|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 24, 2024 14:57:28 GMT
Actually agree with Nigel here having watched all of PMQs When isn't he right 😊
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 24, 2024 15:07:38 GMT
Actually agree with Nigel here having watched all of PMQs The main question was about whether Labour would continue the previous government's support for Ukraine which, unsurprising, Starmer confirmed they would. As the BBC pointed out Labour have been complaining about the mess they have inherited and the lack of controversy was a deliberate tactic by Sunak to not give Labour any opportunity to have a go so they just fed him material he could only agree with.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 24, 2024 15:34:31 GMT
Great article from last year on Labour - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/16/labour-changes-little-power-social-forces-councillors-climateRight now, Labour is emphasising two contradictory ideas. With one voice, it tells us that we cannot go on like this; but it then changes register, and suggests that is exactly what we are going to have to do. The howling tension between the two brings to mind a celebrated quotation from the Welsh thinker and writer Raymond Williams: “To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.” If Starmer and his team fail that test, they will only deserve all the noise and disruption that will thereby be let loose. So far, it has to be said, the signs are not good. The article is a good one but not a great one, clearly written with a "loony left" slant, whose idea of economics is as mad as Truss's idea. The first priority Starmer has is to win the next General Election if he really wants to change society, it will take a long time. To do that he must not spook the markets but convince them the economy is in sound hands. Labour have a tough job to maintain confidence; Wilson devalued the currency in the 60s, in the 70s Labour had to go to " the gnomes of Zurich " to prop up the currency, and in the 00s Blair and Brown let personal borrowing run wild, bank lending get out of control, and when the inevitable crash came in 2008, the UK was impacted more than any other major economy. Starmer is on trial; he has to convince everyone he has a firm hand and a sound financial policy. Handing "control" of budgetary policy to the OBR is a good move to calm the worries of the "money people", although I think they take a very negative attitude to the UK economy like the OECD and World Bank, who both consistently "under predict" UK economic performance and have to subsequently upgrade their predictions. The article got it very wrong in the first paragraph, when it said it will be a very long time till economic prosperity. People whinge about the government debt, but it is a lot lower in %GDP than al the other G7 countries apart from Germany and Germany's economy has been in the doldrums for years. We have record high payroll employment, record job vacancies, lowest unemployment and redundancy rates since the 1970s, high personal savings, sound pension funds, record exports with services exports growing faster than every other G7 country, investment is still too low but has improved to levels not seen since the 90s, wage increases are amoung the highest in the G7 and well above inflation, which at 2% is the second lowest to Italy's in the G7. Need I say more? The economy is very sound. What us wrong is the distribution of wealth and the state of public services that most people have to depend on. I hesitate to mention the FTSE and the value of the £ because they are artificial figures and if Starmer says or does the wrong thing could collapse overnight. That his why he has to be ultra cautious, something the "loony left" consistantly fail to understand. I think the new government's policy should now start to be to slowly feed in change in a very restrained manner as the economy grows, which so far this year has been faster than any other country in the G7. They need to demonstrate they are not a pushover and get sensible pay settlements to end strikes without raising expectation in the unions that there is going to be a free for all as happened in the 70s resulting in the winter of discontent. Every Labour government has left power with the economy in a worse state than it inherited bar the post WW2 government which managed to actually increase rationing! Consequently a long period of Tory rule has followed until the public forget how bad the previous Labour government managed the economy. Nowadays the public are far more fickle as demonstrated by the loss of the huge Tory majority, without Labour actually increasing its vote by much. Can Starmer succeed? Yes of course he can, it does not take very long to perform an economic miracle, there was massive improvement from 1950 to 1965 and it can be done again. The UK is a world leader in a lot of what really counts today like financial services, green technology, IT, higher education, etc. People are pouring into this country to study and work, and as we are all too aware, risking their lives to get here illegally. WIll he succeed? That largely depends on the people who put him there staying loyal and patient. If he has the problems Callaghan had we could get a huge swing to the right as is happening in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 24, 2024 16:11:41 GMT
Great article from last year on Labour - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/16/labour-changes-little-power-social-forces-councillors-climateRight now, Labour is emphasising two contradictory ideas. With one voice, it tells us that we cannot go on like this; but it then changes register, and suggests that is exactly what we are going to have to do. The howling tension between the two brings to mind a celebrated quotation from the Welsh thinker and writer Raymond Williams: “To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.” If Starmer and his team fail that test, they will only deserve all the noise and disruption that will thereby be let loose. So far, it has to be said, the signs are not good. The article is a good one but not a great one, clearly written with a "loony left" slant, whose idea of economics is as mad as Truss's idea. The first priority Starmer has is to win the next General Election if he really wants to change society, it will take a long time. To do that he must not spook the markets but convince them the economy is in sound hands. Labour have a tough job to maintain confidence; Wilson devalued the currency in the 60s, in the 70s Labour had to go to " the gnomes of Zurich " to prop up the currency, and in the 00s Blair and Brown let personal borrowing run wild, bank lending get out of control, and when the inevitable crash came in 2008, the UK was impacted more than any other major economy. Starmer is on trial; he has to convince everyone he has a firm hand and a sound financial policy. Handing "control" of budgetary policy to the OBR is a good move to calm the worries of the "money people", although I think they take a very negative attitude to the UK economy like the OECD and World Bank, who both consistently "under predict" UK economic performance and have to subsequently upgrade their predictions. The article got it very wrong in the first paragraph, when it said it will be a very long time till economic prosperity. People whinge about the government debt, but it is a lot lower in %GDP than al the other G7 countries apart from Germany and Germany's economy has been in the doldrums for years. We have record high payroll employment, record job vacancies, lowest unemployment and redundancy rates since the 1970s, high personal savings, sound pension funds, record exports with services exports growing faster than every other G7 country, investment is still too low but has improved to levels not seen since the 90s, wage increases are amoung the highest in the G7 and well above inflation, which at 2% is the second lowest to Italy's in the G7. Need I say more? The economy is very sound. What us wrong is the distribution of wealth and the state of public services that most people have to depend on. I hesitate to mention the FTSE and the value of the £ because they are artificial figures and if Starmer says or does the wrong thing could collapse overnight. That his why he has to be ultra cautious, something the "loony left" consistantly fail to understand. I think the new government's policy should now start to be to slowly feed in change in a very restrained manner as the economy grows, which so far this year has been faster than any other country in the G7. They need to demonstrate they are not a pushover and get sensible pay settlements to end strikes without raising expectation in the unions that there is going to be a free for all as happened in the 70s resulting in the winter of discontent. Every Labour government has left power with the economy in a worse state than it inherited bar the post WW2 government which managed to actually increase rationing! Consequently a long period of Tory rule has followed until the public forget how bad the previous Labour government managed the economy. Nowadays the public are far more fickle as demonstrated by the loss of the huge Tory majority, without Labour actually increasing its vote by much. Can Starmer succeed? Yes of course he can, it does not take very long to perform an economic miracle, there was massive improvement from 1950 to 1965 and it can be done again. The UK is a world leader in a lot of what really counts today like financial services, green technology, IT, higher education, etc. People are pouring into this country to study and work, and as we are all too aware, risking their lives to get here illegally. WIll he succeed? That largely depends on the people who put him there staying loyal and patient. If he has the problems Callaghan had we could get a huge swing to the right as is happening in Europe. You forgot Canada. UK debt to GDP ratio is also higher than Canada as well as Germany. It's also historically quite high and pretty close to the other remaining G7 members, except Japan and the US. You describe the German economy as having been in the doldrums for years, yet over the last decade its growth rate is almost the same as the UK's which you describe as doing well, oddly! Given Germany's structural economic soundness, its much lower debt to GDP and regular budget surpluses, I don't think that assessment stacks up all that well. Where is this huge European swing to the right? Von der Leyen just got another five years, Le Pen failed miserably, AfD is riven by internecine feuding, even Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is a shadow of his former hard-right Eurosceptic self.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 24, 2024 17:55:12 GMT
This is why I hate party politics. Starmer wants to abolish to 2 child cap as everyone knows, but only when he can say how it can be afforded. I want to go on holiday, buy a new car, buy a house, buy new shoes etc, but I will only do those things when I can afford to do so. The SNP played politics, 7 Labour MPs fell for it. Starmer has punished them (harsh perhaps) but they are only suspended for 6 months and so in 6 months time when hopefully they will have found the money to abolish the policy, all will be fine. But I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote except for ministers who should have to vote with the government position or resign. if every vote was a free vote you wouldnt get alot done MP's have to vote as a party if that is the parties position and that is normally decided by manifesto at conferences etc. these knew the party line Nothing would get done if everyone still voted along party lines. But if everyone puts country before party, and has a free vote to vote on whether or not they agree with the business of the day, it forces the government to do things that the majority actually want. Which I think is a good thing. Culture would change for the better if votes were free.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 24, 2024 19:44:52 GMT
This is why I hate party politics. Starmer wants to abolish to 2 child cap as everyone knows, but only when he can say how it can be afforded. I want to go on holiday, buy a new car, buy a house, buy new shoes etc, but I will only do those things when I can afford to do so. The SNP played politics, 7 Labour MPs fell for it. Starmer has punished them (harsh perhaps) but they are only suspended for 6 months and so in 6 months time when hopefully they will have found the money to abolish the policy, all will be fine. But I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote except for ministers who should have to vote with the government position or resign. There is no cap on how many children you can claim child benefit for. The cap is on the total amount of benefit per eligible group. Yes you are absolutely right. I was being lazy in how I wrote the above.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 24, 2024 19:53:03 GMT
Actually agree with Nigel here having watched all of PMQs When isn't he right 😊 Big Nige talking sense again, the man can do no wrong. Oh for a strong leader like him or Big Vik😉
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 24, 2024 20:03:55 GMT
Big Nige talking sense again, the man can do no wrong. Oh for a strong leader like him or Big Vik😉 Big Vik - Hero ❤️
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 24, 2024 20:13:32 GMT
Big Nige talking sense again, the man can do no wrong. Oh for a strong leader like him or Big Vik😉 Big Vik - Hero ❤️ Ugh you two need to get a room, you and Badger that is, not Victor.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 24, 2024 20:18:36 GMT
Ugh you two need to get a room, you and Badger that is, not Victor. Big Nige and Big Vic in a room with Badger and Rossi. What a night. I won’t say chewing the fat, some folk may be eating.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 24, 2024 21:16:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 24, 2024 21:41:10 GMT
Ugh you two need to get a room, you and Badger that is, not Victor. Big Nige and Big Vic in a room with Badger and Rossi. What a night. I won’t say chewing the fat, some folk may be eating. The whole Big Man thing always did smack a bit of repressed homosexuality. It's great things have moved on and you can all finally come out of the closet. Love you. Just ditch the politics and let's all have a disco.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 24, 2024 21:44:32 GMT
Huddysleftfoot does your twitter account not work anymore? Real lack of tweets since the passing of the baton.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 25, 2024 0:51:31 GMT
See to be honest with you, the Liz Truss budget is the epitome of the problems with the UK right now. The fact that one individual, not elected by the public, has the ability to announce a budget, implement absolutely none of it, resign a few weeks later and suddenly that's austerity v2 all wrapped up in a box with a nice bow around it for another 5 years. It's just far too convenient. The last 16 years is a revolving cycle of the same bullshit. Sudden "once in a lifetime event" and now we all "feel the pinch" and those at the top come out with a bigger share of the pot and the rest of us just accept being worse off. And between labour "crashing the economy", us all needing to help bring down the deficit, brexit, covid, ukraine... we're now scraping the barrel even lower. Some random woman noone votes for gets to be PM for the day, come up with some shit ideas, and boom another 5 years of austerity. No real explanation bar Liz Truss announces a shit budget which makes markets crash and there we are "oh dear how terrible. Well guess that's 5 more years of austerity and child poverty. Bloody Liz Truss crashed the economy chaps". I know you're a finance/economics guy and you're interpretation of the budget and the consequences of it are far more educated than mine and you can likely provide very constructive and valid reasoning for it. But taking all that away. Surely you can see just how daft it is. Like that's all it takes.... and we just accept it. And given how past "once in a lifetime" events have went, you sort of enter it with pessimism from the start. Like after a decade of austerity in the 2010s the debt of the country has ballooned and all the public services have got worse. What did it achieve? We made sacrafices and got worse off. And then you look at the billionaires who come out of every disaster smelling of roses and better off than ever before. And here we are with Liz Truss budget suddenly the new wealth transfer excuse where ultimately all that's going to happen is worse public services, worse off financially and somehow the billionaires once again not suffering in the slightest but reaping the rewards. I get your frustration mate, I share it, but I'll be honest at this point in my life I'm only marginally affected if at all by successive Fuck Ups. You could throw a dart at the board and decide where to start but the financial crash 2007/8 is as good as any. The Banks were deemed "to big to fail" and perhaps they were. Eye-watering amounts were lent or guaranteed and eventually it "only" cost the Taxpayer about £25Bn because RBS was a Basket Case. This and the Austerity that followed were Political Choices by successive Labour/Conservative Governments. At this point interest rates were close to zero and instead of trying to stimulate the Economy after a recession the Conservatives/LibDems decided belt tightening was the way to go rather than Capital Investment and Industry and consumers followed the leader leading to a period of stagnation and regression in Productivity because of lack of Investment by Industry. The next Conservative Government got its knickers in a twist about Brexit and Industry kept stuchm about Investing, still at historically low rates, until a clear direction evolved which takes us up to January 2020 before industry understood the full horrors Brexit was going to unleash but at least they had certainty. Covid then visited and just when that was petering out Russia also visited, Ukraine. So you had a complete Bingo Card. During Covid when BoE was happily printing £400Bn to pay for it interest rates remained low and only began to increase at end of 2021 when doubts emerged about how quickly the Economy could rebound. Early 2022 Putin decided he'd like to have Ukraine but still interest rates remained relatively low but inflation began to spiral. Bozo who had "Partied Hard" during Covid and made more Babies finally departed. Enter Liz Truss who had previously gained expertise in pork but sadly not the Economy believed the Bullshit she had been fed from Tufton St and thought it was a good idea to give £46Bn to people that already had more than enough. It wasn't and the Markets reacted badly and Government 10 year Gilt yields went from about 2% to above 5% although now recovered to about 4.2% So here we are. Government National Debt is about £2.7Trn or about 100% of GDP Government Annual Spending is about £1.2Trn Historically UK Government spends more than it receives in Taxes last year about £120Bn The "Fiscal Rules" say a Government must end up with less Debt than it began with. The annual amount to service UK debt is about £110Bn at current 4.2% Gilt Yield. Now some of that Debt will be at longer term and lower yield but you can estimate what savings could be made if Lizzy didn't have a Brainfart and pre 2020 Gilt Yields are Dreamland. The cost of Debt Service is more than the Education Budget The above figures represent the Status Quo To change the equation Government has a Political Chice(s) It can Borrow to invest in Infrastructure Projects and as long as the Taxes received from the activity exceeds the cost of borrowing. Happy Days. There is a problem however because of Austerity UK was ill prepared for an Epidemic and millions more are economically inactive than before Covid so it needs to reduce the 8M people who are waiting for Hospital Appointments so they can get back to work and build the infrastructure needed and pay taxes. This is slightly simplistic, but only slightly. It is but one of a number of measures Government need to do to increase productivity to produce more in less time so more taxes can be raised to spend on Public Services I'm quite confident Labour have ambition to raise people out of poverty, they did it during the last term. The annual cost of removing the 2 Child Benefit Cap is about £3.2Bn or £16Bn over the life of the Parliament. I'd be surprised, as I said to you a few weeks ago, if Labour don't find some way to do it in the Autumn Statement Superb post! 👏
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 25, 2024 4:42:31 GMT
Huddysleftfoot does your twitter account not work anymore? Real lack of tweets since the passing of the baton.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 25, 2024 6:39:32 GMT
Huddysleftfoot does your twitter account not work anymore? Real lack of tweets since the passing of the baton.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 25, 2024 8:04:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2024 8:44:09 GMT
Huddysleftfoot does your twitter account not work anymore? Real lack of tweets since the passing of the baton. Doesn’t it take time to work with scientists and farmers to meet these challenges? You would have to make enough of the vaccine for UK’s cattle and then get farmers to agree to administering it.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 25, 2024 8:57:37 GMT
Doesn’t it take time to work with scientists and farmers to meet these challenges? You would have to make enough of the vaccine for UK’s cattle and then get farmers to agree to administering it. They said they would end it - no evidence that Badgers are responsible for Bovine TB. I'm also expecting them to ban hunting for good.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 25, 2024 9:06:39 GMT
Huddysleftfoot does your twitter account not work anymore? Real lack of tweets since the passing of the baton. Twats
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2024 9:11:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 25, 2024 10:23:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 25, 2024 10:43:20 GMT
Explains Lee Harpins grifting for Starmer. Self preservation. Would appreciate Oggys or Wannabees view on this.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 25, 2024 11:46:46 GMT
Are you denying that many people simply don’t just vote for someone because of the party that they represent? Thus, when the MP uses that to get in and then sods off to do their own thing, it’s a little ridiculous. Having them resign and run as an independent/member of another party doesn’t seem that hard of a fix. You are elected to be a member of parliament and a representative for your constituency. You are accountable to the people who put their trust in you and elected you, but you are also accountable to those who didn't vote for you too because your job is to represent the constituency not the people who voted labour (of which only 1 in 5 people voted). There are plenty of polls and campaigns in the build up to this election based on "stop the tories" and the number one reason in most polls why people voted labour was to "stop the tories". But if you wish to be pedantic. Kier Starmer was elected as Labour party leader members on 10 pledges by members of the Labour party. He has u turned on nearly ever single one of those pledges. Are you suggesting he should be resigning as leader for not fulfilling the mandate on which he was elected? His U turns have been known for many months and I've never seen you call for him to resign for not following the mandate on which he was made leader? Zarah Sultana rebelled against the labour whip on drugs, nuclear energy, gaza, health and social care, coronavirus and many other things. She was voted in as an individual with that record and that history of putting constituents first. Starmer defied the whip to vote against the expansion of heathrow because he was putting his constituents first. You never called for him to resign then either. And nobody on here called for the many tory rebels against Boris and against brexit to resign either... Why is voting against a cruel policy which puts children in poverty a resignable offense? If Labour eventually U turn and do abolish it should that trigger an election in your eyes because it wasn't on their manifesto and it's not what the people voted for? This is a good thread ...
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 25, 2024 12:20:07 GMT
The article is a good one but not a great one, clearly written with a "loony left" slant, whose idea of economics is as mad as Truss's idea. The first priority Starmer has is to win the next General Election if he really wants to change society, it will take a long time. To do that he must not spook the markets but convince them the economy is in sound hands. Labour have a tough job to maintain confidence; Wilson devalued the currency in the 60s, in the 70s Labour had to go to " the gnomes of Zurich " to prop up the currency, and in the 00s Blair and Brown let personal borrowing run wild, bank lending get out of control, and when the inevitable crash came in 2008, the UK was impacted more than any other major economy. Starmer is on trial; he has to convince everyone he has a firm hand and a sound financial policy. Handing "control" of budgetary policy to the OBR is a good move to calm the worries of the "money people", although I think they take a very negative attitude to the UK economy like the OECD and World Bank, who both consistently "under predict" UK economic performance and have to subsequently upgrade their predictions. The article got it very wrong in the first paragraph, when it said it will be a very long time till economic prosperity. People whinge about the government debt, but it is a lot lower in %GDP than al the other G7 countries apart from Germany and Germany's economy has been in the doldrums for years. We have record high payroll employment, record job vacancies, lowest unemployment and redundancy rates since the 1970s, high personal savings, sound pension funds, record exports with services exports growing faster than every other G7 country, investment is still too low but has improved to levels not seen since the 90s, wage increases are amoung the highest in the G7 and well above inflation, which at 2% is the second lowest to Italy's in the G7. Need I say more? The economy is very sound. What us wrong is the distribution of wealth and the state of public services that most people have to depend on. I hesitate to mention the FTSE and the value of the £ because they are artificial figures and if Starmer says or does the wrong thing could collapse overnight. That his why he has to be ultra cautious, something the "loony left" consistantly fail to understand. I think the new government's policy should now start to be to slowly feed in change in a very restrained manner as the economy grows, which so far this year has been faster than any other country in the G7. They need to demonstrate they are not a pushover and get sensible pay settlements to end strikes without raising expectation in the unions that there is going to be a free for all as happened in the 70s resulting in the winter of discontent. Every Labour government has left power with the economy in a worse state than it inherited bar the post WW2 government which managed to actually increase rationing! Consequently a long period of Tory rule has followed until the public forget how bad the previous Labour government managed the economy. Nowadays the public are far more fickle as demonstrated by the loss of the huge Tory majority, without Labour actually increasing its vote by much. Can Starmer succeed? Yes of course he can, it does not take very long to perform an economic miracle, there was massive improvement from 1950 to 1965 and it can be done again. The UK is a world leader in a lot of what really counts today like financial services, green technology, IT, higher education, etc. People are pouring into this country to study and work, and as we are all too aware, risking their lives to get here illegally. WIll he succeed? That largely depends on the people who put him there staying loyal and patient. If he has the problems Callaghan had we could get a huge swing to the right as is happening in Europe. You forgot Canada. UK debt to GDP ratio is also higher than Canada as well as Germany. It's also historically quite high and pretty close to the other remaining G7 members, except Japan and the US. You describe the German economy as having been in the doldrums for years, yet over the last decade its growth rate is almost the same as the UK's which you describe as doing well, oddly! Given Germany's structural economic soundness, its much lower debt to GDP and regular budget surpluses, I don't think that assessment stacks up all that well. Where is this huge European swing to the right? Von der Leyen just got another five years, Le Pen failed miserably, AfD is riven by internecine feuding, even Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is a shadow of his former hard-right Eurosceptic self. Thank you for your response to my post. I accept there are differing views on Canada's national debt. www.statista.com/statistics/271233/national-debt-of-canada-in-relation-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp/At 107% reported above, it is higher than the UK's 101%: www.statista.com/statistics/270381/national-debt-of-the-united-kingdom-in-relation-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp/I think Canada have got more to worry about with the level of personal debt. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65688460#:~:text=Household%20debt%20in%20Canada%20is,than%20the%20country%27s%20entire%20GDP. The last time UK national debt was at its present level was in the 1960s. www.statista.com/statistics/282841/debt-as-gdp-uk/It was reduced substantially during the 1950s and 1960s but levelled out when the UK joined the EEC and started having to pay contributions to European membership. The trend is similar to GDP growth which was much better in the 1950s and 1960s and slowed down after the UK joined the EEC. The only period when national debt was significantly reduced during EEC/EU membership was when Thatcher was selling off the countries assets with privatisation and council house sales. As I have repeatedly posted EEC/EU membership has been very damaging to the UK economy particularly the trade balance since Maastricht. oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/search/results?who_at_least_one=15309&captcha_id=captcha_search&what_at_least_one=Damage&what_all=Gdp+per+capita&where_thread_title=Brexit&when_between_start=05%2F31%2F2023&when_between_end=01%2F02%2F2024&display_as=0&search=SearchUK national debt increased substantially after the the 2008 financial crisis and remained relatively stable despite government austerity till the pandemic. Nevertheless, if the US can enjoy strong growth decade after decade with high national debt, and Japan experiences enormous debt, I am not unduly worried about the UK's prospects to grow faster now we have left the control of the EU and reducing the debt. I am not alone in my view: spearswms.com/wealth/reasons-to-be-bullish-on-britain/I'd be more concerned about Starmer's promise to hand the OBR quango more responsibility to report on government financial policy before it is implemented. They are a very negative attitude organization constantly under estimating UK expected performance. Starmer is doing the same as Blair who handed control of interest rates to the BoE, and washing his hands of government responsibility. Those organisations may have responsibilities to the economy but have little regard for society's needs. The academic left wing oppose Brexit and blame right wing Tories for the UK leaving, but there are plenty of left wing socialists (I'm not one) who believe in Brexit and people forget it was the Tories who took the country into Europe in the first pace in the interests of capitalism, since when inequality has ceased to improve, and indeed got worse since 2008. www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/09/there-is-a-strong-leftwing-case-against-the-euSo you agree the UK economy is doing " almost the same" if not better than Germany, despite the UK being far more adversely impacted by the pandemic. It's the UK that left the EU not Germany. It's the UK that has suffered the management of May, Johnson, and Truss, not Germany. All the forecasts of an economic car crash if the UK left the EU were hot air and nowadays we are told "it's a slow puncture". For all the reasons I stated in my post, the UK economy is quite healthy. It is clearly going to take many years to recover from recent world events and repair the damage of 47 years membership of the EEC/EU, but it was achieved from 1945 to 1957 when we repaired the devastation of the war and got to a point where " most of our people have never had it so good. " Are you actually denying that many EU countries are swinging to the right? www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/07/is-uk-bucking-europes-trend-of-moving-to-the-rightwww.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/30/far-right-on-the-march-europe-growing-taste-for-control-and-orderIt has taken some strange bedfellows on the left and centre to unite to prevent right wing successes in Europe, I wonder how long they can hold it together? It sounds like Von der Leyen has struck deals with the Greens to retain power; I wonder what she has promised them in secret behind closed doors? Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 25, 2024 13:01:12 GMT
You are elected to be a member of parliament and a representative for your constituency. You are accountable to the people who put their trust in you and elected you, but you are also accountable to those who didn't vote for you too because your job is to represent the constituency not the people who voted labour (of which only 1 in 5 people voted). There are plenty of polls and campaigns in the build up to this election based on "stop the tories" and the number one reason in most polls why people voted labour was to "stop the tories". But if you wish to be pedantic. Kier Starmer was elected as Labour party leader members on 10 pledges by members of the Labour party. He has u turned on nearly ever single one of those pledges. Are you suggesting he should be resigning as leader for not fulfilling the mandate on which he was elected? His U turns have been known for many months and I've never seen you call for him to resign for not following the mandate on which he was made leader? Zarah Sultana rebelled against the labour whip on drugs, nuclear energy, gaza, health and social care, coronavirus and many other things. She was voted in as an individual with that record and that history of putting constituents first. Starmer defied the whip to vote against the expansion of heathrow because he was putting his constituents first. You never called for him to resign then either. And nobody on here called for the many tory rebels against Boris and against brexit to resign either... Why is voting against a cruel policy which puts children in poverty a resignable offense? If Labour eventually U turn and do abolish it should that trigger an election in your eyes because it wasn't on their manifesto and it's not what the people voted for? This is a good thread ... I completely agree and his point about a CEO is spot on and rebutes some of the stuff cvillestokie was alleging too. If you're elected simply to follow the orders of your party and never take your own personal conscience or your constituents point of view into account then what's the point in having an MP at all. Just have councillors doing the leg work on the ground and one CEO who runs the country and appoints/sacks staff as and when he sees fit.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 25, 2024 13:13:41 GMT
I did say that despite Labours claims that GB Energy wouldn't be bringing anyone's bills down anytime soon. It appears that seems to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 25, 2024 13:44:12 GMT
You are elected to be a member of parliament and a representative for your constituency. You are accountable to the people who put their trust in you and elected you, but you are also accountable to those who didn't vote for you too because your job is to represent the constituency not the people who voted labour (of which only 1 in 5 people voted). There are plenty of polls and campaigns in the build up to this election based on "stop the tories" and the number one reason in most polls why people voted labour was to "stop the tories". But if you wish to be pedantic. Kier Starmer was elected as Labour party leader members on 10 pledges by members of the Labour party. He has u turned on nearly ever single one of those pledges. Are you suggesting he should be resigning as leader for not fulfilling the mandate on which he was elected? His U turns have been known for many months and I've never seen you call for him to resign for not following the mandate on which he was made leader? Zarah Sultana rebelled against the labour whip on drugs, nuclear energy, gaza, health and social care, coronavirus and many other things. She was voted in as an individual with that record and that history of putting constituents first. Starmer defied the whip to vote against the expansion of heathrow because he was putting his constituents first. You never called for him to resign then either. And nobody on here called for the many tory rebels against Boris and against brexit to resign either... Why is voting against a cruel policy which puts children in poverty a resignable offense? If Labour eventually U turn and do abolish it should that trigger an election in your eyes because it wasn't on their manifesto and it's not what the people voted for? This is a good thread ... I'm unable to see the expanded Tweet but in the linked portion it talks about Parliamentary Democracy and I'm guessing Sellars thinks MPs should be able to express their views freely The Kings Speech Vote is one of only 3 occasions where the Vote expresses confidence or not in the Government that is proposing it. Surely the 7 MPs who voted no confidence in the Manifesto it was Elected on 2 weeks previously expected some sanction although you could argue the punishment was too severe It was the SNP amendment which was voted on. In Parliament SNP Leader Stephen Flynn justified not mitigating/removing the 2 Child Cap in Scotland which they could do by paying out discretionary payments to affected families, covering the shortfall. Flynn said his party already pays money to mitigate the bedroom tax, and the Scottish government would have to reduce spending on other services if it mitigated the two-child benefit cap. Surely the same logic applies to the Labour Manifesto - program for Government. The removal of the 2 Child Benefit Cap estimated at £3.2Bn a year is not in the Manifesto and therefore uncosted and to remove it would require a reduction in other services, extra Taxes or Borrowing at this point in the UK Economy situation These are Political Choices by both Labour and SNP Many Labour MPs besides the 7 oppose the 2 Child Benefit Cap as do I. What is in the Labour Manifesto is: Labour’s manifesto emphasizes the urgent need to address child poverty in the UK. The party recognizes that the current two-child benefit cap exacerbates the issue, and has committed to reviewing and potentially scrapping this policy. How it plans to do this is: Overhaul of the benefits system: Labour advocates for a comprehensive review of the benefits system to reduce child poverty. This includes considering alternative approaches to support low-income families. Scrap the two-child benefit cap: Labour has pledged to remove the two-child benefit cap, which would lift approximately 250,000 children out of poverty, according to research. Increased support for families: The party proposes expanding free school meals provision to all children in households receiving Universal Credit and locking the yearly increase of the free school meals allowance to inflation. Mental health support: Labour aims to introduce mental health support teams in every school in England, recognizing the critical link between poverty and mental health issues among children. I would prefer the 7 were inside the Tent pissing out and part of the debate within the Labour Party in how best to meet these common objectives rather than outside pissing in without an Official Voice, but I acknowledge they did so based upon their own principles
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 25, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
This is a good thread ... I'm unable to see the expanded Tweet but in the linked portion it talks about Parliamentary Democracy and I'm guessing Sellars thinks MPs should be able to express their views freely The Kings Speech Vote is one of only 3 occasions where the Vote expresses confidence or not in the Government that is proposing it. Surely the 7 MPs who voted no confidence in the Manifesto it was Elected on 2 weeks previously expected some sanction although you could argue the punishment was too severe It was the SNP amendment which was voted on. In Parliament SNP Leader Stephen Flynn justified not mitigating/removing the 2 Child Cap in Scotland which they could do by paying out discretionary payments to affected families, covering the shortfall. Flynn said his party already pays money to mitigate the bedroom tax, and the Scottish government would have to reduce spending on other services if it mitigated the two-child benefit cap. Surely the same logic applies to the Labour Manifesto - program for Government. The removal of the 2 Child Benefit Cap estimated at £3.2Bn a year is not in the Manifesto and therefore uncosted and to remove it would require a reduction in other services, extra Taxes or Borrowing at this point in the UK Economy situation These are Political Choices by both Labour and SNP Many Labour MPs besides the 7 oppose the 2 Child Benefit Cap as do I. What is in the Labour Manifesto is: Labour’s manifesto emphasizes the urgent need to address child poverty in the UK. The party recognizes that the current two-child benefit cap exacerbates the issue, and has committed to reviewing and potentially scrapping this policy. How it plans to do this is: Overhaul of the benefits system: Labour advocates for a comprehensive review of the benefits system to reduce child poverty. This includes considering alternative approaches to support low-income families.Scrap the two-child benefit cap: Labour has pledged to remove the two-child benefit cap, which would lift approximately 250,000 children out of poverty, according to research. Increased support for families: The party proposes expanding free school meals provision to all children in households receiving Universal Credit and locking the yearly increase of the free school meals allowance to inflation. Mental health support: Labour aims to introduce mental health support teams in every school in England, recognizing the critical link between poverty and mental health issues among children. I would prefer the 7 were inside the Tent pissing out and part of the debate within the Labour Party in how best to meet these common objectives rather than outside pissing in without an Official Voice, but I acknowledge they did so based upon their own principles Have they given a timescale for this just out of interest?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 25, 2024 13:57:38 GMT
I did say that despite Labours claims that GB Energy wouldn't be bringing anyone's bills down anytime soon. It appears that seems to be the case. It's quite the thing to see Owen Jones retweeting the Political Editor of the Daily Mail 😂 Especially when there were many other Media saying the exact opposite. I'll just use the Daily Record as Scotland has a lot of skin in the game www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-reaffirms-pledge-gb-33325550
|
|