brutal credit control measures and getting a huge handout from Marshall aid.
If you're going to do this sort of thing seriously, do it seriously.

[Sprotyrover]

That Blakeney video.

I've heard people saying she's grown up now, but that video is as selective and unserious as she ever was.

Just from the first "reason" I'll give you this.

1) Sheffield doesn't differentiate between Reeves' policy of getting the CURRENT budget into balance, and the policy of allowing a deficit on the CAPITAL account. So she says that Labour won't be able to invest in the Green Economy. But most of that investment will be capital, so yes they can.

I really don't get why supposedly intelligent commentators on the Left insist on being blind to this point. And I'll repeat: Corbyn's fiscal policy was to balance the current account and allow borrowing for capital investment. Weird int it? He's the visionary God that Labour betrayed and Reeves is a Red Tory.

2) She makes a facile comparison to what the Attlee Govt managed to achieve in the teeth of a much bigger debt. But seems to forget that was underpinned by screwing down consumption (by extending rationing) having brutal credit control measures and getting a huge handout from Marshall aid.
If you're going to do this sort of thing seriously, do it seriously.

UK had the largest of all the Marshal plan handouts.

[selby]

And the generations that seem to be the point of Envy worked that hard they repaid the debt in 2006

[DonnyOsmond]

Keynes

[Iberian Red]

Exactly DO

[albie]

BST,

Once again you are failing to see that finance capital (for infrastructure) has ongoing implications for resource consumption down the line.
All investment in construction and renewal capital cost requires maintenance and support budgets, and these come from "day to day spending" accounts.

In a scenario where Ministers can access capital – from underspends or borrowing, or PFI style loans – the running costs five years down the line need to be budgeted.
The Capex upfront leads to a day to day finance problem in future.

Those running costs 5 years hence are themselves subject to the public debt reduction target, an aim central to Reeves fiscal rules.

Reeves has criticised the “stop-go” cycle of capital spending, but the debt reduction rule she advocates will limit capital spending, unless she is willing to raise taxes or cut day-to-day spending even further.

This is why it is an austerity by default solution.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

And if I may, you yourself are ignoring what Reeves has said (and I have pointed out several times) about requiring the OBR to do away with the ridiculous instruction to ignore capital investment's effect on future GDP growth. That will give considerable leeway for the ongoing current costs.

I do find it odd that you are so determined to ignore this.

[albie]

Not ignoring it at all, BST.....it is just much less important factor than you are assuming.

GDP growth is not solely governed by a Capex programme, although it may contribute.
Some Capex programmes do not contribute to growth (over time) in a significant way.

It has much to do with the position of the UK economy in international markets, and the relative economic pull factors in particular industries.

To be clear, I am in favour of Capex investment in productive capability to generate development, but it should not be restricted by nonsense fiscal rules on public debt.
They are simply irrelevant.

Reeves idea that growth will provide sufficient headroom for her economic plans is just a "hail mary" strategy, heavily dependent upon factors she does not control.
The plain fact is that Labour will have to revise their tax strategy, regardless of what they say now, to increase revenues.

Labour can either come clean and admit it, or continue with the pull the wool strategy.

This is a widespread view of many economists, and cannot be wished away.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Of course capital investment isn't the only thing that affects growth. But it still, all in all has a large effect on it.

The underpinning problem of our economy is that investment has collapsed since the GFC, and with it, so has productivity. There is nothing more important than fixing that problem.

And in the short term, the current costs associated with day to day running of the facilities built by capital investment don't come remotely close to the economic benefits of the facilities. Otherwise, no-one would ever invest! You spend capital investnent precisely to increase your productivity.

It feels like you have decided that Labour's strategy won't work and are refusing to look at the counter evidence.

Here's a question. Did you complain equally about the Corbyn/McDonnell economic strategy in 2017? Because they clearly and unambiguously said they would balance the current account over the business cycle and allow borrowing for capital investment. I've not seen anyone on the Left properly explain what the difference is between that approach and that of Reeves.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The 2017 manifesto is here by the way.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2017/localpdf/Labour.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwilis-BktKGAxXxhf0HHS_qBmoQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ms3dlcqxqSPRFr-20ZBL7

Here's the key text on P10.

To maintain good fiscal health, we will have a firm rule in place to guide all our taxation and spending decisions.

Our Fiscal Credibility Rule is based on the simple principle that government should not be borrowing for day-to-day spending, but that future growth  depends on investment. It was designed in conjunction with world leading economists. It also means we are committed to ensuring that the national debt is lower at the end of the next Parliament than it is today.

That is pretty much word for word what Reeves' policy is.

It's not very different from the 2015 policy of Balls and Milliband.

I've never understood why those words were Socialism, red in tooth and claw when spoken by The Blessed St Jeremy, while anyone else who says them are Red Tories.

[albie]

The point I am making is that what Reeves is saying is not really the policy, it is just a fig leaf for purposes of the election.
A con trick to deceive those who do not understand economics.

It is not just me who thinks the proposal is a damp squib, look at the criticism raised by economists!
No-one has any confidence in the growth projections meeting funding expectations, as you seem to assume. The error bars on that forecast are very wide.

You say that the manifesto commitment to fiscal rules is in some way similar to 2017.
It is not, because the 2017 offer was committed to expansion of wealth taxes and redistribution. Reeves plan fails to do either.
 
The 2017 Labour manifesto included a completely different package of measures, including redistributive wealth taxation.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/full-scale-how-labour-tax-10433330

Taking one specific policy out of that context is completely misleading. You cannot refer back to the 2017 plans and draw any valid comparisons when the wider economic context has changed.
Drawing a parallel between a tax programme for 2017, and a programme for 2024 without a plan to tax wealth (in property as well as income) is a misnomer.

It would be unusual for a programme to be supported in full, without some reservations. The fiscal rule was an error in earlier proposals, as it is now.
The important consideration is whether the whole captures the main policy changes that need to be made, with the least padding of concessions to lobby interests.

For example, nuclear power continues to be included, from 2017 to 2024, despite being wholly uneconomic.
This is because of trade union pressures, not because it is at all relevant to energy policy.

The key point about fiscal rules is why you might choose to adopt them.
What economic problem are they supposed to solve?

So BST, please explain why, in 2024, the UK economy needs to be restricted by an arbitrary rule that public debt falls in year 5, we would be very grateful?

[SydneyRover]

Albie, try the Viking site Opinion Poll, put up the all policies you want then you can see if the votes change.

[albie]

Here is Reeves setting out her tax plans in the Torygraph last August;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/26/no-wealth-taxes-labour-rachel-reeves/

Let's see how long this particular flag flies....my guess is not long at all, unless she is up for cuts in public spending and an austerity drive!