Just to repeat that "northern cross rail" (Northern Powerhouse Rail") as envisaged by Burnham is not going to get past the number crunchers. Saving 20 minutes between Manchester and Leeds is not going to transform the North. Best use of money on not building HS2 from Birmingham at least as far as Crewe is... building HS2 to Crewe.Things don’t have to get worse, nor does it say who they are going to get worse for, or how much worse (100% worse before 50% better isn’t really great!). These are all political choices which of course she will dress up as being “no choice but to”, however half the black hole is down to labour policies (however right they were) and she has made it slightly better in some parts - eg binning off Rwanda - than it would have been if left to Hunt. I also get there are global headwinds but fiscal policy to meet these generally isn’t structural thus doesn’t spook markets.
We know sensible infrastructure projects return 100% on investment (and continue to return), put simply they create growth. We want net zero? Build the transition then. Fill the pot holes in. Build hospitals, schools, roads (things Reeves has stopped or paused). Build rail in the right places (northern cross rail). If you don’t want to build growth then cut taxes to allow consumer led growth. If Reeves is terrified to borrow and will only increase taxes then the “worse” is entirely down to her choices and the better will be marginal to how bad it gets - in other words enjoy today as this as good as it gets. I get the sense she wants to fund growth from savings from things like the welfare bill but that’s putting the cart before the horse IMHO, it’s orthodox monetary policy that has largely got us to where we are today (plus a pandemic).
Labour promised growth and not decline. They can give us either one with their policies.
Means he’s probably getting it about right.Haha.
Funny how those on the right think he’s a Marxist while those on the left think he’s a Tory.
No point judging him now mate.Things don’t have to get worse, nor does it say who they are going to get worse for, or how much worse (100% worse before 50% better isn’t really great!). These are all political choices which of course she will dress up as being “no choice but to”, however half the black hole is down to labour policies (however right they were) and she has made it slightly better in some parts - eg binning off Rwanda - than it would have been if left to Hunt. I also get there are global headwinds but fiscal policy to meet these generally isn’t structural thus doesn’t spook markets.
We know sensible infrastructure projects return 100% on investment (and continue to return), put simply they create growth. We want net zero? Build the transition then. Fill the pot holes in. Build hospitals, schools, roads (things Reeves has stopped or paused). Build rail in the right places (northern cross rail). If you don’t want to build growth then cut taxes to allow consumer led growth. If Reeves is terrified to borrow and will only increase taxes then the “worse” is entirely down to her choices and the better will be marginal to how bad it gets - in other words enjoy today as this as good as it gets. I get the sense she wants to fund growth from savings from things like the welfare bill but that’s putting the cart before the horse IMHO, it’s orthodox monetary policy that has largely got us to where we are today (plus a pandemic).
Labour promised growth and not decline. They can give us either one with their policies.
If you replace the word "unions" with workers do you still think in the same way? Are you a worker-if so you're moaning about the likes of you. Not all unions are affiliated to a political party.I don’t think anyone would but complete capitulation to the unions wasn't the answer.
I enjoyed reading that.If you replace the word "unions" with workers do you still think in the same way? Are you a worker-if so you're moaning about the likes of you. Not all unions are affiliated to a political party.
What is going on now is still a kick back to the years of austerity. From 2010 to 2020 the maximum rate of CPI was 3.6% and in some years was as low as 0.5% and yet some groups of workers still fell behind. Of all times, this was the easiest to ensure workers' pay kept up with inflation but it didn't happen. It didn't take a genius to work out that as inflation did start to rise, workers would be looking to keep up,and in some cases, look to make up some of the ground they had lost. The bankers screwed up in 2007/2008. Alistair Darling was widely acknowledged internationally as having been one of the key saviours of the situation but Labour were subsequently voted out. In came the coalition and the likes of you and me were quickly paying for the mistakes of the bankers as the likes of libraries were closed, bins only collected every fortnight, roads deteriorated etc.
Boris (the lying twat)Johnson stated that we want a highly skilled, highly paid workforce. The problem is where do you start with that? Those at the bottom doing essential but mundane jobs-but key to running a decent society or nurses, train drivers or the bosses?
When I was still working, I had no idea if my General Manager was at work that day or was off sick or on holiday. I knew within 5 minutes if the workplace hadn't been cleaned or the toilet paper hadn't been replenished. Who was more important to the day to day running of the operation as far as ordinary workers were concerned?
Most of us are workers. Turning workers on workers is just what the Tories loved to do. It seems you want to continue the narrative.
I just pop along to find some decent posts within all the bitterness.Delightful reading the thoughts of the Tories.
It’s like the last decade didn’t happen.
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? If so perhaps you can explain your version to GDM - it has the potential to be an amusing exchange.No they'd Just make children starve instead.
That might be your problem but I wouldn’t apply it across the board.Isn’t the problem that nobody knows what he is?