|
Post by brownlow on Jul 15, 2024 18:09:03 GMT
What' s the first thing this government should do.? What's the most effective thing the government could do? Your thoughts. Quietly review the Bank of England's "independence" - its economic models, forecasting record, and the criteria on which it recruits MPC members - with a view to supporting expansionary fiscal policy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2024 19:35:21 GMT
It has lifted the de facto ban on new onshore wind farms which is good.
It has announced that it will not be abolishing the TV License fee, which is a bit disappointing.
It seems to be negotiating more positively with junior doctors which is good.
I think there must be seven priority areas.
1. The housing crisis.
2. The cost of living crisis.
3. The state of the NHS, including GP and dental access.
4. Investment in crime fighting and prevention.
5. Increased military spending.
6. An immigration policy that works and is fair.
7. Hastened decarbonisation.
None of those things can be markedly improved overnight and it will realistically be many months before we can expect to be seeing real progress being made.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 15, 2024 20:47:08 GMT
What' s the first thing this government should do.? What's the most effective thing the government could do? Your thoughts. Quietly review the Bank of England's "independence" - its economic models, forecasting record, and the criteria on which it recruits MPC members - with a view to supporting expansionary fiscal policy. Indeed. When Tony Blair put inflation in the hands of an independent BofE we saw a long period when 1/4 to 1/2% adjustments were all that was needed to control inflation. Then the Tories appoint Andrew Bailey and suddenly we're back to boom bust hikes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2024 17:35:35 GMT
Quietly review the Bank of England's "independence" - its economic models, forecasting record, and the criteria on which it recruits MPC members - with a view to supporting expansionary fiscal policy. Indeed. When Tony Blair put inflation in the hands of an independent BofE we saw a long period when 1/4 to 1/2% adjustments were all that was needed to control inflation. Then the Tories appoint Andrew Bailey and suddenly we're back to boom bust hikes The Tories have indeed been economically disastrous, and whilst being no fan of New Labour myself am prepared to go on record with the opinion that we would have fared much better had Labour won the 2010 election. However, New Labour's claim to have ended boom and bust was always a nonsense. Cycles of boom and bust have been intrinsic to the operations of capitalism since capitalism became the dominant economic set up. What governments have tried to do with varying levels of success is mitigate the worst effects on people's lives of the economic downturns. Because capitalism is global, major busts tend to be global and beyond our national control as was the case with the serious economic downturn of 2008, which actually started in the USA. But of course I need in the interests of balance to refute what you imply above, that the Tories were entirely responsible for the return of economic busts. Because it began in 2008 when Labour was still in power and two years before the Tories took office. Though we would probably agree that the Tories made things much worse than they need have been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2024 17:40:41 GMT
I do think it likely that tax rises are coming, but very much doubt Labour will increase VAT, Income Tax or NI, having pledged not to.
They have an obvious desire to try and demonstrate themselves to be people of integrity, and breaking those tax pledges so soon would drive a horse and cart through that.
But other ways of raising more tax are likely to be found.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 16, 2024 17:55:49 GMT
Indeed. When Tony Blair put inflation in the hands of an independent BofE we saw a long period when 1/4 to 1/2% adjustments were all that was needed to control inflation. Then the Tories appoint Andrew Bailey and suddenly we're back to boom bust hikes The Tories have indeed been economically disastrous, and whilst being no fan of New Labour myself am prepared to go on record with the opinion that we would have fared much better had Labour won the 2010 election. However, New Labour's claim to have ended boom and bust was always a nonsense. Cycles of boom and bust have been intrinsic to the operations of capitalism since capitalism became the dominant economic set up. What governments have tried to do with varying levels of success is mitigate the worst effects on people's lives of the economic downturns. Because capitalism is global, major busts tend to be global and beyond our national control as was the case with the serious economic downturn of 2008, which actually started in the USA. But of course I need in the interests of balance to refute what you imply above, that the Tories were entirely responsible for the return of economic busts. Because it began in 2008 when Labour was still in power and two years before the Tories took office. Though we would probably agree that the Tories made things much worse than they need have been. Perhaps the claim should have been we have ended government sponsored boom and bust. But the massive hikes in interest under previous governments that made the money lenders richer than they needed to be, did disappear. I agree there was little they could do about global boom bust, but no one ever thought they meant that. And cycles always exist but they are exaggerated by those controlling the money. Lower interest rates to encourage borrowing, get people in hock and then shove rates up far higher than needed to control inflation and reap the rewards. Even after the global crash interest rates sat at very low rates with barely any fluctuation again until this new lot of Tories took over, then bang, off we go again.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 16, 2024 17:58:59 GMT
I do think it likely that tax rises are coming, but very much doubt Labour will increase VAT, Income Tax or NI, having pledged not to. They have an obvious desire to try and demonstrate themselves to be people of integrity, and breaking those tax pledges so soon would drive a horse and cart through that. But other ways of raising more tax are likely to be found. I think we might see the first wealth tax. The 50 richest families in the country have the same wealth as 34 million ordinary citizens
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2024 18:01:39 GMT
The Tories have indeed been economically disastrous, and whilst being no fan of New Labour myself am prepared to go on record with the opinion that we would have fared much better had Labour won the 2010 election. However, New Labour's claim to have ended boom and bust was always a nonsense. Cycles of boom and bust have been intrinsic to the operations of capitalism since capitalism became the dominant economic set up. What governments have tried to do with varying levels of success is mitigate the worst effects on people's lives of the economic downturns. Because capitalism is global, major busts tend to be global and beyond our national control as was the case with the serious economic downturn of 2008, which actually started in the USA. But of course I need in the interests of balance to refute what you imply above, that the Tories were entirely responsible for the return of economic busts. Because it began in 2008 when Labour was still in power and two years before the Tories took office. Though we would probably agree that the Tories made things much worse than they need have been. Perhaps the claim should have been we have ended government sponsored boom and bust. But the massive hikes in interest under previous governments that made the money lenders richer than they needed to be, did disappear. I agree there was little they could do about global boom bust, but no one ever thought they meant that. And cycles always exist but they are exaggerated by those controlling the money. Lower interest rates to encourage borrowing, get people in hock and then shove rates up far higher than needed to control inflation and reap the rewards. Even after the global crash interest rates sat at very low rates with barely any fluctuation again until this new lot of Tories took over, then bang, off we go again. Well the last 14 years have demonstrated in spades that the former Tory reputation for sound economic management is about as deserved as a knighthood for Gary Glitter.
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 16, 2024 18:22:21 GMT
Perhaps the claim should have been we have ended government sponsored boom and bust. But the massive hikes in interest under previous governments that made the money lenders richer than they needed to be, did disappear. I agree there was little they could do about global boom bust, but no one ever thought they meant that. And cycles always exist but they are exaggerated by those controlling the money. Lower interest rates to encourage borrowing, get people in hock and then shove rates up far higher than needed to control inflation and reap the rewards. Even after the global crash interest rates sat at very low rates with barely any fluctuation again until this new lot of Tories took over, then bang, off we go again. Well the last 14 years have demonstrated in spades that the former Tory reputation for sound economic management is about as deserved as a knighthood for Gary Glitter. And Labour will crash the economy like they did in 2008 ^ Neither should be anywhere near the levers of power, as Thomas often points out
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 16, 2024 18:28:43 GMT
Well the last 14 years have demonstrated in spades that the former Tory reputation for sound economic management is about as deserved as a knighthood for Gary Glitter. And Labour will crash the economy like they did in 2008 ^ Neither should be anywhere near the levers of power, as Thomas often points out Will the Banks and the Americans help again?
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 16, 2024 18:36:44 GMT
True, labour bear none of the blame for 2008
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 16, 2024 18:43:48 GMT
True, labour bear none of the blame for 2008 A very tiny amount.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2024 20:13:56 GMT
Well the last 14 years have demonstrated in spades that the former Tory reputation for sound economic management is about as deserved as a knighthood for Gary Glitter. And Labour will crash the economy like they did in 2008 ^ Neither should be anywhere near the levers of power, as Thomas often points out Labour did not crash the economy in 2008. It was global and started in America, and mostly down to greedy and under-regulated bankers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2024 20:17:16 GMT
True, labour bear none of the blame for 2008 Labour persisted with Thatcherite policies of deregulation which gave too much license to greedy bankers, and in that way contributed to the problem here. But it was a result of them being too un-Labour and too Thatcherite in policy terms.
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 16, 2024 20:18:22 GMT
And Labour will crash the economy like they did in 2008 ^ Neither should be anywhere near the levers of power, as Thomas often points out Labour did not crash the economy in 2008. It was global and started in America, and mostly down to greedy and under-regulated bankers. As you sort of concede in your later post, they bear a large portion of blame for allowing the contagion to spread and thus crashing our economy
|
|