Another Tweet on the autumn statement:
When inflation is going to be at 2%, demanding that households pay 5% interest on their mortgages is a recipe for disaster.
Unless Labour takes control of this issue, its time in office will be painful for them and us all.
Their choice.....
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I wonder’s if Labour’s plan for office is to be so bad, that people will want the Tories back, then Labour can blame them for the parlous state of the nation.
Call me a cynic, but I don’t think either main party wants to take over come the general election as they know how bad it will be.
I thought that was the Tory plan – poison the well for Labour ?
No matter, given the accelerating climate catastrophe (aka the elites death plan for us all), it’s all looking much more grim – well, ‘grim’ doesn’t capture the hell coming our way due to that callous and greedy lot.
At the risk of showing immense ignorance of economics, I ask this:
Would not Labour be best advised (and held to account) in getting the banks to pass the higher interest rates to all savers? That way, whether rates rise or fall, there is a buffer for most individuals who can take advantage of any solid incentive to save. Engineers know the importance of buffering (as do economists, I imagine). Whether or not national debt can be eased by reducing the tendency to personal debt on a large enough scale, I do not know, but I do know that people with even small amounts of secure savings make better, less hasty decisions, and in turn, that might help resist the predation being inflicted on them now. Labour CAN make this happen. I think the ‘building society’ movement arose in what were Labour-voting heartlands, mostly in the midlands and the north. Apart from the credit unions, there seems to be little sign of anything like this happening now, when we need it most. Labour could change that, but only if enough people demand it of them.
This does not make sense
First, mopst peoiple have almost no savings
Second, bab ks do not need savers’ money, so why should they be forced to pay for them?
Much better, just cut rates.
Your logic is a bit like saying that good things can do no good because there are no good things.
I made a point of saving a little most of the time, and it lets me make choices I would not make otherwise (bulk savings on larger boxes of food for example, where I have space and the food will not degrade before I can eat it). This is on a minimal benefit income. I do it because I know enough engineering to value the concept of buffering. Most people do not. If you do, please explain how economists might enable more people to think this way. They have no savings mostly because they see no merit in it, it seems better to buy now, pay later. This notion has been sold to most people for about three decades, and it put the usefulness of the buffer out of their control, created debt, and in turn created money, but not for them. So the question stands: if you want a reversal of this, and the resulting improvement in society, how would you propose that it be done? Is this something a political party can do? (I imagine it is, given how well a political party has undone the security people used to have).
With respect, I don’t have the time to respond to demands like this from anonymous commentators.