Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: SydneyRover on February 25, 2024, 07:07:39 am
-
.......... ''Mick Lynch has said voters have to “grow up a bit” and recognise Keir Starmer as the only realistic alternative to the current government, the removal of which he described as “my number one priority”.
Last week, Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary, Ian Murray, challenged prime minister Rishi Sunak to put the country “out of this Tory misery” and call a general election now.
Speaking at the War on Want event in central London, Lynch told the PA news agency: “I think Labour have got a good chance of getting elected unless they muck it up, really'' ...........
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/24/mick-lynch-says-voters-must-grow-up-and-see-starmer-is-only-alternative
ya-know, I was just thinking that
-
As much as I don't want a Tory government in again I see what he is saying.
However I believe if they are to govern without a majority it will be a massive fail for Keir Starmer who will do anything to get in power.
There are many people even to do with the tactical voting. Julia Patterson? Is now boycotting in and avoiding Labour altogether.
And this will increase in the run up to the election.
-
The same Mick Lynch who is supporting Corbyn as an Independant?
-
..... And Brexiter!
-
He's seen the light bb
-
The same Mick Lynch who is supporting Corbyn as an Independant?
Just to put that into context Mick Lynch said at a War on Want Conference said (referring to his union) “We will be supporting all sorts of candidates in this election. We will be supporting Labour candidates & Social candidates”.
“We will be supporting Jeremy Corbyn in this election”.
Corbyn has been thrown out of the Labour Party & so is standing as an Independent which is consistent with Mick Lynch stating “We will be supporting all sorts of candidates in this election”.
What’s the gripe?
-
The irony of Mick Lynch opining on elections.
That's the Mick Lynch who won his position by gaining 46% of the 19% of the RMT members who bothered to vote in the Gen Sec election. 7600 votes out of 86,000 members.
-
The thing is quite a few were saying Mick Lynch instead of Starmer although they never asked him and here ML is pointing the way for a better country.
-
The irony of Mick Lynch opining on elections.
That's the Mick Lynch who won his position by gaining 46% of the 19% of the RMT members who bothered to vote in the Gen Sec election. 7600 votes out of 86,000 members.
What’s your point?
That Mick Lynch shouldn't be saying how his union will be voting in the forthcoming election (where every Tom, Dick & Harry is, & has a right to, giving an opinion), or that he shouldn’t be giving an opinion because less than 10% of the members of the RMT bothered to vote in their leadership election of which he gained nearly half of the votes?
-
It is unlikely that there will be a big turnout in the GE either but when Labour win and less than half of the population have voted for them I suspect it will be greeted as a massive win.
-
It is unlikely that there will be a big turnout in the GE either but when Labour win and less than half of the population have voted for them I suspect it will be greeted as a massive win.
Similar to Johnson's massive victory in 2019 - won with 35% of the electorate - then?
-
It is unlikely that there will be a big turnout in the GE either but when Labour win and less than half of the population have voted for them I suspect it will be greeted as a massive win.
Similar to Johnson's massive victory in 2019 - won with 35% of the electorate - then?
Absolutely the same wilts.
Why is MLs position being questioned then.
-
The irony of Mick Lynch opining on elections.
That's the Mick Lynch who won his position by gaining 46% of the 19% of the RMT members who bothered to vote in the Gen Sec election. 7600 votes out of 86,000 members.
What’s your point?
That Mick Lynch shouldn't be saying how his union will be voting in the forthcoming election (where every Tom, Dick & Harry is, & has a right to, giving an opinion), or that he shouldn’t be giving an opinion because less than 10% of the members of the RMT bothered to vote in their leadership election of which he gained nearly half of the votes?
It is unlikely that there will be a big turnout in the GE either but when Labour win and less than half of the population have voted for them I suspect it will be greeted as a massive win.
Similar to Johnson's massive victory in 2019 - won with 35% of the electorate - then?
Wilts.
The turnout in the typical General Election is 70-75%.
The turnout in the typical union Gen Sec election is below 20%.
I'm sure I don't need to join the dots for you.
-
The irony of Mick Lynch opining on elections.
That's the Mick Lynch who won his position by gaining 46% of the 19% of the RMT members who bothered to vote in the Gen Sec election. 7600 votes out of 86,000 members.
What’s your point?
That Mick Lynch shouldn't be saying how his union will be voting in the forthcoming election (where every Tom, Dick & Harry is, & has a right to, giving an opinion), or that he shouldn’t be giving an opinion because less than 10% of the members of the RMT bothered to vote in their leadership election of which he gained nearly half of the votes?
It is unlikely that there will be a big turnout in the GE either but when Labour win and less than half of the population have voted for them I suspect it will be greeted as a massive win.
Similar to Johnson's massive victory in 2019 - won with 35% of the electorate - then?
Wilts.
The turnout in the typical General Election is 70-75%.
The turnout in the typical union Gen Sec election is below 20%.
I'm sure I don't need to join the dots for you.
So when 19% turn out to elect their leader of the RMT it shouldn’t come as a surprise then & certainly not worth using as part of any argument that there’s an ‘irony’ when Mick Lynch gives an opinion on the forthcoming election.
And when you then go on to quote in figures what proportion in 1000’s 19% represents, I see another John Nance Garner looming in the distance.
Just for your records, 54% of the RMT members turned out to vote on whether or not to go on strike of which 95% voted to come out.
100% of Mick Lynch’s head is bald, which is also a pretty useless figure to quote.
-
The same Mick Lynch who is supporting Corbyn as an Independant?
Just to put that into context Mick Lynch said at a War on Want Conference said (referring to his union) “We will be supporting all sorts of candidates in this election. We will be supporting Labour candidates & Social candidates”.
“We will be supporting Jeremy Corbyn in this election”.
Corbyn has been thrown out of the Labour Party & so is standing as an Independent which is consistent with Mick Lynch stating “We will be supporting all sorts of candidates in this election”.
What’s the gripe?
Just that in one breath he says he sees the need for a Labour government inder Starmer yet is supporting an opposition candidate in Corbyn against presumably a Labour candidate
I don't see the comment re supporting a variety of candidates in that article
-
Its just unbelievable how some on here will grasp at anything to make a convoluted point.
Did you also "eat your young", Jesus!
-
When I wrote to Mick and gave him a link to the comments about him ...............
-
What did you expect Mick Lynch to do, advise his members to vote Tory?
The fun and games will start when Lynch negotiates with Starmer over pay and conditions.
If you think Mick Lynch and the RMT won't strike against a Labour Government, you're deluded.
-
What did you expect Mick Lynch to do, advise his members to vote Tory?
The fun and games will start when Lynch negotiates with Starmer over pay and conditions.
If you think Mick Lynch and the RMT won't strike against a Labour Government, you're deluded.
Who is this addressed to Steve, who has said that?
-
Steve, I think if you put Mick Lynch in the search box, I think what I've said will closer to the thread title than what you have written.
-
.......... ''Mick Lynch has said voters have to “grow up a bit” and recognise Keir Starmer as the only realistic alternative to the current government, the removal of which he described as “my number one priority”.
Last week, Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary, Ian Murray, challenged prime minister Rishi Sunak to put the country “out of this Tory misery” and call a general election now.
Speaking at the War on Want event in central London, Lynch told the PA news agency: “I think Labour have got a good chance of getting elected unless they muck it up, really'' ...........
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/24/mick-lynch-says-voters-must-grow-up-and-see-starmer-is-only-alternative
ya-know, I was just thinking that
Look at the first paragraph. Now, once again, what did you expect Mick Lynch to do, advise his members to vote Tory?
-
Of course not Steve, Mick Lynch is a realist.
''If you think Mick Lynch and the RMT won't strike against a Labour Government, you're deluded''
This is nonsense and in no way what I think. I always said that politics should be off the front page and the government should negotiate rather than oppose.
If you think that a corbyn pm would have been handing out cheques l/r/centre to working people you're wrong there too, think Truss.
-
Syd, I really don’t think this is the place to be discussing Steve’s hernia.
-
Syd, I really don’t think this is the place to be discussing Steve’s hernia.
I've been trying to tell him the Labour Party's ruptured for ages.
-
Syd, I really don’t think this is the place to be discussing Steve’s hernia.
I've been trying to tell him the Labour Party's ruptured for ages.
ML doesn't seem to think so, he's telling you to get off your backside and vote labour, but maybe don't stand up to quick.
-
The irony of Mick Lynch opining on elections.
That's the Mick Lynch who won his position by gaining 46% of the 19% of the RMT members who bothered to vote in the Gen Sec election. 7600 votes out of 86,000 members.
What’s your point?
That Mick Lynch shouldn't be saying how his union will be voting in the forthcoming election (where every Tom, Dick & Harry is, & has a right to, giving an opinion), or that he shouldn’t be giving an opinion because less than 10% of the members of the RMT bothered to vote in their leadership election of which he gained nearly half of the votes?
It is unlikely that there will be a big turnout in the GE either but when Labour win and less than half of the population have voted for them I suspect it will be greeted as a massive win.
Similar to Johnson's massive victory in 2019 - won with 35% of the electorate - then?
Wilts.
The turnout in the typical General Election is 70-75%.
The turnout in the typical union Gen Sec election is below 20%.
I'm sure I don't need to join the dots for you.
Not even Sydney will attempt to backup whatever you're on about.
-
Why not ask billy, then ask if I agree.
-
The irony of Mick Lynch opining on elections.
That's the Mick Lynch who won his position by gaining 46% of the 19% of the RMT members who bothered to vote in the Gen Sec election. 7600 votes out of 86,000 members.
Mick Lynch doesn't set the electoral rules of his Union, so there is no point to your point.
-
It will be interesting to see how all the problems people have criticised the current government for are solved as easily as some think by a new government.
-
It will be interesting to see how all the problems people have criticised the current government for are solved as easily as some think by a new government.
Has anyone you know of said it will be easy pud? many appear to want the worst for the country.
-
If you think it's going to be hard to put the wrongs right now just remember there's another 8 or 9 months of traps being laid
-
BFYP.
Literally no-one says putting this right is going to be easy. We have been going in the wrong economic direction since the country (including you, remember?) rejected standard textbook economics in 2010 and chose the voodoo economics of Austerity.
Since then, our productivity has flat lined, predominantly because our capital investment has flat lined.
When you've been driving in totally the wrong direction for 14 years, then you change driver, do you expect to arrive where you want to go immediately? And do you berate the new driver for not getting you there on time?
-
Let's get Starmer in the driving seat, he specialises in U-turns.
-
Too much is given to the apparent u-turns isn’t it. The ability to change course in response to changing conditions should not necessarily be dismissed as a weakness. But to do so makes for an easy and catchy headline.
-
Tory U-turns in response to changing conditions were dismissed as a weakness, weren't they?
What's wrong with a bit of Starmer karma hitting the headlines now?
-
Where's tyke and Albie??
-
Looks like your getting your excuses in a couple of years early to me there Billy.
-
Frightening we have resident leftie already making excuses for a Labour Government!
-
https://inews.co.uk/news/rupert-murdoch-labour-keir-starme-2913677
Murdoch media considering backing Labour. Perhaps they are just good at gauging the tide of public opinion.
-
Tory U-turns in response to changing conditions were dismissed as a weakness, weren't they?
What's wrong with a bit of Starmer karma hitting the headlines now?
Problem is bb tory u-turns are all joined up making the tories go around in circles.
Here's a few variations they have achieved ......
ooooo888888888888800000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOO@@@@@@@@@@@@@@௹௹௹௹௹௹௹௹௹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
-
This is the topic where your comments may even be entertaining tyke
-
Tory U-turns in response to changing conditions were dismissed as a weakness, weren't they?
What's wrong with a bit of Starmer karma hitting the headlines now?
Problem is bb tory u-turns are all joined up making the tories go around in circles.
Here's a few variations they have achieved ......
ooooo888888888888800000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOO@@@@@@@@@@@@@@௹௹௹௹௹௹௹௹௹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
Anyone ?
-
Tory U-turns in response to changing conditions were dismissed as a weakness, weren't they?
What's wrong with a bit of Starmer karma hitting the headlines now?
Problem is bb tory u-turns are all joined up making the tories go around in circles.
Here's a few variations they have achieved ......
ooooo888888888888800000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOO@@@@@@@@@@@@@@௹௹௹௹௹௹௹௹௹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
Anyone ?
He wants attention
-
now, now children, don't fill all the space up with sour grapes, leave some for tyke and albie to say something on this topic
-
Reform coming up quickly on the rails? Labour licking backsides to keep the Islamic vote on side isn't a good look either.
Big question there for millions of people, Religion, Palestine, and a new Party for themselves or prop Labours voter numbers up keep the free bees.
-
BFYP.
Literally no-one says putting this right is going to be easy. We have been going in the wrong economic direction since the country (including you, remember?) rejected standard textbook economics in 2010 and chose the voodoo economics of Austerity.
Since then, our productivity has flat lined, predominantly because our capital investment has flat lined.
When you've been driving in totally the wrong direction for 14 years, then you change driver, do you expect to arrive where you want to go immediately? And do you berate the new driver for not getting you there on time?
Yeah increasing borrowing went really well for Liz Truss didn't it......
Are we saying we need to get public sector spending back to 2010 levels? How much would that cost? How is it being funded?
So far all we see from Labour in terms of policies is more of the same. I have issues with quite a few government policies but I'm not seeing solutions from anywhere.
It sounds like getting excuses in for failures already to me! To add to your analogy, I'd expect the other driver to get me there if they keep telling me they're so much better! I fear as a country we're going to swap Mcsheffrey for Schofield!
-
BFYP.
Literally no-one says putting this right is going to be easy. We have been going in the wrong economic direction since the country (including you, remember?) rejected standard textbook economics in 2010 and chose the voodoo economics of Austerity.
Since then, our productivity has flat lined, predominantly because our capital investment has flat lined.
When you've been driving in totally the wrong direction for 14 years, then you change driver, do you expect to arrive where you want to go immediately? And do you berate the new driver for not getting you there on time?
Yeah increasing borrowing went really well for Liz Truss didn't it......
Are we saying we need to get public sector spending back to 2010 levels? How much would that cost? How is it being funded?
So far all we see from Labour in terms of policies is more of the same. I have issues with quite a few government policies but I'm not seeing solutions from anywhere.
It sounds like getting excuses in for failures already to me! To add to your analogy, I'd expect the other driver to get me there if they keep telling me they're so much better! I fear as a country we're going to swap Mcsheffrey for Schofield!
Right point, wrong analogy, It should of been McSheffery to Butler because we are in effect going backwards to rookie politicians with no experience of running anything.
Schofield had done his time as a coach, this lot have no track record of even running a whelk store to back them up.
-
What track record did the current bunch have?
-
A good proportion of them have been in government over the last 14 years and know what's required, that they have managed to make a pigs ear of it for the vast majority of their time is not for debate.
What we now have is the possibility of a whole trench of politicians who have been on the other side, sniping on a regular basis about how the government has been run, governing and opposition are two very different things.
Lets just hope that "same crap different colour rosette" is not going to be the defining element.
-
Tory U-turns in response to changing conditions were dismissed as a weakness, weren't they?
What's wrong with a bit of Starmer karma hitting the headlines now?
Problem is bb tory u-turns are all joined up making the tories go around in circles.
Here's a few variations they have achieved ......
ooooo888888888888800000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOO@@@@@@@@@@@@@@௹௹௹௹௹௹௹௹௹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
Anyone ?
I believe it’s an aboriginal saying….’Take only memories, leave only footprints’.
Or, it could be lines from the film Crocodile Dundee…
Woman reporter, “ That crocodile could have eaten me alive”.
Dundee, “Ah, I wouldn’t hold that against him. The same thought had crossed my mind a couple of times”.
-
BFYP.
You need to do a bit of homework if you are going to bring Trussonomics into the equation. You are categorically wrong to compare what she did to what we should have done in 2010 for several reasons.
The biggest one is that in 2010, the key problem in the UK economy was the collapse of demand. The collapse was so severe that even cutting interest rates effectively to zero couldn't get demand going again. The classic solution in those cases is for government to borrow and spend TEMPORARILY until demand gets going again.
We didn't. We cut back Govt spending. Worse than that, most of the cuts were in capital investment. The result was several years of lost growth which we have never recovered, and appallingly low long term levels of capital investment, adding to our productivity problem.
In 2022, the key problem wasn't lack of demand. It was the huge increase in inflation due to the post COVID rebound and Putin's War. Interest rates were going up to keep a lid on demand. In that scenario, pro-cyclical tax reduction by the Govt is simply stupid.
The second major difference is that word I emphasised earlier. The trick in 2010 was to borrow and spend then, but only until the private sector got its mojo back. Then Govt spending should be reduced having done its job. The borrowing could then be paid back by tax income from a buoyant economy. Again, that is classic economics in such a situation.
Truss on the other hand proposed a PERMANENT or at least long term reduction in tax rates and claimed that would turbo charge the economy. The problem there is that there's neither any sensible economic theory, not any evidence that works when demand isn't a problem. Because, reducing taxes means more money in the economy sure, but that just pushes up prices. You get more inflation. So the BoE has to push interest rates up even higher to damp down the spending. But higher interest rates suppress the economy. So you don't get growth. Truss, idiot that she is, insisted that by some magic, the economy would grow and the growth would pay for the tax cuts. Unfortunately for her, those lily livered socialists in the Bond markets said, "We don't believe you". Which of course they were right to do, as it was b*llocks. So they said they wanted a moron premium added to the interest rate we paid them to borrow money to finance the idiotic tax cuts. Because our Govt was literally acting like a moron.
The two cases aren't remotely similar. To use a football analogy, in both cases the team was losing, but for different reasons. In 2010, the problem was a lack of forward quality and the right solution was to buy better strikers. In 2022, the problem was the defence, but Truss still bought strikers.
You, BFYP, are saying that because buying strikers in 2022 was a catastrophe, it wouldn't have worked in 2010.
You were badly, badly wrong in 2010. You're a smart lad and I'd have thought you'd have reflected on this over the past decade.
-
BFYP.
Literally no-one says putting this right is going to be easy. We have been going in the wrong economic direction since the country (including you, remember?) rejected standard textbook economics in 2010 and chose the voodoo economics of Austerity.
Since then, our productivity has flat lined, predominantly because our capital investment has flat lined.
When you've been driving in totally the wrong direction for 14 years, then you change driver, do you expect to arrive where you want to go immediately? And do you berate the new driver for not getting you there on time?
Yeah increasing borrowing went really well for Liz Truss didn't it......
Are we saying we need to get public sector spending back to 2010 levels? How much would that cost? How is it being funded?
So far all we see from Labour in terms of policies is more of the same. I have issues with quite a few government policies but I'm not seeing solutions from anywhere.
It sounds like getting excuses in for failures already to me! To add to your analogy, I'd expect the other driver to get me there if they keep telling me they're so much better! I fear as a country we're going to swap Mcsheffrey for Schofield!
Ideology always appears to come first aye pud, where your answer on the tax cuts you want?
-
BFYP.
Literally no-one says putting this right is going to be easy. We have been going in the wrong economic direction since the country (including you, remember?) rejected standard textbook economics in 2010 and chose the voodoo economics of Austerity.
Since then, our productivity has flat lined, predominantly because our capital investment has flat lined.
When you've been driving in totally the wrong direction for 14 years, then you change driver, do you expect to arrive where you want to go immediately? And do you berate the new driver for not getting you there on time?
Yeah increasing borrowing went really well for Liz Truss didn't it......
Are we saying we need to get public sector spending back to 2010 levels? How much would that cost? How is it being funded?
So far all we see from Labour in terms of policies is more of the same. I have issues with quite a few government policies but I'm not seeing solutions from anywhere.
It sounds like getting excuses in for failures already to me! To add to your analogy, I'd expect the other driver to get me there if they keep telling me they're so much better! I fear as a country we're going to swap Mcsheffrey for Schofield!
Ideology always appears to come first aye pud, where your answer on the tax cuts you want?
What's the question? I do think the tax burden is too high now, I think they just need to bring back the personal allowance increase in line with inflation at this point. I see them proposing a 1% ni cut and it fundamentally offers very little, bad choice.
Bst, I don't think we need to debate those economic things as we will never fundamentally agree and it's simply not black and white like some textbooks would have the world believe.
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
That has always been the case, probably always.
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
There is no welfare left to cut - its all been done to the bare bones. All he has left that hasn't yet been cut is pensions - good luck on that one.
-
Poor bones don't have to last as long nowadays wilts
''A new report from the UCL Institute of Health Equity (IHE) has confirmed that a million people in 90% of areas in England lived shorter lives than they should between 2011 and the start of the pandemic''
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/jan/one-million-people-england-living-shorter-lives-they-should#:~:text=A%20new%20report%20from%20the,the%20start%20of%20the%20pandemic.
-
BFYP.
Literally no-one says putting this right is going to be easy. We have been going in the wrong economic direction since the country (including you, remember?) rejected standard textbook economics in 2010 and chose the voodoo economics of Austerity.
Since then, our productivity has flat lined, predominantly because our capital investment has flat lined.
When you've been driving in totally the wrong direction for 14 years, then you change driver, do you expect to arrive where you want to go immediately? And do you berate the new driver for not getting you there on time?
Yeah increasing borrowing went really well for Liz Truss didn't it......
Are we saying we need to get public sector spending back to 2010 levels? How much would that cost? How is it being funded?
So far all we see from Labour in terms of policies is more of the same. I have issues with quite a few government policies but I'm not seeing solutions from anywhere.
It sounds like getting excuses in for failures already to me! To add to your analogy, I'd expect the other driver to get me there if they keep telling me they're so much better! I fear as a country we're going to swap Mcsheffrey for Schofield!
Ideology always appears to come first aye pud, where your answer on the tax cuts you want?
What's the question? I do think the tax burden is too high now, I think they just need to bring back the personal allowance increase in line with inflation at this point. I see them proposing a 1% ni cut and it fundamentally offers very little, bad choice.
Bst, I don't think we need to debate those economic things as we will never fundamentally agree and it's simply not black and white like some textbooks would have the world believe.
Then why start debating economic issues?
You're fundamentally wrong by the way. 2010 really WAS that black and white. People who understood the economics of a zero lower bound recession said loud and clear that Austerity would be a calamity and seriously harm us for many years.
People who didn't understand he economics insisted it was all about the debt and we had to get that down.
People who understood said that by attempting to get debt down in a zero lower bound slump was self defeating. You'd hammer growth AND the debt would grow.
What happened of course was that we hammered growth AND the debt grew.
Ignoring that, the single most awful and damaging economic mistake since the Great Depression, which has massively and permanently hit our wealth, and saying "you can't predict these things" when one side DID predict it is a quite astonishing position for an intelligent person to take. Like you're not interested in the facts.
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
There is no welfare left to cut - its all been done to the bare bones. All he has left that hasn't yet been cut is pensions - good luck on that one.
He daren’t cut pensions wilts.
Aren’t the pensioners the biggest proportion of their votes.
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
Actually that's incorrect, you could easily cut taxes (particularly in business) to force it towards investment in the economy. That's something a number of countries successfully have used to attract investment.
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
Actually that's incorrect, you could easily cut taxes (particularly in business) to force it towards investment in the economy. That's something a number of countries successfully have used to attract investment.
If you are going to "force" private business to do anything, that requires an interventionist approach by Govt. If Govt doesn't insist that they invest tax savings, what's to stop them simply doling the savings out as dividends to shareholders?
Trouble is, that intervention goes dead against the Tory philosophy of the last 45 years. So this Govt ain't going to do that.
But certainly, if Labour is going to be successful in Govt, it has to solve the productivity crisis. And that means getting both Govt and private investment in capital infrastructure and equipment WAY up on what they are now.
What it really doesn't need is to prioritise personal tax cuts to try to win votes in the Election, which is what Hunt is winding up to do next week.
-
labour win and investment will go abroad, and anyway new investment now would mean investment in automation and probably the loss of jobs especially in white collar workers.
I listened to an expert in AI on the radio and he said the junior doctors on strike now will most probably be not needed by their retirement age and those highly skilled type of jobs will be replaced by AI.
-
''The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has admitted it would take time for a Labour government to turn Britain around, as she accused the Conservatives of vandalising the economy over the past 14 years.
Speaking before next week’s budget, Reeves said the party that wins the next election would have the worst inheritance of any incoming government since the war and that a national mission was needed to kickstart the economy'' ......
......''Referring to a soundbite used by George Osborne before the Conservatives came to power in 2010, Reeves said: “George Osborne promised to fix the nation’s roof. But the Conservatives have broken the windows, kicked the door in and now they’re burning the house down.”'' ......
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/28/labour-dire-economic-inheritance-rachel-reeves-budget
In plain english.
-
''The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has admitted it would take time for a Labour government to turn Britain around, as she accused the Conservatives of vandalising the economy over the past 14 years.
Speaking before next week’s budget, Reeves said the party that wins the next election would have the worst inheritance of any incoming government since the war and that a national mission was needed to kickstart the economy'' ......
......''Referring to a soundbite used by George Osborne before the Conservatives came to power in 2010, Reeves said: “George Osborne promised to fix the nation’s roof. But the Conservatives have broken the windows, kicked the door in and now they’re burning the house down.”'' ......
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/28/labour-dire-economic-inheritance-rachel-reeves-budget
In plain english.
Of course she has. :lol:
-
labour win and investment will go abroad, and anyway new investment now would mean investment in automation and probably the loss of jobs especially in white collar workers.
I listened to an expert in AI on the radio and he said the junior doctors on strike now will most probably be not needed by their retirement age and those highly skilled type of jobs will be replaced by AI.
Sunak is not stupid aye, his money is already abroad
''the economy was smaller than when Rishi Sunak became prime minister in October 2022''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/28/labour-dire-economic-inheritance-rachel-reeves-budget
-
Some indication of the historic scale of the task facing the next Govt. The Tories have presided over an unprecedented collapse in GDP growth
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhAF200oHUl7B22s9psDKhIwbRFTG9UEsB--tdp9iA9b0p0znjaNhuB6Ky2jjLKzDWdkart5fZDiILLPDc15te4EhDbTtGrLXw_AKFObl2hHUt0M18Ehci_uMHRL0H6Tt6hohX3XN0zNulOcSRgyHiblbc9IntuXYL5GVHFk8z-hzY-vhBqIWFEZ2jvOA=w640-h360
That's due to an unprecedented collapse in productivity growth on their watch.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lWytr.png)
That itself has been caused to a great extent by an unprecedented collapse in investment.
(https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/wysiwyg_full_width_desktop/public/2022-10/UK-Business-Investment.jpg)
It is a colossal task to start putting this right.
-
Yes,but I blame Starmer,Corbyn,Abbot and Michael Foot for f@£King the country up th a@£e.
-
labour win and investment will go abroad, and anyway new investment now would mean investment in automation and probably the loss of jobs especially in white collar workers.
I listened to an expert in AI on the radio and he said the junior doctors on strike now will most probably be not needed by their retirement age and those highly skilled type of jobs will be replaced by AI.
Hmmm, I wonder where sunak will go to live when he retires later this year? his investments are overseas (not willing to back his own horse in) he has a green card ........
And like you say in around three decades or more surgery will be robotically assited, as it is now.
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
Actually that's incorrect, you could easily cut taxes (particularly in business) to force it towards investment in the economy. That's something a number of countries successfully have used to attract investment.
Pud, when we 'discussed' this at an earlier juncture we were talking about personal tax cuts, what is hunt forecasting/promoting, personal or business tax cuts?
-
''Hunt considers poaching Labour’s plan to scrap non-domiciled tax rules
Chancellor mulling scaling back tax break as last-minute option to generate revenue, after previously criticising policy''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/28/hunt-considers-poaching-labours-plan-to-scrap-non-domiciled-tax-rules
He could be kite flying too
-
Yes,but I blame Starmer,Corbyn,Abbot and Michael Foot for f@£King the country up th a@£e.
Not Cameron, Johnson, Truss, Patel, Braverman, Hunt, Rees-Smug then?
-
Yes,but I blame Starmer,Corbyn,Abbot and Michael Foot for f@£King the country up th a@£e.
Not Cameron, Johnson, Truss, Patel, Braverman, Hunt, Rees-Smug then?
I blame the Chinese,Putin and Gordon Brown!
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
Actually that's incorrect, you could easily cut taxes (particularly in business) to force it towards investment in the economy. That's something a number of countries successfully have used to attract investment.
That's what Liz Truss said. And the world economic community said that would be disasterous for the UK.
The greatest jump in economic activity & growth in the G7 since covid has come in the US. Where the government has invested in the economy.
-
Thing about the internet is, some of the finest minds in the world explain stuff for us.
Why would anyone ignore that?
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2024/02/detoxifying-government-debt-part-3.html?m=1
-
Mick Lynch says thanks for growing up
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=276622.0
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
Actually that's incorrect, you could easily cut taxes (particularly in business) to force it towards investment in the economy. That's something a number of countries successfully have used to attract investment.
That's what Liz Truss said. And the world economic community said that would be disasterous for the UK.
The greatest jump in economic activity & growth in the G7 since covid has come in the US. Where the government has invested in the economy.
Would you say the US democrats economic policy was to the left of the UK conservatives?
-
As you well know it's timing pud, tax cuts when the country is screaming out for investment doesn't make any economic sense and no credible economist has come out in support as yet.
The only way hunt could try and popularise tax cuts would be to throw some red meat out and cut welfare, which would undermine any argument that the country needs to ramp up spending as those on welfare spend every penny as it is and wealthy people don't.
Actually that's incorrect, you could easily cut taxes (particularly in business) to force it towards investment in the economy. That's something a number of countries successfully have used to attract investment.
That's what Liz Truss said. And the world economic community said that would be disasterous for the UK.
The greatest jump in economic activity & growth in the G7 since covid has come in the US. Where the government has invested in the economy.
Would you say the US democrats economic policy was to the left of the UK conservatives?
Yep, WAY to the Left of what the standard macro-economic policy has been in this country for the past 14 years.
Biden implemented aggressive Keynesian fiscal expansionary stimulus policies from 2021. That was the standard method of getting depressed economies out of a hole since the War, until the Tories (and, to be fair, Germany to a great extent) decided they knew better back in 2010.
I mused on this three years ago to the week.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=279869.msg1033798#msg1033798
The outcome?
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/51D1/production/_128654902_optimised-gdp-uk-us-eurozone-nc-002.png)
By the way, before anyone says it's all because we were hit harder by COVID and Ukraine, we had another example 14 years back. After 2010, Obama engaged in fiscal stimulus, whereas trhe Tories cut off the stimulus that Brown had set up.
The outcome?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/UK_vs_US_post-crisis_GDP.png)
But you STILL get folk on the Right insisting that fiscal stimulus doesn't work. Because...reasons.
-
BST, just a point pn your graphs, why do lefties always feel they need to show the Eurozone as if it was an individual economy in its own right?
Why not just show a selection of the EU, like a couple of succeeding states with a tranche of failing ones?
To always show it as a single entity makes one think you have an ulterior motive !!
-
DD.
1) It's not my graph.
2) Ulterior motive? Have some self respect.
-
DD.
1) It's not my graph.
2) Ulterior motive? Have some self respect.
We know its not your personal graph,wake up fella!
You've posted the graph to give credence to your post and thus show the country in the worst possible light, as if we needed telling, but you would anyway. Was this not your motive?
Please keep reminding us in the future with your interactive displays just in case Starmer makes the grade so we can keep track on his progress, there's a good fella.
-
DD.
I should be honoured that you spend so much of your time obsessing over me, but it's really a bore
Engage with the subject of my post or do yourself a favour and belt up.