Nick
Administrator
Then every body applauded?
Then every body applauded?Friend of mine spoke to someone waiting for a decision, they've been stuck in one room with their wife and two children for 18 months. They're a qualified petrochemical engineer but can't work until a decision is made (whenever that is) and find themselves stuck in limbo as a result.
It’s all well and good saying that… How do you fund the spending required?
There’s a housing deficit of 4.3m and then apply that to roads, hospitals, schools and so on. There already exists a significant deficit and finding it by printing money is inflationary and that drives interest rate rises. Therefore, your next options are a) tax rises b) public spending cuts or c) both. The honest conversation as a country we’re not having is; immigration is ‘x’ and ‘y’ public expenditure is needed to be sustainable. Is their a net benefit of this?
There’s a few stories on this thread how interest rate rises to 5-6% have out them in financial stress. These rates were historically normal - it’s what my mum remortgaged at in 2007 or 2008.
Facile, trite and ridiculous response.Then every body applauded?
Facile, trite and ridiculous response.
No, but printing money is.Oh god here we go again, deficit spending is automatically inflationary.
There was a piece on this on BBC news a few weeks ago that I tried to find but couldn't, it backs this up in showing that the vast majority of immigration is people on work visas or overseas students, the issue is net migration which was at something like 0.5 million, unless you have the infrastructure in place to handle that influx it will create the environment for Farage to exploit.Friends is this correct
Mike Jones tell us how Mike? And I assume the illegal immigrants are anyone that comes on a boat or hides under or in a lorry or a van?
For the last records we have ye dec 23 immigration in total was 1.2m of which
85%’of whom have come from non-eu countries
The vast majority are coming to work and bring their families
Most numerous sectors are health and social care
29000 of that figure were people in small boats!!!! 29000 out of 1.2m or 0.02%
Further about just shy of 70% asylum claims are accepted
So what do you mean illegal immigration? Just the boats or what areas of health and social care are you going to not deliver?
And that's government's fault for not spending the cash economic immigrants generate.There was a piece on this on BBC news a few weeks ago that I tried to find but couldn't, it backs this up in showing that the vast majority of immigration is people on work visas or overseas students, the issue is net migration which was at something like 0.5 million, unless you have the infrastructure in place to handle that influx it will create the environment for Farage to exploit.
The net benefit is about £3.3bn - you’re not getting much with that.And that's government's fault for not spending the cash economic immigrants generate.
Or, look another way, how bad would it be without that net contribution? Who would we blame without it?
It's looking at the risk going forward. Our system often looks at what can happen next time and, if Labour either don't impress, engage, or show some demonstrable progress they'll be out. The cuchion is what protects and without that your base is more built on sand - look at northern seats for example, which are by no means endorsing Labour as they used to.People need to understand the vote share. It’s being used by some to knock Labour and it’s just copium.
Obviously, goes without saying, but the headline number is the number of seats. That’s literally all that matters.
Labour could have had a far higher vote share and won fewer seats. What use is 10,000 extra votes in a safe constituency? Instead they focused their campaigning on marginal and swing seats, and weren’t bothered about losing votes in safe seats.
It was a very efficient and very effective campaign. Exactly what was needed. And clearly it worked.
In 2017 Labour won a big vote share and lost because they were just increasing the lead in safe seats. This campaign has been far more efficient.
No, but printing money is.
The costs of servicing public sector debt is already £40-odd billion so good luck with bold public spending plans.
It's looking at the risk going forward. Our system often looks at what can happen next time and, if Labour either don't impress, engage, or show some demonstrable progress they'll be out. The cuchion is what protects and without that your base is more built on sand - look at northern seats for example, which are by no means endorsing Labour as they used to.
Whilst the thesis behind it is vaguely correct, it’s rather interesting how many large economies managed to pull off extensive QE programmes over the last 10-15 years whilst rates remained at sub-1% and inflation was under control. Would have been fantastic to invest some of that money rather than wanking it away on tax cuts (Covid-aside).
As for how I’m paying for infrastructure spend, modest tax increases and QE.
No, but printing money is.
The costs of servicing public sector debt is already £40-odd billion so good luck with bold public spending plans.
Disagree. It wasn't an effective Labour campaign it was a complete Tory collapse.People need to understand the vote share. It’s being used by some to knock Labour and it’s just copium.
Obviously, goes without saying, but the headline number is the number of seats. That’s literally all that matters.
Labour could have had a far higher vote share and won fewer seats. What use is 10,000 extra votes in a safe constituency? Instead they focused their campaigning on marginal and swing seats, and weren’t bothered about losing votes in safe seats.
It was a very efficient and very effective campaign. Exactly what was needed. And clearly it worked.
In 2017 Labour won a big vote share and lost because they were just increasing the lead in safe seats. This campaign has been far more efficient.
Very good points, but I said printing money is inflationary, not deficit spending.Cost of servicing debt = a surplus for the private investments, e.g. pensions mostly etc in those debts. It costs the UK government nothing to create the money to pay that interest and it would never ever be unable to pay it.
The UK recorded a budget surplus in 1988 and 1989. Weirdly, the inflation rate in 1990 and 1991 climed to 7% and then 7.5%. The relationship between deficit spending and inflation is exceptionally flimsy. Inflation post the Truss budget was still predominantly down to things that had nothing to do with that budget.
Every single penny the government spends on every single day is 'printed'.
Yes, they'll now lurch even more to the right and become Reform V2. They're fucked.Just looking at the list of Conservative MPs and they're not exactly overflowing with options for the next leader.
Do they go down the Braverman / Badenoch batshit crazy route, IMO an absolute gift to Labour; an old hand with the danger they're linked in voters minds to the shitshow we've just got rid off; the unthinkable folding in of Reform and Farage or is there a new name waiting in the wings?
Haven't you had your local MP come and change your life?Haven't noticed any change yet. Time to get these corrupt lying wankers out of office
Haven't noticed any change yet. Time to get these corrupt lying wankers out of office
Disagree. It wasn't an effective Labour campaign it was a complete Tory collapse.
Very good points, but I said printing money is inflationary, not deficit spending.
An effective campaign would not give you the lowest number of votes you've had for 9 years
You can add SNP collapse to that, on a scale that very few saw coming.Disagree. It wasn't an effective Labour campaign it was a complete Tory collapse.
Good news for half of this forumJust been to Aldi and nappies are 10p cheaper than last week.
You are of course correct, and the strategy team at Labour HQ have done an excellent job on this aspect. It’s a shame we didn’t have that in place in 2017 and we might have been rid of the Tories sooner.People need to understand the vote share. It’s being used by some to knock Labour and it’s just copium.
Obviously, goes without saying, but the headline number is the number of seats. That’s literally all that matters.
Labour could have had a far higher vote share and won fewer seats. What use is 10,000 extra votes in a safe constituency? Instead they focused their campaigning on marginal and swing seats, and weren’t bothered about losing votes in safe seats.
It was a very efficient and very effective campaign. Exactly what was needed. And clearly it worked.
In 2017 Labour won a big vote share and lost because they were just increasing the lead in safe seats. This campaign has been far more efficient.
Whilst the thesis behind it is vaguely correct, it’s rather interesting how many large economies managed to pull off extensive QE programmes over the last 10-15 years whilst rates remained at sub-1% and inflation was under control. Would have been fantastic to invest some of that money rather than wanking it away on tax cuts (Covid-aside).
As for how I’m paying for infrastructure spend, modest tax increases and QE.
Its perfectly possible to understand how vote share works but also to be interested in the underlying numbers.People need to understand the vote share. It’s being used by some to knock Labour and it’s just copium.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?