Rachel Reeves buries New Labour and Thatcher's economics | The New Statesman podcast

Labour's economic plans: 'Bidenomics' without the money?
Subscribe here: / @newstatesman
Stability, investment, and reform - these are the three pillars for growth set out by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her Mais Lecture to business and finance leaders earlier this week.
“In a changing world, Britain has been behind the curve,” she said, but a Labour government, she stated, would seek to bring a “new chapter in Britain's economic history”.
Anoosh Chakelian, Britain editor at the New Statesman, is joined by George Eaton, senior editor, and Freddie Hayward, political correspondent, who both attended Reeves' lecture on Tuesday evening at Bayes Business School in City University.
--
The New Statesman podcast is now on KZbin. Anoosh Chakelian and New Statesman colleagues including political editor Andrew Marr discuss the latest in UK politics news, helping you understand the forces shaping British politics today.
Watch all the latest episodes of the New Statesman podcast here: • The New Statesman Podcast
--
The New Statesman brings you unrivalled analysis of of the latest UK and international politics. On our KZbin channel you’ll find insight on the top news and global current affairs stories, as well as insightful interviews with politicians, advisers and leading political thinkers, to help you understand the political and economic forces shaping the world.
With regular contributions from our writers including Political Editor Andrew Marr and Anoosh Chakelian - host of the New Statesman podcast - we’ll help you understand the world of politics and global affairs from Westminster to Washington and beyond.
Subscribe on KZbin: / @newstatesman
Sign up to Morning Call, the daily UK politics newsletter from the New Statesman: morningcall.substack.com
Subscribe to the New Statesman from just £1 per week: www.newstatesman.com/podcasto...

[@grimaffiliations3671]

The worst thing about austerity is that it doesn't even save you money in the long run. All that pain and suffering for nothing

[@mikecook1537]

Surely small state smaller cost?

[@adamalexander5181]

It's about enriching the already rich at the expense of everyone else

[@adamalexander5181]

​​@@mikecook1537no because privatising things costs even more for a worse service and then the state ends up bailing it out anyway. I'd rather the public owned stuff than a few greedy Tory donors tbh

[@mikecook1537]

@@adamalexander5181 I disagree. I think the private sector is good in the health service & it meant the difference between having a kidney transplant & not having one.

[@funbarsolaris2822]

And Labour supported it except for the Corbyn wing who were vilified for seeing reason

[@bigtree6992]

One way out of this, hope they listen to Gary Stevenson- wealth tax.

[@VinceLammas]

I've been reading a little about the ways a wealth tax might be used. It seems Labour will not include it in their "Plan A" ... but may have to resort to it if growth does not help reduce debt levels. The use of corporate windfall taxes and a one-off wealth tax could help clear a legacy debt or "historic debt" (e.g. the impact of COVID) and bring public sector running costs and sensible investments back into an affordable envelope.

[@kevoreilly6557]

Love Gary

[@mikecook1537]

A wealth tax will never work

[@michaelsmedley7519]

​@@mikecook1537why? Cause the billionaire owned press have told it wouldn't for years🤔

[@mikecook1537]

@@michaelsmedley7519 ok I have one simple question - If people think it's a good idea why don't the government do it?

[@Robert.S459]

I think Labour may be in for a shock after the next election if they do not start focusing on the working people of this country. We have had enough of hardship and suffering.

[@deborahcoveney8846]

Vote REFORM PARTY

[@timwoodger7896]

👍

[@adamalexander5181]

Is scrapping zero hour contracts, taxing private schools and putting that money into state education, more GPs and dentists, bringing trains back into public ownership, scrapping fire and rehire not 'focusing on working people' then?

[@adamalexander5181]

​@deborahcoveney8846 vote for people who think the Tories aren't Tory enough? Great idea...not

[@timwoodger7896]

@@deborahcoveney8846 no chance! They are way more concerned about corporate interests than the working class! They will more corrupt than the Tories and they will take away our healthcare altogether while limiting our freedoms!! No thank you!!

[@sambrooke4025]

With this Labour Party seems we’re on track for a deeply unpopular Olaf Scholz-style government. And then we’ll have a resurgent far right…

[@springwood1331]

Why is that? Why not a 'far-left'?

[@stephenwood2172]

​@springwood1331 because the average voter thinks reeves and starmer are the left. The actual left don't get media exposure, whereas right wing views and figures are continuously dominating the news cycle.

[@kw2142]

@@springwood1331 far left won't be running an opposition with a large social media & their own TV channel

[@al_l6418]

Thta´s exactly what will happen

[@stephenwood2172]

​@springwood1331 the far left don't have billionaire backing because the left is a genuine threat to the establishment and the right isn't. Similarly, news media, pretty much controlled by the billionaire class, are more open to platforming the far right. And both parties are regularly using language of the far right (mainly in respect of immigration) which makes the far right seem less radical and more palatable.

[@stephenpettett3472]

Why do Labour feel obliged to keep to the Tory´s spending plans and tax cuts? The current government´s credibility is such that why would you not want to show clear water between your and their policies? I know Labour can´t take victory for granted, but surely, given the polls, could they not be bolder and call the electoraté bluff a little? Back us or continue with the current shower, you decide.

[@TheLucanicLord]

80% of the media is owned by Tory supporters. If they say they'll put nurses wages up by tuppence _tHe PrOblm With SoSherLizUm iS yOu ruN ouT of oTHer peOplE's MoNey_ is all over the front pages.

[@lewisspringthorpe-dean5318]

It’s because the Tories are backed by the majority of msm. Which is why they typically are seen as the safest pair of hands for the economy (countered by track records). There’s a lot of the public who truly believe that the Tories fiscal rules need following so it’s easier to play along and commit to them then try to fix that misconception and argue against the msm who have daily reporting to the public. Both Miliband and Corbyn tried correcting the narrative and couldn’t.

[@kanedNunable]

if they dont the media will crucify them sadly. when was the last time a proper lefty won an election in the UK. well over 50 years ago....says a lot. the press especially have huge sway on voting.

[@keithparker1346]

​@@lewisspringthorpe-dean5318so Labour are going to lie to the public about their economic plans?

[@lenabo9929]

simple to win an election. Maybe that is unfair, but what labour parties that failed to win the past were to ideological. Who care what you want to do if government if you dont get in government.

[@colincampbell4261]

I do not trust Reeves or Starmer.

[@Morning404]

You are right to distrust him. Starmer initially lied to the Lablour leadership about who he was, then has proceeded to U-turn on so many of his earlier promises. He's also courting big money donors. Tells you all you need to know,

[@davidalexander2607]

And you trust Sunak and Hunt???? Wake up and smell the coffee

[@grimaffiliations3671]

Hopefully her use of the outdated and ridiculous "credit card" analogy when referring to government finances was just a hiccup

[@MurphyOCP-001]

She didn't say that

[@grimaffiliations3671]

@@MurphyOCP-001she didn't say the tories were planning on maxing out the "credit card"

[@michaelrch]

@@MurphyOCP-001starmer does on a daily basis

[@michaelrch]

Not a hiccup. This framing is completely consistent now. They are now monetarist neoliberals like the Tories. The transformation into thatcherites is pretty much complete. The only way to more public spending is growth. Exactly as Liz Truss said 100 times. Redistribution is a dirty word. The only way to get more money into the hands of ordinary people is to pour billions into the pockets of the rich.

[@Gordon.Pinkerton]

From a February article in The Guardian: Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today shortly after her U-turn on Labour’s headline £28bn green transition programme, the shadow chancellor explained her decision by claiming that, under Jeremy Hunt, the Treasury is “planning on maxing out the credit card”, adding for good effect that the Tories are “maxing out the headroom ahead of the next general election” thus limiting “what an incoming Labour government will be able to achieve”. By comparing the state’s coffers to an overladen credit card, Reeves endorsed an insidious fallacy. So are we saying she did not say that on Radio 4?

[@khar12d8]

One of the biggest things Labour can do is change the law so that councils can buy up land more cheaply, keep most of the proceeds from any Right to Buy and generally empower them to build more homes.

[@BuddingBudlia-si6ip]

there's something weird going on. why not build homes, sell them, then use that money to build more homes, its not rocket science

[@grimaffiliations3671]

Check out the documentary premiering in the UK called "Finding The Money" to see why these tory light economic policies are not the way

[@TheLucanicLord]

Hoping they're just avoiding giving the gutter press ammunition.

[@WilliamSmith-mx6ze]

The idea her or Starmer are going to do anything radical or even anything worth noting is risible.

[@sjhhej]

This was not a "centre left" statement.

[@stephenkerensky710]

The point is that tax cuts inevitably bring cuts in public services. What we need is a governmen that works for both the wealth-creators and the people, 1 in 5, who have no spare money; sometmes not even for food.

[@eattheright]

Calling Starmer's Labour Party as centre left is 😭 😭

[@hazezw9804]

If this speech was comprehensive I’d be interested in seeing a compact one. In practice there was very little in the speech. An admirable but economically insignificant workers right reform package, a state-owned energy company which won’t actually participate in the energy market, and £7bn wealth fund with no mechanism for incentivising private investment. Their big pitch for growth, planning reform, is very much needed, but it will likely not have an effect until the end of the parliament at the earliest. This also presumes that any reform would be easy design, get through both Houses of Parliament and then implement. Then there are the fiscals rules. One is fairly sensible, to borrow only to invest. Though it is interesting that with was Jeremy Corbyn’s fiscal rule. The second, that debt must be falling at the end of the forecastle period, is ludicrous. It only effect is to stop long term planning as any investment must create a return in less than 5 year. Then there is the implicit commitment to £19bn worth of spending cuts which will undermine growth. For the economy to grow more economic interactions need to take place, people need to spend money. People only spend money when they have it and companies only invest when customers, e.i. people, have money to spend on their goods. Until consumer confidence and demand increase there can be no growth and £19bn of cuts will only suppress demand further. Overall this approach could be summed up as ‘just pray for growth’ and thinking that’s enough. It also seems dangerously reliant on the idea that there is a massive pile of private investment just waiting for a government they like the look of. This is delusional. The description of this as bidenomics without the money is kind of funny because bidenomics is pretty just a subsidy program so bidenomics without the money is just doing nothing so in the end it’s pretty accurate.

[@VinceLammas]

Norway incentivised private sector investment with their energy strategy and it's national wealth fund. Is Labour's plan similar? If vital planning reform is essential for growth and Labour have a clear mandate, they can push legislation through with the kind of zeal that Tories are using for their "unmandated" and unconstitutional Rwanda laws. I don't see a problem there. I'd like to see a definition of "investment" and how the returns or benefits of this are judged. Where can we find the text of the speech so we can read it and see to what extent we agree or disagree with your analysis?

[@hazezw9804]

@@VinceLammas I don’t think this version of a national wealth fund is particularly similar to Norways, though I must admit I am by no means an expert on it. First of all the scale isn’t comparable. Norways wealth fund is worth over $1.5 trillion so about 200,000 times bigger. Secondly, I didn’t think Norways wealth fund was actually used to fund government priorities. It pretty much acts like a private wealth fund where its investments are based on returns, I pretty sure it has shares in Apple and Microsoft. I wouldn’t be surprised if the fund was occasionally used for one off cost projects, it is quite hard for a government to resist a big pile of money when it’s just sitting there, but it’s not what it’s designed for. It might be worth explaining what I meant by a mechanism to incentivise private investment. To my understanding public investment can incentivise private investment in broadly two ways. One, fully fund a piece of infrastructure that will increase economic activity I.e. invest in a new bus route into a town center, this (in theory) will increase foot flow into the town, more people will spend their money there and the increase in profits locally businesses make will incentives more business to open up stores their which will then increase demand for Labour increasing real wages leading to more being spent in the shops extra. The hope is to use government investment to build a positive feedback loop. The second way is to try and split the cost of a socially desirable investment with the private sector, the most common example of this being public-private house building initiatives some councils did in the early 2010. The idea here is that private sector will go half and half on a socially desirable but less economically attractive project in return for something, usually protection from any risk the project and a share (or in some case all) of the returns from that project. Here government investment pretty much acts as a subside for private sector investment. I would argue this type of partnership is not the best as when it goes well government would have got a better return on there investment if they had just invested the full amount in the beginning and when they go wrong government is liable for the full amount. A far few councils got into financial trouble because of projects that didn’t deliver returns. Also with is type of investment the issue of scale comes back. The subsiding of private investment is pretty much what Biden is doing in the US. However, he’s spent around $350bn on subsidies, compared to £7bn. I just don’t see how investment subsidies of this scale would have a significant effect on private investment. As for getting planning reform through parliament, Barry Gardiner gave a good interview were he shared his experience trying to get leasehold reform through the lords and how they threatened to try and block all of Labour policies if the then Labour government tried to reform leaseholds. The House of Lords has a habit of interfering with housing policy so I wouldn’t be surprised if there was significant opposition to any reforms aimed at loosening planning regulations. I could be wrong but that just my gut instinct. The Rwanda policy is probably a good compromise. The conservatives are trying to push it through but it’s still taking them significant amounts of time, and similarly I would expect any significant planning reform to be challenged in the courts. I’m not saying it wouldn’t get through parliament just that I think it’ll take longer than most people expect. On defining investment, I’m just using the standard definition of investment as a financial/monetary input and returns as a financial/monetary output. I think I get the thrust of your question and would agree that this way of measuring returns on investment in solely financial terms isn’t the best but the private sector will only act based on financial returns so don’t think that matters much in this case. The text to the speech can be found here - labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/rachel-reeves-mais-lecture/

[@rolandrothwell4840]

You make some perceptive assertions in a good analysis. I could have confidence in Rachel Reeves if she stated that to stimulate GDP she'll borrow heavily for capital investment. She's not going to do that! The dumping of their £12 billion green energy deal is testimony to that fact. I believe a Labour government should take those who only earn under £18,000 completely out of tax altogether. It would show a commitment to working people and aid in reflating the economy

[@VinceLammas]

@@hazezw9804 I dont think we can expect any European government alone to match the scale of a programme running for the USA - that's completely unrealistic but I understand the point. I note that the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund was created in 1990 and so has a considerable start in being able to invest the profits of energy generation. I thought the reduced Green Energy investment was going to be £7bn per year rather than £28bn. Your quote of £7m comes from where? Even then it's still around one-tenth of the size per capita until private sector funids follow. In the end, the projected impact of all investment are "best guesses" - my estimate is that this strategy is certainly more worthwhile pursuing and has more to commend it than any concept the Tories might describe a "a plan".

[@kayedal-haddad9294]

Why no mention of a Wealth Tax?

[@kevoreilly6557]

Because, except Andrew, NS is devoid of intellectual capital

[@kanedNunable]

centrists will never discuss this.

[@DanCThorpe]

Unusually partisan podcast on the part of the new statesman, I wonder if it coincides with Owen Jones quitting Labour.

[@spoonfulofdreams]

The idea that New Labour made massive investments in public spending is ludicrous when what they did was temporarily prop up the NHS and education through mortgaging them to private investors. We know that the economy isn’t a credit card but what Labour propose, in partnering with private investors, is precisely that. It’s really no different to Dennis Healey borrowing from the IMF. By acting like a 3rd world economy we will become one.

[@kanedNunable]

you realise the tories have tripled the debt since they came in, whilst building nothing at all? and ask why labour had to use PFI then they came in? because tories had actually bankrupted us as usual. do you really blame labour for the US banking crash?

[@jasbindersingh2441]

Banks of England's flagship policy these last 13 yrs has been quantitative easing. The effects of which. On its own website are to..... increase asset prices....(ie homes prices) as money becomes cheaper and banks lend more. Deliberately inflating asset prices since 2009... And she worked for it. Tells you all you need to know

[@kevoreilly6557]

It’s been tightening the last 3 years

[@goych]

Strange as the housing crisis could be traced back 30 years….

[@jasbindersingh2441]

@goych and in 2009 ...they shd have crashed like rocks back to pre 2000 levels.....but rescued by....q.e

[@goych]

@@jasbindersingh2441 fair enough but they’ve been going up up up for decades now was my point

[@XxHaythamKenwayxX]

Thank you for actualyl pointing out what other media hasn't - Reeves and Labour are not 'born-again Thatcherites' as opposing parties like to plaster for headlines, she like anyone with an ounce of sense was pointing out how Thatcher had a vision and knew what she was doing and implemented her plans with strength in a way that can be commended. It doesn't mean you have to AGREE with what Thatcher did. This is what Reeves was saying.

[@grimaffiliations3671]

Thatcher's vision was wrong. Doesn't matter how well you execute a vision based on falsehoods and misconceptions

[@adamalexander5181]

​@@grimaffiliations3671we know it was wrong but she was still effective regardless and that's the only point being made

[@KeenanTaku]

Accurate analysis never makes for tasty headlines I'm afraid. Well said though

[@barbaralovesey4874]

​@adamalexander5181 Aren't they any other people who had vision, executed it and actually improved people's lives like Aneirun Beavan foe example? Why does she have to refer to Tories guru rather than proud history of Labour movement ?

[@boxtradums0073]

Aye I’m sure the banker has the interests of the working class at heart 🤣🤣🤣

[@gregh4292]

What a load of centrist crap. Oh, let’s stick to the usual monetary policy tract and call it radical. No higher rates of tax for the rich or the ridiculously richest, no commitment to public ownership and lots of cosying up to private sector, a “new economic consensus”. Same as the current one. Pathetic, missed opportunity. Posturing. You lot and Reeves. Another, of many, reasons why I scrapped my Labour Party membership three years ago.

[@adamalexander5181]

Yeah no doubt you'd rather Jeremy and his gang were in charge still and gift the Tories another election win, right? I'm guessing you're middle class and not financially affected regardless of who wins yeah? As if you were struggling you wouldn't be so unconcerned about kicking out the Tories. I'd like Labour to be a bit more leftwing personally but compared to the Tories they're a million times better. You can join Owen Jones sniping from the sidelines though and achieving nothing positive whatsoever by all means

[@mikecook1537]

Why is this bad? They are sticking to tory spending so we may get a tax cut

[@adamalexander5181]

​@mikecook1537 Labour have different priorities and a tax cut is not really on my list of priorities tbh. I'm more interested in investment in public services and the NHS, making my job more secure etc. And Labour will be far better in office than the Tories but the likes of Owen Jones are well off and don't care either way so they snipe from the sidelines

[@funbarsolaris2822]

@@mikecook1537 Any more "tax cuts" and this country will go Russia 1917, use your brain

[@KILKennyLaDa9898-js2nr]

Heard all that socialist, tax the rich claptrap back in the 60's and 70's. Swivel eyed, loony cultist tripe. Beatles smashed for 95% tax in the 60's and waved goodbye to the UK...like all the other top stars and top earners. It was called the ''brain drain''.

[@robbuxton8438]

The £28billion U turnwas a tragedy. Labour need to give its natural supporters to come out and vote. It seems to me that the polls indicate a lack of enthusiasm for Labours offering. If they don’t give a positive reason, then many will just stay at home.

[@mrhappyfoot]

Any links to her original speech? I'd like to watch or read the full content @NewStatesman

[@albal156]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWaVi6WZlt93rKc I'd link the one by Sky News but its only coming through one audio channel.

[@VinceLammas]

I think the messages from Labour about an active government working in partnerships with private sector business is hitting the right note. Planning reform, house-building and a closer alignment with the EU to remove trade barriers are probably essential to fire investment and growth. The sounds like a strategic plan ... something the Tories are fundamentally lacking.

[@outofideas42]

It's an explicitly neoliberals, capitalist plan that puts private money motivations on public infrastructure. The alternative is cobbling the money themselves through wealth taxes on the exact same individuals or if they are foreign then investment borrowing, also known as the foundation of stimulus. That then gives democratic bodies control over how the money is spent and there isn't an explicit profit motive and the dangers of corner cutting for costs that lead to Grenfel. Unfortunately, that gives the rags the ammunition to say Labour would increase taxes and borrow, and pretend like those factors crash the economy (rather the capitalist gambling and the desire for infinite growth, which has caused literally every economic collapse in Britain in the past 200 years.

[@Titus9508]

It's been done before and was an abject disaster and cost local authorities dearly, especially those bless wealthy in the first place.

[@rolandrothwell4840]

Oh, come on, hitting the right note! Reeves could commit to a large borrowing plan for capital investment, which would attract private investors too. Labour could tax the wealthiest in our society to meet the £22 billion expenditure short fall. If they want to cut taxation, what about taking low income earners out to tax altogether. She could be so much bolder! It's not a period when tinkering on the periphery will gain results!

[@malcolm8564]

Active government sounds expensive.

[@ianhannant7497]

Can't wait to get in that voting booth... Austerity or we'll austerity

[@adamalexander5181]

What rubbish. Are the Tories taxing private schools, scrapping zero hour contracts, bringing public transport back into public ownership, repealing anti-trade union laws, doing anything to improve the NHS etc? To say they're the same either says you're priviledged or incredibly out of touch

[@BennyHolden-ls7sj]

They are the same as the LIECONS no changes same old mistakes same old corruption and incompetence!

[@boxtradums0073]

@@adamalexander5181Wes Thatcher is demanding reforms from the NHs not increasing funding so stop the gaslighting

[@martinputt6421]

@@adamalexander5181 The Labour Party are doing none of this. Come back to me after the election and you'll see I'm right. Labour and the Tories just want to keep the status quo.

[@bothi00]

​@@adamalexander5181none of that negates the fact that starmer and Reeves will continue austerity. Cope.

[@rolandrothwell4840]

She sounds like a true blue Conservative! Neoliberalist monetarism has not exactly been an unresounding success so far! She not centre left she's Conservative! No borrowing for capital investment! Sticking to the same fiscal rules of this government. No wealth tax on billionaire oligarchs! She's Conservative - VOTE GREEN FOR AN ALTERNATIVE

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

I cannot imagine any labour government which dares to debunk Keynesian Economics.

[@tobygray438]

Hence why one should never vote for them. Keynes was not even an economist. He was one of the brightest minds of his generation, but he wasn’t an economist - ‘after all we are all dead in time’. Why would a political party think a proven failed approach to managing the economy would work this time. When will they realise, economies can’t be run centrally to generate growth. Growth comes with confidence and freedom. Any politicians hand on the economic tiller of any nation usually spells disaster.

[@colincampbell4261]

Nothing left to sell off - oops we still got the NHS!

[@clivesweeting4410]

Labour sold off hospitals last time.. now NHS has to lease them.

[@kanedNunable]

@@clivesweeting4410 no they didnt. they built a load with PFI. are you a bit thick? meanwhile tories have actually privatised 25% of the back end and built nothing.

[@Titus9508]

More of the same coming from this bunch.@@clivesweeting4410

[@colincampbell4261]

@@clivesweeting4410 incorrect.

[@nasreenakhtar8521]

They already started that. Your data is sold off

[@deelawdazhahs1078]

For growth we are going back into the single market. We will accept free movement of people and keep our currency.

[@gavinsmith9564]

Reeves still insists that the Brexit Emperor isn't naked, a lump of coal would have figured that out by now.

[@janeknight3597]

If you look at HS2 this is the year that actual construction along the whole route became visible. Work began in 2017 ( I know COVID). It takes 10 years to get these sort of project to where things can be seen to be moving to completion. That is two parliaments.

[@MiPointIs]

It struck me recently what it was about Labour MPs that I found inspiring - it’s the passion they have to deliver the Best for Britain, the attitude of Tory MPs is dreary in comparison with attempts at enthusiasm falling flat! Every time the Tories destroy Britain, it’s economy and worldwide reputation Labour pick up the pieces and deliver a Better Britain for those who do not live solely on share dividends or the extortionate rents they charge people trying to live on minimum wages and/or benefits!

[@Titus9508]

That can't be based on comparing Tory and Labour policies. Apart from a few renaming exercises there very very little difference between them. Just look at how many Labour Councils are going their own way - in contradiction to this showers current plans.

[@user-ol3xe5fz4u]

this woman frightens me alsmost as much as Stalinmer!!!!

[@mattpreece6106]

Stability means not having 5 PMs in 2 years and making big mistakes like Brexit and unfunded Tax cuts.

[@ericaceous1652]

Voting Green

[@Morning404]

Same.

[@barbaralovesey4874]

Same here!

[@mrD66M]

Smoking green more like

[@goych]

God help us

[@baz1184]

That's a vote for Tories. Green Party is barmy

[@chrislesiter4531]

One thing they could that wouldn't cost them anything is minimum percentage distributions rates for Foundations like the US and Canada. And at some point someone will have to revisit the council rates system.

[@VinceLammas]

A second thought occurs to me in relation to the idea that stability cannot be within the gift of a Labour government. Certainly, no government can ensure total stability - outside events will always require accommodation and adjustment. However, since Cameron agreed to the Brexit Referendum, the Conservatives have done nothing but deliberately, consciously and consistently increase the level of instability and uncertainty to the British political and economic environment - with no clear strategy or leadership. That is a period of eight turbulent years that have reduced private investment in the UK. Eliminating THAT, is within the gift of a stable government.

[@AgentGreyFox]

They will get het growth by aligning closer to EU rules and negotiating a new deal that helps farmers, exporters, fishing and investment. That alone with increase GDP. Stablity of govt will go a long way too.

[@malcolm8564]

National Insurance is just a parallel income tax. The cost of collection could be saved by blending it into other taxes.

[@sophiemedlar]

Would like NS to interrogate the increasing argument that our sums don't add up because of wealth - more than income - inequality and this HAS to be tackled. No hope with ageing population, climate change etc, otherwise. Labour needs to show guts after the election. Martin Wolf, Gary Stevenson and others?

[@MrBabylon]

Labour has been negotiating with private investors for 2 years now, wouldn't be surprised if they've already got the next 10 years of investment planned but obviously can't say anything.

[@unusg1]

It’s the balancing act between having ideas for government without handing any ammunition to the opposition. It reinforces a meekness in Labour’s approach but they have little option with the Tories and their right wing media allies waiting to pounce on any slip up or difference.

[@keithparker1346]

So as soon as Labour are elected they will not face ammunition?

[@Buckley22uk]

Wealth taxes, government borrowing, and private investment are all the same thing - using money/assets of the incredibly wealthy to invest in public services. With investment, they let you use use the thing in exchange for profits; with borrowing they lend the money in exchange for interest payments; but with tax, the government just treasures the money in exchange for creating better conditions for everyone (including the ultra wealthy). Reeves talking about anything but redistributing wealth is an admission she doesn't believe she can do anything but try and trick the rich into accidently helping everyone else while serving themselves. And that's New Labour to a goddamn T!

[@Schiltron]

Human beings love to predict the future, but we’re really quite terrible at it. When Harold Macmillan was asked what was the greatest challenge for a statesman, he replied: 'Events, dear boy, events'.

[@johnmuckley6363]

Where would thw welfare state be if Atlee and Bevan had stuck to tory limits and fiscal rules . Be brave Starmer and Reeves.

[@geoffroberts1131]

😂 can't believe the elephant in the room isn't being addressed here! Starmer said recently,and I'll paraphrase although you can do the search, "I'm far more interested in what's happening in Davos than Westminster!" An unmistakable nod to Clause and the most powerful and wealthy people in the world😅! It takes guts to speak out but these guys don't have it. They also won't tell you what everyone is beginning to understand now. Rishi(Dr Death)Sunack never gave up working for Goldman Sachs, a WEF member. He holds millions in shares in Moderna, a WEF member. Charles3 hasn't formerly relinquished his role as chief envoy for the WEF. A post he held for around 5 years leading up to his bog hat ceremony🤔🤨. Did i say "an elephant"? This looks more like a herd !😈Homework: how many times has Rachel here been invited to Davos over the last few years?

[@grimaffiliations3671]

Why do people always ask how we're "going to pay" for things? The UK is monetarily soverign, if we can physically do something, we can afford it. All these labour people need to read The Deficit Myth by Stepahnie Kelton

[@Baxwell.]

+1. Currency sovereign nations aren't households. The government can afford anything sold in pounds. It's the only way to build a foundation for success. Their deficit is the market's surplus.

[@adamalexander5181]

Bit out of touch aren't you? Labour are historically seen as being economically-inept and this is reinforced by our media so they have to play the game and make the public trust them with the economy and the polls have shown for a while that the strategy is working so whether you agree with the means or not, you can't disagree with the ends

[@grimaffiliations3671]

@@adamalexander5181hopefully these outdated positions are just politics

[@adamalexander5181]

​@@grimaffiliations3671Labour will be more radical in office than they're letting on, trust me

[@mikecook1537]

Why do the government say how will we pay for it then?

[@andrewta55]

Unless Rishi ditches the hard right from the party… in which case back to tories

[@Newsopathy-gf2ug]

Rachel Reeves didn't seem particularly hot on substance but these guy shredded her.

[@oliver556]

tl;dr: More neo-liberalism and austerity

[@deborahcoveney8846]

Tax the super rich epecially the Royal family

[@10willdude]

Sunak is literally twice as rich as the King

[@Titus9508]

So, that's covered then. @@10willdude

[@sfbuck415]

it's easy to say the right words when you're angling for votes, just ask Starmer

[@Morning404]

Exactly. Easily duped/client media.

[@nasreenakhtar8521]

WEALTH TAX WEALTH TAX WEALTH TAX

[@EamonCoyle]

As someone from Belfast I always laugh when I head about Biden's "IRA and Green Tech" lol

[@roriejackson4106]

Thanks Anoosh and team, I'll be telling my 6th form pol/Government students about ole Thatcher coming up yet again to haunt British politics

[@MurphyOCP-001]

I'd recommend watching the speech or reading the transcript yourself and realising the only people trying to create a link between Reeves and Thatcher are Tory client/rightwing media

[@tobygray438]

Why not ask them to read about her time as prime minister and have an open discussion about their findings rather than spoon feeding young minds with personal opinions. Surely as a teacher you should be encouraging Cristal thought, communication, collaboration and creative thinking. Just telling a bunch of 17 yr olds that Thatcher was a witch is hardly giving them the benefit of a good education. Shame on you!

[@roriejackson4106]

@tobygray438 excuse me? Do you teach? Who suggested I am spoon feeding them my views? Do you have any idea of what I have to teach them? Don't shame on me mate when we have teaching shortage. Be glad they have a dedicated teacher before I throw in the towel and leave education.

[@etbadaboum]

Reeves should be monitored on only one metric: reducing inequality

[@rogerhigman7568]

Clearly, Labour will not be able to spend much quickly if they constrain themselves to the Tories' tax policies. That makes it even more important that they spend wisely - in ways that put money in pay packets across the country rather than into corporate profits in a few mega projects. That puts an emphasis on things like home energy conservataion, cycling, buildings refurbishment and so on that politicians traditionally find boring.

[@KILKennyLaDa9898-js2nr]

Nothing from Starmer putting more money in our pockets. Devoid of ideas. Which the Tories are doing right now.

[@VinceLammas]

Labour are not constrained by Conservative Tax policies though they want to demonstrate they are financially responsible (and contrast that with Liz Truss's actions). They recognise it's difficult to reduce UK voters' standards of living during a cost of living crisis - hence they may not want to reverse Conservative give-aways.

[@KILKennyLaDa9898-js2nr]

@@VinceLammas Five months ago, ONS revised the GDP figures which showed it was £18 billion HIGHER during the Truss era....so her tax cutting agenda - now adopted by Hunt/Rishi was entirely feasible. Fact suppressed by media. And where was the market meltdown during Brown's debt and borrowing insanity?

[@tesserakt54]

Recover PPE looting? Just a thought.

[@terry9819]

I think Labour just lost my vote, this was the final straw on top of a mountain. I will be interested to see how the local elections go for smug Starmer.

[@kanedNunable]

so you want more tories? ffs terry

[@terry9819]

@@kanedNunable No, I don't. That's why I can't understand why Labour are sticking with Tory policies that have failed for 14 years.

[@andrewcollins7867]

Labour have realised through experience that you need to get elected before you can enact change. To move the dial to the left, you have to firstly not give the right wing press a target to attack you with. That means no radical announcements that frighten the horses and give the press the opportunity to paint you as reckless and dangerous. Then you need to shift the Overton window gradually to the left until they become the accepted norm. Then you can become more radical. I wish people on the left would appreciate this because it is obvious that is how you win elections and gain power. Principles without power are useless, but the ideological purists on the left can never see this and that’s why labour has been out of power more than 80% of the last 100 years. Tony Blair’s great skill was that he understood these principles and that’s why he was so successful. Too many folks on the left haven’t learnt this lesson and prefer principles over power, or shouting into a vacuum rather than actually enacting change. Then they wonder why they haven’t had a chance at government for the last 14 years. For gods sake, keep your eye on the prize and stop self sabotaging.

[@jonathanfell688]

To say that Thatcher set out the country is irrefutable. She did. That does Not mean you want to reuse here policies. It defines you as wanting to change the whole direction and take over the whole present agenda on a permanent basis. Thatcher changed Britain for the worst for decades. We want to change it do fundamentally as she did 9n to a completely different course. That is a monumental ambition, and great to here she has such a huge vision. Saying that makes her Thatcherite is purposefully niave.

[@adamalexander5181]

Exactly. She was a radical PM whether you agreed with her ideology or not. Giving her credit for that doesn't mean you agree with her

[@KILKennyLaDa9898-js2nr]

I lived through the entire decade of 70's socialism. It was a miserable Labour disaster of constant economic failure.. Bankrupt state industry....anarchy, mafia unions, This country was in perpetual crisis. By 1979, UK on it's knees. An economic basket case. Reeves is utterly clueless. She needs to study some history.

[@peterteagleteagle9958]

All promises,heard it all before

[@crayontom9687]

Is that what you guys heard? Bless

[@wirplit]

Mark Blyth wrote about Austerity and trashed the false economics behind it... yet still we play this ignorant game

[@TheNobbynoonar]

A multi millionaire who owns at least two properties is just what the working class needs. Well done labour.👏

[@ricardosharry8944]

Private investment = short term gains for long term pains. Blarism 2.0 more neoliberal politics Raise tax and redistribute

[@idonthavealoginname]

Exactly...

[@siskinedge]

While I think a wealth tax would be fantastic for the economy, strategic government investment is how you get growth in the economy. If you look at the US the investment obama made into basic research and the private sector drove growth for over a decade. Rachel Reeves was pretty scathing about the neoliberal consensus on the economy and could actually demonstrate how austerity was populist wank (easy to sell to voter policies which have detrimental effects). Reversing austerity is the only way forward.

[@grimaffiliations3671]

@@siskinedgeObama didn't drive growth, he opted for status quo austerity and oversaw an incredibly slow and painful recovery as a consequence. Biden learned from that experience and chose to invest heavily after covid, and now they have the faste growing economy in the g7

[@deborahcoveney8846]

Not more austerity it doesnt work nor printing more money quanitive easing.

[@creepycrawlything]

What the panel reported about what Reeves had to say about Labour's economic planning, appears pretty much a cut-and-paste from Gordon Brown's "My Life, Our Times". We then have to factor in that Tony Blair took New Labour in directions other than GB intended; where distrust of Starmer (the Hollow Man) and a consequent sense that we do not know what he will do when in power, might potentially see Starmer action altering whatever Reeves intends. GB too, just as Reeves, intended to prevent globalisation having free play in UK affairs; and on that he failed. Globalisation turned out to be way more complex and more powerful than anticipated. Questions arise as to who a globalisation-managing UK-Labour government could find as allies to rein in globalisation. In some ways this intent to rein in globalisation is polemic which echoes the right-wing polemic about taking us back to the good old days; where both left and right polemic is here unlikely to deliver.

[@happychappy7115]

Inheriting a patient on life support and announcing their plans to run a marathon in the coming days😢

[@ronstriebig2749]

Oppose evil capitalism as defined by Einstein in his 1949 paper Why Socialism

[@jn4126]

Would really love if you could actually get some economists on, or anyone who actually understands what they are talking about instead of all these well educated centerists who dont know a thing about actual economics

[@cybergornstartrooper2157]

Everything gets a tick… Except the new runways… Or new nuclear… Oh sod it let’s keep planning as it is😂

[@peterkirby2771]

Racheal Reeves just another Thatcherite , just what we want ,

[@rogerpitcher2636]

You get stability by making the country more self-reliant - little England, even in it is poor.

[@Charles61284]

Not getting my vote nee difference with the conservatives

[@kanedNunable]

not too bright are you? if they are the same then tories surely would have improved some things since labour left. whats improved?

[@tomlangford1999]

The two faces of Rachel Reeves: Blairism without the growth, or Bidenomics without the investment

[@kw2142]

Lab are utterly clueless it seems

[@JD-eq4dp]

No matter what she has to say, I simply cannot not bear her droning voice.

[@andybrice2711]

Rather than banning zero-hours contracts, I think it would be far more sensible to mandate a weekly "retainer fee" on top of any wages. That would keep the flexibility, whilst reducing the precarity.

[@colincampbell4261]

Or garaunteed 16hr wk

[@andybrice2711]

​@@colincampbell4261 Then that would just be a part-time job though. The point of my suggestion is that you're paying people a premium for the inconvenience of the uncertainty.

[@ronstriebig2749]

Excellent rr

[@battybibliophile-Clare]

Tax the rich, seems like Labour has taken that of the table.

[@user-ns5ry7qi5z]

New Washington consensus! Is this really a sign of moving away from neoliberalism.

[@MsPaulathomas]

One of the nastier time bombs in Jeremy Hunt's budget is the tax cuts and the effect they will have on inflation. Tax has one role in the economy and that role is to control inflation, cutting taxees before inflation is under control is either stupidity or sabotage.

[@martinspeer262]

Inflation is way down (3.4%, down from over 11% in October 2022) so Hunt's plan is working. Labour would take us back to square one but if they think I'll pay more tax so they can waste it they got another thing coming. I sooner quit my job and live off the dole

[@PortilloMoment]

@@martinspeer262 You really wouldn't. Life on benefits is no joke and you won't get to do it for long - successive governments have seen to that. Somehow I suspect hyperbole on your part. Hunt's 'plan' as you call it isn't working as well as you think. The inflation figure given is not concomitant with the real life experience of most people, who have to figure housing costs into their finances. The 3.4% figure conveniently excludes housing, so it's not a reliable reflection of the monetary life of anyone who has a mortgage or pays rent (ie, most of the population). Beware of political 'adverts'. There's usually a con in there somewhere.

[@tapaarn5863]

Centre left???

[@enemywithin1295]

It helps if you read past the headlines.

[@CambeulWalker]

@@enemywithin1295I’d like to hear specifics pls. I didn’t even hear anything in this video that was centre left either. Meagre policy changes to an economic orthodoxy doesn’t actually alter the underlying ideology.

[@ronstriebig2749]

Very clever woman

[@Barralet58]

We need a Socialist Party not Pink Tories.

[@mrD66M]

Haven't you noticed that the UK voters haven't trusted socialism for more than 50 years? Blair was as laissez faire neoliberal as Cameron, only more generous on welfare

[@worldofjonny2]

This is literally delusional

[@ubiktd4064]

Doesn't matter Keir Starmer will change his mind tomorrow depending on how hot his latte is.

[@briandelaney9710]

I expect 3 more u turns before the Autumn. But there’s nothing left is there ?

[@EamonCoyle]

My only problem with hearing about the totality of the Rachel Reeves speech is that it was playing catch-up to the news cycle immediately. Until today I knew nothing of the meat on the bones of what she said and none of it was given a focus by the mainstream. Further to that the Labour strategy seems to be staying away from trouble and the fact this wasn't pushed harder by Labour PR shows they would rather pander to the centre right than reveal anything they might have to justify !!

[@NPC-st7zv]

There is no political solution.

[@firefalcon124epic]

The level of analysis on the podcast is laughable, honestly. Reeves talks about "supply side reform", and you take that to mean an increase in workers' rights? If anything, "supply side reform" means deregulation and curtailing thereof. Labour is at complete odds with itself, literally saying contradictory things, and this podcast cannot bring itself to talk about it or criticise them. Client journalism, through and through.

[@BennyHolden-ls7sj]

Astute observations and clearly shows how crap our politicians are as well as dishonest!

[@Morning404]

I just left a comment calling out this client journalism. Spot on, and glad others are seeing through the bs.

[@BennyHolden-ls7sj]

She wants to build more warehouses so that amazon and the likes pay even less into the country and of course the creation of those valuable 9.50p/hr jobs for the grateful few!! lolz Reeves and the LIEBOUR party are a joke. Ditto @Morning404 reason there is no in depth scrutiny usually from sympathetic media who possess virtually no journalistic skills or critical thinking and are therefore not able to pick apart the obvious flaws of Reeves policies!

[@barbaralovesey4874]

Reading these comments is like one positive againts 100 negative about the Labour economic plan for UK set out by Reeves. Only politicians and journalists unable to feel public mood on this matter and the great need for more bold approach (taxing wealth, renationalisation and invetsment in public services).

[@pipoo1]

Comment section for any Labour post are basically a mix of Tory trolls and butt hurt Corbyn supporters. They are about as reflective of genuine public opinion as Gbeebies.

[@MegaMurmer]

More austerity. ..

[@georgesdelatour]

George - Roger Scruton - Eaton?

[@AlanLambertInteractive]

This looks like three undergraduates chewing the cud. Are they experts at 22 years old? Why is the podcast so rarely fleshed out with real experts with decades of experience?

[@carolineabraham1520]

Still far too little on foreign policy. Without that all these "wonderful domestic policies" are only dreams

[@graemewoodhead9469]

Labour look set to get lucky and ride a similar tech-driven boom as Thatcher did; if you think of how car design and performance advanced in the 80s thanks to CAD, ECUs, etc, AI is going to do that to everything. Assuming it doesn't kill us all first.

[@theancientwinebeerexperime2273]

Sadly Labiur do not realise thar they are not going to get in.

[@Giovanniditessitore]

?

[@nicksimmons7234]

Reeves & Starmer are saying what they need to say to get elected because we have such poor journalism in this country. There are billions to be saved that the Tories are wasting. I you think Darren Jones is going to let that continue.

[@michealhunt6607]

So, lying in other words? "they sound like tories now but wait until they get into power they MIGHT not be tories" Ahhh yes, solid reason to vote for them

[@nicksimmons7234]

@@michealhunt6607 not lying no, they’re very careful about what they say. We have an unfair media in this country, they are playing at their game. But not lying.

[@briandelaney9710]

Red Tory

[@alexanderprice6612]

Labour and Tories. Two sides of the same arse. Holding the UK hostage with FPTP.

[@mattliamjack3293]

Wealth tax now🌍💚🌎its getting late. 1.5°already gone.