UK Politics General Discussion

[GJMarshy]

Are you saying that the government and the Bank of England have successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the world markets and the world population with regards to the monetary system? So, what happens if we just stop attempting to pay back any of our deficit and let it be known?

I would suggest that it becomes harder for us to borrow money at decent rates (or even impossible), therefore creating a bigger deficit and a vicious circle. You have to at least show that you're running your economy in such a way that it looks like you'll probably be good for paying back debts in the future. I'm not an expert, but I believe when we have to 'create' money we do so by borrowing from worldwide banking groups and other such organizations, probably in exchange for UK government bonds mainly. If you don't show that you're even good for honouring the payments on those bonds then it becomes difficult to access money via these bonds or whatever. In a smaller way, I think we had war bonds within this country where the government needed money so citizens bought bonds which provided a load of money for the government and then in the future you as a citizen eventually got your money back plus interest. It wouldn't work if they hadn't paid any of the money back and then needed to do another round of fundraising a couple of decades later. The citizens would just tell them to shove off and buy bonds or shares from somewhere else.

I understand the situation with FIAT currency since the de-coupling from Gold and all that. Probably the quickest way to get rid of the deficit is by inflating away the value of money. This is probably why you've seen the value of Gold and Silver go a bit crazy lately as many are expecting that situation to occur somewhat (recent geopolitical events have probably effected those prices also).

I'm wondering what a better understanding of these situations by the general public would achieve though? I'm not an expert on these things though so I would humbly accept being corrected on any of this stuff if I'm one of those people not understanding things properly (I'm being serious, I'm not being funny).

The US have a massive deficit, but when it comes right down to it, they have the biggest and baddest military in the world, so who's going to tell them to pay off their debts sharpish? No-one really, but not every nation has that luxury. Funny old world.

Not the BoE (Bank of England) per-se, but the politics around it. For most CapEx (Capital Expenditure) projects, e.g. HS2, power plants etc, the funding ultimately comes from government borrowing via gilts (basically IOUs govt "sells" to markets + interest), with the BoE influencing conditions in the background by setting the cost of that borrowing and by choosing how many gilts it’s willing to hold itself. In practice this means a large part of the government’s “borrowing” ends up being from its own central bank anyway, even if that isn’t how it’s presented publicly.

As an example of wilful deception by politicians we only need look at the cancellation of HS2, which however you feel about it was cancelled under the premise of "That money will be freed up to be spent elsewhere" which is fundamentally untrue. So those are the kind of politics we're dealing with. Whatever's the most convenient public sell, which happens to be the "Household budget" analogy. Why? Because it's what the vast majority of people can actually relate to.

Right now a significant share of government debt is held by the BoE as a result of recent QE programmes, with the rest being made up of gilts bought by the financial markets. Typically government have viewed selling gilts (their debt) to the markets as positive, as it gives markets a place to grow their money (pension funds etc) with minimal risk. A mutually beneficial arrangement if you like!

More recently though, especially during/following the pandemic, the government effectively had around £450 billion of its debt purchased by the BoE. Surprisingly (to quite a few economists), it didn't result in mass inflation on its own OR hit the bond markets hard. If anything, it helped them by stabilising the economy they rely on to stay profitable.

So it's not a case of "We should borrow everything from the BoE" but that we should be more willing to use the fact that a sovereign currency-issuing government can, in effect, borrow from itself to invest — and then use tax to manage inflation and ensure things stay balanced.

The major sticking point with this isn't that it's not possible, but that no government wants to risk doing it, have one major project flop (which could be to do with a vast variety of reasons), and then be blamed for "fiscal irresponsibility", even if that wasn't the cause.

Essentially it requires government to take more ownership (in both senses!) of our economy's finances, rather than relying solely on markets, which makes the optics of "difficult choices" easier to sell to the public. No one wants to think their pension is being risked because a government ignored the markets.

So is it a tough sell? Yes. Is it doable? Totally.

Many other countries do it. They understand and take ownership of the fortunate position they hold. We should too!

*Edit: I realised I didn't answer your question on paying the deficit: No. We don't pay off the deficit. We just continue to borrow enough to fill the gap between spending and tax. The vast majority of talk around "Deficit" is simply to help with political optics. So yes, maybe some gloves over some eyeballs (and ears).

 

[Osaka12]

Everyone? Pretty sure I got accused speaking for everyone earlier

Ugh I missed an of in this post, or the bloody auto spell misjudged. That upsets me more than winning a point tbh

 

[Osaka12]

I'll be honest I've never really felt welcome on this forum. But I do enjoy the same thing I assume you lot do. I used to post on towers times way back when, but it was a bit elitist and "I know better than you". First got into coasters back in 2002 reading theme park review whilst working in foreign exchange.. But yeah, never felt comfortable to speak my mind here. But maybe I'm just more content now. Who knows!

 

[BarryZola]

Not the BoE (Bank of England) per-se, but the politics around it. For most CapEx (Capital Expenditure) projects, e.g. HS2, power plants etc, the funding ultimately comes from government borrowing via gilts (basically IOUs govt "sells" to markets + interest), with the BoE influencing conditions in the background by setting the cost of that borrowing and by choosing how many gilts it’s willing to hold itself. In practice this means a large part of the government’s “borrowing” ends up being from its own central bank anyway, even if that isn’t how it’s presented publicly.

As an example of wilful deception by politicians we only need look at the cancellation of HS2, which however you feel about it was cancelled under the premise of "That money will be freed up to be spent elsewhere" which is fundamentally untrue. So those are the kind of politics we're dealing with. Whatever's the most convenient public sell, which happens to be the "Household budget" analogy. Why? Because it's what the vast majority of people can actually relate to.

Right now a significant share of government debt is held by the BoE as a result of recent QE programmes, with the rest being made up of gilts bought by the financial markets. Typically government have viewed selling gilts (their debt) to the markets as positive, as it gives markets a place to grow their money (pension funds etc) with minimal risk. A mutually beneficial arrangement if you like!

More recently though, especially during/following the pandemic, the government effectively had around £450 billion of its debt purchased by the BoE. Surprisingly (to quite a few economists), it didn't result in mass inflation on its own OR hit the bond markets hard. If anything, it helped them by stabilising the economy they rely on to stay profitable.

So it's not a case of "We should borrow everything from the BoE" but that we should be more willing to use the fact that a sovereign currency-issuing government can, in effect, borrow from itself to invest — and then use tax to manage inflation and ensure things stay balanced.

The major sticking point with this isn't that it's not possible, but that no government wants to risk doing it, have one major project flop (which could be to do with a vast variety of reasons), and then be blamed for "fiscal irresponsibility", even if that wasn't the cause.

Essentially it requires government to take more ownership (in both senses!) of our economy's finances, rather than relying solely on markets, which makes the optics of "difficult choices" easier to sell to the public. No one wants to think their pension is being risked because a government ignored the markets.

So is it a tough sell? Yes. Is it doable? Totally.

Many other countries do it. They understand and take ownership of the fortunate position they hold. We should too!

*Edit: I realised I didn't answer your question on paying the deficit: No. We don't pay off the deficit. We just continue to borrow enough to fill the gap between spending and tax. The vast majority of talk around "Deficit" is simply to help with political optics. So yes, maybe some gloves over some eyeballs (and ears).

Very interesting stuff, thanks for your detailed response. A few interesting points there that I'll have a look into tomorrow and try to understand a bit better. You seem to know what you're talking about. Appreciated

 

[GJMarshy]

Very interesting stuff, thanks for your detailed response. A few interesting points there that I'll have a look into tomorrow and try to understand a bit better. You seem to know what you're talking about. Appreciated

I have my blind spots, Barry!

Most of that comes from borderline excessive reading/listening of economic literature and podcasts, then trying to make sense of it all. I'm always the sort of person who loves to know the "why?" before the "how"...Much to the irritation of my parents and teachers in the past!

 

[BarryZola]

I have my blind spots, Barry!

Most of that comes from borderline excessive reading/listening of economic literature and podcasts and trying to make sense of it all. I'm always the sort of person who loves to know the "why?" before the "how"...Much to the irritation of my parents and teachers in the past!

I fully endorse that behaviour

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I'll be honest I've never really felt welcome on this forum. But I do enjoy the same thing I assume you lot do. I used to post on towers times way back when, but it was a bit elitist and "I know better than you". First got into coasters back in 2002 reading theme park review whilst working in foreign exchange.. But yeah, never felt comfortable to speak my mind here. But maybe I'm just more content now. Who knows!

You're as welcome here as anyone else, and we are lucky to consider you one of our ranks.

Sometimes nuance is lost in translation with text, please don't let that put you off.

 

[rob666]

I said people, not everyone for a start. Your wrong calling me out on that front. Maybe everyone wants to be comfortable and do as they please, sounds like you did, going part time prioritising what you value.

As goosey as said...you said "people", not "some people".
And I wasn't calling you out, I was giving a different opinion to yours, what these forums are for.
And it wasn't a "comfortable" decision to go part time, the situation was anything but, family crises and maternal terminal sickness forced the issue.
Not do as I please, more prioritise the essential, and stuff the money.

This is a friendly, supportive forum.
Been some excellent friendly advice in a number of topics in the last few days.
I wasn't scoring points.
I "moved on" from your point, and back to the topic in hand, within the same post.
Everyone is welcome, even geese, and of course, all opinions are sacred.

 

[Benzin]

Forums like this are about the only place that nuanced discussions are even available these days.

I've only ever seen "dogpiling" on people as a result of the post in question being absolutely awful. Or if I dared to speak ill of Europa Park's food.

Should expect on any post anywhere that someone is likely to disagree with it. Especially on something like money and politics. It doesn't mean it's an attack, and thats something that appears to be least in modern debates. Not helped by those meant to be leading (or their opposition) acting like children in parliament.

 

[Poisson]

I've only ever seen "dogpiling" on people as a result of the post in question being absolutely awful. Or if I dared to speak ill of Europa Park's food.

I've managed to hold the belief that Phantasia is better than Europa and not "accidentally" fall into the lake wearing concrete boots yet.

 

[rob666]

Should that not be "yeeted into the Elz"?

 

[Hid]

Getting quite annoyed that people still go towards Reform UK when they will make people's lives worse. And have zero critical thinking skills.

And how much people **** off Labour despite actually doing good things. Labour has its issues sure but when you look at what they are doing its not bad.

Media needs changing fast to be less bias and more balanced

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Getting quite annoyed that people still go towards Reform UK when they will make people's lives worse. And have zero critical thinking skills.

And how much people **** off Labour despite actually doing good things. Labour has its issues sure but when you look at what they are doing its not bad.

Media needs changing fast to be less bias and more balanced

To dismiss four million voters as having "zero critical thinking skills" is precisely the sort of sneering arrogance that drove them into the arms of Farage in the first place. You cannot defeat populism by insulting the populace.

People vote for Reform not necessarily because they agree with the minutiae of their manifesto (which is often economically illiterate), but because they feel disenfranchised, ignored, and poorer than they were five years ago. When you tell a struggling community that their concerns are invalid and that they are stupid for looking for an alternative, you validate the "elite vs the people" narrative that populists thrive on.

As for Labour "actually doing good things"... I suppose that depends on your definition of "good".

To many they look remarkably like the previous administration, just wearing a red tie and managing the decline slightly more competently.

When people call for the press to be "less biased", they usually mean "I want the media to agree with me".

A free press includes the right to be partisan, the right to take a stance, and frankly, the right to be wrong. If you start regulating the media to force a specific version of "balance", or to silence voices you find disagreeable, you are heading down a very slippery slope. Who gets to define what is balanced? The government?

Whist I agree that the ownership of the UK media by a handful of offshore billionaires is a massive problem for our democracy, the solution isn't to police their output to fit a specific worldview. That isn't a free press. Today that power might be used to silence Reform; tomorrow it could be used to silence the Trade Unions. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Benzin]

Problem with being "balanced" is that it has essentially given a platform for the more idiotic claims in life (I.e. flat earth, autism from vaccines, anti-vaxxers) and granted them a validity in their claims.

Added to an often minimal challenging from news channels on claims made by persons showcasing their views and it's just allowed so many things to be said and unchecked. Truth is no longer the main aim, witty soundbite that is often hollow ("Brexit means Brexit") and any old claim will do. There's no consequences to it.

The media portrayal of the driver in the Liverpool victory parade is another great example of how things are framed to show sympathy for some, even though they deserve none. Not as brave as our troops indeed.

Same goes for newspapers. Can splash something on the front page but if it's later realised to be wrong then a correction on page 15 is fine.

When GBeebies is allowed to call itself a news channel but gets away with stuff because it classed as "entertainment" (such as allowing sitting MPs to work for them) it's a complete mess.

 

[East Coast Mariner]

Problem with being "balanced" is that it has essentially given a platform for the more idiotic claims in life (I.e. flat earth, autism from vaccines, anti-vaxxers) and granted them a validity in their claims.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Flat Earth is a deliberately ridiculous theory put out there to make conspiracy theories in general look ridiculous. And it works, doesn't it? ("You believe governments sometimes harm people? You must be a Flat Earther!") There's absolutely no reason why it, or any other theory, should not be discussed. If we're saying the mainstream media "gives it a platform"... well, I've never seen any of them cover it seriously at all.

As for vaccines, thinking anything and everything offered up as a "vaccine" is safe, is as irrational as thinking they're all dangerous (although everyone's entitled to their opinion). It is an unnatural, foreign substance injected into your bloodstream, after all. The fact some people still don't understand anti-vaccine sentiment after Covid absolutely staggers me.

At the end of the day, you can't force the media to not have their own angle. The bigger problem is actually Ofcom censorship. Let everyone have their say - both those you agree with and those you don't.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Flat Earth is a deliberately ridiculous theory put out there to make conspiracy theories in general look ridiculous. And it works, doesn't it? ("You believe governments sometimes harm people? You must be a Flat Earther!") There's absolutely no reason why it, or any other theory, should not be discussed. If we're saying the mainstream media "gives it a platform"... well, I've never seen any of them cover it seriously at all.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" is a lovely aphorism, but it predates the algorithmic amplification of nonsense. In the current digital ecosystem, sunlight doesn't disinfect. Sunlight photosynthesis the rot.

Suggesting that Flat Earth is a "deliberately ridiculous theory" planted to discredit other conspiracies is, ironically, a conspiracy theory in itself. It gives far too much credit to the competence of the "powers that be". Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

As for vaccines, thinking anything and everything offered up as a "vaccine" is safe, is as irrational as thinking they're all dangerous (although everyone's entitled to their opinion). It is an unnatural, foreign substance injected into your bloodstream, after all. The fact some people still don't understand anti-vaccine sentiment after Covid absolutely staggers me.

Regarding your point on vaccines being "unnatural, foreign substances": so is a pacemaker. So is a hip replacement. So is the ink in a tattoo. So is general anaesthetic.

The appeal to nature fallacy is quite a weak argument. Cyanide and arsenic are entirely natural, but I wouldn't recommend ingesting them. The fact that "some people still don't understand anti-vaccine sentiment" is likely because the sentiment is often rooted in scientifically illiterate fear mongering rather than peer reviewed evidence.

At the end of the day, you can't force the media to not have their own angle. The bigger problem is actually Ofcom censorship. Let everyone have their say - both those you agree with and those you don't.

Ofcom's "censorship" remit is strictly limited to linear broadcast television and radio. It regulates the airwaves because spectrum is a finite public resource.

Ofcom has absolutely zero jurisdiction over the newspaper industry. The press in this country is self regulated (mostly by IPSO), which is essentially the papers marking their own homework. This is why you can read headline after headline in The Daily Mail, The Sun, or The Telegraph that are factually dubious or openly partisan without any regulator stepping in.

Ofcom also has zero jurisdiction over the internet or social media content (outside of the very specific and new Online Safety Act duties regarding illegal content and child safety). You can post whatever conspiracy theory you like on X, Facebook, or YouTube, and Ofcom cannot touch you.

To claim that Ofcom is responsible for a lack of free speech across the media landscape is factually incorrect. If you feel you aren't hearing certain views, it isn't because a regulator has banned them. It's because the private billionaires who own the printing presses, or the tech bros who own the platforms, have decided they aren't worth publishing.

 

[Benzin]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Flat Earth is a deliberately ridiculous theory put out there to make conspiracy theories in general look ridiculous. And it works, doesn't it? ("You believe governments sometimes harm people? You must be a Flat Earther!") There's absolutely no reason why it, or any other theory, should not be discussed. If we're saying the mainstream media "gives it a platform"... well, I've never seen any of them cover it seriously at all.

As for vaccines, thinking anything and everything offered up as a "vaccine" is safe, is as irrational as thinking they're all dangerous (although everyone's entitled to their opinion). It is an unnatural, foreign substance injected into your bloodstream, after all. The fact some people still don't understand anti-vaccine sentiment after Covid absolutely staggers me.

At the end of the day, you can't force the media to not have their own angle. The bigger problem is actually Ofcom censorship. Let everyone have their say - both those you agree with and those you don't.

So the rise of anti-vaccine belief is completely unrelated to the rise in cases of things like measles?

I'd like things to go back to where people quietly spouted their woo-woo nonsense away from the masses. It's how you end up with the US having RFK Jr. in charge of medical care. Though as mentioned, all medicines are foreign bodies manufactured to aid living.

The only people who should not be getting vaccinated as those who are medically unsafe to do so. Seeing the look of relief on medical personnel when they ask if my child is up to date on them and I say yes is telling.

You can choose to not take a vaccine. But promoting fake science instead is a far more dangerous game that people play. Endangering others with your decisions is not on.

 

[East Coast Mariner]

Regarding your point on vaccines being "unnatural, foreign substances": so is a pacemaker. So is a hip replacement. So is the ink in a tattoo. So is general anaesthetic.

The appeal to nature fallacy is quite a weak argument. Cyanide and arsenic are entirely natural, but I wouldn't recommend ingesting them. The fact that "some people still don't understand anti-vaccine sentiment" is likely because the sentiment is often rooted in scientifically illiterate fear mongering rather than peer reviewed evidence.

A strawman. I never said everything man-made is dangerous, or that anything natural is safe. I am simply saying there is pause for thought, surely, before injecting something into the bloodstream.

To claim that Ofcom is responsible for a lack of free speech across the media landscape is factually incorrect. If you feel you aren't hearing certain views, it isn't because a regulator has banned them. It's because the private billionaires who own the printing presses, or the tech bros who own the platforms, have decided they aren't worth publishing.

Regardless, it can fine TV channels, which is why GB News was quick to drop excellent presenters such as Neil Oliver (from broadcast) and Mark Steyn.

So the rise of anti-vaccine belief is completely unrelated to the rise in cases of things like measles?

At times, vaccines may well have been safe and useful.

The problem is, governments around the world lied to us and continued to encourage a product that was anything but. Those who have tried to prove its deliberate, harmful purpose are either dead or in prison. With that in mind, how can we trust that any substance is what it's purported to be? How can we trust that it has genuinely been tested? I am not saying that people should be anti-vax, but it is easy to understand, surely?

Regardless, this discussion is about media bias, and I am simply saying all views must be heard.

 

[jon81uk]

A strawman. I never said everything man-made is dangerous, or that anything natural is safe. I am simply saying there is pause for thought, surely, before injecting something into the bloodstream.

There is a pause for thought, all drugs are properly tested and checked by qualified people. They do peer-reviewed studies on them. It isn't just mixed up and injected into people, the scientists developing them carry out clinical trials and then pause for thought while their peers check it.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Regardless, it can fine TV channels, which is why GB News was quick to drop excellent presenters such as Neil Oliver (from broadcast) and Mark Steyn.

Mark Steyn wasn't dropped because he held a "different view". He left because he breached the Broadcasting Code by presenting materially misleading interpretations of UK Health Security Agency data. He claimed the data showed the third COVID booster caused higher rates of infection, hospitalisation, and death. The data did not show that. He misrepresented the statistics.

Ofcom didn't censor him, they upheld standards of accuracy. When you hold a broadcast license, you agree to abide by the Broadcasting Code, which includes a duty of accuracy and due impartiality on matters of major political controversy. If you want to broadcast misleading statistics without challenge, you do it on YouTube, not on Freeview channel 236.

Neil Oliver wasn't "dropped" because he was too excellent for the airwaves, or because the state couldn't handle his truth bombs. He was moved away from the broadcast slot because he became a regulatory liability.

When you start broadcasting monologues claiming that the COVID vaccine causes "turbo cancer" (a medical term which does not exist) or that there is a "silent war" being waged by the government against its own people, you are venturing out of the realm of opinion and into the realm of materially misleading the public.

Ofcom ruled that his show breached impartiality rules. GB News, as a commercial entity, has to weigh the revenue brought in by his viewership against the potential cost of fines and the risk to their broadcast licence.

Crucially, Neil Oliver has not been silenced. He hasn't been thrown in the Tower of London. He hasn't been "disappeared". He is still posting videos online, he is still on Patreon, he is still on Substack. He has simply lost the privilege of using the regulated public airwaves to disseminate unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

The problem is, governments around the world lied to us and continued to encourage a product that was anything but. Those who have tried to prove its deliberate, harmful purpose are either dead or in prison.

Citation needed.

Andrew Wakefield, the struck off doctor who falsified data to create the fraudulent link between MMR and autism, essentially birthing the modern anti-vax movement, is neither dead nor in prison. He is currently living in the US, directing films, dating supermodels and making a very comfortable living from the lecture circuit.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the world's most prominent anti-vaccine activists, is not dead or in prison. He is the current Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in the US.

The idea that there is a shadowy cabal assassinating or imprisoning truth tellers is the stuff of spy novels, not reality. The reality is usually far more mundane. Their data was flawed, their methodology was poor, or they committed fraud.

Regardless, this discussion is about media bias, and I am simply saying all views must be heard.

No, they shouldn't.

If one person says it is raining, and another person says it is dry, the duty of the media is not to quote them both and call it "balance". The duty of the media is to look out of the window and report the truth.

Giving a platform to demonstrably false or harmful information under the guise of "hearing all views" creates a false equivalence. It suggests that a peer reviewed scientific consensus and a bloke on Facebook who reckons he knows better are of equal weight. They are not.