Starmer’s chronicles

[tweetiepooh]

Not all objections to development is pure nimbyism.
Do we need to keep building in the SE if there is spare housing elsewhere? Maybe relocate people and some industry to where there is spare resource? In the past people moved all around the world to find work, now they don't want to move to another part of the same country.
It is true we don't pay public servants enough and we have also taken away the perks that encouraged people to devote their lives to the job (e.g. great pensions, job security).
But we can't go back, only forward from where we are.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Some welcome news for the government. Let's help this uptick continues.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r5jkv5g5po

That’s not growth. -1 + 1 = 0

The economy has been flat for years.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Not all objections to development is pure nimbyism.
Do we need to keep building in the SE if there is spare housing elsewhere? Maybe relocate people and some industry to where there is spare resource? In the past people moved all around the world to find work, now they don't want to move to another part of the same country.
It is true we don't pay public servants enough and we have also taken away the perks that encouraged people to devote their lives to the job (e.g. great pensions, job security).
But we can't go back, only forward from where we are.

People want to live where they want to live. They're not units of human resources that can be moved around for optimal distribution. They might want to live near where they grew up and near friends and family. We need to build homes where the people are.

We do need to be less dependent on London and the South-East generally though so people have the option to find work elsewhere and those who grow up in different parts of the country don't feel compelled to move south to have a career but we fail on this as well. We don't build the infrastructure. We haven't found the structure to encourage new businesses to start in different locations. Whatever we try to build will face decades of consultations and court challenges because someone's view of a field is disrupted or some bats might be disrupted.

Look at what has happened with the need for a new tunnel at the Dartford crossing. It's been needed for over a decade. It's just one consultation after another and Labour have just started - you guessed it - another consultation! All because some very politically savvy residents with too much time on their hands get themselves looking angry on the front page of a local paper objecting to it with a '#SaveOurGreenSpace' or whatever campaign.

The country is run by those who want to stop any further progress in case it threatens them however bad the consequences are for the future. It's one big retirement home with a G7 economy attached to it. It will remain so until we accept that there will be trade-offs to be made for growth.

[1andrew1]

Well-paid jobs are being centralised in London at the expense of the rest of the country. Other countries including France have them more spread out. You need an industrial strategy that tackles this and maybe do something drastic like moving Parliament to Birmingham or Manchester so London is not both the centre of government and commerce.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Well-paid jobs are being centralised in London at the expense of the rest of the country. Other countries including France have them more spread out. You need an industrial strategy that tackles this and maybe do something drastic like moving Parliament to Birmingham or Manchester so London is not both the centre of government and commerce.

There are well paid across the country.

Moving Parliament wouldn’t make any difference.

But you are right with Industrial strategy, we need good paying blue collar jobs, but the drive to net-zero, increase in employers N.I., the level of corporation tax, business rates and employee rights will prevent us from ever restarting an industrial base in this country.

BP have just announced job losses globally, and you can guarantee they’ll axe the most expensive ones right back………

Same goes for any global business with operations in the U.K., anything that can be moved elsewhere were Labour is cheaper…will be.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Maybe relocate people and some industry to where there is spare resource?

You realise these are actual real people, not just pieces on a chess board.

https://news.sky.com/story/tories-wi...-says-13290398

Kemi Badenoch has said the Conservatives will consider means-testing the pensions triple lock.

The Tory leader said her party would "look at means-testing" the system which guarantees that the state pension rises in line with average earnings, inflation or 2.5% - whichever is highest.

The Conservatives have long championed the triple lock - introduced by former chancellor George Osborne during the coalition government - but some senior Conservatives have recently hinted that it might not be sustainable in the long term.

They won't do it hence the 'look at' part of the statement but means-testing the state pension is an insane idea. It disincentives private pension saving which the last Government took steps to encourage. Why should someone sacrifice part of their monthly salary if that's counted against them regarding their state pension?

What they should do is look at removing the part of the triple-lock that links it to wage growth. That's unsustainable because it means the tax base to fund the pension is always growing slower than the state pension itself. It makes sense to link to inflation because you don't want to erode in value over time but the link to wages means that when inflation is slow the cost of pensions to the state will forever increase.

A sensible economy would have a generous enough state pension that means pensioners aren't destitute with a good chunk of them having additional income they built up over their working lives but the average earnings of workers should be higher than that state pension.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by Paul

You realise these are actual real people, not just pieces on a chess board.

Yes of course I know they are real people but they are people with a real need and if that need can be met by (some of them) moving surely that is part of the solution. I am not suggesting forcing people to move but, as I said before, in the past people moved around the world for a "better life". And if some skilled people move at take money into poorer areas so those areas develop that benefits the receiving area too. And if you do build cheaper properties how do you stop the owners then selling on at a nice profit because demand is high? More council owner properties? OK that houses some but can councils afford to increase their portfolios? How do people then get out of public housing onto the property level? If the public purse lets you live "comfortably" that is even more disincentive to work.


(Now I know there are people who really do need help but how do you help them and keep out the scroungers who won't work, who won't look after a property they are allocated, abuse neighbourhoods etc. And if an area doesn't have jobs at the lower end what are people who live in this housing going to do for work?)


A possible further advantage is that as more people moving in, services can increase too which makes the area more attractive, even for those who currently live there.


What happens at the moment is an imbalance. Houses are built where there is demand (high housing prices) but few of that property addresses the need in that area as demand keeps the prices high and the poor still can't afford the properties being built over the green fields that all can enjoy. Another imbalance is property in desirable areas being bought for investment, holiday homes etc which again pushes property prices up and creates another area where poorer people can no longer afford to live.

[1andrew1]

Some more good news for Starmer as the IMF raises its UK growth forecast to 1.6%.

With Trump talking about 10% tariffs on countries like us and higher for less friendly ones, I hope even this quite sluggish projection can be achieved.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglyynp44g4o.amp

[papa smurf]

yes let's blame Trump instead of our Rachael

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Some more good news for Starmer as the IMF raises its UK growth forecast to 1.6%.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...5#post36189515

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

yes let's blame Trump instead of our Rachael

Seems that labours default position, is , it not our fault, "he" did it. Nothing we can do about it so just pay more tax , and think how lucky you are to have a airhead from accounts , looking after the monies.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Seems that labours default position, is , it not our fault, "he" did it. Nothing we can do about it so just pay more tax , and think how lucky you are to have a airhead from accounts , looking after the monies.

To be honest, this is a pretty silly reply. Labour inherited an economy that was broken due to the Tories, Brexit, Covid, Putin, etc. If you think that Labour should not have increased the taxes they did, explain how the economy could be salvaged through different means.

The endless whinging without any constructive input has no value.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Labour inherited an economy that was broken due to the Tories,

No it wasn’t, it wasn’t brilliant, but it wasn’t broken. Labour and Reeves killed it stone dead by inventing this 22bilion black hole……that didn’t exist, talking down the economy and then announcing a budget to truly break the economy.

Brexit, Covid, Putin, etc. If you think that Labour should not have increased the taxes they did, explain how the economy could be salvaged through different means.

By ending illegal immigration, immediately. Would be a start., then cancelling Net Zero, and ramping up oil and gas. Reducing energy prices.

Would immediately “salvage the economy”.

The endless whinging without any constructive input has no value.[/QUOTE]

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

No it wasn’t, it wasn’t brilliant, but it wasn’t broken. Labour and Reeves killed it stone dead by inventing this 22bilion black hole……that didn’t exist, talking down the economy and then announcing a budget to truly break the economy.

By ending illegal immigration, immediately. Would be a start., then cancelling Net Zero, and ramping up oil and gas. Reducing energy prices.

Would immediately “salvage the economy”.

The endless whinging without any constructive input has no value.

[/QUOTE]
The economy continues to be its usual sluggishness. You can continue to talk the country down by pretending the economy is dead but that would be incorrect, likewise pretending there was no spending black hole.

You can't carry on denying global warming and the heavy cost implications this is laying on the world through flooding, hurricanes etc. Best be a leader in new green technology and have energy sovereignty to boot.