RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 11:07 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 6:52 pm Labour have lost a lot of their lead to the Tories and Reform in only 2 months. Way to go Starmer. Promise change then follow the same Tory plan and tell everyone things are going to get worse. Genius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

He's doing exactly what he said he would plus what the oppo said he would as well.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 4:52 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 11:07 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 6:52 pm Labour have lost a lot of their lead to the Tories and Reform in only 2 months. Way to go Starmer. Promise change then follow the same Tory plan and tell everyone things are going to get worse. Genius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

He's doing exactly what he said he would plus what the oppo said he would as well.

Yeah. To anyone who looked reasonably closely, I agree. I'm certainly not surprised.

But to most people - those not following politics - he promised change. Hence the rapid disappointment.

All great news for Farage. The people have seen how bad the Tories were. If Labour are not much different they'll turn to Farage and his bullshit easy answers.

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 9:08 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 4:52 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 11:07 am

He's doing exactly what he said he would plus what the oppo said he would as well.

Yeah. To anyone who looked reasonably closely, I agree. I'm certainly not surprised.

But to most people - those not following politics - he promised change. Hence the rapid disappointment.

All great news for Farage. The people have seen how bad the Tories were. If Labour are not much different they'll turn to Farage and his bullshit easy answers.

Give it 2 years. With the majority he has, polls are meaningless right now.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 9:46 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 9:08 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 4:52 pm
Yeah. To anyone who looked reasonably closely, I agree. I'm certainly not surprised.

But to most people - those not following politics - he promised change. Hence the rapid disappointment.

All great news for Farage. The people have seen how bad the Tories were. If Labour are not much different they'll turn to Farage and his bullshit easy answers.

Give it 2 years. With the majority he has, polls are meaningless right now.

He's got five years to get lucky on the economy while hoping that Farage continues to split the right vote without taking over the right.

Bad start though. You'd expect a honeymoon period for a few months at least, not an immediate fall off.

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 9:22 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 9:46 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 9:08 pm

Give it 2 years. With the majority he has, polls are meaningless right now.

He's got five years to get lucky on the economy while hoping that Farage continues to split the right vote without taking over the right.

Bad start though. You'd expect a honeymoon period for a few months at least, not an immediate fall off.

This is politics in 2024.

All this handwringing is pointless.

He will make some unpopular decisions because he can. He’s being blamed for all kind of things he has no control over. They’ve made a couple of silly decisions. It’ll pass, it’s not a problem.

It’s more of a problem if he gets sidetracked following the polls.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 9:47 am https://www.theguardian.com/society/art ... des-survey

Hmmm, I wonder what could possibly have happened since 2013 to reduce people's pride in our nation, democracy, political influence etc?

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 9:56 amWokism.

Britain’s history – in particular its conduct as an imperial power, including its prominent role in the transatlantic slave trade – has come under more critical scrutiny in recent years, fuelling culture wars where the right has blamed “woke” views in educational and cultural institutions for supposedly undermining national pride.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 9:55 am

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 9:22 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 9:46 pm
He's got five years to get lucky on the economy while hoping that Farage continues to split the right vote without taking over the right.

Bad start though. You'd expect a honeymoon period for a few months at least, not an immediate fall off.

This is politics in 2024.

All this handwringing is pointless.

He will make some unpopular decisions because he can. He’s being blamed for all kind of things he has no control over. They’ve made a couple of silly decisions. It’ll pass, it’s not a problem.

It’s more of a problem if he gets sidetracked following the polls.

Agreed. There's not going to be a honeymoon period when his opening moves are to depress expectations and say the country's in a horrible hole left by the opposition, but polls are utterly irrelevant to him with our electoral system. He has 5 years of nigh guaranteed power, regardless of what his popularity is now.

My major concern is that he's not making enough bold decisions, but is instead continuing on with the austerity "rules" from Osbourne that fucked the economy in the first place. If he's going to make unpopular decisions, surely he's better short-term pissing off the "a country's finances are like a credit card" folks rather than opting for, "When we said 'change', what we actually meant was 'the same again' with slightly less awful people in charge of it."

Pika

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 10:01 am

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 9:56 amWokism.

Is explicitly mentioned...

Britain’s history – in particular its conduct as an imperial power, including its prominent role in the transatlantic slave trade – has come under more critical scrutiny in recent years, fuelling culture wars where the right has blamed “woke” views in educational and cultural institutions for supposedly undermining national pride.

I suppose, at least the sentiment of "slavery is a bad thing" technically IS wokery

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 1:14 pm I would say that...it's an extremely difficult balancing act. The problem with economies in this post-capitalist world is just how beholden they are to massive corporations.

So take actions to reduce poverty by increasing corp. tax and other actions that "harm" shareholder profits, and the economy tanks, causing a bigger problem.

So it's step by step and stealth changes.

It's f***ed up, for sure. But it backs "progressive" governments into a corner. I'd trust Starmer more than nearly every progressive to actually have a plan to deal with this. He's not simply a fundamentalist, but the way he's talked about his politics and how he thinks about other people in the past paints him very much as a humanist and a realist. And I think that's exactly what we need right now.

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 1:14 pm I would say that...it's an extremely difficult balancing act. The problem with economies in this post-capitalist world is just how beholden they are to massive corporations.

So take actions to reduce poverty by increasing corp. tax and other actions that "harm" shareholder profits, and the economy tanks, causing a bigger problem.

So it's step by step and stealth changes.

It's f***ed up, for sure. But it backs "progressive" governments into a corner. I'd trust Starmer more than nearly every progressive to actually have a plan to deal with this. He's not simply a fundamentalist, but the way he's talked about his politics and how he thinks about other people in the past paints him very much as a humanist and a realist. And I think that's exactly what we need right now.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 2:16 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 1:14 pm I would say that...it's an extremely difficult balancing act. The problem with economies in this post-capitalist world is just how beholden they are to massive corporations.

So take actions to reduce poverty by increasing corp. tax and other actions that "harm" shareholder profits, and the economy tanks, causing a bigger problem.

So it's step by step and stealth changes.

It's f***ed up, for sure. But it backs "progressive" governments into a corner. I'd trust Starmer more than nearly every progressive to actually have a plan to deal with this. He's not simply a fundamentalist, but the way he's talked about his politics and how he thinks about other people in the past paints him very much as a humanist and a realist. And I think that's exactly what we need right now.

Post-capitalist? When did it stop being a capitalist world?

Yeah, well I don't think the economy tanks if you tax the corporations a bit more (although my focus would be on taxing the rich directly, not via their corporate shareholdings). I really don't think progressives are backed into a corner. More likely that Starmer really isn't much of a progressive.

Anyway we'll see how it goes in the budget.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:14 am If economics shouldn't be driven by politics, what should it be driven by? Moral purity?

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 3:08 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 2:16 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 1:14 pm I would say that...it's an extremely difficult balancing act. The problem with economies in this post-capitalist world is just how beholden they are to massive corporations.

So take actions to reduce poverty by increasing corp. tax and other actions that "harm" shareholder profits, and the economy tanks, causing a bigger problem.

So it's step by step and stealth changes.

It's f***ed up, for sure. But it backs "progressive" governments into a corner. I'd trust Starmer more than nearly every progressive to actually have a plan to deal with this. He's not simply a fundamentalist, but the way he's talked about his politics and how he thinks about other people in the past paints him very much as a humanist and a realist. And I think that's exactly what we need right now.

Post-capitalist? When did it stop being a capitalist world?

Yeah, well I don't think the economy tanks if you tax the corporations a bit more (although my focus would be on taxing the rich directly, not via their corporate shareholdings). I really don't think progressives are backed into a corner. More likely that Starmer really isn't much of a progressive.

Anyway we'll see how it goes in the budget.

Well, it’s really Neo capitalism, but it stopped being a capitalist society sometime in the 2000s or early 2010s, because capitalism can’t exist with monopolies or oligopolies, and we definitely exist in that world now.

The “rich” aren’t the problem. The problem is corporations. But they wield too much influence over economies, so we need to be careful

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 9:42 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 3:08 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 2:16 pm
Post-capitalist? When did it stop being a capitalist world?

Yeah, well I don't think the economy tanks if you tax the corporations a bit more (although my focus would be on taxing the rich directly, not via their corporate shareholdings). I really don't think progressives are backed into a corner. More likely that Starmer really isn't much of a progressive.

Anyway we'll see how it goes in the budget.

Well, it’s really Neo capitalism, but it stopped being a capitalist society sometime in the 2000s or early 2010s, because capitalism can’t exist with monopolies or oligopolies, and we definitely exist in that world now.

The “rich” aren’t the problem. The problem is corporations. But they wield too much influence over economies, so we need to be careful

Yeah, well we probably shouldn't waste too much time arguing over these terms. I think capitalism is generally considered to be a broad category including any system based on private ownership of capital and its operation for profit. Capitalism can certainly exist with monopolies and oligopolies because it still fits that definition. Also, do you really think monopolies and oligopolies only appeared this century? They've always existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

What we have now, as the dominant model of capitalism, is neoliberalism, which broadly took control in the 80s, with Reagan and Thatcher: the idea that markets are free and will deliver the best solutions, so should be unregulated and the state should do as little as possible.

Re corporations, I don't disagree that they are a massive problem - too powerful, monopolistic, unregulated, influential over politics etc. My point is about raising tax revenue, not about regulating corporations (which absolutely needs to be done better). However, I disagree that the rich (separate from their corporations) aren't a problem - if they can buy politicians or fund think tanks (or have an obscenely large carbon footprint) then they are a problem.

The problem with trying to raise revenue by increasing corporation tax is that the rich who control the companies will simply pay themselves more through salaries (rather than through dividends or share issues), and thus get taxed more via income tax rather than corporation tax. (NB I'm not saying I'm against corporation tax but I don't think it's the main answer).

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 12:04 pm It looks like it'll be between Jenrick and one of Badenoch and Cleverly.

Jenrick is a shapeshifting nobody, whose only memorable action as a minister was a demonstration of corruption.

Badenoch should never have power over anyone. I might trust her not to bully a spreadsheet.

I guess Cleverly is the least awful option.

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 12:32 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 12:04 pm It looks like it'll be between Jenrick and one of Badenoch and Cleverly.

Jenrick is a shapeshifting nobody, whose only memorable action as a minister was a demonstration of corruption.

Badenoch should never have power over anyone. I might trust her not to bully a spreadsheet.

I guess Cleverly is the least awful option.

That's been a theme of the Tory leadership elections - every time you end up supporting someone who in the last leadership election was one of your "Absolutely the fuck not" people, but this time is now the least awful option.

Puja

Tory health reforms left UK open to Covid calamity, says top doctor’s report

Britain’s pandemic response was among the worst and the NHS had been ‘seriously weakened’, says leading surgeon

Britain was hit far harder by the Covid-19 pandemic than other developed countries because the NHS had been “seriously weakened” by disastrous government policies over the preceding decade, a wide-ranging report will conclude this week.

An assessment of the NHS by the world-renowned surgeon Prof Ara Darzi, commissioned in July by the health secretary, Wes Streeting, will find that the health service reduced its “routine healthcare activity by a far greater percentage than other health systems” in many key areas during the Covid crisis.

Hip and knee replacements, for instance, fell by 46% and 68% respectively. Hospital discharges as a whole dropped by 18% between 2019 and 2020 in the UK compared with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 10%, Lord Darzi will say.

In a key section of his report, the crossbench peer will also conclude that the NHS is still suffering the aftereffects of its inability to respond adequately to the Covid shock at the time.

“The state of the NHS today cannot be understood without recognising quite how much care was cancelled, discontinued, or postponed during the pandemic … The pandemic’s impact was magnified because the NHS had been seriously weakened in the decade preceding its onset.”

ARTICLE CONTINUES