The Labour Government

[Kompany Car]

Right leaning? Really? Not from what I've seen of him on YT

Sorry don’t know my left from my right these days (wrote right meaning left, must stop looking at BM when in meetings).

To be fair the politicians don’t seem to know their left from right when it comes to monetary policies. Austerity by any other name is still Austerity.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I'd suggest that's day 1 of Economics, when you look at some nice graphs with one line going up or down, and everyone thinks it's easy.

Day 1000 is when everyone is crying, because there are a million factors, and nobody truly knows. It's why Economics is a "social science", and not a real one ;)

Mate, everyone knows you're a labour fan boy, so it might be wise to quit the patronising tone. But when inflation creeps up the next few months feel free to restart this discussion.

 

[Brewster's millions]

I'd suggest that's day 1 of Economics, when you look at some nice graphs with one line going up or down, and everyone thinks it's easy.

Day 1000 is when everyone is crying, because there are a million factors, and nobody truly knows. It's why Economics is a "social science", and not a real one ;)

Not really true though, is it?

There have been a number of specific surveys conducted on the likely impact of the NI hike and they suggest very strongly that prices will rise as a result.

The BoE’s Decision Maker Panel survey from January is one example. You might want to have a look at it.

 

[meltonblue]

Not really true though, is it?

There have been a number of specific surveys conducted on the likely impact of the NI hike and they suggest very strongly that prices will rise as a result.

The BoE’s Decision Maker Panel survey from January is one example. You might want to have a look at it.

Out of interest, what tax rise would you have rather seen? Or would it have been none?

I didn’t vote for Labour but I was happy to see tax rises if it meant public services improve, be that either on businesses or certain individuals.

What would have been the alternative you’d have wanted?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Not really true though, is it?

There have been a number of specific surveys conducted on the likely impact of the NI hike and they suggest very strongly that prices will rise as a result.

The BoE’s Decision Maker Panel survey from January is one example. You might want to have a look at it.

He was a big backer of Reeves budget last autumn, said he ran a business and seemed to welcome the tax rises as a good thing for business. This may be true, but I haven't met anyone in business who has his taken his stance. They worried me at the time, but now 6months later after very little if any growth, I find it quite concerning, especially with the main tax rises now kicking in.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Out of interest, what tax rise would you have rather seen? Or would it have been none?

I didn’t vote for Labour but I was happy to see tax rises if it meant public services improve, be that either on businesses or certain individuals.

What would have been the alternative you’d have wanted?

I think that if there’s a consensus that additional public spending is required, then the most efficient and equitable thing to do is simply to raise the basic rate of income tax.

We need to move away from this fallacy that you can make a meaningful difference in public expenditure by only targeting certain groups, be that non-doms, private school fees etc, and that businesses can be targeted in isolation, with no impact on households. The whole fiasco around the £22bn fiscal black hole was entirely manufactured and only developed because Labour saw it politically necessary to avoid an increase in income tax.

Personally I think it would be much simpler and more honest for people to vote for an income tax rise if they want public expenditure to increase. And if they don’t want to see income tax rising, then public expenditure shouldn’t be increased. This idea that you can fund a significant increase in spending and get someone else to pay for it is rapidly running out of road.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Out of interest, what tax rise would you have rather seen? Or would it have been none?

I didn’t vote for Labour but I was happy to see tax rises if it meant public services improve, be that either on businesses or certain individuals.

What would have been the alternative you’d have wanted?

I would have liked the big multinational online digital companies to be have been properly taxed. The ones that do business in the UK but pay no corporation tax or VAT. Amazon, Starbucks, Meta, Alphabet, Oracle, and most of the FTSE 100. This was started five years ago. But it looks like the pittance of 2% they currently pay may be discarded by labour as some sort of freebie to placate Trump and his Tarriffs. Not the best negotiating tactic imo.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Nobody mentioning how working people will be far better off?

Will be interesting to see how the changes in policy will have an impact on people, rather than employers who have made record profits over the last couple of years.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Mate, everyone knows you're a labour fan boy, so it might be wise to quit the patronising tone. But when inflation creeps up the next few months feel free to restart this discussion.

Trump will be the biggest cause of inflation world wide.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Trump will be the biggest cause of inflation world wide.

Probably correct, but we don't really need to be compounding his idiocy imo.

 

[bluenova]

Mate, everyone knows you're a labour fan boy, so it might be wise to quit the patronising tone. But when inflation creeps up the next few months feel free to restart this discussion.

You called me naïve, so don't start with the patronising shit.

Fanboy is childish too. The replies to your post suggested plenty of good and bad things that *may* happen, plenty of which aren't positive for Labour. If you haven't got an argument, beyond "I know/you don't" then what's the point in even putting your fingers on the keyboard.

 

[Hertzblue]

No. Just stupid. As if we can waltz into France and dump a load of people on the beach when we feel like it. Do you ever people ever think things through? And if not, do you want to give it a try ?

Bob, here we are again,
That was a little unkind to @Dereck Jeffries 3 wd , and like last week I would say to you that cuts both ways.
Do you people ever think things through?
Last week I asked you what your solution to immigration was, because if you remember you had demanded the same from another poster with a different opinion to your own. You did not as far as I am aware post a reply. I am fine with that and wouldn't have mentioned it but here you are again calling someone stupid because they differ from your opinion and insinuating they have not thought through their position. The implication of that comment is that you have thought through your position.
So if that is the case I would ask you again , as a reminder is my post to you from last week

As Macron said " France cannot take in all the misery in the world" and nor can we , but how much of it are you willing to take?

Lets put aside what is currently legal or illegal or any semantics around that but I am sure we can agree that war, famine, climate change etc will ensure a limitless supply of potentially valid asylum seekers and economic migrants towards these shores for years to come and in even greater numbers than we have seen to date.
Already half of social housing in London is occupied by foreign born tenants and rising, we cannot build enough homes to support the current numbers and our own children are living in sub standard and often temporary accommodation or paying extortionate rents to private landlords.
Many of the people entering the country are simply not equipped in language or skills to support themselves in our economy so we end up with numbers like 72% of the Somali community having to be placed in social housing we don't have to spare and Congolese, Iraqis and Afghans claiming benefits at four times the rate of British people.
Our infrastructure is crumbling our Health service is barely fit for purpose and despite taxation being at a post war high we still needed to borrow £131 Billion in the last year, not for any great investment that might change our fortunes just to keep the shitshow on the road for a bit longer. Interest just to service our current debts now over £100Billion annually and we keep borrowing.
This is a small island with one of the highest population densities in the world, the country feels full and our social cohesion is under strain, consequently the majority of the electorate wants immigration to be severely curbed. Politicians of all parties have promised to deliver this and then utterly failed to do so.
A Labour government is pushing through £5 Billion of Welfare cuts by the end of the Parliament causing great anxiety to genuinely sick and disabled people while in the same breath stumping up over £5 Billion annually to handle the current asylum workload with still a backlog of over 100,000 applications and more arriving by the day plus over £7 Billion annually in Universal credit to foreign nationals that are supposed to be supporting the economy not draining it.

So, given that they will keep coming....
How many will you be prepared to take ?
Is there any point at which you would stop?
What will be the impact on our Welfare and Health provision ?
What is your solution ?

From what I can see you haven't offered much to date other than take a position that there isn't much we can do about it. Is that it ? In perpetuity ?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You called me naïve, so don't start with the patronising shit.

Fanboy is childish too. The replies to your post suggested plenty of good and bad things that *may* happen, plenty of which aren't positive for Labour. If you haven't got an argument, beyond "I know/you don't" then what's the point in even putting your fingers on the keyboard.

It’s all this thread is.

It’s utterly pointless.

 

[bluenova]

Not really true though, is it?

There have been a number of specific surveys conducted on the likely impact of the NI hike and they suggest very strongly that prices will rise as a result.

The BoE’s Decision Maker Panel survey from January is one example. You might want to have a look at it.

The post I replied to stated, "I can guarantee that this move will push up inflation. You are just naive to think otherwise"

Can you tell me where in the BoE Decision Maker Panel survey from January, it says that the NI hike specifically will guarantee higher inflation? As far as I can see, just over 56% of the panel, say it could. 62% also say that it will result in lower profits. 53% in lower employment.

So, only just over half the panel "expect businesses to respond ... with higher prices ... due to NI", and that's a panel made up of businesses, so is much more likely to be pessimistic about something that affects their own profitability. It's essentially a crowdsourced "guess", and even then nearly half the crowd disagree. Seems to me to suggest, it's complicated, with multiple potential outcomes, and no-one can guarantee anything.

Even your own post doesn't say guarantee, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't make a statement as simplistic as the one I replied to (which is why I usually quite enjoy reading your posts), so I'm surprised you're defending it.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

You called me naïve, so don't start with the patronising shit.

Fanboy is childish too. The replies to your post suggested plenty of good and bad things that *may* happen, plenty of which aren't positive for Labour. If you haven't got an argument, beyond "I know/you don't" then what's the point in even putting your fingers on the keyboard.

Look no offence inteneded, I was probably a little OTT so appologies, I do enjoy reading your posts.

But I do find you to be very pro labour, and like some on here you appear to think they are beyond making any mistakes. Of course you and others are perfectly entitled to take that stance, we are all different. Cheers.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

The post I replied to stated, "I can guarantee that this move will push up inflation. You are just naive to think otherwise"

Can you tell me where in the BoE Decision Maker Panel survey from January, it says that the NI hike specifically will guarantee higher inflation? As far as I can see, just over 56% of the panel, say it could. 62% also say that it will result in lower profits. 53% in lower employment.

So, only just over half the panel "expect businesses to respond ... with higher prices ... due to NI", and that's a panel made up of businesses, so is much more likely to be pessimistic about something that affects their own profitability. It's essentially a crowdsourced "guess", and even then nearly half the crowd disagree. Seems to me to suggest, it's complicated, with multiple potential outcomes, and no-one can guarantee anything.

Even your own post doesn't say guarantee, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't make a statement as simplistic as the one I replied to (which is why I usually quite enjoy reading your posts), so I'm surprised you're defending it.

The BOE and Andrew Bailey specifically have a terrible record of predicting anything with regards to the UK economy. Bailey surely must be the worst B of E Governor in recent times when it comes to economic forecasts.

If you want a more realistic and certainly worrying take on the Chancellors tax hikes check out the CBI and FSB responses.

 

[stonerblue]

Wife got her PIP update yesterday. Gone up three pounds 60.

 

[blueinsa]

Nobody mentioning how working people will be far better off?

Will be interesting to see how the changes in policy will have an impact on people, rather than employers who have made record profits over the last couple of years.

How exactly will working people be far better off given the rises in bills across the board?

Give with one hand and take with the other springs to mind.

As for employers and profits, my guess is they will protect them by laying staff off.

Go figure.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

How exactly will working people be far better off given the rises in bills across the board?

Give with one hand and take with the other springs to mind.

As for employers and profits, my guess is they will protect them by laying staff off.

Go figure.

Sky have done an analysis of the rises in the cost of living with the rises in income in the last 12 months. The conclusion was that a single person would be approximately £1300 better off and a middle income couple would be over £4000 better off.

As for laying people off, we’ll see, as there’s also a shortfall in the workforce so other opportunities available.

 

[blueinsa]

Sky have done an analysis of the rises in the cost of living with the rises in income in the last 12 months. The conclusion was that a single person would be approximately £1300 better off and a middle income couple would be over £4000 better off.

As for laying people off, we’ll see, as there’s also a shortfall in the workforce so other opportunities available.

This Sky?

Chancellor Rachel Reeves 'rejects' analysis average family set to be £1,400 a year poorer by 2030

The poorest households could be hit the hardest, with a predicted loss to disposable income double that of more well-off families.

news.sky.com