|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2024 7:47:45 GMT
The thing I complained about re covid was ministers getting their mates to set up companies who had no history of providing ppe and then awarding them massive contracts. The actual PPE providers who got awarded big contracts were the right people to give the contracts to. Who else is better placed to provide PPE in an emergency than companies with a history of providing PPE? Vince has been in green energy for the best part of 50 years. Who is better placed to assist the government with green energy? Unless you are suggesting he set up his company 50 years ago in anticipation of this moment in 2024, then where is the corruption or cronyism? i assume you believe there is cronyism in the AG appointment? And the justice minister appointment, the guy who heads Timpsons? He must have known by giving jobs to ex convicts for all these years was building up to this 2024 government, right!? The covid fast track system with new companies and this couldn’t be further apart. I believe its cronyism because the green party actually wanted to invest significantly more in green energy through taxes which would impact people like Dale. Labour on the other hand changed their green investment pledge to suddenly be a joint private investment venture. And Dale a green advocate jumps ship. Most people switching between Green and Labour went the other direction last election. So what was it which made "green" Dale jump on board with Labour oggy? Lower taxes and cushy contracts? Or a sudden realisation that Keir Starmer and Labour just match all his political beliefs? Maybe I'm the naive one. Provide evidence to show your claim that labour and Vince did a deal pre election and before he backed them. Otherwise you are just speculating. You and I have no idea what Vince thinks. Without evidence of the actual cronyism, you are basically saying that if someone supports a policy party it is cronyism if their policies benefit them or their family. Which is utter garbage. NHS waiting lists came down in October. Does that make everyone who voted Labour who benefits from that guilty of cronyism? Show me what Vince was promised by Labour pre election to give them his support. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2024 7:51:27 GMT
This is absolutely terrifying.... Why? I must be missing the wider story? |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 22, 2024 7:57:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2024 8:13:14 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 22, 2024 8:15:50 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. Whilst coming across as raging hypocrites, you can't trust a word that leaves their self-serving mouths. I imagine in the world of net-zero growth is diametrically opposed to emissions reductions. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Nov 22, 2024 8:16:02 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. The sales of brown envelopes will be going up as we speak  |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2024 8:42:53 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. Whilst coming across as raging hypocrites, you can't trust a word that leaves their self-serving mouths. I imagine in the world of net-zero growth is diametrically opposed to emissions reductions. I wouldn't go that far. I think weaning ourselves off dwindling resources we don’t own much of is a long term growth no brainer. Energy from fossil fuels will exponentially increase in price over time. Other aspects of net zero are good in principle but the practical reality of achieving it without significant cost seems beyond us all at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 22, 2024 8:52:16 GMT
Whilst coming across as raging hypocrites, you can't trust a word that leaves their self-serving mouths. I imagine in the world of net-zero growth is diametrically opposed to emissions reductions. I wouldn't go that far. I think weaning ourselves off dwindling resources we don’t own much of is a long term growth no brainer. Energy from fossil fuels will exponentially increase in price over time. Other aspects of net zero are good in principle but the practical reality of achieving it without significant cost seems beyond us all at the moment. The amusing (I don't think that's the right word, but it fits) is that in the most fuel poor area of the country, by give or take 0.5%, they're having us improve insulation on social housing whilst failing to reduce the fuel cost and removing WFA and other support. We're essentially creating better refrigerated homes, for people too scared to use their heating. Then, despite throwing thousands at insulating and ventilating properties that weren't conceived with being hyper efficient boxes, we're having the regulator attack social landlords where damp & mould occurs. All made more likely by the tenants inability to afford to heat the property, rather than the landlord failing to maintain or upgrade it. The only people actually benefitting at the moment are the consultants, contractors, suppliers and material manufacturers. It's an absolute nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 22, 2024 8:52:50 GMT
Nope, that's not even nearly what my opinion is 👍 Do elaborate then. You don’t think public money can go to a private company without it being a “gravy train”? Like wraparound care in schools for example. I'm sensible enough to understand that the state and private sector can't function without one another. Gravy trains are inevitable in all sectors to greater or lesser degrees as unfortunately it is simply human nature for us to try and seek advantage in whatever form we can get away with it. HS2 is/was a massive gravy train Covid was a conduit for a massive gravy train. The NHS and its interactions with the private sector is a gravy train. We can keep going with the examples. The point is the public sector are generally the worst negotiators and worst at operating efficiently and have the worst technical experience with whatever field we are talking about. So they get their pants pulled down all over the shop. In principle I'm all for working towards a world that is cleaner and less reliant on dirty fossil fuels. Cleaner air, water and land. That's great for us all. Not a difficult arguement to win. But when you have govts and the likes of the WEF taking on authoritarian stances and demanding we are doing net zero at break neck speed based on at best debatable data and research. Then populations begin to wonder whether its really worth doing it so quickly when it's plain to see its going to make a lot of people poorer and is going to fundamentally change how we live day to day. And with the monies being funnelled into this net zero feeding frenzy there is going to be untold amounts of grifting and skimming off the top. From the researchers getting their grants, the consultants milking the consultancy work, to the contractors providing their services to construct whatever it is that's going to be constructed. And to the landowners fortunate enough to posses land thats going to be needed for whatever is going to be developed. We've already got 41bn gone missing from some global net zero/climate fund. We've got a govt sending 12bn to India and China for net zero initiatives, whilst at the same time moaning about 22bn black holes in the UK economy. What return are we gonna see from that 12bn? I didn't vote for my taxes to be used for that, especially when we are on our own arses. The speed at which and the way we are going about it with net zero to my mind absolutely guarantees that the whole net zero movement is going to be like the wild west gold rush with operators, investors and scammers licking their collective lips for as big a piece of the pie as they can get their hands on. A gravy train the likes of which we've never seen. All headed up by a moron in Ed milliband who on the one hand wants us to get to net zero next week but at the same time is perfectly happy to vote for crap that will reduce our food production ability and result in us importing massive amounts of extra food. It doesn't add up that really. And should be a massive warning as to the damage thats coming down the track. All in my opinion of course oggy 👍 I won't even get into the debate about weakening our food and power capacities with all the geopolitical shyte currently facing us and Putin threatening to slam a ICBM into one of our cities. The last govt and this one are seemingly fucking clueless and they are putting us in serious danger. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 22, 2024 8:58:23 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 22, 2024 9:11:58 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. Economic growth is front, back and central to their manifesto, and I've still not seen anything to really drive it? No growth and they'll be out the door next election. But BlackRock ffs.............. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 22, 2024 9:16:45 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. Economic growth is front, back and central to their manifesto, and I've still not seen anything to really drive it? No growth and they'll be out the door next election. But BlackRock ffs.............. The kick backs starmer was getting from Lord Ali will be like chump change compared to the future riches awaiting starmer once he toddles off into front line political retirement. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 22, 2024 10:38:30 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. The government is right to be obsessed with growth. Without growth you cannot pay for public services. The future growth of everything depends on investment, be it health, education, national security, infrastructure, or obviously business. All are important but its ultimately business growth that determines the wealth of the country; its for government to regulate and redistribute that wealth. The UK has had the lowest investment in the G7 for 30 years, so it is little wonder our public services are in decline. www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1718690317393242500/business-investment-in-uk-lowest-of-any-g7-countries---analysis.aspx#:~:text=Data%20showed%20that%20the%20UK,of%20the%20last%2030%20years. The UK was hit harder than the other G7 by the pandemic (except possibly Italy) because we were less prepared and slow to act, due to years of neglect in health investment. The UK was hit hardest by the 2008 financial crisis because of lack of control of banking. The only way out of our situation is to invest in growth. There has been no satisfactory investment level in the UK since the Thatcher years, when eastern companies were motivated to invest by tax breaks. www.economicsobservatory.com/boosting-productivity-why-doesnt-the-uk-invest-enoughBut the Maastricht Treaty signalled the end by creating a single market in the EU. If you have a single market investors are going to invest where they get the best return on their investment. That decision is driven by the nature of their business and the relative impacts of employment costs, energy costs, transport costs, borrowing costs, taxation, grants and government aid, etc. From the 90s onwards manufacturing "left" the UK or investors chose other countries in the EU to make their investment. The evidence of the balance of payments spells out the relative decline. www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/trade-balance-deficitBut there is no reason to despair or be pessimistic. We turned the country round in the 1950s from the devastation of WW11 to SuperMac's " You've never had it so good", in a decade. Germany, Japan, and more recently China have had their economic miracles. The UK can do the same by leading in green technology, AI, the circular economy, etc. But for that to happen we have to invest and go for growth. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 22, 2024 10:47:11 GMT
MrCoke I don't think you can use China as an example as their growth isn't due to selling up state assets to Blackrock and other private entities to be run for profit of foreign owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 22, 2024 11:15:27 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. The government is right to be obsessed with growth. Without growth you cannot pay for public services. The future growth of everything depends on investment, be it health, education, national security, infrastructure, or obviously business. All are important but its ultimately business growth that determines the wealth of the country; its for government to regulate and redistribute that wealth. The UK has had the lowest investment in the G7 for 30 years, so it is little wonder our public services are in decline. www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1718690317393242500/business-investment-in-uk-lowest-of-any-g7-countries---analysis.aspx#:~:text=Data%20showed%20that%20the%20UK,of%20the%20last%2030%20years. The UK was hit harder than the other G7 by the pandemic (except possibly Italy) because we were less prepared and slow to act, due to years of neglect in health investment. The UK was hit hardest by the 2008 financial crisis because of lack of control of banking. The only way out of our situation is to invest in growth. There has been no satisfactory investment level in the UK since the Thatcher years, when eastern companies were motivated to invest by tax breaks. www.economicsobservatory.com/boosting-productivity-why-doesnt-the-uk-invest-enoughBut the Maastricht Treaty signalled the end by creating a single market in the EU. If you have a single market investors are going to invest where they get the best return on their investment. That decision is driven by the nature of their business and the relative impacts of employment costs, energy costs, transport costs, borrowing costs, taxation, grants and government aid, etc. From the 90s onwards manufacturing "left" the UK or investors chose other countries in the EU to make their investment. The evidence of the balance of payments spells out the relative decline. www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/trade-balance-deficitBut there is no reason to despair or be pessimistic. We turned the country round in the 1950s from the devastation of WW11 to SuperMac's " You've never had it so good", in a decade. Germany, Japan, and more recently China have had their economic miracles. The UK can do the same by leading in green technology, AI, the circular economy, etc. But for that to happen we have to invest and go for growth. The post war boom was delivered through the Attlee government. Massive public investement from the state, with little or no input from the private sector. It's whats needed again. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 22, 2024 11:19:44 GMT
MrCoke I don't think you can use China as an example as their growth isn't due to selling up state assets to Blackrock and other private entities to be run for profit of foreign owners. China's growth over the last 30 years has been driven by foreign and state investment. We want those companies that have poured investment into China to invest in the UK. www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2024/html/ecb.ebart202405_01~a6318ef569.en.html#:~:text=Investment%20remains%20a%20major%20growth,47%25%20(Chart%202). It is exactly the sort of growth this country needs with the government investing in health, infrastructure, etc. and encouraging private investors. A good example is HS2 which some see as a waste of tax payers money but is actually driving driving investment. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 22, 2024 11:21:57 GMT
The government is right to be obsessed with growth. Without growth you cannot pay for public services. The future growth of everything depends on investment, be it health, education, national security, infrastructure, or obviously business. All are important but its ultimately business growth that determines the wealth of the country; its for government to regulate and redistribute that wealth. The UK has had the lowest investment in the G7 for 30 years, so it is little wonder our public services are in decline. www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1718690317393242500/business-investment-in-uk-lowest-of-any-g7-countries---analysis.aspx#:~:text=Data%20showed%20that%20the%20UK,of%20the%20last%2030%20years. The UK was hit harder than the other G7 by the pandemic (except possibly Italy) because we were less prepared and slow to act, due to years of neglect in health investment. The UK was hit hardest by the 2008 financial crisis because of lack of control of banking. The only way out of our situation is to invest in growth. There has been no satisfactory investment level in the UK since the Thatcher years, when eastern companies were motivated to invest by tax breaks. www.economicsobservatory.com/boosting-productivity-why-doesnt-the-uk-invest-enoughBut the Maastricht Treaty signalled the end by creating a single market in the EU. If you have a single market investors are going to invest where they get the best return on their investment. That decision is driven by the nature of their business and the relative impacts of employment costs, energy costs, transport costs, borrowing costs, taxation, grants and government aid, etc. From the 90s onwards manufacturing "left" the UK or investors chose other countries in the EU to make their investment. The evidence of the balance of payments spells out the relative decline. www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/trade-balance-deficitBut there is no reason to despair or be pessimistic. We turned the country round in the 1950s from the devastation of WW11 to SuperMac's " You've never had it so good", in a decade. Germany, Japan, and more recently China have had their economic miracles. The UK can do the same by leading in green technology, AI, the circular economy, etc. But for that to happen we have to invest and go for growth. The post war boom was delivered through the Attlee government. Massive public investement from the state, with little or no input from the private sector. It's whats needed again. Absolute rubbish. All Attlee government did was nationalise. It actually increased rationing!!! It was Churchill's government and things like Festival of Britain that turned the economy round. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 22, 2024 11:36:04 GMT
The post war boom was delivered through the Attlee government. Massive public investement from the state, with little or no input from the private sector. It's whats needed again. Absolute rubbish. All Attlee government did was nationalise. It actually increased rationing!!! It was Churchill's government and things like Festival of Britain that turned the economy round. With respect, that's utter bollocks mate. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2024 12:03:54 GMT
Do elaborate then. You don’t think public money can go to a private company without it being a “gravy train”? Like wraparound care in schools for example. I'm sensible enough to understand that the state and private sector can't function without one another. Gravy trains are inevitable in all sectors to greater or lesser degrees as unfortunately it is simply human nature for us to try and seek advantage in whatever form we can get away with it. HS2 is/was a massive gravy train Covid was a conduit for a massive gravy train. The NHS and its interactions with the private sector is a gravy train. We can keep going with the examples. The point is the public sector are generally the worst negotiators and worst at operating efficiently and have the worst technical experience with whatever field we are talking about. So they get their pants pulled down all over the shop. In principle I'm all for working towards a world that is cleaner and less reliant on dirty fossil fuels. Cleaner air, water and land. That's great for us all. Not a difficult arguement to win. But when you have govts and the likes of the WEF taking on authoritarian stances and demanding we are doing net zero at break neck speed based on at best debatable data and research. Then populations begin to wonder whether its really worth doing it so quickly when it's plain to see its going to make a lot of people poorer and is going to fundamentally change how we live day to day. And with the monies being funnelled into this net zero feeding frenzy there is going to be untold amounts of grifting and skimming off the top. From the researchers getting their grants, the consultants milking the consultancy work, to the contractors providing their services to construct whatever it is that's going to be constructed. And to the landowners fortunate enough to posses land thats going to be needed for whatever is going to be developed. We've already got 41bn gone missing from some global net zero/climate fund. We've got a govt sending 12bn to India and China for net zero initiatives, whilst at the same time moaning about 22bn black holes in the UK economy. What return are we gonna see from that 12bn? I didn't vote for my taxes to be used for that, especially when we are on our own arses. The speed at which and the way we are going about it with net zero to my mind absolutely guarantees that the whole net zero movement is going to be like the wild west gold rush with operators, investors and scammers licking their collective lips for as big a piece of the pie as they can get their hands on. A gravy train the likes of which we've never seen. All headed up by a moron in Ed milliband who on the one hand wants us to get to net zero next week but at the same time is perfectly happy to vote for crap that will reduce our food production ability and result in us importing massive amounts of extra food. It doesn't add up that really. And should be a massive warning as to the damage thats coming down the track. All in my opinion of course oggy 👍 I won't even get into the debate about weakening our food and power capacities with all the geopolitical shyte currently facing us and Putin threatening to slam a ICBM into one of our cities. The last govt and this one are seemingly fucking clueless and they are putting us in serious danger. I agree with lots of that. But going back to the original point, I don’t see the mere existence of private sector helping the public as a gravy train. I agree that it is a farce that everything our government does seems to cost 3 times more than if it were in France or Germany. HS2 being the most obvious example. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 22, 2024 12:05:18 GMT
MrCoke I don't think you can use China as an example as their growth isn't due to selling up state assets to Blackrock and other private entities to be run for profit of foreign owners. China's growth over the last 30 years has been driven by foreign and state investment. We want those companies that have poured investment into China to invest in the UK. www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2024/html/ecb.ebart202405_01~a6318ef569.en.html#:~:text=Investment%20remains%20a%20major%20growth,47%25%20(Chart%202). It is exactly the sort of growth this country needs with the government investing in health, infrastructure, etc. and encouraging private investors. A good example is HS2 which some see as a waste of tax payers money but is actually driving driving investment. China spend 5% of their GDP on infrastructure projects, we spend less than 1%. We are light years behind and it shows...... |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 22, 2024 12:06:12 GMT
MrCoke I don't think you can use China as an example as their growth isn't due to selling up state assets to Blackrock and other private entities to be run for profit of foreign owners. China's growth over the last 30 years has been driven by foreign and state investment. We want those companies that have poured investment into China to invest in the UK. www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2024/html/ecb.ebart202405_01~a6318ef569.en.html#:~:text=Investment%20remains%20a%20major%20growth,47%25%20(Chart%202). It is exactly the sort of growth this country needs with the government investing in health, infrastructure, etc. and encouraging private investors. A good example is HS2 which some see as a waste of tax payers money but is actually driving driving investment. There's a massive difference between foreign investment in China and the likes of ourselves. Are you suggesting we should adopt a communist model? If not you're not going to get the same growth as China. A quick summary of differences: |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 22, 2024 12:11:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 22, 2024 12:17:57 GMT
Indeed...Streeting only took it by 500 odd votes. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 22, 2024 12:20:05 GMT
Indeed...Streeting only took it by 500 odd votes. Even if there were irregularities it's never going to be overturned or even come out. I highly doubt it. It's the sort of thing which would be seen as too much of a risk to the publics trust in the government and so even if anything was done incorrectly I imagine it will be well covered up. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 22, 2024 12:20:13 GMT
I'm sensible enough to understand that the state and private sector can't function without one another. Gravy trains are inevitable in all sectors to greater or lesser degrees as unfortunately it is simply human nature for us to try and seek advantage in whatever form we can get away with it. HS2 is/was a massive gravy train Covid was a conduit for a massive gravy train. The NHS and its interactions with the private sector is a gravy train. We can keep going with the examples. The point is the public sector are generally the worst negotiators and worst at operating efficiently and have the worst technical experience with whatever field we are talking about. So they get their pants pulled down all over the shop. In principle I'm all for working towards a world that is cleaner and less reliant on dirty fossil fuels. Cleaner air, water and land. That's great for us all. Not a difficult arguement to win. But when you have govts and the likes of the WEF taking on authoritarian stances and demanding we are doing net zero at break neck speed based on at best debatable data and research. Then populations begin to wonder whether its really worth doing it so quickly when it's plain to see its going to make a lot of people poorer and is going to fundamentally change how we live day to day. And with the monies being funnelled into this net zero feeding frenzy there is going to be untold amounts of grifting and skimming off the top. From the researchers getting their grants, the consultants milking the consultancy work, to the contractors providing their services to construct whatever it is that's going to be constructed. And to the landowners fortunate enough to posses land thats going to be needed for whatever is going to be developed. We've already got 41bn gone missing from some global net zero/climate fund. We've got a govt sending 12bn to India and China for net zero initiatives, whilst at the same time moaning about 22bn black holes in the UK economy. What return are we gonna see from that 12bn? I didn't vote for my taxes to be used for that, especially when we are on our own arses. The speed at which and the way we are going about it with net zero to my mind absolutely guarantees that the whole net zero movement is going to be like the wild west gold rush with operators, investors and scammers licking their collective lips for as big a piece of the pie as they can get their hands on. A gravy train the likes of which we've never seen. All headed up by a moron in Ed milliband who on the one hand wants us to get to net zero next week but at the same time is perfectly happy to vote for crap that will reduce our food production ability and result in us importing massive amounts of extra food. It doesn't add up that really. And should be a massive warning as to the damage thats coming down the track. All in my opinion of course oggy 👍 I won't even get into the debate about weakening our food and power capacities with all the geopolitical shyte currently facing us and Putin threatening to slam a ICBM into one of our cities. The last govt and this one are seemingly fucking clueless and they are putting us in serious danger. I agree with lots of that. But going back to the original point, I don’t see the mere existence of private sector helping the public as a gravy train. I agree that it is a farce that everything our government does seems to cost 3 times more than if it were in France or Germany. HS2 being the most obvious example. I suppose what I'm saying is gravy trains are always going to exist in some form or other. Particularly in the interface between public and private bodies. What needs to change or certainly get dealt with more efficiently is to reduce its impact as much as possible. And I'm starting to get extremely suspicious about how out of control the net zero push is going to get. Its becoming an over used quip already but what is the deal with that missing 41bn? Why are BlackRock involved in absolutely everything going on in connection with net zero? Why are there so many researchers screaming we need to get this all done by next week or we're going to boil to death? And so what if its going to make you poorer and your life harder, we've just got to do it they say...tough shit if you don't like it. For me all this doom and authoritarianism is not how you cajole a world population to buy into what we need to do. And bear in mind to greater or lesser degrees 95% of the world agree with the direction of travel in terms of a cleaner more sustainable earth. Its an open goal to sell the concept. But not when you say daft shit like we're all fucked unless you do as we say right now. So they're not prepared to sort it by next week. Because they are already struggling and don't want to self harm by making themselves even poorer with this net zero by 2030 bollox. Its a pony show and all the usual fuckers will make hay pf course whilst others simply see less for them. In my opinion oggy 🤷‍♂️ |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 22, 2024 12:45:45 GMT
Absolute rubbish. All Attlee government did was nationalise. It actually increased rationing!!! It was Churchill's government and things like Festival of Britain that turned the economy round. With respect, that's utter bollocks mate. The Attlee government were obsessed with nationalising everything. Rationing of bread was introduced in 1946, which didn't even happen during the war. GDP actually declined from 1945 to 1947. The Labour government was thrown out as a failure, as it was again in 1970 after more nationalisation, stagflation, and devaluation. Rationing was gradually removed by the Tories and fully completed in 1954, and consistant growth occurred through the 1950s. Actually aided by high immigration incidentally. www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/ |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 22, 2024 12:54:04 GMT
There's a massive difference between foreign investment in China and the likes of ourselves. Are you suggesting we should adopt a communist model? If not you're not going to get the same growth as China. A quick summary of differences: The last thing I would suggest is adopting a communist model. What I am saying growth depends on investment by private enterprise and the state and by investing strongly Starmer can achieve the economic growth achieved by Thatcher in the 1980s and by other countries, including China, who have invested heavily. The manner of investment may be different but it is still investing to achieve growth. Government investment also facilitates private investment but sometimes it is necessary to "persuade" investment. Such Thatcher did with tax breaks. mediacentre.hs2.org.uk/news/new-research-shows-hs2-will-drive-gbp-10billion-economic-uplift-in-the-west-midlands-in-the-next-10-years |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 22, 2024 13:01:51 GMT
There's a massive difference between foreign investment in China and the likes of ourselves. Are you suggesting we should adopt a communist model? If not you're not going to get the same growth as China. A quick summary of differences: The last thing I would suggest is adopting a communist model. What I am saying growth depends on investment by private enterprise and the state and by investing strongly Starmer can achieve the economic growth achieved by Thatcher in the 1980s and by other countries, including China, who have invested heavily. The manner of investment may be different but it is still investing to achieve growth. I'd say this is the key difference here: "Protecting economic sovereignty is paramount. The government imposes strict controls to ensure that foreign influence does not undermine domestic industries or social stability." Foreign influence very much undermines domestic industries and social stability in the uk. You won't find China selling their water to Singapore and God knows where else. Not as if you're going to export your water anywhere for profits is it? The only people who benefit from that type of investment are the foreign owners extracting the wealth we generate through charging us for our basic necessities. The same goes for energy, rail and everything else. When people invest in China it isn't so thst foreigners can get rich of their drinking water or that they can make a few quid for every watt of electric used at the expense of the citizens living there. And if we absolutely shouldn't be adopting a communist model then we shouldn't be referencing countries which follow a communist model as ones we should replicate for growth. Because you won't see the same growth from capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 22, 2024 13:02:26 GMT
Indeed...Streeting only took it by 500 odd votes. Even if there were irregularities it's never going to be overturned or even come out. I highly doubt it. It's the sort of thing which would be seen as too much of a risk to the publics trust in the government and so even if anything was done incorrectly I imagine it will be well covered up. Oh |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2024 13:23:46 GMT
Thank you. I get the impression this government are utterly obsessed with growth and will do anything for it regardless of how and who with. The government is right to be obsessed with growth. Without growth you cannot pay for public services. The future growth of everything depends on investment, be it health, education, national security, infrastructure, or obviously business. All are important but its ultimately business growth that determines the wealth of the country; its for government to regulate and redistribute that wealth. The UK has had the lowest investment in the G7 for 30 years, so it is little wonder our public services are in decline. www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1718690317393242500/business-investment-in-uk-lowest-of-any-g7-countries---analysis.aspx#:~:text=Data%20showed%20that%20the%20UK,of%20the%20last%2030%20years. The UK was hit harder than the other G7 by the pandemic (except possibly Italy) because we were less prepared and slow to act, due to years of neglect in health investment. The UK was hit hardest by the 2008 financial crisis because of lack of control of banking. The only way out of our situation is to invest in growth. There has been no satisfactory investment level in the UK since the Thatcher years, when eastern companies were motivated to invest by tax breaks. www.economicsobservatory.com/boosting-productivity-why-doesnt-the-uk-invest-enoughBut the Maastricht Treaty signalled the end by creating a single market in the EU. If you have a single market investors are going to invest where they get the best return on their investment. That decision is driven by the nature of their business and the relative impacts of employment costs, energy costs, transport costs, borrowing costs, taxation, grants and government aid, etc. From the 90s onwards manufacturing "left" the UK or investors chose other countries in the EU to make their investment. The evidence of the balance of payments spells out the relative decline. www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/trade-balance-deficitBut there is no reason to despair or be pessimistic. We turned the country round in the 1950s from the devastation of WW11 to SuperMac's " You've never had it so good", in a decade. Germany, Japan, and more recently China have had their economic miracles. The UK can do the same by leading in green technology, AI, the circular economy, etc. But for that to happen we have to invest and go for growth. As long as it is about growth of everyday businesses and individuals and not just increasing GDP. Because if the biggest 20 companies are growing well, GDP will probably follow, but that doesn’t mean the population’s wealth is growing. It means the rich shareholders of the biggest companies are doing well. I don’t care so much for them. We will have to see how the labour plans go. |
|
