This video has just gone out on TikTok and YouTube.
‘How are you going to pay for it?' is the question every journalist asks every politician and every campaigner who wants the government to do more. And now there is a way to answer that question.
And there are, I know, one or two mistakes in the AI generated captions. We will be learning how to overcome these next in our video learning process.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Excellent, Richard – punchy, direct and should send at least some viewers to the report itself and/or that video.
Short & clear. You may well have a plan to build up key issues leading to a plan of action……
Alongside every statement that things can be paid for, i think it would help to emphasise that austerity, poverty and failing to spend/invest is therefore a CHOICE.
Yes
That would be a good one
Sorry. Off thread, I’m afraid but I felt it may be missed in the avalanche of issues confronting us..
There is a current furore in the Westminster/media bubble about Mark Sedwell, and diplomat colleagues’ report arguing that the FO needs to change. It is another attempt by insiders to face the fact that Britain is now a much diminished force in the world (compounded and accelerated by Brexit), and must cut its cloth to fit.
The response is the same old political tantrum; the same old blind denial. One risible argument makes much of Cameron’s visit to Trump, at home; using Trump’s grandiose vanity to demonstrate that the invitation would not be given if Cameron and Britain were not important. This is risible. Cameron visited Trump, not even as a poodle; but as a supplicant. It is very, very foolish for the ‘Britain Is Great Again’ fetishists to hang their hat on Trump (who will turn a criminal Court appearance or Bail Bond into a promotion or marketing opportunity), as a basis for anything substantive; or more significant, even to use the US itself as a basis for argument.
The Special Relationship is the greatest myth of all. The Americans will use it, of course; it comes, gratis at little expense to them in the grand scheme of their geopolitics; small change. It is principally a one way political relationship, and one reason whatever was left for the US of interest ran out of road, was Brexit. The UK offered the US a convenient political lever, inside the EU. Gone. Blown away by Britain, for nothing.
The reality is simply told. If you want to see what a US special Relationship looks like; there already is one; and it isn’t us. It never could be. It is Israel; and it is “ironclad”. Our lowly status in the hierarchy of US relationships is largely hidden, as an act of US charity to a old embarrassed, down-at-heel friend, and for our benefit to cover our chagrin at the precipitous nature of the fall.
Eisenhower laid out the reality, and ended the illusion of anything exceptional, in 1956: Suez. We have settled for a much reduced, patronised position at the US table, far below the salt, ever since; obfuscated by grandiloquent rhetoric, solely and politely to cover our much reduced circumstances – in clouds of history infused waffle. It is the best we can do, and we prefer illusions to reality in Britain. It is what we do. For the US, the present is Israel, and the EU; and the future is the new political tigers; China and India. As for Britain …. is it still around?
@ John S. Warren,
“one reason whatever was left for the US of interest ran out of road, was Brexit. The UK offered the US a convenient political lever, inside the EU. Gone. Blown away by Britain, for nothing.”
This is a very true statement. Also, I would like to add, if the UK wants a trade deal with the USA then English politicians should not make derogatory statements about US agriculture products.
“For the US, the present is Israel, and the EU;”
I would add Ukranie to your above statement. I have not come across one “Yank” that is not extremely concerned about Ukraine and support full military aid regardless of what some MAGA Congress critters spit out of their mouths and espouse to make the latest news and social media cycle
Excellent summation of the Special Relationship chimera, John – now you see it now you don’t. Your final sentence “As for Britain …. is it still around?” is especially pertinent in the UK’s devolved nations and begs the additional question “what possible benefit will result from remaining a part of the UK?”
From Scotland’s perspective how about being kept out of the EU against our peoples’ will?; or seeing our NHS being dismantled against our will?; or having our parliament’s legislation reversed against our will?; or being subjected to unnecessary economic austerity against our will?; or having weapons of mass destruction sited 35 miles from our biggest centre of population against our will?; or seeing our massive natural resources being removed without adequate compensation against our will?; or being ruled over incompetently and corruptly by parties we don’t vote for?; or being ruled over by a constitutionless state which can alter laws without parliamentary approval?; or being a minor nation in a political union from which there is no defined means of departure? etc, etc. It should be noted that all of the above have been described as being benefits of being “a valued partner” in the United Kingdom.
I’ve got another question: why on earth do we put up with this bullshit and obvious exploitation?
I think that increasingly we are not, Ken.
The off-piste discusion is interesting but Ken’s litany of Scotland’s woes, which I share, gets one thing wrong. OUR NHS – the independent Scottish one – is not being dismantled; indeed very much the opposite. Under the SNP (and allies) governments, it has dismantled the dismantling! We have the real NHS and despite the penal constrictions enforced by Westminster Labour and Tory governments we have got rid of the marketisation nonsense introduced and collaborated with/expanded by these parties AND we have not had our NHS cancelled – a true example of that weary ‘verb’ – by the act which ended the English NHS in all but name in 2012. I have had the most personal evidence of the difference in both countries over the last two years – and believe me it really matters. And Humza was our Health Minister – and a good one too.
I have no doubt Eisenhower was right over Suez. It was a lunatic concept and marked the end of Imperial ambition.
France took the lesson and in the following year helped set up the EEC. Our half American Prime Minister (but I still respect MacMillan in many ways) tried to build bridges with the US using his wartime contacts.
But after Suez there was a rush to unwind the remaining Empire. We took the message and our departure was more successful than that of Belgium in the Congo in 1960 or France in Algeria.
We missed a huge opportunity in 1957.
@ Nigel Mace
I’m fully aware of the more independent stance of NHS Scotland and its benefits to the Scottish people, but my concern is that the two parties likely to win the forthcoming General Election both despise the SNP (and, by extension, the people who vote for it) and cannot be trusted to leave NHSS as an outlier. Both also seek to undermine Scottish and Welsh identities in pursuit of a mythical vision of a greater United Kingdom, which is merely a smokescreen for greater centralisation of governance in Westminster. The Tories openly wish to terminate devolution and, while Labour brought devolution about, the current “Labour” is a virtual clone of the Tories, not a left-leaning party. As I stated neither can be trusted with any aspect of governance in the (currently) devolved nations: their goal is absolute rule by Westminster.
There have been frequent breaches of the Treaties of Union since 1707 and we can expect them to continue unless we Scots get our act together and force the SNP to be less supine.
HI Richard
Very good video. Hammering home the issue that the Gov’t can spend as much as it wants to, provided it takes account of the potential for inflation.
Interestingly, you also make the argument the BoE makes, when it increases interest rates – to take money out of the economy – in order to tackle inflation. Crucially though, you make clear that the Gov’t doesn’t need to use inflation, it could use tax instead, and you show that that would be a fairer way to do it.
This now seems to simplify how Gov’t spending works, and that the choices they make are purely political. It also confirms how ridiculous the “fiscal rules” are.
Regards
Does your anti israeli predisposition (which was evident way before the Hamas attack and subsequent retaliation) prevent you from condemning Iran or have you manage to convolute some justification for the attack?
Your suggestion is so pathetic that it is not worth commenting on, notleast because it’s premise is wholly false.
@Richard, I have no problem making a comment to this Ales Wall statement.
“Does your anti israeli predisposition (which was evident way before the Hamas attack and subsequent retaliation) prevent you from condemning Iran or have you manage to convolute some justification for the attack?”
@Alex Wall,
It is possible to be anti-Netanyahu, anti-Hamas, pro-Israeli people and pro-Palestinian people all at the same time. I know this for a fact as I myself am anti-Netanyahu, anti-Hamas, pro-Israeli people and pro-Palestinian all at the same time.
So am I, and thank you.
I can also condemn a disproportionate response. As I can condemn Israel’s attack on an embassy.
I am sorry, I am a little confused. I thought Israel attacked a diplomatic building in a foreign country, killing foreign nationals. Have you nothing to say about that?
The subject of this blog entry is a video entitled How are you going to pay for it?
I don’t see why anyone should be dragged off topic by trolls posing a “gotcha” question.
Israel has been under attack from Iranian proxies for a long time. Are you not aware of that? The attack on military leaders in the embassy was a response.
Alex
You can’t even agree with yourself what your own identity is here. Which makes your discussion of proxies a little odd, at the very least.
You also tried to post a comment under another name.
Shall we just presume you are a rather nasty little troll?
Richard
Anyone who watches this video and continues to believe taxation is not inequitable in the UK deserves to be given free membership of the Starmer Thatcher Tribute Party!