|
Post by jib on Aug 10, 2022 20:54:26 GMT
Lots to chew on there, but you can see why Labour are adopting certain policies on issues. Immigration remains a big issue for the Red Wall voter "On the flipside, Labour is most likely to be not at all trusted .... on immigration (34%)." Pushing for single market membership and unlimited EU immigration is clearly not going to be a vote winner in the Red Wall. Tough choices.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Aug 10, 2022 20:56:43 GMT
I think I saw Love on the Dole on TP a while ago, with an absurdly young but strikingly attractive Deborah Kerr. Can't fault your corny '50s classics, although I think all three were filmed in colour, not entirely usual at the time. I wonder if that helped them spring so readily to your mind. The Titfield Thunderbolt in particular makes striking use of colour. As you say, TP is a treasure trove of nostalgic joy. Even now, I come across little gems I've not seen for yonks, if ever. I see TP shows the original Quatermass TV series, which brought back memories. I was about 9 years old when Quatermass and the Pit was first shown. A neighbour my mother knew well had a TV set (quite rare still in those days, particularly on a Council estate) and we would be regularly invited to watch. Quatermass must have had an impact on me as 60 odd years later it is the only TV show from that time I can now remember watching. If TP broadcast the Pit series, I will watch again, probably from behind the sofa once more! Your cup runneth over, as TP is showing Quatermass 2 as I type. The 1957 film version with Brian Donlevy and Sid James! The original TV series with Andre Morell used to be on the BBC iPlayer I think. Q2 is surprisingly watchable.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 10, 2022 21:11:30 GMT
Multiple reports of the first satellite images of the attack on the Saki airbase in Crimea, and the consensus (both western and Russian bloggers) seems to be that whatever caused it, it was a major event, with multiple planes lost along with substantial destruction to buildings. The multiple craters suggests that this wasn't an accident with munitions handling, as claimed by Russia, and commentators on both sides of the conflict are surmising that Russian claims that this was an accident and not a Ukrainian attack suggest fundamental weaknesses, both in their decidedly leaky air defences, but also in their ability to retaliate.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 10, 2022 21:14:45 GMT
hireton - yes, the right are obsessed with fake culture war issues, and people on here who really should know better are always there to oblige.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 10, 2022 21:36:09 GMT
alurqa "we need more foreigner workers." There's hundreds a day coming across the channel. And being forbidden to work - even if asylum seekers. "Those who claim asylum in the UK are not normally allowed to work whilst their claim is being considered. They are instead provided with accommodation and support to meet their essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute." Yes and a proportion of them (probably the majority) will be granted asylum or refugee status or whatever. As the illegal immigration has been going on for years there will now be an additional pool of foreign workers.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 10, 2022 21:39:20 GMT
alurqa "we need more foreigner workers." There's hundreds a day coming across the channel. Alas we are wasting this resource because, although we desparately need more young workers, some perceive this will be the thin end of the wedge, and so we refuse to let them work (my bold): www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-whilst-an-asylum-claim-is-considered/working-in-the-uk-whilst-an-asylum-case-is-consideredMost asylum applicants are not allowed to work while we consider their application. This is because entering the country for economic reasons is not the same as seeking asylum, and it is important to keep the two separate.
...
If you want to work voluntarily, without being paid, you should speak to your case owner.
It is against the law to beg.Edit: I see pjw1961 got there before me. :-) Same answer. There is a continuous stream, and a number will be coming out of the end of the process and allowed to work, every day.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 10, 2022 21:58:58 GMT
Cosplay Thatcher describes herself as a great fan of " the hanseatic league" for those not up on their 13th to 15th century history the league was a cross border association of independent self governing European areas that came together in a group with free movement of goods and people and cooperation on defence , education and law and order, a sort of what's the word ...union of europeans. Ffs! There's a huge difference between the Hanseatic league and what you're implying. The league was a trade association. Here's wikipedia: "Even at its zenith, the Hanseatic League was never more than a loosely aligned confederation of city-states. It lacked a permanent administrative body, treasury, and standing military force; only a very small number of members enjoyed autonomy and liberties comparable to those of neighbouring free imperial cities" I'm assuming Truss was referring to the fact that Great Yarmouth and Kings Lynn had Hansa trading posts. So what? It was the mediaeval equivalent of having say McDonalds and Starbucks branches.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 10, 2022 22:09:52 GMT
I should point out that my father-in-law is not some low IQ idiot - he was an electronics engineer in his working days - but he has a closed mindset, gets his information from the Telegraph and reacts strongly against having his prejudices challenged, which by and large means they aren't. He genuinely believes that he has earned what he has in life (his childhood was not privileged) and that if others are less fortunate it is probably their fault. This is the type of thing I have in mind when I talk about 'cultural conservatives'. Odd isn't it? There are a lot of people who have worked hard all their working lives, paid their taxes etc who seem to feel that those able-bodied people who have never done a day's work in their lives, or immigrants of whatever sort fresh off the boat should get handouts. How terribly callous. (Note to lefties - this is sarcasm) Of course there are deserving cases, but the system is far too lax.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 10, 2022 22:10:07 GMT
eor Why do you think the FBI raid was "bungled" or do you think that Trump should be above any law enforcement? hireton - I think you're referring to crossbat11's wording there, and neither of us were saying it has been bungled, just discussing what the political impact might be for Trump if it turns out they haven't found anything substantive.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 10, 2022 22:14:14 GMT
G. Brown appears to be leading Labour policy on "the crisis": supposedly co-ordinated with the Labour leadership. Meanwhile if Truss -- stumbling from U-turn to U-turn as if hellbent on sabotaging her own campaign -- does win despite her best efforts not to, we will have the most right-wing government in recent times: complete with a hard core of the religious right
We remainers did warn the leavers that Brexit would lead to a major lurch to the Right in Brit politics. Pity they didn't listen, or maybe this is what they wanted. Who knows blue nose?
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 10, 2022 22:23:46 GMT
robbiealiveI find it very odd that the Tory leadership campaign is so protracted and so public. It can only be damaging. They should have sent out a postal vote to all members as soon as possible after the last two were known - 2-3 days?- and given the members a fortnight to send back their postal ballots. It would all be over by now. Instead we are going to have nearly another month of this pointless public debate.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 10, 2022 22:26:28 GMT
I should point out that my father-in-law is not some low IQ idiot - he was an electronics engineer in his working days - but he has a closed mindset, gets his information from the Telegraph and reacts strongly against having his prejudices challenged, which by and large means they aren't. He genuinely believes that he has earned what he has in life (his childhood was not privileged) and that if others are less fortunate it is probably their fault. This is the type of thing I have in mind when I talk about 'cultural conservatives'. Odd isn't it? There are a lot of people who have worked hard all their working lives, paid their taxes etc who seem to feel that those able-bodied people who have never done a day's work in their lives, or immigrants of whatever sort fresh off the boat should get handouts. How terribly callous. (Note to lefties - this is sarcasm) Of course there are deserving cases, but the system is far too lax. You see the problem with this is that in this country in 2022 there are very few people who don't work, and yet millions have very little disposable income at all. Have they not worked hard? Or do they just happen to have been unfortunate enough to be living in a time where everything costs the earth? I would guess that the majority of people living in a big city (which is a huge chunk of the UK population), who either rent or who have not fully repaid their mortgage (on their first property) are cash poor. The idea that soaring energy prices only hit the poorest; or those who don't work enough is errant nonsense. As for immigrants - both of my parents and my in-laws were immigrants into the UK. They worked 15 hour-plus days for next to nothing. I really don't understand the idea that migrants are given everything. When has that ever been true? It wasn't true in the 60s and 70s and it is even less true today.
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Aug 10, 2022 22:32:26 GMT
G. Brown appears to be leading Labour policy on "the crisis": supposedly co-ordinated with the Labour leadership. Meanwhile if Truss -- stumbling from U-turn to U-turn as if hellbent on sabotaging her own campaign -- does win despite her best efforts not to, we will have the most right-wing government in recent times: complete with a hard core of the religious right We remainers did warn the leavers that Brexit would lead to a major lurch to the Right in Brit politics. Pity they didn't listen, or maybe this is what they wanted. Who knows blue nose? We can but hope that she doesn't have support from Conservative MPs for her agenda. Which may well be so considering less than a third supported her. A lot of the MPs may well consider the next election already lost, and don't want to waste any of their own political capitol on supporting a lame duck PM. Moral in the Parliamentary party may well be as low as possible. And I think any attempt to roll back LGBTQ support is going to see some high profile defections to the LibDems. It is of course quite possible that Truss is just saying what she thinks this specific electoral franchise want to hear, and will immediately take up what ever the parliamentary party's mood settles on, she does have form for sudden conversions to radically different ideologies. Of course, this is all meaningless in the face of the multi-fronted cost of living crisis. Which needed government planing and intervention last month, not October... The current absentee PM declines to act, and the pilots at the wheel can't change heading without fresh orders. Full speed ahead into the iceberg field.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 10, 2022 22:40:06 GMT
I don't agree with the system of tax credits for working people (even though I briefly benefitted from them myself, I'd have been a fool not to). It was a deliberate ploy by Brown to get even more people dependent on the state. Much better to raise the tax and NI threshold to at least the minimum wage for a 40-hour week. That way, some people might actually feel a sense of achievement when they do pay tax. as I did back in the 70s. It's more efficient too instead of taking money off people, processing it bureaucratically and then giving some of it back. Kudos to your family for working hard and I am sure paying their way as did and do millions of others, but there is no onus on legal immigrants having to work, and they are entitled to benefits, use of the NHS and so on. So those who don't work, or who work off the grid have no right to benefits (IMO).
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 10, 2022 22:43:20 GMT
And I think any attempt to roll back LGBTQ support is going to see some high profile defections to the LibDems. Are you saying the LibDems are a bunch of woofters more likely to be of that persuasion? 🤣
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 10, 2022 22:59:54 GMT
eor I'm not at all convinced about this Trump re-election thing. I'm not sure that he'll win the Republican primaries, let alone the actual presidential race should he get that far. Agree with that entirely. I think if he chooses to run (and indeed is at liberty to do so!) he'd find the primaries tougher than in 2016, and even if he got the nomination then the general (even if it were against Biden) ought to be tougher than either of the previous two for him. Personally I've been sceptical that he'd even run. Whereas if they don't nail him as a result of this raid, I think he'd find it irresistible - he'd run and he'd at least start as the front-runner. Still an uphill path from there tho.
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Aug 10, 2022 23:16:25 GMT
eor I'm not at all convinced about this Trump re-election thing. I'm not sure that he'll win the Republican primaries, let alone the actual presidential race should he get that far. Agree with that entirely. I think if he chooses to run (and indeed is at liberty to do so!) he'd find the primaries tougher than in 2016, and even if he got the nomination then the general (even if it were against Biden) ought to be tougher than either of the previous two for him. Personally I've been sceptical that he'd even run. Whereas if they don't nail him as a result of this raid, I think he'd find it irresistible - he'd run and he'd at least start as the front-runner. Still an uphill path from there tho. Most of the state level Republican Parties have become beholden to Trump's base supporters. As the GOP primaries run on a winner-take-all basis, this means he can become the nominee based on primary contests in states such as New York, California, Oregon and Washington where he has no chance of winning in the General election but has a stronger base compared to 'moderate(*)' Republicans in those States. This means Trump has a pretty good chance if he can get on the ballot for State primaries. Possibly prompting legal challenges to his being on state ballots in the General due to 14th Amendment Section 3 challenges. Further, even if he does fail to secure a nomination, I think it is quite possible he would mount a personal campaign as an independent or write in candidate. This would of course have consequences for the GOP. If you ask me, there may well be a lot of people in the establishment GOP who actually are hoping that Trump gets excluded from competing on the practical grounds of being in prison. (*) 'Moderate republican' does not mean being moderate in any understandable frame of reference other than viewed from the far right.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 10, 2022 23:47:30 GMT
Besides, in terms of the likelihood of a Trump return, he's got a bit more baggage than he had in 2016. Four years in the White House illustrating the sort if President he was and would be again, a pretty resounding defeat in both the electoral college and popular vote thereafter and mounting criminal investigations now. He's got his rabid and noisy fans, but a victory in 2024? No chance. Looking on oddschecker Trump is the current favorite for 2024, followed by Ron DeSantis and Joe Biden in third. So clearly lots of American punters don't see it as that far fetched There's a double problem with those kind of odds tho - as well as incumbency and name recognition skewing heavily towards Biden and Trump, if either of them are not their party's nominee next time then punters will have any number of different ideas who might be. Bit like how the odds on Sunak have crumbled compared to when he was the one person most would have placed in the final 2 and everyone on the right was backing different horses. I'm somewhere in between you two - I think if Trump does run (big if, for me) then he'll be gambling that his name recognition and media platform will be enough to keep anyone serious out of the race (or at least be enough to stop them becoming a credible challenger). Not at all convinced it'll work - I suspect they'll learn from 2016 and the "not Trump" field will consolidate around someone quite early on. But if he did get the nomination tho, and Biden does run again... it becomes which of them has picked up more negatives since the 2020 election, or more accurately does Biden drop a bit more than Trump in a handful of states? Still not a good position for Trump, because when you factor in the states that have been trending steadily more Democratic for a while then it's not a case of needing to flip small margins in say any three out of five or six places, it's probably a question of needing to do it in each of three or four more realistic targets without missing a single one. And he's got to not be in jail, have decided to run, and won the nomination just to get to that relatively limited chance. So if someone were offering 50/1 I'd definitely put some money down and wait to see how it develops. 20/1 I'd be tempted. But the 3/1 on offer at the moment feels nuts.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 11, 2022 0:07:00 GMT
Agree with that entirely. I think if he chooses to run (and indeed is at liberty to do so!) he'd find the primaries tougher than in 2016, and even if he got the nomination then the general (even if it were against Biden) ought to be tougher than either of the previous two for him. Personally I've been sceptical that he'd even run. Whereas if they don't nail him as a result of this raid, I think he'd find it irresistible - he'd run and he'd at least start as the front-runner. Still an uphill path from there tho. Most of the state level Republican Parties have become beholden to Trump's base supporters. As the GOP primaries run on a winner-take-all basis, this means he can become the nominee based on primary contests in states such as New York, California, Oregon and Washington where he has no chance of winning in the General election but has a stronger base compared to 'moderate(*)' Republicans in those States. It's not quite that clear cut - in 2016 the majority of states weren't winner-takes-all although some large ones still were, and the degree of proportionality in the states that weren't winner-takes-all varied a lot. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#Results_by_delegates_(hard_total)But it's also worth noting that the race was effectively over before the states on the West coast voted, so Trump's margins in California, Oregon and Washington are likely way beyond anything he'd have got in contested primaries. Definitely! Start with Mitch McConnell and work down...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2022 5:46:30 GMT
G. Brown appears to be leading Labour policy on "the crisis": supposedly co-ordinated with the Labour leadership. Meanwhile if Truss -- stumbling from U-turn to U-turn as if hellbent on sabotaging her own campaign -- does win despite her best efforts not to, we will have the most right-wing government in recent times: complete with a hard core of the religious right We remainers did warn the leavers that Brexit would lead to a major lurch to the Right in Brit politics. Pity they didn't listen, or maybe this is what they wanted. Who knows blue nose? We can but hope that she doesn't have support from Conservative MPs for her agenda. Which may well be so considering less than a third supported her. A lot of the MPs may well consider the next election already lost, and don't want to waste any of their own political capitol on supporting a lame duck PM. Moral in the Parliamentary party may well be as low as possible. And I think any attempt to roll back LGBTQ support is going to see some high profile defections to the LibDems. It is of course quite possible that Truss is just saying what she thinks this specific electoral franchise want to hear, and will immediately take up what ever the parliamentary party's mood settles on, she does have form for sudden conversions to radically different ideologies. Of course, this is all meaningless in the face of the multi-fronted cost of living crisis. Which needed government planing and intervention last month, not October... The current absentee PM declines to act, and the pilots at the wheel can't change heading without fresh orders. Full speed ahead into the iceberg field. Don't forget that Truss and Sunack are fighting an election with a very small, specific set of voters right now. As soon as it's done, the rhetoric will change and they'll drift away from the loony right (I do question whether they need to be there in the first place). The focus then will be on the next battle - surviving the CoL crisis and onto the next GE. I bet all this low tax, small state, anti-woke gumph disappears. Sadly this is the state of politics at the moment - visions and principles are so fleeting you could set an egg timer for them!
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 11, 2022 5:51:00 GMT
I should point out that my father-in-law is not some low IQ idiot - he was an electronics engineer in his working days - but he has a closed mindset, gets his information from the Telegraph and reacts strongly against having his prejudices challenged, which by and large means they aren't. He genuinely believes that he has earned what he has in life (his childhood was not privileged) and that if others are less fortunate it is probably their fault. This is the type of thing I have in mind when I talk about 'cultural conservatives'. Odd isn't it? There are a lot of people who have worked hard all their working lives, paid their taxes etc who seem to feel that those able-bodied people who have never done a day's work in their lives, or immigrants of whatever sort fresh off the boat should get handouts. How terribly callous. (Note to lefties - this is sarcasm) Of course there are deserving cases, but the system is far too lax. I don't think it is sarcasm, its what you think and feel.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,245
|
Post by steve on Aug 11, 2022 5:55:13 GMT
jib Single market membership doesn't involve " unlimited European immigration " it involves no immigration at all but freedom of movement subject to ability to support yourself. You voted to end it for UK citizens six years ago and you still apparently are as clueless now as to what you were voting for as you were then.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 11, 2022 6:05:24 GMT
Trigger warnings
Aren't films rated by suitability, u-r18 etc
This? The tv announcer saying the next program might contain scenes that could upset some viewers?
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 11, 2022 6:40:07 GMT
Newsnight last night focused on the story - not, apparently, untypical - of a woman with terminal stage 4 cancer, now with 2 years to live, after delays in treatment caused a treatable cancer to spread beyond the point of no return. The pressure on the NHS from years of underfunding and the mad idea to let covid rip creating what one contributor to the programme, a top cancer expert, described as "a complete disaster".
Then this morning the news is full of the report by the inspector of the police service that victims of theft and burglary are being let down by the police, who are effectively failing to investigate.
And alongside this, we have the continued sight of Gordon Brown, the PM from 12 years ago, laying out a detailed package of proposals to tackle the energy crisis, set against the near total silence of the present shower in No 10 and the wider Conservative Party. Brown shows us what a real Prime Minister looks like, something the country has, I think, largely forgotten.
No effective cancer treatment, no police support, no leadership. Hard to escape the sense that the country has literally pretty much fallen apart.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Aug 11, 2022 6:54:54 GMT
jib Single market membership doesn't involve " unlimited European immigration " it involves no immigration at all but freedom of movement subject to ability to support yourself. You voted to end it for UK citizens six years ago and you still apparently are as clueless now as to what you were voting for as you were then. Yes it does, and you know it. A minimum wage job subsidised by in work benefits subsidised by the UK taxpayer. Not sustainable except by the Neo Lib low wage business model we've now left behind. G. Brown appears to be leading Labour policy on "the crisis": supposedly co-ordinated with the Labour leadership. Meanwhile if Truss -- stumbling from U-turn to U-turn as if hellbent on sabotaging her own campaign -- does win despite her best efforts not to, we will have the most right-wing government in recent times: complete with a hard core of the religious right We remainers did warn the leavers that Brexit would lead to a major lurch to the Right in Brit politics. Pity they didn't listen, or maybe this is what they wanted. Who knows blue nose? Pity they didn't listen? Pity the Remainiac establishment didn't listen more like. It is they who poisoned the well and facilitated the imbecile Johnson to grab power. It is they who refused to compromise when "perfectly civilised transition" to Norway+ could have been achieved. Stop trying to shift the blame for 3 years of political duplicity that blew up spectacularly in the faces of Remainers. Live with it. No compromise = hard Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 11, 2022 7:01:26 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,768
|
Post by Danny on Aug 11, 2022 7:17:22 GMT
Cosplay Thatcher describes herself as a great fan of " the hanseatic league" for those not up on their 13th to 15th century history the league was a cross border association of independent self governing European areas that came together in a group with free movement of goods and people and cooperation on defence , education and law and order, a sort of what's the word ...union of europeans. Ffs! There's a huge difference between the Hanseatic league and what you're implying. The league was a trade association. Here's wikipedia Hmm. But at that time there was little concept of international borders or any need for passports as we understand them. So basically there was no need fordetailed international trade agreements because you could do what you liked anyway. Very likely members could live and work in each others countries, had the same rights and privileges as native born citizens when abroad. Rules would have varied from place to place, but not discriminating based upon nationality. Odd isn't it? There are a lot of people who have worked hard all their working lives, paid their taxes etc who seem to feel that those able-bodied people who have never done a day's work in their lives, or immigrants of whatever sort fresh off the boat should get handouts. How terribly callous. (Note to lefties - this is sarcasm) Of course there are deserving cases, but the system is far too lax. Certainly there are government ministers whose families came here as immigrants, who beleve that had they done the same today they should never have been allowed to set foot on British soil. robbiealive I find it very odd that the Tory leadership campaign is so protracted and so public. It can only be damaging. Almost as if they are trying to lose? Same old same old...Danny says if someone acts like they want to lose, well maybe they want to lose. And I think any attempt to roll back LGBTQ support is going to see some high profile defections to the LibDems. Are you saying the LibDems are a bunch of woofters more likely to be of that persuasion? 🤣 I imagine he's saying conservative MPs are, so will be needing a new home if their leader starts a witch hunt. Dont forget ons recently reported 8% of young adults are now reporting as non-heterosexual. Double the number from 5 years previously on a rising trend. What does anyone reckon will be the maximum point when the rise completes?
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Aug 11, 2022 7:20:13 GMT
We can but hope that she doesn't have support from Conservative MPs for her agenda. Which may well be so considering less than a third supported her. A lot of the MPs may well consider the next election already lost, and don't want to waste any of their own political capitol on supporting a lame duck PM. Moral in the Parliamentary party may well be as low as possible. And I think any attempt to roll back LGBTQ support is going to see some high profile defections to the LibDems. Don't forget that Truss and Sunack are fighting an election with a very small, specific set of voters right now. As soon as it's done, the rhetoric will change and they'll drift away from the loony right (I do question whether they need to be there in the first place). The focus then will be on the next battle - surviving the CoL crisis and onto the next GE. I bet all this low tax, small state, anti-woke gumph disappears. Sadly this is the state of politics at the moment - visions and principles are so fleeting you could set an egg timer for them! I wish I shared your optimism. The Republicans started courting the fundamentalists back in the 1980s, as they represented a bloc who could be relied upon to vote for your side when prompted (a trend continued so much that the fundies could explain away Trump's complete lack of anything they upheld by claiming "but he'll do what we want"). In the same way, the anti-LBGTQ brigade are a small group, but very vocal, and can mobilise those small numbers to bombard the media claiming they are being "silenced" (and hence are forcing those same media outlets to silence any opposing point of view). Once groups like that have been courted and relied upon for the politicians to gain power, it becomes a short step before the politician is beholden to them, and thus has to enact that group's agenda, or risk losing future support. Hence, I genuinely do not see all the low tax, anti-woke gumph disappearing once the leadership battle is over. Trump enabled and emboldened the extremists in the US (leading to January 6th insurrection). I can see Truss doing the same here.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,768
|
Post by Danny on Aug 11, 2022 7:27:37 GMT
Newsnight last night focused on the story - not, apparently, untypical - of a woman with terminal stage 4 cancer, now with 2 years to live, after delays in treatment caused a treatable cancer to spread beyond the point of no return. The pressure on the NHS from years of underfunding and the mad idea to let covid rip creating what one contributor to the programme, a top cancer expert, described as "a complete disaster". The disaster has been caused by a few things. The first was Brexit, since staff shortfalls and therefore inability to meet targets has risen steadily since then. We are seeing damage to the NHS caused by Brexit.
The second was ten years of government cuts to care services, which has diverted NHS resources to replace social services funding, even while NHS spending has been slightly protected.
But of course, the problem caused by lockdown has been the inability of the NHS to treat effectively when there is a big risk to sick people if they catch covid. Not because covid is so dangerous, but because it is so if you catch it while already sick. Had we allowed covid to run its course naturally and therefore end in half the time, then we could reasonably expect half as much damage in term of disrupted NHS care for other illnesses. What we are seeing now is deaths caused by how the epidemic was managed, which deliberately intended to extend its duration. The way to resolve covid fast and safely was to let it rip. As happened in Hastings, where no one even noticed there was a new illness on the loose. Hardly news! Twas the same under Thatcher and all points in between. Before that I'm not sure there was as much attention to performance targets which were a Thatcherite invention. Has he? News didnt exactly say that, only that he called for a plan. I have yet to see any actual plan how we deal with a step increase in price for an essential commodity by hundreds of percent, except to pay? If Russian secret services werent working to achieve this, I'm sure they wish they had.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,374
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 11, 2022 7:32:52 GMT
Don't forget that Truss and Sunack are fighting an election with a very small, specific set of voters right now. As soon as it's done, the rhetoric will change and they'll drift away from the loony right (I do question whether they need to be there in the first place). The focus then will be on the next battle - surviving the CoL crisis and onto the next GE. I bet all this low tax, small state, anti-woke gumph disappears. Sadly this is the state of politics at the moment - visions and principles are so fleeting you could set an egg timer for them! If Sunak wins that is absolutely what will happen. Truss genuinely seems to believe some of the nonsense she says but then U-turns 24 hours later so it is hard to know. I think we would get Johnson style chaos but with big unfunded tax cuts (its her flagship policy, so will get done in some form). These will prove disastrous, fueling inflation further and leading to higher interest rates, whereupon the BoE will be blamed for the recession and the Mail and Express will declare the BoE Governor an 'enemy of the people'. Truss will fight the election on the grounds that she represents a new type of government who will rip up the establishment consensus represented by Starmer, Sunak and the BoE but she needs more time too implement the required reforms and deliver the Brexit benefits.
|
|