Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Youngian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 7:55 pm Any consensus on who this great unelected leader will be, Kim Kardashian, the Candyman, Ashleigh and Pudsey?

No idea but we’ll probably get an opinion column or two of the “is it any wonder when politicians don’t offer…” things the writer supports anyway. Rejoining the EU and a wealth tax and MMT are likely candidates.

Youngian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 7:55 pm Any consensus on who this great unelected leader will be, Kim Kardashian, the Candyman, Ashleigh and Pudsey?

There's hope for Andrew Taint yet...

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 8:40 pm

Youngian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 7:55 pm Any consensus on who this great unelected leader will be, Kim Kardashian, the Candyman, Ashleigh and Pudsey?

No idea but we’ll probably get an opinion column or two of the “is it any wonder when politicians don’t offer…” things the writer supports anyway. Rejoining the EU and a wealth tax and MMT are likely candidates.

MMT?

Many
More
Things
???

Modern Monetary Theory. Apparently, it's a bit more sophisticated than printing money to pay all the bills and debts then tackle the resultant hyper inflation by taxing people so highly they won't have any purchasing power to spend. But I've failed to understand what this credible sophisticated narrative is.

As far as most people are concerned it seems to be a case of "it's not tax and spend, it's spend and tax".

The Guardian BTL has lots of people who think they're smart because they say "neoliberalism" a lot. The Guardian seems to be outsourcing editorials to these people now.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -criticism

The operative phrase here is "Treasury orthodoxy". That can mean various things- too much borrowing, not enough investment- but whatever, I'm not sure that the expansion in the budget was it. And though the stuff about borrowing costs has been overdone, most people would agree borrowing doesn't want to get much more expensive. A fair point is made about Labour falling into the Tory trap on their NI cuts, but the last time anybody ran for government on sticking up taxes on people on not much above average incomes was 1992. Labour (even before Blair) wasn't going to repeat that. Brown's NI rises for health were very popular, but they weren't a theme at the 2001 election.

The Guardian view on Rachel Reeves: turbulence caused by caution, cuts and criticism

The cuts haven't happened yet, so how can they have caused turbulence? I don't get that.

Netherlands and the Nordics have much, much lower debt than the UK. As does Germany (though that's not a particularly encouraging example). At some point you notice that it's better to be spending money on building flood defenses, train lines, clean power than giving easy money to the international rich. Getting there though is not easy. I wish we'd have more discussion of that than "ah well, the problem is Treasury orthodoxy".

"That would be an ecumenical matter"

The Guardian leading the way again with "Emma Reynolds had a job when she was out of Parliament". Quote from Corbyn appointee, Lord Prem Sikka.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -china-row

No 10 accused of having ‘revolving door’ after new Treasury minister embroiled in China row
Emma Reynolds, who replaces Tulip Siddiq, pressed government over foreign influence rules while at lobbyist

"China row"? The Government's avowed policy is better relations with China already. And some City deregulation. Agree or disagree with those- City regulation seems to be one of those things everyone's an expert in by virtue of having a bank account- but even if you assume that having lobbied for something in the past means you're beholden to them forever, it sounds like Reynolds will be working with the grain. Don't quite see the scandal here.

Reform shoud be pleased Reynolds had a private sector job in the real world of business.

This is Brant standard cartooning from Ben Jennings. Rachel Reeves is apparently a mirror image of Liz Truss because she talks about growth a lot. Truss cut taxes, Reeves put them up. Yeah, Ben. They're the same. You might as well stick up a picture of Ben Jennings looking in a mirror and seeing Donald Trump because both think of themselves as sticking it to the establishment.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... th-cartoon

Come back, Steve Bell, all is forgiven. Nah, just kidding.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 5:45 pm This is Brant standard cartooning from Ben Jennings. Rachel Reeves is apparently a mirror image of Liz Truss because she talks about growth a lot. Truss cut taxes, Reeves put them up. Yeah, Ben. They're the same. You might as well stick up a picture of Ben Jennings looking in a mirror and seeing Donald Trump because both think of themselves as sticking it to the establishment.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... th-cartoon

Also both have the atistic talents of a cluster of colour blind hedgehogs in a bag.

Rather charmingly, the collective noun for hedgehogs is a "prickle".

The anti-starter/Reeves agenda is pretty obvious. It wasn't all that fair on Corbyn either. I wish the paper would make its mind up about what it wants.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nald-trump

Here's today's effort- "UK should learn from Donald Trump’s ‘boosterism’, Rachel Reeves says"

She didn't mention Trump. That was in the question. All she's doing is saying we need to be more positive.

Asked about Trump’s “boosterism” and whether the UK could learn from him, Reeves said: “Yes, I think we do need more positivity.”

“I’ve challenged businesses as well and said no one else is going to speak up for Britain apart from us. It hasn’t been a very British thing to say,” she told the Times.

I saw one Continuity Remainer pushing this earlier. Said we wouldn't need to suck up to Trump if it weren't for Brexit. Well, we would, unless you think Ukraine's defence is unimportant. When it was pointed out that the headlines were rather mischievous, she said something about how her real point was about the sucking up.

I guess the Guardian thinks Continuity Remain and Corbynites are a more promising market than people who think the Government overall is striking mostly the right balance.

Here's another from a couple of days ago.

Rachel Reeves’s bid to expand Heathrow could add £40 to airline ticket
Exclusive: Treasury analysis shows ticket prices expected to go up across board with no plans for frequent flyers to shoulder more of the cost

You'd understand from this that the expansion of Heathrow was being paid from the airline tickets on ordinary joes. You'd be wrong. The £40 is the cost of having to use the (more) sustainable fuels which is a mooted condition. The Telegraph would say "Reeves green fuels to cost £40 extra each", and on this occasion they'd be being more truthful than the Guardian.

Frequent flyers will of course pay more in airport taxes and cost of fuel, because a lot times something is more than two times something. What they won't be doing (which lots of people think they should) is paying proportionately more.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ine-ticket

The Guardian doesn't seem to like Reeves. It wasn't as bad on the bond panic, but it certainly went there with "pressure on Reeves". Then when they did a bit of boiler plate talk about being prepared to make cuts if necessary. the Guardian steamed in there too. Reeves simultaneously to expansionary and too austere.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 2:32 pm Here's today's effort- "UK should learn from Donald Trump’s ‘boosterism’, Rachel Reeves says"

She didn't mention Trump. That was in the question. All she's doing is saying we need to be more positive.

Asked about Trump’s “boosterism” and whether the UK could learn from him, Reeves said: “Yes, I think we do need more positivity.”

“I’ve challenged businesses as well and said no one else is going to speak up for Britain apart from us. It hasn’t been a very British thing to say,” she told the Times.

I'm sure the private sector's more than capable of blowing it's own trumpet without every government ever announcing they're going out to bat for Great Britain plc.

On the evidence so far, lots of the private sector’s happier moaning about the minimum wage, national insurance going up by 1.2%, and some mild improvements to workers rights.

Johnson used to do all that “world-beating” boosterism crap, and it did no bloody good whatsoever, mainly because the cunt was lying though his teeth . Nobody was convinced when Norman Lamont talked about “the green shoots of econmic recovery” either, because that was all bullshit too.

Just because you say so, don’t make it so. Reeves isn’t going to be coming out with that pish any time soon.