I have put out this Tweet this morning:
Reeves' original Tweet said, in full:
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:
Read more about me
If you like what I do please support me on Ko-fi using credit or debit card or PayPal
Tax Research UK Blog is written by Richard Murphy unless otherwise stated and published by Tax Research LLP under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Design by Andy Moyle
With 400 odd MPs coupled to “toe the line or else” the only response from LINO will be silence.
I am certain you are correct (ref wealth). The list is excellent btw & perhaps people could be/should be encouraged to write to their MPs demanding action in these areas.
Labour is obsessed with growth. As we know it is not the solution. Ripping up planning rules and imposing unneeded housing targets will not solve the housing issues that we face but investors and developers will be happy. When voters find out its all a con well who knows what will happen?
The answer is that some chancer, like Farage, will say ‘told you so’ and ‘we must break the elite system’. Whether they wear black shirts or crisp white ones with London club ties is irrelevant.
Labour’s proposed shredding of planning rules on the grounds that these slow down development is a huge error, and incredibly stupid.
Firstly, we need even higher quality development control than we have currently. Every eejit developer would build at density, on flood plains, on grade 1 agricultural land, or on ancient woodland if they were permitted so to do.
Nor should compliance with building control be self certified, as is increasingly the case..
Secondly, the hollowing out of local government staffing levels by Tory cuts is the main reason that legaal timescales for processing applications.
I’ve been told than 4 of 6 planners in our local DC team have been lost to budget cuts, and I’m sure that level of staffing cuts in planning is repeated across local authorities.
Much to agree with
I believe in Scotland the Planning (Scotland} Act 2019 applies, with the final decision being made by Scottish Government Ministers.
The six week planning application target has become almost a year locally, down to understaffing.
ScotGov have their own development priorities and are hardly unbiassed.
ScotGov ministers overruled local authority planners on about 40-50% of their planning decisions on appeal in the last few years.
One example has been an SNP commitment to expanding the industrial fish farming sector and presumptions in favour of new fish farms, regardless of local circumstances.
The hollowing out of SEPA has not helped in supporting professional planners against Ministers.
Planning is not the problem with our housing crisis, it’s the avaricious developers. Since 2010 roughly 2.5 million new housing units have been granted, in that time developers have supplied shy of 1.5 million units. They drip-feed product into the market to maximise profit.
For a thorough expose of all issues housing I thoroughly recommend Julian Richer’s ‘Our Housing Disaster :and what we can do about it’.
There will be growth only not the kind you want. Here is the true magic formula Starmer and Reeves propose:-
“We’re going to continue beating the government into being more efficient with austerity then the rich can also pay less taxes! Of course they’ll then give ‘our’ party more donations for doing their will, in other words an efficient Magic Money Tree circle!”
If pressed, I think Rachel Reeves would say that the priority was growth in financial wealth. The reason? She seems to be under the illusion that without first having growth of financial wealth, we will not be able to afford growth in all these other areas.
It’s utterly absurd. Surely the elimination of poverty should be the aim of a so called Labour party not more wealth for those who already have more money than they know what to do.
And as a Green my criticism of Labour has always been they would concrete over the whole country if they thought it would bring jobs.
How are we going to fix our broken public services without more investment?
Reeves is not very well versed in economics, but then she was a banker, which is not the same thing. She also seems totally unaware of the adverse effects of the massive income and wealth differentials, of which I have seen little evidence in her pronouncements.
“ …social justice and environmental protection, sold down the river by a nation addicted to growth for the sake of growth (the ideology of a cancer cell).”
‘Going Dark’, Guy R. McPherson.
Wasn’t “growth, growth” Liz Truss’ mantra? Doesn’t bode well.
The left leaning papers like the Guardian still live in a world where Labour is a progressive party. No its a right wing party – easy to tell – look at the policies!! Just because they still refer to themselves as Labour means nothing!
“Labour’s landslide victory was hailed as a beacon of hope for progressives worldwide after a surge in support for far-right parties in Europe, and with Donald Trump currently slight favourite to become the US president in January.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/07/is-uk-bucking-europes-trend-of-moving-to-the-right
Utter nonsense from them
As I think I have said before, it feels like the work of Sonia Sodha
Paul Johnson IFS
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/knowing-what-we-need-do-not-same-actually-doing-it
seems rather supportive of Reeves ….’we need to do to give ourselves our best shot at growing the economy.’
But he doubts that Reeves will make ‘ the difficult trade – offs . in decisions about growth. Then he spoils it:
‘….we like to pretend that we can achieve growth without upfront investment and hence higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.’
Surely this is a trite simplistic at best or simply plain wrong . He is just reinforcing populist ‘tax and spend’ mantras endlessly reiterated by @BBC and most of the drone City ‘experts’ they wheel in.
You would have thought a serious think tank like IFS – would at least try examining in depth the dire results of the 14 year austerity strategy of starving public investment to ‘make room’ for growth, and therebye peering beyond ‘tax / spend’ – and maybe even consider Keynes ‘ anything we can actually do……’
Is the IFS serious? Why then do they get so much wrong on macro? Their micro is good, mind you.
Sadly I don’t think Rachel Reeves is considering your questions she’s too far up her own arse.
Swinney has said SNP will cooperate and collaborate with Labour!
It has little choice but work with London
It’s all very well asking the questions but what are you really looking for?Just seems like another poke at Labour before actually allowing them time to get into sorting out the mess of the last 14 years.Can’t say I’m totally swayed by what I’ve heard from them so far but they should at least be given the opportunity to to be judged a little bit longer than the first few days of government.
Don’t you know that making suggestions is how change happens in a democracy?