colin
Member
Posts: 1,021
|
Post by colin on Nov 23, 2024 16:46:20 GMT
Colin Re cop 29 when you have the worlds 4 largest polluters America China Russia and India refusing to stop fossil fuel production and the rest of the Western world bulking at the huge sums involved in achieving net zero you begin to realise how unrealistic all those previous COP conferences were. It’s difficult to see no matter how you view climate change how any of the deadline dates from previous COP meetings are going to be delivered on time or even if there is the political will to do so. I suspect we will see the normal fudge and dates put back to the mid 2030’s and beyond as countries implement net zero if that is even achievable at different speeds. I know here in the states there is little appetite for net zero amongst the public as the US owes much of its prosperity to being self sufficient in fossil produced energy. That’s not to say that climate change has been ignored, companies throughout the US have cleaned up there acts as far as pollution goes. But at the moment few people in the US see net zero as a way to save jobs and lower energy costs. I personally think that’s why Milibands plans for net zero will prove to be far more costly and far less effective in reducing energy costs than he thinks. Indeed I would be very surprised if quite a large part of his policy is abandoned by Labour as the economy come under increasing pressure with there anti growth policies in the last budget. Net zero is dependant on growing the economy without that you simply can’t build the necessary infrastructure for net zero. You must be able to demonstrate that net zero means reduced energy bills or you won’t take the voters with you, I’m afraid that despite it’s good intentions people who are already struggling with the ,costs of living are not going to support some promise of future energy savings if in the short term energy costs keep rising. Yes I think mankind will wait until it is too late. I've always thought those COP gatherings seemed a bit remote from reality. It will make things very difficult for some & we will be switching from mitigation to adaptation like crazy. Miliband has nailed his future to the mast of energy cost reduction. Reeves & Starmer to economic growth. They have to deliver. Do you buy the view expressed here that Reform can become a serious Parliamentary presence at the expense of Lab rather than Con ? |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 23, 2024 16:50:12 GMT
NeilJ I did read the article before I posted, basically it was a cut and paste from the governments figures , but even if those figures were anywhere correct that’s 500 farms per year not 500 farms in total and every year as farm land increases in price more and more farms will fall foul of inheritance tax. That even in this government life time could be several thousand farms. The Independent organisations looked at real life actual figures It says 500 per year will likely to have to pay some inheritance tax out of 209,000 farms Big farms, many owned by very rich people to avoid tax, will pay it, the bigger the land holding the more they will pay That's the point of the tax! Well put. The squirming over this from the rich landowning class only makes me more convinced this is a progressive and fair solution to over amalgamation and wealth and asset hoarding. Agricultural land is an entirely finite resource, it cannot really be extended in the UK as all available wilderness has been reclaimed, and the remainder is probably protected. Allowing that finite resource to fall into fewer and fewer hands is not equitable if you believe in soundbites like "for the many, not the few" as I tend to do. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 23, 2024 16:50:33 GMT
One for our steve - /photo/1 |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 23, 2024 16:55:06 GMT
Colin Re cop 29 when you have the worlds 4 largest polluters America China Russia and India refusing to stop fossil fuel production and the rest of the Western world bulking at the huge sums involved in achieving net zero you begin to realise how unrealistic all those previous COP conferences were. It’s difficult to see no matter how you view climate change how any of the deadline dates from previous COP meetings are going to be delivered on time or even if there is the political will to do so. I suspect we will see the normal fudge and dates put back to the mid 2030’s and beyond as countries implement net zero if that is even achievable at different speeds. I know here in the states there is little appetite for net zero amongst the public as the US owes much of its prosperity to being self sufficient in fossil produced energy. That’s not to say that climate change has been ignored, companies throughout the US have cleaned up there acts as far as pollution goes. But at the moment few people in the US see net zero as a way to save jobs and lower energy costs. I personally think that’s why Milibands plans for net zero will prove to be far more costly and far less effective in reducing energy costs than he thinks. Indeed I would be very surprised if quite a large part of his policy is abandoned by Labour as the economy come under increasing pressure with there anti growth policies in the last budget. Net zero is dependant on growing the economy without that you simply can’t build the necessary infrastructure for net zero. You must be able to demonstrate that net zero means reduced energy bills or you won’t take the voters with you, I’m afraid that despite it’s good intentions people who are already struggling with the ,costs of living are not going to support some promise of future energy savings if in the short term energy costs keep rising. Well I agree with your predictions and it's bleeding obvious no country is doing enough and USA and Russia fatally so. Not so sure about China as they can think more long term including their own energy security. However your economic arguments on America are not the same as in the UK- as you say USA has fossil fuels but UK not so much, so I would argue it makes economic sense for UK to go net zero to have energy security as well as on eventual costs to the consumer. |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 23, 2024 16:59:17 GMT
One for our steve - /photo/1 That site is the only reason I'm still on Twitter. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 17:12:59 GMT
My guess is that farmers will continue to fight this, and I expect we are going to see them adopt the continental style farmer campaign methods, as there is a perception in farming circles that this works. I hope they fail. They've chosen entirely the wrong issue to fight on, but such is the irrational nature of much of the debate over IHT. I dont think they have chosen the wrong issue. I think the arguments given about protecting family farms are wholly specious and the more I look into it, the weaker they seem. The reason its the right issue is that the real aim here is to protect the value of assets inherited, not make sure family farms stay in the family. So obviously its a battle which has to be fought. If this measure discourages some from investing in land (good for real farmers), that would also be bad for the investors, because whether or not they are worried about inheriting, the more others are buying then the higher the price will go before they take their profit. It looks to me as if a massive industry has grown up speculating in land values. This was partly confirmed by a bit of conversation I had this week with a financial lawyer. Thats why land values have shot up. Its utterly not about farmers, especially not about family farmers trying to keep it in the family. Its because land has become a speculative asset just like homes, or shares. There seems to be a risk speculators are grabbing control of every piece of land they can. First because its rising steadily in value. And second because if it gets earmarked for construction, then they really hit the jackpot. The reason it has to be fought is because this is an attack on people getting rich by speculating in land. A fundamental tory policy, but rather the opposite of a socialist one, or even a party of the poorer half of the population or of real farmers. Its pretty amazing how land speculators (and we need to include Jeremy Clarkson there) have hijacked the debate. Perhaps because labour started off with the debate couched in terms of small farmers trying to hang on to farms. Whereas I dont believe its about that at all.
There are too some truly farcical things happening, like claims if land leaves the hands of a family farm it will stop producing food.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 23, 2024 17:20:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 23, 2024 17:30:04 GMT
I think there is an obverse to your first sentence-opposition to control of immigration comes in several overlapping categories. It would be interesting to debate those for a change. But that's not the purpose of this response to you. Interesting thought! I had a friend who once said he thought there should be free movement of people all over the world thereby potentially unlimited immigration into the UK, but really not sure he had thought that one through. I suppose the thinking being that we then become equally responsible for everyone on the planet and wealth levels equalise in all countries. Nothing I'd like more than people to live in the country and society that bests suits them but that assumes a level playing field on income and opportunity. I'm really not sure of the other categories because they are tolerances that haven't been tested yet so generally people who are in favour of immigration haven't reached their (in)tolerance levels to make distinctions. I imagine people strongly pro immigration still have a pecking order- usually highlighting where we have shortages such as doctors, nurses and care workers as well as refugees. I myself would prioritise refugees over any other category because they are the people who desperately need to come rather than those with an economic reason (even if that economic reason might benefit us). Your other point is complex on sickness and GDP per capita and the impact on work for young people already here plus impact on efficiencies and investment. Interestingly a stat came up on my twitter feed (admittedly from what might have been a biased right wing account) that said Sweden has just turned negative on net immigration as a deliberate policy and this was followed by how growth per capita has risen substantially there while doing so. As likely as not though this may be unconnected and different countries have different success rates depending on their economic models. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 17:32:39 GMT
Economic inactivity in UK is being compensated for by an increasing immigrant workforce. DWP this week released numbers showing that working-age adults in receipt of long-term sickness benefit number 3.8 million. Revised forecasts after last month’s budget indicate that by the end of the parliament that number will exceed 4 million, by which time the British state will be spending £63 billion pa ( +£4bn pa) on those deemed too sick to work. 2.1 per cent of GDP. An influx of workers has allowed businesses to substitute domestic for foreign labour, masking the underlying crisis of long-term sickness. Excess reliance on large amounts of foreign labour comes with costs: GDP per capita has stalled and -as you point out-public services have been put under strain. I dont really believe brits are sicker or more work shy than sundry foreigners living in their own countries. What I do believe is that low end wages have drifted further and further below mainstream decent wages. Which means employment is less and less attractive to anyone working at the bottom end. Someone may have a perfectly legitimate disability or illness, which would qualify them for benefits, but if they could continue part time working perhaps somehow adapted, if the wages were good enough then they will prefer to make an effort to work instead of just claiming benefits.
I suspect UK governments in seeking to drive down wages have shot themselves badly in the foot, because they have made working unattractive. The solution to this is not as has been the practice to keep driving down benefit levels, but to drive up wage levels. Whereas we have subsistence level benefits competing with subsistence level employment.
And at the same time this has been happening, people approaching retirement may find they have enough assets to tide them over for early retirement. Why go to work for rather low pay levels? And as that report on inherited wealth observed which I mentioned recently, if you are expecting great aunt ethel to die in the next few years and leave you a significant sum, theres not much point saving up for retirement, when she will be funding it. Might as well take retirement early.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 23, 2024 17:34:53 GMT
With regards Reforms prospects of taking Labour seats, Ultimately it depends, as I have said before on the Performance of the Govt. on making people feel better about their lives. If they succeed Reform won't dent them, if they fail such is the level of disappointment in Politics it is easy to see a the Labour Party getting a bit of a hiding. So who would benefit? I think Reform may have already Mined those from Labour who are socially conservative who are concerned about immigration above all else. Many have commented on here about Labours poor vote share at the GE, I don't think 34% is that far above Labours floor, and their votes are very efficiently distributed.
What will hold Reform back is the Quality of their MP's and Candidates. Farage is a Canny operator for sure, but not so the rest, a fairly dismal collection of to quote Cameron, 'Fruitcakes, racists and loons.' I expect they may improve their ground game by 2029, but obviously they also have no ministerial experience at all and I can't see any significant defections coming their way. Their 2024 manifesto really was back of a fag packet stuff, and it was rather embarrassing to blame your awful Candidates on the failure of the vetting company when you didn't realise you had only bought the software licence and were supposed to do the vetting yourself! I wouldn't fancy Dickie Tice as Home Secretary would you?
If the Conservative party under Ms. Badenoch move right that might peel off some Reform voters, but will in equal measure fail to recover the soft Tories who peeled off to the Lib Dems or stayed at home. The Right in the UK are split for the first time in my lifetime, and it is difficult to see either Party of the Right seeing the other off at the moment
The real fright for the LoC parties would be a pact between The Conservatives and Reform, but if that Occurred you might see something similar between Labour, Lib Dems, and the Greens, that really would be a battle for the Soul of the Nation.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 17:34:57 GMT
Somewhere in the settings for the meter you should be able to set what you want your budget to be. Indeed, but what even is a realistic level? I dont even really care. Some days I need heat because I shall be at home and some I dont. How can that be programmed as regards budgeting. Obviously i save money by being out and not needing heat, but the device isnt telling me anything there. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 23, 2024 17:39:32 GMT
Somewhere in the settings for the meter you should be able to set what you want your budget to be. Indeed, but what even is a realistic level? I dont even really care. Some days I need heat because I shall be at home and some I dont. How can that be programmed as regards budgeting. Obviously i save money by being out and not needing heat, but the device isnt telling me anything there. I have Scottish Power as my provider, I find the app (on my phone) linked to my Smart Meter far more informative in terms of monitoring energy usage. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 23, 2024 17:45:25 GMT
I think there is an obverse to your first sentence-opposition to control of immigration comes in several overlapping categories. It would be interesting to debate those for a change. But that's not the purpose of this response to you. Interesting thought! I had a friend who once said he thought there should be free movement of people all over the world thereby potentially unlimited immigration into the UK, but really not sure he had thought that one through. The Liberal dream that kinda pertained before the First World War. There’s been some on here who lean in that direction. Free movement of people, goods, capital etc. Wonder how many on here would reject that state of affairs? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 17:47:02 GMT
Ftom the link "The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable. “The data on historic claims are a much more reliable guide to the number of affected estates than surveys of farm sizes,” he said. It seems to me government figures are likely to OVER estimate numbers affected. They are estimating based upon how many historically have made claims which would not now be allowed. But alternative methods exist to avoid the tax, and it is to be expected many now potentially affected will make use of them. There might be a transition effect for those where its too late to give away assets, but in general the result might be very few indeed actually pay more tax. if this forces speculators out of farm land as an investment (and hence they avoid the tax by not owning land), then thats great news for farmers. Incidentally, from what I know of farmers, they would swear blind they need an inheritance tax rebate so their son can inherit. Knowing all along there isnt a snowballs chance he will take it on, but they just want to keep the extra money. Not stupid, farmers. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 23, 2024 17:48:46 GMT
Indeed, but what even is a realistic level? I dont even really care. Some days I need heat because I shall be at home and some I dont. How can that be programmed as regards budgeting. Obviously i save money by being out and not needing heat, but the device isnt telling me anything there. I have Scottish Power as my provider, I find the app (on my phone) linked to my Smart Meter far more informative in terms of monitoring energy usage. But then they use the monitoring to mess with you, work out when you most need energy to charge you more, and then use the monitoring to profile you and send you targeted messages generated by AI to make you use more energy and to vote Reform, or LibDem, depending on who’s paying.. \redpill |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 23, 2024 18:00:13 GMT
I have Scottish Power as my provider, I find the app (on my phone) linked to my Smart Meter far more informative in terms of monitoring energy usage. But then they use the monitoring to mess with you, work out when you most need energy to have you pay more, and then use the monitoring to profile you and send you targeted messages generated by AI to make you use more energy and to vote Reform, or LibDem, depending on who’s paying.. \redpill Oh shit! Voting for them really would be the pits! |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 23, 2024 18:07:28 GMT
colin - "Liz Kendall's Pathways to Work plan is going to address this." Seriously doubt it, unless and until the government addresses one of the major underlying causes; you can't introduce a severe novel virus with known long term health consequences that are as yet incurable into general circulation and expect the workforce to stay healthy.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 18:13:03 GMT
Colin Re cop 29 when you have the worlds 4 largest polluters America China Russia and India refusing to stop fossil fuel production and the rest of the Western world bulking at the huge sums involved in achieving net zero you begin to realise how unrealistic all those previous COP conferences were. It’s difficult to see no matter how you view climate change how any of the deadline dates from previous COP meetings are going to be delivered on time or even if there is the political will to do so. I suspect we will see the normal fudge and dates put back to the mid 2030’s and beyond as countries implement net zero if that is even achievable at different speeds. I know here in the states there is little appetite for net zero amongst the public as the US owes much of its prosperity to being self sufficient in fossil produced energy. China is one othose leading the switch to renewbales, if not THE leader. And the reason why seems to be because it is a centralised state and understands renewables are cheaper in the long run. So it has taken a hard business based decision that as a country it will benefit by seeing it through, but at a timetable which suits it not the arbitrary one compromised at COP. Whereas the west has no central national interest, or at least its governments refuse to take control. Instead eg oil companies want to keep pumping for as long as they can to maximise profits. Generators with coal plant see no point in closing it all the time its making a profit. The chinese have pragmatically been investing in renewables because it saves money. Hence it will have support, or at least not opposition. I dont know how far that takes us if we reach the limit of cost savings. No one seems to have created an implementable method for the last step of major energy storage. |
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,021
|
Post by colin on Nov 23, 2024 18:13:13 GMT
I think there is an obverse to your first sentence-opposition to control of immigration comes in several overlapping categories. It would be interesting to debate those for a change. But that's not the purpose of this response to you. Interesting thought! I had a friend who once said he thought there should be free movement of people all over the world thereby potentially unlimited immigration into the UK, but really not sure he had thought that one through. I suppose the thinking being that we then become equally responsible for everyone on the planet and wealth levels equalise in all countries. Nothing I'd like more than people to live in the country and society that bests suits them but that assumes a level playing field on income and opportunity. I'm really not sure of the other categories because they are tolerances that haven't been tested yet so generally people who are in favour of immigration haven't reached their (in)tolerance levels to make distinctions. I imagine people strongly pro immigration still have a pecking order- usually highlighting where we have shortages such as doctors, nurses and care workers as well as refugees. I myself would prioritise refugees over any other category because they are the people who desperately need to come rather than those with an economic reason (even if that economic reason might benefit us). Your other point is complex on sickness and GDP per capita and the impact on work for young people already here plus impact on efficiencies and investment. Interestingly a stat came up on my twitter feed (admittedly from what might have been a biased right wing account) that said Sweden has just turned negative on net immigration as a deliberate policy and this was followed by how growth per capita has risen substantially there while doing so. As likely as not though this may be unconnected and different countries have different success rates depending on their economic models. My categories would be * People like your friend. Idealist One World believers . Internationalist who think the Nation State is an outdated barrier to World Government. Ergo people should be able to go where they want. They never seem to bother about the absence of a local government in a place where everyone wants to go ! * People who sort of believe that all undocumented migrants must be fleeing from something and , ipso facto, are all refugees. They should all be granted entry and the State should spend whatever is required on Public Services and Infrastructure to accommodate the population increase. I would say the next category would be people who agree that some of the migrants in the previous category might be economic migrants and have no automatic right of entry as a refugee. So with this category you move towards accepting the need for immigration controls. I will have a look for stuff on Sweden. That sounds interesting. |
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,021
|
Post by colin on Nov 23, 2024 18:16:14 GMT
colin - "Liz Kendall's Pathways to Work plan is going to address this." Seriously doubt it, unless and until the government addresses one of the major underlying causes; you can't introduce a severe novel virus with known long term health consequences that are as yet incurable into general circulation and expect the workforce to stay healthy. I think this one is a particularly difficult one for a Labour administration. There will be clashes between political belief and economic necessity. But it is a massive problem which Reeves needs to have sorted by someone. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 18:33:13 GMT
colin - "Liz Kendall's Pathways to Work plan is going to address this." Seriously doubt it, unless and until the government addresses one of the major underlying causes; you can't introduce a severe novel virus with known long term health consequences that are as yet incurable into general circulation and expect the workforce to stay healthy. I think this one is a particularly difficult one for a Labour administration. There will be clashes between political belief and economic necessity. But it is a massive problem which Reeves needs to have sorted by someone. Today I was in town, where one guy serving in a shop was explaining how he was as sick as a dog yesterday. While i was coughing and snuffling my way around. Its business as usual, not that stay at home nonsense. |
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,021
|
Post by colin on Nov 23, 2024 18:48:44 GMT
shevii This is as brief an explanation of the Swedish situation as i can find :- "These include far stricter asylum legislation and tougher rules on family members joining immigrants already in Sweden. In addition, the government has proposed new initiatives to deport or repatriate migrants (including using financial incentives) and to increase its powers to revoke residence permits. The government also wants to greatly reduce the number of low-skilled laborers moving to Sweden. It’s introducing a new immigration law that only gives work permits to immigrants who earn a monthly salary of at least 80% of the median Swedish salary," Of course all this policy u turn results from the gang violence and organized crime plaguing low-income, immigrant communities in Sweden which had become intolerable to their voters. I read a reference to a new political mantra over there-progressive realism. I hope Reeves is reading up on that !
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 23, 2024 19:43:04 GMT
Danny - "Today I was in town, where one guy serving in a shop was explaining how he was as sick as a dog yesterday. While i was coughing and snuffling my way around. Its business as usual, not that stay at home nonsense." Except that after a long term downward trend, since 2020 2.5% of the UK workforce are now so sick they cannot do any productive paid employment.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 23, 2024 19:43:41 GMT
Ruble loses another 3% in a day. Looks like the threat of hyperinflation is returning to Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 23, 2024 20:30:53 GMT
shevii This is as brief an explanation of the Swedish situation as i can find :- "These include far stricter asylum legislation and tougher rules on family members joining immigrants already in Sweden. In addition, the government has proposed new initiatives to deport or repatriate migrants (including using financial incentives) and to increase its powers to revoke residence permits. The government also wants to greatly reduce the number of low-skilled laborers moving to Sweden. It’s introducing a new immigration law that only gives work permits to immigrants who earn a monthly salary of at least 80% of the median Swedish salary," Of course all this policy u turn results from the gang violence and organized crime plaguing low-income, immigrant communities in Sweden which had become intolerable to their voters. I read a reference to a new political mantra over there-progressive realism. I hope Reeves is reading up on that ! Seems quite harsh, although to be fair the UK has similar types of rules on earnings just not as severe but certainly not "encouraging" people to leave. I was more interested in the (possibly right wing) theory that less immigration can have a positive impact on GDP per capita with Sweden as the practical example. I doubt this can be proved either way as GDP is not an exact science to begin with and we know a lot of stuff included in GDP is rather silly at least in terms of "good" GDP. There's also the question of timing differences in economic cycles, as well as trying to match one particular policy to GDP in the first place. I think we can accept that in general terms immigrants pay their way beyond the average person (subject to additional infrastructure requirements) but it's the hidden issues for people already here where they might have to accept lower wages than they would otherwise have and the difficult to quantify changes that might force employers to invest more in efficiency investments and training so more help for someone with lower starting qualifications. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 23, 2024 21:15:35 GMT
I read a reference to a new political mantra over there-progressive realism. I hope Reeves is reading up on that ! She might have been busy amending her CV… |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 23, 2024 23:46:30 GMT
I'm not going to say much regarding the C word, but on a pure statistical note, the very first paragraph of that report says: "Previous diagnostic studies estimated that 7 percent of the population suffers from long COVID. However, a new study using an AI tool developed by Mass General Brigham indicates a significantly higher rate of 22.8 percent."Seriously!? Nearly one in four of the population is suffering from long Covid!!? I find that very, very difficult to believe! That, or I live in a part of the country which is very different to the statistical average. (And since it's greater London I doubt that is true.) Anecdotally, (and extremely roughly) I'd estimate that about half the people I know have had Covid at least once, and in the vast majority of cases their health to all intents and purposes seems no different now to the pre-Covid period. That's not to say I don't know one or two people who may have justification for claiming long-Covid....... but 22.8% of the population!!? Come on! I've just been for my annual health checkup, and found so many of the questions pretty stupid and impossible to answer sensibly. eg Exercise and alcohol intake as two examples. I could appreciate broad questions along the lines of "do you drink a lot of alcohol, a little, or are you teetotal?", but the level of detail being asked was absurd. How do you answer "how many units do you drink per week"? The obvious answer is coming up to Christmas, with a few parties, quite a lot, but most weeks very little. Not good enough. The computer demanded a numerical figure. (So I made something up.) And it made me think about the validity of a lot of learned studies, and the conclusions from them. It doesn't matter if the results are calculated by the latest and most sophisticated AI tool - put garbage in and you get garbage out. And that's most true of any study that relies on nebulous self reporting, rather than hard test results. At some point, in any scientific research, it's necessary to take a step back and ask if the results are at all believable. In this case, they are so far from my own real life experience that I question them very strongly. |
|
|
|
Post by turk on Nov 24, 2024 0:11:53 GMT
Colin
Sorry to take so long to get back to your question on Reform had to go out.
I think Reforms future projectory depends on a few things . I would say the Badenoch has 4 yrs to make an impression on the voters she’s got of to a good start we have seen the Tories do reasonably well in local elections and even lead in the national polls a couple of times ,both of which are very surprising considering there disastrous defeat just a few months ago. If she can make her presence felt this will weaken both Reform and Labour.
As to whether Reform can replace Labour again it depends on a couple of factors the first being immigration certainly in some traditional Labour seats it would only take the continuing numbers coming across the channel to either stay the same or continue to increase for Reform to start overtaking Labour in some area’s ,especially those area’s who traditionally have been largely ignored by political parties on both sides. They are certainly a breeding ground for the simplistic policies of Reform which strike a cord with them as they see immigrants getting more from the state than they have in there lives.
The other thing is at present Labour have had a fairly catastrophic start to there time in office especially with the pensioners and farmers they’ve picked a argument with some of the most vulnerable people in society and whist Starmer grand stands on the world stage they are losing support at home with Reeves disastrous budget. This can be seen as Starmers ratings have plummeted and Farage’s have risen and Reform make some headway in local elections.
The only caveat I would say with Reform is it is still very much a one man band if Farage stays as leader for the next four years then it’s very possible Reform will pick up seats from both political parties if he leaves to come to the US then Reform will wither away. But if he stays Reform in the next GE could take more seats from Labour rather than the Tories as many Labour voters would never vote for the Tories but would vote Reform as a party of the working class and fill the gap that Labour abandon long ago of supporting or even caring about the vulnerable and disenfranchised people in society.
But at the end of the day it will still be the economy that wins if Labour get the economy moving and things begin to look and feel better they will form the next government probably with a reduced majority but still in power with possibly Reform just behind the Tories ,but first passed the post is a bugger so we will see.
It’s difficult to predict the future of U.K. politics but I wouldn’t be surprised if voter party loyalty disappears almost completely and voting outcomes become much more volatile ,I see a future with voters changing from party to party with little regard for what political party they vote for as long as that party holds some hope for the future and if they don’t deliver it quickly out they go. We live in a age of instant gratification people rarely look at anything long term and even less so these days and unfortunately the west including the U.K. doesn’t seem to have any real political leaders of stature or vision so it’s easier for a political charlatan like Farage to make headway.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,552
|
Post by neilj on Nov 24, 2024 6:19:01 GMT
Bluesky are now on 22 million plus users and still growing strong thehill.com/policy/technology/5004967-elon-musk-donald-trump-alliance-democrats-x-bluesky/Nearly 1 million users have signed up for Bluesky each day over the past week as the social networking website thrives in the wake of a liberal exodus from X. Many users either quitting X or deactivating their accounts cited a “toxic” or “disturbing” environment, in part blaming Musk’s leadership and promotion of certain political stances. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 24, 2024 8:09:55 GMT
lens - "Seriously!? Nearly one in four of the population is suffering from long Covid!!? I find that very, very difficult to believe!" Well that's what the data is saying, here and pretty much everywhere else. What I suspect is happening here is that many people (understandably, given the media coverage) have assumed that 'long covid' means being confined to your bed, unable to walk to the end of the street, having to avoid bright lights, constant pain etc etc. The kind of miserable (and very real) cases that we see occasionally on news features about particularly unlucky individuals who have a debilitating, severe and completely incurable version of the disease. What is far less understood is that there are now over 200 individual conditions known to have a clear epidemiological relationship with covid infection (and increasingly a known causal relationship too, as the science moves on) so there are millions of people with new onset conditions where the balance of probability is that they wouldn't be suffering from these conditions if they hadn't contracted covid. The 22% is the mid range of the estimates, and is in my view probably about where we are. Covid is a persistent infection in many people, with the spike protein identified in non-symptomatic patients for 2 years post infection in some research cases. It's likely that many people are carrying replicating covid somewhere in their organs way beyond the acute phase and the 10 - 15 days a PCR test shows as positive, and the result in many cases is an ongoing chronic persistent inflammation. This is why we are seeing a sharp rise in cardiac disease, arthritis, and a number of mental health conditions related to brain inflammation. Gut issues are also very prevalent (one for c-a-r-f-r-e-w) with the IBS society saying they have seen a sharp rise in new cases plus a clear worsening of existing symptoms as part of the pandemic. In the last week it's being reported widely that some people find they can't tolerate any alcohol after a covid bout. That's likely liver damage, and that's another case of long covid. The evidence is all around, but too many, both public and professionals, are saying things like "I find that very, very difficult to believe!" I personally know 5 friends of family with moderate to severe conditions that doctors have related to covid (heart, liver, prolonged severe sinus infection, paralysed vocal chords leading to 4 month loss of voice, hospitalised sepsis). I have three other friends/family who required hospital treatment (pneumonia, liver related issues (2)) after infection but which may or may not have been related to covid. The figures on new onset conditions following covid are pretty staggering, and while I've regularly detailed a fraction of the mountain of evidence here, there is still a massive resistance to opening our eyes to see what is actually going on.
|
|
