Labour is not going to deliver
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- Labour is planning to base all its policies on the basis of growth and wealth creation. Neither makes sense, and they’re in direct conflict with each other economically. It’s as if they have announced in advance that they plan to fail.
#uk #labourparty #politics #election
ABOUT RICHARD MURPHY
Richard Murphy is Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School. He is director of Tax Research LLP and the author of the Funding the Future blog. His best known book is ‘The Joy of Tax’.
This video was edited by Thomas Murphy.
DONATE TO KEEP THIS CHANNEL ADVERT FREE
ko-fi.com/taxresearch
RICHARD MURPHY ON TWITTER
Follow Richard on his Twitter: RichardJMurphy or on his blog: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/
HIT SUBSCRIBE & GET NOTIFICATIONS
Subscribe and get notified of new videos released.
INTRODUCTION: • Welcome to my channel ...
PLAYLISTS:
Accountancy: • Accounting
Economics: • Economics
Tax: • Tax
Taxing Wealth Report: • Taxing Wealth Report 2024
Green New Deal: • Green New Deal
Money: • Money
Questions from subscribers: • Questions
Miscellaneous: • Miscellaneous
#richardmurphy #richardjmurphy #economy #economics #accountancy #accounting #tax #uktax #ukeconomy #greennewdeal
Growth is largely restricted by inequality. Put money in the pockets of the average citizens and they spend it in the local economy. Put it in the bank accounts of the wealthiest and they either move it offshore or buy assets to rent back to us at extortionate prices.
@@davidmcculloch8490 Plus 100 people with £1,000 each but 100 washing machines.
1 person with £100,000 might buy four but not 100.
Inequality stifles demand.
No, growth is ONLY needed because of the debt based system that means we need growth to pay the interest attached to debt and to counter the inflationary effects of monetary expansion.
We shouldn’t be trying to figure out to grow, we should change the system to one not reliant on growth for prosperity.
Gordon Brown's solution to the banking crash was spot on slash VAT and you will get an economic stimulus in the real economy ie ordinary people will spend which creates demand.
@@therealrobertbirchall Agreed. Cut VAT to 15%.
@@stephfoxwell4620 Remove it entirely. Its a TAX on top of a TAX.
You pay VAT using money you've already paid 30 odd percent tax on.
Its a complete nonsense and was used to pass the tax burden from the 1% to the 99%.
William Morris (1834 - 1896) “ Is it all going to end with a counting house on top of a cinder heap ?”
That's an amazing quote!
@@StudentDad-mc3pu William Morris was an amazing man.
@@JohnPurvis-rr3wx A Socialist Revolutionist.
That is brilliant.
We've had enough of wealth creation, and worshipping those who pursue it, we're all WEALTH CREATORS
What, keyboard warriors?
Not quite true.
I know plenty of people of working age who have never worked, don’t want to work, and put nothing back into society. They’re wealth destroyers.
@@stevejones2310projecting much???
@@sirgaymeerkat1994 I'll give you that!
Correct we are the creators. So the 18% of that income the wealth generators make, and the state takes as NI. Where's that wealth?
Let's hope they don't deliver what the tories did.
They will deliver even more of it.
@adenwellsmith6908 would you rather have Johnson and farage , reece mogg?
@@paulwilson7234 exactly. the russians will be funding the party in opposition now, not the party in government. btw, I wonder whatever happened to the russia report
That's exactly what they're going to do. Tactical/neoliberal voting has led us into dangerous territory.
They have mostly the same policies... And worse policies.
Starmer will deliver Thatcherism, the opposite of what Britain needs. A government of brittle political lightweights lacking the intellectual depth in understanding economics and history, wedded to a failed ideology that does not work for the majority. The civil service is apparently not impressed by Labour's capacity to govern, based on the preparations that have occurred so far. Five years of dogmatism, deflection, and myopic refusal to countenance alternative ideas from the left means trouble is in store. There is every likelihood that Labour will be more intent on suppressing the left in preference to meeting the urgent needs of the country.
What do you mean “the civil service is not impressed by labours capacity to govern”
Do you have any evidence of this?
A = no, you just made it up.
And the rest of your comment shows you havent read Labours manifesto, so you are just spewing out uninformed opinion.
@@RobinHarris-nf4yvhe/she sounds like Jeremy Corbyn. These deluded people brought the LP to its knees numerous times in the past
Labour will nationalise the railways and regulate or nationalise the water and sewerage companies. The opposite of Thatcherism free market policies.
two shills commenting! we'll see what happens, but my bet is you are right and the shills are wrong!!
@@eightiesmusic1984 so basically no change then......
Governments are fond of targets. Well, the Labour government that sets itself targets to do such as; reduce the gap between rich and poor, reduce child and adult poverty, increase the atrocious Brit state pension, increase minimum wages, properly fund the NHS and eliminate Brit tax havens will get my support.
Until and unless Sir Keir’s government starts doing things like that, they will not.
, increase the atrocious Brit state pension = More debt. How much debt does it currently have?
You are absolutely
@@adenwellsmith6908 A lot, thanks to the economically illiterate Tories. Start taxing more those that can pay and ensure Brit tax havens are ended. That'll do for a start.
@@229andymon It doesn't work.
Start with the basics. The state has a 16 trillion pension debt. So lets work in billions.
16,000 bn just for pensions. Rising at 10% a year.
So you tax the top. I asked a socialist worker the same question. They said that's 140 bn. Taking all of their wealth, if you can get it, raises 250 bn. That stops the debt from increasing for 6 weeks. Then what?
Look at the Sunday times rich list. How many are British? You won't get it off the non brits.
Dyson? He's left.
Branson? He's left
The newspaper twins? They are in the channel Islands.
Now what? You won't be able to get it. Pure and simple.
So why not start with the people who stole the wealth and deal with them? The people who hid the debts off the books. That's MPs and top level civil servants.
I would start with a short drop. It's going to come to that. The mess is so large that a future government faced with the unthinkable has to make a real example of them.
So short drop. All wealth asset stripped. Their kids, they are permantly bankrupted because they inherit the debts their parents created. 4-5 generations of their offspring forced to pay.
@@229andymon So here's another plan.
Migrants we put a minimum tax code of 38,500 per adult. That's just break even. That raises billions.
Remember the left, they say migrants pay more in than they take out, lets make it a law.
No discrimination. No special rules for 97% white EU nationals. All of them.
I'd start with deliveroo riders.
The rising tide of the post war era growth spurt did certainly lift all boats, but the wealth was being enjoyed by the working and middle classes as well as the top. National income now is so top heavy that most people don't understand how obscene it is, and for the higher ups, it's just as well they don't
Labour manifesto to "de-risk" private investment in public infrastructure.
This suggests more subsidies, guarantees and tax reliefs, where corporations will own assets and income streams arising from the public cash.
Is this PFI with new name?
Not necessarily
Labours state owned GB energy will be what it says: state owned.
@@RobinHarris-nf4yvbut it will not produce energy
@@RobinHarris-nf4yv GB energy will be nothing more than a state owned investment vehicle. Literally giving money to private companies.
@@RobinHarris-nf4yv rubbish state ownership your having a laff
Goes under the title Public Private partnerships being rolled out everywhere, public takes the risk and debt while the private takes any profits
Again, absolutely on the money. Minsky (not a socialist) said that the notion that capitalism has resulted in rising living standards for all is wrong: The majority does gain from it but only when they literally force the capitalists to hand over their share through political or industrial action. The unfettered grabbing of wealth which Liz Truss and Rachel Reeves (very little difference between them) believe in, results in impoverishment for most.
In reading Late Soviet Britain by Abby Innés the explanation is provided for Labour policies. They are acting in the interests of the public sector sub-contracting industry who create contracts, procurement schemes, project management deals , monitoring systems, etc and jobs for the professional services industry which has boomed for the last 25-40 years. More than half of all jobs created over the period in the UK fall into this category or in the regulatory industry, which has also boomed.
These industries provide ‘free advise’ to the political parties and the senior civil servants now routinely use consultancy firms to frame government policy. The NHS is being lined up for ‘ Transformation and reform’.
There is no evidence that such plans are achievable in theory or practice. But that will not stop Wes Streeting giving contracts to his sponsors.
Sub- contracting complex services is a fools errand.
There is no evidence that such plans are achievable in theory or practice
==========
On the NHS, its a Beveridge system [Same as Medicare]. Bismarck systems are the other sane choice. [CH and NL].
Bismarck systems work, the Beveridge systems don't.
Private public partnerships as they are touted as, the private pockets all the money and the public gets to fund the bill for none existent or working services. It’s a great way to make oodles of money with no risk to yourself as the taxpayer foots the continuing bills.
@@witlesswonderthe2nd883 So is a 30% gross profit margin good?
If Starmer fails on all counts, and especially economic growth. Reform will be right there. We saw it whilst the results came in. They're literally second behind Labour in most seats.
Also, massive low turnout helps the fascist far right as well. Improving that will mean less chance of the far right winning.
Reform only have 5 seats
They aren’t a serious party
And Starmer will deliver
@@RobinHarris-nf4yv They only have 5 seats, yes. But they're 2nd behind Labour in a lot of seats. Starmer fails to deliver, reform will win them next time. You wait and see I will be right.
Also I'm not a reform supporter if you think I am. I believe they need to be rid of entirely. But currently, that isn't going to happen until the material side of things for people improves.
@@RobinHarris-nf4yvYes, only 5 seats. But… only because of the iniquitous, anti-democratic FPTP system still favoured by the Tories and Labour only because it suits them. In a much fairer PR system, they would have around 90 seats.
I wish only failure for Reform and lament their existence, but we can’t ignore the stone cold fact that FPTP is a ridiculous, stupid and fundamentally unfair system of selecting a government.
@@RobinHarris-nf4yvyou say otherwise in another post. You're all over place. Hardly surprising as you're a Labour sycophant
@@RobinHarris-nf4yv They aren't a party they are a business with Farage as the only shareholder
Wealth creation leads to the wealthy stashing money abroad away from tax in the UK. Give the money to the poor and they spend it so increasing trade.
How is it possible that Rachel Reeves is so ignorant of economic fundamentals?
She's a Labour Politician - what do you expect ! Read up on what another Labour Chancellor, Gordon Brown, did to the finances of our Country way back in 1997.
Nothing changes where Labour Chancellors are concerned - utterly incompetant doesn't even begin to describe such people !
@@jamesbarbour8400Even if true, they’d have some job on their hands beating who they’ve just replaced for incompetence. How did Trussonomics grab you?
@@229andymon it's not a matter if it's true, it actually is true - it happened. Labour back then were in power for two terms - planty of time to f@#k the Country up at their pleasure - not to mention what the War Criminal, Tony Blair did to the very fabric of this Country with his policies - we're still suffering the consequences of those all these years later. Tories simply carried on to line their own pockets but neglected to roll back Blairs damaging legislation. As for your pathetic attempt at trying to blame Liz Truss for our current economic woes - her policies didn't make it out of the starting gate !
Who ya gonna blame next - the fairies ! ?
@@229andymon this isn't about "Whataboutism" It's about actually being good for the country so the far right doesn't get a landslide next time (they got 4m votes this time). We need to stop pointing fingers and actually pull our shit together because the dangers are very real.
@@jamesbarbour8400 She is not a 'labour politician; she is an out-and-out conservative in the guise of nu-labour. City trained and city ingrained.
I am not happy about the outcome of the election.
When will we get proportional representation?
Only then will we get a government that vaguely represents our needs.
Nonsense. First-past-the-post means some people get what they voted for. Proportional representation means nobody gets what they voted for. Look at nations that use proportional representation, and see that their governments are bogged-down and brittle because they are coalitions.
@@kloot-2084xl the last 5 years should be the best example of how flawed your argument is.a government with an 80 majority who should have been able to do whatever they wanted made an absolute pigs ear of it.they were voted in by only 43% of the voting public.57% did not get anything like what they voted for.
@@JohnPark-xf2gqYour comment doesn't make sense John.
..
If 43 % of voters voted in 2019 the remaining 57% obviously abstained or stayed at home. Therefore,
the latter 57% (of the electorate )
did not partake in that election so have no say in it's outcome?
..
Claiming the 57% didn't get what they voted for - of course, they didn't partake 🤷
Wealth creation means some one is getting poorer.
Crap.
Most ones get poorer.
@@theotherandrew5540 So where's the 18% of income, real wealth that the workers pay the state for their pension?
@@adenwellsmith6908 to subsidise the top 1% tax breaks.
@@adenwellsmith6908 I didn’t understand your question. Please explain.
Let’s have prosperity. Cooperation allows the spreading of wealth, prosperity for the many, as opposed to competition which naturally concentrates wealth in the hand of the few.
As a loser in life a very small uplift of income and hope,would mean exceptionally more to me and poorer others, than to a multimillionaire. Its not rocket science.
I saw your statement that "Labour will not deliver" and intended to watch so that I could then take you to task. However, I found myself agreeing with everything you said. In the 70s, I was a member of the Ecology Party. They had some brilliant policies such as ending the stock exchange, minimum subsistence wage for all etc., but they also stressed the dangers of economic growth for the reasons you gave.
Look at the Cabinet. Couldn't deliver a pizza!
@@keithhooper6123 Angela no brainer Raynor might be good for something - she could set up a knocking shop - she looks like the kind of 'lady' you might see standing about on street corners of an evening. After her 'shift' in the House of Commons obviously. Wonder if that would be considered a second job and the income declared ? Mind you, if you investigate yourself, chances are that no wrong doing will have been found. As wss recently the case surrounding the sale of her former home.......
@jamesbarbour8400
Rayner selling her services for £20 an hour. Sounds about right
@@jamesbarbour8400 Might want to keep your fantasies to your self mate.
@@jamesbarbour8400nice try James.
..
Not sure what Angela's back history has anything to do with her role as an MP.🤷
..
Let's face it, MPs moral standards are pretty low - across all parties
.
Even if Angela had made a small profit from the sale of her home, it would be dwarfed by the millions saved (on a daily basis)
By Tory MPs selling their mansions..
..
TDLR: people see Angela as an easy target because she's come from a working class background. who has managed to elevate her social status (by achieving a high ranking cabinet post) from her working class roots.
..
We all know what happens if we elect the privately educated ?
..
Just saying., give people a chance to prove themselves, regardless of their background.
Great video Richard spot on
Please don't stop good work we need information on this matter. Thank you
Next time you'll get another Labour or Tory government and yet again nothing will change.
At this point, it's only a semantic difference between the two.
I mean, I only think you have to hear the new cabinet members on the TV and who he's appointed so far to know how different they are.
Donut economics anyone?
And I read "Limits to Growth", as part of an OU course in 1981 (the book was published in 1972). It made clear that the rest of the world would want to adopt the western world standard of living - why wouldn't they? Perhaps, one day, we will start planning for change, instead of holding it back. The book was updated in 2004, and more recently as "Limits and Beyond", 50 years after the original. But we don't believe in experts, do we?
Like I said screw the nation and fill his pocket with taxpayers money...
@@janettetaylor8760 Boris? Is that you?
We all knew this before the election so why did people vote for him????????
MSM and people desperate to get rid of Conservative unfortunately most couldn't tell you the difference between economic and social each able to represent left or right policy because there is only whatever their favourite usually divisive neoliberal rag tells them to love or hate at that time!
@@doreenhollywood7459Because nobody except Tories believes that shite.
Well said!
Starmer is just obeying all his rich and wealth donors.
I didn't hear you shouting that out in the last 14 years.
@@BillDavies-ej6yeIKR. It's Iike the last 14 years never happened.
@@BillDavies-ej6ye
Both party's have the same donors.
The donors look at which party is likely to win elections and invest in that party so they (the donors) can have say the party's policies.
Excellent video. We need to be clear eyed about the results of this election.
The planet may be finite but the ways of utilising those resources have grown exponentially and will continue to expand further. The standard of living across society has grown hugely through growth and to ignore its benefits is irrational. We do live in an economic golden age but it can improve or return to the dark ages and to ignore the benefits of growth makes the latter more likely
My MP is going to get many emails based on what you've said Richard. THANKS
Starmer seems like he’s going to be another Macron in terms of policy. New Labour mark 2.
Excellent analisis from a knowlegeable modern economist, not an idiot.
When have they ever delivered a single thing that benefits anyone but the wealthy
Nobody is going to deliver, the trough is empty.
Or put simply, if money is a mechanism to buy work from others, it's impossible for everyone to be wealthier.
Not true
It’s freezing in Scotland…….July……..!
On New Year's Day 2023, we had 19.5 degrees here in Frankfurt, Germany.
Climate change, not global warming. I'm in Scotland it's not 'freezing', but it is a bit chilly and too dry. The weather is erratic everywhere, and extreme. Apparently much if not most of the pollution now is caused by weapons manufacturers, how idiotic can humans be, very, sadly.
Labours strategy has been to win power
We won’t see labours real intent until it starts governing
So are you implying that Labour have been lying?
given the amount of money "donated" we know who they really work for! a one term government is the only outcome I see! the NHS will be privatised, and the public are not happy with starmer as things stand.
@sirgaymeerkat1994 can you prove any of your statements.
@@keithparker1346??? Surely you can’t be that Naive?? Starmer has been Lying every time he opens his mouth, he’s a Pathological Liar!
Jeez, I’m amazed at the Naivety of some people, no wonder things never ever change here!!!
@paulwilson7234 it's on the record! but I guess you are one of those "prove it" trolls!
Wealth is not money, and the acquisition of money is not wealth creation. We need to stop using these terms, which lead to delusional thinking. Call 'wealth creators' money grabbers, which is a literal description, and see how the narrative changes.
How can they, there is no money in the kitty. Immigration cost is breaking the Country and the fools want even more.
I grew up in the Thatcher era. My family were not well off, my situation now, regardless of working hard, is worse than when I was a child.
Thatcher and Blair's economic policies were the equivalent of cutting your brake lines to make your car go faster.
"cutting red tape" sounds awesome, "cutting public protection mechanisms" less so.
U cannot tell people you must be poor because of the event that may happen in the future.
The problem posed by a 'net zero' or similar policy is that the UK only accounts for 1% of global CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, China and India continue to industrialise. I can't see how we meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions this century without investing in nuclear power.
You need to do some more research. Battery storage is the new base power that will make nuclear uncompetitive at all times including spikes in demand. It's the costliest form of power generation.
@@stevejones2310there is not the slightest chance that battery storage will save enough energy to backup wind and solar power. Can you point out even one country relying on batteries for storage? You need to do some research and do so less selectively
@@jonathanspilhaus3165 Spain, Morocco, California, Costa Rica, Norway. Germany is on the way towards net zero. The UK is too, if Luddites don't inhibit the process by obstructing onshore wind, solar farms and grid upgrades. No-one except a few vested interests believe the future is in small modular nuclear or sizewell scale reactors.
Ironically, China has the fastest growing renewable electrification program of any country, admittedly from a very coal-dependent base line.
@@stevejones2310 They are not anywhere close to true net zero. True net zero will include the replacement of all combustion powered transport by EVs. In 2022, Germany generated 116.2 billion kWh of energy from lignite coal alone, making up 20.1% of the country's total energy production: This was also an INCREASE on the previous year. So gas, coal and oil backup these renewable grids. Costa Rica produces most of its electricity (79%) from hydropower with less than 1% coming from solar power and 12% from wind. Solar and wind can power up to 15% without recourse to battery storage to mitigate grid instability. However, oil still powers transport in Costa Rica and it produces a substantial amount of oil to do this. Going green is a lot harder than people realize and can do without ad hominem remarks about luddites. Broadly speaking we need a whole range of technologies including nuclear, renewables rather than the simplistic 'only wind, solar and batteries' for all approach that you espouse. Wind and solar will never power a city like Moscow in the depths of winter. Nuclear is expensive, but if implimented continuously, it is cheap. Electricity costs in South Korea and Australia: Australia, September 2023: The price of electricity for households USD 0.274 per kWh. South Korea, June 2022: The price of electricity is 0.093 U.S. Dollar per kWh. So nuclear South Korea pays ONE THIRD what renewables Australia pays. Why is this? I rest my case.
@@jonathanspilhaus3165 good response. I accept all you say. I don't know what the solution is for Moscow, maybe nuclear has a role.
For the UK, I am more optimistic that we can at least get the electricity grid 100% renewable, including from interconnectors with countries such as France, Norway and soon maybe Morocco.
Regarding EVs, the floodgates will open when affordable Chinese built cars hit the market.
I'm more pessimistic about space heating in homes, where there seems no viable alternative to natural gas...
Btw, I wasn't accusing you of being a Luddite.
I personally don't think the UK will even last another 4 years under Starmer.
I'm a farmer in a no growth fantasy future. I realise that if I cultivate in a slightly different way I can grow 10% more organic onions. This means I can afford piano lessons for my daughter and an extra pint on a Friday night. The music teacher and the barkeeper are both happy.I have grown the economy!
Oh no! How do we stop this? Maybe I sell my onions for less but then the pie maker can make more pies and she has grown the economy!
I can see a world where we separate economic growth from carbon but not where we separate it from innovation. Talking like carbon emissions is indistinguishable from economic growth because they have been historically linked isn't helpful at all. Nobody who's living depends on them innovating to increase efficiency will support that and these are the people we need to come up with the new technologies and businesses to save us from climate change.
Carbon emissions are bad. Growth probably isn't.
Totally agree, we want the positive parts of the economy to grow and bad parts to shrink. I think we should be growth agnostic, at least until we use better measures than GDP.
Economies need energy growth to grow.
@@adamnealis So a more efficient wind turbine that results in less emissions doesn't count as growth?
@@RogerHyamwind & solar are flawed concepts in regards to national energy generation.
Nuclear Fusion is a far better
option..
The major problem is everything has a carbon element to it.
..
One cannot have innovation without adding carbon..
..
Trying to separate the two is impossible. even worse, trying to create "net zero" economies ("net zero" is just a marketing term, is not achievable)
..
Nothing is truly net zero.
..
Sadly our elected representatives are under instructions from flawed ideology, that will just maintain the status quo
( Steadily Increasing inequality)..
..
A major but simple economic boost would be to lower VAT to about 15% that would, in an instant, give more people cash in their pockets - to spend in the wider economy. And thus increased tax receipts partially offsetting the tax reduction.
Absolute nonsense, global heating. 🙄🤡🌍
Very interesting and well put
The nhs is awash with the private sector.record amounts of money may have been put into the nhs however 20% plus goes straight out to private sector profits.add to this the existence of dodgy procurement contracts is causing a flood of money out of the nhs.this is what streeting should be sorting out and not encouraging private sub contractting at extreme cost to the nhs.lf he did this then perhaps he could afford to pay the nurses and doctors more which will retain and recruit more into the nhs.the solution is definitely not offering more overtime to an already exhausted workforce.
Trickle down economics doesn't work. It never has.
A return to the neo-Liberal project spearheaded by Thatcher and Reagan
The first promise Starmer might actually keep?
His promise to his Rich Donors
#BDS
I doubt it - he's well known as a flip flop Politician !
You need to understand what economic growth is. It’s just more borrowing money from the banks.
Spot on.
He's a more rounded man than you believe..
Yes. Deeply depressing.
You are absolutely right
Industrialisation began in England around 250 years ago. You have to take a close look at global warming from that time to the present day. It all comes from burning fossil fuels. In order to generate further economic growth (wealth?), even more fossil energy has to be burnt, green energy is nowhere near enough for economic growth. And then you have to ask yourself: what will happen if we continue to burn fossil fuels for our economic growth? Greetings from Germany.
Well it’s delivering now got rid of tories and farage.
The appointment of Patrick Valence perhaps hints at more lockdowns to come in line with the WHO Power Grab
I'm not sure people would buy all that p@!n demonic stuff a second time around..
This made me think. I have always been dubious about Rachel Reeves’ plans
XP
Agreed.
Starmer and Reeves should be aware of the realities. Whether they act on the evidence and show common sense, or not, is now out of the hands of voters.
We will have to judge on results. I am not sanguine. But at least they are unlikely to be deliberately cruel. That has to be an improvement.
If we'd had rent controls on commercial property, we might have saved town centres. Small shops were killed off by Greedy Commercial Landlords who often were based nowhere near the properties they owned. My local Indoor Market was finally killed off when the Landlord, based 200 miles away, doubled the rent from £200k to £400k.
There's a Primark there now. They're not paying £400k rent though.
Point being, if you make it easier for the little guy, you create more wealth for a local community than any tax cut for big business would do.
I live in Sweden which has a system of proportional representation. Currently, the country is run by a liberal-Right and far-Right coalition consisting of the Sweden Democrats (Far-Right), Liberals, Christian Democrats and Moderates (Conservative light?). Unfortunately, merely exposing the Far-Right "for what it stands for" has thus far not really worked. This is due to the fact that the very policies which have pushed lower income and middle income Swedes towards the Sweden Democrats have not been addressed or significantly altered here. Foe example, Sweden's own wave of austerity intensified during the 2008 financial crisis under both Liberal Right and Social Democratic governments. What is lacking is an open and critical debate on causes by a strong and united Left. All have here at present is a somewhat marginalised Left Party whose voice is not really cutting through decades of neoliberal dogma. Most of the socialists in Social Democracy have been pushed out and replaced by Third Wayers and adherents of private-public enterprise or NPM. So, yes, perhaps for the UK a different system is needed. However, a LOT of ideological battles have to be initiated and won.
Economics is about the management of scarce resources.
I want HMRC to re-employ a small ARMY of forensic accountants to STOP the kleptocrats asset-stripping our country. Not hassling sole traders, but going for the big fish in tax evasion. Only once this is in place will we see if we actually NEED a wealth tax - or if making these grifters follow the rules we ALREADY have will be enough.
If then we DO need a wealth tax, HMRC would then be in a reasonable position to actually enforce it. Win-win.
I share the dismall outlook. BUT Labour does have 2 levers it can pull though: 1. 5 more bands on top of the current council tax, and remove the council tax cap. 2. Taxes on investments. Both of these represent wealth taxes that cannot be parked off shore. That, and adoption of EU tax rules. The latter was always the real reason behind Brexit.
What does Britain manufacture, and where are the skilled people to manufacture ? Starmer wants to train people to do skilled work, does he really think you can just take anyone and train them in a specific job ? Britain can no longer stand alone those days are gone, the old saying is true. " United you stand, devided you fall." Britain needs its closest neighbour and ally.
Companies simply don't invest in people and want to employ fully trained people so they can save money
Very good. You deserve wide coverage.
You set out to explain why they will fail, and then said it was because they are targeting growth, and then said we can’t do growth because of global heating. Can you explain the link? Why does global heating prevent growth of the economy?
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from because i can't see any mention of trickle down economics. Where is this stated?
Growth in the economic sense of the term is a metaphor. It has nothing to do with things getting bigger. It's a measure of efficiency. France has famously achieved growth by cutting energy consumption. There is massive scope for the UK to do likewise. Crass inefficiency is one of the most obvious failings of its national transport and industry sector in particular.
We didn't know that we live on a finite planet in the 1970s? A decade after Telstar and Yuri Gagarin?
The Bank of England will be giving them a vicious slap-down in due course................
Liz Truss like? Only maybe Reeves already knows her limitations of being a competent Chancellor as an ex Bank of England employee? Unlike the very idealistic and naive ex PM Truss used to reset UK interest rates. Certainly both her ex employer's as a devolved government department with claimed independence and autonomy, will, with the say so of their global money market head office, decide what this Labour government will be allowed to do and afford.
Unfortunately a lot of the electorate still don't get it. Once they do capitalism can be made more accountable and hopefully a fairer system for us all. 5:00
How will labour get a clamp down by the BOE?
They haven't done anything...
Yet..🤷
@@albasasrobertmitchell5682 Well said, you have a very good grasp of the reality of today's world........
@@larx4074 Thanks. The same thing keeps happening again and again since the 1970s IMF Dennis Healey Labour economic crisis. Our politicians job is to do the national window dressing. The real power is with the financial markets. In my opinion.
We know. We Know. Prove it. Rather than saying "We Know".
Salty tears! 😭😭😭😭😭
Whilst I appreciate your calm and dispassionate approach, as well as your critical thinking, I just feel a need to be a little more optimistic at this point. I'm prepared to give them at least a year or two to see where they go with their new government.
Starmer is basically telling us that he will implement Trussonomics ( "growth rate expansion" ).
Starmer repeated stated that Trussonomics has failed....
Well, he's not proposing tax cuts to the wealthy as the way to salvation.
It's common knowledge that the only thing a Labour Government is any good at is spending other peoples money.
Talent and the work ethic are unequally distributed. Hence in a free society outcomes are also unequal.
The opposite of this is communism which is equality of outcome for the many with the exception of an elite ruling cadre. A vast surveillance state operating secret files on all its citizens is required to maintain the existence of this political system.
The average outcome for a citizen of a free western capitalist country in terms of standard of living and freedoms would seem far better than any communist system.
Socialist East Germany could offer you a highly polluting Trabant if you were prepared to wait several years for it. It was nowhere near as good even as the People's car the VW beetle, produced under a former leader of Germany. The western side of the wall offered an array of vastly superior machines, all far less polluting and something affordable for nearly all consumers. Industry rapidly responded to concerns about emissions and safety with dramatic improvements in technology.
People risked their lives to flee the East and live in the West.
Time for a new party ....the time is right
Bring back the lettuce 🥬
Richard, try being positive. You might feel better!
Thank you Richard… as a student of this murky subject of economics and politics … and a believer in a fairer society I do favour a degree of progressive taxation / redistribution … as there is a tendency under capitalism for the wealthy to hold on to it while others can’t put food on the table … the bit I don’t understand here is if Richard’s proposal that growth (increase in gdp?) leads to global heating … ok… so how do we proceed without global heating ? Redefine growth maybe as we all know pound notes don’t guarantee happiness but lack of same causes some misery … are we saying progressive taxation would be the answer to having a more buoyant economy let’s say to benefit those who need it and global heating would be less of a problem ?? Thanks for views… Regds
_"and a believer in a fairer society I do favour a degree of progressive taxation / redistribution "_
Except that is the complete opposite of fair. Don't you think it is unfair that someone does most of the work in a group assignment and then everybody gets the same grade no matter how much effort they put in, or at all? Just as much unfair, it is to steal money from people who happened to provide more things to the society and get wealthy because of it. If we want to talk about fairness, then everybody pitching in the same amount would be the most fair, i.e. a flat tax rate, regardless how much wealth they would have or generate after that.
Our fate sooner than necessary?
Prof, it's here, UK farmers had to plant late, or couldn't at all eg Somerset levels
This isn't going to be a great season, we haven't seen the Sun, and many were expecting 50% yields before we knew this
And it'll be worse than last year when storms wrecked harvests
It's the wrong weather in the wrong place at the wrong time, we've shifted phase, we're on a new phase trajectory and it will take time to reach stability
Meanwhile there's no resilliance in agriculture and while Nature might adapt it won't do that in a way that addresses our needs
It's almost here, it's knocking on the door
Oh they'll deliver alright....
All the wrong things...
Goodbye Britian...
On the other hand they might, just might create wealth by building up a low carbon economy, insulation, heat pumps, solar panels, efficient transport, the list is endless. Also done right this puts money into the hands of ordinary working people, who pay tax. A bit like the Green new deal? Which I believe you favour Richard. I along with millions of others need that hope and I am looking to Ed Milliband, and will be pestering him by writing, to provide it.
Global Heating. What evidence is there for this?
You have to have growth to maintain a fiat currency system.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Reading many comments below one is struck by a widespread lack of understanding of the difference between PPPs and PFIs - the former requires both the state and corporations to invest financially in projects and the latter is when the corporation provides all the capital to build the infrastructure. In Norway many PPPs have worked quite well for both partners and thereby for society. Norwegian governments have been very careful not to enter into PFIs because, by not investing substantial capital, they have less clout when it comes to the detail in the contracts. Unfortunately Major's government introduced PFIs to the UK, Blair's Labour continued the practice and Cameron, May and Johnson carried on using the same poor model; let's hope Starmer and Reeves understand the difference and do not resume PFI contracts. Those who doubt and are concerned about more PFI's should right to their MPs, the Treasury and the PM. We legitimately complain about a lack of infrastructure investment, of Government being naive and weak and these are likely to ongoing problems; it is up to us to inform them and bolster them to act sagely. If you don't like PFIs but want more, better prisons, hospitals, state schools etc. and don't want a significant rise in the tax on modest (most ) incomes you need to insist on PPPs and argue against PFIs.
As a person with cerebral palsy, Liz Kendall seems a Labour Party version of Esther McVey.
I didn't know they had cerebral palsy. Sad. We must hope an improved health service benefits them.
@@BillDavies-ej6ye Sorry!
Myself as person with cerebral palsy.
@@Nemo59646 Well, I have no reason to think of Liz Kendall in a negative way. I am hopeful that, slowly, things will improve. Our public sector has been cut repeatedly over the years. I hope that you get the support you need.
@@BillDavies-ej6ye Terrifying language of Starmer’s new minister for the sick & disabled by KernowDamo.
ruclips.net/video/5R4Sgky7_3o/видео.html
@@BillDavies-ej6ye ruclips.net/video/5R4Sgky7_3o/видео.html
Perhaps Reform UK manifesto was more to your satisfaction Professor?😂
Starmer has no choice but to walk on eggshells. Until we have real press regulations. Sun and daily mail will eat him alive should he even try to upset the ultra rich
A quick look at the ever increasing energy consumption/demand should make it obvious that nothing meaningful is being done to protect the environment.
I'm gagging to hear the alternative.
Then listen to Murphy's other videos and you can stop gagging
Yes it is 👍
Very well said, unless Labour really tries to change the system, I think by 2 two years time things will crack so much that I don't like to imagine what will replace it.
Outstanding.
Hidden Right wing clap trap, we've had a gutsful of this tripe.
They will give it a good go though.
Increasing growth doesn't always mean using more finite resources.
You can increase growth by pushing green policies in terms of energy production.
Renewable resources are just that and there is a great opportunity to develop energy industries with proper jobs.
Get over it salty. you will age 15 years before the Tories are back in.
Nothing like stating the obvious, Labour is not going to deliver....new boss same as the old boss.....silence....
Does that mean I won't get liver and onion pizza no more
Labour's UC (Unequal Consequence) wealth UC (Unlimited for Capitalists) poverty UC (Underclass[es] Crippling)
We can’t stop chasing growth until we stop the fractional reserve debt based system that needs exponential growth to counter exponential inflation and compound interest. It can NEVER be done unless we go back to a hard money system.