c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 2, 2024 2:19:21 GMT
“One of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers has endorsed Labour to win the general election for the first time in more than 20 years.
The Sunday Times said the Conservatives “have in effect forfeited the right to govern” and so it was time for a change.
HuffPost UK Daily Brief
Sign up and we will email you daily with the best of our political and news coverage while also giving you a taste of our most-popular lifestyle, opinion and personal blogs.
The last time the paper backed Labour was at the 2001 election, when the party was still led by Tony Blair.
Its decision to support Labour ahead of polling day on Thursday in a boost for Keir Starmer and another massive blow for Rishi Sunak.
In its leader column setting out its decision, the paper said: “Britain now needs a radical reset. If the Tories are due a period in opposition, that can only mean a Labour government.”
It adds: “We cannot go on as we are, and we believe it is now the right time for Labour to be entrusted with restoring competence to government.
“Britain needs to do better — as a place to live, work and do business. In 2019 [Boris] Johnson knew many of those who backed him had “lent” him their vote — uncertain about the outcome.
“We suspect that the same may be true for Starmer but judge that, on balance, he has earned his chance. The scale of the challenge is immense. The exhausted Conservatives are neither up to it nor up for it. There comes a time when change is the only option.”
Meanwhile, The Independent has also announced that it is endorsing Labour.
Its front page today says: “This newspaper has a proud tradition of rarely backing any one party at an election. We don’t like to tell our readers how to vote.
“But these are extraordinary times. 14 years of Conservative rule has destroyed our trust in politics. Which is why, with conditions, we we lend support to Keir Starmer’s Labour.””
Huffpost
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2024 5:13:48 GMT
“If I were American I’d want the border closed, I’d be all in favour of building a wall. I’d want to build a wall in the middle of the English Channel,” the former cabinet minister said. Rees-Mogg is fighting a strong Labour challenge in his North East Somerset and Hanham constituency against Dan Norris, the mayor of the West of England, who was previously MP in the seat until he was defeated by Rees-Mogg in 2010. Rees-Mogg, a popular figure among Tory party members, is likely to be influential in the Conservative leadership race if he retains his seat. Support for Trump’s White House bid is a sharp divider within the party between the right and the centrist One Nation group. Speaking before a pub crawl in March organised by a Young Conservative group, Rees-Mogg said: “ Every so often, I slightly peek over the parapet, like that image from the second world war of the man looking over the wall, and say if I were an American, I would vote for Donald Trump and it’s always the most unpopular thing I ever say in British politics, but I’m afraid it’s true. I would definitely vote for Donald Trump against Joe Biden.” Indeed  |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 2, 2024 5:25:54 GMT
Morning steve ! Morning everyone… Anyways, the Olympics are approaching, and a couple of young prospects have just qualified for them. Here’s Phoebe Gill winning the 800m in Manchester - note that she beat Gemma Reekie, who came fourth in Tokyo. (Keely Hodgkinson who came second in Tokyo has already qualified I believe). Earlier in the year, “Phoebe Gill had this season set the fastest 800m time by any European 17-year-old in history” meanwhile here’s Louis Hinchcliffe qualifying for the 100m. Apparently been coached by Carl Lewis |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 5:28:54 GMT
Exactly, and the flip side of the coin is that we're under-using the talents of individuals from state school backgrounds. I wonder how many excellent prime ministers we never had. Me for one, though I did go to a Direct Grant school. Rather perhaps the question should be, what sort of person would want to be PM when you have to lie credibly for years about your beliefs to get the job, will have disrupted family life extending to personal risk if you are successfull, will never be able to do what you want with power if you get it. While you will be paid well as an MP and better as a minister, if you are competent enough to get that job you very likely could do better elsewhere. May seems to have been quite altruistic as an MP, and yet she spent her time delivering Brexit, something she believed should not happen. All the while declaring she did believe in it. What an insane job. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2024 5:44:34 GMT
It's a crying shame that this Joe Biden didn't turn up to the debate. A scathing repudiation of the christofascist corrupt supreme court majority who want to turn the first among equals into an absolute monarch. www.youtube.com/live/7hv3lEmfrsI?si=-AXGBvw16Sb9kOal |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 2, 2024 6:02:35 GMT
More in Common Muslim vote - just for mercian 😀 Our polling in England's 30 constituencies with the highest Muslim population finds strong growth of smaller parties, but with Labour comfortably leading: 🔴 Lab 58% (-6) 🔵 Con 15% (-8) ⚪ Other / Independent 9% (+7) 🟠 LD 7% (+1) 🟢 Grn 6% (+4) 🟣 Ref 6% (+3) Changes w 2019 |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2024 6:05:53 GMT
The one silver lining in the SC ruling is that they have required Judge Tanya Chutkan to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine what does and doesn't amount to an official act, it will look very much like a trial with both prosecution and defence attorneys.
Normally a prosecutor wouldn't disclose all of their evidence at this point but the SC ruling has effectively commanded it.
So in September for the six weeks prior to election we can anticipate Jack Smith calling witnesses on oath to testify to the traitors acts in open court in Washington . Starting I would anticipate with former vice President Mike Pence, a man who has already said that in all good consciences he can not support Trump.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 6:08:27 GMT
isa, On the basis of my earlier post, unless something major happens in the next 48 hours, imo Lab will be 42+ % and Con 22-%. I would suggest that on the basis of the areas where both Sunak and Starmer have campained today, and in previous days, they are also of the opinion that Lab will have a lead of 20+% and therefore seats with a Tory lead of ~20% in 2019 have now come into play. Because of the observed fact that swings away from con are strongest in seats where they have the largest numbers of votes, thats more like seats with a 30% con lead are now in contention if you believe the numbers. Curtis observed the difference between companies mega polls is largely accounted for by how large they estimate this differential swing.
Newsnight last night had a feature where they suggested con were sending in activists to defend seats with greater than 60% of the vote, lab was attacking in seats where con had more than 50% of the vote. In Bexhill and Battle Merriman last time had 63% leading lab on 19% and then libs on 12%. There seems to have been a lack of leaflets from the libs, maybe suggesting they are quietly not trying (some other local seats where they do have a chance). Merriman has departed, the parachutee replacement is soft on water companies whereas a big local issue is pollution of the beach. In the rural areas the farms dont like the replacement farm subsidy, and maybe the stockbrokers arent terribly happy either. Trying to change the disused local prison from a housing development to a refugee camp has not helped conservative standing, I suspect Merriman already knew he was leaving whatever so wasnt bothered. Theres a reform candidate criticised for supporting Voldemort, who no doubt will bleed off a certain faction of voters from con. I guess thats factored into the average 20% lead, but all in all that means even this seat isnt safe. And VAT on school fees will have taken a few off the labour total, strikes me this effect must concentrate in strong con seats. Perhaps when lab decided on it they never thought they could strike that far into conservative heartlands.
You have to wonder whether cancelling HS2 wasnt so much about the cost but that it was upsetting voters living near it.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 6:11:51 GMT
My understanding is that in these cases the pollsters are assuming that don't knows will revert to 2019 whereas the polling on what don't knows are likely to do is based on squeeze questions (who are you leaning to?). If we assume that people are being honest and don't change their mind at the last minute then presumably the squeeze approach is likely to be more accurate It might be that if people really cannot make up their minds then they will be the ones who do not vote at all. So these undecideds may break to non-voters. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 6:20:10 GMT
R4 just reported that one of the last acts of OFWAT under the conservative administration was yesterday to sign off on the essentially bankrupt thames water paying dividends to its shareholders.
What was that about Labour replacing the leaders of quangos as a priority?
I never got round to mentioning it, but yesterday the temporary cuts in energy bills came into effect from the energy regulator, which will change into price rises in three months time.
|
|
EmCat
Member
Posts: 659
Member is Online
|
Post by EmCat on Jul 2, 2024 6:49:10 GMT
Except that he could change the rules. I think FDR had 3 terms. Whatever law they brought in to stop that could presumably be repealed.
The 2 term limit isn't a "law", but the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. Members of the US legislature normally propose around 200 amendments to the Constitution in each 2 year Congressional term. Virtually none of them proceed, as to change the Constitution requires that such a proposal must be passed by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, and then to be ratified by three-quarter of the states.This assumes that Trump plays by the rules. Interestingly, the Trump Bible includes the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Or at least, th Constitution and some of the amendments. " Trump’s Bible jumps from the original Constitution to the Bill of Rights and then to the Pledge of Allegiance, skipping constitutional amendments 11-27. This, of course, allows Trump’s most loyal fans the luxury of not dwelling on the end of slavery, equal protection, a couple voting rights amendments, or the income tax. Limiting Trump to two possible terms as president gets overlooked as well." abovethelaw.com/2024/05/trump-bible-constitution/#:~:text=Trump's%20Bible%20jumps%20from%20the,skipping%20constitutional%20amendments%2011%2D27. Remember, Trump has already declared that, if elected, he would only be a dictator on day one. Which would be enough time to ignore all the niceties of house and senate approval and ratification by most of the states. And since the Supreme Court has just stated that the president is immune from from prosecution for anything he does while in office, then ignoring the law and the Constitution becomes so much easier. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jul 2, 2024 6:56:34 GMT
I see my favourite contributor is back to men in Nazi era uniforms to make his political points.
The lack of references to Fascism has been welcome on these pages. We only need to look across the Channel to see where such sentiments are still mainstream.
|
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jul 2, 2024 7:05:03 GMT
Have polling companies like Savanta only just re-adjusted their figures?
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jul 2, 2024 7:15:46 GMT
Except that he could change the rules. I think FDR had 3 terms. Whatever law they brought in to stop that could presumably be repealed. FDR had 4 terms (1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944) before his death in 1945 and the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951. Following ratification the limit is 2 terms in total (consecutive or non-consecutive). Interestingly, it also bit against Truman. As he completed FDR's fourth term and this was a period of more than 2 years (1945-1948), he could only serve another term.
The Amendment can be re-amended/varied so to speak but Trump would not be able to do it. To even be proposed the motion would need to be passed by 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. Then it would need to be approved by 38 of the 50 states. Sorry to be pedantic (meaning I love to be pedantic.) But "Although exempted from the newly ratified Twenty-second Amendment, Truman did not run for a second full term in the 1952 presidential election because of his low popularity. He was succeeded by Republican etc." |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 2, 2024 7:30:48 GMT
FDR was elected for a 4th term, but died 4 months into it.
The 2 term limit isn't a "law", but the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. Members of the US legislature normally propose around 200 amendments to the Constitution in each 2 year Congressional term. Virtually none of them proceed, as to change the Constitution requires that such a proposal must be passed by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, and then to be ratified by three-quarter of the states. This assumes that Trump plays by the rules. Interestingly, the Trump Bible includes the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Or at least, th Constitution and some of the amendments. " Trump’s Bible jumps from the original Constitution to the Bill of Rights and then to the Pledge of Allegiance, skipping constitutional amendments 11-27. This, of course, allows Trump’s most loyal fans the luxury of not dwelling on the end of slavery, equal protection, a couple voting rights amendments, or the income tax. Limiting Trump to two possible terms as president gets overlooked as well." abovethelaw.com/2024/05/trump-bible-constitution/#:~:text=Trump's%20Bible%20jumps%20from%20the,skipping%20constitutional%20amendments%2011%2D27. Remember, Trump has already declared that, if elected, he would only be a dictator on day one. Which would be enough time to ignore all the niceties of house and senate approval and ratification by most of the states. And since the Supreme Court has just stated that the president is immune from from prosecution for anything he does while in office, then ignoring the law and the Constitution becomes so much easier. A Trump presidency will be a disaster in multiple ways, especially for American women and minorities and probably for Ukraine and European security. However, the idea that he can become a dictator and end elections is rather fanciful. Firstly the US sets a lot of store, some might argue too much at times, by the Constitution, and its authors, through their obsession with separation of powers, went to considerable lengths to protect against exactly that scenario. The US armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, not to the President and are obliged to protect its integrity. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have considerable power and authority. Most importantly of all, the US is a federal country and the individual states also have considerable autonomy in many areas. There is also a mature and essentially free media. It is to be expected that a Democratic Congress, Democratic States (and even cities) and the US armed forces would all in different ways act as checks on a dictatorial Republican President's ambitions. The likeliest outcome would be complete chaos and paralysis - not good for anyone, but not as extreme as the end of democracy. It would be easier, given our system with all power vested in the executive and a pliant HoC, for a UK Prime Minister to establish a dictatorship. There are essentially no checks and balances built into our system. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 7:37:22 GMT
Further to the recent debate on whether Uk electric vehicles actually save ANY carbon emissions. The website at grid.iamkate.com/ shows real time energy generation and usage in the UK. Last night renewables generation dropped to 10GW, compared to 20 GW minimum demand. The difference was made up from various sources, but fossil fuels never dropped below 2GW. In other words, at no time in the last 24 hours did the Uk stop using fossil fuels. Electric vehicles were deliberately introduced to replace fossil fuelled vehicles, but this created extra demand for electricity meaning we needed extra generation. The flexible part of our generating package is fossil fuels, used to make up the difference from the other cheaper sources and demand. demand was raised by the electric vehicles above a level where we might have been able to switch off all the fossil fuel generation...at no time in the last day did we do this and therefore the entire electric vehicle fleet was being powered by burning fuel in power stations. Electric vehicles are more expensive, and thus far have likely not saved any fuel burning in the UK. To do so we need to increases renewables generating capacity, which of course is something con government stopped pushing and indeed made more difficult by changing planning laws. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 2, 2024 8:19:28 GMT
Interesting discussion on the Today programme about our declining birth rate
First it's just not in the UK, but across the world, even in what many people would call poorer countries
The stat that stood out for me is that we used to have 4 workers supporting one pensioner. Now that's dropped to just over 3 supporting one pensioner. Bearing in mind that's with the record levels of immigration we've had in the last few years
But worse with current reproduction rates that will drop to two. It could be even worse than that as the birth rate is accelerating in it's decline
The problems with such a situation are obvious, not enough people to do the jobs or pay for the burgeoning number of pensioners
No political party is addressing the issue, in fairness because most if not all the solutions are politically untenable
For the long term, 20 years or more, you could support parents more financially, but that would mean higher taxes to pay for it. Not even sure then it would work, people tend to want fewer children
You could increase the levels of immigration further, can anyone see a political party advocating that
You could scrap the triple lock and or means test pensions, again cannot see that happening
I suspect we will be like the frog in the saucepan. The heat is gradually turned up so the frig is quite content to stay until he's boiled alive
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jul 2, 2024 8:45:06 GMT
Interesting discussion on the Today programme about our declining birth rate First it's just not in the UK, but across the world, even in what many people would call poorer countries I suspect we will be like the frog in the saucepan. The heat is gradually turned up so the frig is quite content to stay until he's boiled alive I know it's easy for me to say as a 70 year old and a baby boomer but I think the earth is in for a rocky 50 years or so beyond which population levels will steady out at a lower level that at present and one which is more sustainable food and materials wise, the age balance between generations will resestablish itself, climate change will slow down to a liveable level as technology catches up , and mass immigration will slow down as the population inhabits the areas that are sustainable and those that have moved in the first 50 years of the 21st century will have settled and integrated. History shows us that cyclical turbulence goes up and down. And the good thing is I can't be proven wrong as very few of us will be here to see if I'm right. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 2, 2024 9:06:56 GMT
The leaflet challenge is on. pjw1961 be warned. I'm out and about in the villages of Harvington and Norton this morning, armed with about 250 personally addressed "promise cards" to deliver around places that, before the boundaries were redrawn, have never before been part of the Redditch constituency. Every Labour voter a bonus, I would think. And every Tory abstainer too! Two more sleeps before polling day and about 62 hours before the BBC exit poll announcement. It's beginning to feel a lot like General Election time! Everywhere you go. |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jul 2, 2024 9:23:13 GMT
The leaflet challenge is on. pjw1961 be warned. I'm out and about in the villages of Harvington and Norton this morning, armed with about 250 personally addressed "promise cards" to deliver around places that, before the boundaries were redrawn, have never before been part of the Redditch constituency. Every Labour voter a bonus, I would think. And every Tory abstainer too! Two more sleeps before polling day and about 62 hours before the BBC exit poll announcement. It's beginning to feel a lot like General Election time! With apologies to Meredith Wilson: It's beginning to look a lot like Polling Everywhere you go Take a look at the letter box, its teeth like a snarling crocs With a snap of spring the fingers sting and glow It's beginning to look a lot like Polling canvassers everywhere to bore But the prettiest sight to see is the poster that will be On your own front door |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 2, 2024 9:24:49 GMT
So, two campaigning days to go, (although 'campaigning' seems rather a grand term for the occasional news item making the mainstream news at present with so many other domestic distractions - Glastonbury, Euros, Wimbledon etc., and such a generally low key campaign). Thursday will be completely artificial, i.e. the election scarcely mentioned, until 10 pm when the exit poll is announced, and that's when the fun really starts. This place will go mental at 10.01 pm. My thoughts. Purely unscientific, but I've seen a lot of elections, and I think you get a 'vibe' of what's going on. Firstly, a low turnout. 67.3% last time. I'd be surprised if it's much over 60% this time. I think the polls generally flatter to deceive. I don't see LAB hitting 40%, or CON falling below 25%. I think RFM have stalled and would be surprised if they reached 15%. LDEM I think will have a very good night, though. Say 14%? LAB to make gains from SNP, but possibly not stellar. The odd GRN here and there. I know little of NI politics, but possibly some DUP setbacks. So, my guess... LAB 36% CON 26% RFM 14% LDEM 14% GRN 5% SNP 3% OTH 2% Per EC, LAB majority 178. I'll take that every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. isa, On the basis of my earlier post, unless something major happens in the next 48 hours, imo Lab will be 42+ % and Con 22-%. I would suggest that on the basis of the areas where both Sunak and Starmer have campained today, and in previous days, they are also of the opinion that Lab will have a lead of 20+% and therefore seats with a Tory lead of ~20% in 2019 have now come into play. In 2019 the Tories enjoyed a lead of almost 12% over Labour. If Labour now ended up 20% ahead this week, it would imply that Tory majorities of 32% or less would be at risk - ie a 16% swing to Labour since 2019. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Jul 2, 2024 9:32:40 GMT
Hustings report - the mood in Surrey.
Yesterday evening I attended hustings for Dorking & Horley (Con majority 12,000, Lib Dem 2nd, Labour nowhere), held at our local church. It was well attended (~ 250) despite there being no publicity until the day before the event. Apparently the local churches were supposed to be doing it but the Residents Association had to step in to organise it at the last minute.
My main interest, apart from seeing the candidates in the flesh, was to check out the support for Reform.
All the main parties’ candidates turned up. The format was a 5 minute slot for each candidate to introduce themselves and then questions submitted in advance from the audience with a couple of minutes allocated for each candidate to answer. The time limit was policed meticulously.
The questions were:
How will you ensure that womens’ rights are not lost to trans rights and women’s safe spaces are preserved?
What are you going to do to get more homes built?
What are you going to do to stop building on the green belt?
What should the limit on net immigration be?
What will you do to achieve net zero?
Would you personally like the UK to rejoin the EU within the next 10 years? (My question)
What would you do to stop our rivers (i.e. the River Mole) being polluted?
What will you do to improve teacher morale?
What will you do to improve social care and the NHS (esp. mental health)?
The candidates’ answers toed the party lines pretty much as expected so I will just make a few specific observations:
1. The womens/trans issue was really toxic. One man in the audience stood up and claimed that there are hardly any trans people in Surrey - he stood up and asked ‘are there any trans people here in the audience?’ At which point a woman stood up and said ‘Yes, my wife, sitting next to me is trans’. If looks could kill!
2. The Lib Dems control the local council and are therefore responsible for Planning. The Local Plan they are supporting involves some building on the green belt - this is deeply unpopular and he got a lot of stick for it. The other candidates all went on about there being lots of brown field sites to build on, including council-owned land, which is just not true. The Labour candidate was the only one that could say anything concrete - that they will prioritise changes to Planning laws.
3. The Green candidate brought every single question back to climate change and waffled a lot.
4. The Reform candidate looked exactly the part - an angry middle-aged man, who blamed all the problems on immigration. He had some supporters in the hall, who were very vocal, though the Lib Dem and Conservative got the most applause.
5. The Lib Dem candidate is local and has a good back story, being initially turned down for the army, fighting illness, becoming a reservist and eventually serving in Afghanistan. Unfortunately he waffled a lot and was not a very convincing speaker.
6. The Conservative candidate is a lady who is the opposite of the previous incumbent. She was clearly passionate about social issues, green issues and animal rights and has an unarguable record of involvement and making an impact. Because so much the emphasis was on local issues she escaped lightly on criticism of the Tory record in office.
7. The Labour candidate (a young lady) impressed me a lot, and a lot of other people too I think including my wife. She was engaging, a strong, succinct and clear speaker, with a good local background (though currently based in London) and strong ‘presence’. She currently works as a mediator for a big Consultancy. She has no chance here, but I suspect may go on to greater things.
Conclusion: Reform will take enough votes off Con to put the nails in their coffin and guarantee a Lib Dem gain here. I think the Lab, Lib Dem and Tory candidates would all make good constituency MPs, so I was quite impressed really.
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jul 2, 2024 9:42:31 GMT
robbiealive I noticed that you “liked” one of my posts and am really touched that I am one of just 3 or 4 posters that haven’t now blocked.   [<<<<<<<< some smilies for you. ] Just keep yr nose clean sonny. I liked yr post because it expressed a much-appreciated exasperation with the Schleswig-Scoto-Holstein problem. The Old Pretender has his choleric outbursts. There are a few on here who have a touch of the "Colin from Accounts": they hand it out snide & nasty but don't like any returns. Some of course are polite like St James E of the Pollstar. He has not been on for week & no doubt he is in the engine room concocting a final analysis, or else the lazy oik is on holiday. (have to confess I have just booked my 3rd Scottish hol of the summer) What does he think we pay him for. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jul 2, 2024 9:42:37 GMT
Interesting discussion on the Today programme about our declining birth rate First it's just not in the UK, but across the world, even in what many people would call poorer countries The stat that stood out for me is that we used to have 4 workers supporting one pensioner. Now that's dropped to just over 3 supporting one pensioner. Bearing in mind that's with the record levels of immigration we've had in the last few years But worse with current reproduction rates that will drop to two. It could be even worse than that as the birth rate is accelerating in it's decline The problems with such a situation are obvious, not enough people to do the jobs or pay for the burgeoning number of pensioners No political party is addressing the issue, in fairness because most if not all the solutions are politically untenable For the long term, 20 years or more, you could support parents more financially, but that would mean higher taxes to pay for it. Not even sure then it would work, people tend to want fewer children You could increase the levels of immigration further, can anyone see a political party advocating that You could scrap the triple lock and or means test pensions, again cannot see that happening I suspect we will be like the frog in the saucepan. The heat is gradually turned up so the frig is quite content to stay until he's boiled alive I'm not convinced that the workers to non workers ratio is much of an issue beyond the economic system we have created. Just think back 50 years as to how many people were needed to produce the same output as compared to now. I am pretty sure that where I work has reduced it's ratio by more than 1 out of 4 workers to produce the same amount of goods. We have ever more complex computers and computer controlled systems for admin tasks, production, research and development and every aspect of our lives. So yes we require more people for health and caring roles for the elderly and higher life expectancy (but not necessarily productive life expectancy years), but the ratio should be compatible with the efficiency savings to produce the stuff we need. A lot of our productive work is spent keeping up with population increase- new houses, new roads & railways, new infrastructure, and there are a lot of "non essential" jobs that have been created to cater for the needs of the wealthy with more leisure activities (good in one way) and the economic system we operate. Plus the financial support needed for the elderly (poor) is a result of increasing wealth inequality where people now struggle to work all their lives for a comfortable pension. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Jul 2, 2024 9:52:24 GMT
johntel My wife went to our local hustings as I was on kid duty and neither the incumbent tory or reform candidates were there, it was just LD, Lab and Green. The decision of our MP not to deign us with his presence did not go down well and many were overheard commenting to the effect that he must be either too frightened or too high and mighty to attend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 2, 2024 9:58:14 GMT
*** ADMIN ***
The final polling thread before the election is going up this afternoon (I'm going out for a meal with friends tonight).
I am inclined to think that the results on the night along with commentary of said results should be in the final polling thread, but, if a majority of members want a separate results thread, I will set one up a little before 10pm on Thursday.
In order to prevent things getting messy and members flicking between two or more threads, I feel it has to be one or the other.
If you have a preference, now is the time to state it.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jul 2, 2024 9:58:44 GMT
barbara - " History shows us that cyclical turbulence goes up and down." Surely it goes round and round? Danny - "The stat that stood out for me is that we used to have 4 workers supporting one pensioner. Now that's dropped to just over 3 supporting one pensioner. Bearing in mind that's with the record levels of immigration we've had in the last few years" These are utterly pointless statistics (I mean, completely, totally and absolutely pointless) unless you add in the equivalent time series of productivity gains. What you're saying is the same as looking at how many typists a medium size company office needed in 1936 and compared that to 2024, and then started to claim we're in deep trouble because they aren't enough typists. It's completely daft. The economy should continue to see substantial productivity gains, particularly in the field of health care. Some of the recent AI based diagnostic and monitoring advances are astonishing, and it's really not at all difficult to imagine a world where we have constant, automated monitoring of key health metrics for the vulnerable, so not only do we carve out a whole load of scheduled health visits but at the same time as freeing up healthcare resources we also dramatically improve early warning systems because the monitoring is done remotely and automatically, with machine learning sounding an early alarm if a physical intervention is required. The same principles apply to general economic growth. The smaller number of workers will produce vastly more product and value. Do you remember it was only a few years ago when the papers were full of dire warnings about AI making our jobs redundant and how we need to move to a 4 day working week? Can you see how daft the meme of 'not enough workers' is when you set it against that? There are issues that need to be addressed, however. Some jobs, where human contact is essential, will see increasing labour demands. The direct personal care sector obviously is one. These are currently assigned a low value in our society, and that will need to change. It's potentially feasible that in the future, we'll see salaries rise for 'arse wiping' jobs and fall for city traders, architects, and solicitors, because these are the kinds of jobs that AI can do. Higher value social care jobs, and more of them, means a higher welfare bill, so we need to rejig the tax system to accommodate this. But because there are fewer workers, and many of the previously high value workers may see a relative fall in incomes, the tax system may need to move away from direct labour taxes, to an extent at least. So companies producing AI technologies that replace jobs and earn vast profits will need to pay higher levels of tax. None of this is remotely problematic, in theoretical terms, so long as the economy overall grows faster than the proportion of older people times the value of their required care. Since the first industrial revolution this has been the case, and there is no reason to suggest it won't continue, which is why the painfully simplistic 'number of workers to number of pensioners' measure is so laughably childish. The demographic changes are not occurring in isolation. There are huge technological and economic changes happening alongside the ageing population, and once you factor in these, the problems fall into perspective. The really big issues we face are not remotely demographics; they are social and political. Society needs to make the right choices. If we do, life will get a whole lot better. If we don't, we're up shit creek very quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jul 2, 2024 10:03:21 GMT
Mark - I'd go for a separate polling night thread. Much easier for archive searching in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 2, 2024 10:03:58 GMT
johntel My wife went to our local hustings as I was on kid duty and neither the incumbent tory or reform candidates were there, it was just LD, Lab and Green. The decision of our MP not to deign us with his presence did not go down well and many were overheard commenting to the effect that he must be either too frightened or too high and mighty to attend. I really do not believe that candidates should feel obliged to attend a hustings event at all - provided they hold their own public meeting which voters can attend with the opportunity to ask questions. In the past, that was very much the normal practice. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jul 2, 2024 10:07:35 GMT
shevii - "Just think back 50 years as to how many people were needed to produce the same output as compared to now." Spot in. A very modest 1% annual productivity growth means that output per worker would double in 69 years. Prior to the financial crash, the UK's rather poor average productivity growth (1971 - 2007 average) was 2.2%, which leads to a doubling of output per worker in 32 years. With AI and new tech advances we should be aiming for better than this. If we hit 3% a year, the workforce could be halved every 23 years and we'd still be producing the same value amount. We don't have a population problem. We have a problem with society and politicians failing to make the right choices.
|
|
