Gransnet forums

News & politics

Jeremy's ten points

(74 Posts)
Gracesgran Sat 15-Aug-15 10:16:08

I appreciate not everyone will be interested in this but some may be so here goes with point one.

*Growth Not Austerity*
A national investment bank to help create tomorrow's jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxer for all - let the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden to balance the books

My thoughts are that many people now realise that the way the Conservatives are saying they will reduce the deficit is a figure pulled out of the air. Add to that the fact that they are intent on rewarding those who have the most and taking from the poorest and many are looking to find out if anyone else is offering something different.

Money was poured into the banks to stop them failing - failing because of what they did not because of anything any government did - and yet they are still not lending to business in the way that the Conservatives "hoped" they would. A national investment bank sounds like a good idea to me and then, rather than making people's lives unnecessarily miserable and bringing back poverty in a way we haven't seen for decades, growth can be used to pay the deficit down. Good Keynesian economics which has actually been shown to work in the past, whereas all austerity has brought about is war.

soontobe Sat 15-Aug-15 11:51:36

Is there a link for a national investment bank as I dont understand how it works.

Also, can you give examples of countries of where Keynesian economics has worked please.

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 11:59:39

You've had links before. It's about Green or the People's QE.
You obviously haven't bothered looking at them so it's pointless giving you more. Just search for yourself instead of expecting others to do it for you.

soontobe Sat 15-Aug-15 12:07:39

I will look up a link for People's QE [not Green as I shall just get the colour green or the Green Party]

soontobe Sat 15-Aug-15 12:40:21

Have had a read.

So it is basically qe.

No thanks.

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 12:50:30

No it isn't basically QE. Ordinary QE is giving money to banks so those at the top can make bigger bonuses. People's QE is setting up a people's bank to give money for housing and infrastructure, putting money in at the bottom and spreading it around among those that need jobs and a better wage.

Green QE is not to do with the green party. It's to do with spending on environmentally friendly infrastructure, better insulated housing, etc.

You obviously did not read much.

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 12:53:08

soontobe Sat 15-Aug-15 13:30:31

qe is inventing money.
Whereever it ends up going, it is inventing money.

No thanks.
Even Yvette Cooper says now is not the time for that. But since she is running against him, I suppose that is a bit power for the course.

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 13:32:49

Gordon Brown saved the banks by QE.

soontobe Sat 15-Aug-15 13:44:44

He did.
I thought there would be an effect by that. But it didnt seem to filter out to the general public in ways it had before. Though is that where increase in house prices came from?

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 13:46:46

No. Read the OP again.

soontobe Sat 15-Aug-15 14:00:46

I have reread it. So?

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 14:36:09

So this.

"Money was poured into the banks to stop them failing - failing because of what they did not because of anything any government did - and yet they are still not lending to business in the way that the Conservatives "hoped" they would."

If the banks are not lending, how can they be responsible for house price rises?

soontobe Sat 15-Aug-15 14:52:49

You have just quoted Gracesgran's words. Not anyone else's I dont think.

Gracesgran is not the only opinion in the universe.

Of course banks lend. And for houses. hmm

Gracesgran Sat 15-Aug-15 14:53:43

This is Jeremy's second point.

Achieved through investment and growth, not squeezing the least well-off and cutting child tax credits

I have to say I am a little ambivalent about child tax credits. I certainly think the money should go on children but I wonder if it wouldn't be better spent on free nursery and all round care. What it shouldn't do is be taken off children to go back into the treasury coffers.

I would agree that we are on a hiding to nothing trying to reduce benefits by stripping the flesh off already starving people. I would definitely support bringing it down - at a sensible pace, not some figure picked out of the air - by expanding the economy.

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 15:14:10

A lower welfare bill could be achieved through higher rates of pay, a proper living wage, not an Osborne pretend one.
However, it's not enough to just swap wage for welfare. It needs to be done gradually so that those caught in the trap are not penalised. I think I read somewhere recently that some people can end up losing 97p out of every pound extra they earn. It needs to be tapered.
I have never had to apply for any sort of tax credit, so do not understand the system. My son and his partner have, and have been completely flummoxed by it, one year being paid tax credits whilst at the same time being told they had been paid too much and having to pay it back.
Child benefit and child tax credits seem superfluous.

Another call for People's QE to get more jobs at higher wages.

nigglynellie Sat 15-Aug-15 16:30:33

No wonder not many people want to join in threads like this. Why are people on the left always so aggressive and rude? and always 'right' of course, no question about it. If.this is a sample of how a Corbyn government would behave, heaven help us all.

vampirequeen Sat 15-Aug-15 16:33:00

I think I still owe money for overpaid tax credits and my youngest is now 26. They never got it right no matter how often or quickly I sent them updated information.

It was better when it was Family Credit. You were paid according to the previous 6 months income or previous 8 weeks whichever was lower. It was reviewed every 6 months and amended at that point if necessary so you never owed them money.

Gracesgran Sat 15-Aug-15 18:09:09

I think this is one of those times when you realise how difficult it is to get is sorted out Jen and Vampirequeen. One after another governments, of all beliefs, has just added and tweaked. The credits system does need sorting but why make low earning families be the ones to pay as this government is doing?

Gracesgran Sat 15-Aug-15 18:13:40

While I am here I will add point three.

For the long term interest of the planet rather than the short term interests of corporate profits.

I, personally, would much rather have renewables and am very disappointed that they are no longer being backed.

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 18:21:09

Agreed, Gracesgran. Glad I'm not an MP.
However, there are tax experts who could be asked.

The only way you can change things by not adding and tweaking is to look at a living wage and the idea of the minimum income required to live on for all types of households. That way it's possible to make sure that families do not lose, in my opinion.
The CPAG has figures for how many families are going to lose and by how much over this parliament. It's quite scary.

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 18:21:49

That's obviously not about climate change!

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 18:25:18

Agree with him on climate change. That's where you can see Labour joining with the Green Party.
It also feeds into Green QE, with extra jobs for helping with insulation, solar and ground source heating, etc.

Do you remember when Cameron said, "Vote blue, get green"?
How long did that last?

Gracesgran Sat 15-Aug-15 18:30:42

Yes, Jen I do think he will attract some Greens.

durhamjen Sat 15-Aug-15 18:38:30

Whatever happened to Dave's Husky, for those who want to read it. Best not to comment on it, as it is not about Jeremy.