|
Post by wannabee on Aug 21, 2024 8:49:44 GMT
Which ls what a financially responsible government should be doing. After 14 years the Tories have left us in the shit and their uncoasted pre-election tax bribes have just made things worse. The entire economy needs turning round before Labour can afford to make inroads on its social policies. To be fair Starmer never made any massive promises about fixing things as soon as he got in. That was Corbyn and for good reason not enough people believed him. I'm not a big fan of Starmer and in particular his lack of support for fundamental political reform. However it is a relief to have people in government who are proactive, professional and prepared to make difficult decisions even if it means being unpopular. It is extraordinary that after 14 years of being fucked over, some people enjoying the experience so much that they asked for more, there is now almost a universal demand that the incompetent and self serving economic decisions made should be reversed in a matter of weeks. When this reversal doesn't happen foul and corruption is called and the most disingenuous "two checks" Society needs people like Richard Murphy to act as an independent watchdog but their musings should not be taken as Gospel and the ideological position they are from challenged The cost of nationalising Water whether it be £90Bn or some other figure which Murphy thinks it is, is irrelevant, the County cannot afford it at the moment, nor can it afford to increase the National Debt thereby restricting investment in more productive infrastructure projects. Nor does the Government have the bandwidth to get clogged up in years of negotiation and litigation What has happened in a few short weeks is a paradigm shift in the way Ofwat operates. This month Thames, Yorkshire and Northumbrian Water were fined a record £168M. Previously the instructions from the Conservative Government was to limit the fines in case it made the Water Companies Financially Insolvent. I would love if they became Insolvent and as a result reverted back into Public Ownership just like the Railways will when their Franchise isn't renewed. Patience Grasshopper. The Tax rises to Inheritance and Capital Gains were well signaled before the election and should come as no surprise to anyone other than the hard of hearing. There is no "Black Hole" only Political Choices and it is a sleight of accounting of how you count the Beans. I fully expect Reeves to change how debt to GDP is measured by excluding BoE debt loss on QE giving an additional £17Bn headroom to plug the so called black hole. This is changing the Fiscal Rules without actually doing so and won't upset the Markets. This is a one off benefit and future headroom to alter the Fiscal structure of the Economy to enact fairer distribution will depend on growth and Government led investment will be far more productive in creating new Wealth and Infrastructure than buying Water Companies and Railways.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 21, 2024 9:23:45 GMT
Austerity apologism in full flow today. How many months or years of excuses can be rolled out is the greater question. 12 months, 2 years, the whole 5 year term? I just don't understand why austerity is now sensible. Rewind literally a few months ago and those who say it is sensible where pulling out all the arguments as to why we need more public investment in our failing NHS. Why the tories should be handing out pay rises to everyone striking. Why we should reverse the two child benefit cap. How we should be supporting those less well off and the disabled on benefits. How it would be cruel for the tories to end the winter fuel payment. How it is cruel for them to keep so many children in poverty with the 2 child benefit cap. Now it's sensible and grown up politics to do these things. Let's see what percentage of private rented dwellings are owned by people with 5 or more dwellings in a few years. Let's see what level inequality is at in a few years. Let's see how much of an increase there are in private surgeries and procedures over the next few years. Let's see how many more millions in dividends are taking out by cowboys running out services into the ground and how much worse said services get over the next few years. The problem with austerity is it discriminates and there are a small percentage of people who never feel it but usually benefit off it. What we have today is David Cameron 2010 reincarnated politics. As they say... if you keep doing the same thing and expect different results- it's the first sign of insanity. Certainly a few insane people in here this morning who have short memories. All sounds very tory 2010. But the tories have to do austerity because labour crashed the economy. We're all in it together feeling the pinch. Where have we heard that one before? De ja vu.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 21, 2024 9:51:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Aug 21, 2024 9:56:53 GMT
That would be a very Reeves thing to do…..
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 21, 2024 10:14:51 GMT
Which ls what a financially responsible government should be doing. After 14 years the Tories have left us in the shit and their uncoasted pre-election tax bribes have just made things worse. The entire economy needs turning round before Labour can afford to make inroads on its social policies. To be fair Starmer never made any massive promises about fixing things as soon as he got in. That was Corbyn and for good reason not enough people believed him. I'm not a big fan of Starmer and in particular his lack of support for fundamental political reform. However it is a relief to have people in government who are proactive, professional and prepared to make difficult decisions even if it means being unpopular. Except Corbyn's plans were fully costed of course.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 21, 2024 10:53:20 GMT
125 year PFI contracts 🤯
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 21, 2024 10:54:16 GMT
Which ls what a financially responsible government should be doing. After 14 years the Tories have left us in the shit and their uncoasted pre-election tax bribes have just made things worse. The entire economy needs turning round before Labour can afford to make inroads on its social policies. To be fair Starmer never made any massive promises about fixing things as soon as he got in. That was Corbyn and for good reason not enough people believed him. I'm not a big fan of Starmer and in particular his lack of support for fundamental political reform. However it is a relief to have people in government who are proactive, professional and prepared to make difficult decisions even if it means being unpopular. Except Corbyn's plans were fully costed of course. Not all of them Huddy. The shadow brexit minister at the time who wanted a referendum on the EU didn't have his part fully costed. The rest of it was.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Aug 21, 2024 10:56:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by devondumpling on Aug 21, 2024 11:25:10 GMT
That would be a very Reeves thing to do….. Strike out Reeves and add sensible. There I've put Reeves and sensible in the same sentence.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Aug 21, 2024 12:33:00 GMT
This is getting crazy. Osbourne created austerity in 2010 and it proved to be a failure. This new Labour government said they intended to build the economy on growth. That requires massive investment in infrastructure and education. Our roads are almost beyond repair and our rail system is at best, on the point of collapse. (A family member recently travelled from Holland to the Midlands. They sailed through Holland, Belgium and France but once they arrived in the UK it became a traffic jam from when they got through the tunnel until they arrived at their destination.) Schools/public buildings are crumbling in front of our eyes. Investment is a double edged sword. It creates many more jobs which bring in more taxes. A win win situation. If taxes need to rise then it should be from those multinationals and the super rich that have been ripping us off for many, many years and not ordinary working class people, either by stealth or outright pillaging from the little they already have. We seem to have voted in a party that is almost identical to the Tory government that Cameron led. Scandalous!
OS.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 21, 2024 12:36:50 GMT
I think many will be pleasantly surprised when the budget actually comes around. Until then, the normal couple of months of scaremongering.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 21, 2024 12:41:31 GMT
Except Corbyn's plans were fully costed of course. Not all of them Huddy. The shadow brexit minister at the time who wanted a referendum on the EU didn't have his part fully costed. The rest of it was. And how would he have costed it? And how accurate would his costing have proven to be do you think given we had absolutely no idea about Johnson’s deal at that point, and how would he have factored in the fact that come halfway through 2024, in 8 years from when he was doing his costings, some of our deal would not even have been implemented? You can criticise Starmer for lots. For not costing in the complete unknown of Brexit is completely unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 21, 2024 12:42:04 GMT
Austerity apologism in full flow today. How many months or years of excuses can be rolled out is the greater question. 12 months, 2 years, the whole 5 year term? I just don't understand why austerity is now sensible. Rewind literally a few months ago and those who say it is sensible where pulling out all the arguments as to why we need more public investment in our failing NHS. Why the tories should be handing out pay rises to everyone striking. Why we should reverse the two child benefit cap. How we should be supporting those less well off and the disabled on benefits. How it would be cruel for the tories to end the winter fuel payment. How it is cruel for them to keep so many children in poverty with the 2 child benefit cap. Now it's sensible and grown up politics to do these things. Let's see what percentage of private rented dwellings are owned by people with 5 or more dwellings in a few years. Let's see what level inequality is at in a few years. Let's see how much of an increase there are in private surgeries and procedures over the next few years. Let's see how many more millions in dividends are taking out by cowboys running out services into the ground and how much worse said services get over the next few years. The problem with austerity is it discriminates and there are a small percentage of people who never feel it but usually benefit off it. What we have today is David Cameron 2010 reincarnated politics. As they say... if you keep doing the same thing and expect different results- it's the first sign of insanity. Certainly a few insane people in here this morning who have short memories. All sounds very tory 2010. But the tories have to do austerity because labour crashed the economy. We're all in it together feeling the pinch. Where have we heard that one before? De ja vu. That'll get you sent to the gulag. You'll own nothing and be happy.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 21, 2024 12:44:29 GMT
This is getting crazy. Osbourne created austerity in 2010 and it proved to be a failure. This new Labour government said they intended to build the economy on growth. That requires massive investment in infrastructure and education. Our roads are almost beyond repair and our rail system is at best, on the point of collapse. (A family member recently travelled from Holland to the Midlands. They sailed through Holland, Belgium and France but once they arrived in the UK it became a traffic jam from when they got through the tunnel until they arrived at their destination.) Schools/public buildings are crumbling in front of our eyes. Investment is a double edged sword. It creates many more jobs which bring in more taxes. A win win situation. If taxes need to rise then it should be from those multinationals and the super rich that have been ripping us off for many, many years and not ordinary working class people, either by stealth or outright pillaging from the little they already have. We seem to have voted in a party that is almost identical to the Tory government that Cameron led. Scandalous! OS. Not everybody did. You could see it coming but the crying shame is that there was no alternative or the option to identify that none of the above were suitable.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Aug 21, 2024 13:11:50 GMT
Not all of them Huddy. The shadow brexit minister at the time who wanted a referendum on the EU didn't have his part fully costed. The rest of it was. And how would he have costed it? And how accurate would his costing have proven to be do you think given we had absolutely no idea about Johnson’s deal at that point, and how would he have factored in the fact that come halfway through 2024, in 8 years from when he was doing his costings, some of our deal would not even have been implemented? You can criticise Starmer for lots. For not costing in the complete unknown of Brexit is completely unreasonable. And many of the costs were caused by his deliberate attempt to Subvert the will of the British electorate Delaying the implementation of Brexit And undermining the election of a Labour government which he claimed at the time to back If he and his lickspittle little backstabbers had allowed corbyn to have gone to the country respecting the will of the voters it would of been highly unlikely this country would of had a Johnson /truss / Sunak government
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 21, 2024 13:23:40 GMT
Not all of them Huddy. The shadow brexit minister at the time who wanted a referendum on the EU didn't have his part fully costed. The rest of it was. And how would he have costed it? And how accurate would his costing have proven to be do you think given we had absolutely no idea about Johnson’s deal at that point, and how would he have factored in the fact that come halfway through 2024, in 8 years from when he was doing his costings, some of our deal would not even have been implemented? You can criticise Starmer for lots. For not costing in the complete unknown of Brexit is completely unreasonable. I agree it can't be fully costed. But Starmer who was om a shadow cabinet which built the Labour manifesto in 2019 and which he campaigned for then said 4 years later "It's a Jeremy Corbyn-style manifesto, which is load everything into the wheelbarrow, don't provide the funding and hope that nobody notices," news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-hits-back-after-labour-attacks-13151515Which is quite ironic considering everyone bar Labour and a few strays on here were fully aware of a 20 billion pound blackhole in the build up to the most recent election. Only difference being his manifesto was more "take everything out of the wheelbarrow and hope nobody notices"
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 21, 2024 13:26:22 GMT
The only other thing not fully costed was a laat minute addition commitment to WASPI women.
But on that note I'm not sure I seen any costings for the infected blood scandal by Labour in their most recent manifesto.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 21, 2024 14:31:16 GMT
And how would he have costed it? And how accurate would his costing have proven to be do you think given we had absolutely no idea about Johnson’s deal at that point, and how would he have factored in the fact that come halfway through 2024, in 8 years from when he was doing his costings, some of our deal would not even have been implemented? You can criticise Starmer for lots. For not costing in the complete unknown of Brexit is completely unreasonable. And many of the costs were caused by his deliberate attempt to Subvert the will of the British electorate Delaying the implementation of Brexit And undermining the election of a Labour government which he claimed at the time to back If he and his lickspittle little backstabbers had allowed corbyn to have gone to the country respecting the will of the voters it would of been highly unlikely this country would of had a Johnson /truss / Sunak government The brexiteers in chief delayed brexit. The deal they negotiated still hasn’t been fully implemented. To blame Starmer for that is literally mental. If Corbyn didn’t like Starmer or agreed with you that he was being backstabbed and undermined, he could have sacked him. He was leader of the party.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 21, 2024 14:32:11 GMT
And how would he have costed it? And how accurate would his costing have proven to be do you think given we had absolutely no idea about Johnson’s deal at that point, and how would he have factored in the fact that come halfway through 2024, in 8 years from when he was doing his costings, some of our deal would not even have been implemented? You can criticise Starmer for lots. For not costing in the complete unknown of Brexit is completely unreasonable. I agree it can't be fully costed. But Starmer who was om a shadow cabinet which built the Labour manifesto in 2019 and which he campaigned for then said 4 years later "It's a Jeremy Corbyn-style manifesto, which is load everything into the wheelbarrow, don't provide the funding and hope that nobody notices," news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-hits-back-after-labour-attacks-13151515Which is quite ironic considering everyone bar Labour and a few strays on here were fully aware of a 20 billion pound blackhole in the build up to the most recent election. Only difference being his manifesto was more "take everything out of the wheelbarrow and hope nobody notices" And it won him a big majority.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 21, 2024 14:33:22 GMT
The only other thing not fully costed was a laat minute addition commitment to WASPI women. But on that note I'm not sure I seen any costings for the infected blood scandal by Labour in their most recent manifesto. I guess actions speak louder than costings. Let’s see what his first budget does in a couple of months.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 21, 2024 16:01:33 GMT
This is getting crazy. Osbourne created austerity in 2010 and it proved to be a failure. This new Labour government said they intended to build the economy on growth. That requires massive investment in infrastructure and education. Our roads are almost beyond repair and our rail system is at best, on the point of collapse. (A family member recently travelled from Holland to the Midlands. They sailed through Holland, Belgium and France but once they arrived in the UK it became a traffic jam from when they got through the tunnel until they arrived at their destination.) Schools/public buildings are crumbling in front of our eyes. Investment is a double edged sword. It creates many more jobs which bring in more taxes. A win win situation. If taxes need to rise then it should be from those multinationals and the super rich that have been ripping us off for many, many years and not ordinary working class people, either by stealth or outright pillaging from the little they already have. We seem to have voted in a party that is almost identical to the Tory government that Cameron led. Scandalous! OS. The Tories introducing austerity wasn't the problem. The problem was that they continued with austerity for far too long and ended up using it to as a pretext to devastate public services. There came a point when the economy was recovering and interest rates were low and investment was an option and they chose not to take it. The real test for Labour is to ditch austerity once it's done it's job and then pro-activiley invest in and grow the economy.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 21, 2024 16:05:57 GMT
Except Corbyn's plans were fully costed of course. Not all of them Huddy. The shadow brexit minister at the time who wanted a referendum on the EU didn't have his part fully costed. The rest of it was. And neither was the £58Bn Corbyn promised to the WASPI Women In any case "fully costed" is a nonsensical term it's forecasts based on predicted Treasury Revenue Streams up to five years ahead.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 21, 2024 16:08:02 GMT
If it goes ahead it will be neither PFI1 or PFI2 already answered in previous post
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 21, 2024 16:15:51 GMT
The only other thing not fully costed was a laat minute addition commitment to WASPI women. But on that note I'm not sure I seen any costings for the infected blood scandal by Labour in their most recent manifesto. The funding for the Blood Scandal was included in Hunts Budget which Labour inherited I had already replied before I saw you remembered the £58Bn unfunded for the WASPI Women
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Aug 21, 2024 16:16:01 GMT
This is getting crazy. Osbourne created austerity in 2010 and it proved to be a failure. This new Labour government said they intended to build the economy on growth. That requires massive investment in infrastructure and education. Our roads are almost beyond repair and our rail system is at best, on the point of collapse. (A family member recently travelled from Holland to the Midlands. They sailed through Holland, Belgium and France but once they arrived in the UK it became a traffic jam from when they got through the tunnel until they arrived at their destination.) Schools/public buildings are crumbling in front of our eyes. Investment is a double edged sword. It creates many more jobs which bring in more taxes. A win win situation. If taxes need to rise then it should be from those multinationals and the super rich that have been ripping us off for many, many years and not ordinary working class people, either by stealth or outright pillaging from the little they already have. We seem to have voted in a party that is almost identical to the Tory government that Cameron led. Scandalous! OS. The Tories introducing austerity wasn't the problem. The problem was that they continued with austerity for far too long and ended up using it to as a pretext to devastate public services. There came a point when the economy was recovering and interest rates were low and investment was an option and they chose not to take it. The real test for Labour is to ditch austerity once it's done it's job and then pro-activiley invest in and grow the economy. Sounds about right that.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 21, 2024 16:37:19 GMT
This is getting crazy. Osbourne created austerity in 2010 and it proved to be a failure. This new Labour government said they intended to build the economy on growth. That requires massive investment in infrastructure and education. Our roads are almost beyond repair and our rail system is at best, on the point of collapse. (A family member recently travelled from Holland to the Midlands. They sailed through Holland, Belgium and France but once they arrived in the UK it became a traffic jam from when they got through the tunnel until they arrived at their destination.) Schools/public buildings are crumbling in front of our eyes. Investment is a double edged sword. It creates many more jobs which bring in more taxes. A win win situation. If taxes need to rise then it should be from those multinationals and the super rich that have been ripping us off for many, many years and not ordinary working class people, either by stealth or outright pillaging from the little they already have. We seem to have voted in a party that is almost identical to the Tory government that Cameron led. Scandalous! OS. You're correct OS Austerity doesn't work and is the wrong solution to the wrong problem You're also correct that Capital Investment is needed across a whole range of projects The difference between 2010 and 2024 is that Government Borrowing in 2010 was 0.25% today it is 5% i.e. 20 times more expensive - thanks Liz. Government will need to leverage its investment with Private Investment to tackle a wider range of projects than it can finance on its own. If Government over borrowed outside of the Fiscal Rules it is committed to keeping the Markets would react negatively by pushing interest rates even higher Reeves is not going back to PFI1 or PFI2 she is on record as saying it. It is perfectly possible to negotiate a contract competently for LTC which is Tolled and Profits Capped. The project cost is estimated at £9Bn and is the largest now HS2 has collapsed I think we should all take a breath and wait for Reeves to announce the Budget in October rather than rely on rumours and leaks If Reeves comes out with an Austerity Budget rather than a promised Growth Budget I'll be among the first to condemn it.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 21, 2024 22:21:28 GMT
Cunt.
That's all that he'll be remembered for being in the end.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Aug 21, 2024 23:20:51 GMT
That would be a very Reeves thing to do….. Strike out Reeves and add sensible. There I've put Reeves and sensible in the same sentence. Sensible how?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 22, 2024 0:42:39 GMT
Cunt. That's all that he'll be remembered for being in the end. That is difficult to watch but if this shit continues he becomes part of the problem, not the source but the continuation People are not statistics but you have to have a measure 20% of people in UK live in relative poverty. 8 Million Adults 4 Million Children and 2 Million Pensioners (According to Age UK) Of the 2 Million Pensioners 880K who are eligible to claim Pension Credit and would therefore receive the paltry £200 Fuel Allowance do not do so. There remains about 10M Pensioners above the Poverty line who will lose the £200 Fuel Allowance to some it will cause real hardship. As it was topical i recently checked and found that i do receive a fuel allowance that i don't fucking need. Universal Benefits don't target the right people Relying on people to understand what they are entitled to doesn't work A race to the bottom measuring people in terms of relative poverty is fucking odious Trying to redistribute by Taxation the accumulated wealth of Millionaires/Billionaires under the present system in my view is a futile exercise with a Tax Code akin to a thousand volumes of War and Peace. There is a better solution but it's unlikely to gain traction with any current Political Party or indeed with a begrudging population. Studies have quantified that Universal Basic Income would cost between £28/67Bn to lift everyone in UK out of poverty, of course it would need to be married with adequate Public Services and Housing. It could work, just not in UK and perhaps nowhere but that's as much a reflection on Society as the Politicians we elect.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 22, 2024 5:43:31 GMT
Cunt. That's all that he'll be remembered for being in the end. That is difficult to watch but if this shit continues he becomes part of the problem, not the source but the continuation People are not statistics but you have to have a measure 20% of people in UK live in relative poverty. 8 Million Adults 4 Million Children and 2 Million Pensioners (According to Age UK) Of the 2 Million Pensioners 880K who are eligible to claim Pension Credit and would therefore receive the paltry £200 Fuel Allowance do not do so. There remains about 10M Pensioners above the Poverty line who will lose the £200 Fuel Allowance to some it will cause real hardship. As it was topical i recently checked and found that i do receive a fuel allowance that i don't fucking need. Universal Benefits don't target the right people Relying on people to understand what they are entitled to doesn't work A race to the bottom measuring people in terms of relative poverty is fucking odious Trying to redistribute by Taxation the accumulated wealth of Millionaires/Billionaires under the present system in my view is a futile exercise with a Tax Code akin to a thousand volumes of War and Peace. There is a better solution but it's unlikely to gain traction with any current Political Party or indeed with a begrudging population. Studies have quantified that Universal Basic Income would cost between £28/67Bn to lift everyone in UK out of poverty, of course it would need to be married with adequate Public Services and Housing. It could work, just not in UK and perhaps nowhere but that's as much a reflection on Society as the Politicians we elect. If the government U-turn on this and anybody who gets a Winter Fuel Allowance that they feel they don't need please could I politely and respectfully request that they consider donating it here: www.beatcold.org.uk/I can vouch for the difference they make having worked directly with them for a number of years.
|
|