Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

Wokism.

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

Since it's difficult for anyone to say anything positive* about slavery (and the facts of it reflect so badly on the UK), almost any mention of slavery is wokery.


* that's a measure of how society has improved.

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lain-sight

I hope the upcoming budget reflects this.

[Stom]

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.

[Puja]

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.

I admire your faith and hope it is not misplaced.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

[Stom]

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

[Donny osmond]

If economics shouldn't be driven by politics, what should it be driven by? Moral purity?

[Stom]

If economics shouldn't be driven by politics, what should it be driven by? Moral purity?

Oh, it should be, but we’ve been beholden to neoliberalism for so long, the tail is wagging the dog.

Act too quickly and you risk “spooking” the markets, there can be a crash, and then you spend 4 years fighting fires and don’t get to enact any of your policies.

I might have a strongly held ideological belief, but I would rather compromise and take it slow than risk not seeing any of it become a reality.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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

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).

[Stom]

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).

Well, surely we’d want them to be paid via salary? As income tax would be 40%+ compared to substantially less for dividends, especially with the loopholes that exist for the very rich.

But that’s the trees, we need to concentrate on the forest.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Ah, the Tory leadership contest. Thoughts . . .

Who is this loathsome nobody who's oozed himself into the lead? (Yeah, it's Jenrick. But seriously he can't win this can he?)

Good to see the vile Patel out, even if she seems almost mild after Braverman.

Lovely so see the very small numbers in the vote. How many Tory MPs are there, again?

And the Tories are making a point of charging candidates to run. This is just gold. They are strapped for cash. The levels are a pitiful fraction of US sums. Look how cheaply a Tory leader can be bought!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... leadership

[Puja]

As long as Badenoch doesn't get in, I'm happy. She is the unfortunate combo of loathsome and with the potential talent that she might be able to make something out of it.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

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]

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

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

Yep, I'll be supporting Badenoch next time.

For that to be possible the opposition will have to be Farage. Or Adolf Hitler's animated corpse.

[Which Tyler]

I can't find the old thread for Covid news - I'm sure we used to have one.
Should be fine in here though, if this is going to act as the inspiration for any potential health and social care reform for Labour.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/art ... ors-report

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

[Sandydragon]

Ah, the Tory leadership contest. Thoughts . . .

Who is this loathsome nobody who's oozed himself into the lead? (Yeah, it's Jenrick. But seriously he can't win this can he?)

Good to see the vile Patel out, even if she seems almost mild after Braverman.

Lovely so see the very small numbers in the vote. How many Tory MPs are there, again?

And the Tories are making a point of charging candidates to run. This is just gold. They are strapped for cash. The levels are a pitiful fraction of US sums. Look how cheaply a Tory leader can be bought!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... leadership

He has a surprisingly good chance to become leader of the opposition and take the Conservative Party into their next electoral defeat. Shades of IDS here.

[Puja]

The Winter Fuel Payment thing is utterly baffling. Starmer has proven to be such a competent politician (and I say that without it necessarily being a compliment) and yet he's made a schoolboy error like this. It's the absolute epitome of a terrible policy - it's easily emotive to the general populace (removing the subsidy put in so that granny can afford not to freeze to death), it's hated by both left and right (cutting benefits instead of taxing energy companies vs robbing pensioners) and, worst of all, it won't actually accomplish much of anything (because any savings will be eaten up by the cost of the bureaucracy involved in means testing).

Forget the ethics of it - it's a woefully naive and ineffective policy. Makes him hated for practically no gain, either political or financial. I'm startled as to how someone so careful and ruthless in the cause of not giving the Mail or Telegraph a hint of an opening for over 4 years of Labour leadership has made such a basic error within months of getting power.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Governing’s hard. Who’d have thunk it. I think he’s got off lightly, tbh, on both this and other stuff. My favourite stat is that it will cost them (well, us) money if people continue to take up pension credit at the current rate.

[Banquo]

Genuinely surprised at Starmer's tin ear with respect to accepting gifts. That's one thing I'd have thought he would know was terrible optics, given optics has been at the heart of everything he's done.

[Mikey Brown]

I wanted to give him a bit of leeway but basically feels like we've gone back to David Cameron.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Most politicians just can't help themselves. Looks like, despite the sober image, Starmer is just the same, in fact is particularly bad for a Labour MP. He really should know a few thousand quid here and there just isn't worth it in the long run.

Related, and even more concerning:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour ... -and-arms/

I guess we can see the areas he won't be making sweeping changes to.

[Sandydragon]

It’s very politically tin eared to continue to take the freebies. I get he likes to watch football and there is a security issue about being in the stand, but accepting significant levels of gifts just doesn’t look right when the rest of the country is being told to stand by for a proper shafting.

Maybe the size of his majority makes him think that he’s above politics. That’s a bad idea to take on.

[Which Tyler]

Agreed with all of the above - it pales into insignificance compared to previous PMs - so far; but it sets a bad precedence, and he was supposed to be different, and setting a better example.

In and of themselves, then as far as I can tell, all the donations and gifts have been within the rules, and declared properly - but the optics are bad for him. He's not a liked politician, he got elected because what he isn't rather than what he is - he doesn't have that much goodwill to squander with things like this and the winter fuel payments.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Agreed with all of the above - it pales into insignificance compared to previous PMs - so far; but it sets a bad precedence, and he was supposed to be different, and setting a better example.

In and of themselves, then as far as I can tell, all the donations and gifts have been within the rules, and declared properly - but the optics are bad for him. He's not a liked politician, he got elected because what he isn't rather than what he is - he doesn't have that much goodwill to squander with things like this and the winter fuel payments.

I expect its mostly within the rules, or near enough, but the rules, or lack of them, are the problem. Will he be tightening them up, as we had a right to expect from an incoming leader who railed against Tory sleaze? I think not. It would be so nice to think he understood the harm that the current system which allows big donations does to our democracy. But no, he's there on the back of that system, in the pay of richer men.

He's safe for five years (probably . . . although I'm sure Johnson thought he was too) but after that its in the hands of the right - if they can unsplit their vote.