|
|
Post by sheepy on May 27, 2023 21:25:31 GMT
Yes, that's why I asked " do you think none of the other things that require energy to make have been effected in the same way?" I already answered that - if you take food and energy out of the calculation core inflation is around 6%. The trouble is that core inflation is rising whilst food and energy are falling. Hence the increase in interest rates. If you have a better way to reduce core inflation I'm sure the BoE would love to hear. I do actually not sit back and let your pals artificially create it. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 27, 2023 21:31:57 GMT
The big push in cleaning up water came over a decade after privatisation 1989. It came following the European directive. "the Water Framework Directive (European Commission, 2000). So not by the generosity of the new private owners. "There is a robust UK legislative framework in place for controlling and reducing pollution from contaminants posing a risk to coastal waters and these are described in the UK Marine Strategy Part Three (HM Government, 2015a). In particular, many of the measures put in place through the Water Framework Directive (European Commission, 2000). And apparently gone to pot post Brexit. I'm almost in tears of laughter, this is hilarious. see2, just for a moment stop waving your EU flag and have a shufty at sewage discharges in the EU, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 27, 2023 21:35:25 GMT
I already answered that - if you take food and energy out of the calculation core inflation is around 6%. The trouble is that core inflation is rising whilst food and energy are falling. Hence the increase in interest rates. If you have a better way to reduce core inflation I'm sure the BoE would love to hear. I do actually not sit back and let your pals artificially create it. I agree with you. The mass creation of debt rather than the cutting of Government spending from 2010 is an economic disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 28, 2023 6:34:30 GMT
As stated many times in the past. A few willing people have no effect, we need a government strong enough to make the rich pay to help the poor. A stable country depends on this. And the cut off point is? I have seen Labour say this before is the reason I ask, there was no cut off point, they just used it to drain everyone while the bankers had a field day. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 28, 2023 7:33:22 GMT
Yes, that's why I asked " do you think none of the other things that require energy to make have been effected in the same way?" I already answered that - if you take food and energy out of the calculation core inflation is around 6%. The trouble is that core inflation is rising whilst food and energy are falling. Hence the increase in interest rates. Then I don't believe the figures. We did not have core inflation of 6% until Russia started limiting supply/invaded Ukraine. All that inflation is directly or indirectly due to this. The BofE might decide the interest rate (Making it sound lie a non governmental decision) but they are only given this one tool and that one instruction. Its government that can make other decisions. My idea? The one the Tory Grandees certainly won't want to here about. Raising interest rates is supposed to take money out of peoples pockets and reduce demand. Raising taxes would do exactly the same thing. Only difference is who gets the money. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 28, 2023 7:40:02 GMT
As stated many times in the past. A few willing people have no effect, we need a government strong enough to make the rich pay to help the poor. A stable country depends on this. And the cut off point is? Not sure what you mean Sheepy. If you mean the cut off point as in the max the rich should pay? I think it should be linear and based on where percentages of income are going. What happens if we reach total automation where the only people earning money are those who own the machines/AI? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 28, 2023 7:42:54 GMT
And the cut off point is? Not sure what you mean Sheepy. If you mean the cut off point as in the max the rich should pay? I think it should be linear and based on where percentages of income are going. What happens if we reach total automation where the only people earning money are those who own the machines/AI? I mean who decides the cut off point between the have and have nots? So that the have nots are given a leg up. Not used as an excuse to say you all have to pay more? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 28, 2023 7:59:53 GMT
Not sure what you mean Sheepy. If you mean the cut off point as in the max the rich should pay? I think it should be linear and based on where percentages of income are going. What happens if we reach total automation where the only people earning money are those who own the machines/AI? I mean who decides the cut off point between the have and have nots? So that the have nots are given a leg up. Not used as an excuse to say you all have to pay more? The elected government decides. We vote for the party that best does this. All the likes of myself can do is try to let people know the reasons for what is happening. To cut through the popular propaganda that its all the fault of immigrants and if we just stop immigration it will all get sorted. Add to this the other lies that you can't tax the rich more or they'll leave, or that there's not enough rich people to make a difference, or that its just envy. All of which have been repeated so many times they have become given. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 28, 2023 8:02:05 GMT
The elected government decides
And you don't see a problem with that whatsoever?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 28, 2023 8:21:16 GMT
The elected government decides And you don't see a problem with that whatsoever? I'm a realist. Open to a better idea if you have one? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 28, 2023 8:24:02 GMT
The elected government decides And you don't see a problem with that whatsoever? I'm a realist. Open to a better idea if you have one? I do as it happens put your options to the electorate in a referendum and let them decide if the ins and outs of it are for the better or maybe the worse. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 28, 2023 8:26:46 GMT
I can make it even easier if you wish when you hold a general election add it as part of the vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 28, 2023 8:40:52 GMT
I'm a realist. Open to a better idea if you have one? I do as it happens put your options to the electorate in a referendum and let them decide if the ins and outs of it are for the better or maybe the worse. Direct democracy initially sounds a wonder to behold. But very quickly you get to decisions the average man is unable to make as he/she does not have the information needed. An exercise for you to demonstrate my point if you care to. You want a vote on how we should fund health care in the UK going forward. What is the question you ask Joe public? A compromise might be to make election manifesto's mandatory. Where any deviation must be put to public vote where losing that vote leads to a new election. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 28, 2023 8:43:03 GMT
I do as it happens put your options to the electorate in a referendum and let them decide if the ins and outs of it are for the better or maybe the worse. Direct democracy initially sounds a wonder to behold. But very quickly you get to decisions the average man is unable to make as he/she does not have the information needed. An exercise for you to demonstrate my point if you care to. You want a vote on how we should fund health care in the UK going forward. What is the question you ask Joe public? A compromise might be to make election manifesto's mandatory. Where any deviation must be put to public vote where losing that vote leads to a new election. Simple then give them the information needed and secondly you have just done exactly what you accuse others of doing. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 28, 2023 8:56:51 GMT
The big push in cleaning up water came over a decade after privatisation 1989. It came following the European directive. "the Water Framework Directive (European Commission, 2000). So not by the generosity of the new private owners. "There is a robust UK legislative framework in place for controlling and reducing pollution from contaminants posing a risk to coastal waters and these are described in the UK Marine Strategy Part Three (HM Government, 2015a). In particular, many of the measures put in place through the Water Framework Directive (European Commission, 2000). And apparently gone to pot post Brexit. I'm almost in tears of laughter, this is hilarious. see2, just for a moment stop waving your EU flag and have a shufty at sewage discharges in the EU, lol. My post was about sewage discharge in the UK. It wasn't difficult to follow. So you do not like the truth despite it being verified by the Conservative party (2015a) It is so good to see you expose your sad non-thinking bias, so easily recognised in your post and only to be expected from a Righty Outer. That sort of thinking probably played such a big part in your choice in 2016  |
|
