Why austerity and public spending cutbacks aren't needed to fix the economy

[Retro]

The tories always love to impose austerity and spending cuts in order to supposedly fix problems with the economy. However, this suffering imposed on the poor and not so well-off isn't actually required. In the video below, Phil Moorhouse of A Different Bias explains why.

Part of the answer is stop squandering multiple billions of taxpayers' money due to rampant corruption and to close tax loopholes exploited by the super wealthy, such as non dom status. All this crap has to go, then proper investment in the country's infrastructure like the NHS, schools etc, the country prospers and everyone does well. But not with the tories in power. Think, if they're so fiscally prudent, then why do we still have these problems after their 12 years in power? And of course brexit contributes significantly to this problem with the loss of trade and other issues, and must be reversed, sooner rather than later.

This is a really important issue that greatly affects our standard of living, so I've pinned this thread for reference.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Arantor]

Part of the answer is stop squandering multiple billions of taxpayers' money due to rampant corruption and to close tax loopholes exploited by the super wealthy, such as non dom status. All this crap has to go,

Which is exactly why it won't happen. The Tory agenda is, and always has been, to funnel money to themselves and their friends. None of this is working incorrectly - they just want more money, more money, more more more and... this is the latest wheeze to pay for it.

 

[Retro]

Well, yeah, that's why it's imperative that Labour win the next general election. But, I know you know this.

Seeing you write it out like that really brings home just how ugly all this is. Scumbags. Truss's mini budget for the rich was this in all its naked "glory". So glad she went down in flames over it.

 

[Arantor]

You know the worst thing?

That the plan was spelled out in plain sight and they did it literally as soon as they got their hands on the keys to power. They'd been saying it for a decade and did it literally once it became an option.

No, actually, that's not the worst thing. That's the second worst thing.

The worst thing is that if there hadn't been an ongoing crisis of living costs and corruption, they'd probably have gotten away with it and carried on redistributing wealth as they had before. They were just too inept to wait until the heat died down before doing it.

 

[Retro]

That's bad enough, but I still think nothing tops what they did to the country by foisting brexit on it. How the deluded keep voting for this shower of shit, against their own interests, I just don't understand.

 

[Arantor]

"But that Jeremy Corbyn."

Also never underestimate the power of Middle England, the people who aren't actually wealthy enough to benefit from all the Tory policies but aspire to being wealthy enough if only they worked harder and ate less avocado toast, or something.

 

[Retro]

And now the tories are inventing massive debt in the billions so that they can turn the thumbscrews of austerity on the general public that's not needed anyway, as per my OP. What a con on a massive scale.

Economists question 'black hole' in UK finances

The government's justification for upcoming UK tax rises and spending cuts is shaky, economists say.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Arantor]

The black hole they created to pay off the wealthy elites?

 

[Retro]

Yes, that one.

 

[Arantor]

We’re possibly heading to the end game of “there’s no more money for the elites, so we’ll have to make do by making everyone *else* poorer to ensure the *relative* wealth inequality continues.”

I’m now hearing that last part in the same earnest way as in The Apprentice: ”The search for Lord Sir Alan’s next business partner… *continues*.”

”The relative wealth inequality… *continues*.”

It‘s the little things, it’s how I cope with the hellscape, if I didn’t find something to laugh at, I’d only cry.

 

[Crims]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Much like always.

 

[Arantor]

Because of the love that dare not speak its name.

 

[Crims]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Prerequisite: I didn't vote either.

More than anyone, I've failed to see Remainers who understand the poorest in England choosing Brexit as a fuck you to the austerity. This allows politicians to constantly put them against each other, as they then introduce the less poor to austerity. 'All Brexiteers hate Europe' for 55% of England prevent consolidation over actual things like:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Arantor]

Oh, that's just it. I completely got the protest vote angle, despite the fact that it would clearly be a self-sabotage vote to make it so.

That's what is, sadly, the most ingenious part of this: each step of the narrative has been an exercise in goal-post moving, whereby the 'what we all voted for' has been carefully redefined to keep the ideologically faithful on board, those who *actually* voted for sovereignty and who believe in the narrative. Because this was, as you point out, entirely an exercise in divide and rule, by pitting everyone lower down the food chain against each other along ideological lines, and letting the narrative be respun to keep accommodating that outcome.

 

[Crims]

That's what is, sadly, the most ingenious part of this: each step of the narrative has been an exercise in goal-post moving, whereby the 'what we all voted for' has been carefully redefined to keep the ideologically faithful on board, those who *actually* voted for sovereignty and who believe in the narrative. Because this was, as you point out, entirely an exercise in divide and rule, by pitting everyone lower down the food chain against each other along ideological lines, and letting the narrative be respun to keep accommodating that outcome.

This is entirely viewed through ones own perception... however I do disagree here. I've found very few instances in recent years of outright discussion over topic via Brexiteers as opposed to the version parroted by the Tories bickered about by Remainers. I agree with that view also.

The expectance is that a forced state of independence leads eventually to competent leadership, and we're still basically pushing through the austerity that caused the Brexit thing. Essentially things that need to be sorted because we're independent, 6 years later... because by now everyone is a low class citizen it should be a moot point - thanks to lots of laws against protesting and 120 billion for Test and Trace.

 

[Arantor]

That's entirely by design.

The powers that be do not want the subjects to discuss it meaningfully. They *want* to keep this divisive nature fermenting as long as they can, because all the time the petty squabbling continues, they can keep doing what they're doing, which is profiteering off the consequences.

There was no promise, nor expectation, that a forced state of independence leads to competent leadership - the narrative is that the leadership was already competent but that they were hamstrung by the EU's oversight and restrictions.

And you're also making one of the mistakes that they were very keen to imply, that the vote was the implementation date. We're 6 years on but we're not 6 years on from implementation. We're barely 2 years in.

The moves against protests are simple: the powers that be do not want the lowers questioning what's about to come, and certainly do not want them protesting it. It doesn't matter what the protests are for, or against, and that's also the point: this is about self preservation by any and all means necessary at this point in time.

 

[Crims]

Absolutely agreed.
Only contention regarding this is that (note: not a metaphor) 'Dancing Queen' Teresa May was a remainer.

And you're also making one of the mistakes that they were very keen to imply, that the vote was the implementation date. We're 6 years on but we're not 6 years on from implementation. We're barely 2 years in.

AFAIC the vote was defacto.

 

[Arantor]

Teresa May was a remainer.

Her party largely wasn't, and she kept her personal politics separate from party politics.

AFAIC the vote was defacto.

The vote was non binding, and it was advisory only.

There are two reasons it was implemented: 1) the powers that be had that as their agenda, the measure of win was immaterial, 50% + 1 would have been enough, and 2) any result short of 90/10 the other way would have been challenged; any result less than 60/40 would have been leapt upon as too close to call/the result isn't settled, and any result more than that would have been claimed to be fraudulent.

But there are people who took the view that 'I voted you out yesterday, why aren't you gone already'. Observed that one first hand

 

[Retro]

I'll also add, that according to EU rules, any referendum had to have a supermajority for anything of major constitutional change for it to even be considered. Hence, this close result should have been null and void, yet it had a relentless momentum, all on the pretext of "the will of the people". This is on top of the sodding referendum being advisory only. This whole push for brexit was illegal and corrupt from start to finish.

During the later stages of the brexit "process", if one can call it that, and especially after that little revelation came out, I got the distinct impression that the EU wanted us out too, since they did very little to try and help us to stay, other than empty rhetoric and basically signed off at every stage where they could have vetoed it. The whole thing stinks and I'm sure Putin is at the bottom of it.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Funny how this only came out years later and then quickly forgotten. Wish I'd kept a link to that article now.

 

[Crims]

Good video. Luckily, as oligarchic and funded-by-investors as our corrupt current government is, I don't think it is as permanent (as them).

Thanks to the way the events have occured there's distrust from Remain and Brexiteers preventing Tories from hurting the society over more. It doesn't need to be added that I also distrust all the government.
Arguably, because Eton exists (and needs to be funded) there is a clear long drop economically from our corrupt government.

 

[Arantor]

I wouldn't characterise it as “they wanted us out” but “you wanted out, fine, you can have exactly what you say you want”, and I suppose there was some latent feeling of “if you moan about it so much, why don’t you just go”.

However it should be noted that a non trivial part of the problem was Rupert Murdoch, infamously pointing out that “they [the EU] don’t listen to me” when the UK politicians did, which meant a push for bashing the EU at any opportunity in any Murdoch media.

 

[Retro]

Another economic expert weighs in on why the austerity that tories like to inflict on ordinary people isn't needed and can actually be counterproductive. Oh and that "black hole" in the public finances isn't quite what it seems:

Many left-of-centre economists challenge the idea of a measurable “black hole” in the public finances, pointing out that its existence is only created by whatever fiscal rules the government has set itself – and that estimates of its size are highly sensitive to economic forecasts.

Economist Jo Michell, a co-author of a paper for the Progressive Economy Forum highlighting the “dangerous fiction” of a fiscal black hole, says the economic backdrop is highly uncertain, making this the wrong moment to draw up concrete plans for spending cuts.

Jeremy Hunt’s austerity budget: necessity or political choice?

The chancellor insists Britain has to ‘live within its means’ – but many economists say painful cuts are neither inevitable nor proven to work

www.theguardian.com

 

[Crims]

However it should be noted that a non trivial part of the problem was Rupert Murdoch, infamously pointing out that “they [the EU] don’t listen to me” when the UK politicians did, which meant a push for bashing the EU at any opportunity in any Murdoch media.

Recently Americans have started to return to populism, similar to us. As many times as they tend to insert themselves into UK politics (it's currently a go-to for American news), this is something that we're both in line about now. Rupert Murdoch does Fox News and other.
If we were quicker about organised people movements that'd be good.

 

[Arantor]

Organised people movements are now borderline illegal, though.

 

[Crims]

Organised people movements are now borderline illegal, though.

Because protests are illegal what's more likely is that people are going to have to organise their own movements.