|
|
Post by EmCat on Oct 17, 2022 21:17:07 GMT
Sky saying that Truss missed the Commons because she was in a meeting with Graham Brady. I would have thought her place in the Commons was the more important of two. Using the Yes, minister yardstick, I think that counts as a courageous decision from Truss, to meet Brady rather than the Commons chamber (a "brave" decision was one that would lose you votes, whereas a "courageous" one was one that would lose you the election.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2022 21:17:33 GMT
There's no 'could be' about it. I've no idea whether Truss is a contact lens wearer, but I posted the info because of comments about rapid blinking being a sign of anxiety, lying, other sinister things. I don't want UKPR2ites tarring innocent contact lens wearers.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Oct 17, 2022 21:20:10 GMT
All the attention has been on the fiscal elements of the Truss-Kwarteng programme, because they were what made the markets take fright - and it is the markets that brought down the Chancellor, not outrage amongst the UK electorate - but the supply-side reforms and dismantling of public services will be more damaging and they are still very much on the table. Hunt has not resiled from Truss's 'grow the cake' philosophy nor has he talked much (at all?) about what are usually cited as the main drivers of growth and productivity in developed economies (investing in education, training, automation, innovation, technological development), so it looks as if the bonfire of regulations, standards and safeguards - with everything that implies for the environment and people - will be going ahead, to general applause from the Right. Much of the impact of deregulation can be delivered without formal govt action, thus avoiding creating a target for organised protest. It suffices to cease enforcement - thus reducing public spending. This is already happening. By the end of 2024 I suspect that the welfare state will be unrecognisable and I don't expect Labour to attempt to resurrect it. We may well be heading for a system involving much more extensive means-tested co-payments for healthcare. That ought to be anathema to anyone who believes that access to health care should be independent of ability to pay, but many lefties are inexplicably fond of means-testing. A flight from publicly funded services will mean fewer middle class voters fighting for them and further declines in quality will attract less attention. Under Starmer Lab has appeared to be competing to be judged the best steward of a capitalist economy, best at striking the right balance between tax and services and competent at running public services. The Tories' self-sabotage seems to have gifted them a win, but at some point Reeves and Starmer are going to come under pressure to explain how they will do a better job than Hunt of maintaining public services whilst remaining fiscally responsible. That suggests that we're bu**ered whoever gets elected as the next government, which may be right. But, overall I'd rather be bu**ered by Labour than the Tories because they didn't create the mess and they're bu**er us as gently as possible. And, though it won't do us much good, we know they would do better if they could. Intention is all. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 17, 2022 21:20:31 GMT
Buyer's remorse:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2022 21:37:32 GMT
jib “the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.” (Bogart in Casablanca) I am guessing you don't think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 17, 2022 21:47:45 GMT
Sky saying that Truss missed the Commons because she was in a meeting with Graham Brady. I would have thought her place in the Commons was the more important of two. Using the Yes, minister yardstick, I think that counts as a courageous decision from Truss, to meet Brady rather than the Commons chamber (a "brave" decision was one that would lose you votes, whereas a "courageous" one was one that would lose you the election.) That happens in chess too. I remember playing a game where I sacrificed a bishop for a pawn to bust the opponent's king's position open. As usual I hadn't even tried to calculate it, it just looked good. I duly lost, and a strong player who was watching said it was a very 'brave' move - i.e. foolhardy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2022 21:52:18 GMT
There's no 'could be' about it. I've no idea whether Truss is a contact lens wearer, but I posted the info because of comments about rapid blinking being a sign of anxiety, lying, other sinister things. I don't want UKPR2ites tarring innocent contact lens wearers. Having worn initially hard, latterly gas permeable, (still hard), contact lenses for over 40 years, I have never noticed that they made me blink more frequently. Neither has anyone ever made such an observation to me. Maybe I've just been lucky. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,626
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 17, 2022 21:53:03 GMT
By the end of 2024 I suspect that the welfare state will be unrecognisable and I don't expect Labour to attempt to resurrect it. We may well be heading for a system involving much more extensive means-tested co-payments for healthcare. That ought to be anathema to anyone who believes that access to health care should be independent of ability to pay, but many lefties are inexplicably fond of means-testing. A flight from publicly funded services will mean fewer middle class voters fighting for them and further declines in quality will attract less attention. I'm not sure quite how you see the "means-tested co-payments for healthcare" would work but I will make a point that I have made on here before but which I think a lot of people used to commercial private and quasi-commercial public-sector businesses find counter-intuitive. Hospitals possess no systems for checking entitlement to receive care, other than in the limited case of non-emergency treatment of overseas patients Hospitals possess no systems to charge patients for care or to deal with payments from patients Hospitals have no arrangements for pursuing patients who do not pay The reason is simple; they have never needed them. To create these sort of systems in every hospital - whether run in-house or outsourced - will cost hundreds of millions in IT and labour costs and it is likely that there would be a high non-collection rate. Charging patients for hospital treatment might produce income but would also come with a lot of cost. It is also likely to carry hidden costs. We know from before the NHS was created that people chose not to have illnesses treated due to the cost. The result is that when they do eventually present they are much sicker and need more expensive treatment. So counter-intuitively it is quite possible that making the NHS not free at the point of delivery could end up costing a lot of money. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2022 21:59:53 GMT
Sky saying that Truss missed the Commons because she was in a meeting with Graham Brady. I would have thought her place in the Commons was the more important of two. Using the Yes, minister yardstick, I think that counts as a courageous decision from Truss, to meet Brady rather than the Commons chamber (a "brave" decision was one that would lose you votes, whereas a "courageous" one was one that would lose you the election.) What a delicious confection "Yes, Minister/Prime Minister" was. I'm immediately reminded of an episode where Hacker was agonising over recommending a bishopric for someone who had been on the waiting list for years. Jim wryly observed "Long time no see". |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 17, 2022 22:04:05 GMT
jib “the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.” (Bogart in Casablanca) I am guessing you don't think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
It's rather reminiscent of the close friendship of SLab, SCon, the Orange Order and far right British Nationalists in Scottish local government - adversity makes for convenient, if somewhat strange, bedfellows.
Of course, the point of my comment was rather more legume related than political. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 17, 2022 22:16:34 GMT
... Hospitals possess no systems for checking entitlement to receive care, other than in the limited case of non-emergency treatment of overseas patients ... It is also likely to carry hidden costs. We know from before the NHS was created that people chose not to have illnesses treated due to the cost. The result is that when they do eventually present they are much sicker and need more expensive treatment. So counter-intuitively it is quite possible that making the NHS not free at the point of delivery could end up costing a lot of money. I know from a doctor that non-emergency treatment of overseas patients is usually not pursued beyond a letter asking for money, and that usually the patient has returned home anyway. Health tourism is a thing, though I only have anecdotal evidence. Also of course a lot of primary care is not free at the point of delivery. That's another myth about our wonderful NHS. I still have to pay for NHS dentistry, though not prescriptions any longer. Not sure about glasses because I don't buy NHS ones. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2022 22:20:43 GMT
There's no 'could be' about it. I've no idea whether Truss is a contact lens wearer, but I posted the info because of comments about rapid blinking being a sign of anxiety, lying, other sinister things. I don't want UKPR2ites tarring innocent contact lens wearers. I was taking it for granted, when I posted about possible psychological causes of rapid blinking, that the information would obviously exclude practical issues such as contact lenses or grit in the eye etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2022 22:25:58 GMT
I am guessing you don't think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
It's rather reminiscent of the close friendship of SLab, SCon, the Orange Order and far right British Nationalists in Scottish local government - adversity makes for convenient, if somewhat strange, bedfellows.
Of course, the point of my comment was rather more legume related than political.Indeed. Feeling unqualified to comment specifically on your second paragraph, all I can say is that I can understand your "convenient, if somewhat strange, bedfellows" comparison with that late scene in 'Casablanca'. I'll just stick with the warm glow of pleasurable reminiscing over what is also one of my favourite films. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Oct 17, 2022 22:51:24 GMT
You guess right. It's probably my favourite film - despite the obvious plot gaps. However, the friendship of convenience (now necessity) of the casino owner and the corrupt Vichy police chief started long before the final scene at the airport.
It's rather reminiscent of the close friendship of SLab, SCon, the Orange Order and far right British Nationalists in Scottish local government - adversity makes for convenient, if somewhat strange, bedfellows.
Of course, the point of my comment was rather more legume related than political. Indeed. Feeling unqualified to comment specifically on your second paragraph, all I can say is that I can understand your "convenient, if somewhat strange, bedfellows" comparison with that late scene in 'Casablanca'. I'll just stick with the warm glow of pleasurable reminiscing over what is also one of my favourite films. It's hard to think of a more perculiar comment on Casablanca than to use it to generate hackneyed, even if ironic, comments on opposition political alliances in Scottish politics! Apart from anything else it misinterprets the film. It's not about adversity & a friendship of convenience it's about about the fight not against Germany but against fascism. Bogart, because of his "tragic" love affair, has abandoned the struggle for humanity, has become disillusioned, cynical, isolated in spirit. Capt. Renault, played beautifully by that great scene stealer & wonderful actor C. Rains, is a corrupt colonialist. Bogart reenters civil society, & Renault redeems & reform himself, by their decision to join the Free French and fight the good fight. Of course the ending is light-hearted: it's an entertainment, P. Kael, regarded as the great US film critic of her generation, thought the film was mediocre. She broke Orwell's rule in his essay on Tolstoy and Shakespeare: that if everyone admires & loves a work of art & it survives over many generations, then it probably has something going for it. |
|
bardin1
Member
Posts: 1,094
Member is Online
|
Post by bardin1 on Oct 17, 2022 23:18:41 GMT
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 17, 2022 23:19:22 GMT
robbiealive
I suspect that @isa as well as myself, knew the point being made in the film, but thanks for making it clear to anyone on here who hasn't seen it.
Beans, of course, can be a key plot line in cinematographic classics. Who could forget their role in "Blazing Saddles"?
Never underestimate the legume!
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 17, 2022 23:30:51 GMT
So counter-intuitively it is quite possible that making the NHS not free at the point of delivery could end up costing a lot of money. I don't want to make too much of it - and only half believe it - but there is an argument for not making it "free", but rather "completely affordable to all". Argument goes that there is a section of the population who have a "I didn't want to waste your time, doctor" when presenting with a condition that they really should have gone with much earlier, and a modest charge may make them feel better about making an appointment - that they aren't getting something for nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by ptarmigan on Oct 17, 2022 23:42:32 GMT
So do you want to make an actual prediction? On current polling I think 20 seats plus is easily attainable. A couple of reasons for this. The first is that they're actually very well positioned in the seats they won in 2019 in England which are all Tory/Lib Dem battlegrounds and they have decent majorities in most - I would be very surprised if they didn't retain all of these seats, although I'm admittedly less sure about their Scottish seats. I can also see 10-12 which ought to be fairly comfortable gains from the Tories in seats in which Labour aren't competitive (in some of these seats voters were clearly moving away from the Tories even at the last election so the Lib Dems are very well placed to capitalise here). Beyond that, there are quite a few seats, mainly in the south, which I'd put in the "maybe" column - with these much would depend on voter behaviour and people's willingness to vote tactically to oust a sitting Conservative MP. As such, I can see a scenario where they win over 30 seats but I'm not sure whether that's necessarily a likely outcome. @sotonsaint apologies for the pedantry but they already have Kingston, unless Ed Davey's mislaid his seat without me noticing (which isn't entirely inconceivable given their low profile at the moment!) |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 17, 2022 23:45:35 GMT
By the end of 2024 I suspect that the welfare state will be unrecognisable and I don't expect Labour to attempt to resurrect it. We may well be heading for a system involving much more extensive means-tested co-payments for healthcare. That ought to be anathema to anyone who believes that access to health care should be independent of ability to pay, but many lefties are inexplicably fond of means-testing. A flight from publicly funded services will mean fewer middle class voters fighting for them and further declines in quality will attract less attention. I'm not sure quite how you see the "means-tested co-payments for healthcare" would work but I will make a point that I have made on here before but which I think a lot of people used to commercial private and quasi-commercial public-sector businesses find counter-intuitive. Hospitals possess no systems for checking entitlement to receive care, other than in the limited case of non-emergency treatment of overseas patients Hospitals possess no systems to charge patients for care or to deal with payments from patients Hospitals have no arrangements for pursuing patients who do not pay The reason is simple; they have never needed them. To create these sort of systems in every hospital - whether run in-house or outsourced - will cost hundreds of millions in IT and labour costs and it is likely that there would be a high non-collection rate. Charging patients for hospital treatment might produce income but would also come with a lot of cost. It is also likely to carry hidden costs. We know from before the NHS was created that people chose not to have illnesses treated due to the cost. The result is that when they do eventually present they are much sicker and need more expensive treatment. So counter-intuitively it is quite possible that making the NHS not free at the point of delivery could end up costing a lot of money.
I remember the arguments for and against prescription charges at the time when they were abolished in Scotland, and one of the strongest was that the administrative costs were eliminated and all the money went on patient care. (There were other arguments both ways).
Has the cost effectiveness (and the health effectiveness) of prescription charges in England compared to rUK been researched? I would assume so, since it's an obvious research topic. |
|
|
|
Post by jen on Oct 17, 2022 23:46:25 GMT
So counter-intuitively it is quite possible that making the NHS not free at the point of delivery could end up costing a lot of money. I don't want to make too much of it - and only half believe it - but there is an argument for not making it "free", but rather "completely affordable to all". Argument goes that there is a section of the population who have a "I didn't want to waste your time, doctor" when presenting with a condition that they really should have gone with much earlier, and a modest charge may make them feel better about making an appointment - that they aren't getting something for nothing. I must concede, my initial reaction was to agree with you. But the actions of recent governments have left many of our citizens unable to afford even a modest fee. Naturally, as a patriot, I hold the actions of said governments, and their supporters, as treasonous. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Oct 18, 2022 0:11:15 GMT
robbiealive
I suspect that @isa as well as myself, knew the point being made in the film, but thanks for making it clear to anyone on here who hasn't seen it.
Beans, of course, can be a key plot line in cinematographic classics. Who could forget their role in "Blazing Saddles"?
Never underestimate the legume! I still think it requires a twisted logic to make that (parochial) association!! I remember Blazing Saddles as Brooks's funniest. (I thought The Producers was a one-joke film). The hilarious scene at the end where the cowboys burst into the set of the Busby B-style musical next door & then fight in the street has probably been described by a po-faced post-modern critic as subverting the genre and a defamiliarsing & metafictional distancing device making the viewer conscious of the alien artificiality of the text etc |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Oct 18, 2022 1:29:20 GMT
Put another way, 40% of Tory Members would still vote for Truss now. I suspect that's going to be a really important dimension when she goes; I don't mean the members as such, although it won't help with local organisation etc, but mostly the extent to which the Tories are going to lose support to WNV (or a resurrected Farage) due a swathe of their voters having their first Proper Leader in decades stabbed in the back before she could upset the cosy consensus. Naturally we focus on switchers as they are doubly destructive in elections, but a couple of million former Tory voters staying home in 1997 did a lot of damage too in terms of seats lost, and surely would do again. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,585
|
Post by Danny on Oct 18, 2022 5:22:30 GMT
It is also likely to carry hidden costs. We know from before the NHS was created that people chose not to have illnesses treated due to the cost. The result is that when they do eventually present they are much sicker and need more expensive treatment. So counter-intuitively it is quite possible that making the NHS not free at the point of delivery could end up costing a lot of money. Founders of the NHS believed that once people were treated cost would fall because they were now well. Whereas what realy happned is they lived longer and therefore used medical services even more. Anything which discourages visits will see them off faster and therefore cut costs. Much the same way waiting for treatments kills off people and therefore manages demand for NHS services. Similarly to ease costs for the NHS you should abandon screening programs and remove restrictions on tobacco sales. But really, if your goal is to save money spent on health and try to be as cost effective as possible with it, then spending a trillion pounds public and private on lockdowns during the covid epidemic was utter insanity. It was utterly not cost effective medical expenditure. A point made in a report as long ago as 2020 before most of that money had been squandered. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,585
|
Post by Danny on Oct 18, 2022 5:41:20 GMT
Put another way, 40% of Tory Members would still vote for Truss now. I suspect that's going to be a really important dimension when she goes; I don't mean the members as such, although it won't help with local organisation etc, but mostly the extent to which the Tories are going to lose support to WNV (or a resurrected Farage) due a swathe of their voters having their first Proper Leader in decades stabbed in the back before she could upset the cosy consensus. Or alternatively, this is an object lesson to voters that her policies just don't work. The news at the moment seems a mix of those who are happy to have Hunt as the real leader of the government in the office of Chancellor, and those who feel Truss has to go and there be a new leader election. There are likely enough MPs who would insist in fielding another Truss style candidate that it could not be uncontested with a risk still that minority candidate might win. Isnt it funny we have a head of state who is only nominally in power, and now a prime minister also only nominally in power. Democracy eh, just who IS running the country? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,774
|
Post by steve on Oct 18, 2022 5:48:54 GMT
 Remember to clean up before you leave. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,585
|
Post by Danny on Oct 18, 2022 5:49:38 GMT
On current polling I think 20 seats plus is easily attainable. A couple of reasons for this. The first is that they're actually very well positioned in the seats they won in 2019 in England which are all Tory/Lib Dem battlegrounds and they have decent majorities in most - I would be very surprised if they didn't retain all of these seats, although I'm admittedly less sure about their Scottish seats. I can also see 10-12 which ought to be fairly comfortable gains from the Tories in seats in which Labour aren't competitive (in some of these seats voters were clearly moving away from the Tories even at the last election so the Lib Dems are very well placed to capitalise here). Beyond that, there are quite a few seats, mainly in the south, which I'd put in the "maybe" column - with these much would depend on voter behaviour and people's willingness to vote tactically to oust a sitting Conservative MP. As such, I can see a scenario where they win over 30 seats but I'm not sure whether that's necessarily a likely outcome. One of the reasons libs did well in 1997 may have been that labour was expected to win. So peversely, there was not the need to vote labour tactically if you were lib inclined and could have a punt on them. Polling typically asks who you would vote for, not who you would like to win. If they asked about who you'd like to win I expect greens and libs would soar up the charts. Any occasion where the result doesnt matter brings out people's desired winner instead of their tactical vote for lab or con. Hence a sufficient swing towards the consensus tactical winner empowers some to vote for who they'd really want. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,585
|
Post by Danny on Oct 18, 2022 6:04:53 GMT
What I actually found striking in the news this morning was one item that downwards pressure upon real wages has just broken a record for the longest extended period of same since napoleonic times. There was another item how restrictions on rights to strike would be extended.
Meanwhile, I know a local employer where constant squeeze on wages has brought a generally non militant workforce to decide to unionise. Profitable business, static wages. Truss' attempt to push more money into the hands of the rich away from the poor via tax policy was just roundly abandoned because markets didnt believe it was workable. It remains to be seen whether that government can still push through further service cuts, which services are a means to transfer money from rich to poor.
Or whether voters might finally realise most of them have become worse off because of conservative policies for 40 years, during which many of those affected still voted con. A remarkable record by con.
Meanwhile no one yet trying to see if having killed the European goose which laid the golden eggs, maybe one of those remaining eggs might yet be encouraged to hatch. As those in power keeping trying to melt the remaining eggs for their scrap value.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2022 6:42:38 GMT
ptarmigan Not pedantry at all - my mistake. I meant Carshalton, not Kingston 
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,774
|
Post by steve on Oct 18, 2022 7:03:35 GMT
As working people face a decade of low wages because of Tory brexitanian luddites with a " black hole" in already emasculated public services of £30 billion.
It's worth considering that the richest 0.1% in the UK have wealth of around a staggering £2.6 trillion if and I appreciate there are huge logistic difficulties with this a 1% wealth tax could be applied this on its own would virtually eliminate the shortfall from individuals who frankly wouldn't notice it had gone as it would be reaquired within weeks.
The richest 10% of the population in the UK have 230 times the wealth of the poorest 10% wealth inequality of these levels in the UK is toxic to a functioning society.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 18, 2022 7:03:52 GMT
@janus - I think you are correct; there is a danger for Labour, and the rest of us, that Hunt maneuvers the debate onto the right wing orthodoxy that spending needs to take the strain. However, I think after the austerity years that's going to be difficult and unpopular, as we are already seeing, and this gives Labour an opportunity to do some challenging of orthodoxies themselves, just like the 55 Tufton Street brigade, but this time with much more sense. Whether Labour under Starmer take the opportunity, I don't know.
The point here is that the conservative capitalist model in play since the 1970s dictates that the less well off, working age people have to bear the brunt, whatever the global circumstances; inflation, budget deficit, low productivity - whatever the issue, the well off parts of the system are left intact as 'incentives' but the lower down the scale you go, the less icentive matters and the more 'efficiency' takes over.
Four measures Labour could adopt to challenge the orthodoxy would be;
1) Rebalancing the tax system so well off pensioners pay a fairer share (changes to income tax/NI etc)
2) Suspending or scrapping higher rate pension tax relief (c £15bn)
3) Returning to the system where land for development was effectively nationalised, with land compulsorily purchased by LAs at normal market values, consented for development and then sold with a proportion of the planning gain, but this time with the uplift in value pocketed by LAs to pay for the infrastructure we need. This was formerly supported by Winston Churchill, would be good for growth as well as fiscal budgets, and many of our housing probems have their origins in the Conservative scrapping of this system.
4) A properly constructed, fairly distributed inheritance charge on all estates to pay for free social care. Every above a certain limit (say £100,000) pays a 5%(?) levy after death, no exceptions, and we get a free at the point of delivery National Care Service. Good for growth again.
All this is very obvious to me.
Truss was absolutely right to tilt at established orthodoxy; it's just that she chose entirely the wrong orthodoxies to attack.
|
|
