Danny
Member
Posts: 9,474
|
Post by Danny on Dec 3, 2023 22:19:00 GMT
The unsquarable circle of immigration cuts and a functioning health care sector. Over the last year 35,000 nurses left the nhs up 25% on the previous year a decade of insufficient training places and charges to students has diminished the recruit base of UK students. The NHS has always relied on foreign staff that's not going to change just because brexitanians don't like foreigners. Currently half of all new nurses recruited to the NHS this year are not from the U.K. Labour's plan to somehow magic up internal candidates is equally devoid of connection with reality Program on R4 yesterday said half of immigration is going into care services of one sort or another. It seems likely the drain of UK personnel is because of pay compared to workload, and the immigrants continue to be cheap labour. Getting in trained staff is of course also cheap labour, because you didnt have to pay to train them here. Its obvious you cannot divert more workers to NHS and care unless you pay them more than eg bankers. Or perhaps you tax banks more, so discouraging them from operating in the UK and releasing more staff. Brexit with its emphasis on cutting immigration was always a lie. It always contained these ocntradictions. That the Uk is very reliant on cheap foreign labour. Thats a pretty bad thing, but fixing it means pain for voters. Perhaps mostly for the well paid half of the population. Con have operated a genuine con for 13 years in terms of their policy of austerity, which may have kept down taxes on the rich, but at the expense of services collapsing. Its another reason why staying in government for another year might be a very bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 3, 2023 22:53:22 GMT
Thanks for that, very useful This is what Moorhouse referred to Interesting as Moorhouse points out, Starmer didn't even say Thatcher succeeded in 'setting lose our natural entrepreneurship' just that she sought to As Moorhouse points out people read a newspaper headline and take it as gospel without checking what he actually said, especially so if it paints a person they don't like in an uncomplimentary light. That is true for many people on all sides of politics One can understand how Margaret Thatcher developed many of her ideas by looking at her childhood. Her father was a small shopkeeper in Grantham, whose business was threatened by the Co-op. As a Methodist lay preacher, he made Margaret and her sister go with him to the church services in and around Grantham where he preached. Eliza Filby covers this period well in her book " God and Mrs Thatcher". It's easy to understand how this early exposure coloured all her political views.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 3, 2023 23:38:29 GMT
Except of course they didn't lead the Leave campaign. Cameron was the PM and a Remainer, though he let backbenchers campaign for Leave. You keep on making the same error over and over again. No, I am talking about the substance of the issue. You that technically the party took a neutral stance. Con first adopted euroscepticism to garner votes prior to 2010, and then offerd a referendum prior to 2015. You would not do either unless you had a goal of brexit. Its interesting whether Cameron would summarily have lost his position had he refused to sanction the referendum. He was happy to present the party as eurosceptic. I don't know why I bother sometimes. Cameron held the referendum to try to neuter UKIP (which it did). He led the remain campaign and roped in all sorts of people to back his case, including Obama and the Pope.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by steve on Dec 3, 2023 23:45:50 GMT
The issue with a supreme court controlled by far right christofascists. The rulings in process effectively aim to remove the capacity of the federal government to do basically anything. It extends not only to allowing far right libertarians to do whatever they want as individuals but it undermines control over basic safety and environmental issues. A court dominated by religious maniac unscientific principal is now undercutting health , safety and environmental control in the pursuit of individual " freedoms". Provided of course that those seeking the freedoms are ultra wealthy and far right. youtu.be/PYooyPcRNVc?si=-9M7nUIh3lhqlqJc
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by steve on Dec 3, 2023 23:49:25 GMT
mercianObama pointed out that a UK outside of the European union would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal. He was of course correct.
|
|
|
Post by ptarmigan on Dec 4, 2023 0:16:18 GMT
Thanks for that, very useful This is what Moorhouse referred to Interesting as Moorhouse points out, Starmer didn't even say Thatcher succeeded in 'setting lose our natural entrepreneurship' just that she sought to As Moorhouse points out people read a newspaper headline and take it as gospel without checking what he actually said, especially so if it paints a person they don't like in an uncomplimentary light. That is true for many people on all sides of politics I'm not sure how valid a complaint this is really. Moorhouse wouldn't have to worry about people reading no further than a headline in an untrustworthy publication if Starmer wasn't merrily penning an article for said untrustworthy publication. A Labour leader, especially one so concerned about optics as Starmer, surely has a good idea how an article invoking Thatcher in the Telegraph in terms that can be perceived as positive is going to be framed and received, so I imagine he's got the headlines and reaction he was anticipating. If not then it probably wasn't a very "cleverly drafted article" in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by JohnC on Dec 4, 2023 0:42:42 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,885
|
Post by neilj on Dec 4, 2023 6:29:36 GMT
Lowest rating ever for Sunak by tory party members, now at minus, yes minus 25
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by steve on Dec 4, 2023 6:33:53 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by steve on Dec 4, 2023 6:36:08 GMT
neilj Minister for tidying paper clips Esther McVey near the top. The Tories are very strange creatures. I find it difficult to believe that the there's a "Lord True" in the Tory party, presumably Baron Total load of old bollocks wasn't available for the poll.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,885
|
Post by neilj on Dec 4, 2023 6:45:50 GMT
BMG Poll(Personally am sceptical of Reform on 11%)
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 43% (=) CON: 27% (-3) RFM: 11% (+4) LDM: 10% (-1) GRN: 5% (-1)
Via @bmgresearch , 28-30 Nov. Changes w/ 11-12 Oct.
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Dec 4, 2023 7:13:30 GMT
Indeed. Not sure the anti-Christ label quite sticks in this context. If it does, then we had an awful lot of our fellow citizens in 1979, 1983 and 1987 sufficiently dedicated to evil to enable the anti-Christ to continue steering the handcart to hell. Much the same can be said of millions of German voters who supported Hitler and the NSDAP at two Reichstag elections in 1932 and the vaguely last free election held in March 1933. Morever, had there been open elections under the Third Reich there is little doubt Hitler won have won comfortably. You’re obsessed.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,474
|
Post by Danny on Dec 4, 2023 7:19:56 GMT
This mornign water companies back in the news. Two points.
First, it seems they have been manipulating figures on pollution incidents so as to get more money from government. Panorama apparently has an expose tonight. Plainly a failure of regulation allowing them to do what they should not be able to do.
Secondly, another story about impending bankruptcy of Thames water. The immediate cause is soaring interest costs beyond its earning capacity to service. The longer term problem is once again regulation, in that a company originally set up solvent with assets, was permitted to take out massive loans so as to pay dividends to shareholders. And now of course cannot service them. The expectation being water bills will rise, will have to rise, to bail out the companies and keep paying those shareholder dividends.
Now this latter item is specific to Thames water, but the other companies cannot be far behind. The only solution to this is going to be loads of government or bill payer's money (amounts to the same thing, just a different sort of tax) unless there is some way to claw back that which has been stolen away to shareholders by maladminstration. Doing so fairly would require going back many years to recover that money, under circumstances where quite likely the people doing so were not acting illegally at that time. The entire industry needs refinancing somehow, and soon.
We already discussed the impending bankruptcy of local councils being stored up bad news for the current government if it does not have a spring elections. So to that add water bills.
And yet a third news item with the same thrust. The MOD has a £17bn shortfall on its equipment budget. So what are they going to do, stop buying equipment to send to Ukraine? Even without that war, the MOD already had an underfunding crisis. Not forgettign how much of its budget went into the two aircraft carriers in recent years, which arent useful for defending Ukrain, or indeed the British Isles. Really only at all useful to take part in a US war abroad. Maybe made sense in the good old days of the Blair administration when the economy was doing rather well, buoyed up by EU membership. But con put paid to all that.
HS2 was cancelled because there is no money left. In that case mostly because of soaring construction costs, because the line was constructed to minimise impact on conservative voters. Instead of being constructed in the cheapest way possible to create a functional railway. Bonanza for constructions companies, but even as a bung to party supporters it became unsustainable. Con are becoming a byword for maladministration of the public finances, rivaling the Irish 'cash for ash'.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by steve on Dec 4, 2023 7:26:29 GMT
neilj I suspect it's highly unlikely that refuk will achieve anything like this vote share but it identifies the Tories quandary. Become more refucky and claw back some of the racist xenophobic hard of thinking vote but in the process lose more centrist support to Lib Dems ,Greens and Labour Just for fun I put those exact numbers through electoral calculus and by the magic of first past the might we find. A flimsy 292 seat majority for Labour the Tories with 96 😂 the lib dems a clear third on 46 on and refuk win 1 seat Ashfield in Nottinghamshire If the lib dems win just 2% more from the Tories it's even more hilarious. A 342 majority for labour, the Tories in second place but just 7 seats ahead of the lib dems on 61 and refuk still win ashfield😂😂😂 With another 2% from Labour it's the lib dems as official opposition just the 418 seats behind Labour
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 4, 2023 7:41:30 GMT
steve - "A court dominated by religious maniac unscientific principal is now undercutting health , safety and environmental control in the pursuit of individual " freedoms"." I've been warning about this in relation to covid specifically for some time also. All over the world, right wing extremists have targeted dismantling public health approaches under the guise of fighting against government actions on covid. Sadly, the mainstream left has failed to understand this. Gaza: Very strong statement from Blinkden in the US telling Israel that continued civilian deaths will turn a tactical victory into a strategic defeat. It's tragic, but the enormous pressure coming from the US government on Israel to cease the indiscriminate killings should have been the Labour line right from the start. Because it's the legally and morally right approach.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,885
|
Post by neilj on Dec 4, 2023 7:47:42 GMT
Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail believes there will be a tory leadership challenge in the new year Not sure it will happen as can't see any credible candidate wanting the poison chalice Wouldn't be completely shocked though
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,226
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 4, 2023 8:02:17 GMT
Lowest rating ever for Sunak by tory party members, now at minus, yes minus 25 The collapse in Cleverly's rating is interesting. Possibly abusing Stockton didn't help, but I suspect the main reason is that he told the truth about the Rwanda scheme - in private at least - i.e. that is is "batshit". You can't going telling the far-right UKIP-style clique that now comprises the Tory membership about reality - they don't want to hear that.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 4, 2023 8:17:56 GMT
Much the same can be said of millions of German voters who supported Hitler and the NSDAP at two Reichstag elections in 1932 and the vaguely last free election held in March 1933. Morever, had there been open elections under the Third Reich there is little doubt Hitler won have won comfortably. You’re obsessed. I know I am but I blame my Dad. He took me to my first Villa game when I was seven years old in 1963.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 4, 2023 8:19:58 GMT
Lowest rating ever for Sunak by tory party members, now at minus, yes minus 25 Isn't that a league table that, in terms of self respect and esteem, the lower you finish the better you feel about yourself?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by steve on Dec 4, 2023 8:40:06 GMT
New Tory leader Well the members seem to like Johnny Mercer, not a brexitanian and the real deal when it comes to his past military service. A bit of a twat but there are many worse Tories.
If he had any trouble With the head bangers wing at least he knows how to slot them silently and efficiently.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,885
|
Post by neilj on Dec 4, 2023 8:43:24 GMT
Looking towards the next year I cannot see much chance of the tories turning it around With winter we are almost certain to see another NHS winter crisis. Then there is the chance of floods and the Government's response, never good
They will have a chance with the budget in April to turn things around, but can't see it
Rwanda will grind on and the Government will continue to fail to deliver on it
The May local elections are likely to be particularly difficult for the tories, as the last time they were contested in May 2021 it was a fairly good result for the tories
It seems to me there is no light on the horizon for the tories and barring a very big external event they are going to lose and lose big
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by steve on Dec 4, 2023 8:50:06 GMT
"It seems to me there is no light on the horizon for the tories and barring a very big external event they are going to lose and lose big"
Could they also kindly lose soon!
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Dec 4, 2023 8:51:18 GMT
Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail believes there will be a tory leadership challenge in the new year Not sure it will happen as can't see any credible candidate wanting the poison chalice Wouldn't be completely shocked though I'm sure if you twisted Boris' arm he'd give it a go. It's actually probably their best chance to minimise the scale of the defeat.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 4, 2023 8:58:46 GMT
The pandemic death toll continues - www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(23)00221-1/fulltextExcess deaths >44,000 in 2022, +7.2%, and accelerating into the first half of 2023, with 28,000 excess deaths in the six months to end June, +8.6%. The immoral argument that these appalling figures don't matter because they are 'only' the old and vulnerable is logically untenable, as the highest rates of excess deaths are in the 50 - 64 yo cohort (+15%) and the 25 - 49yos (+11%). In context, the annual excess deaths is equivalent to a Barrow-in-Furness or a Bexhill-on-Sea every year, with many of these younger, working age adults. The pattern of excess deaths by cause also points towards the known post infection pathology of covid, with greatly exacerbated cardiovascular deaths, plus high respiratory infection excesses. Do your best to avoid catching covid, and you'll reduce your chances of being one of these terrible statistics.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,036
|
Post by domjg on Dec 4, 2023 9:04:18 GMT
"It seems to me there is no light on the horizon for the tories and barring a very big external event they are going to lose and lose big" Could they also kindly lose soon! It sounds an extraordinary thing to say about a governing party who you'd hope would put the national first but we know the tories don't give a damn about that and I know they'll see it as in their interest now to screw things up for an incoming Labour government. The longer they remain in office the more damage and negligence they will knowingly inflict on the country so the sooner they are removed the better.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,036
|
Post by domjg on Dec 4, 2023 9:10:49 GMT
Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail believes there will be a tory leadership challenge in the new year Not sure it will happen as can't see any credible candidate wanting the poison chalice Wouldn't be completely shocked though I'm sure if you twisted Boris' arm he'd give it a go. It's actually probably their best chance to minimise the scale of the defeat. In writing that you're tacitly admitting that you yourself have been, to some extent, taken in by Johnson bluster in that you recognise some kind of appeal. I just don't get it, why would anyone, now especially, think that he would have any remaining appeal anywhere? And why would anyone with half a brain ever have been taken in? The red wallers looking for 'levelling up' know now his promises were empty, surely they're not that daft to be taken in again? To trade you a Bandit quote, 'It's just not how the world works kiddo'.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 4, 2023 9:13:37 GMT
The difficulty is that we're dealing with particularly polarised and ossified views here in terms of the political figures being discussed. This reality doesn't lend itself, as Moorhouse says, to high grade critical thought. If, as one poster on this forum has already rather disturbingly admitted, you really, really do loathe and detest Keir Starmer, then critical thought goes flying out of the nearest window when it comes to discussing him. Any evidence to support your highly critical view and detestation of him is seized upon and the sources that you draw upon for that evidence are neither properly questioned nor verified. Thatcher apologist fits nicely into the picture you want to make of him. It panders to the prejudice. Those who try and defend Starmer in the round, whilst still having some criticism of him, are condemned as unquestioning apologists. This seems to me to be standard Far Left playbook stuff. Antichrists, traitors, apologists etc And the story goes on with Thatcher. She is almost the go to loathing totem pole for proving one's left wing credentials. I loathe and detest her more than you. No you don't, I loathe and detest her even more. Well, probably Blair and Starmer maybe. They are even better credential proving punchbags. In a democracy, it is is perfectly acceptable to admire and respect political opponents and those with different views to one's own. I disliked Thatcherism and thought much of it was enormously damaging in the long term, both socially and economically , but I respected her as a political figure and readily conceded that both her arguments and policies were popular and long lasting. This wasn't gimmickry; it was sea-change movement in political, social and cultural sentiment. She both led it and rode it and vanquished those who opposed her. Democratically and persuasively too. That is serious politics and she was a profoundly serious and significant political leader. Right up there, historically, with Attlee and Blair in terms of post war PMs. Starmer is not admiring her legacy and supporting what she did, I don't think. He's expressing a view that I happen to share. Thatcher came in promising change and delivered it. He wants to do the same but in different ways. He wants to make a difference not just serve time and hold office. That's all he seemed to be saying to me, but I think he's probably damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in some quarters. P.S. And yes, it probably was a deliberate and calculated ploy to write the comments about Thatcher in the Daily Telegraph. Again, I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing for a Labour leader to be doing. Telegraph readers aren't beyond the pale nor are they "the sort of voters Labour doesn't want ". Seems to me you should want everyone's vote in politics.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,036
|
Post by domjg on Dec 4, 2023 9:20:13 GMT
The difficulty is that we're dealing with particularly polarised and ossified views here in terms of the political figures being discussed. This reality doesn't lend itself, as Moorhouse says, to high grade critical thought. If, as one poster on this forum has already rather disturbingly admitted, you really, really do loathe and detest Keir Starmer, then critical thought goes flying out of the nearest window when it comes to discussing him. Any evidence to support your highly critical view and detestation of him is seized upon and the sources that you draw upon for that evidence are neither properly questioned nor verified. Thatcher apologist fits nicely into the picture you want to make of him. It panders to the prejudice. Those who try and defend Starmer in the round, whilst still having some criticism of him, are condemned as unquestioning apologists. This seems to me to be standard Far Left playbook stuff. Antichrists, traitors, apologists etc And the story goes on with Thatcher. She is almost the go to loathing totem pole for proving one's left wing credentials. I loathe and detest her more than you. No you don't, I loathe and detest her even more. Well, probably Blair and Starmer maybe. They are even better credential proving punchbags. In a democracy, it is is perfectly acceptable to admire and respect political opponents and those with different views to one's own. I disliked Thatcherism and thought much of it was enormously damaging in the long term, both socially and economically , but I respected her as a political figure and readily conceded that both her arguments and policies were popular and long lasting. This wasn't gimmickry; it was sea-change movement in political, social and cultural sentiment. She both led it and rode it and vanquished those who opposed her. Democratically and persuasively too. That is serious politics and she was a profoundly serious and significant political leader. Right up there, historically, with Attlee and Blair in terms of post war PMs. Starmer is not admiring her legacy and supporting what she did, I don't think. He's expressing a view that I happen to share. Thatcher came in promising change and delivered it. He wants to do the same but in different ways. He wants to make a difference not just serve time and hold office. That's all he seemed to be saying to me, but I think he's probably damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in some quarters. This is also a conflict that is entirely invisible to and over the heads of the vast majority of voters so as with most things coming from the far left who have zero interest in power, and so are effectively would be tory enablers, will have no real world electoral consequences.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by steve on Dec 4, 2023 9:23:37 GMT
To be honest whether Starmer approved of anything the wicked witch of Grantham ever did is only of interest to the far left, who think he's a Tory anyway.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 4, 2023 9:32:33 GMT
crossbat11 is right here. Most people are adult enough to understand that you can admire a part of someone's character, achievement or other aspect of their lives and personality, without needing to back every single thing they've ever said or done. The idea that there can be nothing whatsoever to admire about Thatcher is risible, even for those of us who believed most of her policies were and are hugely detrimental to this countries interests. For example, she was the first world leader on any stage to align behind the concept of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuel emissions. She did this in the 1980s, decades ahead of many other countries. That's remarkable. The other side of the coin of course is that she set in place a whole swathe of government policy and practice that made it harder to put the solutions into effect. But the vitriol that parts of the left pour onto to anyone who raises any positives about the demonic enemy, whether that's Thatcher, the state of Israel, someone who gets confused by modern gender terminology, etc etc, is getting to comic proportions. But please don't take this as an assault on 'the left', nor that parts of 'the right' aren't similar. It's just that there are some political campaigners, left and right, who are so full of themselves and so capable of making a very loud noise about some really rather trivial things, and they grab the attention and suck the oxygen out of the more rational and reasonable discussions and debates that the majority of grown ups are capable of having. It distorts the political landscape, but fortunately, most of the time, most people can see through the small mindedness and are aware that historical interpretation of recent political figures can be richer and broader than a simple slogan.
|
|