Tinkering around the edges won't help. And abandoning financial discipline - wherever you pitch it - will freak the markets and raise your cost of borrowing, adding to the problems. But in essence, you either raise money through borrowing or taxation. Excessive borrowing will be inflationary, and self-defeating, while too much taxation will be political suicide. The government is in a straight-jacket from which it will be difficult to escape unless growth rises unexpectedly. Fantasy economics can't alter those basic facts. Lettuce Liz found that out, and my kids are paying the price through their mortgages.
Is this the same Richard Murphy? In a response to a question raised in the House of Commons, Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell stated with regard to Murphy "He is not the economic adviser and never has been, because we doubted his judgment, unfortunately. He is a tax accountant, not an adviser. He is actually excellent on tax evasion and tax avoidance, but he leaves a lot to be desired on macroeconomic policy".
There are ways and means to not 'be skint'. Truss was an idiot, I agree, but that was because she wanted to reduce taxes and not do anything else. Moronic. Worse than a sixth-form economics student. Doesn't alter my point that governments CAN manipulate the system to achieve a desired goal and it doesn't have to spook anybody, it just needs to be achievable and realistic. As to the tax rates it depends how you structure taxes and where they fall that counts. But...lets hit the disabled next eh? Well save a bit of brass, we'll pretend its good for them and we wont incur the wrath of vested interests and multinationals. Easy decision by right-wing Tory boy Starmer.
Nice to see you backing McDonnell. Good to see that now you implicitly think he may talk sense. Do some more listening to McDonnell, esp on the disability attacks. As to the Murphy person. it may well be him I dunno. I just asked you to look him up. Try that as well. And, also try responding to other comments I make in my posts instead of trying to cherry-pick. Lies, Gaza, corruption, attacking the vulnerable, divisive rhetoric. Try some of those topics and defend Starmer.
If the welfare system needs reform reform it. Dont simply take weak peoples' money off them now because its easy. Its cruel and there are alternatives till the welfare system can be properly restructured. Nasty Tory policy. In fact, its worse than the Tories because even George Osborne, that well-known left-winger, said he didn't touch PIP because it would seem unfair.
p.s. I've done for today. I may respond tomorrow if you blindly defend Starmer just because he has 'Labour' stamped on his head but, for now, I'll wish you a good day.
Not for me to defend him, Mr KCP. I'm glad he was able to make Labour electable though. Fair to say though that the takeup and the cost of the PIP regime has increased considerably since Gideon's time.
Percentage of Non-UK Born Population in the UK by Decade 1951 4.3% 1961 5.0% 1971 6.4% 1981 6.6% 1991 7.3% 2001 8.8% 2011 13.4% 2021 16.8% Now this isn't to say if this is a good thing or a bad thing. In fact with impending population collapse across the western world, immigration views may end up flipping in decades to come. With a low birth rate and an ageing population, immigration helps balance the demographic scales by bringing in younger, working-age people. However the above does show a huge shift. 1950s–1980s: The foreign-born population remained relatively stable, with modest increases each decade. 1990s–2000s: A significant rise occurred, particularly post-1997, with a notable increase of 1.1 million between 1991 and 2001. 2010s: The foreign-born population continued to grow rapidly, reaching 13.4% by 2011. 2020s: By 2021, the percentage rose to 16.8%, reflecting ongoing immigration trends. Haven't read through this whole thread. Just on the theme of the OP I do think sometimes think that some people and groups unintentionally harm the immigration debate by downplaying or dismissing real concerns, including the scale of immigration or its localised impacts. This can create distrust, alienate potential allies, and deepen division — even among people who might otherwise support a more open, compassionate immigration policy.
What lies are you referring to? I'm a long time member and actuve campaigner and I'd say where we were in 17 and 19 were far worse. We had no point and couldn't affect anything
Got a lot more votes though! I'm sure we'd all have more sympathy if one of the things you wanted an effect on was doing something about that.
To achieve such a big seats majority on such a low percentage vote share suggests a very cleverly-targeted campaign. The prize is a rest of at least five years from the Tories.
I'm sure that's what they're saying in Labour HQ! Seemed more to me like it was a vote against the Tories, and there's nothing easier to turn around than that (as, dare I say, the Reform numbers might currently be suggesting!). ~4m votes dropped between 2017 and 2024 is an awful lot, particularly as there seems to be no particular interest in getting them back.
My generation have been falling for that one since 2005. It's always just about to get better, isn't it.
A fiat currency producing economy can fund anything it wants to fund. All choices are political choices. Labour are choosing to target disabled people that will inevitably lead to many deaths rather than tax wealth.
Nationalisation making the positive case for immigration Ending UC Taxing wealth the list is endless. some pledges https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf
