2024 Election thread

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

How did they do that?!

massive hike in personal taxation, they could have pursued other sources of revenue to keep money in people's pockets.

There was some shouting about the Govt subsidising mortgage increases. I am not saying this was ever likely but is the sort of vote winner that they could have done.

You are well aware that public sector pay restraint is as much about managing expectations as the immediate outcome.

It would have been fairly mainstream to have an expansionary fiscal policy to up the rate of growth and say to hell with inflation as it will sort itself out.

Whilst they set an easy target they should be given credit for having a "policy" and sticking to it.

Err no. That would be absolutely bonkers. A PM suggested that and she lasted 6 weeks

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

How did they do that?!

massive hike in personal taxation, they could have pursued other sources of revenue to keep money in people's pockets.

There was some shouting about the Govt subsidising mortgage increases. I am not saying this was ever likely but is the sort of vote winner that they could have done.

You are well aware that public sector pay restraint is as much about managing expectations as the immediate outcome.

It would have been fairly mainstream to have an expansionary fiscal policy to up the rate of growth and say to hell with inflation as it will sort itself out.

Whilst they set an easy target they should be given credit for having a "policy" and sticking to it.

Have you worked out how to vote now that red Johnson is no longer there?

Don't tell anybody but I never bother to vote.

I see mass abstentions as the only way towards a change in electoral system.

My lack of voting has never decided the otcome of an election. The closest was Ed Davey in 1997 who won by 56 votes but I would have voted for him so that would have been irrelevant.

The last two times I voted I lost so am starting to think I am cursed so even if there was a referendum on voting reform it would probably be best to skip it.

pblakeney

Imagine the outcome if everyone who doesn't vote did something different and voted for The Monster Raving Lunatic Party (or equivalent). That would bring about change.

focuszing723

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

How did they do that?!

massive hike in personal taxation, they could have pursued other sources of revenue to keep money in people's pockets.

There was some shouting about the Govt subsidising mortgage increases. I am not saying this was ever likely but is the sort of vote winner that they could have done.

You are well aware that public sector pay restraint is as much about managing expectations as the immediate outcome.

It would have been fairly mainstream to have an expansionary fiscal policy to up the rate of growth and say to hell with inflation as it will sort itself out.

Whilst they set an easy target they should be given credit for having a "policy" and sticking to it.

No, it's the BoE remit to control inflation, if this would have happened it would have created higher inflation meaning the BoE would have raised IRs even further.

How can you stimulate an economy and control inflation when you aren't in control of IRs?

focuszing723

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom

focuszing723

This was half the reason Truss wanted to remove that control from the BoE. Personally, I think it's great the BoE do control IRs. Although that being said they were slow off the mark and Bailey should never have told people "Don't ask for a pay rise", without taking a pay cut himself that goes for MPs too.

Lead by example. We need that, it's not do as I say not what I do.

focuszing723

Lead by example!

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

Imagine the outcome if everyone who doesn't vote did something different and voted for The Monster Raving Lunatic Party (or equivalent). That would bring about change.

That would make no difference in my constituency

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Whilst I would not agree with SteveO’s use of the word “bile” I do think you lot are incapable of rationally talking about the Tories.

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

Much of their impact has been through things that they did not do but that is just as valid.

I may be making a point with my choice of words but when phrases such as 'Tory scum', 'awful human being' and all sorts personal attacks on tory politicians crop up pretty frequently on here, I think it's justified.

But you're spot on, most people on here seem to be incapable of rational debate about the Tories.

surrey_commuter

focuszing723 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

How did they do that?!

massive hike in personal taxation, they could have pursued other sources of revenue to keep money in people's pockets.

There was some shouting about the Govt subsidising mortgage increases. I am not saying this was ever likely but is the sort of vote winner that they could have done.

You are well aware that public sector pay restraint is as much about managing expectations as the immediate outcome.

It would have been fairly mainstream to have an expansionary fiscal policy to up the rate of growth and say to hell with inflation as it will sort itself out.

Whilst they set an easy target they should be given credit for having a "policy" and sticking to it.

No, it's the BoE remit to control inflation, if this would have happened it would have created higher inflation meaning the BoE would have raised IRs even further.

How can you stimulate an economy and control inflation when you aren't in control of IRs?

Two scenarios that they did not do.

Remove interest rate policy from the BofE

Agree with everybody on here that inflation is down to external factors and go for fiscal expansion knowing that the external factors will reduce inflation.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

How did they do that?!

massive hike in personal taxation, they could have pursued other sources of revenue to keep money in people's pockets.

There was some shouting about the Govt subsidising mortgage increases. I am not saying this was ever likely but is the sort of vote winner that they could have done.

You are well aware that public sector pay restraint is as much about managing expectations as the immediate outcome.

It would have been fairly mainstream to have an expansionary fiscal policy to up the rate of growth and say to hell with inflation as it will sort itself out.

Whilst they set an easy target they should be given credit for having a "policy" and sticking to it.

'Other sources of revenue'

😆

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

How did they do that?!

massive hike in personal taxation, they could have pursued other sources of revenue to keep money in people's pockets.

There was some shouting about the Govt subsidising mortgage increases. I am not saying this was ever likely but is the sort of vote winner that they could have done.

You are well aware that public sector pay restraint is as much about managing expectations as the immediate outcome.

It would have been fairly mainstream to have an expansionary fiscal policy to up the rate of growth and say to hell with inflation as it will sort itself out.

Whilst they set an easy target they should be given credit for having a "policy" and sticking to it.

Have you worked out how to vote now that red Johnson is no longer there?

Don't tell anybody but I never bother to vote.

I see mass abstentions as the only way towards a change in electoral system.

My lack of voting has never decided the otcome of an election. The closest was Ed Davey in 1997 who won by 56 votes but I would have voted for him so that would have been irrelevant.

The last two times I voted I lost so am starting to think I am cursed so even if there was a referendum on voting reform it would probably be best to skip it.

🤦🏻‍♂️

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

How did they do that?!

massive hike in personal taxation, they could have pursued other sources of revenue to keep money in people's pockets.

There was some shouting about the Govt subsidising mortgage increases. I am not saying this was ever likely but is the sort of vote winner that they could have done.

You are well aware that public sector pay restraint is as much about managing expectations as the immediate outcome.

It would have been fairly mainstream to have an expansionary fiscal policy to up the rate of growth and say to hell with inflation as it will sort itself out.

Whilst they set an easy target they should be given credit for having a "policy" and sticking to it.

No, it's the BoE remit to control inflation, if this would have happened it would have created higher inflation meaning the BoE would have raised IRs even further.

How can you stimulate an economy and control inflation when you aren't in control of IRs?

Two scenarios that they did not do.

Remove interest rate policy from the BofE

Agree with everybody on here that inflation is down to external factors and go for fiscal expansion knowing that the external factors will reduce inflation.

They also didn't invade France. I suppose they should have a round of applause for that, too.

feelgoodlost

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Whilst I would not agree with SteveO’s use of the word “bile” I do think you lot are incapable of rationally talking about the Tories.

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

Much of their impact has been through things that they did not do but that is just as valid.

I may be making a point with my choice of words but when phrases such as 'Tory scum', 'awful human being' and all sorts personal attacks on tory politicians crop up pretty frequently on here, I think it's justified.

But you're spot on, most people on here seem to be incapable of rational debate about the Tories.

When you have Tory Politicians calling homelessness a 'Lifestyle Choice' - I'd say they're fair game.

focuszing723

Shocking I haven't received at least twenty likes for my posts!

It's lucky it's sunny today or I'd have the right hump.

focuszing723

Oh, can we keep a limit on the bile please.

Store it up for when Labour have their foot in the door.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

How did they do that?!

massive hike in personal taxation, they could have pursued other sources of revenue to keep money in people's pockets.

There was some shouting about the Govt subsidising mortgage increases. I am not saying this was ever likely but is the sort of vote winner that they could have done.

You are well aware that public sector pay restraint is as much about managing expectations as the immediate outcome.

It would have been fairly mainstream to have an expansionary fiscal policy to up the rate of growth and say to hell with inflation as it will sort itself out.

Whilst they set an easy target they should be given credit for having a "policy" and sticking to it.

No, it's the BoE remit to control inflation, if this would have happened it would have created higher inflation meaning the BoE would have raised IRs even further.

How can you stimulate an economy and control inflation when you aren't in control of IRs?

Two scenarios that they did not do.

Remove interest rate policy from the BofE

Agree with everybody on here that inflation is down to external factors and go for fiscal expansion knowing that the external factors will reduce inflation.

They also didn't invade France. I suppose they should have a round of applause for that, too.

You would still moan about the Tories even if they did invade France

Stevo_666

feelgoodlost said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Whilst I would not agree with SteveO’s use of the word “bile” I do think you lot are incapable of rationally talking about the Tories.

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

Much of their impact has been through things that they did not do but that is just as valid.

I may be making a point with my choice of words but when phrases such as 'Tory scum', 'awful human being' and all sorts personal attacks on tory politicians crop up pretty frequently on here, I think it's justified.

But you're spot on, most people on here seem to be incapable of rational debate about the Tories.

When you have Tory Politicians calling homelessness a 'Lifestyle Choice' - I'd say they're fair game.

Two wrongs...

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

Oh, can we keep a limit on the bile please.

Store it up for when Labour have their foot in the door.

Don't worry, I'm getting ready. Will be quite fun when the boot is on the other foot

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

IMHO they prioritised inflation over economic growth and achieved the (soft) target that they set themselves.

How did they do that?!

massive hike in personal taxation, they could have pursued other sources of revenue to keep money in people's pockets.

There was some shouting about the Govt subsidising mortgage increases. I am not saying this was ever likely but is the sort of vote winner that they could have done.

You are well aware that public sector pay restraint is as much about managing expectations as the immediate outcome.

It would have been fairly mainstream to have an expansionary fiscal policy to up the rate of growth and say to hell with inflation as it will sort itself out.

Whilst they set an easy target they should be given credit for having a "policy" and sticking to it.

No, it's the BoE remit to control inflation, if this would have happened it would have created higher inflation meaning the BoE would have raised IRs even further.

How can you stimulate an economy and control inflation when you aren't in control of IRs?

Two scenarios that they did not do.

Remove interest rate policy from the BofE

Agree with everybody on here that inflation is down to external factors and go for fiscal expansion knowing that the external factors will reduce inflation.

They also didn't invade France. I suppose they should have a round of applause for that, too.

You would still moan about the Tories even if they did invade France

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

Imagine the outcome if everyone who doesn't vote did something different and voted for The Monster Raving Lunatic Party (or equivalent). That would bring about change.

That would make no difference in my constituency

It would elsewhere though. And that might lead to proportional representation, which would impact you. Not voting is acceptance.

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

Imagine the outcome if everyone who doesn't vote did something different and voted for The Monster Raving Lunatic Party (or equivalent). That would bring about change.

That would make no difference in my constituency

It would elsewhere though. And that might lead to proportional representation, which would impact you. Not voting is acceptance.

But I don't vote or think on behalf of other people and am not prepared to move.

focuszing723

It was standing room only at tonight’s council planning meeting, where all Leverhulme applications were rejected.

Labour campaigner Gail Jenkinson, who started the campaign against these developments, collecting almost 5000 signatures, said, “Congratulations to the council and to everyone who signed the petition or put in objections.

“The developments would have been catastrophic, in my opinion. They are close to Arrowe Brook which has a history of flooding near the brook in Greasby and four sewage release spots in Greasby and Saughall Massie. New building nearby is not going to help matters in the least.”

Wirral Labour opposes building on greenbelt land, with a policy of regenerating brownfield sites into new homes.

https://www.birkenhead.news/council-reject-all-leverhulme-planning-applications/
Margaret Greenwood is the Labour MP for Wirral West.

To what extent will Labour tear up the planning regulations/laws will be interesting. To what extent will building become a free for all?

I can see both sides of the argument.

surrey_commuter

focuszing723 said:

It was standing room only at tonight’s council planning meeting, where all Leverhulme applications were rejected.

Labour campaigner Gail Jenkinson, who started the campaign against these developments, collecting almost 5000 signatures, said, “Congratulations to the council and to everyone who signed the petition or put in objections.

“The developments would have been catastrophic, in my opinion. They are close to Arrowe Brook which has a history of flooding near the brook in Greasby and four sewage release spots in Greasby and Saughall Massie. New building nearby is not going to help matters in the least.”

Wirral Labour opposes building on greenbelt land, with a policy of regenerating brownfield sites into new homes.

https://www.birkenhead.news/council-reject-all-leverhulme-planning-applications/
Margaret Greenwood is the Labour MP for Wirral West.

To what extent will Labour tear up the planning regulations/laws will be interesting. To what extent will building become a free for all?

I can see both sides of the argument.

Not being familiar with Liverpool could you confirm whether a sewage release point is counted as brownfield or greenfield?

focuszing723

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

It was standing room only at tonight’s council planning meeting, where all Leverhulme applications were rejected.

Labour campaigner Gail Jenkinson, who started the campaign against these developments, collecting almost 5000 signatures, said, “Congratulations to the council and to everyone who signed the petition or put in objections.

“The developments would have been catastrophic, in my opinion. They are close to Arrowe Brook which has a history of flooding near the brook in Greasby and four sewage release spots in Greasby and Saughall Massie. New building nearby is not going to help matters in the least.”

Wirral Labour opposes building on greenbelt land, with a policy of regenerating brownfield sites into new homes.

https://www.birkenhead.news/council-reject-all-leverhulme-planning-applications/
Margaret Greenwood is the Labour MP for Wirral West.

To what extent will Labour tear up the planning regulations/laws will be interesting. To what extent will building become a free for all?

I can see both sides of the argument.

Not being familiar with Liverpool could you confirm whether a sewage release point is counted as brownfield or greenfield?

All I know is a developer found some land which was viable to build on and it got rejected. I guess it's come to less desirable locations have to be considered, because...

Labour can rip up the planning rule book all they want, get that passed the locals though.

focuszing723

Starmer is intelligent and at least he's no Corbyn (was tolerated after the financial crisis). We might as well start taking about their policy commitments. We all know they're in.

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

It was standing room only at tonight’s council planning meeting, where all Leverhulme applications were rejected.

Labour campaigner Gail Jenkinson, who started the campaign against these developments, collecting almost 5000 signatures, said, “Congratulations to the council and to everyone who signed the petition or put in objections.

“The developments would have been catastrophic, in my opinion. They are close to Arrowe Brook which has a history of flooding near the brook in Greasby and four sewage release spots in Greasby and Saughall Massie. New building nearby is not going to help matters in the least.”

Wirral Labour opposes building on greenbelt land, with a policy of regenerating brownfield sites into new homes.

https://www.birkenhead.news/council-reject-all-leverhulme-planning-applications/
Margaret Greenwood is the Labour MP for Wirral West.

To what extent will Labour tear up the planning regulations/laws will be interesting. To what extent will building become a free for all?

I can see both sides of the argument.

There are those in the housebuilding industry who think that Labour's attempt to do that will have precisely zero impact on the number of houses being built for at least 5 years.
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/04/keir-starmer-labour-housing-crest-nicholson-property/

focuszing723

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

It was standing room only at tonight’s council planning meeting, where all Leverhulme applications were rejected.

Labour campaigner Gail Jenkinson, who started the campaign against these developments, collecting almost 5000 signatures, said, “Congratulations to the council and to everyone who signed the petition or put in objections.

“The developments would have been catastrophic, in my opinion. They are close to Arrowe Brook which has a history of flooding near the brook in Greasby and four sewage release spots in Greasby and Saughall Massie. New building nearby is not going to help matters in the least.”

Wirral Labour opposes building on greenbelt land, with a policy of regenerating brownfield sites into new homes.

https://www.birkenhead.news/council-reject-all-leverhulme-planning-applications/
Margaret Greenwood is the Labour MP for Wirral West.

To what extent will Labour tear up the planning regulations/laws will be interesting. To what extent will building become a free for all?

I can see both sides of the argument.

There are those in the housebuilding industry who think that Labour's attempt to do that will have precisely zero impact on the number of houses being built for at least 5 years.
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/04/keir-starmer-labour-housing-crest-nicholson-property/

Yep, it wouldn't surprise me either.

If he can't keep that pledge/promise he's lost the youth. All he could do is point to the equal lack of progress from the Tories and people are sick/tired of the blame game.

focuszing723

Actually, of course it extends the youth in today's society.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

It was standing room only at tonight’s council planning meeting, where all Leverhulme applications were rejected.

Labour campaigner Gail Jenkinson, who started the campaign against these developments, collecting almost 5000 signatures, said, “Congratulations to the council and to everyone who signed the petition or put in objections.

“The developments would have been catastrophic, in my opinion. They are close to Arrowe Brook which has a history of flooding near the brook in Greasby and four sewage release spots in Greasby and Saughall Massie. New building nearby is not going to help matters in the least.”

Wirral Labour opposes building on greenbelt land, with a policy of regenerating brownfield sites into new homes.

https://www.birkenhead.news/council-reject-all-leverhulme-planning-applications/
Margaret Greenwood is the Labour MP for Wirral West.

To what extent will Labour tear up the planning regulations/laws will be interesting. To what extent will building become a free for all?

I can see both sides of the argument.

There are those in the housebuilding industry who think that Labour's attempt to do that will have precisely zero impact on the number of houses being built for at least 5 years.
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/04/keir-starmer-labour-housing-crest-nicholson-property/

Peter Truscott did not say 'precisely zero'. Given there's potentially a year of Conservative government to go, five years sounds pretty ambitious to reform something as utterly dysfunctional as the planning system. It's a fair point that clarity on exactly which bits of land will be redesignated is essential to making that release of land happen.

They also need to address a political culture that rewards objecting to anything and everything. That applies across the political spectrum.