General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
it's right wing bullshit.
The UK is never limited in the amount of £ it can issue to cover govt deficits. Read a textbook. Issuers of currency do not borrow i that currecy. Debt and deficits have economic impacts, but there is no hard limit.
The only reason for austerity is that rich twats want austerity so they can continue their insatiable greed.
Yep. Talk of "the nation's credit card" being "maxed out" has caused so much damage to the country.
I think it those economic impacts that people want to avoid, though.
The consideration should be the cost of debt servicing relative to the size of the economy or the state budget, not some arbirtrary number auch as debt size as percent of GDP. As you say, what matters is the effect. If it's cheap to borrow money, and you're spending that money on something such as infrastructure investment with a positive ROI and a good multiplier effect, then it makes sense to borrow.
Weird. Did something happen that, y'know, screwed up the economy really good?
You'd think someone might have mentioned it.
True, true. Must be those rotten [marginalized group] then.
I didn’t realise austerity had stopped tbh
It's still austerity in terms of services but now the Tories have been cutting taxes, which is obviously incompatible with reducing the deficit.
Of course, when the ship is sinking we should reduce its weight by removing the bottom.
Or we listen to Keynes this time and simulate growth.
Cutting to growth funny enough doesn't work and there aren't really anymore cuts to make.
At the same time, there is certainly tax that could be raised. The country has a load of the world's rich and Amazon and co are not paying the tax they should be.
The country has a load of the world’s rich and Amazon and co are not paying the tax they should be.
Labour are promising to pay for things by closing the loopholes they're exploiting. Although, non-doms aside, there's not much detail about what they're planning to do, exactly, and how much they expect to raise.
There is so much untaxed wealth yet we are broke.
Using proven solutions? Fact-based policymaking? Seems like crazy talk to me.
Yer.... sigh
There is no reason not to tax the rich to fill that hole.
UK faces intelligence hole, as right wing think tanks. Deluge the public with research aimed to match there desired bias.
I really think it is time for a law. Requiing the media to make clear any bias in organisation, they use to try and shit blast their own properganda during elections.
As should politicians to be honest.
These distorted think tanks are nothing but harm to real research.
Print print print— taxpayer bailout
Print print print— taxpayer bailout
Repeat ad nauseam ♾️
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Britain’s next government will need to fill a shortfall of up to £33bn in the public finances unless it is prepared to push through a fresh round of severe austerity measures, a thinktank has warned.
The Resolution Foundation said the debate between Labour and the Conservatives over the funding of specific pledges was “detached from reality”, with election promises based on cuts that would be hard to deliver.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Treasury’s tax and spending watchdog, has estimated that the government is on course to meet its debt-to-GDP target with just £9bn to spare, but the Resolution Foundation said the winning party in the general election would face the choice of raising taxes or cutting spending to meet its debt target.
In its annual health check on the UK economy last month, the International Monetary Fund warned of a £30bn post-election hole.
James Smith, the Resolution Foundation’s research director, said: “The state of the public finances has dominated the election campaign so far, with the inevitable arguments over how each spending pledge is funded.
But this narrow focus risks distracting the electorate from the bigger question of how each party would manage the uncertainties facing the public finances.
The original article contains 481 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!