Forum menu
But the year on year loss that brexit has caused is a huge additional drag
That's your logic again TJ... we have stifled trade and locked down our workforce yet some how just have to "make the most of it"... no, it doesn't make any sense... and no, we can't fix things within our current agreements with the EU. Starmer could tell the voters that now, but all it would do is keep Labour out of office for yet another term. That's the choice he faces. Winning the argument and being out of office after the next election will help no one but the Tories. It might look daft from up there, or down in London, but that's how things stand across lots of key seats here in the middle. Our relationships in Europe will have to be redressed, but nothing will happen this side of 2025.
In which case a Starmer government will fail - and that wisdom is wrong anyway not just IMO but wider analysis. without a closer relationship with the EU a Starmer government has not one but both hands tied behind his back. 4 billion a year loss from brexit at a minimum and that compounds year on year
Data on voting intentions and attitudes to immigration examined by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggests that a more flexible approach would attract many more swing voters than it would repel for Labour.
It is the concentration on swing voters as the only ones that matter that is a big part of why we are in this mess. Elections have been won in the centre because that is where they have been fought, taking for granted the traditional labour voters has driven them to be disenfranchised and susceptible to populism (as well as allowing the supposed centrists to be guided to the political right). Instead of fighting for a few hundred thousand swing voters, there are more gains to be made by fighting for the millions of disenfranchised.
It’s not about “the centre” it’s about demographic spread. You need to get the older voters in the towns and suburbs to vote across the country to get a spread of seats. Labour getting bigger and bigger support from younger voters in the big cities doesn’t take enough seats off the Tories. The fate of the UK is tied to these older non-urban voters, amongst whom are there are far too many overly motivated by immigration and Brexit. Depressing, but something Labour can’t ignore.
they want to stand on their own two feet via well-paying jobs and affordable housing/bills. The EU did very little to provide either of those.
It's not the "EU's" job to make a country better to live in, that's the country politicians job.
The EU's job is to create a level playing field across its member countries, and then it's up to the countries to 'exploit' this by creating policies that help their businesses & citizens - note that the countries that do best in the EU are also the ones that do best globally.
The EU definitely succeeded here, you've only to look at the improvements in the UK since we joined, and before we left...
Starmer could tell the voters that now, but all it would do is keep Labour out of office for yet another term
I disagree. I think he would gain far more votes and seats than he would lose if he was honest and presented a positive case for the EU. at the moment he is losing so many votes either to abstension or pro EU parties.
He is concentrating too much on appeasing racists in a few seats and thus losing far more in other seats.
He is concentrating too much on appeasing racists in a few seats and thus losing far more in other seats.
Yes. He is. Welcome to FPTP. He needs to win seats off the Conservatives, not weigh the vote in seats Labour already have. That means pandering to a certain group of voters who are not at the centre of UK politics at all, when it comes to migration they are far more reactionary than the majority of people here, and Brexit has reaffirmed and consolidated that for them. Trying to change their view of immigration and Europe now is a losing battle. What a mess.
'It’s not the “EU’s” job to make a country better to live in, that’s the country politicians job.'
Bingo. The reason parts of the UK are so disadvantaged and the whole country has skidding productivity, growth is that there's been no UK government policy to change that. Industries have died and it's been largely been left to the market to fix that, with little investment or promotion even though that's going to be required to make it happen in a meaningful way (because everyone else does it).
That's been a deliberate UK government policy, based on free market dogma.
But suggesting the UK rejoin the EU as a key policy is toxic, no matter how good an idea. Better relations is a palatable start
And by doing so he is giving up on seats in the south and in Scotland
Public opinion has shifted and is still moving. he is fighting yesterdays battles.
The line he is taking and you approve of will cost him more seats than it gains IMO
But suggesting the UK rejoin the EU as a key policy is toxic,
Thats the opposite of what the polls show. His "make brexit work" is impossible and a vote loser
The polls say people think leaving was a mistake. Are they also saying people want to rejoin, with the inevitable multi year circus that entails?
He is concentrating too much on appeasing racists
So why isn't he appeasing racists like many other European politicians and political leaders, some of them in office, currently do?
Or is he only interested in this weird anti-european racism which middle-class liberals are obsessed with screaming about?
How about some proper racism which many French, Italian, and Scandinavian, politicians understand?
Here's an example of proper racism from a "centre-left" European government:
I disagree. I think he would gain far more votes and seats than he would lose if he was honest and presented a positive case for the EU
In the "Red Wall" seats, the voters there want their voices (That they think the EU = uncontrolled immigration*) heard, telling them all about the joys of the EU would be as welcome as a bucket of sick. The speech yesterday was aimed at a specific group of people that Labour need to vote Labour again. The election is 2 years away, Starmer needs to get a group pf people of unknown size and voting intent back to thinking that their best interests lay with voting Labour again.
*this is entirely imaginary, but it is well ingrained in the communities, you can't win by telling these folks that their beliefs are stupid and unfounded.
How would you feel if a politician that wants your vote tells you the things you don't believe; are in fact true?
middle-class liberals are obsessed with screaming about?
Boo! Middle-class liberals! Collaborating with other countries! Welcoming immigrants! Boo! Hiss!
Plenty of racism, populism and use of immigration fears in politics the world over Ernie. Countries in the EU included. Everyone knows that. Being aware and wary of it isn't just a UK concern. But while talking about UK politics, it can't be ignored that the anti-immigrant vote is now firm in the UK, and can't be ignored by the big parties, sadly. UKIP won without winning a seat in the UK parliament. At least for now. Trying to upturn that before the next election is the most likely route to another 5 years of Tory government. After 2025 things might shift though. This working-class liberal hasn't given up hope longer term.
How would you feel if a politician that wants your vote tells you the things you don’t believe; are in fact true?
Well it depends if they are true or not.
What he should be doing is pointing out that brexit wasnt the answer to their issues and explaining why and then saying what he will do to fix it.
Point out what the actual levels were and the impact. Yes those communities were screwed over but brexit wasnt the answer.
By burying the head in the sand isnt pragmatism its surrender. If an alternative isnt provided then the lies become the norm and then the pushers get to push the balance even further.
I don’t think Brexit (tory or otherwise) has made that much difference to them.I don’t think Brexit (tory or otherwise) has made that much difference to them.
They're waiting longer for hospital treatment. 130 000 unfilled vacancies of which some undeniably created by EU workers leaving the UK.
They're paying more for food, disproportionately more than EU residents because the pound has fallen making imports more expensive and there are shortages due to driver shortages since the EU drivers went home. Some home grown foods rot in fields because there are no EU workers to pick them. 80% of Britains excess in inflation compared to the EU has been attributed to Brexit.
People have lost there jobs in various industries which have lost EU work. Higher unemployment inevitably leads to lower wages, it's supply and demand. There aren't enough nurses but people in the city and some industries have lost there jobs. Traders unforunately don't seem willing to retrain as doctors or nurses. Trade in goods is down in real terms and well below what it would have been if Britain had remained in the EU. That's lost jobs. Various studies show Britain has become less competetive, againthat means lost jobs.
Going to the seaside you're more likely to find the bathing beach closed due to pollution.
You're in denial about Brexit, Dazh. IIRC correctly you were one of the first to say you'd vote against but then joined the Brexit-apologist-will-of-the-people gang and have now entered a phase of denial. I don't know where you go from here, you've cornered yourself as your denialist position is less and less tenable as events unfold and Brits become poorer - as predicted.
But rejoining the EU is half a generation away, not in the next election. Labour need to win the next election and it will be fought on the cost of living not Brexit.
All true Ed. It's not Dazh that's in denial though, it's the people he's talking about. It'll take a decade of this shit (sometimes literally shit) before the emotional heat is taken out of the Brexit debate, and the UK (what's left of it) can start properly engaging with what it has done and how to put it right. Alignment and closer cooperation as a non EU member is where we'll end up, but Labour fighting an election on that in the near future would be political suicide in England. They're proposing baby steps though... trying to sort out the mess on vets, animal and food standards and checks first... which happens to be essential for NI even more than GB. Conservatives will just push divergence out of dogma for another 5 years if they win, making everything harder to resolve longer term.
Well it depends if they are true or not.
Mleh, internet answer. You know full well what the reaction to politicians telling people things that they think are true that you don't. I would bet money that you'd reject out of hand anything a Tory told you that turned out to be true, in fact you'd be going out of your way to try to find the evidence that it wasn't true just because it's a Tory telling you.
And in the meantime labour continues to lose ground in Scotland, in the south of england, in london and in all remain areas.
He is also making the breakup of the UK more likely
there is no solution to NI without a customs border somewhere or rejoining the single market. So by taking this line he is driving people in NI towards a united ireland
His pandering to racists and refusing to even talk about closer co operation with the EU gives the SNP great attack lines making independence more likely
Labour need to win the next election and it will be fought on the cost of living not Brexit.
There is no solution to the cost of living without closer co operation with the EU
His pandering to racists
How do they count the votes of racists differently to those who aren't racist?
The higher cost of living rise than the EU is Brexit. Or 80% of it is. And the best way to address that is a Swiss type deal which has been suggested by the EU so is most definitely possible. Starmer needs the courage to negotiate a Swiss type deal with the EU and then stand on that basis at the next election. Polls say it would be more likely to win than lose an election; Uk polls put rejoin ahead and EU polls say the majority would support or not object to Britian returing to the fold.
So why isn’t he appeasing racists like many other European politicians and political leaders, some of them in office, currently do?
He is hence his remarks on immigration and his acceptance of the racist mayoral campaign from Burnham
There is no solution to the cost of living without closer co operation with the EU
Agreed. Everyone will get to that point eventually. How much closer will be the debate in future.
And the best way to address that is a Swiss type deal which has been suggested by the EU so is most definitely possible.
Agreed. Something akin to that any way. But you're an election ahead of us there Ed. The EU have said talks on such a change won't happen 'till 24/25 at the earliest. The result of that can be put to the public in the election that follows that, if it goes well.
So Labour needs to be in power by 24/25 when talks will take place, and with a mandate to negotiate a Swiss type deal. That means campaigning on that basis now. Labour needs to convince people that the sooner they are in power the sooner the worst of the Brexit pain can be reduced. We know it's going to take years but the time for Labour to take the decision is now.
Starmer having the same attitude to Brexit as the Tories makes no political sense at all. Starmer doesn't understand the word "opposition".
There is no solution to the cost of living without closer co operation with the EU
Not true, there are many solutions that have no requirement to be closer to the EU. It just needs a government who actually wants to do anything.
A lot of things would be easier if closer to EU but you are being way too black and white on this whole 'can't do anything without EU' line
So how are you going to solve the compounding billions lost to the economy? How are you going to solve the increased inflation / falling £?
The International Economic Review estimates that Brexit has increased consumer prices by 2.9%, and in turn cost the average household £870 per year.
You can't do anything about that without the EU. What do you suggest the government do if it actually wants to do anything, Kerley? Post your ideas here and send them to Starmer because he doesn't have any that stand up to scrutiny. Everything he's suggested that I've seen is either inflationary (hence counterproductive) or relies on redistributing a declining pool of wealth.
So how are you going to solve the compounding billions lost to the economy?
Will post this again as I believe it answers your question. We're moving back into a postwar economic landscape where govts raid savers in order to inflate away the national debt. The result will be massive capital investment which if labour are smart will create millions of high paying jobs and drive economic growth.
https://themarket.ch/interview/russell-napier-the-world-will-experience-a-capex-boom-ld.7606
And you really think that a Britain cut off from Europe is where that capital will be invested? If I were a corporate boss I'd be looking for places with excellent border-free communication within in a big trading block with a pool of skilled workers. Britain was where car plants got built in the 70s and 80s. Poland, Berlin, Valencienne are the places chosen for investment recently.
Russell Napier's crystal ball may not be 100% reliable.
And you really think that a Britain cut off from Europe is where that capital will be invested?
The whole point of financial repression is that the govt has the power to direct the money to where it's needed. In many cases the money is coming directly from the govt. Why would the UK govt not direct that investment towards the UK economy?
He is hence his remarks on immigration and his acceptance of the racist mayoral campaign from Burnham
LOL! I love the way you constantly see racism wherever and whenever it suits your personal narrative TJ!
I remember a time when you were consistently claiming on here that there was absolutely no chance of Rishi Sunak becoming leader of the Conservative Party as the Tory Party was a racist party and under no circumstances would they have a nonwhite leader.
You need to ease off this obsession with accusation of racism to explain anything which you don't fully understand.
It might give a simple and easy if somewhat false explanation but more importantly it undermines the focus on real racism, such as the UK's racist immigration and nationality laws and appalling scandals such as the treatment of the Windrush Generation and Grenfell Tower victims.
I remember a time when you were consistently claiming on here that there was absolutely no chance of Rishi Sunak becoming leader of the Conservative Party as the Tory Party was a racist party and under no circumstances would they have a nonwhite leader.
He said the members wouldn't elect him leader. And they didn't. They picked Liz Truss over him. Liz Truss!
Britian isn't a soviet style command economy. Take out education and health and the Government contribution to investment is tiny compared with corporate investment. Keysian economics has its limits. Stimulus will only provide so much growth. In the US in the 30s all that Keynsian stimulus didn't have much impact, it was putting the economy on a war footing that changed things. Not a local theatre war, a full on world war. Theatre wars don't have much impact, think Vietnam, various Gulf wars... . The UK government can provide stimulus through infrastructure projects (but probably won't given Labour's manifesto). It would take something like renewing a significant part of the housing stock to make much difference and they won't.
The UK government can provide stimulus through infrastructure projects (but probably won’t given Labour’s manifesto).
There hasn't been a manifesto published yet. Labour has already committed to huge investment in renewable energy production and insulating homes.
In the absence of a new manifesto I don't think it's unreasonable to use the old one. 😉
You'll forgive me for being sceptical. It's not as if the Tories have been holding back on renewable projects, the offshore wind farms are proof of that. They are viable and private investors are willing partners. NIMBY is a major headwind that I don't see Labour managing better than the Tories. Insulating homes is a very good idea. Slum clearance would be even better. There's only so much that can be done economically with much of the 19th/20th century stock. Even current building regs are way short of imposing energy efficient homes.
He can't touch Brexit until labour are in power. Any sniff the euro, unelected bureaucrats, they come over here..., bendy bananas, and he'll lose the next election
Wot Kelvin said is my position. Unlike you to be inaccurate Ernie
He said the members wouldn’t elect him leader.
No he didn't. He said long before Boris Johnson even resigned that there was absolutely no chance of Rishi Sunak becoming Tory leader because he wasn't white and the Tories are a racist party.
There has been discussions concerning Sunak becoming the next leader of the Tory Party for well over a year. The issue of how that would come about was never discussed, only whether it was likely to happen. TJ dismissed out of hand the possibility of Sunak becoming Tory leader due to the claim that it is a racist party
But thank you for acting on behalf of your client Kelvin and attempting to suggest that TJ doesn't believe that Tory MPs are racists.
thank you for acting on behalf of your client Kelvin
What are you on about?
attempting to suggest that TJ doesn’t believe that Tory MPs are racists
I did what now?
Wot Kelvin
Yes of course TJ, you don't believe that Tory MPs pander to racists, only senior Labour politicians such as Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham do that! LOL 🤣
Edit: Tory Party members must be outraged that Tory MPs choose a nonwhite leader!!
you don’t believe that Tory MPs pander to racists
Lovely straw man there. Best ignored.
What's happened to you, Ernie? From Ché worshiping revolutionary you've gone to bigging up Boris Johnson and Rishi over a number of threads. What with that and your attitude to Brexit I'm beginning to suspect you're an ERG plant. 😉
Oh I'm "bigging up" Sunak now, am I?
What's that based on - the fact that I pointed out that he is leader of the Tory Party and is nonwhite?
Or couldn't you think of anything else to say?
Ernie Oh dear oh dear
i made it quite clear that the only way Sunak would become leader is if he was the only candidate as he was because in a contrested election the membership would vote white. this is exactly what has happened
i have also called out the tory party for their racism on many occasions and its obvious that they do pander to their racist membership and that the parliamentary party is full of racists
really Ernie - unlike you to be so inaccurate.
I made it quite clear that the only way Sunak would become leader is if he was the only candidate
No you didn't. As Mick Lynch would say, you're lying. You said that he would never become leader of the Tory Party full stop. According to you because he isn't white.
Anyway another political thread derailed over brexit and spurious accusations of racism.
Or couldn’t you think of anything else to say?
Plenty of other things I could have said but they would have been serious persoanl criticism and constituted a personal attack which isn't the way we do things on this forum is it? So I made a fairly light hearted quip based on weeks of non-participation but observation of political threads. My quip sums up the impression you have created: Johnson fan, Tory apologist, Labour hater and Rishi enthusiast.
Ernie - please withdraw the accusation of lying
Go back and read the thread if you want to attack me. I have no issue over things I have said . I have huge issue with you making up a total misrepresentation of my position
sorry dude - your memory is letting you down
you’re lying
Ernie, you need to put up a quote with a link to the thread page quickly or I'm reporting that.
I think ernie's just making the point that we shouldnt demonise and vilify politicians we disagree with with false accusations and toxic characterisation
Unless they're Kier Starmer.
Edukator - please don't bother. Its not the right thing to do
OK, TJ.
Britian isn’t a soviet style command economy. Take out education and health and the Government contribution to investment is tiny compared with corporate investment.
Did you read that article I posted? It doesnt need to be a command economy. The govt can control where private investment goes through the use of credit guarantees. The banks are essentially incentivised to loan money to businesses in specific areas of the economy because they know the govt will underwrite any defaults.
"It’s easy for them in the way that credit guarantees are only a contingent liability on the balance sheet of the state. By telling banks how and where to grant guaranteed loans, governments can direct investment where they want it to, be it energy, projects aimed at reducing inequality, or general investments to combat climate change. By guiding the growth of credit and therefore the growth of money, they can control the nominal growth of the economy."
Did you read that article I posted?
Yes, which doesn't mean I agree with his predictions, or even that governments can make that much difference with direct intervention. Governments can do most to stimulate growth by creating the conditions in which businesses can make profits and grow without needing to provide credit guaranteed loans. Banks will lend to viable business models with government guarantees. Brexit was exactly the opposite putting up barriers to trade and reducing the qualified labour supply which mean business projects are no longer viable that would be were Britain stil in the EU.
or even that governments can make that much difference with direct intervention
That seems like a pretty daft statement. In case you hadn't noticed, since 2008 the govt has made a MASSIVE difference through direct intervention. Free markets no longer work, whether we're in the EU or not. You just seem to be in denial because it doesn't fit your 'we must rejoin the EU' opinion.
And you, Dazh, want to blame everything except Brexit and pretend that it's not making any difference - your in denial quote was what drew me in this morning.
Printing money is not the same as the intervention though guaranteed loads to the private sector you were quoting about in you last post. I would argue that the direct intervention only really got underway during Covid. I would describe the period 2008 - 2019 as austerity rather than "MASSIVE difference through direct intervention" which isn't really part of the Tory philosophy, but needs must and Covid was a needed must.
Free markets are the major part of the world economy and working as we type. Goverments can do no more than tinker around the edges because most of the economy runs on basic supply and demand. Have a look around your home and you'll have trouble finding things that weren't born of that system, probably the home itself.
I'm most definitely not saying 'we must rejoin the EU'. I'm in the EU, I'm French and live in France, I'm one of the least affected people on this forum. I'm saying that the UK has done itself a great deal of self harm with Brexit and would benefit from rejoining if only at a Swiss level. Britain has cut off its nose to spite its face and now refuses plastic surgury to sew it back on.
Stimulus will only provide so much growth. In the US in the 30s all that Keynsian stimulus didn’t have much impact, it was putting the economy on a war footing that changed things. Not a local theatre war, a full on world ware.
You've got it back to front - there is no free-market without a source of money issuance. In the big economies with central banks - that usually means state-backed money.
Governments don't have to tinker around the edges - that is what they choose to do. It could be completely different. Supply and demand is what happens after the government spends into the economy.
USA - spends getting close to a trillion on defense. They just created the market.
Free markets are the major part of the world economy and working as we type. Goverments can do no more than tinker around the edges because most of the economy runs on basic supply and demand
This is, to put it mildly, a rather large simplification. Governments intervene massively in the process. Just look at the amount the EU spends on farming subsidies or the huge amounts the USA funnels to companies under the guise of defence spending.
One of the UKs major current issues is it believed the waffle about free markets and hence we are burdened with a bunch of failed energy companies and sod all reserves of gas because having reserves is a waste of money from the centricas viewpoint and so they wanted the normal government subsidies for the "free market".
I would describe the period 2008 – 2019 as austerity rather than “MASSIVE difference through direct intervention”
I guess the 900bn spent by the govt to bail out the banks and prevent economic armageddon doesn't count? Was that the free market working? 🤷♂️
Goverments can do no more than tinker around the edges because most of the economy runs on basic supply and demand.
Nonsense. Govts directly and indirectly influence supply and demand on a massive scale. In fact much of that supply and demand wouldn't exist without specific govt policy. Take windfarms in the north sea for example. Did the free market make that happen on it's own? No, it was govt policy and spending. Do free markets create something like a nuclear power station? Or the road network or railways? And then there's stuff like housing. Currently the free market is obstructing that through the practice of land-banking. The 'free' market is 100% dependent on the state. Without the state free markets wouldn't exist.
Printing money is not the same as the intervention though guaranteed loads to the private sector you were quoting about in you last post. I would argue that the direct intervention only really got underway during Covid. I would describe the period 2008 – 2019 as austerity rather than “MASSIVE difference through direct intervention” which isn’t really part of the Tory philosophy, but needs must and Covid was a needed must.
There is no printing money as such: there is money issuance for central governments spending, and there is Q/E - which is still not printing money but new money creation for purchasing bonds already issued. Q/E - no new net spending power.
The free-market is a simple con-trick because take away the government that underpins losses and bail-outs - it collapses.
Nonsense. Govts directly and indirectly influence supply and demand on a massive scale. In fact much of that supply and demand wouldn’t exist without specific govt policy. Take windfarms in the north sea for example. Did the free market make that happen on it’s own? No, it was govt policy and spending. Do free markets create something like a nuclear power station? Or the road network or railways? And then there’s stuff like housing. Currently the free market is obstructing that through the practice of land-banking. The ‘free’ market is 100% dependent on the state. Without the state free markets wouldn’t exist.
Yup, I can't believe people still think along the free-market lines as though it exists on its own magical source.
They need currency - currency is created and controlled by the government / BoE and its agents through commercial banks. It's not happening without the state. And taxation means we will always need the government's currency to settle our tax liablity.
I guess the 900bn spent by the govt to bail out the banks and prevent economic armageddon doesn’t count? Was that the free market working
I wonder why they never have the means to bail themselves out?
Thank GOD the private sector is saving enough to supply the federal government with enough money to support the private sector in this moment of crisis. S.Kelton
which is still not printing money but new money creation for purchasing bonds already issued.
Whether the central bank creates new money electronically or by printing it's ofter refered to as printing money.
Q/E – no new net spending power.
You're trying to kid the wrong person. Governments issue new debt whilst simulaneously buying back old debt with the money their central bank is printing (or creating electronically as you don't like the term "printing money"). Check out how much new debt the UK government issued during Covid and how much old debt it bought with newly printed money. It flooded the market with new money buying back debt (and not only) and funded much of its spending by issuing new debt.
You can try and dress it up however you like but quantitative easing is central banks creating (printing or electronically creating) new money thus diluting the value of the cureency, and if money supply exceeds the amount needed for sutained growth fueling inflation.
I live in one of the countries in the world in which the state forms the highest proportion of the economy yet when it comes to the level of economic activity it's the private sector's health that defines how the country is doing. The state can't sustainably fund half of the activity in a country without tax revenue, if it tries by printing money it'll enjoy short term success and long term mayhem. France's economic health is a reflection of the success of its private sector which means the government has tax revenue to redistribute.
If the government has projects it tenders and the private sector responds, with private banks providing the funding. The state, or rather the ECB, is the lender of last resort that everybody including the ECB hopes won't be needed.
You talked about windfarms, Dazh, a success for capitalism rather than a state command economy:
https://www.windfarmbop.com/wind-farm-project-financing/
private capital leveraged through banks. The government did no more than tinker around the edges with fiscal incentives.
private capital leveraged through banks. The government did no more than tinker around the edges with fiscal incentives.
Tinker? You mean provide massive subsidies to the sector to make it viable.
It is probably viable nowadays in its own right but the only reason it is is down to the state providing the subsidies to allow the market to develop.
Subsidies funded by a tax on energy suppliers to fund the subsidies.
The UK government does have a small stake in some (nationaized industry shock horror !) but amusingly most of the wind farms that are foreign owned are owned by foreign companies in which the governments of the countries those companies come from have a stake.
Subsidies funded by a tax on energy suppliers to fund the subsidies.
Wrong way round again. The subsidies came first, then the tax later. How many times does this simple concept regarding govt financing have to be explained before people like yourself will accept this simple established fact? The govt spends first, then taxes back later. You can argue about the level of tax and who pays it, but the spending, especially in the case of capital investment, always comes first.
I don't think it matters which came first. The fact is the industry pays for it's own subsidies.
You can argue about the level of tax and who pays it, but the spending, especially in the case of capital investment, always comes first.
And the vast majority of that was private, foreign private and forign private with a state stake. Check out the UK government's stake in wind farms as a proportion of the total, it's tiny. Google Orsted.
Edit: I've Googled for you, here you go:
I don’t think it matters which came first.
Of course it does. Would it have got off the ground without govt intervention? No. Private investment only ramped up once they were certain it would be profitable.
The fact is the industry pays for it’s own subsidies.
No the customer does or, if things get to bad, then the taxpayer does.
Check out the UK government’s stake in wind farms as a proportion of the total, it’s tiny. Google Orsted.
Your arguments seem to be bouncing all over the place. Their direct stake is irrelevant to whether or not the windfarms were heavily subsidised to make them financially viable.
That we dont have a proper stake is in at least part down to a flawed approach to free markets where its okay just to hand money over to private companies but not to actually have a stake in return for that cash.
As a casual example. Just look at nuclear power plants. The only way they will happen is if the government carries all the risk and guarantees a profit.
Without that good luck getting banks to lend.
Edit: I’ve Googled for you, here you go:
How kind of you. So to support your argument that its all down to the private sector you have, ermmm, provided a link showing at least half of the windfarms are supported by governments. Just not our own.
You should check out the history of those windfarms. Wind farms have always been profitable in many European countries even without subsidies because the electricty prices are so high. German consumers were paying three times what we were in France when I spent time there about 10 years back. Subsidies, no subsidies it was always going to be viable, sure British companies wanted help but the Europeans didn't need it to build viable wind farms. While Britain was still enjoying cheap north sea gas other countries were already looking to sustainable alternatives they could sell to consumers prepared to pay the price.
The history will also tell you that Siemens in Germany was one of the companies that led the way while Britain had one windmill in Avonmouth IIRC. Sure governments have jumped on the bandwagon and good luck to them, but the origins are very much with private innovation.
Nuclear is one one sector I agree is state dominated, and rightly so, the military potential needs to be in state hands.
You should check out the history of those windfarms. Wind farms have always been profitable in many European countries even without subsidies because the electricty prices are so high.
You might want to go and look at why the prices are high. Germany for example had statutory tariffs to pay for subsidies for renewables.
They also provided subsidies and support for the manufacturers.
Basically the complete opposite of free markets. It is and was a sector with major state intervention to direct towards certain goals.
While Britain was still enjoying cheap north sea gas other countries were already looking to sustainable alternatives they could sell to consumers prepared to pay the price.
That would be the "cheap" gas sold at international rates due to the UKs belief in the free market and so no real government involvement from the 80s onwards?
So to bring it back full circle and the point at which I got involved, do you guys really think that Brexit isn't going negatively impact British workers having gone through just one example where internal investment whether foreign private or foreign state/private has dwarfed UK investment?
Ed no one has said brexit hasn’t had a negative impact. But the fact is we are no longer in the EU, so worrying about what might have been is pointless, and saying that the UK govt has no power to help UK workers is clearly wrong. Even outside the EU the UK is a very rich and very powerful economy. With the right leadership and policy it can still support its population and provide the high quality jobs and prosperity which are desperately needed.
Ernie – please withdraw the accusation of lying
Go back and read the thread if you want to attack me. I have no issue over things I have said . I have huge issue with you making up a total misrepresentation of my position
sorry dude – your memory is letting you down
I just have and you are indeed right - you said MPs might accept Sunak but the membership wouldn't. I apologise unreservedly.
Edukator Free Member
So to bring it back full circle
This is the Starmer thread if you want to do a full circle you need to get back to Starmer. It all kicked off with the accusation that Starmer is apparently pandering to racists. So what's the conclusion - is he?
I just have and you are indeed right – you said MPs might accept Sunak but the membership wouldn’t. I apologise unreservedly.
No worries and thank you
Unlike you to be innaccurate
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1595567384991043584?s=20&t=B_3UX4e3Dz12BkaQdGw7QA
Just join the Tory party and take all the centrists that have got your back with you? (That said he's even upset Ian Dunt with his immigration tone so maybe they won't go with him.)
You know I'm starting to despise this guy - he has no actual time for anything remotely progressive (green-bonds yawn) but loads of time for all the establishment garbage that is part of the problem.
No meaningful change in my lifetime that's for sure.
^^^didn't Corbyn win that too a couple of years ago?
https://twitter.com/SocialistVoice/status/947094665077063681
[actually that's wrong, strangely for socialist voice. It was parliamentarian of the year. Whatever. It really doesn't mean the Spectator is on Starmer's side - is anyone suggesting that it does? Or just that he shouldn't go to any parties where there are lots of journalists, some of whom are right wing?]
But the fact is we are no longer in the EU, so worrying about what might have been is pointless,
You've spent two pages arguing against the need for a Swiss style deal, Dazh, claiming Britian is just fine on its own and th egovernment can spend its way out of the current mess. I'm not worrying about what might have been, I'm arguing in favour of a solution.
So what’s the conclusion – is he?
You've obviously missed a couple of pages of Starmer's lack of enthusiasm for the EU, Ernie. As for Tory or Labour racism:
racial discrimination
Definition(s)Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights
Judge Tory and Labour policy and British laws on that basis and draw your own conclusions.