Snap General Election called

[Digby]

Of course seeing as she's yet to pay an serious taxation we'll have to wait and see how strong that lusting for socialism is in another 10 years

Her views of socialism might also depend on whether she thinks government is there mainly for her benefit or for the benefit of society at large.

it is possible to pay a lot of tax and also like socialism.

I don't discount the minority opinion, not least as I favour a reasonably high taxation level myself. Though I don't remotely want to touch socialism with a barge pole

[Puja]

Of course seeing as she's yet to pay an serious taxation we'll have to wait and see how strong that lusting for socialism is in another 10 years

Her views of socialism might also depend on whether she thinks government is there mainly for her benefit or for the benefit of society at large.

it is possible to pay a lot of tax and also like socialism.

I don't discount the minority opinion, not least as I favour a reasonably high taxation level myself. Though I don't remotely want to touch socialism with a barge pole

Out of interest, how do you define socialism?

Puja

[Digby]

Her views of socialism might also depend on whether she thinks government is there mainly for her benefit or for the benefit of society at large.

it is possible to pay a lot of tax and also like socialism.

I don't discount the minority opinion, not least as I favour a reasonably high taxation level myself. Though I don't remotely want to touch socialism with a barge pole

Out of interest, how do you define socialism?

Puja

Given we're in a market economy I would assume we'd be talking about social ownership, not a progression toward communism. But I'm a fan of private ownership, albeit a strongly regulated, outside certain national utility services

[Banquo]

That's true all around though. Everyone's realised that you can promise and say anything you like, because news spreads faster than fact checking nowadays.

There should be a law against politicians and media spreading verifiable falsehoods, with the first repetition necessitating public withdrawal of the statement, and punishments escalating if the lie is repeated.

Puja

Oh yes. But scale of promises is important too.

Indeed.

Got a belting example of being able to say whatever the hell you like today. Labour announce a policy of grants and interest free loans for home energy saving upgrades, which is costed as £60bn public outlay with the idea that it would stimulate construction and industries that make things like solar panels, heat pumps, insulation, etc and be an overall boost to the economy, as well as reducing bills and giving us a hope in hell of meeting our emissions targets. It's a really good policy.

Conservative response? "Independent experts and even Labour's own unions say their promises don't stack up. The reality is that Jeremy Corbyn's plans would wreck the economy, putting up bills for hardworking families - and preventing any real progress on climate change. Only Boris Johnson and the Conservatives have a proper plan to continue reducing carbon emissions faster than any other G20 country, building on the 400,000 low-carbon jobs we've already created, while keeping bills low."

You will not be surprised to learn that no independent experts or Labour's own unions have made a comment on this, let alone saying that it doesn't stack up. The second sentence is just saying the opposite of whatever Labour have said, "Corbyn says his plan will stimulate the economy, reduce bills, and help fight against climate change - the truth is that he will wreck the economy, raise bills, and burn the planet, and do it deliberately too, the communist fucker!" And then the last bit is the icing on the cake, saying that Boris has a plan to reduce carbon emission, when what they in fact have is a target which we are currently due to sail airily by.

Puja

How is the 60 bn public outlay funded, out of interest, and over what period? I also understand it’s a free uplift for some people- who and how decided?— but loans for others (how repaid?). The idea sounds attractive, but the detail matters. At least Labour are trying to float new ideas mind.

[Banquo]

Looked it up; 60 bn comes from a 250 bn ‘transformation fund’; coincidentally that’s also the estimated 10 year cost of the program (though that seems to be a guess). The remainder will be interest free loans (which I assume the govt will have to provide). This goes alongside the 190 bn ‘allocated’ for privatisation. That’s quite a lot of tax to find, though the housing scheme would hopefully generate incremental income and corporation tax.

[Digby]

Also why those spends, are they the best returns for the economy and environment, or do they think they're politically popular?

[Puja]

Also why those spends, are they the best returns for the economy and environment, or do they think they're politically popular?

For the environment, this is absolutely one of the best policies that they can do. We stand zero chance of reducing our emissions enough to hit targets with the housing stock that we have and this, plus other policies announced alongside today regarding new standards for new build houses which will stage to eventually them all being required to be carbon neutral, is a major thing that needs doing.

For the economy, eh maybe. He's right in that it will create massive demand in construction industries and the jobs created would be massive, but we're already short on skilled construction workers - if we stay in the EU, then we're likely to be importing a lot of them, and if we leave, it's a hell of an ask to magic them up from nowhere. Coupled with a massive apprenticeship and training/retraining program then it could be done, but that's more money (albiet leaving us with skilled workers that would improve our productivity.

Investing in infrastructure using borrowing when interest rates are low is classic demand-side economics (pretty much the direct opposite of austerity!) and has a long and storied history of working well. And this is something which needs doing, so overall I think it's a great policy, depending on implementation.

Puja

[Puja]

How is the 60 bn public outlay funded, out of interest, and over what period? I also understand it’s a free uplift for some people- who and how decided?— but loans for others (how repaid?). The idea sounds attractive, but the detail matters. At least Labour are trying to float new ideas mind.

I know you found some of the answers yourself, but the answer to who gets the freebie is means tested and and the loans are designed as repaid from some of the savings on the energy bills. It's on a similar basis to the system that's currently running in Scotland just on a much bigger scale.

Puja

[Banquo]

How is the 60 bn public outlay funded, out of interest, and over what period? I also understand it’s a free uplift for some people- who and how decided?— but loans for others (how repaid?). The idea sounds attractive, but the detail matters. At least Labour are trying to float new ideas mind.

I know you found some of the answers yourself, but the answer to who gets the freebie is means tested and and the loans are designed as repaid from some of the savings on the energy bills. It's on a similar basis to the system that's currently running in Scotland just on a much bigger scale.

Puja

Means testing is always a popular thing .

This is a massive project- interesting to see who is onside to start delivering. We all know how well government driven projects go....the idea is good in principle.

[Puja]

How is the 60 bn public outlay funded, out of interest, and over what period? I also understand it’s a free uplift for some people- who and how decided?— but loans for others (how repaid?). The idea sounds attractive, but the detail matters. At least Labour are trying to float new ideas mind.

I know you found some of the answers yourself, but the answer to who gets the freebie is means tested and and the loans are designed as repaid from some of the savings on the energy bills. It's on a similar basis to the system that's currently running in Scotland just on a much bigger scale.

Puja

Means testing is always a popular thing .

This is a massive project- interesting to see who is onside to start delivering. We all know how well government driven projects go....the idea is good in principle.

It does have the advantage over most government projects in that they're just providing the funding for the market to provide the execution, so there's fewer points of government failure.

The new build regulations are just as important IMO - it is mental that new developments are being built without solar panels, heat pumps and insulation, if for nothing other than the country's future energy security. Textbook case of the market needing to be nudged with legislation to move from making what's best for the individual/company to what's best overall.

The real trick that all parties are going to have to try and pull is the promising of new house building. It's an idea that every voter agrees needs doing, but as soon as you suggest doing it next door to them, it's an outrage.

Puja

[Banquo]

I know you found some of the answers yourself, but the answer to who gets the freebie is means tested and and the loans are designed as repaid from some of the savings on the energy bills. It's on a similar basis to the system that's currently running in Scotland just on a much bigger scale.

Puja

Means testing is always a popular thing .

This is a massive project- interesting to see who is onside to start delivering. We all know how well government driven projects go....the idea is good in principle.

It does have the advantage over most government projects in that they're just providing the funding for the market to provide the execution, so there's fewer points of government failure.

The new build regulations are just as important IMO - it is mental that new developments are being built without solar panels, heat pumps and insulation, if for nothing other than the country's future energy security. Textbook case of the market needing to be nudged with legislation to move from making what's best for the individual/company to what's best overall.

The real trick that all parties are going to have to try and pull is the promising of new house building. It's an idea that every voter agrees needs doing, but as soon as you suggest doing it next door to them, it's an outrage.

Puja

So I'm guessing it will be akin (in delivery) to the housing pack work for house moves that was initiated (then stopped) by the govt about 10 years ago? In providing the funding, I'm assuming thats raised by tax hikes (along with all the other spending commitments)? Looks like both Labour and Conservative are going to promise cash splurges, so be fascinated to see if either even attempts to balance the books.

agreed on the legislation- given that we are actually doing a decent job on fossil fuel energy generation already, its a straightforward add on. I guess there is a problem on solar panel payback, but think we need to suck that up.

[Mikey Brown]

I will note that it's worthwhile being wary of some of the tactical voting sites. I've seen a couple where they recommend the Lib Dems a lot, often on scant evidence, and one where they recommend you should vote Labour in my constituency where the choice is basically between Lib Dem and Conservatives.

Yes, that's fair. Suspect some might be fakes set up by the Russian bot factories.
I think GetVoting.org is the main one (set up by Best For Britain)

Either way, don't trust any that don't show their working (Get Voting doesn't show their working, interestingly - they did for the European Elections)

Get Voting is the major one that I've heard of! Recommends voting for Chukka Ummuna in Westminster despite Lib Dems being nowhere in 2017. Mind, there's a decent argument that previous form is irrelevant given the recent upheaval and that polls should be considered more relevant. Then again, this is a belting example of the troubles with that (read the small print under the graph!):



Tactical.vote looks pretty good and shows its working (apostrophe is important in this sentence).

Puja

Quite funny to watch her get called out on this. Not she remotely seemed to understand how it might be misleading.

[Banquo]

Feeling eerily similar to 2017 campaign so far, Labour united and making lots of popular promises, Tories with crap election slogans and tone deaf.

[Stom]

Feeling eerily similar to 2017 campaign so far, Labour united and making lots of popular promises, Tories with crap election slogans and tone deaf.

Net result...hung parliament. And with Boris' deal, he can't count on DUP support, surely.

A chance for a LAB/LIB/SNP coalition, even if only brief.

Honestly, for all the shit about Labour's position, it is the one that makes the most sense. Create a "better" deal, then put it to the people.

And don't campaign on it, it's not government's place to do that.

[Banquo]

Feeling eerily similar to 2017 campaign so far, Labour united and making lots of popular promises, Tories with crap election slogans and tone deaf.

Net result...hung parliament. And with Boris' deal, he can't count on DUP support, surely.

A chance for a LAB/LIB/SNP coalition, even if only brief.

Honestly, for all the shit about Labour's position, it is the one that makes the most sense. Create a "better" deal, then put it to the people.

And don't campaign on it, it's not government's place to do that.

Campaign couldn't have started more badly for the Tories....

That said...what do think that 'chance' would actually deliver? And Labour's position is based on a pretty iffy premise tbh, and not convinced the govt shouldn't have a 'position' on EU membership.

[Stom]

Feeling eerily similar to 2017 campaign so far, Labour united and making lots of popular promises, Tories with crap election slogans and tone deaf.

Net result...hung parliament. And with Boris' deal, he can't count on DUP support, surely.

A chance for a LAB/LIB/SNP coalition, even if only brief.

Honestly, for all the shit about Labour's position, it is the one that makes the most sense. Create a "better" deal, then put it to the people.

And don't campaign on it, it's not government's place to do that.

Campaign couldn't have started more badly for the Tories....

That said...what do think that 'chance' would actually deliver? And Labour's position is based on a pretty iffy premise tbh, and not convinced the govt shouldn't have a 'position' on EU membership.

That chance would deliver something that isn't BJs deal/no deal.

There's no guarantee it'd be better.

And it'd probably result in the Tory party either completely abandoning sanity or rediscovering what is should actually be about...

Either way, it'll probably be terminal for either Corbyn or the Lib Dems.

[Digby]

Campaign couldn't have started more badly for the Tories....
.

They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

[Digby]

How is the 60 bn public outlay funded, out of interest, and over what period? I also understand it’s a free uplift for some people- who and how decided?— but loans for others (how repaid?). The idea sounds attractive, but the detail matters. At least Labour are trying to float new ideas mind.

I know you found some of the answers yourself, but the answer to who gets the freebie is means tested and and the loans are designed as repaid from some of the savings on the energy bills. It's on a similar basis to the system that's currently running in Scotland just on a much bigger scale.

Puja

Means testing is always a popular thing .

This is a massive project- interesting to see who is onside to start delivering. We all know how well government driven projects go....the idea is good in principle.

Especially when they've ballsed up the cavity walls insulation grants so badly

[Puja]

Campaign couldn't have started more badly for the Tories....
.

They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

[Digby]

Campaign couldn't have started more badly for the Tories....
.

They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

I'd merely like to say the stay put command might not have been a horrible mistake, they might have advised an evacuation and given it was a singl the stairwell with people descending in the smoke and the dark things might not have ended well anyway. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a fire safety expert and I'm loathe to judge the fire service in hindsight, even when the cladding wasn't doing what they'd expected. Essentially if the stay put command wasn't a huge mistake it might be the whole situation was simply horrible, and there wasn't a good outcome possible.

And why senior government officers are telling the public to disregard the emergency services in future I've no idea, maybe he just thinks there are votes to be had in disregarding the experts, he had some success there with Brexit, or maybe he's going to join the anti-vaxxer crowd, he seems the sort

[Puja]

They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

I'd merely like to say the stay put command might not have been a horrible mistake, they might have advised an evacuation and given it was a singl the stairwell with people descending in the smoke and the dark things might not have ended well anyway. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a fire safety expert and I'm loathe to judge the fire service in hindsight, even when the cladding wasn't doing what they'd expected. Essentially if the stay put command wasn't a huge mistake it might be the whole situation was simply horrible, and there wasn't a good outcome possible.

Good point, well made.

Puja

[Banquo]

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

I'd merely like to say the stay put command might not have been a horrible mistake, they might have advised an evacuation and given it was a singl the stairwell with people descending in the smoke and the dark things might not have ended well anyway. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a fire safety expert and I'm loathe to judge the fire service in hindsight, even when the cladding wasn't doing what they'd expected. Essentially if the stay put command wasn't a huge mistake it might be the whole situation was simply horrible, and there wasn't a good outcome possible.

Good point, well made.

Puja

There's a very good article by a reservist fireman who was at Grenfell, now retired, which takes all the emotion out of the situation, doesn't blame anyone for anything but pretty much says that.

[Sandydragon]

So Tom Watson has resigned as deputy leader of Labour and as an MP. Interesting timing and I wonder what damage it will do to Labour?

As election campaigns go, at the moment it seems to be a competition over who can shoot themselves in the foot the best. The Conservatives have unleashed JRM, how long before Dianne Abbot makes an appearance?

[Sandydragon]

They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

I'd merely like to say the stay put command might not have been a horrible mistake, they might have advised an evacuation and given it was a singl the stairwell with people descending in the smoke and the dark things might not have ended well anyway. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a fire safety expert and I'm loathe to judge the fire service in hindsight, even when the cladding wasn't doing what they'd expected. Essentially if the stay put command wasn't a huge mistake it might be the whole situation was simply horrible, and there wasn't a good outcome possible.

And why senior government officers are telling the public to disregard the emergency services in future I've no idea, maybe he just thinks there are votes to be had in disregarding the experts, he had some success there with Brexit, or maybe he's going to join the anti-vaxxer crowd, he seems the sort

The stay put instruction makes a lot of sense given the conditions you describe. If the fire had been contained but 20 people had died in a crush would the fire brigade have been blamed - damn right they would have been. From the perspective of the commander on the scene, I do understand why the change in direction was delayed so long.

The real fault here is that the building wasn’t safe. I do put some blame on the fire brigade as they should carry out fire safety inspections on buildings like that, we’re they aware of the cladding? Had they planned on how to manage a fire like that, given that there had been warnings previously about hire rise fires?

[Digby]

The stay put instruction makes a lot of sense given the conditions you describe. If the fire had been contained but 20 people had died in a crush would the fire brigade have been blamed - damn right they would have been. From the perspective of the commander on the scene, I do understand why the change in direction was delayed so long.

The real fault here is that the building wasn’t safe. I do put some blame on the fire brigade as they should carry out fire safety inspections on buildings like that, we’re they aware of the cladding? Had they planned on how to manage a fire like that, given that there had been warnings previously about hire rise fires?

Loads of problems around the building, from fire compartmentalisation, and lack of after the refit, testing materials (an ongoing problem), tracking what materials are proving unsafe and/or unfit for the task they're being assigned to from other buildings in the UK and wider across the world (and nobody seems to own this job), and of course the manufacturer of the materials. One thing I would be critical of the Fire Service around is their plans assumed their plans would work, I would hope they'll be revising that to consider what they might do in the event of a fire behaving other than as expected.

The lack of action by central government post the disaster is less than impressive, and so as a for instance building materials continue to be tested at far too a temperature