Derek f**ked around, got found out.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?
- Thread starter Flounce
- Start date
I was thinking about how to reply to your post and perhaps you raise the salient point:
Being ‘for growth’ is a policy and IMHO a sensible one but this has to be accompanied by sensible policies to achieve it. Neither Truss or Reeves had/have such policies.
So in both cases be ‘for’ growth was/is completely meaningless. Not so much a a ‘nuance’, more total boll**ks
Barnet Seagull
Luxury Player
One of the things I am interested in (and it's nice to have a proper economist to bounce this off) is the bank of england and base rate controls.
There has generally been a lot of positivity about allowing the BOE to control interest rates and therefore manage inflation. It has always struck me that to control inflation, you need to take money out of the economy and to promote growth you need to invest. I've always considered that BOE base rates are a slow mechanism to acheive this. My brain simply can't escape the conclusion that the best way to take money out of the economy is to tax more highly.
Equally, to promote growth you need to reduce debt or perhaps fund infrastructure investments which reduce the cost of public services or promote private sector growth.
Isn't tax a better answer to manage inflation.
There has generally been a lot of positivity about allowing the BOE to control interest rates and therefore manage inflation. It has always struck me that to control inflation, you need to take money out of the economy and to promote growth you need to invest. I've always considered that BOE base rates are a slow mechanism to acheive this. My brain simply can't escape the conclusion that the best way to take money out of the economy is to tax more highly.
Equally, to promote growth you need to reduce debt or perhaps fund infrastructure investments which reduce the cost of public services or promote private sector growth.
Isn't tax a better answer to manage inflation.
Brian Munich
teH lulZ
- Jul 7, 2008
- 574
f***ing WASPI women really get on my tits. I'm a bloke and was a teenager when Major made that decision, but somehow even I was fully aware that the state-pension age for women was increasing in line with men. I didn't need a f***ing letter landing on my door mat.I hear the waspi women are at it again.
On Nicky Campbell now....
Apparently they were never told about an announcement made by john Major in 95
And never had a chance to change their life plans.
Apparently it is undemocratic to disregard the recommendations of a parliamentary ombudsman...
"Not fair on women who did not have a private pensions"
Er......?
"We thought we knew our retirement age. We thought it was 60"
Er......?
"I paid my money and expected I would be taken care of"
"We were promised....."
"We were told that everything would be better once we'd left the EU".
(She didn't say that but.....)
Unfortunately Rachel Reeves (when in opposition) apparently promised to give the waspi women what they wanted.
Then changed her mind when she saw the state of the nation's finances.
Oh dear.
I find it hard to admire a Home Secretary who was wrong and became right for the wrong reasons after being elected.
Hang on...."How would Rachel from accounts get on if she went 6 years without a salary?"
Oh, OK. That's what it's about. Labour-hate.
On you trot, then
That aside, with the aftermath of Covid and ongoing Ukraine war resulting in the highest tax burden since WW2, do they really think that they're that special that any government should prioritise them receiving 11K a year for an extra 7 years, which we all have to pay for? If it's a problem, then just go back to work like anyone else.
Very good by Stamer to increase the Military spend
Insel affe
HellBilly
He has a gun to head though, it is not really enough by 2027, they need it now.
Cheshire Cat
The most curious thing..
It might buy a couple more Sopwith Camels for those over-priced aircraft carriers which would be fairly useless in a land war against Russia.
These days if you threaten to assassinate the Prime Minister you get arrested and thrown in jail
- Jan 25, 2025
- 169
It means he can go to Washington and tell Trump “we’ve listened to you and we’re bringing our plans forward and increasing to 3%”.
The vital question is who is holding the gun? We really need the answer to that not to be Trump.
HalfaSeatOn
Well-known member
Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
- Jan 25, 2025
- 169
He announced a further increase to 3% in the next Parliament, after we get to 2.5%. I watched the whole statement on BBC Parliament (part of my high adrenaline lifestyle)
ROSM
Well-known member
Trump wants lots of things. Given nato can no longer rely on america then what he wants will be overtaken by what the rest of nato wants. Seeing macron out alpha male him yesterday won't have gone down well and how starmer handles trump / trump handles starmer, will be intriguing to say the least
A mex eyecan
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 4,108
Perhaps Trump could do with a few more like Macron correcting his bullshit remarks
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,460
Starmer and Reeves have received criticism for "talking down" the economy and damaging confidence, yet when they announce ambitious plans on housebuilding and the third Heathrow runway they are told they are "unrealistic".
They need to be cut slack on the "talking down" point. Over-promising and under-delivering was a notable feature of the previous 9 years of Tory government, so I understand their desire to keep it real. I would also say that even if she were to strike an optimistic tone there are others talking the economy down, i.e. every major news channel.
That said, Labour do have a problem with their messaging on the big picture. We get that growth is their No. 1 priority, but how does this dovetail with environmental issues like the third runway or North Sea Oil, road and rail connections? Or on protected government spending commitments like defence, NHS and education?
What we have is a political chili con carne without the chili.
I think they should have been far more aggressive on wealth inequality and capital taxes. They visibly went after the farmers, pensioners and employers whilst leaving capital taxes still relatively low. 24% as a top rate for CGT is very generous, especially when you consider the freeze in the Higher Rate tax threshold means more people cross that threshold and are paying 42% tax on their earned income, 40% on any interest they earn above £500.
One of the reasons for stagflation is that too much wealth has passed to the super-rich who - invariably - place their capital offshore and avoid UK tax. Another reason is that many people were caught out with Covid and are rebuilding their reserves, whilst the essentials like energy, water, council tax, rent have increased by rates above inflation. People will continue to be careful with their spending.
- Jan 25, 2025
- 169
Well, Putin just corrected what Trump said about Russia agreeing to European peacekeepers in Ukraine, does that count?
He is, truly, the Millwall of geopolitics.
Crawley Dingo
Political thread tourist.
- Mar 31, 2022
- 1,163
You wont get much growth with expensive fuel so net zero has to go. All Labours policies are awful wrt growth.
While I don't attach quite the same importance to some of that, I largely agree that the rather shrill attacks on Reeves seem somewhat over the top, particularly given that nobody with credibility is outlining the obvious and entirely different decisions she could have made that would have provided us with the instant and massive growth that is apparently easily within our national grasp.
Where I differ from you is that if we accept that growth is the priority then policy on the things you invoke (north sea oil, the third runway and rail) should largely map to policy on growth, or not be so at right angles that there is significant negative impact on growth.
If we don't accept that growth should be a priority then the narrative should be different.
If we are to conclude that Reeves is hopeless and should be replaced then I would like to be able to see a clear and obvious narrative that informs this, together with a clear and obvious better strategy. Not just a load of nit picking over specific individual policies, culminating with whatabout the waspi women and the farmers and her CV.
So would someone sensible such as @abc like to come on here and provide a recipe for growth, or a recipe for a different achievable outcome, that is both unequivocal and is not caveated by a load of 'if' this and 'notwithstanding' that?
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 10,057
To inform her that a complaint had been made about her and ask if she had any questions. And confirm that she hadn't committed a crime and they wouldn't be taking it forward. And she was so scared of this she may never post online again. though she obviously did post all this online and talk to pretty much every right wing paper about it