UK Politics

4506 readers

116 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

The economics behind Zack Polanski's claims (www.newstatesman.com)

submitted 1 week ago by ladel@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Although Campbell is right to point out that markets do play a significant role in government spending, Polanski is on to something deeper that could help reframe the debate around the UK economy. While Rachel Reeves might be celebrated for scrapping the two-child benefit cap, the latest budget doesn’t go nearly far enough in delivering the change that Britain desperately needs. Austerity has scarred the UK for the last 14 years. If it wants to finally break free, then it’s time for a radical new approach. And that starts with rethinking how government finances work.

Possible soft paywall - I got round it by opening in private tab / using reader mode

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

An interesting article. I hadn't heard of MMT before this. Well... at least not stated in such a way.

Spend too little while resources sit idle (unemployed workers, empty factories) and you condemn the economy to stagnation.

So is this suggesting that we should rapidly ramp up spending? And that will bring the unemployed back to work? I think that's rather simplistic, no? People are unemployed for a multitude of reasons, not simply that there isn't enough work to go around.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 6 points 1 week ago

It's not just about providing work itself, but also giving people the support they need to get into work. Eg, 40% of people on out of work benefits are on a NHS waiting list.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's worth noting that MMT is highly contested. I don't know enough to know who's right, but I'm aware of the argument.

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I would have thought people who were proponents of the original formulation that said inflation is not affected by government spending - because of globalisation and China - would have egg on their face after we had >10% inflation immediately after all the covid spending.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Well, yeah, the spending has to be targeted. Increased spending is a necessary, not sufficient, condition. It has to be in areas that will significantly affect investment and employment.