| Pretty simple stuff 08:54 - Nov 13 with 2380 views | catch74 |
From the papers today:
Labour's shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves writes that "Britain's potential is being wasted". She sets out her economic vision, including what she calls a "proper" windfall tax on energy firms, scrapping tax loopholes and tackling "tax-dodging by big businesses
Gets my vote. |  |
| |  |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:12 - Nov 13 with 2328 views | DJR |
But will she oppose the austerity that the Tories are just about to impose? There is no need for the deficit to be reduced as quickly as it appears it is going to be. It is a political decision just as Austerity Mark 1 was. So will Labour just go along with Austerity Mark 2 in attempt to outdo the Tories on so-called fiscal prudence. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 9:17]
|  | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:20 - Nov 13 with 2287 views | WeWereZombies |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:12 - Nov 13 by DJR |
But will she oppose the austerity that the Tories are just about to impose? There is no need for the deficit to be reduced as quickly as it appears it is going to be. It is a political decision just as Austerity Mark 1 was. So will Labour just go along with Austerity Mark 2 in attempt to outdo the Tories on so-called fiscal prudence. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 9:17]
|
Isn't that just a waste of time given that a General Election is unlikely for a couple of years? The important job in hand is to prepare Labour as a party that appeals to a winning majority of voters and is then ready to enact a serious, balanced and effective plan in Government. It won't be pretty but it will be necessary because no one else will do the work required. |  |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:38 - Nov 13 with 2248 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
How many times now is it that they have said they will do the second two? |  |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:44 - Nov 13 with 2242 views | WeWereZombies |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:38 - Nov 13 by BanksterDebtSlave |
How many times now is it that they have said they will do the second two? |
Well, yes, it's such an easy thing to do isn't it ? I think all it needs is to click your heels together a couple of times, pat Toto on the head and say 'Everything was better under Stalin' twice in the key of F... | |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:50 - Nov 13 with 2214 views | catch74 |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:44 - Nov 13 by WeWereZombies |
Well, yes, it's such an easy thing to do isn't it ? I think all it needs is to click your heels together a couple of times, pat Toto on the head and say 'Everything was better under Stalin' twice in the key of F... |
That’s very valid, simple statements but probably very difficult to implement. | |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:30 - Nov 13 with 2149 views | DJR |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:20 - Nov 13 by WeWereZombies |
Isn't that just a waste of time given that a General Election is unlikely for a couple of years? The important job in hand is to prepare Labour as a party that appeals to a winning majority of voters and is then ready to enact a serious, balanced and effective plan in Government. It won't be pretty but it will be necessary because no one else will do the work required. |
I don't think it is because the Tories were allowed without any resistance to set the narrative that there was no alternative to Austerity Mark 1, so if Labour allow the Tories to set the narrative on Austerity Mark 2, this will severely limit what Labour will be able to do when in office. Putting it another way, something radical needs to be done if we are to reduce waiting lists of 7.1 million, and in some ways there was logic in what Truss was doing because she didn't see the need to bring the deficit down quickly when we are heading into a recession. She just went about it recklessly. | | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:39 - Nov 13 with 2131 views | WeWereZombies |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:30 - Nov 13 by DJR |
I don't think it is because the Tories were allowed without any resistance to set the narrative that there was no alternative to Austerity Mark 1, so if Labour allow the Tories to set the narrative on Austerity Mark 2, this will severely limit what Labour will be able to do when in office. Putting it another way, something radical needs to be done if we are to reduce waiting lists of 7.1 million, and in some ways there was logic in what Truss was doing because she didn't see the need to bring the deficit down quickly when we are heading into a recession. She just went about it recklessly. |
Labour were arguing very strongly against the roll back of the welfare state during both the Conservative and Liberal coalition government and the follow on Cameron only one but it was ineffective when the only newspapers that had not been bought off were The Guardian and The Mirror. There was also the 'Look - kittens' distraction of the lead up to Brexit happening back then which allowed not only the austerity budgets to carry less weight than the moderately well off realised but hid the impact of policies that delivered the Windrush scandal and other social injustices. Labour needs not only to become the party that engages with the ordinary everyday concerns and issues facing ordinary and everyday people but it needs to convince all media that it is the best way forward in the national interest. | |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 11:23 - Nov 13 with 2062 views | DJR |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:39 - Nov 13 by WeWereZombies |
Labour were arguing very strongly against the roll back of the welfare state during both the Conservative and Liberal coalition government and the follow on Cameron only one but it was ineffective when the only newspapers that had not been bought off were The Guardian and The Mirror. There was also the 'Look - kittens' distraction of the lead up to Brexit happening back then which allowed not only the austerity budgets to carry less weight than the moderately well off realised but hid the impact of policies that delivered the Windrush scandal and other social injustices. Labour needs not only to become the party that engages with the ordinary everyday concerns and issues facing ordinary and everyday people but it needs to convince all media that it is the best way forward in the national interest. |
I am not wholly convinced that Labour was that radically different from the Tories on austerity. Indeed, it was only with the advent of Corbyn that people more generally began to question the wisdom of austerity. And I rather fear that Reeves, who I regard very much as a fiscal conservative, will not be inclined to rock the boat. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pretty simple stuff on 12:57 - Nov 13 with 2013 views | Swansea_Blue |
Yeah, but Corbyn and Starmer |  |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 13:00 - Nov 13 with 2009 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Pretty simple stuff on 11:23 - Nov 13 by DJR |
I am not wholly convinced that Labour was that radically different from the Tories on austerity. Indeed, it was only with the advent of Corbyn that people more generally began to question the wisdom of austerity. And I rather fear that Reeves, who I regard very much as a fiscal conservative, will not be inclined to rock the boat. |
I think they pretty much supported it back during coalition days, or at least said they’d do similar. Whether they’d go about it exactly the same way is another question, so I suppose end results could have been different. I doubt they have hung people out to dry quite the same way. | |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 13:11 - Nov 13 with 1987 views | Darth_Koont |
| Pretty simple stuff on 11:23 - Nov 13 by DJR |
I am not wholly convinced that Labour was that radically different from the Tories on austerity. Indeed, it was only with the advent of Corbyn that people more generally began to question the wisdom of austerity. And I rather fear that Reeves, who I regard very much as a fiscal conservative, will not be inclined to rock the boat. |
Indeed.
Reeves is the face of managed decline. She’s a fiscal conservative, as you say, who will propose tweaking around the edges to not upset the interests Labour are auditioning to represent. |  |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 14:31 - Nov 13 with 1892 views | HARRY10 |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:30 - Nov 13 by DJR |
I don't think it is because the Tories were allowed without any resistance to set the narrative that there was no alternative to Austerity Mark 1, so if Labour allow the Tories to set the narrative on Austerity Mark 2, this will severely limit what Labour will be able to do when in office. Putting it another way, something radical needs to be done if we are to reduce waiting lists of 7.1 million, and in some ways there was logic in what Truss was doing because she didn't see the need to bring the deficit down quickly when we are heading into a recession. She just went about it recklessly. |
eh ! ! !
"there was logic in what Truss was doing"
Dear god, are you serious ?
She was part of the government who heaped umpteen new regulations upon business and then claimed it was about growth. the whole trickle-down effect has been proven to be deeply flawed.
You encourage the growth of industry by improving the conditions for growth - better infrastructure, better trained workforce, enough workers, removing red tape etc. One of the consequences of Brexit was the opposite. Her lunacy was merely to follow through on the stupidity of brexit.
Put it simply. If you were a small trader you would be wanting to borrow to invest in plant, premises, transport (vehicle) etc. You would not be borrowing to pay yourself a higher wage on the belief that an increased salary would indicate a more prosperous business.
No wonder the financial world re-acted as they did. |  | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 18:58 - Nov 13 with 1788 views | DJR |
| Pretty simple stuff on 14:31 - Nov 13 by HARRY10 |
eh ! ! !
"there was logic in what Truss was doing"
Dear god, are you serious ?
She was part of the government who heaped umpteen new regulations upon business and then claimed it was about growth. the whole trickle-down effect has been proven to be deeply flawed.
You encourage the growth of industry by improving the conditions for growth - better infrastructure, better trained workforce, enough workers, removing red tape etc. One of the consequences of Brexit was the opposite. Her lunacy was merely to follow through on the stupidity of brexit.
Put it simply. If you were a small trader you would be wanting to borrow to invest in plant, premises, transport (vehicle) etc. You would not be borrowing to pay yourself a higher wage on the belief that an increased salary would indicate a more prosperous business.
No wonder the financial world re-acted as they did. |
By logic I meant that she took the view that it was not necessary to reduce the deficit quickly following increased spending as a result of Covid and the cost-of-living crisis, and with an impending recession, because of the effect on growth. In many ways, this is Keynsian thinking, and her tax-cut in some way mirrored the effective VAT cut that Gordon Brown introduced during the financial crisis which stimulated growth in the last year of the Labour government before Tory austerity destroyed it. Of course, she approached the matter recklessly, and from a very right-wing angle, and it all went pear-shaped, so I don't think Keynes would have approved.
Sadly, both parties now seem committed to bringing down the deficit in the medium term, which with the state of public services now will mean things will come beyond repair.
But those in the establishment, the media and the Labour Party who destroyed Corbyn will be happy because there is now a proper establishment alternative to the Tories. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 19:05]
| | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 19:26 - Nov 13 with 1749 views | LeoMuff |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:30 - Nov 13 by DJR |
I don't think it is because the Tories were allowed without any resistance to set the narrative that there was no alternative to Austerity Mark 1, so if Labour allow the Tories to set the narrative on Austerity Mark 2, this will severely limit what Labour will be able to do when in office. Putting it another way, something radical needs to be done if we are to reduce waiting lists of 7.1 million, and in some ways there was logic in what Truss was doing because she didn't see the need to bring the deficit down quickly when we are heading into a recession. She just went about it recklessly. |
If we are about to have austerity MM 2 that waiting list is about to rise significantly, 12 years of real term cuts to nhs budgets and real terms cuts to wages have left the NHS in a dire dire situation.
no way are the staffing numbers required to sort this out going to sign up without a drastic improvement in budgets and wages. |  |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 19:32 - Nov 13 with 1736 views | HARRY10 |
| Pretty simple stuff on 18:58 - Nov 13 by DJR |
By logic I meant that she took the view that it was not necessary to reduce the deficit quickly following increased spending as a result of Covid and the cost-of-living crisis, and with an impending recession, because of the effect on growth. In many ways, this is Keynsian thinking, and her tax-cut in some way mirrored the effective VAT cut that Gordon Brown introduced during the financial crisis which stimulated growth in the last year of the Labour government before Tory austerity destroyed it. Of course, she approached the matter recklessly, and from a very right-wing angle, and it all went pear-shaped, so I don't think Keynes would have approved.
Sadly, both parties now seem committed to bringing down the deficit in the medium term, which with the state of public services now will mean things will come beyond repair.
But those in the establishment, the media and the Labour Party who destroyed Corbyn will be happy because there is now a proper establishment alternative to the Tories. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 19:05]
|
It has nothing to do with Keynes - it was brexit idiocy on the first rung of the ladder.
Cutting VAT was a help as it reduced the cost to UK businesses and consumers. Whereas the lunacy Truss brought in did not. It simply gave more pay to the wealthy with NO greater productivity.
Claiming that she 'done it recklessly' suggests there was another way. It was NOT about cutting tax per se. It was about the ludicrous trickle down effect. You help a starving beggar by popping a fiver through the letterbox of a wealthy man. It will eventually trickle down to him.
You also seem a bit confused and so resort to this fictious 'establishment'. Only in this case it is a Labour one. Which Fartrage and others would have always was Labour.
Truss tried something that has failed every time it has been tried. Unfortunately not being the brightest she followed the line peddled by nutters such as Minford, Redwood and Rees-Mogg.
personally I would have that brexiteers now put their money where their mouth is and cough up. £2000 per head should raise around £20 billion - as many of these Quislings are now dead. | | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:01 - Nov 14 with 1510 views | DJR |
| Pretty simple stuff on 19:32 - Nov 13 by HARRY10 |
It has nothing to do with Keynes - it was brexit idiocy on the first rung of the ladder.
Cutting VAT was a help as it reduced the cost to UK businesses and consumers. Whereas the lunacy Truss brought in did not. It simply gave more pay to the wealthy with NO greater productivity.
Claiming that she 'done it recklessly' suggests there was another way. It was NOT about cutting tax per se. It was about the ludicrous trickle down effect. You help a starving beggar by popping a fiver through the letterbox of a wealthy man. It will eventually trickle down to him.
You also seem a bit confused and so resort to this fictious 'establishment'. Only in this case it is a Labour one. Which Fartrage and others would have always was Labour.
Truss tried something that has failed every time it has been tried. Unfortunately not being the brightest she followed the line peddled by nutters such as Minford, Redwood and Rees-Mogg.
personally I would have that brexiteers now put their money where their mouth is and cough up. £2000 per head should raise around £20 billion - as many of these Quislings are now dead. |
Trussonomics was clearly bonkers but she did also offer tax cuts to the poor. But my point is that I agreed with her view that the deficit does not have to be reduced quickly when we are heading into a recession because this was what was done when the Tories came to power in 2010, and growth (which would funded public services) has never really recovered since.
My fear is that the reaction to Truss (both from the Tories and Labour) will mean we will merely repeat the 2010 experiment, which was been shown to be a failure.
I don't really understand what you are saying about the fictitious establishment. I was using the term in connection with Corbyn. Apart from the odd journalist in the Guardian who stuck up for him, there was no journalist or presenter who put in a good word for him. To take LBC as an example, every presenter was hostile to Corbyn, even those supposedly left-leaning. If that isn't proof of an establishment at work, I don't know what is. | | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:07 - Nov 14 with 1489 views | DJR |
| Pretty simple stuff on 13:00 - Nov 13 by Swansea_Blue |
I think they pretty much supported it back during coalition days, or at least said they’d do similar. Whether they’d go about it exactly the same way is another question, so I suppose end results could have been different. I doubt they have hung people out to dry quite the same way. |
Yes, I don't think things would have quite so grim if Labour had won in 2010. | | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:17 - Nov 14 with 1473 views | Darth_Koont |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:01 - Nov 14 by DJR |
Trussonomics was clearly bonkers but she did also offer tax cuts to the poor. But my point is that I agreed with her view that the deficit does not have to be reduced quickly when we are heading into a recession because this was what was done when the Tories came to power in 2010, and growth (which would funded public services) has never really recovered since.
My fear is that the reaction to Truss (both from the Tories and Labour) will mean we will merely repeat the 2010 experiment, which was been shown to be a failure.
I don't really understand what you are saying about the fictitious establishment. I was using the term in connection with Corbyn. Apart from the odd journalist in the Guardian who stuck up for him, there was no journalist or presenter who put in a good word for him. To take LBC as an example, every presenter was hostile to Corbyn, even those supposedly left-leaning. If that isn't proof of an establishment at work, I don't know what is. |
Yes.
We seem to have an accepted “ideology” in mainstream politics over the past few decades that costs should be socialised and profits privatised. And anyone thinking that’s bonkers, unfair and ultimately counter-productive can just whistle.
If only our economy was even a fraction as strong as that ideological conviction or the resulting fervour of our so-called democratic representatives to preserve the wonky status quo and look after vested interests. | |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:37 - Nov 14 with 1420 views | DJR |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:17 - Nov 14 by Darth_Koont |
Yes.
We seem to have an accepted “ideology” in mainstream politics over the past few decades that costs should be socialised and profits privatised. And anyone thinking that’s bonkers, unfair and ultimately counter-productive can just whistle.
If only our economy was even a fraction as strong as that ideological conviction or the resulting fervour of our so-called democratic representatives to preserve the wonky status quo and look after vested interests. |
So far as the media is concerned, this from Orwell is incisive.
"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news–things which on their own merits would get the big headlines–being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." [Post edited 14 Nov 2022 9:40]
| | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:04 - Nov 14 with 1390 views | WeWereZombies |
| Pretty simple stuff on 09:37 - Nov 14 by DJR |
So far as the media is concerned, this from Orwell is incisive.
"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news–things which on their own merits would get the big headlines–being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." [Post edited 14 Nov 2022 9:40]
|
So you have finally seen the point I made in my third post in this thread... | |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:17 - Nov 14 with 1372 views | DJR |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:04 - Nov 14 by WeWereZombies |
So you have finally seen the point I made in my third post in this thread... |
If your point is that Labour needs to get the media on board to get elected, it's probably heading in the right direction by making itself Tory-lite. But as someone who favours the social democracy that thrived in this country until Thatcher, and thrives in many European countries still, I can't really see any hope for public services in the UK. | | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:23 - Nov 14 with 1362 views | Vaughan8 |
You do realise the opposition can literally say what they want?
ALso, they don't always do what they say?
Say what you want but surely every government is trying to do the last 2 things? I'm guessing new ones crop up all the time.
The Tories are sh!te, we know that, but this statement is nothing new. | | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:24 - Nov 14 with 1351 views | WeWereZombies |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:17 - Nov 14 by DJR |
If your point is that Labour needs to get the media on board to get elected, it's probably heading in the right direction by making itself Tory-lite. But as someone who favours the social democracy that thrived in this country until Thatcher, and thrives in many European countries still, I can't really see any hope for public services in the UK. |
First we take Manhattan, or in this case Murdochland...
Global Heating is going to destroy the cosy lies that newspapers, television and social media influencers tell bit by bit. And probably more rapidly than anyone expected a decade ago. To have the correct party in place and in power is important at a time when the unfortunate necessity of command politics is all that will work. | |
| |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:37 - Nov 14 with 1331 views | DJR |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:24 - Nov 14 by WeWereZombies |
First we take Manhattan, or in this case Murdochland...
Global Heating is going to destroy the cosy lies that newspapers, television and social media influencers tell bit by bit. And probably more rapidly than anyone expected a decade ago. To have the correct party in place and in power is important at a time when the unfortunate necessity of command politics is all that will work. |
Yes, that is certainly one area where Labour deserves great credit. | | | |
| Pretty simple stuff on 11:34 - Nov 14 with 1303 views | Darth_Koont |
| Pretty simple stuff on 10:24 - Nov 14 by WeWereZombies |
First we take Manhattan, or in this case Murdochland...
Global Heating is going to destroy the cosy lies that newspapers, television and social media influencers tell bit by bit. And probably more rapidly than anyone expected a decade ago. To have the correct party in place and in power is important at a time when the unfortunate necessity of command politics is all that will work. |
Although they’ll only be the “correct party” if they’re pressured to be.
In their default setting, the current Labour Party is filled with right-wingers who want to trade in power, money and influence. And who are already way too close to the Tories on policy.
Just like the Tories, I don’t think they’re remotely adequate on their own preferred terms for the country and the challenges facing it. And “Better than the Tories” isn’t objectively better for Britain if it’s still going to get worse. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
