news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Yet

and allegedly.

Thought this was all just some sim that is still running after humanity has been wiped out?

[lost]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

err...well in theory...it will lead to growth, which helps pay off that debt...Keynes or something...

 

Yes that was Liz Truss's plan .. lower taxes, more growth. Issue was the markets wouldn't tolarate the extra borrowing in the short term.

It will probably mean higher taxes or cuts (The IMF said we should look at axing the triple lock) The green levy on energy bills is one tax they might look at.

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

They are sticking with the plan and saying how much they invest depends on the state of the economy after the Tories have finished with it. All the end goal GB Energy, insulation, clean energy are still there; it’s just that they might not spend £28b.

Darren Jones summed it up really well yesterday. Stop falling for the Tories games. 

They are falling for Tories games by not committing to the pledge...instead of trying to defend it they just bin it.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, lost said:

Yes that was Liz Truss's plan .. lower taxes, more growth. Issue was the markets wouldn't tolarate the extra borrowing in the short term.

It will probably mean higher taxes or cuts (The IMF said we should look at axing the triple lock) The green levy on energy bills is one tax they might look at.

yes, could argue the Truss thing was also Keynsian...govt intervention to get growth, this time spending on tax cuts...problem is the international markets thought it was a bunch of shite and she was removed super quick.

Taxes will have to go up. I don't believe Labour or Tories won't put up taxes in next govt or one after. There's public services needing more cash no matter how much they talk about reform, there's all this green stuff, there's money needed for net zero, there's money needed to help in the rebuilding of a very f**ked Ukraine and Palestine..and negligible growth, high debt, high borrowing costs. Tax wealth.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

They are falling for Tories games by not committing to the pledge...instead of trying to defend it they just bin it.

They are defending the policy, they do it every time those stories come out. It’s just the amount of funding they aren’t defending, which for some reason is the big issue for you. 

[steviewevie]

20 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

They are defending the policy, they do it every time those stories come out. It’s just the amount of funding they aren’t defending, which for some reason is the big issue for you. 

it's a very slow and painful u-turn.

[steviewevie]

this guy

 

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

this guy

 

people have been saying thats the strategy for an age! its just his right wing paranoia.

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

it's a very slow and painful u-turn.

I mean it isn’t that’s the Tory media peddling lies. Labour have come time and time again to confirm their commitment to the policy. 

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I mean it isn’t that’s the Tory media peddling lies. Labour have come time and time again to confirm their commitment to the policy. 

The amount spent was always a big part of that pledge, rightly or wrongly voters will see it as a uturn or watering down of this green new deal..it is an arbitrary number anyway, but Labour came up with it which I guess they're regretting , and now they're all over the shop and it's a gift for the Tories.

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The amount spent was always a big part of that pledge, rightly or wrongly voters will see it as a uturn or watering down of this green new deal..it is an arbitrary number anyway, but Labour came up with it which I guess they're regretting , and now they're all over the shop and it's a gift for the Tories.

So if they can achieve their aims by spending £18b (for arguments sake) will you be happy or does it have to be £28b?

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

So if they can achieve their aims by spending £18b (for arguments sake) will you be happy or does it have to be £28b?

of course I will be happy...but I am not confident they will, and that is the point...it indicates they are less serious about it. Maybe it is the right choice politically because tories will attack them on it, or maybe tories will now attack them on looking indecisive and without a plan...

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Glad I'm not the only one who notices.

Also I find it rather off how I get warned for some posts by moderators but Neil, who is himself a moderator soon gets nasty with folks all the time.

I'll probably get warned for this post.

its not left wing to side with the warmongering rapists and baby killers. or even to back policies that won't work out well, like rail nationalisation. - cos chris grayling running the trains won't magically improve them.

[steviewevie]

Just now, Neil said:

its not left wing to side with the warmongering rapists and baby killers. or even to back policies that won't work out well, like rail nationalisation. - cos chris grayling running the trains won't magically improve them.

I guess they could get someone other than Chris Grayling to run them.

[Neil]

Just now, steviewevie said:

I guess they could get someone other than Chris Grayling to run them.

how about an expert from deutche rail?

[Neil]

46 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The amount spent was always a big part of that pledge, rightly or wrongly voters will see it as a uturn or watering down of this green new deal..it is an arbitrary number anyway, but Labour came up with it which I guess they're regretting , and now they're all over the shop and it's a gift for the Tories.

its a gift for the tory-enabling starmer haters.

[Neil]

On 2/2/2024 at 10:37 AM, Skip997 said:

 

Still can't clear the edit box.even posting doesn't lose it.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

of course I will be happy...but I am not confident they will, and that is the point...it indicates they are less serious about it. Maybe it is the right choice politically because tories will attack them on it, or maybe tories will now attack them on looking indecisive and without a plan...

So why is £28b the magic number you feel confident with, is it because that’s the number the Tories have been touting?
It doesn’t indicate they are less serious on it at all, it means they want to show to the public that they are also committed to look after the economy as well as focus on the green policies. 

[Neil]

Lots of slagging off of the DUP in stormont today  finding every reason to criticise them except the real reason sinn fien being first minister.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

So why is £28b the magic number you feel confident with, is it because that’s the number the Tories have been touting?
It doesn’t indicate they are less serious on it at all, it means they want to show to the public that they are also committed to look after the economy as well as focus on the green policies. 

Labour came up with the number. 

[Neil]

Just now, steviewevie said:

Labour came up with the number. 

It's a random number.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Labour came up with the number. 

Yeah so why if they change that number won’t you?

[steviewevie]