Hey, every time I learn something new, it pushes something old out of my brain! Theresa did the dance that was required, and the 1922 committee has breathed a huge sigh of relief. Frankly they were so desperate to avoid another leadership contest --or worse, another GE-- that she could have shown up naked goosestepping to Deutschland über Alles. She could have bitten the heads of live kittens. She could have confessed to being Moira Hindley. She could have claimed to be channelling the lizard people from Alpha Centauri. She could almost have been Boris Johnson. So they drank her act of contrition up like water in a desert of their Tory ambitions. And they let her continue blundering on, on borrowed time. And I'll give her a week before she screws up again. Meanwhile, a year in, the UK still does not have: A Brexit plan A negotiating mandate A negotiating team A date to start negotiations
I'm not sure it was so much about there being or not being an economically clear positive case for Brexit, it's that (IMO) the Conservatives truly believed that the only possible Brexit was the one they've been pursuing, they didn't think Labour's vision of Brexit was any different than theirs. I think it was more a matter of Brexit means Brexit and they've never considered it to be a nuanced question, it seems they've always seen Brexit as a black and white issue so they've never felt the need to layout their vision as they think everyone sees Brexit in the same way they do. To be fair Labour played a blinder, in hindsight, as they not only played to a large proportion of remainers but also many leavers, we had the Conservatives playing to the hardcore leavers, Lib dems playing to the hardcore remainers, and Labour positioning themselves in the middle, or at least I'm guessing that was how most people, rightly or wrongly, perceived the parties stance on the Brexit issue.
True, it may be that they didn't feel the need to make a case for Brexit because people had already voted for it (without really knowing what they voted for). But they are now having to "make a success of it", and of course everybody will have a very different idea about what that means. And the Tories want to make sure that if the electorate does not experience Brexit as a "success" (which it almost certainly won't) that the blame can be put at the feet of the EU. Except that the way things are going, that will be increasingly difficult --although there actually are people who are blaming the EU for this election cluster****. I think that Labour cleverly turned the spotlight from Brexit to the unicorns that had motivated people to vote Brexit in the first place, but which had suddenly disappeared from the Tory manifesto. Basically it said: "We will get you what you voted Brexit for".
And presumably a tax on unicorns too if it ever was to be paid for. Though not all of it was such at the 79% wage increase for 18yos which we'd be paying for of course. I had read through that manifesto and was a lot of stuff in there that hits us hard and we are not "Big Business" or "The Rich".
I got us into this mess and I'm going to get us out of it. Maybe that's just the guardians rhetoric but if it's true my heart bleeds for those poor MPs.
So? You think that Brexit is a fiscally responsible policy? You think there weren't a few unicorns in there? But people voted for it so "the will of the people" will have to be respected. Similarly, if the majority had voted for Labour's manifesto (or will do at the next GE) then again the will of the people will have to be expected. And people will have to own the consequences. Democracy, yo.
I don't have a problem with democracy. If they vote him in then that's what we'll get, or worse, since they'll probably add a bit more to the next manifesto. I have a problem with staying solvent if we have to hand out >50% pay rises and a guaranteed hours contract to anyone who does those hours for 12 weeks. Of course we can employ 17yos and make sure no-one gets 12 weeks of work at a stint, perhaps that's what he wants us to do. Oh and no fees for employment tribunals so frivolous complaints time too.
If solvency is your worry, then perhaps you should worry about Brexit. That's actually happening, after all (Or not. Or maybe. It's a bit vague right now). I find it funny how the government gets people to worry about public debt while its austerity politics causes their personal debt to spiral out of control. Me thinks you are being suckered there.
Maybe I'm being naive but if your wages bill rises by >50% wouldn't you just charge >50% more for whatever you sell?
If you increase wages by x%, and also increase prices by x%, but the value of the currency itself does not drastically change then you are ahead. Any goods that cannot increase their prices freely, or goods/services that have a mostly fixed cost (i.e. their major cost contributor is not domestic labour wages), will be cheaper as a proportion of your wages.
I must confess curiosity as to their 'dire financial situations'. Not that it makes me any more sympathetic to their plight, what with their desire to **** the people.
Well as their wages have just gone up by 50% one would assume 50% more. It must be all those cuts to public services, when you've been on a pittance of only £74k for a few years you've probably not had much time to accrue a nest egg. I guess they could always apply for the 70 odd quid available to job seekers.
BTW if we are going for another GE, I'm feeling really good about Lord Buckethead. He opposes Theresa May and he wants to convert Birmingham into a star base.
Buckethead has made me wonder how much point there is to single independent MP's, were he to be elected.
So long as Mr Fish Finger is in coalition. So the DUP get 10 seats and are king/queen makers with the peace process shown little regard. The Greens get just 1 seat and yet got 525,371 votes to the DUP's 292,316. Our system makes no sense.
So Mrs May seems to have done another U-turn, even though we were told austerity was a necessity because of the debt and deficit and we have to live within our means she's said austerity is over. If austerity was the cure and we're still sick does that mean austerity wasn't necessary in the first place, if it wasn't then why have we have 7 years of it and if it was why stop now when the deficit still (iirc) stands at £50 billion.
If the defict is at £50bn then that is 2.6% of GDP. If Nominal GDP growth is say 4% (2% real growth, rest inflation) then debt is falling as a percentage of GDP. I'm not happy with this move entirely because it would be ideal to get the debt to GDP ratio back down below 40% in case another left of feild economic crisis comes. If the deficit were still 11% of GDP or maybe now say 7% after automatic stabilsers assuming all budgets increased with real GDP growth (i.e. not austerity) then we'd be likely at over 120-140% of GDP by now, with higher interest rates (likely) and we don't have the domestic savings ratio like japan does.
In the context of all this have a read of this. I'll admit the conclusions were not what I expected. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/ Sent from my SM-N915FY using Tapatalk
