Current Affairs The Labour Party
- Thread starter Number_25
- Start date
- Status
From the Guardian:
Darren Jones: No need for emergency intervention
Harriett Baldwin MP accuses Rachel Reeves of having ‘fled to China’ rather than face MPs over the rise in public borrowing costs, because she realises her budget means she is “the arsonist”.
Baldwin says yesterday’s statement from the Treasury (which said the government has an iron grip on the public finances) was an “extraordinary emergency” effort to calm the markets.
Darren Jones says these “inflammatory” comments are rather surprising, and don’t reflect reality.
The trip to China has been in the diary for weeks, he points out.
Rachel Reeves heads to China to build bridges, but a new golden era of relations is impossible
Read more
And he rejects claims that the Treasury has intervened in the markets, saying yesterday’s statement was simply a response to questions from the media.
Jones says:
There has been no emergency statement or emergency intervention, these are make-believe words being propagated by members on the benches opposite….
There is no need for any emergency intervention, and there hasn’t been one.
[as reported earlier, the Daily Telegraph reported last night’s statement as the Treasury stepping in to halt market mayhem.
Technically, an intervention actually involves a government or central bank actually buying or selling an asset to move the markets, not simply issuing a press release].
Dave parroting the Telegraph line. sOcIaLiSt in action.
Darren Jones: No need for emergency intervention
Harriett Baldwin MP accuses Rachel Reeves of having ‘fled to China’ rather than face MPs over the rise in public borrowing costs, because she realises her budget means she is “the arsonist”.
Baldwin says yesterday’s statement from the Treasury (which said the government has an iron grip on the public finances) was an “extraordinary emergency” effort to calm the markets.
Darren Jones says these “inflammatory” comments are rather surprising, and don’t reflect reality.
The trip to China has been in the diary for weeks, he points out.
Rachel Reeves heads to China to build bridges, but a new golden era of relations is impossible
Read more
And he rejects claims that the Treasury has intervened in the markets, saying yesterday’s statement was simply a response to questions from the media.
Jones says:
There has been no emergency statement or emergency intervention, these are make-believe words being propagated by members on the benches opposite….
There is no need for any emergency intervention, and there hasn’t been one.
[as reported earlier, the Daily Telegraph reported last night’s statement as the Treasury stepping in to halt market mayhem.
Technically, an intervention actually involves a government or central bank actually buying or selling an asset to move the markets, not simply issuing a press release].
Dave parroting the Telegraph line. sOcIaLiSt in action.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Dont get upset with me. I'm not the one who's already bent the knee to the market and cancelled winter fuel payments for pensioners, reneged on helping WASPI women with their pension claims, reneged on a promise to scrap the two child tax benefit, forced people incapacitated by mental health issues into the job market etc. The people who conned you to handing your vote to them did all those things.
Your question: finance capital can discipline national governments they see as hostile in some way to change policy - more cuts to tax for business; more cuts to services to pay for it. The stick they use is a demand for more money for government loans. For example, Reeves wants to loan £50 billion to £60 billion per year to invest in the dilapidated public services sector. Just by upping what interest on borrowing the markets can pull apart a government's economic strategy. She's getting a kicking at the moment. Let's see what she does to pacify them.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
The WASPI decision has been proved by events to be the right one. Getting assets back on the government’s books will be as well, especially for social housing where it will very quickly result in revenues *and* lower spending (on HB).
Don't you want to borrow ever more money to fund the ever greater spending you advocate? You've shown absolutely no interest in balancing the books, yet now complain that debt repayments are crippling? Seriously.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Who's complaining about that?
This is a prime example of your methodology, such as it is: you respond to what's NOT in a post.
I think the Dave Funding Plan is based around leaving NATO and those commitments, plus probably cancelling 90%+ of the remaining existing defence spending as all the nukes are scrapped etc, plus obviously immediately revoking and aid to Ukraine (and getting a one-off windfall by confiscating Mrs Zelenskyy's shoes and putting them on eBay).
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Andy Burnham joins calls for ‘limited’ national inquiry into sexual abuse gangs
Greater Manchester mayor says scope of inquiry he commissioned in Oldham did not have same legal powers
Splintering on this issue now.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
More savage cuts to the vulnerable on their way.
www.theguardian.com
Socialism in action.
Reeves mulls deeper cuts to public services as borrowing costs soar
Chancellor could slash departmental spending in spring after ruling out tax increase, officials reveal
Socialism in action.
gonetomorrow
Player Valuation: £80m
Good move Reeves going to China. May as well be on the side of the winners when western democracy blows itself apart.
You are the left wing populist the other loony mentions. You live in a fantasy world where you complain about the cost of borrowing and yet insist on policies that ensure the government has to borrow ever greater amounts. This would be okay if populists didn't entrap some people with their fantasies, thus making people who actually have to govern in the real world seem crap in comparison.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
No. For the second time running, no I haven't complained about the borrowing.
I'm complaining that she'll square this borrowing off by making the 'necessary' cuts that the markets will demand.
That's because she's a neoliberal. Look at her CV.
She took a government that was simultaneously borrowing more than ever before while also raising a bigger portion of GDP in taxes than any government since the war, and proceeded to borrow even more, yet that's still not enough for you. You're financially illiterate.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
I think you've lost your way here. That response make's zero sense.
Go back and read the thread from post 31,371 and see if you can recognise the error(s) you've made.
Let me give you a clue: it's where I say what she should have raised borrowing and where it should've been invested...all £28billion of it.
- Status