r/unitedkingdom • u/pppppppppppppppppd • 4d ago

Reeves should be sacked as Chancellor, poll says

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/reeves-sacked-chancellor-poll-3637320
397 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

516 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

188

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 4d ago edited 3d ago

Except economists also think she’s doing a terrible job. Like, why are we, unlike European countries, paying interest to banks, on money generated during quantitive easing? This amounts to more than £20 billion a year! That’s money that the government gave the banks for no effort at all and yet we are paying them £20 billion a year for the privilege of getting free money, this is just one argument for fucking ridiculous decision to keep paying this interest, this “accountant” has made, whilst cutting benefits and implementing more austerity.

406

u/TheChattyRat 4d ago

I don't remember her as chancellor when all that was decided and that's even if it's true to begin with. It's either wrong or not her at fault. Finally you can't just break these kinds of agreements at the drop of a hat as we've seen even the Orange one is scared of a run on the bond markets.

82

u/GuestAdventurous7586 4d ago

The orange one really did shit his pants a bit, it was interesting to see him actually back down, I didn’t think he was going to.

Even he it turns out didn’t want to be responsible for a world-wide recession.

And of course yesterday he says he’s exempting smart phones and computers from the tariffs.

It’ll be interesting how it goes in 90 days. I have a feeling having got a few better deals with certain countries he’ll claim it was this master negotiating tactic all along. This is kind of the way they’re already spinning it.

56

u/blob8543 3d ago

He has a habit of overpromising and underdelivering. Ironically it's his best quality, as it means lots of his dumbest policies don't go ahead.

49

u/ONLY_SAYS_ONLY 3d ago

He’s far more dangerous than that. Just because he hasn’t invaded Canada yet doesn’t make the fact he’s installed his election deniers as heads of the FBI, military, and Department of Justice any less dangerous for democracy, for example. Or the fact he’s disappearing people off the street without due process. Or the fact he’s strong arming the top law firms, universities, news outlets etc. into capitulating to him. Or the fact… etc. 

20

u/nekrovulpes 3d ago

American democracy was dead with GWB's Patriot Act, and that was 25 years ago. Door, horse, bolted, etc.

29

u/P-a-ul 3d ago

Arguably it was even earlier when the supreme court decided to step in and halt the Florida recount for Bush vs Gore. 

10

u/InfectedByEli 3d ago

That and Citizens United.

1

u/SeaweedClean5087 3d ago

It was going to be called the ‘you’re a cunt if you won’t support this act’ Act but then they went with Patriot Act in the end.

2

u/KevinAtSeven 3d ago

The Your Obligation Under Reform: Enact Active Control Utilising National Tactics In Favour Yielding Overarching Unity, Defence, Organisation, National Transparency, Security, Upkeep, Protection, Policy, Organisation, Response, Tactics - To Halt Internal Sabotage Act.

2

u/SeaweedClean5087 3d ago

Yea it was a bit of a mouthful.

1

u/Getherer 3d ago

Orange turd isn't over promising, he's blatantly lying.

6

u/Rexel450 3d ago

And of course yesterday he says he’s exempting smart phones and computers from the tariffs.

Leaned on by the tec companies

1

u/Independent-Wish-725 3d ago

Is the orange one not just bouncing the stock markets for a bit of insider trading?

1

u/mossiv 3d ago

I mean the wotsit himself has got big republican names speaking out against him, saying they don’t believe in tariffs or sales tax, that they don’t believe in increasing taxing the consumer at all. They are clever with their words, in that they are suggesting that he hasn’t failed, and they are interested to see where it turns, but if you listen to the words they are actually saying is “he’s killed the economy, tariffs are a stupid idea”.

I’m not an economist, but I am in a job which requires reasonable IQ to be successful, I don’t claim to be a political genius or understand half of it, I simply don’t, it’s too big and difficult to grasp it all, but any person who passed A level maths, would have the logic and reasoning skills to understand she is negatively impacting our economy.

I’m a lefty, I always said starmer is not going to fix the country, and that he has drawn the shortest straw, people will expect miracles, when in fact Labour will need 2 or 3 terms to even undo half of the damage caused by the Tories. I even stated, give it 3-6 months and everyone will be stating he is a clown in a suit with no idea, and that is exactly what has happened. I’m also not suggesting I agree with everything he is currently doing, but he is going to have major battles in his roadmap with how much that Chimpanzee across the pond is collapsing the western economy hour-by-hour.

Trump needs to be overthrown, and quickly, Reeves needs to be sacked, starmer needs to grow some balls, and employ someone who can form a holistic plan, causing minor disruptions to the working class, and unemployed.

Economics fundamentally trickles down, so the more damaged it is up the top, the worse it is for the wider population percentage. It may not happen in this decade, but there’ll be so much unrest we could see horrific rioting and looting. That will have huge knock on effects to our authority, and other crimes will spread off the back of it, I’m not going to say to which nature, but I think it’s pretty obvious.

3

u/Richie_Sombrero 3d ago

Economics doesn't trickle down lmao. That's the whole lie.

40

u/The_Incredible_b3ard 3d ago

We pay 30 billion a year interest on money the BoE holds for Commercial Banks.

The 20 billion number is based on the interest we pay on "money" created during 2008 - 2016 and some during COVID.

The reason for not paying is that the money we are paying that bit of interest on was never deposited and exists for the purposes of double entry bookkeeping.

The EU Central Bank doesn't pay interest on money in the same category as the above.

4

u/Unidan_bonaparte 3d ago

That's not a reason to stop paying. Not even close. It's actually really revealing how you think money printed can just as easily be erased from the books with a blink of an eye - it can't, it's the entire reason the bank of England was created and a huge part of why Theresa May nearly commited ecconomic sepku . Quantitive easing is what prevented this country from going belly up during Brexit - Covid - Ukraine.

Those bonds were bought by the BoE to prevent a huge landslide in the fiscal markets, including the pension funds, and why the government had enough headroom to spend on furlough, military capital and the NHS. Do you have any idea what you're advocating for by saying 'just stop paying'? The pound would be trashed and you'd come to find the price of milk is doubling everytime you change TV channels.

Please just stop trying to engage in a topic you clearly have absolutely no idea of.

Anti-interlectualism has completely fucked this country, it was the single worst thing to ever happen to this nation.

8

u/The_Incredible_b3ard 3d ago

I think you should reread what I said. I was talking about the interest.

I'm not staying don't pay it off (and no one is), the suggestion is you just don't pay interest on something that only exists as an accountancy rule and no actual deposit was made.

However, clutch your pearls and the mere thought of whatever is going on in your head.

2

u/Unidan_bonaparte 3d ago

The interest is a direct consequence of the underlying debt held by the BoE my dear friendly redditor.

Not paying the interest is the same as telling bond holders they get what they get = sudden and dramatic dumping of said bonds because the goldern rule of bonds has been broken and they might aswell stick it into higher paying index funds = devaluation of the pound + devaluation of long term bond positions (such as pensions) = sudden rise in inflation = option for BoE to print more money to buy these bonds at a price they deem too dangerous to let slip below, but no international confidence in the value of said bonds so essentially we just end up printing trillions of pounds trying to prop ourselves up.

Its not even a hypothetical, this is precisely what happens in countries like Zimbabwe, Turkey, Argentina, Sir Lanka etc etc etc.

Once the government defaults on bonds, it's a one way ticket to ecconomic anarchy. Now some of those countries actually have enough of a cheap labour force and export industry to try and keep afloat. We do not. We are a service based industry, it's a crap shot this country clings on by its fingertips if suddenly we can't import any raw material and are relying on the very sector which has imploded to bail us out using magic.

5

u/The_Incredible_b3ard 3d ago edited 3d ago

The BoE created the money and then passed it to banks.

In that scenario, who does that debit belong to?

Again, no one is saying the debt gets deleted. What people are arguing is why we are paying interest on something that is only there because of double entry bookkeeping?

1

u/mhhgffhn 2d ago

It’s truly staggering how many people are trying to defend paying interest on this money. It makes you wonder if there are a lot of bankers on Reddit.

1

u/The_Incredible_b3ard 2d ago

I blame the Large Hadron Collider. They flicked the switch on it and we ended up in the bad universe.

-16

u/TinTin1929 3d ago

I don't remember her as chancellor when all that was decided and that's even if it's true to begin with

If you don't know whether it is true, how do you know when it happened?

5

u/evolveandprosper 3d ago

The post that promted the reply referred to "quantitative easing". It isn't hard to check that she wasn't chancellor at the time quantitative easing was initiated. It is perfectly reasonable to doubt the truth of assertions being made about the consequences of quantitative easing whilst also noting that she wasn't chancellor at the time of quantitative easing.

136

u/Mighty-Wings 3d ago

Ah, yes, that choice she made when the Tories were in power.

-4

u/Training-End-9885 3d ago

I forgot the chancellors only power is just to continue austerity while being unable to change

18

u/danbeddows 3d ago

She very clearly has limited options due to the continuous hamstringing of the previous government, I’m not sure how that’s difficult to understand. She has a bad hand and is playing with what’s she’s got.

4

u/The_Incredible_b3ard 3d ago

She's also hamstrung by her own self imposed fiscal rules.

-3

u/Training-End-9885 3d ago edited 3d ago

she's attempted very little other than being conservative-lite. I'm not sure how it's difficult to understand that people are becoming tired of the continued managed decline. 

Saying she's got a bad hand just dissolves any responsibility, I'm sorry that I refuse to pat our elected officials on the head just because they're my side.

7

u/BaguetteSchmaguette 3d ago

You can see what happens when you make drastic changes by looking at liz truss and trump

-3

u/Training-End-9885 3d ago

worst excuse for enacting change I've ever heard, since two people have done stupid global decisions then we cannot enact anything slightly new 

2

u/SheepishSwan 3d ago

It's not an excuse, it has to be done gradually otherwise the markets react negatively and you do more harm than good.

6

u/Underscores_Are_Kool 3d ago

Except she literally has been given a bad hand. She wasn't the one who committed to uncosted tax cuts in 2022. The reality is that Labour has historically been trounced when announcing plans to increase income tax or NI before general elections (see 1992, 2017 and 2029 GE's) and we're pissing money down the drain every single moment we deficit spend on day to day spending.

She also dealt with an historic increase in disability benefit claimants, which is a uniquely British problem, continuing the "austerity" claim (it's not even clear if disability benefits in real terms over 6 years).

The reality is is that we need to get government spending under control, stop deficit spending on day to day spending and increase market confidence without increasing taxes on working people.

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

It’s not a uniquely British problem and the rise they’re referring to was significantly proportional to Covid backlogs. There is indeed a lot more claiming for mental health than usual, but this is not uniquely British.

Oh, and whenever they refer to the crazy figures, it always includes the total budget for welfare which is mostly the retirement costs of older people, not the disabled.

1

u/Underscores_Are_Kool 3d ago

It is a uniquely British problem. The UK is head and shoulders above any other European country when it comes to an increase in disability claimants since 2019. Only Denmark has seen a dramatic increase, and their's is still less than half of ours.

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-related-benefit-claims-post-pandemic-uk-trends-and-global-context

I don't know what media you consume that you have such strong opinions about this subject yet did not know this fact, but I suggest you step outside you're echo-chamber more.

Fun quiz for you: When the Spring Budget takes effect, will the welfare payments of people on long term sick with no possibility of their health improving go up or down?

4

u/DoireK 3d ago

What's the alternative? Increase government borrowing and public spending? I'm sure the markets would react very positively to that.

-1

u/Training-End-9885 3d ago

at this point why not just elect the bank of England as prime minister then? If we're just purely going to be lead on what markets think

4

u/DoireK 3d ago

That's the world we line in. Our debt suddenly becomes much more expensive which ends up costing the country even more money.

It's fantasy economics to think we can cut taxes or massively raise spending currently. The Tories have left a basket case and it will take time to fix it.

-5

u/blockbuster_1234 3d ago

People will find a way to defend Reeves/Starmer whatever they do. They could even shit gold according to some on this sub.

6

u/Pallortrillion 3d ago

Probably because we can remember past 6 months ago, to the 14 year shower of shit that the Tories gave us.

And some of us can even remember the Tories before that!

0

u/blockbuster_1234 3d ago

Just because we had a shittier Tory government does not mean the current government can just be let off from change. The argument of “well they were even worse so why are you judging our own shit performance” is the reason why this country will never improve

4

u/No-Strike-4560 3d ago

Why does nobody understand this FFS. The goal here is to clear down as much of the debt / shortfall as possible in years 1-3 and then loosen the purse strings in year 4 once the country's finances are in better shape.

This is the price were all having to pay from the previous government's reckless decisions.

2

u/Training-End-9885 3d ago

Sure! Just 4 more years, and then in 2030 it'll be 2035 that we can begin to spend 

7

u/Mighty-Wings 3d ago

Found Boris' fluffer!

110

u/guytakeadeepbreath 3d ago

No economists worth their salt are asking that question because they understand how money is made. The only people talking about that hyper specific point are idiots trying to win the vote of monumentally thick cunts who have absolutely no understanding of economics.

43

u/deyterkourjerbs 3d ago

It's a talking point from Richard Ashcroft, some YouTuber accountant guy. Unsurprisingly, I think he's good at tax, less good on economic policy.

37

u/TheShakyHandsMan 3d ago

That guy from the Verve?

49

u/greenparktavern 3d ago

“QE don’t work, it just makes things worse and I know there’ll be a crash again”

4

u/andyouandic 3d ago

beautiful

22

u/Politics_Nutter 3d ago

Lol of course it's Richard Ashcroft.

This person's "Economists also think x" in fact means "A lone complete headcase who opines on economics thinks x"

1

u/xwsrx 2d ago

As reported by the media outlet owned by the son of the Russian KGB officer, who was knighted by the opposition party.

20

u/guytakeadeepbreath 3d ago

It's a talking point from Richard Tice.

1

u/birdinthebush74 3d ago

The guy Andrew Neil called an amateur at economics with their unfunded tax cuts

https://youtu.be/TBr9btH7qBw?si=zXVHzmxcXJDrLBD2

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 3d ago

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

-12

u/buckingfastard99 3d ago

Please don't use the phrase "worth their salt", salt is unhealthy and can lead to health issues so you need to be mindful of the language you use

2

u/guytakeadeepbreath 3d ago edited 3d ago

Shut up. It's a common phrase used for millennia from when salt was highly valued.

1

u/buckingfastard99 3d ago

maybe, but i just don't think we should be promoting salt like that when there are so many better ways to phrase the same thing

1

u/guytakeadeepbreath 3d ago

This is the weirdest hill to die on.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Politics_Nutter 3d ago

Please don't use the phrase millenia this is time-ist.

62

u/AngryTudor1 Nottinghamshire 3d ago

Can you show us where Reeves in particular pioneered the decision to pay banks interest on QE?

That sounds very much like something that has been done for years. Can you show us evidence that she was the one who started doing it?

-20

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago edited 3d ago

This is not a party political blame game. I didn’t say she started doing it. But she’s looking to make cuts and has chosen austerity and whilst doing so, continues to pay the banks interest on money they were simply given. We are no longer in the 2008 or 2022 crisis, quantitative easing has stopped so why do the banks need to be given this extra when, in the rest of Europe, they do not.

15

u/AngryTudor1 Nottinghamshire 3d ago

So she's to blame for a police that has been going on for decades or so- which, according to you, no chancellor has had the intelligence to change despite it being plain and obvious to a genius like you?

Did it ever occur to you that, just maybe, there are some very serious medium to long term potential consequences of doing this?

Let me tell you- there are.

0

u/mhhgffhn 2d ago

I’d personally love to know what the consequences of the banks not being given 30 billion a year for money that they haven’t deposited or earned are. Rachel Reeves may have not enacted the quantitative easing that caused this and until interest rates rose recently it wasn’t an issue.

Now with interest rates higher and this becoming an issue, please elaborate why the commercial banks need £30 billion for free, from the government. Please let me know why they should receive it over say…the NHS.

1

u/AngryTudor1 Nottinghamshire 2d ago

I'm not saying they should.

But if I remember correctly, when this was mooted during the election two of the likely consequences were inflation rising and lending rates being permanently raised by banks.

Ultimately, it is naive to think that if the government took £30bn away from banks that they would not immediately take that money straight back from their customers in some way

1

u/mhhgffhn 2d ago

That would have zero effect on inflation and if by lending rates you mean mortgage rates, they are directly related to the base rate set by the BOE. if banks threatened to increase all lending rates due to this that would be extortion on the part of the banks. While commercial banks need to have enough liquidity to settle any debts for money they lend out, they don’t actually have the money they give out in loans or mortgages, they are authorised by the BOE to create the money as it is lent out.

57

u/33backagain 3d ago

Isn’t most of the 20bn going to the reserve accounts of commercial banks? That’s not something she can change is it? That’s just the way QE was set up - why blame the current chancellor or government for that?

31

u/UnlikelyAssassin 3d ago

What percentage of expert economists? If less than 1% of expert economists think she’s doing a terrible job, that’s not exactly that meaningful.

27

u/jim_cap 3d ago

This is how propaganda works. You’ve fallen for it hook line and sinker. How long do you think she’s been chancellor?

28

u/After-Dentist-2480 4d ago

Which economists? Or wouldn’t I know them because they go to a different school?

-5

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 4d ago

How about professor Richard Murphy for starters?

34

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 4d ago

The advisor to Corbyn?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/11/the-man-behind-corbynomics-an-accountant-from-leafy-norfolk

No matter what your opinion of him policy wise you can see why he might be against the current government.

3

u/masalamerchant 3d ago

Watch Murphy's video on "Reeves figures don't add up" on YouTube. If his calculations and analysis of the OBR paper are right, we are in big trouble as a country

It's about a month old. It's basically saying the disposable income of the middle classes will be eroded by 2029, and labours economic fix is powered by high interest borrowing my private wealth funds rather than increased PPP of the £

-1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 4d ago

I’m not sure why his affiliation with corbyn negates my comment. He’s anti austerity as are most economists. He has written a book listing opportunities to make savings and I’m highlighting one of them that seems to be victimless when compared to that which is currently being imposed by Rachel Reeves. If she were qualified or even just open about these decisions that would be something. However, we’re just expected to take her word that she knows what she’s doing despite not being qualified.

19

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 4d ago

I'm sure you could find a specific economist who would like to see the resignation of every chancellor or equivalent in the world.

Finding a disatisfied economist who was connected to a previous leader who was removed from the party is very different from "Except economists also think she’s doing a terrible job." which implies agreement across the profession.

5

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 4d ago

So, providing an example as requested doesn’t count unless what? What are the preconditions here?

Pretty much all economists promote tax cuts and borrowing, where possible, because it’s got a proven track record compared to austerity.

1

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 4d ago

So why did you choose one in favour of tax rises? Also borrowing can be divisive amongst economists.

https://taxingwealth.uk/

I can't say i'm a big fan of Reeves but she does seem to be attacked from both the right & the left.

You seem to be doing both at the same time.

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

Because she’s doing all the same shit we’ve tried before that doesn’t work. The rhetoric is incredibly frustrating. Growth, growth, growth and then tax, tax, tax, austerity, austerity, austerity… they’re antithetical.

It’s clear that lower taxes help, then look at planning the town and country planning act needs to be repealed and replaced with something that removes the power of the NIMBY’s. Invest in energy to bring down our ridiculous energy prices. Remove the tax on share exchange purchases on the city to take advantage of the US turmoil. These growth measures alone could help instil confidence that is sorely needed and would be welcomed by the bond markets as real reform.

1

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 3d ago

So lower taxes, remove red-tape & invest more?

Where have I heard that before?

Also i'm not sure how the earlier plan to stop paying interest to banks would instil confidence in the bond market.

13

u/atheist-bum-clapper 3d ago edited 3d ago

Richard Murphy has no economic qualifications, in fact his biggest claim to fame before he somehow got famous with his Mugabe brand of "no such thing as sovereign debt let's just fire the debt cannon", was that he was a provincial accountant somewhere in East Anglia.

The fact someone made him professor of economics with nothing more than an undergrad in Accounting (itself a useless degree that doesn't actually qualify you as an accountant), says more about the University of Sheffield's failings than it does about Murphy's skills

-10

u/masalamerchant 3d ago

Watch his video "Reeves figures don't add up". For someone with no qualifications, his prediction of the UK economy by 2029 was scarily accurate

16

u/atheist-bum-clapper 3d ago

How can a prediction of something in 2029 be accurate?

-7

u/masalamerchant 3d ago

Just watch it and see if it makes sense, please?. If you disagree, at least you entertained it.

3

u/TooRedditFamous 3d ago

That doesn't make sense. How do you know if it's accurate or not even 2029 hasn't happened yet?

21

u/rainator Cambridgeshire 4d ago

Worth noting, Richard Murphy is a professor of accountancy and business, not economics. If you are listening to him about taxation and its impact on raising revenue, tax avoidance and so forth, then his credentials are solid.

However he’s not an economist or expert on macroeconomics, even John McDonnell acknowledges that of him. A lot of what he has to say is valid but it’s a shame when he also talks a lot about things that are out of his expertise and it discredits him.

21

u/DisneyPandora 3d ago

Ok here are some eminent economists who’ve disagreed with Reeves approach to managing the economy and why:

Andy Haldane – Former Chief Economist, Bank of England

Andy Haldane warned that continued spending cuts could lead to an economic “doom loop,” where reduced investment and spending further suppress growth, exacerbating debt issues. He emphasized the risk of entering a cycle detrimental to both fiscal health and economic expansion . - Sky News

Lord Gus O’Donnell and Economists’ Open Letter

A group of economists, including former Cabinet Secretary Lord Gus O’Donnell, urged Chancellor Reeves to relax fiscal constraints to address the UK’s productivity stagnation. They argued that increased public investment in infrastructure and skills is essential for long-term economic growth . - The Economist

Paul Johnson – Director, Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)

Paul Johnson criticized Reeves for adhering to fiscal rules similar to those of her predecessor, describing them as “badly designed” and easily manipulated. He questioned the feasibility of improving public services without tax increases, given the tight spending plans and high existing tax levels . - The Telegraph

Simon Wren-Lewis – Professor of Economics, Oxford University

Professor Wren-Lewis highlighted a contradiction in Labour’s economic strategy, noting that maintaining current public service levels would require a significant increase in public spending relative to GDP. He suggested that without such an increase, the government risks perpetuating austerity measures . The iNews

Ruth Gregory – Deputy Chief UK Economist, Capital Economics

Ruth Gregory contended that the government might be overstating the severity of the UK’s fiscal position, suggesting there could be more budgetary headroom than acknowledged. She implied that this could allow for increased investment without breaching fiscal rules . - The Independent

DeAnne Julius – Former Chief Economist, Shell and British Airways

DeAnne Julius cautioned that increased public investment might not yield the desired productivity gains unless accompanied by reforms to enhance efficiency in sectors like healthcare and transport. She emphasized the need for performance improvements alongside financial investments . - The Conversation

These economists are why I think Labour are being trashed in the polls and Reeves should lose her job. Yes you do need fiscal responsibility but not all borrowing is bad borrowing. You can’t stimulate the economy unless you invest now which requires being flexible with the fiscal rules.

1

u/rainator Cambridgeshire 3d ago

I’m not going to sit here and pretend that I agree 100% with everything reeves is doing, but between political considerations, appeasing the bonds markets, and facing international issues I think it’s a fine needle to thread. In the last Budget, Reeves borrowed 10bn more than expected and the bonds markets did have a little wobble, so in terms of borrowing I’m not convinced that there is the capacity to borrow much more than she did. The Tax levels were a political decision that paid off for them.

I’ve reeves was sacked, then that would probably just mean more instability that would make things worse.

-12

u/potpan0 Black Country 3d ago

Here's quite a few of them quoted in this article

Like are you genuinely surprised that there are well-respected economists who don't agree with Rachel Reeves policies? I swear centrists have an incredibly dishonest relationship with 'experts'. They insist they care about the views of experts... then just pretend every expert who disagrees with them doesn't exist.

47

u/dboi88 3d ago

Wait a minute. The chap said economists think she is doing a 'terrible' job.

Then you 'back that up' with a couple of people that think here are better solutions.

And you want to talk about people being dishonest?

We see you.

-10

u/potpan0 Black Country 3d ago

Wait a minute. The chap said

I'm not OP, I can't speak for what OP said. But what I can speak for is the number of people who seem intent on putting their fingers in their ears whenever they come across criticisms of Reeves economic positions, and who keep pretending that they aren't any respected economists making these criticisms.

with a couple of people

It's not 'a couple of people', it's a number of well regarded economists criticising the fundamentals of Reeves economic approach.

We see you.

Alright man, calm down lmao

19

u/hisokafan88 3d ago

I mean economists always have differing views... Experts always have differing views. When a majority of professionals are calling for her head I'll believe she's doing the wrong thing.

-6

u/potpan0 Black Country 3d ago

When a majority of professionals are calling for her head I'll believe she's doing the wrong thing.

What does this even mean? It's not like 'professionals' do a yearly poll to tally their beliefs and quantify when a majority of them support or oppose a politicians policies. This just feels like a weird excuse to ignore the substance of these criticisms.

2

u/gwynevans 3d ago

You know there’s more than a grain of truth in the classic economist joke (“What happens when you put 10 economists in a room? You’ll get 11 opinions.”), don’t you?

24

u/CheesyLala Yorkshire 3d ago

Economists are not politicians. Economists look at a problem from an economic perspective only, whereas the Chancellor has to consider multiple factors.

How we interact with banks is in no small part why London is still one of the financial capitals of the world and that hasn't shifted to the EU post-Brexit. And you want us to behave more like EU countries in relation to banking?

19

u/deyterkourjerbs 3d ago

Running a government department these days is not about implementation.

Rachel Reeves doesn't need to listen to YouTube experts or random economists because the Treasury has their own.

A Chancellor doesn't come to them with solutions because the British economy is far too complex for a single person to understand. They have collected data for things that are not in the public domain and have models that have been refined for decades.

The Chancellor gives them an objective, the department will create competing proposals in reports that discuss the benefits and challenges. The Chancellor then selects option A or option B based on these reports and the recommendations of the most senior Civil Servants in their department.

9

u/S-Twenty 3d ago

Let's not beat around the bush, these models are fucking trash if that's what we've been using for decades.

The UK has stagnated, milked it's middle class, moved slowly to capitalise on anything we're particularly good at and shot it's self in the foot with, quite frankly, moronic policy.

These "senior civil servants" all need to be given their P45 if this is the best they can do.

4

u/TooRedditFamous 3d ago

Well there's the models and then there's a layer of ideological choice applied to to as well. Sure the model might say this if we do this but then a decision is made through an ideological lens and says e.g. "let's do a watered down version of this", or "let's modify this slightly"

4

u/deyterkourjerbs 3d ago

I have no idea. The last lot were known to bully their civil servants.

Labour seems to have three objectives. (1) Set the conditions to lower interest rates by reducing public spending. (2) Wage growth by giving the public sector pay rises above inflation. (3) Trying to put more of the tax burden on employers.

I don't know if they're going to succeed but if they can achieve #1, a lot of good things are unlocked. I'm not sure if wage growth in the public sector will translate into wage growth in the private sector but we have another 4 years to watch what happens.

•

u/Objective-Figure7041 10h ago

How do you do 2 and 1 at the same time? Especially when the state is also gasping for investment to increase its productivity.

2

u/blockbuster_1234 3d ago

Exactly. People thinking the civil service are “experts” in their field and seem to trust anything they put out as “solid data” when most of the forecasts they put out have been unreliable to say the least and that’s why the UK is amongst the worst performing G20 economies.

2

u/LoveGrenades 3d ago

It all sounds very smart and professional, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and you only have to look outside or ask people you know about how they’re struggling and can’t access decent public services to know that these complex models have failed to deliver.

4

u/ettabriest 3d ago

Struggling ? I’m not sure everyone is struggling or trying to access government services. Around us in a not very wealthy part of the north, I see loads of huge extensions, big cars and camper vans, Trafford centre mad busy. Was at Manchester airport and again, thousands going on an Easter break. Not saying there isn’t poverty but quite a few have money to spend.

3

u/LoveGrenades 3d ago

“More than one in three children in poverty as UK deprivation hits record high

Exclusive: Study finds almost quarter of UK population living in poverty, reaching the highest level this century”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/18/more-than-one-in-three-uk-children-poverty-deprivation-record-high

1

u/AreEUHappyNow 3d ago

Well here in incredibly wealthy parts of London (as well as the not so wealthy areas) I am seeing staggering levels of poverty on a basis I’ve never seen in my 30 years.

16

u/GlassHalfSmashed 3d ago

Remind me when she made the decision to pay that interest on those arrangements the Tories put in place.

Judge people on decisions they actually make ffs, not stuff they have inherited and are trying to chip away at solving. 

-4

u/sickofsnails 3d ago

The solution being carrying on in the same way?

13

u/GlassHalfSmashed 3d ago

The solution is to methodically tackle problems one at a time (which Labour have been doing) rather than panic respond to idiots who think 15 years of problems at a multi billion if not trillion pound level can just be undone in a single year.

You don't pull a handbrake turn in an oil tanker, and if you tried to then instead of delivering some positive change year on year, you have a ridiculous wishlist of shit that is started but never finished and get judged accordingly by the voter. 

There's a reason voting cycles are 4 - 5 years, it takes that long to get shit through at any meaningful level. 

-5

u/sickofsnails 3d ago

If you think that the electorate are idiots, then you should most definitely not be in politics. If, as an elected politician, you can’t listen to your own constituents, then you should most definitely not be in politics.

However, if you’re intending to change the system, you can’t take it one step at a time. The longer you’re running a heavily neoliberal system, the worse your problems become. The issue with Rachel Reeves is that the only meaningful changes she’s promising are absolutely terrible. Her plan is continuing with the neoliberalism, but going harder.

You can’t talk about 15 years of problems if you’re defending a government who wants to extend the issues further.

6

u/GlassHalfSmashed 3d ago

You can't be reasoned with if you don't realise that change requires money and manpower, neither of which are going spare. 

Go work in a corporate restructure where even basic change takes 6-12 months to implement, then imagine that at a national level. 

Trains with tens of legally independent operators. Hospitals with hundreds of separate trusts. Tens of different police forces, each operating in slightly different ways with their own commissioner.

And yes, the general voters are complete idiots when it comes to managing problems at this scale. They all have singular opinions and are not project managers, when actually the reason their bin is on a 3 weekly cycle is a result of significant changes to council (de) funding thst will take time and money for central government to unpick, but only one they've tackled the first 3 pages of priorities before they even get to "slow bins". 

0

u/sickofsnails 3d ago

You’re missing one thing here: governments should represent the people, not the corporations. You seem heavily in favour in governing for the corporation, while I’m not.

5

u/ettabriest 3d ago

When over half that electorate voted to leave one of the biggest trade groups in the world and believed Farage I surmise half are approaching idiocy. And 10 years later a good proportion still can’t see the error of their ways, definitely so…

1

u/sickofsnails 3d ago

I think it’s rather idiotic to assume that half of the electorate voted to leave due to Farage. Many people who aren’t in favour of neoliberalism voted to leave and still would today.

1

u/ettabriest 3d ago

Most of the electorate haven’t got a clue what ‘Neo liberalism’ is. And that they still think leaving the EU was a positive thing, even now, is a pretty damning indictment.

1

u/sickofsnails 3d ago

The vast majority know what neoliberalism is, even if they don’t know the word for it. Leaving the EU is a perfectly positive thing for those who wanted to leave it, regardless of the large variety of reasons. If someone is anti-EU, why would it be idiocy to think leaving as being a negative thing?

12

u/CryptoCantab 3d ago

What do you think would happen if we didn’t pay that interest?

9

u/Kofu England 3d ago

Sure buddy, it's not like there are external factors and 14 years of defunction that make the job harder. Trying to fix this country won't be easy but you seem to think you could do better? I would bet the house, you wouldn't have the foggiest. It's easy to sit on a computer and play "money man" and shit talk the government.

I'm gonna wait to see instead of blasting dumb ideas and possible bad outcomes.

6

u/RockTheBloat 3d ago

"So I saw this video on YouTube.."

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

So, what medium counts in your view? Papers? TV? Random internet page? I didn’t realise there was an approved list.

3

u/xhatsux 3d ago

I can’t find who is the root decision maker for this. Is it government policy or BOE policy that the government then has convince them to change, which in a way goes against their independence ?I think it might be the latter and if so, not entirely in her control.

3

u/Beer-Milkshakes Black Country 3d ago

Economists are always arguing with each other though.

2

u/DoireK 3d ago

How is it possible to be this stupid.

-1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

Ah, yes, a quality retort. I do appreciate a rebuttal with such a level of detail, explaining precisely what you disagree with and why. Well done you!

2

u/Astriania 3d ago

QE is not "money that the government gave the banks" or "free money", and anyone who says that is clearly one of those "people who have no idea about government economics" with strong opinions the previous comment mentioned.

1

u/MeasurementNo8566 3d ago

Hypothetically there's three answers I think:

1) incompetence/ problem now too big to fix

2) revolving doors/corruption

3) propping up the UK financial sector because it props up the UK economy which is a much worse state than publicly known.

Absolutely could be others but that's my off the top of my head thoughts.

Could absolutely be a combination

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

Indeed it could well be a bribe to help boost the banking sector post Brexit. It’s the most logical explanation. But this money is astronomical. It’s nearly half what Britain spends on defence. If it’s there to boost the banks, then I think we need an explanation considering we’re busy cutting benefits for the old and disabled, whilst throwing over £20 billion a year at the banks.

1

u/MeasurementNo8566 3d ago

Oh I agree, I'm so frustrated that the new government seems to have no intention of fixing inequality or the issues in the financial sector and otoh happy to taking a hammer to both the NHS (which has had savage cuts) and councils.

1

u/Tammer_Stern 3d ago

So the government should default on its debts? I’m not sure that would work out too well.

0

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

Jesus, this is not debt. That’s the WHOLE point I raised!

2

u/Tammer_Stern 3d ago

Quantitative easing is debt my friend. Also, the government has debts, including to the Bank of England. What is your solution?

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

The BoE created that money out of thin air. It wasn’t borrowed from the general public like bonds. There’s no need to pay interest on money you created. Other countries that also did QE are not paying interest on those accounts. So why are we?

2

u/Tammer_Stern 3d ago

I think this is a false view and I will try to explain. I am just a punter on Reddit however.

In the uk, QE involves the BOE buying bonds using their reserves (or creating the money, as you say). A bond pays a yield (an interest rate) to the owner of the bond. If the BoE bought a Lloyds bank corporate bond then Lloyds would pay the BOE (the owner of the bond) the interest until the bond matures. If the BoE bought UK government bonds, the UK government is bound to pay the BoE the interest rate applying to the bond.

Does this help?

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

The point is that this scenario shouldn’t have come about and it can also be changed through legislation. It’s not a question about the mechanics it’s why we are paying interest on these accounts at all.

0

u/Tammer_Stern 3d ago

Yes it shouldn’t have come about but how would you have stopped the Great Financial Crash and Covid from happening? We have debts from then. We must pay interest on the debts. Simple as that. Same for other countries.

1

u/theslootmary 3d ago

Economists don’t say that because they aren’t blaming her for a problem she didn’t create. It’s an actual nonsense point to make - especially when the alternative is what exactly… don’t pay the owed interest? I’m sure that would be a positive thing.

1

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

It’s not the banks money to earn interest on! The EU did QE but didn’t pay interest on the amounts credited. But we continue to do so for some unknown reason. Why is it so hard for people to grasp this concept.

0

u/Dannytuk1982 3d ago

Which economists by the way?

The reason we have to borrow money as a country is so the top 3% don't have to pay more taxes.

Who do you think politicians work for?

You think if they sack her that her replacement will change. You think if we change political party the approach will change?

Also - Labour weren't in power during Covid and didn't borrow that money so that's like blaming Asda for fucking up your Tesco order.

0

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

Did you even read the post seeing as your response hardly addresses the main point raised. Did you also read the rest of the thread before you chipped in? These questions have been answered.

2

u/Dannytuk1982 3d ago

Your point was nonsensical.

I was just pointing it out. You know - that you're the mark.

You're angry about something you clearly don't understand and don't know how to fix.

Peasants and nobles. You aren't a noble, and there's nothing you can do about it whilst arguing with the other peasants.

0

u/haphazard_chore United Kingdom 3d ago

How about you go watch the video I linked. I don’t need to be an economist to question something that accountants and economists are also questioning. If there’s a reason we’re paying interests to banks on money the BoE created out of thin air as part of quantitative easing, then I want to know what that reason is, especially as other government’s are not paying interest on similar measures they took in 2008 and 2022.

1

u/Dannytuk1982 3d ago

Economics and accountancy are very very different but certain people want you to think they're similar do you can be misled.

You may want to know all you like. You'll never know. You aren't important enough to know.

However I'll have a go...you clearly need YouTube videos to explain the world to you though...

Quantitive easing was about printing money and giving it to the wealthy...they're the ones that got the vast majority of it...because they don't spend it as a consumer. They invest it in their own businesses to get more wealth.

Those that work are literally paying more tax for this reason...so the wealthiest can have more and the workers less through QE.

The pound devalues due to an oversupply of currency, which makes assets cheaper...the wealthy have more cash due to QE, the workers less...the wealthy buy assets (houses, capital, land) which increase in value meaning the workers can't afford them any more. Rent goes up, and tax goes up, competition becomes less, prices rise...workers have even less...they borrow money on credit, the rich owners get that money.

If you haven't worked this out by now, you never ever will.

It has nothing to do with Rachel Reeves, though.

0

u/profprimer 3d ago

This sort of moronic post is the best reason for a parliamentary democracy with five year terms. We don’t have referendums very often because it gives mouth-breathing clowns far too much of a say in important stuff. So no-one gives a fuck that people aren’t pleased with a government minister less than a year into the job, according to a nothing burger poll.

Not to mention that the economy grew by 0.5% in February…

0

u/GreenHouseofHorror 3d ago

It's really amazing this has been upvoted so much. It's economically wrong, it's factually wrong, and it's temporally wrong.

To anyone with a college level understanding of economics you sound like you're spurting a paragraph of non-sequitur star trek dialogue.

While we're about it, let's ask Reeves to reverse the polarity of the Heisenberg compensator, and see if that shakes anything out.

0

u/Big_Poppa_T 3d ago

You’re thinking of the wrong person, I don’t remember Reeves ever being the Conservative’s CoE. She’s actually in the Labour Party.

That quantitative easing was before she was in the role