The problem is that any ‘borrowing’ will be undone by the narrative of putting a debt burden on future generations. The only way that any ‘investment’ can take place is by changing the narrative, but it won’t happen under labour because they have adopted the narrative and more important, also adopted the economic ideology that it underpins
Children on Pupil Premium already receive free school meals, and universal credit is already part of the criteria for receiving PP, so shifting the criteria to universal credit is not going to achieve a great deal of difference surely?
Maybe. But Labour has an opportunity right now to attack these lies. Thanks to Johnson, Labour has a receptive audience to the idea that the Tories are dishonest - so Labour needs to use it to its advantage. Discredit the lies that the Tories tell about Labour.
Tend to agree. It's always the problem when you lean into dominant narratives. Better to play a straight bat on the whole and make a case for what you want to do and for the logic you believe to be correct, rather than appearing to go along with things before saying, "Ah, but this is different!"
I think it is more significant than that. The narrative that Labour has bought into is the narrative of privatisation and cuts to public services. If it plays buys into the narrative of public spending cuts for economic growth, in order to get elected, but then breaks faith with the narrative to engage in meaningful public spending , it will be undone by a barrage of righteous indignation.
Didn't know that. Not sure what the answer is but I assume there was some reason for the Lib-Dem amendment.
Fair enough, wasn’t even aware that free school meals were under threat.
They have literally been doing that. KS said he would resign over ‘beer gate’ if prosecuted. Labour should have been far stronger in the past in defending their record when in Government but this goes against the prevailing narrative of many on here & explains why they are still in opposition.
We are agreed that Labour should defend its record. I'm saying that it's not 1997 anymore. While Labour achieved many things in office, and genuinely attempted to take children out of poverty, fix the NHS etc, we should not be blind to the reasons it was voted out of office.
Am I for forced marriage because I don’t want the UK to break up? Such a ridiculous comment. What kind of childish individual comes up with such rubbish.
Nobody has yet explained that, probably because there is no difference upto the point of hypocrisy.
Spot on. However, this is far too sensible and common sense to fly with the massive.
Problem is, it is not sensible to tie your hands with arbitrary fiscal rules. Just as most people can't buy a house without a mortgage, a sensible government should tailor its economics to the tasks it thinks it can achieve. If it needs to borrow, then it needs to borrow. A prospective government only needs to show that the return on investment is likely to outweigh the costs. The Guardian got this right, in its editorial last year, after Rachel Reeves announced her fiscal rules.
But that was last year. Here is a link to Reeves' speech today. It sells a vision of 'modern supply side economics'. Supply-side economics (per Wikipedia) "is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade."Guardian said:
^^^^
I don't need to be convinced...
I largely agree but I am just trying to put things in perspective, many economic factors have continued to nosedive under the Tories, such as productivity & growth, & they need to own that.
