X201
Junior Member
Posts: 4,885
|
Post by X201 on Feb 9, 2024 23:10:42 GMT
A real opinion poll on Thursday; the Wellingborough by-election. It was an 18,500 majority, so that will be a good measure.
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by zephro on Feb 10, 2024 1:00:43 GMT
The Tories have even managed to lose the pensioners now. That's genuinely funny
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 7:06:44 GMT
How bad does it have to that the only political message needed is 'we're not them?'
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Feb 10, 2024 11:16:24 GMT
How bad does it have to that the only political message needed is 'we're not them?' /gestures at EVERYTHING
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 13:45:20 GMT
How bad does it have to that the only political message needed is 'we're not them?' /gestures at EVERYTHINGIt's not the most inspiring political slogan, 'What are we going to do? Nothing! When are we going to do it? Maybe, never!' They weren't even proposing anything radical, just some basic keynesian economics. Now the message is 'we will manage the decline in a more professional manner.' My hope, is that if Labour get power, that I will be pleasantly surprised. My fear is that if they really don't offer change, the Tories will be back in five years.
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Feb 10, 2024 13:51:50 GMT
Do you not think it’s prudent with a fluid situation to proceed with caution? Presumably he’s not proposing anything too radical because that would require money that we don’t currently have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2024 13:55:16 GMT
The plague of hate and division that The Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Express and ofc GB News unleash on day one of any new Labour government will be a whole new level. With a river of pus that gurgles 'Bring Back Bozzer' at the heart of it.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 14:21:47 GMT
Do you not think it’s prudent with a fluid situation to proceed with caution? Presumably he’s not proposing anything too radical because that would require money that we don’t currently have. It's an interesting question. Money we don't have. Except the Gov basically prints money into existence and then taxes it back to counter inflation. Borrowing to invest shouldn't be controversial. Let me also say that we should reframe the national debt, the national debt is private savings. So let's say that the gov borrowed £50bn to build social housing (state owned). The government would own the asset, so it's actually cost neutral, revenue would be paid from rent and the housing benefit budget. So instead of private landlords creaming it off the state, the government shifts one part of the budget to the other. and if the rent was affordable, more people would pay it. This is eminently doable, the political problem is of course if you flood the market with cheap to rent homes, house prices depreciate massively for homeowners and Landlords. It's difficult to tell someone who has taken a £300k mortgage the year before that their house is now worth half that and they have to continue paying the mortgage on £300k. Let's take energy. Right now, we have this sort of artificial market, where we have energy providers as sort of middlemen (get rid of them, nationalise that) between energy generators and consumers. The business case for investment in renewables isn't that great, build this expensive thing, but the return on investment isn't that great and it will take thirty years to get your money back before making a profit. If the state did it, not so much of a problem. Not only could you tell ordinary people that the cost of their electricity is going down from 20% of their income to 5% (which allows ordinary people more money to spend in the local economy), but you can say to business, 'invest here, your energy prices are going to be much lower.' You can make the same argument with Rail. The case for private investment isn't that strong, but if you can say to ordinary people who rely on the service, we will take your monthly commute spend from 17% to 5%, that's a 12% pay rise from some simple fixes. Ordinary people will spend that in the local economy. We need to stop thinking in the way the Tories frame everything. That everything is just an upfront cost. All of these measures would have multiplier effects throughout the economy. We just need a political class that have the courage, the talent and the imagination to implement any of this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Feb 10, 2024 14:36:09 GMT
But surely “borrowing to invest against taxation” still resolves to the same frame as the Tories, in order to offset investment you need to raise taxes no? To my mind the difference with government borrowing is they have greater flexibility with time as a variable but using the Tory frame, if you aren’t raising taxes you are increasing debt? And investment to produce growth, I guess if you can guarantee that then I’m totally with you; I think that is what they have to do because as you say, the Tories are managing a decline at present.
I’m also with you that we need to nationalise key services, privatising water for one has been bled dry and it looks like some of the companies might decide to cut and run. Terrible.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 14:36:13 GMT
Just to caveat this, this would actually create the growth both parties seem to seek.
Public investment precedes private investment.
The US is growing at 3-5% a year because of the Inflation Reduction Act. Think of it as an industrial strategy, because that's what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Feb 10, 2024 14:37:42 GMT
Yeah I’m with you I guess
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 14:41:58 GMT
But surely “borrowing to invest against taxation” still resolves to the same frame as the Tories, in order to offset investment you need to raise taxes no? To my mind the difference with government borrowing is they have greater flexibility with time as a variable but using the Tory frame, if you aren’t raising taxes you are increasing debt? And investment to produce growth, I guess if you can guarantee that then I’m totally with you; I think that is what they have to do because as you say, the Tories are managing a decline at present. I’m also with you that we need to nationalise key services, privatising water for one has been bled dry and it looks like some of the companies might decide to cut and run. Terrible. The important thing is the growth. Think about it a numerator and denominator problem. We're looking at percentages, not the size of the debt. If you money you invest in the economy returns more than the initial investment, the economy grows and as a percentage, the debt to GDP ratio falls over time. You just have to get over the mindset of 'debt is bad.' Not all debt is bad. I hate to use a household budget as a metaphor for the national economy (a household doesn't get to print it's own money or invite another family to live with them and tax them for five generations), but if a family takes on a mortgage, these days they might be going to 500% as their debt to income ratio. Is that bad?
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 14:43:33 GMT
Oh, and after the Napoleonic Wars and WW2, debt was much, much higher, off the back of both, we built Empire, the NHS, the Welfare state etc...
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Feb 10, 2024 14:46:14 GMT
No I appreciate that debt is essential, the prerequisite though is that your investment produces growth? Which I guess isn’t a guarantee
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Feb 10, 2024 14:47:17 GMT
It's not the most inspiring political slogan, 'What are we going to do? Nothing! When are we going to do it? Maybe, never!' They weren't even proposing anything radical, just some basic keynesian economics. Now the message is 'we will manage the decline in a more professional manner.' My hope, is that if Labour get power, that I will be pleasantly surprised. My fear is that if they really don't offer change, the Tories will be back in five years. Indeed. I was just taking your rhetorical post literally.
|
|
drakesmoke
Junior Member
We gotta talk about that ride kid. Next clue to the case!
Posts: 2,729
|
Post by drakesmoke on Feb 10, 2024 14:54:12 GMT
I reckon Labour will see two terms. Towards the end the next Brown will come in and be unpopular and they’ll be blamed for international economic climate factors and voted out for 15 years again. It all cycles.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 15:22:06 GMT
No I appreciate that debt is essential, the prerequisite though is that your investment produces growth? Which I guess isn’t a guarantee Nothing's guaranteed, look at HS2. But if you hang around for private sector investment to solve all the problems, and there isn't really an investment case for the private sector to invest in the things the country needs, what's the point? Saying the Tories don't have any solutions is all well and good, but come up with some solutions of your own. What have Labour got left? Planning reform and teaching kids to brush their teeth, that's it. Not really inspiring.
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Feb 10, 2024 15:32:22 GMT
To my mind he accepts that growth and investment are required but the variable is the rate at which he intends to do it. You mentioned nationalising the rail network as an example, I don’t doubt that a publicly owned system can work better but the transition would no doubt cost a serious amount and that was just one of your ideas. As you concede there is no guarantee but to my mind a prudent approach where you can test results as you make changes is being pragmatic.
|
|
|
Post by manfromdelmonte on Feb 10, 2024 15:54:04 GMT
Why are people acting like they've cancelled the green investment altogether, instead of them dropping having a specific amount?
They've taken away a Tory attack line (and given them another, although somewhat easier to defend) in the forthcoming election and folks are acting like they'd chugged a gutfull of Telegraph Koolaid.
Damn the left is bizarre.
|
|
X201
Junior Member
Posts: 4,885
|
Post by X201 on Feb 10, 2024 16:23:57 GMT
I reckon Labour will see two terms. Towards the end the next Brown will come in and be unpopular and they’ll be blamed for international economic climate factors and voted out for 15 years again. It all cycles. Followed by Labour landslide where, yet again, they fail to put electoral reform in their manifesto.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 19:22:36 GMT
To my mind he accepts that growth and investment are required but the variable is the rate at which he intends to do it. You mentioned nationalising the rail network as an example, I don’t doubt that a publicly owned system can work better but the transition would no doubt cost a serious amount and that was just one of your ideas. As you concede there is no guarantee but to my mind a prudent approach where you can test results as you make changes is being pragmatic. The beauty of the rail networks is that you just let the franchises expire. No cost to the taxpayer whatsoever. The government has already de facto already been doing it. As for the rest, it's investing in energy security of the nation.
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Feb 10, 2024 20:27:05 GMT
I don’t really know what it would entail but isn’t the railway currently operating a loss and the infrastructure in poor condition?
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 20:52:26 GMT
I don’t really know what it would entail but isn’t the railway currently operating a loss and the infrastructure in poor condition? Probably, I know it's massively subsidised so even if the public are paying extortionate prices, getting a shit service the rail operators are paying massive dividends. My point is that it's hard to make a business case for investment in the rail network. Are they going to gain more customers from that investment? Probably not. But if you're a business that wants to invest in the UK and there are really good and cheap transport links for your workers to commute, as well as cheaper energy bills, you might actually invest in the UK. It's like field of dreams, if you build it they will come. You have to invest first as a state. The best way to try to achieve this is by socialising the risk. Politically it may be hard, but we have to do it. That's why I find labour disappointing.
|
|
drakesmoke
Junior Member
We gotta talk about that ride kid. Next clue to the case!
Posts: 2,729
|
Post by drakesmoke on Feb 10, 2024 20:58:23 GMT
I get and agree with your message on rail Stuz but unfortunately the word ‘socialist’ would be applied to it and it’s a dirty word for large swathes of the electorate. Changing laws so that only NFPs could run them might be a compromise to get opinions over the line maybe, rather than outright having them government run?
|
|
|
Post by manfromdelmonte on Feb 10, 2024 20:58:39 GMT
From a government perspective "Loss." is somewhat more subjective. If the network raised prices to achieve a profit, use would fall, putting you back into loss. But the fall in use would also mean a bunch of both productive and consumptive economic activity wouldn't take place and potential tax intake is lost.
TLDR transport investment is a low hanging fruit for stimulating growth. Tories tend not to do it because the private sector provides a means for passive income to those with wealth. Maybe some of the genuinely believe the efficiency guff, but only the dumb ones.
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,375
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Feb 10, 2024 21:10:32 GMT
Speaking of rail, I know this is old news to anyone who leaves the house regularly but I went up north to see my old gran in hospital today and pretty much followed the scar of HS2 up the country.
It’s basically just industrial scale vandalism now.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Feb 10, 2024 21:29:39 GMT
I get and agree with your message on rail Stuz but unfortunately the word ‘socialist’ would be applied to it and it’s a dirty word for large swathes of the electorate. Changing laws so that only NFPs could run them might be a compromise to get opinions over the line maybe, rather than outright having them government run? I agree, socialism is a dirty word for many people. My own take is the argument for austerity. We should all tighten our belts. I would agree if we all wore the same size trousers, but we don't. So we massively disproportionately punish the poorest in society, to preserve the assets of the already wealthy. I think what you're driving at is that it is a case of political framing. After 50 years of neoliberalism, how do we get people to view collectivism in a positive light again? Unfortunately, instinct is that in times of hardship, we would vote to preserve what little we have. I love this quote, 'what's indivually rational is collectively disastrous.'
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by zephro on Feb 10, 2024 22:02:11 GMT
Though for clarity Labour haven't given up on borrowing to invest, just the specific number involved. As government borrowing costs have increased generally while the country also became poorer.
|
|
X201
Junior Member
Posts: 4,885
|
Post by X201 on Feb 10, 2024 22:09:08 GMT
After 50 years of neoliberalism, how do we get people to view collectivism in a positive light again? Just use the Brexit method. Tell them it will stop the forrins owning it.
|
|
technoish
Junior Member
Posts: 2,685
Member is Online
|
Post by technoish on Feb 10, 2024 22:36:38 GMT
The problem with transport, as well as other areas, like education and health, is that maintenance is massively underfunded. New money is instead shoveled into new exciting things and enhancements. We are spending a lot of cash on new rail ways when the existing ones are breaking. Same that in some cases instead of new hospitals, you can better fund primary care facilities. And in education... Well maintain crumbling schools instead of new whizz bang qualifications.
|
|