The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Wainy316]

Labour knew about the black hole because everyone kept yelling it at them during the campaign  but they chose to ignore it as it moved the debate onto tax rises.

Now they're in they'll freely talk about it, but it's quite clear they knew about it before.  It's still the Tories fault but they can't pretend that this is new info.

Edited July 30 by Wainy316

[chrisp65]

About 20 seconds of googling found this article on an SNP website that says:

Quote

Mr Swinney described Labour as ‘evasive’ for avoiding or refusing to outline where the axe would fall under their plans which would mean £18 billion worth of cuts to public services according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

The institute has accused both Labour and the Tories of a ‘conspiracy of silence’ over their planned tax and spending plans in government.

Quote

With Labour pledged to follow the Tories’ borrowing rules, and copy their tax plans by not raising taxes, the only option they would have is to cut public spending.

Labour’s lack of honesty about cuts was starkly exhibited by their justice spokesperson Emily Thornberry of Times Radio where she refused to say what public service cuts they would be make and ended up saying “I don’t know what else I’m supposed to say.”

Quote

the Resolution Foundation state that to stay inside Tory fiscal rules Labour has adopted, the next Westminster govt will have a fiscal black hole.

 

The last one is purely for a Kenneth, but the article is from the 11th June.

There are similar pre election articles on Plaid websites and from all stripes of politiicans twitter accounts at the times of the TV debates.

It simply isn’t credible the only person that this has taken by surprise is Reeves. If it actually is true, if we are to believe her, she needs to be sacked a bit sharpish.

 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Labour knew about the black hole because everyone kept yelling it at them during the campaign  but they chose to ignore it as it moved the debate onto tax rises.

Now they're in they'll freely talk about it, but it's quite clear they knew about it before.  It's still the Tories fault but they can't pretend that this is new info.

There’s 2 parts to it. There’s the part they, and everyone else, knew about and as you say people shouted about and the IFS said “neither of the two parties is being open about”. But there’s a second part, too. The part that until after the election neither the OBR, nor the IFS, nor Labour knew about. The OBR wrote to the treasury select committee and in mandarin speak said that the Tories hid stuff. There’s a pdf file of that letter on this link.

Its absolutely the case that the new Government is laying it on a bit, but that shouldn’t take away the fact that the Tories basically not only **** everything up, but that they also recklessly hid and concealed some of that **** up.

[blandy]

Quote

So, was Reeves right to have been surprised by what she found? To some extent, yes. The degree to which some spending programmes were not properly funded was not fully transparent. Should we all be shocked at how some of this was buried and the extent of problems inherited by the new government? Yes, we should. Does any of this change the fact that we always knew that here are some really tough decisions coming up on tax, spending and borrowing? Not at all.

The options in the forthcoming budget and spending review are as they always were. Keep to the last government’s spending plans and impose austerity across the public services, raise borrowing and break your commitments on government debt, or impose some chunky tax rises. We knew that three months ago. It remains true today.

https://archive.ph/u3aOG
The bits in bold, from the IFS, sum it up. Some of the mess was hidden, but it was always the case that you either ditch the Tory rules on reducing the debt, or you put up some taxes to cover the gap. That part is a political choice. Labour said they would fill the known gap via growth, but that’s pretty unlikely to be big enough.

[Wainy316]

So does it have to be tax raises or cuts to plug the gap.  Could they not borrow?  That option is not even being discussed.

[Chindie]

5 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

So does it have to be tax raises or cuts to plug the gap.  Could they not borrow?  That option is not even being discussed.

They've made a choice. It's a political one, because their ideology is basically a conservative one. 

They lied.

Everyone knew it was coming. It's why all the Labour MPs crowing about change needed an asterisk after the word.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Wainy316 said:

So does it have to be tax raises or cuts to plug the gap.  Could they not borrow?  That option is not even being discussed.

A Trussenomics tweet from 20222:

 

 

[Jon]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

They've made a choice. It's a political one, because their ideology is basically a conservative one. 

They lied.

Everyone knew it was coming. It's why all the Labour MPs crowing about change needed an asterisk after the word.

The Blue Tories have been comprehensively rejected at the polling booth. 

We needed a change, something different.  Long live the errrr .... 

Red Tories. 

[foreveryoung]

Get rid, or reform this lot, should save at least a billion each year.

 

[Lichfield Dean]

8 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Get rid, or reform this lot, should save at least a billion each year.

 

In principle yes, but at least having some kind of second chamber means at least somebody can hold the government to account.

Definitely shouldn't be a bunch of aristocrats and government-appointed puppets though.

Edited July 30 by Lichfield Dean

[chrisp65]

Did we ever find out why blonde intern Charlotte Owen was given a peerage by Johnson?
 

 

[bickster]

32 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

In principle yes, but at least having some kind of second chamber means at least somebody can hold the government to account.

Definitely shouldn't be a bunch of aristocrats and government-appointed puppets though.

This, need a second chamber, just not that one, an elected one. In reality it will probably cost more not less

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Labour knew about the black hole because everyone kept yelling it at them during the campaign  but they chose to ignore it as it moved the debate onto tax rises.

Now they're in they'll freely talk about it, but it's quite clear they knew about it before.  It's still the Tories fault but they can't pretend that this is new info.

Exactly what i think too wainy.

Im not buying it

[mykeyb]

53 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Did we ever find out why blonde intern Charlotte Owen was given a peerage by Johnson?
 

 

Yes, he probably shagged her. Now back to Labour

Edited July 30 by mykeyb

[PaulC]

3 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Labour knew about the black hole because everyone kept yelling it at them during the campaign  but they chose to ignore it as it moved the debate onto tax rises.

Now they're in they'll freely talk about it, but it's quite clear they knew about it before.  It's still the Tories fault but they can't pretend that this is new info.

Yes of course they did. 

[ml1dch]

46 minutes ago, bickster said:

This, need a second chamber, just not that one, an elected one. 

Still an absolutely terrible idea.

[LondonLax]

UK debt is now at 100% of GDP, levels not seen since WW2. The interest alone on that debt is expected to cost around £90 billion next financial year. Chucking more on the pile is not sustainable.

Printing your way out of it unleashes the inflation problem that happened when governments printed their way out of COVID. 

The UK has to actually produce more products or services that global society wants in order to sustain the lifestyle it is accustomed to. That requires, at the very least, reducing the red tape and other barriers to trade that have gone up since Brexit. 

[bickster]

26 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Still an absolutely terrible idea.

Still disagree  

[Jonesy7211]

No wonder Starmer was like a rabbit in the headlights whenever he was pressed on taxation during the leaders debates. If the OBR knew this was coming there was no chance Labour didn't.

This is just the start of the next shit sandwich the country will be forced to eat. Low wages, high tax, and in the near future we can look forward to high inflation. The bs about growth plugging the gaps looks like the hopes of a school kid, rather than a realistic ambition of a sensible MP. 

There's nothing we (the people) can do about it either. Feck.

[Demitri_C]

21 minutes ago, Jonesy7211 said:

No wonder Starmer was like a rabbit in the headlights whenever he was pressed on taxation during the leaders debates. If the OBR knew this was coming there was no chance Labour didn't.

This is just the start of the next shit sandwich the country will be forced to eat. Low wages, high tax, and in the near future we can look forward to high inflation. The bs about growth plugging the gaps looks like the hopes of a school kid, rather than a realistic ambition of a sensible MP. 

There's nothing we (the people) can do about it either. Feck.

I got to be honwst i have a feeling inflation is going to go up very soon