Michael
@michael-fox
Posts about my life and what interests me including: gardening, cooking, cats, the Lib Dems, politics in general and construction.
In this speech she is opposing the 5p cut in the top rate of tax. Does she still want to increase the additional rate back to 50p? A sign we might get some more progressive taxation?
Here she speaks in favour of housebuilding targets. Construction can boost growth and the housing crisis is a drag on the economy so this is good news. Does she believe this enough to push through some actual policy to achieve Labour targets?
She speaks in favour of the ‘mansion tax’. Can we expect more wealth taxes or land/property tax reform?
Here she speaks positively about devolution and giving local authorities more power to help deliver jobs and growth. Aligns with Burnham’s view in general. Pretty vague though!
As she moved into the junior shadow treasury roles, she spoke much more on economics in general and stating Labour policy. She opposed corporation tax cuts and supported business rate/reform cuts. Could be good news for small businesses and high streets?
Several more speeches about unemployment and youth unemployment. Can we expect this to be a focus of hers in no. 11?
Lots of her early contributions are just anti-immigration. Attacking the coalition for not getting net migration down enough etc. grim. Maybe shows how deep seated these views are. A true believer. Not good news if we want any economic growth!
2010 her maiden speech was in an Economic Affairs debate. She chose to focus on unemployment. It was pretty high at the time! Not much to say though apart from unemployment is bad and attacking the council. Seems to favour funding programmes to get people into work not benefits.
It’s a terrible picture sorry but I’m very excited that I spotted at least three yellow rattle seeded after I panted plugs last year. My little wildflower patch is slowly improving 🌱
Pretending that a 2010 Labour-led rainbow coalition was going to increase or maintain defence spending is just laughably dishonest.
We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning, you’re going to come to me and go ‘Please, please, we can’t win anymore.’ You’ve heard this one. You’ll say ‘Please, Mr. President, we beg you sir, we don’t want to win anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair
We did improve the infrastructure! We toyed the traffic over a different bridge!
This bridge can’t take a bus. Instead of demolishing it we re-routed the buses and pedestrianised the bridge. Because… obviously.
I’m very sad @pickardje.bsky.social that this FT article doesn’t even consider what it means for the Royal Navy to not have real air defence capability. This is nothing less than the end of the RN as a war-fighting force. “Drones will do it” is not sound military strategy
No, there has not been any change to the way that war has fought that removes the need for high capability air defence systems. The opposite is true in fact. Yet again government Rob’s Peter to pay Paul instead of investing in all the capabilities we need for the 21st century.
If you gave me a magic wand then then the very first thing I’d do is uninvent the word governance as it is used in politics and is almost entirely synonymous with government.
So I totally agree but I guess I have a problem in that I do have a leader who is doing this all the time and yet it has got him nowhere with the commentariat or in the polls and I don’t know what to do with this. Like where is the political incentive
It is very unthinking of me to accurately reflect the things that people are saying!
The people you are agreeing with want to nationalise them. If you don’t want to nationalise them then fine cool whatever. What’s your plan please?