Anything Political

[DJ360 6,751]

7 minutes ago, Beekay said:

Would somebody kindly explain, in simple idiot proof terms, what 'Woke' means. Cos I ain't got a bloody clue !

Except when I  'woke' up at 6.00am to make a cup of tea. But I think that may be something different. And I'm not being flippant, honest.

 

I'm not entirely  sure how Jim views 'woke'

I'll try to explain  how I understand it. It's not difficult, but there is a historical context.

 

Woke' is a term derived from US  Civil Rights and dating back at least to the 1930s. It originally described a Black person who was 'alert to injustice'. In other words, a Black person who was 'woke', knew that they were disenfranchised, exploited, mistreated etc., and would work towards defeating those injustices.

 

 

What happened next was that the term 'Woke', came to renewed prominence with the emergence of the 'Black Lives Matter' movement, on Trump's watch, among other reactions to US Police brutality, murder etc.. But also and crucially.. the clearly racist and anti Democratic stance of many on the US Far Right, who really didn't like the 'Woke' 'rallying cry' of the US 'liberal/progressive' 'left'. (I use 'left', because there really is no significant 'left' in US Politics in comparison to even 'moderate' Labour in the UK.)

 

So, what the US 'Right' and 'Far Right' set about doing was to redefine and distort the meaning of 'Woke'. They used it, basically to ridicule ANY AND ALL opposition, by implying that it was extreme. They have over time, effectively rendered 'Woke' a term which has gone from being a complement, to a cheap insult, much along the lines of 'Pinko', 'Commie', 'Lefty', when applied to perfectly reasonable people seeking a more just and equitable society. 'Woke' is now no more that the most recent manifestation of what Hofstadter described as 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'. It's a cheap, debased term, now used by the political right worldwide, to try to belittle any and all opposition, extreme or not.

 

[Beekay 5,232]

Wished I'd never asked. I'm no wiser. I've no idea what's Left, Far left Right etc means. At least I was happy in my ignorance. I'd never make a politician.

[DJ360 6,751]

Jim?

[philmayfield 6,237]

It would appear you’re fully qualified Barrie! 

[MargieH 7,617]

I understand woke as being alert to injustice in whatever form it takes, and wanting to put it right.  This may be attempted by our actions or words, but woke is actually internal - something you FEEL.

I realise this is an oversimplification …. 

 

[DJ360 6,751]

@MargieH,

You are correct on a personal level, but you don't cover the current trend by the political right to use 'woke' as an insult, to try to discredit anyone who opposes them

It's really only as a misleading insult, that 'woke' is now used.

 

Suella Braverman famously used 'woke' in Parliament to try to belittle and dismiss those who disagree with her policies on immigration 

 

In my view, 'woke' is now such a tainted term that it has no valid meaning in social/ political discussion.

[Cliff Ton 10,527]

Definition of Woke depends on your political starting point.

 

Both sides use it to promote their own view and to denigrate the other side

[DJ360 6,751]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke is an adjective derived,social inequalities such as sexism.

[Brew 5,460]

Woke, I'm aware of its history but but sadly todays version has little to no historical relevance . Woke, along with movements like BLM have been hijacked by various factious, twisted and shaped to suit their purpose and is getting quite extreme in the US where the whole of society is becoming more, and more polarised.

 

Here in nimby land  its rapidly turning into a competition to see who can demonstrate how much more virtuous they are than their neighbour. The subject matters not, so long as they can claim "I'm holier than thou". The moral high ground must be very crowded right now.

 

My point is before 'woke' came into the mainstream consciousness, before anyone had even heard the word, people were more tolerant of each other. 

 

Now we're pushing highly censored propaganda  in peoples faces  and far from making them more conscious and accepting, it's making people resentful.

[DJ360 6,751]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m001jc1l?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

[Brew 5,460]

Pretty much what I said, with a lot more words

[DavidA 153]

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

@Brew/Jim, I also disagree with David A's politics, but he's entitled to his view.

 

What I don't think he is entitled to do, is to support a post which calls me names, calls me a liar, makes false claims that I am somehow the beneficiary of preferential treatment and attempts to censor both my and others' right to discuss politics in a thread which was expressly created for that purpose and to prevent political controversy from 'diverting' other topics.

 

To adopt that position while advertising his own politics everywhere he posts is double standards in my view.

Or maybe I should change my avatar to read 'Tory Scum Out!'

That would go down well....

 

Thanks for the link to the previous thread. As I recall, sometime pre 2016, there was a whole section of political threads, mostly around Brexit. That of course suited certain people at the time. I also note reference to a qualifying number of posts . at that time...

It is possible that that restriction caused HSR some confusion.

 

However, before the present Politics thread was created by Kev (CliffTon), all of those old political threads disappeared, or were locked. Kev's thread has no special qualifying number of posts and is open to all members..just like all other threads/ topics.

There was a period when ALL discussion of politics was banned. However, there were those who insisted on dropping in little 'one liners', which were often offensive to me and others. But, any attempt to challenge such statements was met with accusations of 'making it political', when in fact it already was. That caused arguments...

Which is why Cliffton..quite correctly in my view, created the politics thread.

It seems to me that many of those who are so set against the politics thread, are not so much opposed to politics..as to my politics. But rather than either ignore my views, or create counter arguments, they would prefer to silence me.

 

 

 

Oh boo-hoo.

[DJ360 6,751]

How very mature.. 

[Brew 5,460]

55 minutes ago, DavidA said:

Oh boo-hoo.

Oh dear... Was that really necessary

[DJ360 6,751]

Jim, I'm in broad agreement over 'woke'. Also we both understand the history of the word and the way it is now distorted to the point of near uselessness.

However... I don't think 'woke' per sé, is the cause of extreme polarisation, so much as the result of.

Of course it is true that some people on the left take their 'wokeness' to extremes, resulting in 'virtue signalling' antics. Equally there are similar extremists on the right.

But there is one thing which links the pejorative use of 'woke' to the similar use of 'snowflake', 'political correctness', and earlier..'commie', 'pinko', etc., etc. That is the desire on the part of the reactionary right, to deflect from its desperate maintenance of inequality and discrimination, by ridiculing and undermining ALL opposition, by labelling it 'woke', according to its own redefinition of the word.

It's a very old tactic. You reframe rightful opposition, however moderate, as a 'threat' to 'freedom', 'morality', or whatever.. so that people willingly accept the limits to free speech etc, which you impose.

Hitler did that. Johnson and Co have attempted it, and De Santis in Florida is even trying to legalise it.

 

[Brew 5,460]

I think it was the guy you mentioned a while back, Menchen, that said, "convince the people there is a threat, a danger and they will flock to you for safety. Johnson and the EU, Blair and WMD, McCarthy and commies... It's an old trick, but, as you say, it works every time. Herr H was a master at it.

Now the threat is woke and the problem with woke it that in broad terms it simply means aware and can be applied to any scenario you care to name.

 

Agreed, woke is not the cause of polarisation, it's merely the latest hashtag extremists use to guilt-trip any who do not agree with whatever twisted concept they're trying sell this week.

 

I said BLM, a movement full of good intentions, but no clear direction or leadership has been hijacked by those with a somewhat different agenda. The same goes for woke. Woke is not a movement, it's more a concept, and  sadly not well understood which makes it easy prey to those who want to make it their own.

 

You've mentioned some of the words used in previous threat iterations , commies etc. Words like political correctness, racial discrimination, health and safety, and any number of 'phobias' that morph into different words to keep us on the straight and narrow. Bogey words pointing us in the same direction, but I do not believe it to be purely the extreme right that use such tactics. In the past the left have done similar. Different reason, same method, same goal - control.

 

Words like woke etc. have a shelf life the same as the euphemisms we use for those unfortunates on the outside of the curve. And for buzzwords to work it needs continual refreshment and renewal. Soon it will be a different word, same people, different cause, same old nonsense - and the original idea will be lost in time as we march towards.... fill in whatever the chosen goal is this week.

Those most enthusiastic about the word now, are the least likely to be waving the banner when something new and shiny comes along.

 

Didn't someone say:  "The governments worst enemy is the man that thinks for himself"?

 

[Brew 5,460]

On 7/10/2023 at 7:57 AM, Hey Arnold said:

 

My father always used to say "never discuss politics or religion in a pub, it only leads to fighting"

Walking into the wrong pub wearing the wrong football scarf will have much the same effect.

[DJ360 6,751]

On 7/11/2023 at 2:30 AM, Brew said:

The same goes for woke. Woke is not a movement, it's more a concept, and  sadly not well understood which makes it easy prey to those who want to make it their own.

 

Not so much those who want to make it their own, but those who want to portray it , as you said earlier,.. as a threat.

As I said earlier.. portray even rightful, valid opposition to your position..as a threat to society, to morality etc., etc.. when what you actually mean is a threat to your own current, or wished for control of the agenda, and thus, of Govt.

 

On 7/11/2023 at 2:30 AM, Brew said:

words used in previous threat iterations , commies etc. Words like political correctness, racial discrimination, health and safety, and any number of 'phobias' that morph into different words to keep us on the straight and narrow. Bogey words pointing us in the same direction, but I do not believe it to be purely the extreme right that use such tactics. In the past the left have done similar. Different reason, same method, same goal - control.

 

I think that bears a bit more examination...

The only example I can think of from 'the left' in the UK, is Blair's WMD claim and even that wasn't entirely his invention...and many would argue he wasn't 'left'.

 

Looking a bit wider.  The American right.. 'Reds under the Bed..',

Hitler, not only Jews, but 'gays', the disabled, and others with 'Special Needs', and of course pretty much the whole of Eastern Europe including Poles, Slavs and so on.. lumped together as 'Untermenschen', or 'lower beings'.

The Soviet Union portrayed the 'Capitalist West' as 'degenerate', 'weak', 'warmongering', etc., and constantly portrayed the Union as 'under seige'.

As for Russia, only yesterday Putin tried to portray NATO as an 'aggressive' alliance, despite the fact that NATO has never invaded anywhere , is a volutary mempership organisation etc. All for home consumption. He doesn't believe a word of it.

China, North Korea, etc., keep their people 'in the dark', whilst portraying the Western Democratic Tradition as 'evil', and to be feared.  

I could go on with more examples, but one unifying factor among them all is, as you say the desire to seize, or to maintain dictatorial, or at best oligarchical control, through lies and propaganda, rather than examination of the truth.

 

Many similarities with fascism there.. and of course some overlap.  Also, China, NK, USSR, etc., whilst notionally 'left wing', by virtue of self proclaimed 'communism', are/were nothing of the sort. They were one-party totalitarian regimes and thus essentially far right.

 

I'd go so far as to say that no truly 'left wing' Gov. can emerge from anything other than a functioning democracy.

And the other unifying feature of them all is that they are authoritarian, repressive, and fundamentally anti-democratic.

[Brew 5,460]

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Not so much those who want to make it their own, but those who want to portray it , as you said earlier,.. as a threat.

 

They 'make it their own', as against anyone else's definition, when they convince the masses their version is correct and the one to follow. 

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I think that bears a bit more examination...

The only example I can think of from 'the left' in the UK, is Blair's WMD claim and even that wasn't entirely his invention...and many would argue he wasn't 'left'.

 

 

Blair has no excuse just because he didn’t originate the fantasy of WMD.

I’m convinced he and Bush knew it was false (they had more than enough warning from the intelligence services), but thought it an excellent idea to rally the masses, and quickly jumped on it.

Why? I’m equally convinced he had visions of a quick, decisive victory and a swift re-election to sweep him back into number ten ala Thatcher and the Falklands.

When it went somewhat pear-shaped he quickly claimed plausible deniability and that he had been misinformed – a bit like the rest of us really.

 

Why only consider the UK? Wokeism is a global (mainly misunderstood),  meme turned into a franchise for those seeking a purpose, a meaning or a cause celebre they may nail their colours to. 

Fortunately, it is, as I said earlier, a transitory thing. Like tearing down a statue or two it assuages their sense of guilt, their lack of self-esteem and boosts their ego enough to pacify them - until someone tells them about a new dragon that needs to be slain. 

 

Woke is not a gun or a physical weapon, though as we have seen it can lead to violent action. The danger is it's being virtually weaponised by crusaders and used against the mass consciousness of the people. Like a buzzword from way back, brainwashing, already there are things we dare not speak of. 

 

Extreme? maybe, but history tells us it's possible.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

As for Russia, only yesterday Putin tried to portray NATO as an 'aggressive' alliance, despite the fact that NATO has never invaded anywhere , is a volutary mempership organisation etc. All for home consumption. He doesn't believe a word of it.

China, North Korea, etc., keep their people 'in the dark', whilst portraying the Western Democratic Tradition as 'evil', and to be feared.  

I could go on with more examples, but one unifying factor among them all is, as you say the desire to seize, or to maintain dictatorial, or at best oligarchical control, through lies and propaganda, rather than examination of the truth.

 

Many similarities with fascism there.. and of course some overlap.  Also, China, NK, USSR, etc., whilst notionally 'left wing', by virtue of self proclaimed 'communism', are/were nothing of the sort. They were one-party totalitarian regimes and thus essentially far right.

 

Putin doesn't believe a word of what he says? He doesn't need to, so long as the audience does and if they don't now, they will if he says it enough.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'd go so far as to say that no truly 'left wing' Gov. can emerge from anything other than a functioning democracy.

And the other unifying feature of them all is that they are authoritarian, repressive, and fundamentally anti-democratic.

 

Totalitarianism is a right-wing construct?

The ones you mention were not far right by any stretch of the imagination. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hoxha, et al. are all about as far left as it’s possible to be. To imply a totalitarian state can only ever be far right, or fascist, is (in my opinion), wrong, plain and simple. They were socialist. They exercised their version of communism just as we practice our version of democracy. They denigrate our way of doing things, just as we do theirs.

 

A 'truly' left-wing authority will, by your criteria, never exist. There has never been, nor will there ever be. a (fully functioning), pure democracy except in the imaginings of philosophers.

[DJ360 6,751]

On 7/13/2023 at 8:25 PM, Brew said:

Why only consider the UK? Wokeism is a global (mainly misunderstood),  meme turned into a franchise for those seeking a purpose, a meaning or a cause celebre they may nail their colours to. 

Fortunately, it is, as I said earlier, a transitory thing. Like tearing down a statue or two it assuages their sense of guilt, their lack of self-esteem and boosts their ego enough to pacify them - until someone tells them about a new dragon that needs to be slain.

 

I wasn't excluding the rest of the World, but apart from obvious US examples, I can't comment on that.

 

It's certainly misunderstood.. mostly by those who have bought into it superficially, as an insult to anything (mostly anything liberal/progressive) that gets them frothing. That's the similarity to 'Political Correctness' etc.

 

Of course the likes of De Santis understand perfectly what 'woke' originally meant. They are the ones who have deliberately and dishonestly corrupted, redefined and 'weaponised' it.

 

I think you'd struggle to find any original users of the concept of 'woke', or indeed many of those who climbed on board in sympathy/agreement later,who would now use it.  As I said..it's been rendered useless to genuine adherents.

 

On 7/13/2023 at 8:25 PM, Brew said:

Woke is not a gun or a physical weapon, though as we have seen it can lead to violent action. The danger is it's being virtually weaponised by crusaders and used against the mass consciousness of the people. Like a buzzword from way back, brainwashing, already there are things we dare not speak of.

 

When you say those things, I'm unsure who you are attacking.. Those who used 'woke' genuinely and originally..or those who now use it as an insult.

 

On 7/13/2023 at 8:25 PM, Brew said:

Putin doesn't believe a word of what he says? He doesn't need to, so long as the audience does and if they don't now, they will if he says it enough.

 

Well yes.. that's exactly the point I was making.  As I said.. 'for home consumption'. He knows full well that very few outside of Russia believe his fantasies.

 

On 7/13/2023 at 8:25 PM, Brew said:

Totalitarianism is a right-wing construct?

The ones you mention were not far right by any stretch of the imagination. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hoxha, et al. are all about as far left as it’s possible to be. To imply a totalitarian state can only ever be far right, or fascist, is (in my opinion), wrong, plain and simple. They were socialist.

 

Not so much a 'construct', as an inevitability...  I'm far from the first to recognise that if you go far enough 'right', and far enough 'left', you meet in the middle.  Whether you want to impose a 'fascist' style govt., or a 'communist' style govt...the key word is 'impose'.  Once you 'impose', you lose consent.  Govt. by popular consent is the only form which has 'Authority', as opposed to simple 'power'.

 

Stalin may have inherited power from a fledgeling Marxist regime, but he had no authority and became a ruthless, repressive and murderous Dictator. That is not Socialism... Marx would be turning in his grave..

 

  From 'Wiki':

Quote

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Stalin has retained popularity in Russia and Georgia as a victorious wartime leader who cemented the Soviet Union's status as a leading world power. Nevertheless, his regime has been widely described as totalitarian and is condemned for overseeing mass repression, ethnic cleansing, wide-scale deportation, hundreds of thousands of executions and famines that killed millions.

 

With the possible exception of Castro, your other examples, were all murderous Dictators, masquerading as 'socialist'. What they called themselves is irrelevant. What they did defines them... At my most charitable, I could only allow that they came up against the same problem that confronted JJ Rousseau in 'The Social Contract'. They struggled to reconcile the 'freedom' of socialism..with the 'freedom' to reject socialism and ended up deciding that some would need to be 'forced to be free'.

 

On 7/13/2023 at 8:25 PM, Brew said:

A 'truly' left-wing authority will, by your criteria, never exist. There has never been, nor will there ever be. a (fully functioning), pure democracy except in the imaginings of philosophers.

 

You may be right in absolute terms.  However, the UK and much of Europe has operated tolerably functioning Democracies since at least WW2.  Even the USA is more or less 'hanging in there', despite the efforts of Trump et. al.

So, it was UK Democracy which brought us the Welfare State, Freedom of Expression/Association etc.. and a 70+ year period of relative harmony and socio-economic progress. I's far from perfect..but it's pretty decent.

 

However, I've been arguing forever on here..that the 'forces of darkness' are trying to undermine even our basic democratic freedoms. But that's another topic...

 

Maybe I'm just 'woke'.....

[DJ360 6,751]

I've been meaning to throw the whole topic of Public Sector Pay, NHS/Teacher strikes etc.. into the mix for a while to see What The Team Thinks.  But this post from my other favourite website sums it all up beautifully...

 

Quote

Nobody has said much about Sunak imposing a non funded 6% take it, it's all you are getting pay rise for the public sector.
As ever Richard Murphy gives a clear analysis of what nonsense this is:

Rishi Sunk has said that this year's public sector pay awards have been agreed in full but with no new or additional funding to cover them. There is literally no economic sense in this whatsoever. A short thread...

Pay rises of around 6% for education and health have been announced - with there being no room for discussion, apparently, whatsoever. In other words, the government has, by decree, just announced real pay cuts for millions of people.

This makes no sense. It guarantees three things. The first is more people leaving the public sector. They will quite simply not be able to afford to stay. So already massively depleted services will be undermined even further.

Second, this means that many workers will have less to spend back into the economy now, meaning that economic growth will be harder for the government to achieve. When that is one of their goals that also makes no sense.

Third, the policy presumes that proper pay awards to people will not motivate them. As such, the opportunity to add value by boosting productivity by having a better-motivated staff, instead of one that feels undervalued by a political leadership that clearly does not believe in what they do, has been foregone.

But the whole logic of also refusing to advance departmental budgets to cover these pay awards makes no sense. There are two main reasons:

Firstly, all of these pay awards will be taxed. They extra pay will be the top part of a person's pay. It's likely that tax of 20% and NIC of 12% will be paid by each employee as a result.

On top of that employer's NIC of 13.8% will be paid. In other words, of the gross cost (pay plus employer's NIC), just over 40% will return to the Treasury in tax.

It makes no sense, in that case, to refuse that 40% back to the departments that are paying these people. If it is not returned to them the Treasury is winning, and I guess that in that case we have to assume that is their aim. That is a wholly destructive decision.

Secondly, refusing to cover these costs assumes that these pay rises generate no further tax revenue beyond the departments that pay them, but they do. If someone gets a 6% pay rise they spend it. And the person they spend it with has more income as a result, and so they pay tax.

And that person who has got additional income also spends what they get, and the recipient of that money then pays some more tax, and on and on. It's actually wholly possible that eventually the entire additional cost goes back in tax paid to the government. But that's being ignored.

In the state sector what is called the multiplier effect (which is what I have just described) is usually sufficient to cover the whole cost of pay deals - but the government is choosing to ignore this.

And finally, there's another reason why the government need not impose any cuts on the money for these departments. That's because although the economy is not growing in real terms right now, there is a lot more money floating around in it. That's what happens when you have inflation.

If prices are rising by 8.7% then the VAT yield goes up by that much. If wages are on average rising by 7% then income tax goes up by that much. And taxes on profits should definitely be rising. In that case, the money is available to give to departments to cover these costs.

It's a straightforward lie to say that there is no money available in the government to pay these costs in that case. There clearly is. But the government is choosing to spend it on something else.

What is that something else? It is paying interest. And as I noted recently, this year the government will pay our commercial banks more than £40 billion more in interest than it did two years ago on the deposit accounts that they have to hold with the Bank of England.

The government does not need to pay all that. It could pay a great deal less, as happens in the Eurozone and Japan, for example. But it has instead decided that the banks must be paid in full, even though teachers, doctors, nurses and so many others apparently cannot be.

That is what is so hideous about this decision. What it hides is the fact that the government has chosen to favour banks over working people. The only reason why proper pay rises cannot be made is that banks are getting the money denied to our essential workers. There is nothing more or less to it than that.

Sunak, Hunt and all the other ministers who try to defend this deal will be lying when there is no money available to departments to pay for this deal and services must suffer instead. That's only true because they are shovelling money into our banks instead.

They had a choice to deny interest on bank balances that commercial banks only have with the government because new money was created by it during the Covid and banking crisis eras, or to pay workers decent living wages. They chose bankers. And that is unforgivable.

 

Views?

[Brew 5,460]

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

've been meaning to throw the whole topic of Public Sector Pay, NHS/Teacher strikes etc.. into the mix for a while to see What The Team Thinks.  But this post from my other favourite website sums it all up beautifully...

 

  A long (somewhat simplistic, if not well written), explanation of the circular route of money. It only works if the loop is closed, but t's not.

Does he really think it has not been tried before? Were it so simple we would all be in clover,  but the economy is like the weather, unpredictable.

 

To quote one of your recent quotes by Menchen; "For every complex problem, there's a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

 

The economy is enormously complex and there are many factors influencing this money-go-round.

Railing against paying back the banks is in itself a self-perpetuating circular route - a downward spiral into deeper and deeper debt. Another hypothesis of how economies work is Exeter’s inverted pyramid which argues economies can fail by accumulating debt. 

Wasn't hyperinflation in the Weimar republic caused by debt after WW1?

 

An interpretation of Murphy's piece is that he is arguing inflation is good, prices rise, so does the tax take, pay increases, prices rise, so does...really?

More pay, more spending? In what world do people spend every penny within the domestic economy? Savings? another of the factors that complicate the model by taking money out of the flow. Profits to offshore companies? also leakage... 

I know I don't need to explain this to you, you know are well up on economic theory, which is why I'm surprised you give so much credence to this.

 

I also object to the phrase 'essential worker', something of a misnomer if ever I heard one - but that's for another time.

[HSR 286]

Just been looking at the betting exchanges, Britain to be a majority Moslem country by 2100.. no betting market as yet. 

 

Oh well, there's a few goodbye elections to look forward to.

[DJ360 6,751]

On 7/15/2023 at 10:49 AM, Brew said:

An interpretation of Murphy's piece is that he is arguing inflation is good, prices rise, so does the tax take, pay increases, prices rise, so does...really?

More pay, more spending? In what world do people spend every penny within the domestic economy? Savings? another of the factors that complicate the model by taking money out of the flow. Profits to offshore companies? also leakage... 

I know I don't need to explain this to you, you know are well up on economic theory, which is why I'm surprised you give so much credence to this.

 

I also object to the phrase 'essential worker', something of a misnomer if ever I heard one - but that's for another time.

 

Jim, I didn't say I agreed with every word of it.. just that it 'sums it all up beautifully'..by which I meant that it sums up the whole issue of Political decisions on the economy, as opposed to economic decisions on the economy.

 

We don't need to get too embroiled in the niceties of Economic Theory, to clearly see what the Tories are, and have been, up to.

 

The reason why teachers, junior doctors and others have fallen behind on pay, is very simple. Tory Govt. decisions over the last 13 years. (With no significant inflation to excuse their ideology). You know as well as I do that one of the central planks of Tory, especially recent Tory policy is reduction in Public Spending, Taxation and the 'size of the state' and that much of that is attempted by wage capping Public Sector workers, cuts to wider public sector funding, and an obsession with Privatisation..None of which has helped anyone other than a few shareholders and those who can afford to invest in either crazy Govt. schemes, or in the Bond Markets.

 

The fact that Sunak can perpetuate this travesty, with a smile on his face, makes him, in my book, the most insincere and nauseating politician since Thatch. 

Remember his first Budget?  He was cheered for throwing our money about like confetti and increasing borrowing hugely. Yes,. much was spent on Covid measures, but even that was largely wasted, or disappeared into the back pockets of

Dido Harding and her ilk.

 

When he should act, decisively, on the appalling behaviour of assorted Privatised Rail and Water companies, he fluffs and bodges, ducks and dives.  But when he wants to appear  'tough on inflation and the causes of inflation', he doesn't even mention Truss and Kwarteng's disastrous and extreme implementation of far right economics.. which largely fuelled it.. Oh no.. He just chooses to use a series of Tory 'principles', namely, anti Union tactics, anti Public Sector tactics, etc.. to 'justify' his position.

 

I ask again.. why is it that everyone in the 'Supply Chain', from primary producers, to middle men and even to those who invest in the Bonds which fund Govt. borrowing, gets to put up their prices to avoid loss ( not to mention profiteering), yet the poor sods at the bottom, be they lowly paid Care Workers, or comparatively well off Teachers and Docs, have to just accept real terms pay cuts and 'suck it up'?

 

As for 'Essential Workers', I stuggle to see what's wrong with the term, but in any case I reckon he just used it as 'shorthand' for Public Sector workers. And iin my view, Docs, Nurses, Teachers etc., are essential to the functioning of a civilised society.

[Brew 5,460]

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

ust that it 'sums it all up beautifully'..by which I meant that it sums up the whole issue of Political decisions on the economy, as opposed to economic decisions on the economy.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

We don't need to get too embroiled in the niceties of Economic Theory, to clearly see what the Tories are, and have been, up to.

 

Actually we do. Once this sort of wrong thinking takes hold we're going to be paddle less you know where.

 

I've just read it all again and no, can't agree with you, I don't think it does any such thing! From start to finish it's simplistic nonsense: Nor do I think he fully understands the multiplier effect and it's variations. Thatcher got it massively wrong with the Humber Bridge and we're going to get wrong again with Crossrail and HS2. But that's a for another day

 

A pay rise of 6% guarantees people leaving their jobs, rubbish! - evidence?

 

The policy gives 6% pay increase, but it's a pay cut? to justify this somewhat scurrilous statement he uses the politicians standby lie "in real terms". I've heard this phrase by politicians and management ever since I left school. It's smoke and mirrors, a lie then and a lie now.

 

Workers with less to spend... more nonsense. More pay motivates staff? only if it's substantial and only for a short time before returning to business as usual. There is plenty of evidence for this to prove his premise wrong.

 

His idea of defaulting on loan repayments is quite frankly outrageous. Do so and your credit rating goes down the tubes, and guess what happens to the interest rate when you ask for more?

 

I see his criticism of the government, but it's weak at best. To give him his due though, at least he had a go at presenting an alternative which is much more than can be said for Starmer.

------------------------------

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The reason why teachers, junior doctors and others have fallen behind on pay, is very simple.

 

With doctors and head teachers, and even train drivers averaging between £60,000/£100,000 they haven't fallen very far Col ,and it's rather an own goal to say there has been no significant inflation, so why are they suddenly so desperate for more money?

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

When he should act, decisively, on the appalling behaviour of assorted Privatised Rail and Water companies, he fluffs and bodges, ducks and dives. 

 

What legal authority has Sunak to dictate or interfere with a private company? There is an independent regulator for each of the ex-public utilities, and yes they're about as much use as a chocolate fireguard - but!

I'm with you 100% that they were wrong to sell them off.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

But when he wants to appear  'tough on inflation and the causes of inflation', he doesn't even mention Truss and Kwarteng's disastrous and extreme implementation of far right economics..

 

The policy was a total shambles no doubt. Why doesn't Sunak call them out? maybe for the same reason Brown didn't call out or criticise Blair, there's nothing to gain by doing so. Why would they?

 

As an aside Kwarteng is supposed the have a PhD. in economics, I'd like to read his thesis.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

et the poor sods at the bottom, be they lowly paid Care Workers, or comparatively well off Teachers and Docs, have to just accept real terms pay cuts and 'suck it up'?

 

 Tell me a time or government when that has not been the case, Shout at the Tories if you will, but in my memory it's never been any different.

 

------------------

 

Essential workers (define essential), to my mind is both divisive and an insult to the many ordinary people that keep things going without making a fuss.

I see the ones you mention as no more essential than anyone else.