Liberal, Briton, ‘Centrist Fun Uncle’. Co-mod of m/neoliberal and c/neoliberal.
This is patently absurd. Labour already inherited the highest tax burden in 70 years from the Conservatives - this budget increases the tax burden by a further £40bn to fund extra spending. Government borrowing is also going to increase by an average of £32bn a year for the next five years due to this budget.
If this is what they call austerity, I’d hate to see what these people think government largesse looks like…
He’s obviously talking his own book, but there does seem to be genuine concern that the government’s analysis of the non-dom crackdown suggests that, yes, it will lead to a reduction in tax revenue. Because many of these people can in fact just move…
‘Ah, Kamala, my old friend. Do you know the MAGA proverb that tells us cats and dogs are a dish that is best served cold? It is very cold in space.’
Imagine the queue to see Larry lying in state.
Never heard of him. Do you mean Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?
I was disagreeing with you perpetuating the lump of labour fallacy that one can be anti-immigrant for pro-worker reasons.
When nativists use this argument, it’s usually shit-stirrers deliberately trying to pit people against each other. They rely on the fact that the average person probably hasn’t taken the time to conduct a literature review of the economic studies of immigration, but might be able to be seduced by a superficially easy argument that all their ills can be blamed on some minority and drawing on some cherry-picked anecdotes.
The reality of immigration bears little relation to the skewed narrative the nativists are trying to sell. Irregular migration represents only a tiny fraction of UK immigration. Immigrants are no more likely to commit crime than natives. Immigration grows the economy and has little or no effect on jobs and wages. Immigrants are net contributors to the NHS and public services. Once you knock away all the far-right’s factual lies, it’s hard to find the nugget of a ‘legitimate’ reason why people might consider immigration to be one of the major ‘problems’ facing this country that doesn’t start and end with xenophobia.
The idea that the unions would legitimately oppose immigration is nonsense. Economic analysis of the actual impact of immigration has consistently shown that immigration has little-to-no negative impact on the incomes of native workers - immigrants don’t undercut the wages of native workers so the unions shouldn’t be worried about them.
A large part of that is because of the ‘lump of labour’ fallacy. Unthoughtful people assume there’s a fixed number of jobs to be filled, but the reality is that immigrants don’t just fill jobs but also create jobs through their own demand for goods and services. But there are other factors too like entrepreneurialism and business start ups - immigrants, as evidenced by them being part of the small subset of people who are prepared to pack up their lives and move to another country, tend to be more entrepreneurial than the general population in either their home or host countries. Some of our biggest high street names like Tesco and M&S have immigrant origins.
The small caveat to this is that immigration in recent decades has been shown to have a tiny negative impact on the incomes of the lowest paid 20% of the population (of about -0.5%) but this is dwarfed by the positive impact it has on those further up the income spectrum (e.g. +1.7% for the richest 10%). Obviously +1.7% of a very rich person’s income is a lot more than -0.5% of a poor person’s income. So if the unions are rational and actually want to improve the lot of the poorest in society then they should be campaigning for a lot more immigration and a very small increase in taxes on the richest to fund redistribution of this income, which will more than compensate the poorest for the fraction of a percentage point of lost income from over two decades worth of immigration.
Brown is a very hot take. He was PM for three years, tell me what you think was his legacy that makes him a top-3 PM?
The main thing you can praise him for was his efforts to manage the financial crisis and the recession that followed - on which I’d say he did a great job. But that comes with the enormous caveat that, having been Chancellor for the previous ten years, he’s one of the people most responsible for Britain being in that position in the first place. He was the cabinet member ultimately responsible for economic policy and banking regulation over the decade in which he permitted a massive property and financial bubble to develop in the UK, all while he pronouncing that he had ended ‘Tory boom and bust’ - and it turns out he believed his own hype.
Labour commentators went to great lengths afterwards to try to blame the crash in the UK on global factors and arcane financial jargon - often hamming up that the initial spark of the crisis was on US sub-prime debt. But that (deliberately) conflates the proximate trigger and the underlying cause. The vast majority of British banks that need bailouts or rescues - Lloyds, HBOS, Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, Alliance and Leicester - were bog-standard UK mortgage lenders who had simply lent too much money to people who couldn’t afford to repay them and secured on over-inflated UK property values, funded through unstable wholesale borrowing, and without holding the financial buffers needed to cope with these risks. Brown and his Treasury team should have supported a stronger regulatory approach, and recognised that we were in a massive bubble and acted to deflate it - instead, they were already running a budget deficit at the height of the boom, pouring fuel into the fire, in complete contravention of Keynesian economics - a key reason why the UK public finances were in such a state when the bubble then burst (in contrast to better managed economies like Germany).
Without Brown’s negligence as Chancellor, the crash in Britain would have been less severe, the public finances would have been more resilient going in to the crisis, no austerity, as a result of which probably no Brexit and no Farage skulking around working-class constituencies stirring up resentment…
FWIW - my number three would be David Lloyd George. Between his time as Chancellor and PM, he’s responsible for establishing the state pension, unemployment benefits, the first (pre-NHS) state-funded healthcare provision, progressive taxation, the primacy of the elected Commons over the unelected Lords, and he won the First World War - a dramatically more impressive legacy than someone like Brown.
The goal here is that it’s famously difficult for third parties to get an appropriate measure of media attention in the UK. The newspapers are highly partisan, and the TV news interprets the ‘balance’ requirement to mean they can just give the government view and the main opposition view on every issue (unless the government and main opposition happen to agree - which is why the Lib Dems got a fair hearing in the media on Iraq in the early 2000s).
So third parties need to have a gimmick to trick the media into giving them airtime, which then allows them to talk about their issues. Charles Kennedy did it but being entertaining on chatshows and HIGNFY; Nigel Farage does it by being outrageous and offensive; and Ed Davey has worked out that he can do it through stunts.