|
Post by Mark on Dec 4, 2023 13:49:45 GMT
As for ITV helping the Farage cause, I really don't think we can blame them. They're trying to entertain people. As long as people want to watch this stuff, then what can/should we do? If our electorate happens to be vulnerable to superficially charming upper class gentlemen (for want of a better word), that's not really ITV's fault. Not sure whose fault it is. This comes down to the law of sliding scales. People aren't specifically watching the show because Fartage is on it. Mos watch it because it's a thing. A thing that has people they've heard of on it. Usually people at the arse end of their fame (there's a reason you don't see the singler of Idles....or Ed Sheeran...or Ronnie O'Sullivan on such things), but, celebrities that people have heard of nonetheless. ...and, yes, it will translate into some extra votes...such is the power that TV and other traditional media still has.
How many votes, or even seats, that's where the law of sliding scales comes in.
To explain this, let's first look at Jeans adverts.
Way back when, they used classic pop tracks in their ads. This worked well for the record companies who then re-released each song as a single, Ben E King, Jackie Wilson, whatever it was, it usually went to number one. It even gave the Clash a number one hit, something that, even in their heyday, they never came close to.
It even worked for up and coming "alternative" bands (Babylon Zoo, Stiltskin).
Here's the thing, back then, a bestseller meant around hald a million people bought the record.
That also meant that 99 out of 100 people in the country didn't.
The record companies would have crawled over glass for such a successful commercial push for their unkown artists outside the world of advertising.
Except that they had it, but, didn't yet know it...it was called X Factor....and, had they realised, would have done it 20 years earlier.
They could get half a million or more people who usually didn't go anywhere near a record shop to buy whatever power-ballad-cover-version they put out that year.
Again, most people in the country didn't buy it....but, enough did to make it an instant number one.
Back to politics, the difference made is reduced, because, unlike pop music, 65-70% of people vote in elections.
Therefore, the number of non-participants wwho might be persuaded to vote for the charactr they've seen on TV is greatly reduced.
I would also suggest that those who switch from another party is even smaller.
But, both exist...and never underestimate the effectiveness of mainstream tv coverage. The question remains one of...on the smaller end of the sliding scale, that being one of overall participants against te total population, how much difference will it make?
|
|
|
Post by JohnC on Dec 4, 2023 14:04:24 GMT
The ICC's credibility is at stake if it's seen as selective. Indict the Hamas leadership and Netanyahu at the same time. Can't reasonably have one without the other. Whilst Palestine is a signatory to the ICC Israel is not, neither is the USA. Whilst having moral force as a body enforcing international law the ICC is limited to enforcing against those who are signatories. Technically, I believe the UN Security Council can instruct the ICC to investigate a potential war crime even if the state in question is not a signatory. The US would veto such a move against Israel.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Dec 4, 2023 14:05:05 GMT
Look we can probably all accept that Starmer was saying these things to take the fear away from Telegraph readers (and a wider stage) of either voting Labour or simply not worried about a Labour government as they were with Corbyn. But the Starmer apologists on here are missing what he said specifically- he wasn't talking about the general character of strong leader, got things done, knew where she stood and believed passionately in her vision- he was specifically talking about how she (OK "tried" in the small print) produced a generation of entrepreneurs. On one level you can accept this is an effort to win Tory voters and nothing more but the disturbing element is that he hints that there were positives from the Thatcher government and this does fit in with the economic model that Reeves seems to be pursuing. It's quite ironic that the "positive" traits you can at least acknowledge that Thatcher had are the complete opposite with Starmer. We don't know where he stands on anything much apart from lefties and Israel and this is witnessed in opinion polls and the wildly different interpretations on here of what a Starmer government will look like. crossbat11Yes of course there is a danger that the left (including myself) will look unfavourably on anything Starmer says but it is equally true, as I said before, that the Starmer apologists don't seem to show any nuance in defending things he says and does which if done by a Tory politician they would be outraged about.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,315
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 4, 2023 14:26:23 GMT
Labour Party HQ has put local parties etc on alert for possible GE in May.Cant see it myself but a scenario where a challenger to Sunak early in the new year, promises a 'growth' budget (or some other euphemism for pre-election) followed by a May GE is plausible. This would allow the new PM to carry any momentum through the contest in to a GE. Could limit losses perhaps but I still reckon October/November (depending on conference judgement) highly probable. To be honest I just took it as a way of eliciting some more financial donations.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 4, 2023 14:26:33 GMT
Technically, I believe the UN Security Council can instruct the ICC to investigate a potential war crime even if the state in question is not a signatory. The US would veto such a move against Israel. That's entirely correct, which is why I used the word "enforce" rather than investigate. Criminal law without sanction is an incomplete system.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 4, 2023 14:33:55 GMT
Whilst Palestine is a signatory to the ICC Israel is not, neither is the USA. Whilst having moral force as a body enforcing international law the ICC is limited to enforcing against those who are signatories. Technically, I believe the UN Security Council can instruct the ICC to investigate a potential war crime even if the state in question is not a signatory. The US would veto such a move against Israel. It just highlights the humbug and hypocrisy of States when it comes to implementing International Law. The US - aided by the UK and other states - has frequently committed war crimes itself , and in the case of Israel has been complicit for decades. In many ways they have no more respect for International Law than did the Nazis - simply paying lipservice to it whilst ignoring it when it suits them. Vietnam and the 2003 Iraq War stand out pretty clearly - with the latter showing Bush and Blair more guilty of the Nuremburg Indictment of ' Conspiring and Planning to Wage War' than any of the defendants at the main trial with the exception of Ribbentrop. The Nuremburg Trial itself can reasonably be viewed as a farce and a political Trial of the Victors - particularly with benefit of hindsight given the failure to apply the same standards to themselves in later conflicts. The Nazis during the years of Occupation did not take the opportunity to execute the likes of captured French Leaders such as Paul Reynaud, Edouard Daladier and Leon Blum. To that extent ,they were less bloodthirsty with Allied political and military leaders in captivity than the Allies proved to be post 1945.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Dec 4, 2023 14:38:22 GMT
LL: "A Peer as a Prime Minister would be reversing all the gains of the 20th Century. It's already problematic for any Cabinet position."
Didn't seem to be too problematic for the Cameron elevation.
Which is what I was elliptically referencing in my post. The erosions of accepted practice are incremental. If you can get away with filling the Foreign Sec post that way (and there seems to have been astonishingly little objection to that, not least from Labour), what's to stop the next PM taking the same route?
Of course, it would be easier to get away with as a two-step process. Which is why I said Farage could first be given a peerage and minor cabinet role, and then stand for election as Tory leader if Sunak stood down. He'd almost certainly win the membership vote, and would then automatically become PM.
Or have I missed some effective constitutional obstacle?
PS "All the gains of the 20th Century" is a bit hyperbolic, surely? I'd hope even Farage would let me keep my OAP.
|
|
|
Post by JohnC on Dec 4, 2023 14:44:21 GMT
Technically, I believe the UN Security Council can instruct the ICC to investigate a potential war crime even if the state in question is not a signatory. The US would veto such a move against Israel. That's entirely correct, which is why I used the word "enforce" rather than investigate. Criminal law without sanction is an incomplete system. I'm not sure about that as it appears the ICC has enforced against Sudan (Dhafur) and Libya, neither of which is a signatory. In each case the process was initiated by the UN Security Council.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,074
|
Post by domjg on Dec 4, 2023 14:46:19 GMT
LL: "A Peer as a Prime Minister would be reversing all the gains of the 20th Century. It's already problematic for any Cabinet position."Didn't seem to be too problematic for the Cameron elevation. Which is what I was elliptically referencing in my post. The erosions of accepted practice are incremental. If you can get away with filling the Foreign Sec post that way (and there seems to have been astonishingly little objection to that, not least from Labour), what's to stop the next PM taking the same route? Of course, it would be easier to get away with as a two-step process. Which is why I said Farage could first be given a peerage and minor cabinet role, and then stand for election as Tory leader if Sunak stood down. He'd almost certainly win the membership vote, and would then automatically become PM. Or have I missed some effective constitutional obstacle? PS "All the gains of the 20th Century" is a bit hyperbolic, surely? I'd hope even Farage would let me keep my OAP. I don't 'think' (could well be wrong) that tory MPs would back a candidate for leader who wasn't one of them. If they thought he was a route to electoral success they'd force a by-election in a safe constituency somewhere though I'm not really sure if they have any of those left!
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 4, 2023 14:49:56 GMT
LL: "A Peer as a Prime Minister would be reversing all the gains of the 20th Century. It's already problematic for any Cabinet position."Didn't seem to be too problematic for the Cameron elevation. Which is what I was elliptically referencing in my post. The erosions of accepted practice are incremental. If you can get away with filling the Foreign Sec post that way (and there seems to have been astonishingly little objection to that, not least from Labour), what's to stop the next PM taking the same route? Of course, it would be easier to get away with as a two-step process. Which is why I said Farage could first be given a peerage and minor cabinet role, and then stand for election as Tory leader if Sunak stood down. He'd almost certainly win the membership vote, and would then automatically become PM. Or have I missed some effective constitutional obstacle? PS "All the gains of the 20th Century" is a bit hyperbolic, surely? I'd hope even Farage would let me keep my OAP. There are a fair number of precedents of Peers becoming Foreign Secretary - Carrington , Home, Halifax and Curzon come to mind. Beyond that, there is not a cat in Hell's chamce of Farage being one of two names submitted to Tory members by Tory MPs.
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Dec 4, 2023 14:51:19 GMT
Recep Tayyip Erdogan President of Turkey calling for Benjamin Netanyahu to be charged with war crimes. War criminal Erdogan knows another war criminal when he sees one. steve Agree, although I doubt that even Erdogan has been responsible for the deaths and maiming of as many innocent people as Netanyahu
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,592
|
Post by Danny on Dec 4, 2023 15:02:17 GMT
Yes, yes, yes Danny , all very clever. Ask me, it was very stupid of whoever wrote for the Lancet not to allow for ongoing underfunding of the NHS causing a decline in its services and so killing people. Although admittedly that might not be causal.Simply a coincidence deaths rose when funding fell. Thats as easy one. Covid kills people earlier than they otherwise would have died, so it cuts average lifespan. Of course if it had been killing 18 year olds instead of 80 year olds, then the average age at death would have tumbled, more like happened in 1918 flu epidemic. Lost was it 20 years or so for the period affected, but happily came up higher than before the flu after it was over. Well AIDS takes 5-10 years to kill you, so that a good start. An awful lot of people have died from AIDS and particularly in certain countries. So it will have depressed average life expectancy. Looking, I see 40 million deaths attributed to HIV, but thats over maybe 40 years, so a million a year. Dont know, but maybe averaging 40 years life lost each? Covid has killed 7 million according to WHO over 4 years, so lets say 2 million a year. Deaths are disproportionately concentrated in certain countries, but eg a page for the US said 50% of deaths are over 75, and 25% between 65 and 75. In the UK average life expectancy was it 81, average age at death from covid 82. So on the whole not so much loss of life expectancy. Counting it at average 1 year is probably something like the right answer for perhaps the wrong reason, because whereas HIV killed otherwise completely healthy people, covid doesnt kill such people but only the unhealthy to begin with. Whereas in the nature of how it spread, HIV was quite unlikely to ever infect unhealthy people anyway.
On those guesstimates then HIV 1.6 billion life years lost. Covid 7 million. Thats one heck of a lead for HIV. Even if its exerting that effect over a much longer timeframe.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 4, 2023 15:07:10 GMT
Britain has been in a 15-year economic slump. This is our route out of it Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation Britain has huge strengths, but it is now impossible to miss that we’re in a phase of relative decline. A year or two of poor productivity growth and flatlining wages is survivable, but 15 long years of stagnation is not: workers today take home no more than they did heading into the financial crisis. The cost of wages not growing as they used to? £10,700 a year for the average worker. Slow growth combines with longer-lasting high inequality: the UK is Europe’s most unequal large economy. That combination has proved toxic for people in Britain on middle and low incomes. We think we’re similar to the likes of France or Germany, but our poorer families are now a staggering 27% worse off than their French and German counterparts. ... But fatalism is misplaced. Having fallen so far behind, we now have one huge advantage: catch-up potential. We don’t need to become as rich as the US or as equal as Scandinavia. Closing our productivity and inequality gap with countries we’ve long considered ourselves similar to – Australia, Canada, France, Germany and the Netherlands – would mean British households being more than £8,000 better off. That is a huge prize, worth embracing a new economic strategy for.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,592
|
Post by Danny on Dec 4, 2023 15:11:00 GMT
LL: "A Peer as a Prime Minister would be reversing all the gains of the 20th Century. It's already problematic for any Cabinet position."Didn't seem to be too problematic for the Cameron elevation. So why dont we go back further in history and just pick someone as PM who is nether an MP or a lord? There nothing to prevent it. Sounds more democratic than limiting it to those cliques of the lords and commons. We could even have an opinion poll where people could put their names down, to advise the king who to choose?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,085
|
Post by steve on Dec 4, 2023 15:20:32 GMT
pjw1961 We're hardly an uncommitted bunch here and aren't likely to be swayed because someone comes across as a bit more human , but we're atypical, I really wasn't looking for a discussion of political baggage, the vast majority don't care about that either. I've met Ed Davey he is an engaging person. Maybe Starmer will channel his inner nice guy as well. Sunakered is a lost cause.
|
|
|
Post by athena on Dec 4, 2023 15:40:25 GMT
The fuss on here over Starmer saying something nice about Thatcher seems indicative of the forum's rather elderly contributorship. Thatcher left office 33 years ago. I doubt she has much emotional resonance for anyone under 50, maybe 45 for the small band of strongly political citizens.
It's hardly a Clause IV moment (you have to go to the second row of the Beeb's UK Politics page to find the story): it has absolutely no concrete consequences for the policies an incoming Starmer govt might pursue and it doesn't tell anyone anything new about Starmer. It's presumably intended as yet another signal to centre-right voters that he is the 'safe', sensible kind of Lab leader, but at this point I don't think it adds much to the picture they have of him as a potential PM and it doesn't offer additional reassurance about how Lab will govern in office. Praising Thatcher will peel away a few more leftie voters, but that process has been going on for ages - every disappointing speech or policy announcement has detached a few, as they decide - probably not without a metaphorical glance at Lab's poll lead - that he's gone too far.
If Starmer wants to offer further reassurance to centre-right voters then I reckon making some sort of commitment to curbing union power would have more impact - maybe restricting doctors' and nurses' right to strike by imposing some sort of minimum service obligation (I suspect there are plenty of people who privately feel that medics are really rather well paid compared with many other professions)? Although there's very widespread support for the NHS, there are plenty of people on the right who see it swallowing ever vaster sums of public money even as access and quality of care fall through the floor and they're not convinced that chucking money at the problem is what's required. Streeting makes noises about reform, but a big leader's speech setting out substantive plans to reform the NHS to make it fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century would make a louder splash. Do it right and he might even avoid losing more voters on the left - they're not blind to the structural challenges facing the NHS - but nothing we've seen of Starmer so far suggests that he has the required rhetorical agility.
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Dec 4, 2023 15:48:27 GMT
The Problem with labour leaders giving anodyne interviews to right wing newspapers is that it is always a hostage to fortune as you have no control with how they lead the interview, so describing Mrs T as a transformational along with Atlee and Blair, true in itself, leads to those who are unsympathetic to you turning it into Starmer Praises Thatcher theme ( Politics Live on BBC today 'Is Starmer the heir to Thatcher' ). This was surely foreseeable and difficult to see what benefit could have accrued by talking to the Telegraph readership which would not be outweighed by dismay amongst Labour supporters and a timely gift to the SNP in Scotland ( who have their own issues at the moment) given Mrs Thatcher's particular unpopularity in that Polity, just as Labour were finally making inroads. However its resonance outside the Politically engaged is likely to be slight, she left office 33 years ago! On the other side of the aisle could the Conservatives really be thinking of yet another new leader? Is there anyone left that would be an improvement on the dispiriting Mr Sunak?, I think what will keep him in place is the fact that the young pretenders would be much better off inheriting the leadership after a loss rather than presiding over the loss. If they do press that button again what chance Liz Truss sounds out her supporters about another run!
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 4, 2023 16:12:26 GMT
Sunak's situation is getting really very parlous. It's quite incredible that despite being on our third PM since the last election, there is yet more talk of leadership challenges in the offing. That is, I think, a completely unprecedented level of chaos in British governance.
The personal rating of Sunak were once the faint thread of hope that some Conservatives clung to, but - as predicted by quite a few on here - Sunak's apparent metallic coldness and his general lack of personal aura did not auger well for the election trail, and so it has transpired. Based on a hunch and no more, I always had that feeling that if and when the Conservative Party decided he wasn't very good, their reaction against him had the potential to be really quite nasty. Time will tell if that's where we are heading, but I do think Sunak is staring down a very long barrel here, and he is a politician without very much at all to fall back on when times get tough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2023 16:24:07 GMT
Look we can probably all accept that Starmer was saying these things to take the fear away from Telegraph readers (and a wider stage) of either voting Labour or simply not worried about a Labour government as they were with Corbyn. But the Starmer apologists on here are missing what he said specifically- he wasn't talking about the general character of strong leader, got things done, knew where she stood and believed passionately in her vision- he was specifically talking about how she (OK "tried" in the small print) produced a generation of entrepreneurs. On one level you can accept this is an www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/latvia-baltic-population-demographic-crisisand nothing more but the disturbing element is that he hints that there were positives from the Thatcher government and this does fit in with the economic model that Reeves seems to be pursuing. It's quite ironic that the "positive" traits you can at least acknowledge that Thatcher had are the complete opposite with Starmer. We don't know where he stands on anything much apart from lefties and Israel and this is witnessed in opinion polls and the wildly different interpretations on here of what a Starmer government will look like. crossbat11 Yes of course there is a danger that the left (including myself) will look unfavourably on anything Starmer says but it is equally true, as I said before, that the Starmer apologists don't seem to show any nuance in defending things he says and does which if done by a Tory politician they would be outraged about. There is no need for nuance from the folk you refer to shevii because what he says is immaterial to them so long as it keeps Lab 20 points ahead in the polls.. The sole objective being the defeat of this Tory Government by a Labour administration. Any Labour administration. It is taken for granted that this alone will "improve" things in the years to come. Folk like you who do listen to what he says-and as a result ask ; " how will it improve things ?" are at least trying to think about what "things" might be faceing us all in those years. And because you are interested in means as well as ends , I personally think you have correctly divined that both Reeves and Starmer see the Private Sector as the key to economic growth.( as did Thatcher). I don't think this is a surprise is it ? With post QE interest rates , and post Pandemic Debt levels , UK Gov. has little or no scope for significant borrowing- which will push the current eye-watering levels of Debt Interest to "doom loop" proportions 1). They will tinker with Planning and a raft of other supply side reforms as facilitators-but the spending & investment will be Private Sector. They hope. No doubt folk at your end of the LOC spectrum will immediately retort that the constraint of State Debt is some sort of figment of the imagination when that State can print its own money. If so I would respond that this is as empty headed as the trust placed in a mere change of Government Party , or indeed in a change of Government Leadership ! Or in returning to a 2015 EU in some Time Travel machine.! The difficulties which will be faced by our country in the next years are little different, imo, from those facing the whole Continent. And they are very significant. I suggest just a few :- + The difficulty in generating economic growth and the (adequate ) tax revenues which result . in the post QE era of high interest rates 2) + The difficulty of achieving a balanced workforce in an ageing population, in a technological world ,without allowing immigration ( legal and undocumented ) levels to impact social cohesion. 3) + The difficulty of agreeing how , and by what structures and at what cost , to sustain preparedness for dealing with a belligerent and antagonistic Russia across its borders with Democratic Europe 4) + Climate change-. If this sounds a bit futuristic , I wonder if you remember the dreadful fires which swept across Europe this year-they cost $ 4bn. I was looking at the effects of Schengen Free Movement on the populations of Eastern Europe 5) -when this popped up -6) !! UK will not be immune to the effects any of these things whilst dealing with its own particular problems. So just to finish on your observation about Starmer's attempt to woo Tory voters-this one has no illusions about the task Starmer faces when he gets into No 10, as I am sure he will. And I really have no more idea how he will cope with it all than I do for Sunak. 1) Paul Johnson ( IFS) quoting Jumana Salaheen ( Chief Economist Vanguard Europe) in today's Times. 2) www.politico.eu/article/high-interest-rates-growth-eurozone-inflation-climate-change-war-eu/#:~:text=Europe's%20economy%20will%20grow%20less,Gaza%20could%20trigger%20further%20deterioration. apnews.com/article/global-economy-inflation-growth-interest-rates-ukraine-bc4b66c3de107f99cee057c183f04c933) www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/10/11/brussels-sounds-alarm-about-eus-rapidly-ageing-population-recommends-migration-to-fill-vacbmmagazine.co.uk/news/skills-shortage-holds-back-uk-smes/www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/interview/nobel-economist-rapid-technological-changes-drive-eu-skills-shortages/www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-countries-tighten-borders-2023-11-24/www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/how-denmarks-ghetto-list-is-ripping-apart-migrant-communities4) www.politico.eu/article/stalemate-best-describes-the-state-of-war-in-ukraine/www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2023/11/13/the-war-in-ukraine-may-be-heading-for-stalematewww.reuters.com/world/europe/everything-front-russia-allots-third-2024-spending-defence-2023-10-02/www.politico.eu/article/russia-border-migrants-hybrid-action-finland-minister-anders-adlercreutz/apnews.com/article/moldova-local-elections-russia-shor-fa44f9c9a49b0f1812821fe362384e575) www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/local-leaders-call-on-eu-commission-to-act-on-depopulation-brain-drain-across-eastern-europe/www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/latvia-baltic-population-demographic-crisis6) www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/depopulation-is-changing-the-fire-map-of-europe/
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,315
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 4, 2023 16:48:36 GMT
Sunak's situation is getting really very parlous. It's quite incredible that despite being on our third PM since the last election, there is yet more talk of leadership challenges in the offing. That is, I think, a completely unprecedented level of chaos in British governance. The personal rating of Sunak were once the faint thread of hope that some Conservatives clung to, but - as predicted by quite a few on here - Sunak's apparent metallic coldness and his general lack of personal aura did not auger well for the election trail, and so it has transpired. Based on a hunch and no more, I always had that feeling that if and when the Conservative Party decided he wasn't very good, their reaction against him had the potential to be really quite nasty. Time will tell if that's where we are heading, but I do think Sunak is staring down a very long barrel here, and he is a politician without very much at all to fall back on when times get tough. Just the £730m* he is and his wife are worth! *Sunday Times Rich List 2022.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,904
|
Post by neilj on Dec 4, 2023 17:01:02 GMT
Redfield Wilton
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,904
|
Post by neilj on Dec 4, 2023 18:17:42 GMT
Delta poll
Labour lead widens slightly to 15 percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-1) Lab 42% (-) Lib Dem 13% (+2) Other 19% (+1) Fieldwork: 1st-4th December 2023 Sample: 1,000 GB adults (Changes from 24th-27th November 2023)
Delta poll approval rating Starmer/Sunak
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 4, 2023 18:27:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 4, 2023 18:30:27 GMT
Colin
You do me a great disservice. Of course I am delighted by Labour being "20% ahead" in the polls and desperate to get rid of this incompetent, mean, democracy-threatening and corrupt Tory Government, but I am enthused too by the prospect of a Starmer administration. I have great faith it will be a distinct improvement on what we are all enduring now. It seems that many voters share this faith too
It's disappointing to see you returning from your short sabbatical in such an ungenerous and pessimistic mood, pouring cold water all over what some of us are greatly looking forward to next year and seeking common cause with well known UKPR anti Starmer apologists.
😮💨😁
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Dec 4, 2023 18:41:33 GMT
No doubt folk at your end of the LOC spectrum will immediately retort that the constraint of State Debt is some sort of figment of the imagination when that State can print its own money. If so I would respond that this is as empty headed as the trust placed in a mere change of Government Party , or indeed in a change of Government Leadership ! Or in returning to a 2015 EU in some Time Travel machine.! Actually no. I thought one thing you and me were in agreement on was that tax and spending is an economic concept that goes hand in hand, and that government borrowing often is an issue. I'm sure we disagree on how much tax and how much spending and the economic "damage" of raising taxes. I do think too much borrowing can be an issue whatever economic mumbo jumbo comes up to suggest it isn't ("print our own money", "borrowing from ourselves" etc). It doesn't work the same as personal finances but various elements of borrowing do precisely that when they work their way through the system, it's just that government has more levers it can pull. Also you have to take into account how static the economy was during austerity (still ongoing and still static to be honest) so if Labour wants to grow the economy to improve public services then Austerity Lite is going to hold them back. So when you look at the tough decisions to be made in the next parliament I can accept these are tough and a government "can't do everything" but I also cannot accept it is tough to raise certain taxes without damaging our economy if you get the percentages right and don't cause a panic in "the markets". Online retailers like Amazon for example can't just walk away because of a tough taxation policy targeted at them and others like them and in many ways it evens the playing field if they decide it will be the customer who pays. Capital Gains Tax should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income or at least equalised. Inheritance Tax starts way too late (pretty much £1m before you pay anything in most cases 2 x personal allowance plus 2 x home if to children and you don't even have to still own the home). Trusts and pensions can be regulated better and fit for purpose- ie to provide for someone in retirement rather than just tax free cash for the wealthy. Certain investment borrowing can probably be justified if the return to the government or country adds up. So that's my criticism both of the Tories and especially Labour, who shouldn't be buying into this, that they seem to have decided the Thatcher orthodoxy holds when most of the growth during Thatcher's time came from selling the family silver and North Sea Oil revenues while not looking long term. We have now reached a long term stagnation and a low wage high cost economy where the old ways of producing a mini boom no longer work.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,315
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 4, 2023 18:50:24 GMT
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,315
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 4, 2023 18:59:34 GMT
Just a thought on the dangers of getting over-excited by single polls (not that we would be so naive as to do that on here of course). Tonight's two polls:
Possible headline based on R&W - "Big fall in Labour lead, down from 20 points to 16" Possible headline based on Deltapoll - "Slight rise in Labour lead, up a point to 15%" Reality - both polls are showing a similar position.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 4, 2023 18:59:40 GMT
Surely, even by Johnson's standards, the raid would have been a bridge too far.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 4, 2023 19:07:16 GMT
Thanks, sda, I'll give the video a look when I get some time. I quite liked John Gregory at the Villa, both as a manager and as a player. Things unravelled for him a bit after he became a rather undeserved victim of the Deadly Doug axe. Once bumped into him in unlikely circumstances. In St James Park in London after we'd both completed, separately, the 2001 London Marathon. He was still Villa manager at the time then and we chatted amiably for a while. Seemed a very nice fellow.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 4, 2023 19:13:43 GMT
Interest rates are no higher today than was the case for much of the 1960s when the Treasury was in the hands of Reginald Maudling , James Callaghan and Roy Jenkins. Bank rate was then frequently in the range of 6% - 8% - rather higher than current rates.Of course, they appear high relative to where rates stood 2008 - 2022 but that simply reflects the absurdly low levels at which rates were kept for so long. Effectively rates have been normalised rather than having been raised to historically high levels.
|
|