steve
Member
Posts: 12,634
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2023 16:25:00 GMT
Excellent analysis of the modern Tory party by Phil at a different bias. He's not exactly complimentary about Sunakered from accounts but his most telling comments relate to the brexit and free market loons. youtu.be/jj0UZzF1C5w |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,634
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2023 16:37:50 GMT
"We went to the local conservative association to speak to party loyalists .But we couldn't find any!" youtu.be/_qaDn8Vckvg |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 17, 2023 16:51:08 GMT
leftieliberal " ... but since 2015 we have seen first the Left under Corbyn doing this ..." Can you remind me of anyone on the 'Right' who was deselected or expelled during this time? Alastair Campbell. Yes, right. Good example. Anybody else? Anybody deselected (lose their job)? |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 17, 2023 16:51:47 GMT
@fecklessmiser  (A propos Boudicca)graham You cannot just pretend fifty years of change has not happened. It is impossible to know what Harold M or Heath might be offering. It is just beyond rational consideration. Isn’t it? Is it really so unreasonable to offer what he promised in his Leadership Election campaign? That was barely 3 years ago - not 50 years! Moreover, even Johnson was prepared to reject Austerity and adopt a much more Heseltinian interventionist approach to the economy. If he could seek to bury Austerity, we should expect nothing less from a Labour government . Otherwise what is the point of electing them? |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 17, 2023 17:04:51 GMT
It's very silly to stand politicians of 2023 against their counterparts in decades gone by. What we need to understand is that individual leaders, and the parties they lead, never function in a vacuum. They are instead products of the relationship between left and right at the time they represent. You can't compare Heath with Starmer, because Heath was facing Wilson in the last 60s and early 70s. If Starmer was up against Heath at that time, it would be a different relationship and we'd see a different Starmer. A large part of political identity and polling in the UK is defined by the other side. Looking at individuals in isolation and then trying to compare across the generations misses this critical point. But Sunak is far weaker poltically than Heath ever was as PM - yet Starmer consistently fails to take advantage of that. Indeed he is continually shifting to the Right increasingly adopting Tory policies. Wilson certainly did not do that in the period leading up to the 1964 election when faced with Macmillan then Alec Douglas- Home - instead he sought to make the political weather as Attlee had done in 1945. It really is quite pathetic to see Starmer & Reeves seeking to restore the credibility of the failed policy of Austerity. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 17, 2023 17:08:54 GMT
graham "Is it really so unreasonable to offer what he promised in his Leadership Election campaign?" NO. "That was barely 3 years ago - not 50 years! Moreover, even Johnson was prepared to reject Austerity and adopt a much more Heseltinian interventionist approach to the economy." INDEED. "If he could seek to bury Austerity, we should expect nothing less from a Labour government." AGREED. "Otherwise what is the point of electing them?" Because Tory continuity will be vastly worse. We cannot all have the leaders we want. Frankly I would have preferred John Smith or even Bryan Gould to Tony Blair. But set against Thatcher and Major, or any of the Tories of that time, Blair a hundred times over.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 17, 2023 17:10:47 GMT
leftieliberal " ... but since 2015 we have seen first the Left under Corbyn doing this ..." Can you remind me of anyone on the 'Right' who was deselected or expelled during this time? Alastair Campbell. But that was different in that he admitted in public to having supported a political opponent against the official Labour candidate. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 17, 2023 17:10:51 GMT
Yes, right. Good example. Anybody else? Anybody deselected (lose their job)? There was a bunch who resigned as MPs or defected to Change UK and/or the Lib Dems. Luciana Berger most notably, as she did it from principle rather that pique (she was indisputably harassed). . . However, just to be clear, I don't support the Starmer witch hunt. I would like a Labour Party that had room for Corbyn and Campbell. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 17, 2023 17:15:11 GMT
Starmer would still have a much less dire inheritance than faced Attlee in 1945. True, but worth noting the inheritance was from five years of war time coalition in which Labour ministers played a prominent role. Churchill's government didn't trash the economy through mad ideology and incompetence like the current mob. But the economy had still been trashed by World War 2. Attlee did not respond to that reality by following then Treasury orthodoxy and refusing to spend public money - though he was helped by the fall in Defence spending at that time. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,378
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 17, 2023 17:18:02 GMT
But that was different in that he admitted in public to having supported a political opponent against the official Labour candidate. In fairness he said he voted for a different candidate after the election closed, as did many others He was the only one kicked out, why do you think that one of the architects of Blairism was targeted in this way? |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 17, 2023 17:23:24 GMT
graham "Is it really so unreasonable to offer what he promised in his Leadership Election campaign?" NO. "That was barely 3 years ago - not 50 years! Moreover, even Johnson was prepared to reject Austerity and adopt a much more Heseltinian interventionist approach to the economy." INDEED. "If he could seek to bury Austerity, we should expect nothing less from a Labour government." AGREED. "Otherwise what is the point of electing them?" Because Tory continuity will be vastly worse. We cannot all have the leaders we want. Frankly I would have preferred John Smith or even Bryan Gould to Tony Blair. But set against Thatcher and Major, or any of the Tories of that time, Blair a hundred times over. In economic terms Johnson did more to undermine the post - Thatcher concensus than any PM since Callaghan. Why cannot Starmer do likewise? |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 17, 2023 17:25:22 GMT
pjw1961Yes I understand that all these things are very finely judged. And Luciana Berger did suffer abominable aggression. But are you sure any of this came from actual Labour members? A police investigation found that a large amount was initiated by American neo-Nazi groups (according to the Select Committee enquiry). I recall that a local branch had a no confidence vote proposed (the sort of thing that regularly happens in local branches) but it was quickly slapped down and withdrawn. Very much agree with your last point.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 17, 2023 17:30:11 GMT
sunak in the Telegraph:
Too many university students are sold a false dream
Young people are being saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt from bad degrees that just leave them poorer
…
“But that’s not the experience for everyone. Too many of our young people are sold a false dream of going to university only to find they’re enrolled on low-quality courses that don’t offer the skills they need to get a decent job at the end of it.
Contrast that with apprenticeships or other vocational routes. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, one in five graduates in this country, about 70,000 every year, would be better off financially if they had not gone to university. And despite having studied for several years, one in three graduates are in a job that doesn’t require them to be degree-educated.
Fairness for taxpayers
Put simply: our young people are being ripped off. They’re being saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt from bad degrees that just leave them poorer, and dissuaded from pursuing more vocational options because they are led to believe that university is the only route to success. It’s not fair on them – and it’s not fair on you as taxpayers, forced to pick up a big chunk of the bill despite getting nothing back for our economy.
So we’re going to change the way our system works to end this unfairness. And to say to our young people: there are good alternatives to university.
First, we’ll address rip-off courses which are letting our young people down. We’ll limit the number of students that a university can recruit to a course if it’s not delivering good outcomes. We’ll change how we assess the quality of university courses so that students and parents can easily compare their earnings potential. And we’ll reduce the maximum fee that universities can charge for classroom-based foundation year courses which research shows have limited impact on students’ prospects.
But second, we also need to change our national mindset about the value of apprenticeships and vocational qualifications – and the opportunities to pursue them. It’s profoundly wrong that we have a long-standing cultural bias against practical, vocational training. What matters is getting the skills they need for the jobs they aspire to without being saddled with debt for years – and very often it’s an apprenticeship that can do this.”
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jul 17, 2023 17:30:58 GMT
However, the data is very clear indeed - covid does lead to significant increases in mental health illness, and these data include multiple studies showing associated neurological changes (biomarkers, MRI brain scans, etc etc). I appreciate people have a lot of difficulty grasping this, But again, it's a question of degree. Changes due to Covid may be scientifically measurable - but the real question is how significant they are in the real world? If "very big", then why aren't we seeing such in everyday life? Because frankly, we are not. (Not to a big degree anyway.) Also - no, the world didn't stop for 1.5 years. The longest lockdown was just 10 weeks. Pubs reopened in July 2020. Lots of people are re-imagining the history of the pandemic and misremembering what actually happened. I think you are the one misremembering. Formal and legally enforced lockdown may not have lasted 1.5 years, and pubs may indeed have been open for the last 2 years - but there are *STILL* some people who are afraid to go out - and that is far from those who may be genuinely considered to have a real condition which makes them more vulnerable. If there's a correlation, it was always that anxiety and depression was more a problem for those living alone, and especially if not going out to work, let alone mixing for social purposes. And I'm aware of quite a few people for whom such anxiety persisted long after any formal restrictions were lifted, and in one case someone who is still suffering from acute anxiety. And several times I saw someone catch Covid in spite of taking what they believed to be multiple precautions - and in mental health terms show a significant improvement soon afterwards. It seems that once "the worst" had happened, and after an unpleasant week or two they had to all intents recovered, they realised that the prior fear had actually been far, far worse for them than Covid itself turned out to be. I won't deny that Covid may have measurable effects on the body post infection, but so may many, many illnesses - getting ill is not good for you. But obsessive concern certainly isn't either, and that's what I've seen as the biggest problem over the last three years. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 17, 2023 17:33:33 GMT
grahamI really, really hope he will! But I am damn sure Sunak and his pals won't. Yes you are right about Johnson (and that is one of the reasons he got elected). But it is just more testimony to his political near-sightedness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 17:35:35 GMT
True, but worth noting the inheritance was from five years of war time coalition in which Labour ministers played a prominent role. Churchill's government didn't trash the economy through mad ideology and incompetence like the current mob. But the economy had still been trashed by World War 2. Attlee did not respond to that reality by following then Treasury orthodoxy and refusing to spend public money - though he was helped by the fall in Defence spending at that time. He was "helped " by the Yanks & Canadians ! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loanIn today's money-$250bn You make your own history up don't you ? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 17, 2023 17:37:55 GMT
True, but worth noting the inheritance was from five years of war time coalition in which Labour ministers played a prominent role. Churchill's government didn't trash the economy through mad ideology and incompetence like the current mob. Attlee did not respond to that reality by following then Treasury orthodoxy and refusing to spend public money - though he was helped by the fall in Defence spending at that time. Aside from all the damage, we couldn’t compete very well economically in the peacetime economy as more than half our industry had been repurposed for the war effort, that which hadn’t already been trashed by the Luftwaffe. Debt rose to two-and-a-half times what it is now. And yet, they were able to stand on quite a transforming manifesto. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 17, 2023 17:39:50 GMT
But that was different in that he admitted in public to having supported a political opponent against the official Labour candidate. Recently there was a left winger (that councillor in North Yorkshire) who was expelled for doing the same thing as a number of people on here complained how unfair that was. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 17:42:28 GMT
Just come back from Barnard Castle town centre and there was a right old squabble going on, with a very large crowd discussing whether Gordon Brown was as left wing as Sir Alec Douglas Hume. Turned violent - so I didn’t mention Blair.  |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 17, 2023 17:47:36 GMT
But the economy had still been trashed by World War 2. Attlee did not respond to that reality by following then Treasury orthodoxy and refusing to spend public money - though he was helped by the fall in Defence spending at that time. He was "helped " by the Yanks & Canadians ! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loanIn today's money-$250bn You make your own history up don't you ? That was effectively a response to the ending of Lend Lease in 1945 - though the terms of the Loan led to Attlee's government facing the Convertibility Crisis in 1947. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,378
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 17, 2023 17:53:27 GMT
But that was different in that he admitted in public to having supported a political opponent against the official Labour candidate. Recently there was a left winger (that councillor in North Yorkshire) who was expelled for doing the same thing as a number of people on here complained how unfair that was. If you are talking about Neal Lawson he hasn't been expelled, there is an investigation in which he can defend himself against any allegations or expulsion. More than a month later he is still a member of the Labour party Alastair Campbell was expelled within 2 days without being given any opportunity to defend himself |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jul 17, 2023 17:54:45 GMT
"Quality candidate":
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 17, 2023 17:54:54 GMT
pjw1961 Yes I understand that all these things are very finely judged. And Luciana Berger did suffer abominable aggression. But are you sure any of this came from actual Labour members? A police investigation found that a large amount was initiated by American neo-Nazi groups (according to the Select Committee enquiry). I recall that a local branch had a no confidence vote proposed (the sort of thing that regularly happens in local branches) but it was quickly slapped down and withdrawn. Very much agree with your last point. I believe you are correct that the abuse was found to be from non-Labour members. I think Berger's complaint was the the party hierarchy did not give her the support she felt she needed. I have a great dislike of factional fighting wherever it comes from and it is impossible to argue with the thought that people around Starmer (presumably with his approval) are very factional. I think they would see this as part of the "laser focused on winning" thing he talked about the other day. I am happy to say I have never seen any factional fighting in my CLP, probably because living in a Tory dominated area emphasises the futility of it. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 17, 2023 17:55:57 GMT
Well you can pull down the price of imported essentials, e.g. you can impose price controls and enact subsidies etc. we saw that just recently. Price controls caused most electricity retail companies to go bust. The others only remained solvent because the government guaranteed that in the future their losses would be recouped. Government also engaged in massive subsidies which it has now abandoned, because they were unaffordable over any length of time. Is the final upshot electricty prices have now doubled? But that feels a bit better instead of tripled? However we still have to adjust to the doubled. As you know, the price controls were poorly applied, to a part of the sector that were vulnerable to energy prices themselves, rather than to those raking it in. And the subsidies weren’t that massive and were temporary - the French have done rather more. Yes it costs more, but then the extra inflation of not doing so is rather damaging. That said, it’s not likely to be ideal just relying on price controls and subsidies. The full package of lefty measures would reduce how much price intervention would be required and would include more of a state presence in the market, more energy storage, more insulation etc., as well as possibly a sovereign wealth fund. As for the leccy prices, as you likely know, that’s not unconnected to the tying of leccy prices to gas… |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 17, 2023 18:02:02 GMT
Just come back from Barnard Castle town centre and there was a right old squabble going on, with a very large crowd discussing whether Gordon Brown was as left wing as Sir Alec Douglas Hume. Turned violent - so I didn’t mention Blair. Just as well you didn't raise economic policy in the 1940s or there would have been a full-scale riot.  |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 17, 2023 18:12:20 GMT
. Since we deliberately engineered rising fuel costs through government policy, you might wonder why we didnt. I guess because it would only be a temporary measure, and anyway it was a deliberate plan to push up prices, just more gradually, so that we would all switch to renewables. Skame too the government never sent itself the memo when it banned onshore wind and slashed investment in insulation. .Commodity buffers to protect against inflation was not a new idea in the era; I’m not sure what happened here, but the US had more oil stocks but then Nixon sold them off IIRC. This is part of the problem: it only takes one government to come in and wreck such things. (Mind you we had North Sea oil and gas on the way and perhaps they hoped we could last ok without more storage till then? Dunno what the excuse is this time though) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 18:14:46 GMT
But the economy had still been trashed by World War 2. Attlee did not respond to that reality by following then Treasury orthodoxy and refusing to spend public money - though he was helped by the fall in Defence spending at that time. He was "helped " by the Yanks & Canadians ! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loanIn today's money-$250bn You make your own history up don't you ? You’ll be telling due they played a part in the war effort next.  |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 17, 2023 18:16:03 GMT
Just as well you didn't raise economic policy in the 1940s or there would have been a full-scale riot. Seems to be vexing the Blairites more! (Not as much as Corbyn tbh) |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 17, 2023 18:20:26 GMT
graham "Is it really so unreasonable to offer what he promised in his Leadership Election campaign?" NO. "That was barely 3 years ago - not 50 years! Moreover, even Johnson was prepared to reject Austerity and adopt a much more Heseltinian interventionist approach to the economy." INDEED. "If he could seek to bury Austerity, we should expect nothing less from a Labour government." AGREED. "Otherwise what is the point of electing them?" Because Tory continuity will be vastly worse. We cannot all have the leaders we want. Frankly I would have preferred John Smith or even Bryan Gould to Tony Blair. But set against Thatcher and Major, or any of the Tories of that time, Blair a hundred times over. Not only did Blair embrace the inequalities of Thatcherite Economics, he extended it. Privatisation of parts of the NHS, more workfare, introducing the private sector into schools, ramping up property prices, etc., making it easier for the Tories to go even further when they got in again, and harder to have left wing policies in future. Where money was put into education and health, it involved locking in taxpayers to paying the private sector. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jul 17, 2023 18:29:16 GMT
lens - "But again, it's a question of degree. Changes due to Covid may be scientifically measurable - but the real question is how significant they are in the real world? If "very big", then why aren't we seeing such in everyday life? Because frankly, we are not. (Not to a big degree anyway.)" Again, very briefly, we are. Apart from the very real surge in sickness absence from school, we have record numbers of working age people on long term sick, we have excess deaths running at 5 - 10% above normal, and we have all sorts of medical conditions increasing in prevalence. I've steadfastly produced the data for all of this. Have you seen how many billions of pounds of economic costs the OBR has now added to welfare spending forecasts as a result of the impacts on ongoing infections? Eyewatering. I would say that a lot of people are denying their problems are related to covid infection, partly I guess through fear, social pressure etc. I even have one friend with various new onset symptoms, where the doctor has actually told him he's got long covid, but who swears blind it's nothing to do with his previous infection. He'd rather be diagnosed with three completely separate conditions than face the fact that he is, for a while at least, to a large degree disabled. People understandably don't want to face the truth, hence are willing to ignore all the evidence. It's a well known human trait when faced with uncomfortable facts. Edit: Should add - happy to continue a conversation but only on the covid thread, obvs.
|
|
(A propos Boudicca)
