Good letter from @youellog.bsky.social responding to this. www.ft.com/content/244c...

What do you mean by this? If the government introduces a contractionary budget why would we not expect unemployment to continue to rise?

I think the problem is the government didn't even need to be good in opposition - indeed some of their problems now stem from choices made prior to governing, e.g certain manifesto pledges

Even that seems to be wishful thinking. What makes people so sure that if they raise income tax at a level aimed at filling the Black Hole that lower growth, lower tax revenue, higher unemployment and higher welfare spending won't result in the Black Hole growing again?

Running a surplus when unemployment is already at 5%? Eh?

I would assume the FT knows this, but ROTE is the preferred measure for banking profitability, for good reason. That is of course less convenient for the author's intent to paint those questioning whether banks can afford to shoulder a higher burden as naive socialists, though.

Anyway, I am still none the wiser to what the last sentence of that paragraph is supposed to mean. There are already 70 stations in zone 5 so therefore increasing network capacity and decreasing travel times to Birmingham is a waste of time?

I assumed it was common knowledge that the real benefit of HS2 was increasing capacity across the network, not just making it quicker to get from B'ham to London. I also hoped it was common knowledge since Keynes/Robinson that investment creates savings and thus isn't crowded out by the deficit

Come on Chris, you can do better than this!

False hope about what? That things could possibly get better? Labour telling on themselves here

I thought this was about life insurance

Sad I am only just finding out about your exquisite music taste now

Either way banks could more reasonably use cash isa funding to increase loans to business, if increasing investment and growth is the goal here. The government seems to be signalling they don't trust banks to intermediate an optimal allocation of capital

Yes basel would make increasing allocation towards equities more expensive for banks for good reason. The government seems to want to pass risks onto consumers

what is stopping banks using cash isa funding to increase their allocation towards stocks if it's such a good idea for ordinary savers?

The government instead wants savers to prop-up a record high stock market. Presumably banks could use cash Isa funding to buy more stocks - is it that they don't want to take those risks themselves, and would prefer savers hold the bag?

Maybe this new 'Office for Value for Money' could look into this arrangement?

Or will the government continue to focus on trying to squeeze piecemeal sums out of victimising people on benefits, while quietly handing much larger amounts to bankers?

www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/dwp-pla...