Anything Political

[Brew 5,421]

33 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Jeez.. Grant '4Names' Schapps appointed Defence Secretary

 

I wonder what name will be on his office door?

It seems Wallace has upset Sunak by telling him our military is only good for marching up and down and only that if Biden says we can.

[DJ360 6,730]

4 minutes ago, Brew said:

We can argue the rights and wrongs of the contract but we can hardly blame Boris for a break in the supply chain. 

 

But we can blame those who continue to place our public services and hence our collective future in the hands of private enterprise which far too frequently proves to be at least inadequate, at worst, criminal or dangerous.

 

I might be able to come up with a few other examples... let me think...

 

Private Water Companies

Private Energy Companies

Private Rail Companies

Private Prison Companies

Private Probation Service.. (Seemingly recognised as a 'step too far' and at least partially put right)

Etc.....

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

4 minutes ago, Brew said:

It seems Wallace has upset Sunak by telling him our military is only good for marching up and down and only that if Biden says we can.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Wallace has actual Military experience.  But then we've 'had enough of experts'..

 

Wallace 'copped some flak' a little while back for allegedly telling Zelensky he 'should be more grateful' to us.  Reading around that a bit, I reckon he was actually asking Zelensky to allow for the 'domestic' difficulties Western Govt's face when justifying the cost of supporting Ukraine.

[Brew 5,421]

49 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

might be able to come up with a few other examples... let me think...

Good points and I agree, personally I'd include GP's surgeries, most of whom are private contractors and scrambling to become  limited companies, for no other reason as far as I can tell than to make money and be ready for the big change

[DJ360 6,730]

2 hours ago, Brew said:

whether government borrowing is good or bad depends upon the commentators political persuasion.

 

Again.. partly, especially if the Political Persuasion points to the intended use of, and therefore beneficiaries of, the borrowed money.

But the timing of the borrowing also counts. Such that however crazy you might think Corbyn's plans were.. the cost of borrowing at that time was at an all time low.. it being before the Conservative Brexit/Profligacy and Trussonomics changed all that.  I'll let them off with Putrid's invasion of Ukraine, though there's still a lot of explaining to do around UK Tory links with Russia.

[Brew 5,421]

10 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

there's still a lot of explaining to do around UK Tory links with Russia.

 

Virtually every nation has links with Russia, some more tenuous then others, and you may be surprised to learn America has not one but two factories manufacturing Kalashnikov rifles.

[DJ360 6,730]

7 hours ago, Brew said:

 

Virtually every nation has links with Russia, some more tenuous then others, and you may be surprised to learn America has not one but two factories manufacturing Kalashnikov rifles.

 

Well yes. Practically all nations have some sort of links with each other and as you say, some more tenuous than others. 

I'd suggest that many of those links are commercial  and at least some of those are yet another manifestation of the current ascendancy of Neo Lib political and economic 'thinking'. As I said in another post, international business and finance doesn't  let mere national borders or govts stand in the way of profit.

However, I believe that much of the stuff at issue within British politics could be dealt with simply by the application of a bit of political will.

[Brew 5,421]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

As I said in another post, international business and finance doesn't  let mere national borders or govts stand in the way of profit.

I've said similar on numerous occasions and would take it a step further. Not only does big business have no or little respect for borders, it doesn't give fig whether the politics are left, right or total extremists.

Parties pay lip service to 'ethical' business, but in reality it means very little. They'll turn a blind eye if the donation is large enough and they can claim plausible deniability.

 

I can only think of four or five instances where political will has proven a benefit so I don't expect to see it any time soon.

[DJ360 6,730]

Your cynicism is showing.. but it's very fashionable  at the moment, amongst both politicians and observers.

[DJ360 6,730]

I've been a bit busy for the last few days so maybe my brain is a bit tired, but whatever I do, I can't think of a single policy area in which the present Govt. have done anything of benefit to the country, its economy and its wider population.

 

In every policy area, they have either made things worse by their actions, or made things worse by their inactions. That much is beyond reasonable doubt. It's backed up by simple facts and statistics. There can be no argument.

 

So.. what are we to make of this?  Are the present Govt. just plain incompetent? Or is there something more to it?

 

I reckon they've certainly had no shortage of incompetent Ministers AND Prime Ministers over the last 13 years.

Cameron's handling of the EU, and the Right Wing of his own party led to a rapid and botched Brexit vote.  Osborne's endless 'austerity' had no proven benefit and arguable downsides.  Ministers like Gavin Williamson, Esther McVey etc, were simply out of their depth.  Gove's understanding of Education was abysmal, etc..etc.. And then of course Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss... And now Sunak, presiding over a 'ship of fools'. And what a crew!

 

The only way I can look at the last disastrous 13 years is to conclude that nobody can be THAT stupid, for THAT long and that therefore, however they try to 'Gild the Lily', 'Sweeten the Pill', just plain 'bluff it', or shift the blame elsewhere.. it's all 'on them' and it's what they want.

 

So how does that work?

 

Like this.   The Right of the Tory Party is soaked in 'Neo Liberal' thinking which covers both Social and Economic issues.  

Basically Neo Liberalism is anti Public Services, Public Spending and Public Ownership. It favours 'privatisation', lower taxes and minimal regulation. It claims that lower public spending, a 'smaller state' and minimal Govt 'intervention' in, and 'regulation of' business and economic activity will lead to a better functioning economy and greater wealth for all.

 

A more detailed view here:  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp

 

So.. what's wrong with Neo Liberalism then?

 

Well.. put simply, it doesn't work.  Or at least it doesn't deliver what it promises for all.  According to Neo Liberal 'theory', the system will bring about greater economic activity, more growth, increased overall wealth etc.. which will then 'trickle down', to the poorest in society.

 

Has that happened?  No.. Not here, or in other countries.

 

What has happened is that Public Services are in crisis, Privatised versions of Public services including Water, Energy, Transport, Health and Education, etc.,etc.. have all failed to deliver on the promise and have simply made the already rich, even richer. It was the already wealthy who were able to buy up public services such as water etc., at 'knock down' prices, and those same rich people who continue to pull healthy shareholder dividends out of public service disasters.

 

The only question we really need to ask ourselves is whether any of the proponents of Neo Liberalism really believed their own publicity, or whther, in fact, all of their promises were simply a 'cover', for what amounts to legalised theft of National assets from under our noses.

 

I know which I believe....  As an electorate, was have sat back and watched ourselves get royally 'shafted'.

 

This is why our transport systems are failing. 

 

This is why water companies continue to discharge untreated sewage into our rivers and seas even on dry days..

 

This is why we are still dependent on imported Gas and Oil, despite our huge potential for using renewables such as wind, solar, tidal and yes, even nuclear power. Govt. has sat on those potentials in favour of oil and gas producers.

 

This is why our schools are potential death traps for our children. They knew about RAAC concrete at least five years ago and have done nothing to fix it.

 

This is why our NHS is collapsing, as increasing Private Sector involvment, sneakily and quietly encouraged by this Govt, has seen shareholders profiting while NHS standards fall.

 

Etc. etc...

 

And yet, when Michael Gove, who made a huge fuss about Water Companies 'playing the system' five years ago.. has in the last week or so made polluting our waters easier for developers and..when challenged, engaged in some double speak about 'attracting more investment into pollution control' instead of just simply using Govt power to FORCE regulation of pollution, by whoever causes it, including Water Companies.

 

You couldn't make this up.

 

I despair.

 

 

 

[Brew 5,421]

On 9/6/2023 at 11:21 AM, DJ360 said:

Govt. have done anything of benefit to the country, its economy and its wider population.

 

There has been a steady increase in GDP since 1948 regardless of political persuasion - seems like a benefit to me.

From 2009 - 2022 inflation was the lowest in our history allowing many to significantly increase their standard of living - seems like a benefit to me.

On the surface it can be argued that the UK keeps moving forward, due, in no small part or in spite of the Govt colour.

 

On 9/6/2023 at 11:21 AM, DJ360 said:

That much is beyond reasonable doubt. It's backed up by simple facts and statistics. There can be no argument

 

There can always be an argument but to be cogent there has to be a base line of facts.

 

On 9/6/2023 at 11:21 AM, DJ360 said:

According to Neo Liberal 'theory', the system will bring about greater economic activity, more growth, increased overall wealth etc.. which will then 'trickle down', to the poorest in society.

It's a fact we know now trickle down doesn't work, or so we think. The Grande Dame of NL though didn't  know that at the time and achieved most of her aims. Starting with a  massive reduction in inflation when it was peaking at just over 25% in the 70's, the start of her tenure.

Whether it worked rather depends on which point of view we're talking about and what objectives we're trying achieve.

 

The Bank of England say one of the main causes of inflation are wage claims. Thatcher solved that by creating a recession and huge unemployment, thus reducing wage claims at a stroke. This in the early 80's, closely followed by the age of me me me and a booming economy never seen before. Did NL work? for her it did, for the wide boys in the city it did - for the miners - not so much.

 

The other leading exponent was Reagan and the so called Reaganomics. For him it worked, 20M new jobs, lowest taxes in the western world and more than halving US inflation. And the trickle down brought about a 25% increase in black American employment and other benefits.

 

There can always be an argument, rarely is anything written in stone.

 

On 9/6/2023 at 11:21 AM, DJ360 said:

their promises were simply a 'cover', for what amounts to legalised theft of National assets from under our noses.

 

Again another way to consider that. Where did those National Assets come from? where they not legally stolen from the private companies that owned them? From owners who drove one of the greatest changes in history  - the industrial revolution and the biggest empire in the world? 

Did the steel, docks, mines and rail etc. willingly give them up to be "managed on behalf of the people"? somehow I doubt it.

 

On 9/6/2023 at 11:21 AM, DJ360 said:

his is why our transport systems are failing. 

 

Not all, trains are a shambles, but then again they always were. Any organisation that needs a degree in statistical analysis to read the price list will fail.

Busses on the other hand have, since deregulation, thrived.

 

The road system is actually owned and managed by councils (except motorways).  The Highways Authority pays councils for looking after motorways. bit of useless information, motorway are not public rights of way...

Gov not giving them enough money is an old saw, but is it true? We may think it, but in reality we simply don't know

 

On 9/6/2023 at 11:21 AM, DJ360 said:

This is why our schools are potential death traps for our children. They knew about RAAC concrete at least five years ago and have done nothing to fix it.

 

This is why our NHS is collapsing, as increasing Private Sector involvment, sneakily and quietly encouraged by this Govt, has seen shareholders profiting while NHS standards fall.

 

 

Quite agree. HMG have admitted 40% of the NHS is now in private hands, 51% mental health.

My GP for instance is awful, I could get an invite to tea with the King before I can have appointment.

Having been a patient in both the difference is staggering - as is the size of the bill.

 

[DJ360 6,730]

Just a 'heads up' for anyone interested in UK Politics.

Starting tonight on BBC2. 'A State of Chaos' with Laura Kuenssberg. It seems she has investigated the background  to Govt. behaviour over the last few years, including the handling of Brexit and Covid.

I'll be watching with interest, but also with a close eye on Kuenssberg's impartiality  She seems to have been rather more careful recently, but as well as her known Tory leanings, she has a proven track record of false reporting.

It will be interesting to see how we respond to this programme.

[DJ360 6,730]

Well.. did anyone watch?

 

I found the reminder of the bizarre blend of anarchy and near dictatorship that we suffered pretty sobering. She wheeled out lots of 'players', mostly Tories from both camps, plus Civil Servants. The usual lines from the likes of Rees-Mogg and the terminally thick Dorries.

Uk Government and Parliament have operated on the basis of 'convention' for centuries, and that relies on fundamental respect for those conventions. I think Kuenssberg covered the collapse of those 'conventions' driven by the extreme end of the Brexiteer vote and how they would stop at nothing, including Law breaking, to get their way.

 

It's a pity she didn't spell out the proper role and function of both Parliament and Judiciary in relation to Govt. She rather assumed that people all understand that stuff, and yet it's clear from the way that the Tory Minority Govt. under May, and more so under Johnson, was able to whip up anti Parliament sentiment, that many don't 'get' that crucial point.

Two more episodes to come.

 

 

 

 

[Brew 5,421]

Surprised at the openness of the plotters against May. Didn't think Dorries could get any lower in my estimation yet she managed it with ease.

Expected Cummings and his plots would make  more of an appearance but didn't.

The proroguing deserved far more depth and pleased, despite Hoggs denial, the courts followed the law and not politics.

The rest of the players pretty much as expected.

All in all something to think about but pretty middle of the road so far.

[DJ360 6,730]

14 hours ago, Brew said:

Surprised at the openness of the plotters against May

 

Yes, so was I a bit.  Yet what I massively missed was Kuenssberg's total lack of surprise.  More on her later.

14 hours ago, Brew said:

Didn't think Dorries could get any lower in my estimation yet she managed it with ease.

 

Yes.  At the risk of being accused of misogyny, she comes across as little more than a classic 'bimbo'. She clearly adored Johnson, though God alone knows why..

 

14 hours ago, Brew said:

Expected Cummings and his plots would make  more of an appearance but didn't.

The proroguing deserved far more depth and pleased, despite Hoggs (Moggs' ? sic) denial, the courts followed the law and not politics.

 

I suspect both will receive more coverage in Episode 2.

 

14 hours ago, Brew said:

All in all something to think about but pretty middle of the road so far.

 

Indeed, though I think on reflection, I've been rather too generous to her. That was certainly pointed out to me elsewhere and I can't disagree.

[DJ360 6,730]

I've been trying to figure out what it is about Kuenssberg..

 

I mean, apart from the known (and pretty obvious) Tory sympathies..what it is about her journalism that I find disturbing?

 

I think it comes down to this...  Her 'journalism' is as much about her, as it is about the facts.  She revels in the whole 'soap opera' aspect of Politics and loves to be seen to be 'in the know' and on first name terms with so many of these characters. As such, she can give the impression of weight and substance to her 'journalism', but what it lacks is true analysis or scrutiny, much less criticism.

She simply goes along with it all without challenging the prevailing Tory narrative.  She's not the first in the BBC to operate that way and I've long complained that the BBC falls very short in those terms, but she seems to have made more of an 'art' of it.

 

On my other favourite site, views range from:

 

Quote

I thought this was an interesting and fair review of Kuenssbergs failings at the BBC. In my view inadvertently or not she certainly helped Brexit and didn't question enough the current government.
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/30/...l-editor-was-a-catastrophic-systemic-failure/

 

The byline times article linked to above is well worth a read.

 

To:

 

Quote

Does she in anyway acknowledge her part as a government propaganda voice with obviously partisan coverage, lack of any scrutiny, balance, equivalency, or any other basic journalistic principles? She, and the wider BBC, really were a huge factor in this country’s decline. Her part was vastly more than reporting events; she very actively helped create the narrative that led to the current economic dumpster fire/oligarch kleptocracy. I can’t take her seriously. She is the intellectual and moral equivalent of Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahhaf or a North Korean “newsreader”.

 

So.. no punches pulled there then...

 

It'll be interesting to see how she reports the Johnson minority Govt. antics, especially considering she was so 'matey' with him.

[Brew 5,421]

Kuesenbergs lack of surprise is no surprise. She was fully aware of the plots and plotters and in all these types of interviews the interviewees are pre-warned of the questions. The civil servants were far to urbane in their answers to have had unexpected questions thrown at them.

 

The Byline article accuses her of bias - by writing a fairly blatantly

biased piece about bias...

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

So.. no punches pulled there then...

 

Hysterical vitriol. It panders to the left wingers who lack any sort of ability to make a credible analysis. The author can't take her seriously - I can't really take this sort of gutter level diatribe seriously either...

[DJ360 6,730]

On 9/7/2023 at 11:09 PM, Brew said:

There has been a steady increase in GDP since 1948 regardless of political persuasion - seems like a benefit to me.

From 2009 - 2022 inflation was the lowest in our history allowing many to significantly increase their standard of living - seems like a benefit to me.

On the surface it can be argued that the UK keeps moving forward, due, in no small part or in spite of the Govt colour.

 

I clearly stated that I was referring to the present Govt.  I.E, the one which has been in power since 2010, under 5 different Prime Ministers.

 

No one doubts that overall living standards have improved since WW2, but there has also been a relentless widening of the 'wealth gap', between the poorest and the richest in UK society, which is mostly, and self evidently, a result of Tory/Neo Liberal  policy making. 

It's not just in jest that people refer to Rees-Mogg, the most blatant exemplar of that trend, as 'The Minister for the 19th Century', because he represents that whole aproach which is driving us back to the socio-economic dark ages of the 19th C, as so eloquently caricatured by Dickens et.al, and which took half of the 20th Century to defeat.

 

My point here  is that we have now reached a 'tipping point', where widespread societal gains, which resulted mostly from the broad political consensus around, for e,g, the NHS, the Welfare State etc..are being lost. 

The poorest are being deprived not only of wealth, but also of state support, opportunity, decent education, housing etc.. at the same time as the richest see their wealth increasing pretty much exponentially.

On top of the obvious issues around NHS care, we are now seeing clear evidence of reducing lifespans in poor and deprived areas, after a sustained improvement for decades.  All of that, is down to Neo-Liberal and even more extreme right wing economic and social 'thinking', which is affecting not only the UK, but the whole World.

 

None of the above is either inevitable, or irreversible, but to do so requires a wholesale 'realignment' in the electorate, such as that which occurred in 1945. Sadly, I'm mostly only seeing people rejecting the present Govt. on the basis of its catastrophic short term performance, rather than the socio-economically damaging and divisive policy framework which underpins that failure.

 

I'll return to this.

[Brew 5,421]

On 8/31/2023 at 12:13 PM, DJ360 said:

So, while many have seen their income and wealth increase hugely under the Tories, which of course pushes up the 'average', many more have seen a decline in their fortunes as a direct result of 'Neo Liberal' economic 'ideology'

 

 

Rather defeats your argument that the wealthy are skewing the average point. The poor getting poorer will surely negate the effect accorded to the wealthy. 

I accept your comments are present time specific but " every government since 1947" includes all governments up to and including the present set of muppets.

 

I don't argue the rich are not getting richer, or the poor getting poorer. My point was that overall we, as a nation, keep making improvements to the standard of living. It's a sad fact that until we create  Utopia some will always fall between the cracks. I wish I had a solution to that - but I don't.

The present government policies, despite being led by an execrable collection of miscreants, actually had little real or lasting effect.

The the wealth gap, in my opinion, has nothing to do with it.

 

'The gap widens almost exponentially', you say. Looking at a Gini (coefficient for income inequality), graph starting in 1961 there was a huge increase under the blessed Margret, it levelled under Blair and remained fairly stable until around 2010. From which point on has actually gone down, and gone down quite dramatically.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

On top of the obvious issues around NHS care, we are now seeing clear evidence of reducing lifespans in poor and deprived areas, after a sustained improvement for decades.

 

Poor and deprived areas?, highly selective, but not actually borne out by the evidence.

According to the Office for National Statistics the small reduction in life span for England is pretty much nation wide whilst the South West has actually increased.

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

None of the above is either inevitable, or irreversible, but to do so requires a wholesale 'realignment' in the electorate, such as that which occurred in 1945. Sadly, I'm mostly only seeing people rejecting the present Govt. on the basis of its catastrophic short term performance, rather than the socio-economically damaging and divisive policy framework which underpins that failure.

 

It needs a fundamental change in how politics work. One where the interest of the people are first and foremost. It's hardly good government when each deliberately leaves it's successor a poison chalice, and then actively works to sabotage it whilst crowing from the galleries. A government where MP's actually pay attention and not play with their phones. Where they do the job they are paid for and not treat as a second string to other employment.

 

The people can hardly 'realign' when the choices leave so much to be desired, when the majority, despite the moaning, are OK and will tut tut at those less fortunate - don't actually give  damn or do anything about it!

[DJ360 6,730]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CwUtfaYsVLI/?igshid=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==

[Brew 5,421]

Not sure of the point you're trying to make Col. Hewitt, arguably wrong on the point about council building, is blaming 'government', not any particular party or policy.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

21 hours ago, nonnaB said:

Same here . We live in a village of 3700 inhabitants some of which are Macedonian, Albanian, Chinese ,Tunisian , Maroccan, a few Russian, Us, in addition Norwegian, French,American,  German and other Europeans that have bought summer residencies in and around the village. How they found us is a mystery. It is a very pretty village though and we have the honour of having vineyards producing D.O.C wines, Hazelnuts that are used to make chocolates for Ferrero in Alba. There, could be the reason, but considering the unrest in the world it could be the nearest port in a storm. They have all integrated well into village life.

 

Nonna, your experience seems to me to be a perfect example of the way that world political/economic and climate issues are affecting us all in terms of migration, but also how much more southern Europe is affected simply due to proximity to instability in Africa and in Eastern Europe.

 

I heard the tail end of a fascinating programme a few weeks back on BBC Radio 4.  It concerned a famous theorist, whose name I don't recall ( much to my annoyance)

 

The famous theorist was concerned with 'Systems Theory'. I won't go into that too deeply, mostly because I've only ever touched on it  at Uni, but as the name suggests, it's a way of seeing all kinds of things as 'systems'.

 

The take away for me was about World Population as a 'system'.  And the big fact that at present, Africa, particularly the 'Sahel' region, is an unstable system, due to both political and climatic causes, which is leading to mass migration.

 

https://www.barrons.com/news/explainer-what-is-the-sahel-and-why-is-it-so-important-01605878107

 

The other takeaway is that there are 'systems within systems', such that both Africa and Europe are systems within the larger World system. And if one system changes, it affects other systems.

 

Which comes down to...  If Africa fails, Europe fails...

 

Unless Europe and the wider World are prepared to help Africa overcome its problems..many of which are caused by outside polititical/religious/'colonial' influences etc.. including us.. then we will 'inherit' those problems.

 

 

 

 

[The Engineer 614]

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

I heard the tail end of a fascinating programme a few weeks back on BBC Radio 4.  It concerned a famous theorist, whose name I don't recall ( much to my annoyance)

Was it about Donella 'Dana' Meadows, author of 'Thinking in Systems, a Primer'?

[DJ360 6,730]

1 hour ago, The Engineer said:

Was it about Donella 'Dana' Meadows, author of 'Thinking in Systems, a Primer'?

 

Yep! Thank you so much. That's the one...though I still can't  find the programme, which ought to be on BBC Sounds, ot the iPlayer or somesuch. She also co- authored 'The Limits to Growth' in the early '70s.. a book which was part of the 'reading around' for my degree and a cursory look at which made me sit up and think.

It's such a crying shame that such people fall under the general heasing of 'experts', of whom our mighty leaders tell us we have 'had enough'.

[The Engineer 614]

20 hours ago, DJ360 said:

That's the one...though I still can't  find the programme, which ought to be on BBC Sounds, ot the iPlayer or somesuch.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001pt9w