I wouldn't get too dewy-eyed about the OBR. It was created by George Osborne and its function, if not its stated aim, was to legitimise austerity. It's a roadblock on the path to progressive change, and I would not be sorry to see it go.
Well yes, you make some good points.Yes, agree that she identified the benefits to the rich, though what Labour would do differently is unclear. For one thing Rachael Reeves herself has ruled out increases to Corp Tax and on a wider ideological point, which was what I was pointing at in my post, the adoption of the household model of the economy is a model that constrains public spending and means that, having condemned the Tories borrowing plans, raising taxes is the only option Labour has left itself to fund increased public spending.
Another constraint on raising public spending for Labour, is that it has also committed itself to reducing the deficit and the debt.
Surely the challenge is what about the tory economic disaster of now?Well yes, you make some good points.
The thing is that thanks to the long term media impressed and entirely false image of Labour as a 'Tax and spend, fiscally incompetent' party, any Labour statement which can be interpreted as confirming that lie, will be seized upon in Parliament and by the press.
As a small example, the Tory Chief Treasury Sec bloke with 2 weeks in post couldn't wait to quote 'Labour's economic disaster of 2008' on telly earlier. He was briefly challenged by Jo wotsername, but not nearly as tenaciously as she should have.
It's a depressing reality.
It's a very difficult position for Labour to be in.
It might well be a difficult position that Labour finds itself in, but it is a position that about has adopted willingly, rather than be pushed into. It could, for example, make an economic case against Thatcher economics, it could offer a coherent ideological and economic alternative, but as long ago as Callaghan, it decided to adopt Thatcherite assumptions, and we have had Thatcherite economic assumptions ever since. We need an alternative.Well yes, you make some good points.
The thing is that thanks to the long term media impressed and entirely false image of Labour as a 'Tax and spend, fiscally incompetent' party, any Labour statement which can be interpreted as confirming that lie, will be seized upon in Parliament and by the press.
As a small example, the Tory Chief Treasury Sec bloke with 2 weeks in post couldn't wait to quote 'Labour's economic disaster of 2008' on telly earlier. He was briefly challenged by Jo wotsername, but not nearly as tenaciously as she should have.
It's a depressing reality.
It's a very difficult position for Labour to be in.
We need an economic alternative, but Labour, and the LD’s is not offering oneSurely the challenge is what about the tory economic disaster of now?
The pound is plunging. Disastrously.
The Chancellor is laughing all the way to Her Majesty's grave.
“A massive moment for @iealondon. They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.”
Ex-Conservative Home gobshite Tim Montgomerie actually nails it (Twitter). This is exactly where we are. An economy now defined by an entirely unelected dark-money-funded right-wing ‘think tank’ that masquerades behind a fake official-sounding name.
My goodness, parity with the Swiss franc approaches...Bl**dy hell - if this continues I could become a foreign oligarch UK property owner.
Can someone please explain Jacob Rees Mogg to me. I honestly do not understand how a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager can become “Secretary Of State For Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy” without every conflict of interest alarm in the world going off. How the hell is this possible? What is ‘insider trading’ if it is not this?!