The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

The NI and minimum wage rise will obvious impact costs and then prices however that isn’t anything systemic that will worry economists for future.

And no good Ralph citing individual months compared with EU countries as any sort of long-term comparison, largely meaningless unless over significant time. Assume he’d be hysterical if UK had France’s unemployment rate?

 

The point was made on here that hypochondriac was incorrect to blame the current jump in inflation on Government policy and various people told him he wasn't correct. I responded to address that point, with evidence, to which nobody has given a rationale argument against. To be fair, I think you're latest response agrees that Government policy has had a detrimental impact on the current inflation rate but to a lesser degree. 

The topic has now shifted to borrowing. Its good that net borrowing reduced (not borrowing overall). My concern around this is that the reduced net borrowing has been driven by increases in tax rises which is having other negative impacts on the economy (e.g. inflation). You will note that the article states that overall borrowing is up £6 billion compared to this time last year. So essentially the Government is borrowing more but covering it by taxing people more. In my opinion that isn't the best approach and isn't sustainable in the longer run. 

On the FT Article about the flight of wealth, you need to read the article in full, rather than just the headline. Factually I also never “rubbished” it. In fact I didn’t respond to it. I know a number of people that have left (including another friend who is leaving this week). I was previously asked why I took this view and to give examples. I explained the people I know who have left and some people didn't believe me. Frankly I don't care if some of those on here do or don't, it doesn't change the facts. I'm relatively rationale so obviously not going to dispute the figures in that article. However, the article says that those leaving is in line with projections (e.g. 25% of non-doms with trusts and 10% of those without trusts would leave). It basically says it isn't worse than expected (I hasten to add, yet) but doesn't say that people haven't left. I don't think we ever discussed whether the number of people leaving would be worse than projections. The article also says that the Government is awaiting further data to decide whether it rows back on its non-dom policies. So you need to read the context and also see what other data comes out over the next year or so.

To clarify I wasn't a Brexiteer just because my views are more conservative in nature. I tend to gravitate towards pro-economic policies and frankly don't care which party comes up with them. If I thought Labour's policies were genuinely pro-growth, I would vote for them, but I don't think they are.

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Odd that you should now be putting so much store by the FT when you dismissed an article I quoted from them that rubbished your erroneous claim that the rich were fleeing the UK in droves.

Perhaps give this some thought, although, again, it flies in the face of what you would have us believe.

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/why-are-food-prices-rising-in-the-uk

I responded to the point about the FT article above.

You are focusing on food inflation only - whilst this is one main factor, the Government's policies have impacted inflation overall. I genuinely struggle to understand how somebody can make the case that our closest comparables (european countries) have external forces that our so different to ours, other than national policies, which mean our inflation rate is double theirs (or x 4 in the case of France). Even the article you have found suggests its a factor, albeit attributes less weight than most other commentators. As I mentioned above, I commented because another poster was rubbished for making a legitimate point. I think we will agree to disagree.

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Lord Duckhunter]

6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Indeed. Pretty daft to suggest that financial policies haven't had a clear impact on this. Frankly bizarre to suggest they haven't. 

Whilst it could be said that the BoE are ultimately responsible for inflation & not The Government. The Bank’s response is directly related to the Government’s mishandling of the wider economy. The finances are not capable of withstanding the measures necessary to bring inflation down, which is why it’s proving so sticky, and difficult to get under control. If the wider economy was healthier the BoE could stick to their remit, and get it down. 

[egg]

6 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

The point was made on here that hypochondriac was incorrect to blame the current jump in inflation on Government policy and various people told him he wasn't correct. I responded to address that point, with evidence, to which nobody has given a rationale argument against. To be fair, I think you're latest response agrees that Government policy has had a detrimental impact on the current inflation rate but to a lesser degree. 

The topic has now shifted to borrowing. Its good that net borrowing reduced (not borrowing overall). My concern around this is that the reduced net borrowing has been driven by increases in tax rises which is having other negative impacts on the economy (e.g. inflation). You will note that the article states that overall borrowing is up £6 billion compared to this time last year. So essentially the Government is borrowing more but covering it by taxing people more. In my opinion that isn't the best approach and isn't sustainable in the longer run. 

On the FT Article about the flight of wealth, you need to read the article in full, rather than just the headline. Factually I also never “rubbished” it. In fact I didn’t respond to it. I know a number of people that have left (including another friend who is leaving this week). I was previously asked why I took this view and to give examples. I explained the people I know who have left and some people didn't believe me. Frankly I don't care if some of those on here do or don't, it doesn't change the facts. I'm relatively rationale so obviously not going to dispute the figures in that article. However, the article says that those leaving is in line with projections (e.g. 25% of non-doms with trusts and 10% of those without trusts would leave). It basically says it isn't worse than expected (I hasten to add, yet) but doesn't say that people haven't left. I don't think we ever discussed whether the number of people leaving would be worse than projections. The article also says that the Government is awaiting further data to decide whether it rows back on its non-dom policies. So you need to read the context and also see what other data comes out over the next year or so.

To clarify I wasn't a Brexiteer just because my views are more conservative in nature. I tend to gravitate towards pro-economic policies and frankly don't care which party comes up with them. If I thought Labour's policies were genuinely pro-growth, I would vote for them, but I don't think they are.

Nope. What I actually said was that it's daft to "bash labour for the rise in food prices that are dictated by a multitude of non governmental factors, to include the weather". That's because it is.

I've acknowledged that NI costs have played some part in it. You've failed to acknowledge that there are multitude of factors outside of government control.

 

[Sir Ralph]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

Nope. What I actually said was that it's daft to "bash labour for the rise in food prices that are dictated by a multitude of non governmental factors, to include the weather". That's because it is.

I've acknowledged that NI costs have played some part in it. You've failed to acknowledge that there are multitude of factors outside of government control.

 

I didn’t ever say external factors couldn’t impact inflation. Inflation is impacted by both external and domestic factors. It would be irrational to suggest otherwise. You may have commented on food prices but the point was made by posters generally (that you align with) that domestic policy doesn’t really impact inflation. This isn’t a reasonable point in my opinion.

To contextualise this, the point I made is the difference between the European countries inflation rates and our inflation rate (which is x2, x3 or x4 ours) has been widely commented upon as being linked to domestic government policy. European countries experience similar external factors to us so rationally many people have identified the significant inflation rates difference as being linked to recent government policy. It also suggests that domestic policies are having a notable impact on inflation, hence the difference between our inflation rates and that of other European countries. I think you are saying that Government policy has had a detrimental impact on inflation at least to some degree so we have common ground in principle at least. The increased minimum wage will also have had a notable impact, in my opinion.

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

If accurate then that's absolutely shocking and highlights one of the main problems we face. 

[hypochondriac]

30 minutes ago, egg said:

Nope. What I actually said was that it's daft to "bash labour for the rise in food prices that are dictated by a multitude of non governmental factors, to include the weather". That's because it is.

I've acknowledged that NI costs have played some part in it. You've failed to acknowledge that there are multitude of factors outside of government control.

 

Who bashed labour for the rise in food prices at the time you posted? 

[Sir Ralph]

22 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If accurate then that's absolutely shocking and highlights one of the main problems we face. 

To be fair the Tories also allowed this happen but the issues of Labour not being able to get through their welfare reforms because of their backbenchers are one of the reasons for the budget shortfall. They allegedly now are going to come after people’s property value, despite those people having invested in their homes and been responsible (eg the couple mentioned in the graph). It’s the feeding of the net taker mentality, not encouraging net givers who are productive. Being a cynic the more net takers you can create, the more voters you  have but ultimately it kills economic growth. 

Edited 42 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

To be fair the Tories also allowed this happen but the issues of Labour not being able to get through their welfare reforms because of their backbenchers are one of the reasons for the budget shortfall. They allegedly now are going to come after people’s property value, despite those people having invested in their homes and been responsible (eg the couple mentioned in the graph). It’s the feeding of the net taker mentality (I assume their definition of “working people”), not encouraging net givers who are productive. Being a cynic the more net takers you can create, the more voters they have but ultimately it kills economic growth. 

It's absolutely not the case that Labour are solely responsible for this at all but it's absolutely shocking and a damming indictment of this country.