Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] The Breakthrough Party.



beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,319
The first one was driven by the fuel crisis though wasn't it?

I don't mean we should spaff the equivalent of the Covid spaff giving public sector workers a pay rise. It wouldn't cost anything like that...
first came lots of cash injections and supply constraints in 2021. the energy price rises came in 2022.

indivudally, public sector pay rises are modest, add them all together then theres a large, near 30bn.
 




Audax

Boing boing boing...
Aug 3, 2015
2,946
Uckfield
there is another option, not explored enough. hold the assets and investment vehicle as a not-for-profit business, at arms length of government. do we really want the investment of water competing with defense or education for £ from the Treasuary? thats why many areas end up so underinvested in the first place. let them operate along commerical lines with own debt, operating surplus so back to the business. then let regulator to control what investment is expected. btw, that is already partially the case for water (regulator has prioritised reducing water leakage for decades) and has been done for rail infrastucture.

this private/nationalised argument should be left to the 70's and 80's. we know for many areas of infrastructure neither works very well, so find the middle ground.

I'd be happy if there's a workable middle ground. What's clear as day, though, is that even with regulators in place the existing solutions for both water and rail are dysfunctional. The failures in both sectors cost the entire economy, both through direct impacts and indirect. Having said that, though, another particular problem I have with Water being privatised is the apparent complete lack of coordinated planning between governmental new building targets and ability of the regional monopolies to provide a supply. We've got a hosepipe ban from South-East Water ... not because of a lack of water, but because their ability to treat and distribute water is unable to meet demand. And that, if you look at it, is actually because they've not kept pace with growing demand over the years and simply haven't invested in ensuring that they have enough treatment/distribution capacity to be able to handle demand spikes.

Wholesale side of energy is also broken, but I think there's a clear route to resolving that - just needs government to pull their fingers out to initiate the required reforms.
 
Last edited:


Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
64,134
Withdean area
I might just have devious intent!

Agreed. One thing that I'll add is that they have transparency on wages, taxation and IIRC even assets in Norway. This means that anybody can see the broad financial situation of other citizens. What do you reckon are the chances of those politicians that like to bang on about 'transparency is the best disinfectant' proposing a replica over here?

I might just have devious intent. The UK oil bonanza pretty much coincided with Thatcher, and facilitated the great tax cutting policy on the rich she inflicted. Public debt had been slashed before she launched the neoliberal agenda:


And this was in the trentes glorieuses in which we had the NHS, utilities were nationalised, universal pension provision, etc, increasing wages, declining inequality, progressive taxation, and so on.

I agree that those might be better comparators. Germany, France and Italy might be better still (but let's not go there). Also, thanks for sharing those stats. Interesting. Presumably those taxes that you're quoting are direct taxes on income (rather than including, eg, VAT)?

Hi, just direct payroll taxes including the community charge.

A question - was the %age fall in state debt not the consequence of great stewardship, but instead runaway inflation in the 1960's and 1970's, which meant it fell in real terms?

I don't agree with the party political demonising solely of Thatcher as the devil that alledegy blew our North Sea carbons wealth. Wilson/Heath/Wilson again/Callaghan/Major/Blair could all have done something different and didn't. Norway acted in 1972. None followed the example of Statoil, everyone of them used taxes/duties to help balance the annual government deficit/surplus. Besides, the best we could ever have hoped for was benefits 1/13th of those of Norway.

On the wider discussion, Germany is the beacon. But it has unique circumstances.
1. A fresh start on 1948 with the eventual gift of Marshall Plan riches.
2. Mittelstand businesses make up the backbone of the economy. Highly skilled staff, employee involvement, making quality good and services, great exporters.
3. Millions take vocational training of up to 5 years and the equivalent of a degree. Elsewhere non-academic studies and careers are looked down upon.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,670
Fiveways
Hi, just direct payroll taxes including the community charge.

A question - was the %age fall in state debt not the consequence of great stewardship, but instead runaway inflation in the 1960's and 1970's, which meant it fell in real terms?

I don't agree with the party political demonising solely of Thatcher as the devil that alledegy blew our North Sea carbons wealth. Wilson/Heath/Wilson again/Callaghan/Major/Blair could all have done something different and didn't. Norway acted in 1972. None followed the example of Statoil, everyone of them used taxes/duties to help balance the annual government deficit/surplus. Besides, the best we could ever have hoped for was benefits 1/13th of those of Norway.

On the wider discussion, Germany is the beacon. But it has unique circumstances.
1. A fresh start on 1948 with the eventual gift of Marshall Plan riches.
2. Mittelstand businesses make up the backbone of the economy. Highly skilled staff, employee involvement, making quality good and services, great exporters.
3. Millions take vocational training of up to 5 years and the equivalent of a degree. Elsewhere non-academic studies and careers are looked down upon.
I'll do my best to respond:
your question -- from my limited knowledge, it was only during the 70s post-OPEC spike that inflation went high. I think you're right to say that high inflation reduces debt but, to bring that up to today, we have both high inflation and increasing public debt.
North Sea oil: it was really with Thatcher that oil revenues kicked in, but take your point about successors if less so predecessors. But surely the contrast between the UK and Norway is that one set up a sovereign wealth fund and the other didn't (while also introducing a radical tax agenda)? See (I tend to find wiki fairly reliable as a quick reference guide, understand if you want to be more sceptical):


I do take your point about the difference in population between UK and Norway -- although this doesn't address volumes (which I can't even be arsed to look up).
Germany: agreed, will add that they have a co-determination trade union policy, which encourages employers and unions to work together (which I suspect you're accounting for in 2, but I'll just state it explicitly).
 


DataPoint

Well-known member
Mar 31, 2015
432
I think all 4 "manifesto" points on the leaflet are morally right and represent sound policy.

Nationalisation, clearly needs to take place over a period of time. But the performance of key utilities has been so lamentable that I support new public bodies to be created to run these more effectively.

The £16 minimum wage is the most eye catching. I personally don't believe it would cause businesses to collapse. Costs will rise, but people will have more money to pay for goods and services. It will certainly be inflationary, but I would take rampant inflation over ampant inequalirty every day of the week.

I believe there is widespread support for all the measures on the leaflet. If not for the word socialism
When I was at Trade Union/ Management pay award meetings - the biggest discussion was about maintaining differentials, a £16 minimum wage could be argued meant £30 for middle paid workers and £50+ for more senior staff - else junior folk would be paid more than their seniors etc. and that just couldn't happen - so you just have a nightmare wage spriral that would blow the business competitiveness apart. People who don't have a wage wouldn't have more money to spend - just a crazy increase in costs.

Just for the record - public bodies are not renowned for their efficient running.
 




Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
7,031
When I was at Trade Union/ Management pay award meetings - the biggest discussion was about maintaining differentials, a £16 minimum wage could be argued meant £30 for middle paid workers and £50+ for more senior staff - else junior folk would be paid more than their seniors etc. and that just couldn't happen - so you just have a nightmare wage spriral that would blow the business competitiveness apart. People who don't have a wage wouldn't have more money to spend - just a crazy increase in costs.

Just for the record - public bodies are not renowned for their efficient running.
Well. Private bodies have been buggering things up plenty, so maybe it's time to try public once more.
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,194
I'll do my best to respond:
your question -- from my limited knowledge, it was only during the 70s post-OPEC spike that inflation went high. I think you're right to say that high inflation reduces debt but, to bring that up to today, we have both high inflation and increasing public debt.
Cumulative inflation from 1971 to 1980 inclusive was 260%. So if someone's income went up[ with inflation, from say £10,000 to £36,000, but their liability of say £10,000 did not, then the liability went from 100% of their income to 28% of their income. A huge help when paying off debts (except that interest rates of course shot up too), but a nightmare for people with cash assets.

Same principle applies to government debt.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,670
Fiveways
Cumulative inflation from 1971 to 1980 inclusive was 260%. So if someone's income went up[ with inflation, from say £10,000 to £36,000, but their liability of say £10,000 did not, then the liability went from 100% of their income to 28% of their income. A huge help when paying off debts (except that interest rates of course shot up too), but a nightmare for people with cash assets.

Same principle applies to government debt.
Thanks. Just goes to prove why some people are so vigorous in prioritising tackling inflation.
 




Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
64,134
Withdean area
Cumulative inflation from 1971 to 1980 inclusive was 260%. So if someone's income went up[ with inflation, from say £10,000 to £36,000, but their liability of say £10,000 did not, then the liability went from 100% of their income to 28% of their income. A huge help when paying off debts (except that interest rates of course shot up too), but a nightmare for people with cash assets.

Same principle applies to government debt.

I worked with someone in the 90’s who craved hyperinflation so that his mortgage, relatively speaking, would became trifling.

He wasn’t bothered that the country would be screwed.
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
17,897
Deepest, darkest Sussex
 


Randy McNob

Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
Jun 13, 2020
4,464
Hi, just direct payroll taxes including the community charge.

A question - was the %age fall in state debt not the consequence of great stewardship, but instead runaway inflation in the 1960's and 1970's, which meant it fell in real terms?

I don't agree with the party political demonising solely of Thatcher as the devil that alledegy blew our North Sea carbons wealth. Wilson/Heath/Wilson again/Callaghan/Major/Blair could all have done something different and didn't. Norway acted in 1972. None followed the example of Statoil, everyone of them used taxes/duties to help balance the annual government deficit/surplus. Besides, the best we could ever have hoped for was benefits 1/13th of those of Norway.

On the wider discussion, Germany is the beacon. But it has unique circumstances.
1. A fresh start on 1948 with the eventual gift of Marshall Plan riches.
2. Mittelstand businesses make up the backbone of the economy. Highly skilled staff, employee involvement, making quality good and services, great exporters.
3. Millions take vocational training of up to 5 years and the equivalent of a degree. Elsewhere non-academic studies and careers are looked down upon.
The core principles of Thatcherite ideology is based on lower taxes, smaller govt / smaller state. It's an easy sell: pay less taxes, more money in your pocket and the govt leave you alone, still being today under Truss and Sunak. But what it actually entails is people have less of a stake in the state creating a vaccuum for the private sector to take advantage of. and smaller govt mean less regulation and failsafes to protect citizens. Put together the UK has been engineered to work in the interests of the private sector with the electorate on-side knowing they would never vote for higher taxes
 




Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
64,134
Withdean area
The core principles of Thatcherite ideology is based on lower taxes, smaller govt / smaller state. It's an easy sell: pay less taxes, more money in your pocket and the govt leave you alone, still being today under Truss and Sunak. But what it actually entails is people have less of a stake in the state creating a vaccuum for the private sector to take advantage of. and smaller govt mean less regulation and failsafes to protect citizens. Put together the UK has been engineered to work in the interests of the private sector with the electorate on-side knowing they would never vote for higher taxes

That’s incorrect about Sunak. UK taxation as a whole is the highest since WW2 as a percentage of GDP. You have to look beyond headline income and CGT rates. Put it this way, the Telegraph is furious with Sunak and Hunt about it, articles on their case every week. Correct about Truss, that was her plan.

IMG_0714.png
 


zefarelly

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
21,843
Sussex, by the sea
No. The cash would come off the magic money tree that grows at the end of every street in the UK.
There are currently 300 odd money trees, all at the end of Tory MP's gardens . . . lovingly tendered by wives/mistresses/friendly accountants to ensure an extra £1-250k PA expenses ( duck sheds aside)

There are also dosh forests mostly packed with hard wads, which are a protected under the National perks scheme.

The suggestion a living wage would ruin the economy is the kind of thing bandied by the daily mail and belived by brain dead ignorant selfish ****s.
 


bobbab5

Active member
Sep 5, 2003
329
Ely, Cambs.
We have an increasingly large independent element in our council, called "The Swale Independents Alliance". In realize most of them are in Sheppey, but they are 100% white which I find slightly surprising. https://www.swaleindependentsalliance.org/

Perhaps they could be related?

Edit: clearly not. This lot are mad lefty mentalists, a 'working class' elite. https://breakthroughparty.org.uk/

By contrast, Swale independents seem harmless enough, even if their deputy leader, with his Most Peculiar mullet, does look like a cross between Smashy and Nicey.

View attachment 162722
Or Gaz Top...
 




West Hoathly Seagull

Honorary Ruffian
Aug 26, 2003
3,540
Sharpthorne/SW11
I'd be happy if there's a workable middle ground. What's clear as day, though, is that even with regulators in place the existing solutions for both water and rail are dysfunctional. The failures in both sectors cost the entire economy, both through direct impacts and indirect. Having said that, though, another particular problem I have with Water being privatised is the apparent complete lack of coordinated planning between governmental new building targets and ability of the regional monopolies to provide a supply. We've got a hosepipe ban from South-East Water ... not because of a lack of water, but because their ability to treat and distribute water is unable to meet demand. And that, if you look at it, is actually because they've not kept pace with growing demand over the years and simply haven't invested in ensuring that they have enough treatment/distribution capacity to be able to handle demand spikes.

Wholesale side of energy is also broken, but I think there's a clear route to resolving that - just needs government to pull their fingers out to initiate the required reforms.
We get an exemption from the hosepipe ban as my mother is classified as a vulnerable customer, as is our neighbour, not that we intend to abuse this. We will just keep the most vulnerable plants looked after. However, what drives me mad about this company is that they keep getting caught out by totally predictable events. There was a thunderstorm last year and one of their main distribution centres was struck by lightning, which meant we were without water for the best part of a week, and they didn't have generators that were big enough to cope with the volume of water to be pumped. Come on, we have thunderstorms several times a year in this country, or we always have done. Then, we got a reasonable amount of rainfall in late winter and early spring, and what did they do to store it? This is their latest masterpiece:


However, I do think that developers, as part of their Section 106 agreements, should be forced to pay for upgrades to the water and sewage systems, rather than just the odd community hall.

There is also a role for the government here, I think. Even in the United States, with its natural aversion to government, you have bodies called Councils of Governments, which comprise the councils covering a particular area, e.g. Washington DC, where the city itself only has a population of about 680,000, but the surrounding metropolitan area has about 3.5 million people living in it. There is a Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, one of whose roles is water planning.
 


Randy McNob

Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
Jun 13, 2020
4,464
That’s incorrect about Sunak. UK taxation as a whole is the highest since WW2 as a percentage of GDP. You have to look beyond headline income and CGT rates. Put it this way, the Telegraph is furious with Sunak and Hunt about it, articles on their case every week. Correct about Truss, that was her plan.

View attachment 162765
Sunak is a Thatcherite, he said it during his leadership campaign
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,248
Faversham
We get an exemption from the hosepipe ban as my mother is classified as a vulnerable customer, as is our neighbour, not that we intend to abuse this. We will just keep the most vulnerable plants looked after. However, what drives me mad about this company is that they keep getting caught out by totally predictable events. There was a thunderstorm last year and one of their main distribution centres was struck by lightning, which meant we were without water for the best part of a week, and they didn't have generators that were big enough to cope with the volume of water to be pumped. Come on, we have thunderstorms several times a year in this country, or we always have done. Then, we got a reasonable amount of rainfall in late winter and early spring, and what did they do to store it? This is their latest masterpiece:


However, I do think that developers, as part of their Section 106 agreements, should be forced to pay for upgrades to the water and sewage systems, rather than just the odd community hall.

There is also a role for the government here, I think. Even in the United States, with its natural aversion to government, you have bodies called Councils of Governments, which comprise the councils covering a particular area, e.g. Washington DC, where the city itself only has a population of about 680,000, but the surrounding metropolitan area has about 3.5 million people living in it. There is a Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, one of whose roles is water planning.

There is a massive load of housebuilding here in Faversham. In one field, developers want to build 250 houses with no contingency for water supply or sewerage (there is also the matter of no public transport, and cars from 250 homes having to use a narrow road that is almost impassable during school run hours, funnelling into a one way system). They simply plan to tap into 'existing systems'. The NHS (edit: could be the local authority - I have seen the paperwork but can't recall the details) has already stated they will demand a massive payment to create a new GP practice as the two in town won't be able to cope, but my guess is the developers will win, despite a very active resistance from locals. The town is now surrounded by new estates with massive houses, no gardens to speak of, no new amenities, and no new public transport. The planning element is about on a par with how England, France, Portugal and Germany 'planned' the creation of nations in the continent of Africa in the 1800s.
 
Last edited:




dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,194
There is a massive load of housebuilding here in Faversham. In one field, developers want to build 250 houses with no contingency for water supply or sewerage (there is also the matter of no public transport, and cars from 250 homes having to use a narrow road that is almost impassable during school run hours, funnelling into a one way system). They simply plan to tap into 'existing systems'. The NHS has already stated they will demand a massive payment to create a new GP practice as the two in town won't be able to cope, but my guess is the developers will win, despite a very active resistance from locals. The town is now surrounded by new estates with massive houses, no gardens to speak of, no new amenities, and no new public transport. The planning element is about on a par with how England, France, Portugal and Germany 'planned' the creation of nations in the continent of Africa in the 1800s.
I don't disagree with the tenor of the post, but the NHS should be ignored. The average GP has over 2,000 patients, so you don't need a huge new practice for the occupants of 250 houses. Besides which, GP surgeries aren't run by the NHS - they're independent businesses (who admittedly derive most of their income from the NHS).
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,248
Faversham
I don't disagree with the tenor of the post, but the NHS should be ignored. The average GP has over 2,000 patients, so you don't need a huge new practice for the occupants of 250 houses. Besides which, GP surgeries aren't run by the NHS - they're independent businesses (who admittedly derive most of their income from the NHS).
Yes, well, it was a side issue, but I have seen the paperwork and someone (I thought it was the NHS but it could be Swale council) are insisting the developers pay for a new provision. In Faversham we have two 'health centres' populated by multiple GPs. Five years ago I could get a next day appointment. Now it is weeks. There is a walk up provision but you only get to see a nurse practitioner (my experience of that is . . . . not great). The reason why GP surgery provision has tanked (in my experience) in the last few years (it started earlier elsewhere according to reports from others) is of course another matter. My view is HMG is happy to see the NHS struggle so that more people turn to private (using NHS trained doctors, and even NHS employed doctors, such as the surgeon who worked on my knee a few years ago who also works in a swish private clinic doing the same ops). If I were a tory that would be my objective, anyway. Bloody socialist NHS!
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here