British Recovery Bonds

September 2021 Forums General discussion British Recovery Bonds

  • This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by ALB.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #214026
    Young Master Smeet
    Participant

    So, Starmer wants “British Recovery Bonds.” Why? if the government wants to borrow some of the accumulated savings sat in banks & building societies, it could just borrow from banks and building societies. Interest rates are low anyway, it could get a great deal. But, that would help drive down savers’ interest rates. The banks have to pay the less than the interest they receive on loans. As the BBC notes:
    “A Labour government would offer people a savings account with the government at a competitive interest rate – similar to the previous National Savings and Investments bonds.” So, it would be about pushing interest rates up for savers, higher than they would otherwise be without the bonds. And the name “British” suggests an ideological bent: firstly, to make people who buy them feel they have a literal stake in Britain, that they may not want to risk through, say, Scottish independence, but also, it would make their investment direct and conscious.

    That is, Starmer is proposing to give more money to people who already have money and who might have gained money through the lockdown.

    #214038
    ALB
    Keymaster

    Another extract from Starmer’s speech:

    For too long Labour has failed to realise that the only way to deliver social justice and equality is through a strong partnership with business. Under my leadership that mindset will change.”

    Actually, this has always been Labour’s mindset when in office. It means allowing business to make profits and maintaining conditions favourable for profit-making. Since profits arise from the surplus value workers create it means accepting worker exploitation and, if need be, opposing strikes for higher wages. In the end it means abandoning promised reforms aimed at promoting “social justice and equality” if they conflict with profit-making.

    We have seen it so many times before. What is slightly new, I suppose, is that this time Starmer is “getting Labour’s betrayal in in advance”, not that it really is a betrayal since Labour has only ever been anti-capitalist in words. When in office it has been obliged to maintain “a strong partnership” with profit-seeking private business since capitalism runs on profits.

    Far from working with capitalists within capitalism being the only way to improve things for workers history, in the form of the record of all previous Labour governments, has shown the opposite to be the case — that capitalism cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority; as a profit-making system it can only work in the interests of the profit-takers.

    #214045
    james19
    Participant

    Labour brought in new laws to jail any employer, who paid their workers with above pay norm increases, flouting Labours controls on wages….. to get inflation out of the system.
    Blair bought in the working hours opt-out clause, when the EU bought in the Working Time Directive, stopping unscrupulous bosses from exploiting workers with excessive hours!
    Who needs enemies with friends like Labour!

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 1 week ago by james19.
    • This reply was modified 7 months, 1 week ago by james19.
    #214078
    ALB
    Keymaster

    As they say, Labour, Tory, Same Old Story.

    #214102
    Young Master Smeet
    Participant

    Neat skewering here

    “Using an example of 1% above market rate interest, this would be a financial offer from Labour of 95p to the low-income families, and one of £629 to the high-income household. The exact numbers could change, but the ratio wouldn’t; regardless of whether the interest rate is a generous or a parsimonious offer, the high-income household would receive 630 times the reward of the low-income.”

    It is very much a conservative pitch.

    #214242
    ALB
    Keymaster

    There’s an item in today’s Times headed “Tory rebels and Labour ready to block corporation tax increase”:

    Apparently Sunak, the Chancellor, is expected to propose in his budget next Wednesday raising this tax from its current 19 per cent to 23 per cent.

    Corporation tax is a tax on profits and used to be called “profits tax”. So you would expect to find some members of the Tory Party, as the Party of Big Business, opposing it. But Labour? It seems so, as one of the questions Starmer put at PMQ ysterday was: “Can the prime minister at least agree with me today that now is not the time for taxes rises for families and for business.”

    John McDonnell must be squirming in his political grave as the Labour manifesto for the 2019 general election he helped to draft promised to increase corporation tax to 26 percent. Big Business must be happy: they’ve now got two parties openly pledged to defend their interests.

    Labour defending the profits of big business, the shape of things to come. But also the ghost of Labour governments past. Mind you, there is a certain logic in their position: if you accept the capitalist system that runs on profts it is logical, but perhaps not to be so blatant about it, to accept that businesses should be allowed to make them.

    #214466
    ALB
    Keymaster

    For the record, more par for the course about the Labour Party — support for nuclear weapons. No doubt Starmer would have no qualms about pressing the button if he was convinced that vital interests of the British capitalist class were at stake. In short, a psychopath. Or maybe he’s just saying it to win votes and not expecting his bluff to be called.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-56198972

    The present leadership of the Labour Party and most of their MPs are a despicable bunch of career politicians more eager to get their bums on the ministerial benches than anything else. After all, that’s why most of them “entered politics”.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.