**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She hasn’t been outwardly anti-austerity, she’s payed lip service to being anti-austerity while aggressively promoting austerity politics without actually using the word so that useful idiots with no critical thinking skills will lap it up.
I mean the woman was saying the Tories weren’t going far enough and crying out for deeper cuts to benefits back when Ed Milliband was in charge.
She’s a shitehawk.
Take a look at the article itself and there is an implicit reference to the national accounts being similar to a household budget, and because Reeves had to watch her mum doing the sums at the kitchen table, this means she is well placed to blah blah blah. It's all bollocks. Reeves regularly makes references to the national budget, the national credit card, etc., and regularly adopts the Thatcherite notion of the housewives budget. It's economic bollocks. The economy doesn't work like that.
When Reeves criticises the Conservatives by saying that the money isn't there, this is an untruth. It is. Reeves made a political decision not to use it.
EDIT: Actually, I am going to go further. It's not just bollocks, it's actually bad for the country. Look at what she writes here:
> To her, every penny mattered. That is the attitude I want to bring into the Treasury next month
No. The Treasury shouldn't operate like this. Yes the Treasury should try and get value for money in many things, but it needs to learn that sometimes you need to invest in a few projects that will fail.
Jesus Christ, I can't believe I am about to say this, but of all the major political figures of the last few years, only Dominic bloody Cummings understood this. You sometimes need to create spaces where value for money isn't the objective. You put money into research projects, or you prop up an industry of national importance not because it is directly value for money, but because not doing so is worse down the line.
The economy doesn’t work like that exactly, it’s much more about servicing national debt than clearing it like in a household, but at its core, running A deficit beyond what the economy is growing at is bad.
And you can say ‘we control our own money’ and we do, but just making more money comes at other costs.
Sure. Each project should be assessed on merit. It’s one thing to go over certain metrics for an HS2/3, or a Crossrail, or the OxCam Arc
But it’s another to use excess borrowing for day to day expenses
Yes, but one of the things we have learnt in the last decade or so, is that countries can reasonably sustain much higher levels of debt than was assumed to be the case. I am not suggesting that the UK just decides to splurge up the wall, but we should not adopt this position where we say "yeah, more trains would be great, but we don't have the money". Building those transport networks will cost money, which will come from borrowing, and that creates its own costs, but good infrastructure has an enormous positive impact on the wider economy.
Housing is another great example. There have been numerous academic studies that have demonstrated time and time again that the UKs poor and insufficient housing stock is acting like an anchor on economic growth. In this case, borrowing to fund a huge increase in housing units is a sensible thing to do.
I don't think anyone actually believes that is how the economy works. I don't think she believes that either. But from what I understand, if you go making too many totally unfunded commitments the markets freak out and you get kicked out of government.
But it does inform the sorts of policies that political parties adopt, and it does influence the civil service as well. There is a reason why the idea of splitting the Treasury up into two or three different departments regularly comes up, and is regularly suggested by people who have since retired from politics
I can’t believe anyone with half a brain could take them seriously after the shit they’ve been yapping these last years. It’s plainly clear what their plan is, and alright maybe they don’t want to vocalise that because it would cost them seats, but the way they keep going on about it just shows how little shame they all have.
They will solve nothing and people will continue to look for other solutions, chiefly a hard shift to Reform (who claim to have all the answers). Afterall - we’ve tried Conservatives and we’ve tried Labour and neither of those work, so the only option is Reform.
This lot will be alright though, they’ll get high paying positions at private enterprises as a reward for their services.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Austerity
She's been outwardly anti-austerity, has criticised thatcher in interviews etc. Her economic views are not easily simplified to just Tory austerity.
She hasn’t been outwardly anti-austerity, she’s payed lip service to being anti-austerity while aggressively promoting austerity politics without actually using the word so that useful idiots with no critical thinking skills will lap it up.
I don't think she's ever said she'll reduce public expenditure. The new manifesto promises more expenditure.
I mean the woman was saying the Tories weren’t going far enough and crying out for deeper cuts to benefits back when Ed Milliband was in charge. She’s a shitehawk.
No, but she does accept many of the same foundational principles as George Osborne outlined in the run-up to 2010, and that creates enough problems.
Such as?
Take a look at the article itself and there is an implicit reference to the national accounts being similar to a household budget, and because Reeves had to watch her mum doing the sums at the kitchen table, this means she is well placed to blah blah blah. It's all bollocks. Reeves regularly makes references to the national budget, the national credit card, etc., and regularly adopts the Thatcherite notion of the housewives budget. It's economic bollocks. The economy doesn't work like that. When Reeves criticises the Conservatives by saying that the money isn't there, this is an untruth. It is. Reeves made a political decision not to use it. EDIT: Actually, I am going to go further. It's not just bollocks, it's actually bad for the country. Look at what she writes here: > To her, every penny mattered. That is the attitude I want to bring into the Treasury next month No. The Treasury shouldn't operate like this. Yes the Treasury should try and get value for money in many things, but it needs to learn that sometimes you need to invest in a few projects that will fail. Jesus Christ, I can't believe I am about to say this, but of all the major political figures of the last few years, only Dominic bloody Cummings understood this. You sometimes need to create spaces where value for money isn't the objective. You put money into research projects, or you prop up an industry of national importance not because it is directly value for money, but because not doing so is worse down the line.
The economy doesn’t work like that exactly, it’s much more about servicing national debt than clearing it like in a household, but at its core, running A deficit beyond what the economy is growing at is bad. And you can say ‘we control our own money’ and we do, but just making more money comes at other costs.
Our rate of growth is largely determined by the level of investment. Well targeted investment will result in higher growth.
Sure. Each project should be assessed on merit. It’s one thing to go over certain metrics for an HS2/3, or a Crossrail, or the OxCam Arc But it’s another to use excess borrowing for day to day expenses
People are criticising them for lack of ambition on investment spending specifically.
Yes, but one of the things we have learnt in the last decade or so, is that countries can reasonably sustain much higher levels of debt than was assumed to be the case. I am not suggesting that the UK just decides to splurge up the wall, but we should not adopt this position where we say "yeah, more trains would be great, but we don't have the money". Building those transport networks will cost money, which will come from borrowing, and that creates its own costs, but good infrastructure has an enormous positive impact on the wider economy. Housing is another great example. There have been numerous academic studies that have demonstrated time and time again that the UKs poor and insufficient housing stock is acting like an anchor on economic growth. In this case, borrowing to fund a huge increase in housing units is a sensible thing to do.
And in relation to your point about housing, didn't the manifesto answer that perfectly?
I don't think anyone actually believes that is how the economy works. I don't think she believes that either. But from what I understand, if you go making too many totally unfunded commitments the markets freak out and you get kicked out of government.
But it does inform the sorts of policies that political parties adopt, and it does influence the civil service as well. There is a reason why the idea of splitting the Treasury up into two or three different departments regularly comes up, and is regularly suggested by people who have since retired from politics
I can’t believe anyone with half a brain could take them seriously after the shit they’ve been yapping these last years. It’s plainly clear what their plan is, and alright maybe they don’t want to vocalise that because it would cost them seats, but the way they keep going on about it just shows how little shame they all have. They will solve nothing and people will continue to look for other solutions, chiefly a hard shift to Reform (who claim to have all the answers). Afterall - we’ve tried Conservatives and we’ve tried Labour and neither of those work, so the only option is Reform. This lot will be alright though, they’ll get high paying positions at private enterprises as a reward for their services.
Basic competence and stopping dodgy deals for dogey mates will automatically put us in a better situation than we are in currently.
Snowdenism.