steve
Member
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2024 8:00:26 GMT
Refuckers and Tory views on immigration.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 8:04:31 GMT
The original system was costed at 1.5 billion and went up from that. Who knowns, £2-5bn invested in it now? if they ended the contract what would they do, close all their post offices? The same logic applied right from installation. Its probably why they did not call a halt to prosecutions when they realised the system was creating false deficits. They could not admit it wasnt working.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 8:07:02 GMT
pjw1961 - "On shore wind definitely - that's been said - and planning permission unblocked for solar farms I imagine." If Labour (or anyone else) think that unblocking planning is the key to any target for 2030, they'll be in for something of a shock. In my area, the current waiting list for grid connections, even relatively small ones, is 10 years across much of the region. You can grant all the planning permissions you like, but if you can't plug the damn things in, it's all a bit pointless. The ten years wait is simply because national grid is not prioritising connections, though probably also suffers from planning issues. Hard to say how quickly they could do it if they wanted to speed it up, but right now its probably simply not profitable for national grid to speed things up, so they are simply telling the nation to F off.
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 5, 2024 8:11:31 GMT
Here's an aerial view of vicarage road in all its natural gravel pit beauty before some ejit decided to build Watford football ground in it. Sadly gone but not forgotten. View AttachmentBoth of our children were born in the hospital next door. I remember the 'father's room' overlooked the rear of one of the stands and the lonely voice of an announcer giving out the results of a greyhound race which we couldn't see and judging by the lack of crowd noise there was no one else looking either. Sad and mournful comes to mind. Back in the 70's I attended an Elton John concert at the ground and several matches when QPR visited in the days of my heroes Terry Venables, Rodney Marsh, Stan Bowles, Gerry Francis et al.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 8:30:40 GMT
1. Even Steve would agree that the coalition was a mistake: a decision opposed however by only, was it 3 of their MPs, from which they never recovered. But Cameron would never have agreed to PR. If anyone scuppered that over time it was Blair not Clegg? And did the Coalition really lead directly to Brexit. Labour didn't do too well either in 2015 in preventing the Tory majority that allowed Brexit: though obviously the massive loss of Lib-Dem seats didn't help! It was the collapse of the lib dems which led to the conservative win in 2015, many seemed to have expected the result would be another coalition. But lib voters did not vote lib to get con, and so libs destroyed their own credibility. However, con also boosted their pull to UKIP voters by promising the referendum, whereas before they had only promised to be tough in opposing EU influence creep. If in 2010 libs had remained independent, its hard to know what might have happened. if they had voted issue by issue and therefore eg opposed tuition fee expansion, all the other issues where they simply went native and became con scapegoats, then they could have ended up in 2015 with more MPs not less. Although contrariwise, its also possible we had another election in 2010 or 11 after con were unable to govern as they wished. If they then got a majority it might have led to history playing out much as it did. But alternatively, we might have seen a labour recovery and the mirror of labour limping along with lib support. So if there was no coalition we might still have ended with brexit, but its also true we might have avoided that mistake.
Whats clear is that the coalition was a bad choice for libs if they wanted to grow their number of MPs. Gave clegg a bit of fun though.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2024 8:34:27 GMT
Luton town reveal their new multisport stadium, football, rugby and water polo.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 5, 2024 8:43:11 GMT
I'm not generally one for conspiracy theories, opting usually to the default 'cock-up' theory of history. But it's getting harder to hide from the actions of the dark money streams within the covid pandemic response. Here, we see the boss of Pfizer discussing how they plan to ramp up earnings from Paxlovid, overtly citing the dropping of masking and other NPIs as good news for the company. The only group of people who receive any benefit from rampant and uncontrolled infection are the companies charging for healthcare and healthcare products, and there is emerging evidence that they are funding some of the weird and wacky campaign groups who are trying to overturn decades of public health science and encourage repeated infection. As ever, I remain amazed that many on the left, usually so ready to tackle the machinations of 'big business', seem perfectly happy to lie down in front of the steamroller and accept their fate.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 8:43:18 GMT
We have failed to build enough houses for 50 years. The result is property prices which have surged ahead and are so high they are a significant part of labour costs in the UK. Some economist just being questioned about interest rates on R4 when this was mentioned went off about how 105% mortgages to enable people to buy homes had bad consequences at times house prices fell back, totally missing the point that if prices were maybe 1/4 what they are now, so more like historic levels, then we wouldnt need to borrow anything like as much and safety margins against forced reposessions would be so much better.
The UK has chosen to use planning control to prevent major capital investment projects, it seems because of the perceived political vote gain from being NIMBY. I'm not sure its as simple as that, because most such blocks assist private companies to make more profit. So this can also be seen as shifting money to the rich, once again. Its just like brexit, con adopted this as policy to gain votes, maybe only 10% of the nation was really interested in this. It worked, it bought them 14 years in power, but at the cost of permanent damage to the Uk economy going forward. Thats the sort of price politicians are more than happy to pay, so no new transmission grid, no new trains, no new homes, no new wind farms. It will cost us all not doing these things, but in the short term it gets someone their career choice as an MP.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2024 8:47:52 GMT
robbiealive "Even Steve would agree that the coalition was a mistake" Of course I would I was a Labour party member at the time and voted labour. From speaking to those party members who were in the party before 2010 they overwhelmingly agree, their defence was that they thought that they would achieve meaningful electoral reform and could act to mitigate Tory excesses. The parliamentary leadership let them down on both. You might get the impression from our resident coalition obsessive that I'm some sort of massively partisan lib dem apologist. Far from it the reason I left the Labour party in 2017 was because I fundamentally disagreed with the direction of travel of their leadership, their lack of interest in electoral reform and their failure to embrace internationalism. While the leader's changed for the better the other factors are still present. The lib dems are simply a better fit for me, it helps that they are electable locally as well. I didn't vote for Davey as leader I thought then and now that the leader should come from those mps first elected from 2015 onwards. That said and despite obsessive partisan attacks on Davey over the post office disgrace which have achieved no resonance outside of the anti lib dem obsessives who have published them, Davey is going to be the leader going into the general election. He's a decent humane man with a compelling back story and an effective campaigner, I think he will compare well against Sunakered and Starmer amongst those members of the public whose only interest in politics is at a general election and who probably have never seen him speak before.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 8:51:03 GMT
I think certain sections of the media got overly carried away with the idea of a spring general election in the wake of the autumn statement when in reality Sunak just seemed to be hedging his bets. The Tories are many things but they're not daft enough to call an early election when their polling's in the gutter. "Working assumption" is intriguing wording though, perhaps just hinting that the possibility of a spring election is being left open. The only ways I think we get there is if there's a Tory resurgence in the polls or if Sunak feels like he has little other option. I don't see anything on the horizon to suggest that the former is likely but there may still be a chance of the latter (for example, there will definitely be Tory ructions over the Rwanda bill when it's back for third reading and the fallout from that could be "interesting"). Talk this morning that Sunak is afraid of talking up an early election only to cancel it and then lose badly later, as per brown. Except this begs the question whether uncertainty over an election date really did cause a worse outcome for labour, or whether it was simply blamed for it. The most likely determinant of changes in con support between now and the next election is events. One of which could be a recovering economy, or inded an economy distinctly not recovering. Sounds as though retailers had a poor christmas.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 8:58:15 GMT
The Ed Davey chat seems like an example of the sort of thing that's much more likely to be of interest to political obsessives rather than the public at large. I suspect most of the public probably couldn't pick Davey out of a lineup, let alone tell you anything very much about his role in a coalition government that ran its course 9 years ago. Obviously there's still some brand damage to the Lib Dems as a result of the coalition years, but I rather doubt many of those who remain hostile towards them as a result of their part in austerity etc would be much more likely to vote for them if they had a different leader. Ultimately, the coalition years aren't going to feature heavily in a GE campaign anyway, especially in Lib Dem/Tory battleground seats where drawing attention to the various failings of that era would be an own goal for both parties. Changing leader now would just brand the libs as idiots for choosing him in the first place, and admit they believe he did wrong. So that would be a good outcome for every other party. I think though the post office story has real cut through. Its a lot of innocent people who many are vaguely aware of because they use post offices which provide a service to them, who have been victimised by their employer, which also in large part was the government. Just the sort of story to raise public interest, as witness the BBC and others are actually dramatising this and people watching the stories. Might be forgotten by the election, but the refusal of successive governments including labour to sort this out means its still a live story with new twists popping up.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 5, 2024 9:08:40 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 9:11:52 GMT
I'm not generally one for conspiracy theories, opting usually to the default 'cock-up' theory of history. But it's getting harder to hide from the actions of the dark money streams within the covid pandemic response. Here, we see the boss of Pfizer discussing how they plan to ramp up earnings from Paxlovid, overtly citing the dropping of masking and other NPIs as good news for the company. The only group of people who receive any benefit from rampant and uncontrolled infection are the companies charging for healthcare and healthcare products, You seem to be overlooking how the rush to create billions of doses of vaccines was an incredible bonanza for pfizer and others. It is now undoubtable that most covid vaccinations given were unnecessary and created no benefit. Its possible the massive vaccination campaign is what is responsible for covid hanging on so long. Its possible had there been no vaccinations at all, the outcome would have been much the same in the long run. Sure, it stops early deaths, but we had two full waves of covid before vaccines were available and deaths have not stopped after vaccination, just slowed. having it day by day instead of in surge peaks helps spread medical demand, but not so much in reducing total deaths. spreading demand is also problematic, because medical services can never have a covid free break.
It seems very likely we would have done better overall with no lockdowns and no mass vaccination. There would be no world recession now. No inflation surge. We would just be dealing with the consequences of Brexit and decades of government maladministration.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2024 9:34:10 GMT
But look over there it's something no one is talking about and which is totally irrelevant now let's completely ignore the details of what actually happened and pretend it's the most horrendous thing that's occurred since Keir Starmer had an Indian takeaway in a constituency office. Straight out of The Tory enablers hand book .
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2024 9:36:58 GMT
steamdrivenandyMy granddaughter was just born there as well, the hospital not the football stadium.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2024 9:47:46 GMT
Ah "quo vardis" Interesting that our resident obsessive should retweet a post from a antiislamic , far right anti democratic , climate change denying, anti trans, trump, laurence fox Gbeebies and farage fan boy.
Being disparaged by postman twat isn't going to exactly resonate with lib dem potential voters is it!
Those you follow show a lot about you.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 5, 2024 10:41:14 GMT
Danny - "It is now undoubtable that most covid vaccinations given were unnecessary and created no benefit." No it isn't. Stop being silly. It's now a matter of accepted scientific fact that vaccines saved many millions of lives. Don't invent alternative realities. "Its possible the massive vaccination campaign is what is responsible for covid hanging on so long." No it isn't. Immunity from either vaccine or infection is not durable, and it's the failure to instigate control measures that have resulted in the ongoing pandemic. Something you probably won't understand is that vaccination actually makes these measures more, not less viable, as the partial immunity created by vaccination (or by natural infection, but with far greater risks of harm) reduces the R number, making NPIs much more effective. "It seems very likely we would have done better overall with no lockdowns and no mass vaccination." Only to the very foolish who don't want to examine the actual evidence. It's very clear (with empirical data to back it up) that allowing the disease to progress unhindered causes far more economic damage.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 10:54:36 GMT
Danny - "It is now undoubtable that most covid vaccinations given were unnecessary and created no benefit." No it isn't. Stop being silly. It's now a matter of accepted scientific fact that vaccines saved many millions of lives. Don't invent alternative realities. No, its you inventing alternative realities where millions died. It never happened. It never happened ANYWERE! Thats the point. There ARE examples where covid came and went all unnoticed, and the outcome was not much different to all we did with lockdowns and vaccines. Show me the example of where it really hit a population at scale. I have asked this again and again, but you cannot because there are none. What we experienced in the UK was about the worst it has been anywhere. 50% Worse than eg Sweden where they didnt really bother with lockdown. 1000% Worse than Japan where they did hardly anything. Worse than China where they had a MASSIVE lockdown compared to the UK. What we did seems to have come out just about as bad as possible. The most likely reason is because we spend so little on health care compared to other european nations, so our ability to cope with the inevitable bad cases was worse. Plus that China seems to be the epicntre of covid and has been for centuries, so spreading from that part of the world has always been modest level community immunity from related infections. Europe on the whole didnt do so well on this, and thats why Europe had it much worse. But still with some cross immunity from other circulating corona viruses. Plus of course, some of the interventions we did do likely made matters worse. As was evidenced at the enquiry, what we did was mostly to suppress cases amongst the young and safe, which always transfers more cases to the remaining group, in this case the old and unsafe. I dont say the predictions of disaster were lies, because they were honestly believed as worst possible outcomes given the inadequate knowledge at that time. But we do know now. Its just not possible covid was ever going to kill on that scale given what really happened.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2024 10:57:19 GMT
Looks like there might be an outside chance of further investigation into the nonce prince. I doubt his brother will be so amenable as his mother using £10 million of our money to pay off his victim. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 11:12:11 GMT
Looks like there might be an outside chance of further investigation into the nonce prince. I doubt his brother will be so amenable as his mother using £10 million of our money to pay off his victim. Wouldn't that technically be his money, since he is the king of England, and the bank of england created that money we are using? He owns it more than we do. Ok, thats a little absurd, but no more absurd than expecting a monarch to work for a living in the normal way, if you are going to have a monarch at all. The whole point of the English constitution is that the crown embodied by the king owns everything, can do anything. Its absurd to quibble over his expenses, whatever they are. And mitigating scandals harmful to the institution of monarchy is an entirely legitimate expense on behalf of the state. For that matter, justice would suggest compensating victims. There have always been bad princes, it goes with also having good princes, inevitably. Incidentally, do you get the feeling the century of democracy is over, and its somewhat in decline right now. A return to full blooded monarchies may be on the cards. Do you want to keep the house of windsor, or would you prefer a new one created, the house of Johnson for example? He did try to rule without crown and parliament and came close.
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Jan 5, 2024 11:35:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 5, 2024 11:50:59 GMT
Hi everyone, and Happy New Year (this is my first post of the year - CB11 I am deeply upset by the lack of weeping and gnashing of teeth, wearing of sackcloth due to my absence on your part), and blwyddyn Newydd Dda to jib .
In regards to the LDs and the topic of tactical voting in a FPTP system, there is always jeopardy in voting for a party which isn't your first choice purely on the basis of it not being a party you dislike more. If they get in to power, voters that do so can't expect the party to automatically side with or favour the other party that they do prefer. 2010 illustrated this clearly, and many Labour leaning voters who did 'lend them a vote, still feel burnt by the experience, as do some voters who were students at the time and had their trust undermined in the LDs over the school fees. Personally, coupled to the lower profile the LDs get these days and Davey's lack of popular appeal I think these factors explain why the LDs polling figures are in the low teens.
One should also note, that there has historically always been a high degree of loathing between aspects of the traditional economically left, unionised, socially conservative element of the Labour coalition and Liberals/Liberal Democrats. To my mind the big difference between the two parties is actually economic rather than social, and this is where I think I differ a bit from shevii . If you are a politician who joins Labour, your instincts and tendencies are going to be towards a more interventionist economic policy and redistribution. The real difference between the two wings of the party on this is the extent to which it is tempered by conditions. Blair did become an exception to this - but Brown definitely wasn't and my view is that Starmer and Reeves are much more akin to him than Blair. If they are pulling back from certain commitments prior to a GE, I see it as driven by tactical/pragmatic concerns rather than ideological ones.
As far as the Tories are concerned, while I would be very surprised now if they won the GE, I do struggle to see them falling too far below 200 seats in a GE. The level of media support they currently have (including the neutering the BBC) is as high as I can ever recall and Starmer and Labour current lead is totally driven by the fact they are not the Tories rather than any large ground of enthusiasm for them amongst the electorate. With its current older demographic base shrinking and its lack of appeal converting younger voters, if the the Tories do go further right, there is a real risk for them that they become increasingly unelectable. The 2019 election, may increasingly be seen as an anomaly, and the longer term consequences of the Johnson years and Brexit on Tory VI may prove fatal to it.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 5, 2024 11:55:34 GMT
Looks like there might be an outside chance of further investigation into the nonce prince. I doubt his brother will be so amenable as his mother using £10 million of our money to pay off his victim. View AttachmentIsn't that image rather offensive about Lilibet (I know that the skin colour business was about Archie, but the same argument applied to her)?
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 5, 2024 12:02:20 GMT
Just to get away from politics for a moment, here is an article based on an ONS survey that shows that the over 70s are the second most online group (after those in their 20s; they didn't sample under-20s): Silver surfers in Britain spent an average of 43 minutes and six seconds a day using devices in such ways in September last year – 10 minutes longer than those in their 40s. Under-20s were not part of the survey.
The over-70s spent more time web browsing, checking email, and on other computer use (such as creating content for the public) than any other age group surveyed – but also spent the least time (just three minutes a day) on social media.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2024 12:07:55 GMT
Just to get away from politics for a moment, here is an article based on an ONS survey that shows that the over 70s are the second most online group (after those in their 20s; they didn't sample under-20s): Silver surfers in Britain spent an average of 43 minutes and six seconds a day using devices in such ways in September last year – 10 minutes longer than those in their 40s. Under-20s were not part of the survey.
The over-70s spent more time web browsing, checking email, and on other computer use (such as creating content for the public) than any other age group surveyed – but also spent the least time (just three minutes a day) on social media.The whole sample must have been from here 😄
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 5, 2024 12:23:46 GMT
Danny - "It never happened. It never happened ANYWERE!" That's right. Everywhere, people took reasonable precautions, yes, even in Sweden, like humans have done since time immemorial in times of disease, and we avoided the massive death toll until the vaccines arrived and saved millions. And if you think Japan did "hardly anything", then I'm afraid you're behaving like a complete prat.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 5, 2024 12:51:48 GMT
I would like to see if there are grounds for a criminal case against the Post Office managers for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. In criminal cases, if the police or CPS withhold information from the defence, that can be sufficient grounds on its own to overturn a conviction. While I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the PO managers to be prosecuted, it's perhaps more likely that they could be prosecuted in Scotland.
There seem to have been proportionally fewer cases in the Scottish courts than in E&W, and that seems likely to have been because private prosecutions seldom happen here. In the cases that did appear in front of courts here, the PO would have had to submit their allegations to the police, who would have submitted a report to the procurator fiscal who would have conducted the prosecution, on behalf of the Crown.
"The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) concluded that new information about Horizon, which had emerged since Ms Sinclair's trial, would have had a material bearing on a "critical issue". The commission also said it may have explained why there was a shortfall of funds at the Post Office branch where she worked. And it found that the prosecution could be seen as oppressive because the absence of the relevant evidence rendered the trial unfair."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66964774
If the prosecutors are labelled as "oppressive", then it would seem to be a reasonable step for them to prosecute those "who bore false witness" - though, inevitably, they would be the low grade investigators, not those who instructed them!This "The Conversation" article on why more victims didn't speak up is very revealing: theconversation.com/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office-depicts-one-of-the-uks-worst-miscarriages-of-justice-heres-why-so-many-victims-didnt-speak-out-220513The myth of ‘infallible systems’
The lack of willingness on the part of the Post Office to even entertain the idea that its IT systems might have a problem discouraged sub-postmasters from trying to resolve the issue with the Post Office directly. It also fuelled their self-doubt about whether this “perfect” system really could have any bugs in it.
This last factor is particularly pertinent for disputes around technology, in which people can easily fall prey to what researchers call “automation bias”, a psychological bias in which people readily discount information that does not conform to what technology advises or has determined. ... But Post Office management falsely believed their technological systems were infallible, and dug their heels in at any opportunity to recognise this injustice for what it was.
At the end of the day, this is not a scandal about technological failing. It is a scandal about the gross failure of management to stand up for the human beings who had dedicated so many years of their lives working for ‘the Queen’s business’.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 13:04:18 GMT
Hi everyone, and Happy New Year (this is my first post of the year - CB11 I am deeply upset by the lack of weeping and gnashing of teeth, wearing of sackcloth due to my absence on your part), and blwyddyn Newydd Dda to jib .
In regards to the LDs and the topic of tactical voting in a FPTP system, there is always jeopardy in voting for a party which isn't your first choice purely on the basis of it not being a party you dislike more. If they get in to power, voters that do so can't expect the party to automatically side with or favour the other party that they do prefer. 2010 illustrated this clearly, and many Labour leaning voters who did 'lend them a vote, still feel burnt by the experience, as do some voters who were students at the time and had their trust undermined in the LDs over the school fees. Personally, coupled to the lower profile the LDs get these days and Davey's lack of popular appeal I think these factors explain why the LDs polling figures are in the low teens.
One should also note, that there has historically always been a high degree of loathing between aspects of the traditional economically left, unionised, socially conservative element of the Labour coalition and Liberals/Liberal Democrats. To my mind the big difference between the two parties is actually economic rather than social, and this is where I think I differ a bit from shevii . If you are a politician who joins Labour, your instincts and tendencies are going to be towards a more interventionist economic policy and redistribution. The real difference between the two wings of the party on this is the extent to which it is tempered by conditions. Blair did become an exception to this - but Brown definitely wasn't and my view is that Starmer and Reeves are much more akin to him than Blair. If they are pulling back from certain commitments prior to a GE, I see it as driven by tactical/pragmatic concerns rather than ideological ones. I got the impression labour is now strongest in the middle classes. London, the obvious example. Whereas the red wall traditional labour seats abandoned them over brexit, probably because they saw labour had abandoned them already, and while they probably didnt believe con would be anything other than worse, they were persuaded brexit might help them. Deeply unlikely, but we do clutch at straws. The libs were once the party of the middle class, as opposed to con as the party of the upper class. Workers didnt matter. Until that is, they did and labour supplanted libs. But Thatcher strove mightily to destroy the traditional working class, though of course those were the days of traditional industries collapsing left right and centre, and the state reaching the end of its ability to subsidise to keep them running. So Thatcher really only pushed at an open door. The question now perhaps, is whether something similar has happened, the state has now reached the end of its ability to subsidise the rich. Con throughout the Thatcher era sought to cut taxes, but did so by slashing public spending and selling state assets. Thats not sustainable in a modern state which relies on state services, not least because they are far more efficient than private sector ones. OK, maybe a hybrid model is best using the private sector, but its very clear we have failed to make that work in the UK. This time round con picked up exactly where they left off last time and once again started cutting services and selling assets. And not taxing wealth. Worse, they have pushed their core policy of restricting housing so only the rich can have it. This festering disaster in the making is truly ripe now to harm the UK economy. Councils are going bust because they cannot afford to house people who cannot afford their own housing, because there just isnt enough housing in the UK. In 1945 the answer to this was obvious, build build build. It led to a boom. Now we are showing every sign of a long term decline and getting worse. Its possible that before i die, the state pension will be severely curtailed because this crisis is getting worse with no sign of a solution. The conservative model has utterly run out of road and they will be leaving government just as disaster strikes. Its not obvious the nation has realised how unsutainable is the conservative model, which has been widely adopted in the west in other countries too and indeed by labour. Labour is complicit in the housing crisis, in brexit, from my perspective in lockdown, in the whole model of subsidising the rich.
I dont want to take that too far, Blair did pretty well and redirected the state back towards the need to intervene and provide services. But at the same time it still was unwilling to take a stand why this is essential in a modern rich democracy. The rich have taken back power and in so doing have undermined the lives of the majority.
I think con was already unelectable back in 2005. It never abandoned the Thatcherite core policies, and they cannot work in a western state. Thats how we ended up with brexit, because con needed more to get it over the finish line. Not only was brexit deeply cynical in that it was a policy those pushing it believed would harm the UK, it was likely always obvious it was a one-shot event, it would come to an end and then the situation would be even worse. But it did the job, got 14 years more in power. If the whole policy model of con was already such as to be unelectable, then getting an extra 15 years out of the old bus before it totally expired was a no brainer. And much was achieved to make the wealthy wealthier in that time.
Libs did well in 2010 under Clegg, who was charismatic and did the same trick as the brexiteers, be all things to all men. Not so easy in power. I think they chose the worst possible way to take that forward by going into coalition with con and accepting con dominance in policy. Sure con had more seats, but that is not the point in a parliament where a majority of 1 decides. Morally, their vote share was also way bigger than their share of influence in coalition policy. Perhaps that reflected a number of the actual lib MPs were pretty happy with that policy, but it wasnt what they promised voters. They betrayed their voters, they suffered accordingly. But of course it looks like Clegg got what he wanted. Like Trump who first tried dems but then became a republican president. It was about Trump not voters or party or national interest.
The worst aspect of Brexit may be that globalism is on the point of collapse. But the independent nation state model died when we lost our empire, well actually that was the imperial model where we stayed on top by dominating an empire. Multi national groupings is the only show in town now. Europe has to be united to influence world affairs. Russia isnt slowly beating Ukraine from its own resources, but by creating a coalition of wiling states to help. We need the EU. Which party is offering it - why none, because they fear voter backlash more than fear the economic costs of being isolated.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,811
|
Post by Danny on Jan 5, 2024 13:10:21 GMT
Danny - "It never happened. It never happened ANYWERE!" That's right. You agree then, there is no example anywhere of covid achieving the levels of harm claimed for it which were used to justify interventions. It was always fantasy. A truly monumental example of the dangers of the precautionary principle. And the trouble Johnson got into over parties at Downing street...simply reflected that government understood this perfectly well by that point in time. The restrictions were pointless. They knew they were not risking their lives, not risking anyones lives by that point. It had become an utter sham. Johnson admitted as much, he refused to agree new lockdowns autumn 2020 because he could see from the figures the experts were waving about that covid was self limiting. Its now being conceded that even on terms of cutting death which are simply false, the cost of the interventions was unjustifiable compared to other uses for that money. This was an utter disaster Alec, where if anything labour called for even worse interventions.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,260
|
Post by steve on Jan 5, 2024 13:55:24 GMT
|
|