Slight Flaw in Starmer's Logic

cheeky bastards. The state of the economy they will  inherit?  After the snp in scotland and tories in england were left notes saying theres no money left, now passed off as a joke , and from memory the previous tory administration left the blair government the best balanced books any incoming government had inherited in modern uk history , which they then went on to trash and blame everyone else for ?

We are still paying the hundreds of billions of new labour pfi debt racked up under tony blair , the banking crises casued by new labours lax regualtion , and much else , which then forced the tories and snp to balance the books accordingly.

New labour always leave ticking time bombs for other parties to inherit , then go on to blame those parties for the mess of new labours creation.

Glasgow city councils equal pay dispute is a prime example of that in action.

Labour also bankrupted glasgow city council that badly ( hello croydon and liverpool and many other areas!!!) council tax recepits didnt cover therir debt interest payments!

I wouldnt let keir starmer have control of a fucking piggy bank.

The Tories haven't wrecked the economy: The fallout from Covid, Ukraine and a slowing global economy are the realities that any government will have to deal with.

Starmer is full of shit: He will inherit the same global situation and he will never have any more resources than the Tories curently do unless he borrows like there's no tomorrow or taxes us to death.

Of course, being Labour he might well do both. But the chances of him doing anything better are slim to none.

devolution caveats included , labour have been in charge of the welsh economy since devolution began 24 years ago.

The pinnacle of their achievement in charge of the welsh economy is to have wales second last in a list of 12 uk nations/regions in terms of disposable household income , and one of the worst poverty rates in the entire uk

24 fucking years of governance in wales , and thats their record.

I would say his chances of doing anything better than the snp or tories scotland/uk wide are lower than a snakes belly.

I think there is  slight flaw in your logic too. Look at it this way. We are a country which is a collection of people and we trade on the global financial markets. We collectively borrow a total amount each year from the markets and pay interest on it. The game is this. The greater the return on investment you offer at the lower risk the more capital the markets will lend to you. Out of all the possible investments there is a range of sellability to the market. You have a track record of making constituently high returns means you will get cheaper capital, until there is a cut-off point where the lender decides your case is the less desirable way an investor sees their money being invested so the capital goes to a better firm. So lets say you have so many of these best investments already happening and agreed with. If the country increases overall borrowing the cost of borrowing will go up as they take on the riskier low profit investments. However large indebtedness for a country can be a good sign in that the country represents an abundance of good investments, like this is where China stands because returns on investment are generally very good, albeit the state restricts the investor to a degree.

Now the way to look at this is the government is really just like another punter on the market. They too have a track record and any offer to investors will be approached by investors with due diligence. This means looking at the abilities of those in key positions in the management of this investment and all the other checks too. However there is a couple of differences. The government has more clout as it can change the law to suit itself, which might negatively affect the investor's fortunes and the other difference is the size. It has so much magnitude that it can move the market. The risks associated with government borrowing are intrinsically lower than your average firm because they have tax-raising powers, so can get the money back by hook or by crook. Therefore there is a displacement which occurs. The government loans crowd out the loans market making capital for loaning a scarcer thing, hence the cost of borrowing rises for private firms. What you could easily get is a case where a private business who would have made £110 on £100 in a year not getting that money because due to this distortion the government borrows it instead, where it makes £105 on the same £100. It's still the same level of total investment into the UK, but the return is lower, or to put it another way the UK grows slower than it would have done.