Truss vs Reeves. “Under Liz Truss they sacked the permanent secretary to the Treasury, they ignored the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, they announced £45bn of unfunded tax cuts and said they were only just getting started. And then the market went mad, and we all know what happened then.” “It is completely different in contrast to now. We’ve got verified reports from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility that say we meet our fiscal rules earlier than had been planned, that those tough fiscal rules means there is a fiscal consolidation and a strong approach to public spending.” From AXA https://www.axa-im.co.uk/investment...arket-updates/uk-budget-reaction-going-growth "As promised, she delivered a material increase in taxes, estimated at over 1% of GDP over coming years, with a rise in employer’s National Insurance at its heart." "Reeves introduced new fiscal targets, aiming to balance the current budget and introducing a new measure of debt that accounts for the assets governments will invest in. The OBR stated that the Chancellor was on track to meet both of these new fiscal targets with some buffer." "Financial markets absorbed the new measure well. Gilt yields closed markedly higher, weighing both issuance and changes to the BoE rate outlook, but sterling on balance firmed and domestic equity markets rose." Bullshit doesn't baffle brains, there's plenty to contradict the shrill hysterical knee jerks.
I locked this thread for a period of time the last time people used it as an excuse to throw insults around at one another. Getting heated is one thing, but if people aren't going to debate reasonably with one another, I'll quite happily close it again. I don't want to as there is a huge political event imminent across the pond but I will if necessary.
Dis you delete Spiderman post about me earlier then Tom, where he lied about me? this one: Ironic that he thinks rich people deserve their earnings except when they’re paid by a Labour gov
There's definitely something to be said about the foreign aid budget. The fact that the Tories didn't cut it at all (and let's face it, typically they're no fan of brown people) suggests that there's way more to it then just chucking a few billion at India 'cos we're well nice. There's massive ****ing back handers going in somewhere along the line. It'll be benefitting politicians personally somehow otherwise it's the easiest thing to cut
If he lied about you, feel free to call him out on it, without resorting to insults. It's not my job to determine who's lying and who's telling the truth.
Oh dear Billy, got your goat there didn't I? Of course there's a comparison the be drawn and the reactions to each. Just read th AXA report for some rational judgement on the budget. You'll have to get your head out of a dark and musty place first.
Foreign aid is the hardest thing to cut because it is massively important. 1. Foreign aid contributes to keeping our relationship positive with poorer countries. These countries are also receiving aid from Russia. In North Africa, Russia is more popular than Europe due to the foreign aid they give - and consequently, they are helping them in Ukraine. 2. Foreign aid helps keep immigration down. The better conditions are in a country, the less likely people are to come here. That does not mean there is no corruption in the process, though. Same with any charitable endeavour.
What's the advantages to point 1? ( not playing the faux naivety card here I genuinely don't get it) I think point 2 is demonstrably not happening.
More from AXA "In her first Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered a host of changes that took her over an hour and a quarter to deliver – and plenty more time to digest. The Chancellor made good on repeated warnings that taxes would rise, she announced tax hikes that are forecast to sum to £36bn/year – 1.1% of GDP. However, she avoided breaking any manifesto pledges with tax increases coming in the main to Employers’ national insurance, but included capital taxes and a scrapping of the non-domiciled residents tax scheme." "Reeves explained that the tax increases were to fix the £22bn “hole in the public finances” and to make sure that the new government would not follow the previous government’s austerity. This was certainly the case, with Reeves setting out an average £70bn increase in spending over the coming five years, mainly supporting day-to-day expenditure in education and health, but with a broad swathe of other measures and including increases in investment spending." "She shifted the focus to constrain day-to-day spending, requiring a current budget surplus by 2029-30, and ultimately three years out, while shifting the focus from public sector net debt to public sector net financial liabilities – a metric that captures the assets that the public sector will invest in, not just the liabilities." "This allows for a boost to spending and investment in the UK economy, something that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) thinks will underpin a rise in growth to 2.0% next year and 1.8% next, closing the output gap earlier than previously expected and bolstering trend growth (if sustained) over a longer time frame (in newly proposed 2030 onwards forecasts). We ourselves consider the growth forecasts the OBR has presented as optimistic. At the same time we see the net loosening in the headline fiscal stance – albeit acknowledging the Chancellor’s concerns around a straight comparison – as something that is not going to prompt the Bank of England to quicken the pace of easing from its implicit sub-4% by end-2025 assessment from August, forecasting Bank Rate at 3.75% by end-2025." "Market reaction was measured. Gilt yields rose notably, impacted both by the change in supply outlook and a revision to the balance of risks around the BoE’s rate outlook. But broader markets gave the new Chancellor the benefit of the doubt, sterling rising versus the US dollar (compared to the ignominious collapse in 2022) and a modest boost to domestic equity markets." "Measures – chunky tax increases, but even more spending Today’s Budget lived up to expectations of setting out the new government’s stall, delivering significant changes on both the tax and spending front. The OBR outlined a £25bn increase in spending this year and an average of £69.5bn in each of the following five years, equivalent to a 2.2% of GDP increase per year. Tax revenues, meanwhile, are forecast to increase by around £36.2bn a year, equivalent to 1.1% of GDP." There's lots more detailed info in the report, this will do for now.
Yeah, it is incredibly complex. But the world is essentially a series of entities tugging at each other for support. We branded Brexit as a chance to get out from Europe and become a global player. To do that, we have to grease the wheels with all these other players and try to make them our besties. A bit like the "present off" at a teenage girl's birthday party. If we don't buy a good one, we can be out. This is obviously a simplification and only one strand of our our foreign policy, but it does matter. It also matters in more general terms. It serves to offset some of the political damage the middle east does to us. And on point 2, don't be shocked to find out it could be much worse.
The effect of Brexshit was to change the demography of immigration from European to non European with countries demanding increased visa allocation in return for, usually sub-standard, trade deals.
Interesting take, thanks for your input! Although personally I'd rather be disliked and have more money
Foreign aid is only one small factor in the overall picture though. War, famine, tyrannical or ineffective governments, and the biggie, climate change, are all contributory to migration.
That is how you end up long term poor. When the people in a region feel like you have their backs, you get better trade deals.
I can definitely see your point but I'm probably at the stage where I simply don't know enough about it to be able to form an opinion. I think I'll stick with my ignorance and just assume MPs get some sort of financial gain out of it.....
This is the abstract from an Oxford Research paper: Summary The majority of countries around the world are engaged in the foreign aid process, as donors, recipients, or, oftentimes, both. States use foreign aid as a means of pursuing foreign policy objectives. Aid can be withdrawn to create economic hardship or to destabilize an unfriendly or ideologically antagonistic regime. Or, conversely, aid can be provided to bolster and reward a friendly or compliant regime. Although foreign aid serves several purposes, and not least among them the wish to increase human welfare, the primary reason for aid allocations or aid restrictions is to pursue foreign policy goals. Strategic and commercial interests of donor countries are the driving force behind many aid programs. Not only do target countries respond to the granting of bilateral and multilateral aid as an incentive, but also the threat of aid termination serves as an effective deterrent. Both the granting and the denial of foreign assistance can be a valuable mechanism designed to modify a recipient state’s behaviour. Foreign aid, once the exclusive foreign policy instrument of rich powerful states, is now being provided by middle-income countries, too. The motivation for foreign aid allocations by nontraditional donors parallels the motives of traditional Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors. A main difference between traditional and nontraditional aid donors is that nontraditional aid donors generally do not place conditionalities on their loans. The issue of fungibility can obstruct the donor government’s purpose behind the allocation of foreign aid. If the preferences of the recipient government are different from those of the donor, the recipient can often divert the aid and use it for other purposes. A recipient government may reallocate its budget after it determines how much aid it is slated to receive. The recipient government will redirect its resources to areas it deems a priority that cannot be funded externally, for example the military or prestige projects. So, yeah, it is not so very much to do with aid and more to do with manipulating governments. But, it isn't always easy to control.
This post has actually given me a bit of insight that I had never thought of before. It just goes to prove that running the country on the surface is easy, but rather like running a football club, it is a lot more complicated than it appears.
The IMF & world bank, plus our foreign aid is mostly a way that the elites try and control other countries. It doesn’t actually help the people on the ground in those countries, for the most part. It is mostly about control & power, as usual. In fact, there are copious examples of where G7 interventions have demonstrably made things a lot poorer for the people on the ground. There is a fantastic book on this topic by Alex Gladstein, a human rights lawyer called “Hidden Repression: How the IMF and World Bank Sell Exploitation as Development”
Hmm...yes, true, absolutely. The more insidious part regarding migration though is Russia, (and her allies), part in weakening the West by making it a 'non military assault'. If you look at the areas where the Wagner group are most active, they are (no coincidence) the same areas with the greatest migration numbers to the West. That's by design. Russia realises that by increasing migration from these countries into the West, it weakens us culturally, socially and financially. It's a very clear and obvious ploy.
