Forum menu
The RMT are fighting sackings ('security') and pay cuts (not even 'prosperity') and are failing to get support from the PLP. It appears that word salads and porkies have become the prevailing culture in Westminster and voting for a clean slate is a bit like pissing in the dark.
but do detailed policies really cut through with voters?
Detailed, no but at least some idea is generally beneficial although often swamped out by whatever rubbish the media pumps out.
and are failing to get support from the PLP
Why would the Labour party support a union that's not affiliated to them? Especially this Labour party
When politicians are interviewed on the telly they generally need to provide a bit of detail to their policies. As they also need to when they are involved in face to face debates. It’s all part of being a politician. Well usually it is.
Bozza won a landslide doing none of these things.
We get the government we deserve.
but do detailed policies really cut through with voters?
In my experience of canvassing? Not really. Some folks are interested in things like GPs and trains, and the price of energy, or climate change but the vast majority of folks I spoke to on the doorstep when I canvassed for Labour are interested in why their streetlights aren't working, or the potholes, or what will you do about the gangs of yoof, or the vandalism in the town centre.
Mostly stuff that an MP can only partially influence ironically
rone
I really don't want to divert the thread to brexit again but I am genuinely intrigued how you managed to reconcile your views with voting remain.
Much of what you propose, eg large scale nationalisation of monopolies, suspension of VAT, price subsides, simply wouldn't be allowed by the EU. In fact the EU specifically exists to dictate the rules covering those issues.
You talk about "rewiring the economy", how would you have rewired an economy which was fully wired to the EU?
As I say I don't want to start another brexit debate but I have always found it weird how someone can rile against, as you put it "impossible macro-economic policy that the market can solve problems" and nevertheless support EU membership. The idea that the EU can be comprised of 28 free market light-touch economies, and just 1 socialist economy, or even 1 keynesian mixed economy, simply isn't feasible. And surely everyone should realise that?
Why would the Labour party support a union that’s not affiliated to them? Especially this Labour party
The Labour Party shouldn't support anyone who doesn't give them money?
Starmer's a Lawyer, what d'you think?
Bozza won a landslide doing none of these things.
That is simply not true. Johnson has needed to provide details of his policies when he has been interviewed or has had face to face debates.
You might feel that he has been evasive or provided unsatisfactory answers but it still remains a requirement for any leader of a political party.
Much of what you propose, eg large scale nationalisation of monopolies, suspension of VAT, price subsides, simply wouldn’t be allowed by the EU. In fact the EU specifically exists to dictate the rules covering those issues.
No it doesn't, neither did it rule out what Corbyn wanted to do ironically, given his anti-EU stance EU law explicitly protects the right of member states to nationalise industries. Art. 345 TFEU states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.” EU law only gets involved in industry (nationalised or otherwise) when they behave unreasonably given a dominant market position. Nationalised industries working to keep prices lower for consumers can hardly be accused of that.
That is simply not true. Johnson has needed to provide details of his policies when he has been interviewed or has had face to face debates.
You might feel that he has been evasive or provided unsatisfactory answers but it still remains a requirement for any leader of a political party.
Well, he specifically ducked the most interrogative interview he might have done in the run up to the general election (the Andrew Neill one) because they knew that a) he'd get torn to pieces and b) the electorate, generally, don't care. It was a hugely cynical, but admittedly effective, move.
And surely anyone would think that describing him as 'evasive' is a massive understatement.
I absolutely agree that it should be a requirement, but the last election proved that it's not. And that's our (the electorate's) fault.
I am not going to get into an argument on this thread about the EU nick, I was asking a direct question to rone as I am intrigued by the apparent contradiction.
But I chose my words carefully, I specifically referred to nationalisation of "monopolies", removing VAT would not be allowed under EU rules, in fact even lowering it below certain thresholds isn't allowed. Nor are price subsides.
Granted the EU does whenever it suits it ignore its own rules, it constantly does, but that is obviously not any guarantee, especially when it requires the approval of 28 other countries, or the basis for any sort of economic planning.
Good gob, I had the naive impression that the LP saw itself as standing up for working people. Correction: it stands up for its sponsors.
I absolutely agree that it should be a requirement, but the last election proved that it’s not.
That's a strange way of looking at it. It's like claiming that leaders of political parties aren't generally expected to tell the truth because the last guy to win a general election was a liar.
Leaders of political parties generally need to provide details of their policies. The also generally need to tell the truth. Notwithstanding the failures of certain politicians. HTH
Oh sure, I understand the point your making, and I agree that every time the EU or the ECJ get involved it's ultimately all about politics, but that specifically (especially Corbyn's plan to nationalise the "big six") was at the time presented as a wish, but out of reach, because of the EU, and it while it may have ended up at a court case, loads of national policies do and often Govts win them. It was the pretense of being prevented by the EU to do things that they wanted is just so dishonest, wound me up at the time, still does now.
Johnson has needed to provide details of his policies when he has been interviewed or has had face to face debates.
Sure, but only in so much as they were made up at the time, bore no relation to reality, current Tory thinking, or in fact whether they were even deliverable. vis 40 new hospitals, 300,000 new houses a year, a power station based on renewable energy built every year. etc etc.
ernie - I think we're agreeing violently 🙂
wound me up at the time, still does now.
That, plus the fact that the issue was settled 6 years ago is why I have no interest in debating the pros and cons of EU membership.
I would nevertheless still be interested if rone could give an explanation for the apparent contradiction of what he believes the economic solutions should be and support for the EU. It genuinely intrigues me.
I read articles like this and it makes me sad for the state of our opposition. Maybe he should stand as an independent but it looks like he can only achieve what he wants with a reformed Labour party. Maybe hed' be too radical for the populous, but I expect he has the personality to make people look at things differently.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/06/the-country-is-in-a-dangerous-place-people-are-frightened-andy-burnham-on-power-progress-and-finding-his-place
Back to current political events, surely now is the time for Starmer to call a vote of no confidence in the govt? When tory MPs and ministers are declaring they have no confidence in Johnson, they would be forced to vote for the opposite. It's a no-brainer.
Eh no, it will force them to rally behind their leader. Obviously they might be condemning themselves in the eyes of the electorate by doing so, but I can't see any way that they would vote with the opposition against their own government.
Eh no, it will force them to rally behind their leader.
Which would be an extremely good strategic move, exposing the fact that they are no better than the man they are all saying has no integrity. I agree they won't vote with labour, but that's entirely the point.
Aside from the politics of it, there is clearly no confidence in the govt, in parliament or the country, so it's the duty of the opposition to do what is required to rectify that.
I really don’t want to divert the thread to brexit again but I am genuinely intrigued how you managed to reconcile your views with voting remain
Sorry can't talk much today but I know it's a problem. And simply I recognise it's a conflict. Quite simply under Labour they would have made better job of leaving the EU. What else can I do?
What we currently have is the worst of all worlds.
As I say I don’t want to start another brexit debate but I have always found it weird how someone can rile against, as you put it “impossible macro-economic policy that the market can solve problems” and nevertheless support EU membership
Because I was conflicted. I voted remain because remain Tory was going to be better than leave Tory.
And your got me wrong I'm not hugely pro EU. And you could control vat by up to 5% in the EU off the top of my head.
Besides we are out so what's the debate?
Besides we are out so what’s the debate?
Well yes, I totally agree. I just wanted to understand how people deal with the apparent contradiction of their beliefs.
I voted remain because remain Tory was going to be better than leave Tory.
Yeah I can understand the wrestling with your conscious thing. It reminds me of a referendum debate which I attended during the referendum campaign period, in which a speaker from the floor stated that he had decided to vote leave until he saw a bunch leavers speak and realised just how racist they were, from that point on he was committed to voting remain.
For me that makes no sense as presumably he previously had valid reasons for thinking that he should vote leave. For me it's as illogical as saying that you had weighed up the pro and cons of becoming a vegetarian but then someone claimed that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian so you decided not to.
But I chose my words carefully, I specifically referred to nationalisation of “monopolies”, removing VAT would not be allowed under EU rules, in fact even lowering it below certain thresholds isn’t allowed. Nor are price subsides.
Not an expert but don't they allow state aid / nationalisation under certain circumstances?
I mean doesn't the French government own majority shares in EDF and that has been price capped?
There must be ways and means.
However - economies will absolutely need rebuilding from scratch. Irrespective of EU or not.
Also Ernie the UK didn't need to go to the ECB to spend - when in the EU. There are many differences.
Nationalisation per se isn't the issue, it's the fact that state aid is, apart from specific individual exceptions, not allowed. Also EU directives specifically target monopolies, so whilst it wouldn't, for example, force the Royal Mail to be privatised it would force its monopoly to be opened up to competition, the result is the same. Also member states have little control over vat rates with the EU setting the limits. If the UK were to rejoin the EU now it would be forced to apply vat to food. EU membership seriously constrains what governments are allowed to do with their economies, especially with regards to the sort of proposals that you are suggesting rone.
These are concepts that don't need reconciliation with EU membership. We're not members any more. You can regret that, look at the current situation, and try to find ways to fix things at the same time. Deal with the world the way it is.
EU membership seriously constrains what governments are allowed to do with their economies, especially with regards to the sort of proposals that you are suggesting rone
Yeah, well the market isn't delivering for the people currently. There's no way out other than Government investment.
Something dries up, it needs the source topping up.
Profit gouging an issue too. That doesn't work in our interest.
We're bumping around at the bottom of the curve.
Also EU directives specifically target monopolies, so whilst it wouldn’t, for example, force the Royal Mail to be privatised it would force its monopoly to be opened up to competition
The EU will get involved only if a monopoly abuses it position. The rules specifically allow any form of public ownership and devolve that to the national level anyway. So it's entirely up to govt how they organise it. So in your example, if the govt could demonstrate that public ownership of RM was a "good" the ECJ wouldn't be interested.
This is where Corbyn told some whoppers. There are 100 or so suppliers that you can buy energy from, so his plan to nationalise the "big six" would've been entirely within the scope of EU legislation. That he used the myth of "no state aid" to subtly undermine the remain campaign was pretty poor politicking.
Yeah, well the market isn’t delivering for the people currently. There’s no way out other than Government investment.
Well the UK now has the possibility of showing that TINA is wrong - what do you think the possibility of that happening is??
Not likely I would have thought, given the penchant of the Labour Party to mimic the Tories.
However going down the alternative road always required two stages, firstly to re-establish sovereignty over the economy, and secondly to elect a left-wing progressive government.
I know that many will disagree but I firmly believe that the first part was by far the hardest to achieve. 10 years ago it was inconceivable that the UK would leave the EU, which is obviously why it was agreed to hold a referendum.
But 5 years ago the UK got very close to electing a left-wing government, in fact it sent the Establishment into a state of panic and they had to pull all the stops out to scupper the threat.
Realistically imo it should be accepted that the Labour Party will never again be the party of change. If a real fundamental change is to ever occur in UK politics a new people's party will need to be established.
I know that the current situation makes that impossible to imagine but things can change remarkably quick in politics. It very much depends on how discredited in the eyes of the public the established parties become and the vacuum it leaves. Plus of course whether the far-right or left fill it.
And currently all 3 major parties are doing an excellent job - the Tories are finding new ways to piss off the public, Labour are focusing very hard on criticising the behaviour of Tories whilst not offering anything other than another set of personalities. And the LibDems are led by someone whose name most people can't remember and whose only selling point appears to be taking the UK back to the EU.
but things can change remarkably quick in politics.
you're not thinking of doing a Macron are you?
France just anationalised EDF (their gov already owned 85%)
what are the odds on Johnson being booted out then Durham police dropping a bomshell the day after?
Sorry wrong thread
sent the Establishment into a state of panic and they had to pull all the stops out to scupper the threat
Was that threat a Corbyn led Labour government in 2019? The thing that many of us voted for, but you did not?
a new people’s party will need to be established
Crack on with that then.
And I’m glad you think that Brexit was an achievement. It’s nothing but an expensive pain in the arse whenever and wherever it touches my life, and the lives of my kids. What exactly have you got out of it?
All the promises about the benefits Brexit would bring have proved to have been lies, and the fact that Starmer is going to do nothing about the situation is a major disappointment for many who held out hope that he’d at least be willing to engage with Europe at least on trade and passage of people who want to work abroad and foreign workers who want to come here with a straight forward system. I honestly thought he’d be the solution to so many issues, seems I was wrong. Seems I won’t be voting for Labour next time after all. 😕
Starmer has already proposed a closer agreement on food, agriculture and working abroad. He’s ruled out the UK being back in the Single Market and the return of free movement. I want to see a return to both. It’s not something any UK government can make float though, not in the next parliamentary term, the current government deliberately holed that ship, and the rest of Europe have shrugged and moved on (taking the benefits of rerouted supply chains with them). It’ll take decades of rebuilding the relationship.
I know that the current situation makes that impossible to imagine but things can change remarkably quick in politics. It very much depends on how discredited in the eyes of the public the established parties become and the vacuum it leaves. Plus of course whether the far-right or left fill it.
For sure.
I think one of the hardest things to analyse in politics is what's coming next and where we are on that trajectory.
I'm utterly convinced a sea change will occur. I know the establishment doing the same process is favoured hence the shift rightwards of the parties - but covid demanded a social response or there would have been no consumers.
On the one hand we haven't learnt much expecting things to return to normal on the other normal simply hasn't finished being defined yet.
The sea change has already occurred... we're dealing with the fallout now. It just wasn't a step towards a more equal and open country for ordinary people... quite the opposite. That needs turning around. It'll take decades though... people need to realise that there is no quick fix, and stop with the fantasy politics. There are several parliamentary terms ahead of just stopping the slide, rebuilding international relationships, and fixing the services and protections that we expect and take for granted from the UK state but are very much at risk of being taken from us.
^^^
yeah but that's boring
The sea change has already occurred…
Nothing has changed. We still live under a system of financialised capitalism where money flows upwards and the rich and powerful are unaccountable to the people. That's the change that needs to happen. The alternative is accelerating chaos, economic collapse and ultimately social breakdown. We either change the system back to something where power is accountable and wealth is more equally shared, or continue the descent on the downward spiral.
Nothing has changed.
You are very wrong. Most people can't see it because we're in it, but looking back on these decades from the future it'll be obvious what we did... what we did to ourselves. If you mean nothing has changed for the better, then I can agree with you. The UK has changed, in a way that can not be reversed. It'll take decades to improve our position, if we ever do, but there is no way back.
The UK has changed, in a way that can not be reversed.
Presume we're talking about brexit again? Whether in the EU or not, the economic and political system is still much the same as it was before. As Ernie says above though, now that we're out of the EU there is an opportunity to change that. What we need is a political party which is prepared to campaign on and implement that change.
Whether in the EU or not
The UK is not a self contained bubble. The changes of recent years haven't make it one. If you think that all that has happened since 2016 is that we left the EU, then I'm surprised. Brexit enabled far more than us rescinding our membership of the EU. If you're outside the UK that's already obvious. We're too close to the change that has occurred, and our own internal reporting and analysis of it.
exit enabled far more than us rescinding our membership of the EU. If you’re outside the UK that’s already obvious. We’re too close to it, and our own reporting of it.
our economy weakened by Brexit makes it harder to fix many of the problems & with the checks & balances of EU membership (& soon to be ECHR?) gone we are much more vulnerable to hard right policies
brexit could have been handled much better , but the benefits are the stuff of fantasy
The UK is not a self contained bubble. The changes of recent years haven’t make it one.
I never said it was. If we choose to change our economic system to a modern version of what came before 1979 then we would still trade and have relations with other countries. The difference is that now we can now make that change where arguably we couldn't before.
our economy weakened by Brexit makes it harder to fix many of the problems
Does it? Most of the economic problems - inflation, low pay, insecure work, low growth - can be solved by action the UK govt alone could make. If you're arguing that it can't then that raises some much bigger issues which go beyond brexit.
Most of the economic problems – inflation, low pay, insecure work, low growth – can be solved by action the UK govt alone could make. If you’re arguing that it can’t then that raises some much bigger issues which go beyond brexit.
I'm in this camp.
Too much is made of Brexit related issues whilst not recognising the wider global picture; and at the same time the UK macro-economic picture.
Brexit was always tangible for people to debate about - the drive of capitalism and the way the sovereign state operates within that much more tricky to break apart into what is working and what isn't. So we don't have the same lines drawn.
People accept market forces as a necessary driving model rather than being critical about the direction we were headed in - in or out of the EU.
Said before, but if previous governments had looked after the UK in a progressive and substantial way and specifically the red wall type areas - we might not be having the Brexit conversation.
You know when Labour paved the way for austerity - there's no money left, that was the tipping point.
Economics 101 starts with your own government's spending and investment.
Most of the economic problems – inflation, low pay, insecure work, low growth – can be solved by action the UK govt alone could make.
which countries do you have in mind where this has been done? Some examples of where this has been done successfully would be interesting to see. (Really.)
the drive of capitalism and the way the sovereign state operates
Psst... that's what Brexit was for... it might not be why people voted for it, quite the opposite... but all the interests pushing for Brexit wanted a weaker UK state at the mercy of international capitalism... at the expense of workers rights and quality of life, and the operations of SMEs... which is what they got. Starmer can change how the UK government responds to that. Sooner rather than later I hope. Would still like him to be replaced... but Starmer within 12 months will do rather than waiting for 2024/25 and the distant hope that Labour switch out their Labour before we get there (I don't imagine for a moment they will... so lack lustre but a step in the right direction is what we're stuck with).
Psst… that’s what Brexit was for… it might not be why people voted for it, quite the opposite… but all the interests pushing for Brexit wanted a weaker UK at the mercy of international capitalism… at the expense of workers rights and the operations of SMEs… which is what they got.
Well given we have enjoyed a state controlled central bank since 1946 and the £££, it's not even debatable!
which countries do you have in mind where this has been done? Some examples of where this has been done successfully would be interesting to see. (Really.)
Japan would be a great example. They don't rely on imports as much as we do.
(Very few countries can control inflation currently due to similar approaches to a complex situation - but that's because the type of inflation is multifaceted. But it will probably start to settle down soon. )
Most of the economic problems – inflation, low pay, insecure work, low growth – can be solved by action the UK govt alone could make.
Inflation is supply driven at the moment so not a specific UK problem but not one the UK government can sort.
Low pay - well yes and no. You can’t just raise a the minimum wage and hope. If the job being done isn’t worth what people are willing to do it for it won’t get done - whatever the minimum wage, see fruit picking etc. You have to create jobs that pay well and a workforce capable of doing them - sadly the Brexit immigration policy probably works against that, creating inflation and unfilled jobs.
Insecure work - the Brexies want to make work less secure not more secure. Possible, but not going to happen.
Low growth - now this really is at the heart of Brexit. Less international trade means less growth )ie fewer jobs for folk making things or selling services) and Brexit has really hit our trading relationships, particularly for smaller companies. You can not unilaterally set up new deals, you new other countries to play, and it takes a very long time. We have got a few minor deals, and rolled most of the EU deals over - but we really lost here.
Nevermind, in a hundred years or so it won’t matter anymore.
Japan would be a great example.
eh? wrt
inflation, low pay, insecure work,
really?
Japan would be a great example.
Google “japan stagflation” or “Japan’s lost decade” of which there were at least two I think.
Inflation is supply driven at the moment so not a specific UK problem but not one the UK government can sort.
But they can sit on the BoE and tell them to stop making money more expensive - by sacking the lot of them for gross incompetence.
You know that might help reduce the chance of a down-turn.
It's a fact they can't control so easily this type of inflation but reliance on just in time supplies from overseas was a breeding ground. That's a definite direction that the government created by 'encouraging' a cheap import base.
Google “japan stagflation” or “Japan’s lost decade” of which there were at least two I think.
So modern capitalist economies have ups and downs?
Japan's most recent CPI is 2.2% (I know they've had years of trying to hit 2% and being negative) And I also know this creates other problems.
Inflation is supply driven at the moment so not a specific UK problem but not one the UK government can sort.
But the govt can mitigate the impact of inflation even if they can't solve it themselves. They can also implement targeted actions such as price controls to prevent rampant profiteering, and if necessary bring strategic industries/companies into full or part public ownership to protect the strategic interests of the UK and its citizens. This is all easily do-able, but it requires us to break free from the neo-liberal straitjacket.
But the govt can mitigate the impact of inflation even if they can’t solve it themselves.
That genuinely made me smile because it is so true and yet you never hear anyone actually say it.
The "solution" is always to make ordinary people suffer for the economic mess which they didn't create and with complete disregard for the misery and suffering these "difficult decisions" cause.
If we'd got the government so many of us voted for at the last general election, then I'm sure the effect of inflation on ordinary people would have been a higher priority for government. It's just a shame that so many other people didn't vote for that possible government.
targeted actions such as price controls
Like the energy one. Which drove companies out of business, which (because we couldn’t just turn people off when their supplier went bust) led to costs that needed to be recovered to enable continuity, which ultimately raised prices to customers?
That sort of price control?
It’s not always simple and unintended consequences are plentiful.
ordinary people suffer for the economic mess which they didn’t create
Of course 52% of ordinary citizens did help create at least part of this economic mess.
But they can sit on the BoE and tell them to stop making money more expensive – by sacking the lot of them for gross incompetence.
Isn’t that exactly the opposite of how one controls inflation?
If money’s cheap folk spend more, demand and prices rise - inflation.
The QA problem.
Like the energy one. Which drove companies out of business
Which is why we need some form of nationalisation of energy. If the private companies can't stay in business without government support, then it stands to reason that the goverment should step in as the supplier of last resort. I think we can all agree that spiralling energy prices are a very bad thing. Are we really going to shrug our shoulders and pretend nothing can be done because it would break with neo-liberal market dogma?
Isn’t that exactly the opposite of how one controls inflation?
If money’s cheap folk spend more, demand and prices rise – inflation.
The QA problem
.
No! Because this inflation is not being driven by the too much money part of the equation!
There isn't one type of inflation, and this inflation is mostly driven by supply-side. Not demand.
I do have some recent research on this, let me see if I can find it
Of course 52% of ordinary citizens did help create at least part of this economic mess.
Nope
The QA problem
I'm with Rone on this. What he said. And not what Rees-Mogg said today. Of course, Rees-Mogg is part of the "restrict the spending power of peasants" crowd, despite being responsible for some of the increased supply side costs implementing polices he personally claimed would have the opposite effect and lower prices.
I mean if it was too much money kicking around our growth wouldn't be slowing would it?
So many commentators on LBC talking cobblers about inflation and related metrics. One bloke was a self confessed deficit hawk and says we need to balance the books again as debt as a percentage of GDP was scary. Tool. Must have been reading the spectator. They're always going on about debt as percentage of GDP - particularly the lamentable Kate Andrews.
The OBR are whining on about debt/GDP in 50 years or some shit. You know who set up the OBR - George Osborne. When a countries GDP slows or moves into recession government 'debt' tends to rise because the economy is not generating and governments have to spend so the public sector can grow again and pass money into the private sector.
Nothing wrong with that. As long as you can eventually get your private sector moving and generate jobs and growth. Oh.
Saw this gem today from Austin.
https://twitter.com/LordIanAustin/status/1545154032980922368?t=9Uc5wz0UwAT0F9d46cQhqg&s=19
Austin was rewarded by Johnson.
There isn’t one type of inflation, and this inflation is mostly driven by supply-side. Not demand
Pandemic, sanctions and grain shortages.
Saw this gem today from Austin.
Ian Austin is truly remarkable. His ability to twist the truth and tell downright lies is quite exceptional, which presumably is why the Daily Mail pay him to write for them:
https://www.****/debate/article-10928651/IAN-AUSTIN-quitting-best-thing-Sir-Keir-help-Labour.html
In that ^^ article he makes the claim that Keir Starmer is a bit of a lefty who can't be trusted, is it any wonder that he had a problem with Corbyn?
But for me the scary thing is how he was allowed to remain in the Labour Party and have the Labour whip right up until the day that he himself decided to leave the party, for which the Tories rewarded him with a peerage.
It would appear that it is impossible to be too right-wing for today's Labour Party, it simply won't get you thrown out. But God help you if you have any left-wing views which the current leader doesn't approve of.
Same as Kate Hoey. Both with lovely new Jobs for life from Boris Johnson. Brexit dividends.
There is something particularly grating for me about Austin. I suppose it was what Ernie says - he was allowed to act like that.
Why on earth did he ever join the Labour party? His values are so confused - he doesn't have a sparkling record on expenses either. He also had that oddball 'mainstream' party.
And like John Mann - Austin's attitude towards removing anti-Semitism from the party was so hysterical and way ahead of anything else you might campaign for such as poverty or Islamaphobia for arguments sake.
Also like John Mann he got a peerage from the Tories.
(John Mann's missus Jo White is standing for candidate in Bassetlaw and she's making all the right noises for me as far as it goes. But I can't get past the relationship with Mann!)
https://twitter.com/CllrJoWhite/status/1545156154594103299?t=mR4FrsOfqtrLq6I_woyvMQ&s=19
I even quite like the slogan Traditional Values in a Modern Bassetlaw as long as traditional values doesn't mean chasing out foreigners with a pitchfork.
But I would take anything - anything over Brendan-Clarke-Cock-Smith at the moment. Anything, a lamp post?
BBC News - UK government debt on unsustainable path unless taxes hiked, says OBR
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62079052
The OBR need chucking in a bin. They're an utter menace. Government spending needs to increase, not taxation. The economy is not overheating so there is no logic to tax more.
Which bit about government debt is unsustainable?
(This is not the same as recognising there are huge problems with the economy looming.)
Interesting US inflation summary.
https://ritholtz.com/2022/06/revisiting-peak-inflation/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
three major drivers of inflation — Automobiles, Homes & Wages
I know nothing about the US economy but is it surprising that they might have had issues if they are still driving automobiles? They need to ditch the starting handles and start driving modern cars!
And the article claims that an increasing number of layoffs suggests a reduced ability to demand higher wages. So we are presumably back to cutting people's purchasing power to tackle both demand and business costs.
Unless of course "a reduced ability to demand higher wages" refers to a reduced ability to demand wages higher than the rate of inflation, the article doesn't specify, which isn't particularly helpful.
I know nothing about the US economy but is it surprising that they might have had issues if they are still driving automobiles? They need to ditch the starting handles and start driving modern cars!
Well yeah and they sold off all the rental stock too in the pandemic.
Unless of course “a reduced ability to demand higher wages” refers to a reduced ability to demand wages higher than the rate of inflation, the article doesn’t specify, which isn’t particularly helpful.
I think wages (especially very high wages) do play a part in inflation just not a huge factor for the current type of inflation.
I just think it's an observation that the down turn in the economy and poorly paid jobs will of course play it's part in taking demand away.
Starmer and Rayner not fined. Still, expect false equivalency with Johnson on a few front pages tomorrow.
Good.
Ha!
That's pretty impeccable timing!