Anything Political

[Oztalgian 3,298]

The "New Britain Project", an independent progressive think tank has named Nottingham the capital of Broken Britain as it has been hardest hit across 18 key indicators. Many have blamed thirteen years of decline under successive Conservative governments. Others say that cuts proposed by the City Council will only make matters worse. Rushcliffe and Broxtowe came second and third respectively.

[philmayfield 6,140]

I know worse places. Ever been to Bradford or Luton?

[benjamin1945 16,160]

Yes Phil.......a few years since...........Bradford was just OK.....But Luton was the worse place ive ever been......

[philmayfield 6,140]

We diverted through Bradford one evening when the M62 was congested a few months ago. I went years ago and thought it was rough but it’s really gone down the pan. Funnily enough my daughter in law’s father was Lord Mayor of Bradford a while ago but he lived in Ilkley. He’s not from Pakistan!

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

8 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

my daughter in law’s father was Lord Mayor of Bradford a while ago but he lived in Ilkley. He’s not from Pakistan!

That's Ilkla, usually baht 'at, lad.  Never been to Middlesbrough, then?

[philmayfield 6,140]

Only to the BP plant on the vast ICI industrial estate as was. I was a guest at Wilton Castle where, as an important customer, I was put up for the night and entertained lavishly. It’s good to see how the other half live occasionally.

[Brew 5,419]

15 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Many have blamed thirteen years of decline under successive Conservative governments. Others say that cuts proposed by the City Council will only make matters worse. Rushcliffe and Broxtowe came second and third respectively.

 

Reading the report is not exactly an exercise in impartial copy writing. Anna Mcshane, the author, is a contributor to the 'Labour List', yet another left wing think tank. 

'The New Britain Project' is little more than thinly disguised left wing propaganda.

 

Looking at the research the top four metrics are:

 

The Urban poor

The Red Wall

The Soft Left

Progressives

Their titles not mine...

 

The vast majority of disaffected in the report are Labour voters. Hardly surprising then that the Tories are the whipping boys...

 

There seems no mention or criticism of councils spending policies, no mention of the lavish spending of any council, not even Nottingham. It's always Westminster  who are to blame.

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

On the topic of Nottingham:

Now the trams have admitted failure and narrowly avoided  going the same way as the other prestige projects it's  proposed to extend the system based on the premise that spending millions more is the only way to save it from bankruptcy - really?

[DJ360 6,730]

On 12/23/2023 at 1:03 AM, Brew said:

The sale of out national treasures as some would have it were in many cases actually forcibly taken from their rightful owners by a Labour government when they nationalised everything they could lay their hands on.

When the blessed Margret offered them for sale we, the great unwashed along with Sid and his mates, went for it big time and many ordinary folk made a tidy profit.  Politicians are like people and where there is a change to make money, they will go go for it.

 

 

Christmas etc., well over now, so time for a resumption of 'hostilities'.. 

 

I think you need to be a little more specific about what was 'forcibly taken', and the reasons why. Like most countries, we cannot function well without a decent rail and road network. It's plain to all that first the enforced 'grouping' after WW1 and the full nationalisation after WW2 were necessary to get UK rail services operating effectively after the devastation of war.

 

The major argument trotted out by the Right, is that nationalisation encourages endless subsidy and inefficiency, but quite apart from the fact that this is far from proven..much less balanced against the meeting of industrial, economic and social needs, it's also plain that rail cannot function without a Govt subsidy..full stop.

So why do we continue to subsidise failing Privatised rail, when it's obvious that the subsidy is simply rewarding shareholders and 'Fat Cats' for the failure of their assets?

 

Govt. subsidy of Rail companies has INCREASED by 200% since privatisation.

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-does-government-subsidise-railways/

 

Similar arguments can be made around all privatisations, e.g. Water, Energy etc..  The only area where I can see marginal improvements from Privatisation is Telecomms, and that mostly because technology has changed the game.

 

Water:

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/english-water-firms-have-handed-57-billion-to-shareholders-in-the-30-years-after-privatisation-298718/

 

The 'big sell off' started by Thatcher was a Red Herring simply because the few £k that most ordinary 'punters' gained was too little to seriously improve their lives and it wasn't long before the bulk of those shares were cashed in to meet immediate need and ended up in the hands of The Big Boys'. 'Twas ever thus.. money travels upwards.. you know that.

 

Also don't forget the general principle applied by Tories everywhere...  'Nationalise the Losses, Privatise the Profits..'  It's been repeated endlessly and it is we mugs at the bottom who always pay.

 

On 12/23/2023 at 1:03 AM, Brew said:

Inflation now in spite of the howling is not that high at under 4% and let us not forget Blair/Brown failed to hold down inflation and dumped responsibility for it, and interest rates on the Bank of England to give themselves a 'get out of jail' card.

 

Seeing how inflation was almost zero, or even negative, for years, 4% represents a gigantic increase, most of which was totally self -inflicted by the disaster of 'Trussonomics.'  And again...it is 'Joe Soap' who is paying, while those with the wherewithall to 'play the markets', are cleaning up.. Again.

As for Blair/Brown.. whatever their faults.. they were landed with the collapse of the World Capitalist System, caused entirely by greed and 'dodgy dealing' within the World Capitalist System. Brown in particular drew praise for his handling of the immediate crisis. But of course the lying Tory Press convinced 'Joe Soap' that it was all Labour's fault and even then needed a coalition to gain power ..which they used to extend the pain and punish the poorest, for 13 years so far...

There is no reasonable defence you could mount to excuse the Tories for the last 13 years, which has featured a double whammy of deliberate, sustained 'asset stripping' of our nation, alongside monumental criminality and incompetence.

 

On 12/23/2023 at 1:03 AM, Brew said:

True, but then again they've not been in power for awhile so have not had the opportunity to get their snouts in the trough, however harking back a few names come to mind:

 

Blair

Kagan

Ecclestone

Wilson

Callaghan

Kelly

Mandelson... there's many morel All Labour and all had nefarious dealings of one sort of another...

 

I've never claimed that all opposition Politicians are angels, and I've also pointed out that in any social group you care to identify, from Clerics, to 'Pollies' and from Labourers to Royalty, there will always be good, bad and indifferent. However, those few names you quote are a thin and chronologically extended bunch compared to the concentrated evil of the present Criminal Enterprise masquerading as a 'Government'.

 

Just as a 'Trailer'.. let's see what comes out of the Post Office debacle and other interesting topics....

[DJ360 6,730]

On 12/27/2023 at 2:59 PM, philmayfield said:

We diverted through Bradford one evening when the M62 was congested a few months ago. I went years ago and thought it was rough but it’s really gone down the pan. Funnily enough my daughter in law’s father was Lord Mayor of Bradford a while ago but he lived in Ilkley. He’s not from Pakistan!

 

Leaving aside ethnicity.. Bradford was a hole when I spent 3 weeks there on training courses in the early 1970s. A casualty of the collapsed UK textile industry...  However.. Bradford was positively idyllic compared to those two other gems..  Scunthorpe, and Goole.

[philmayfield 6,140]

Have you not been to Grimsby?

[letsavagoo 963]

It’s perhaps unfair to characterise a city due to some poorer areas. Most major cities have some undesirable crime ridden areas but some better areas. Some more than others. My work used to take me all over the country and usually to the worst areas.  Without any hesitation the worst place I visited was Miles Plattin in Manchester. Horrendous. I have no idea what wider Manchester is like.

[philmayfield 6,140]

It’s the areas of Nottingham where the ethnic minorities are in the majority that are the most run down. Bridgford, Sherwood, Mapperley and Arnold are poles apart from Radford and Basford.

[DJ360 6,730]

Well of course there are poor areas everywhere. Many traceable back to the political, social and industrial upheavals of the 19thC.

I suppose it is what Govts both local and national actually DO about them which is important. The present incumbents have done nothing to help and much to make things worse.

 

The 'standard' or 'received' impression of both Manchester-Salford and Liverpool-Bootle is of vast areas of terraced housing and poverty. All added to by the stereotypical images presented via 'Corry', 'Bread', 'The Royle Family' 'Open All Hours' etc... all based in 'the North'.

Comfortable 'middle class' comedy such as 'The Good Life', 'As Time Goes By', 'Butterflies', 'My Family', 'Ever Decreasing Circles' etc.. etc.. were all firmly based in the 'Home Counties'.

Deliberate stereotyping or just ignorance?

 

In reality, both Liverpool and Manchester, whilst maybe not having the same household incomes as 'Darn Sarf', have large areas of private housing stock which is very comparable to the typical south eastern 'Surbiton' stereotype.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

3 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

It’s the areas of Nottingham where the ethnic minorities are in the majority that are the most run down.

 

Dangerous and inaccurate generalisation which also makes massive assumptions about cause and effect.

 

Are minorities actually in the majority?  Are those areas 'run down' because of the presence of ethnic minorities, or are ethnic minorities there because they can't afford or access better?

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

3 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Without any hesitation the worst place I visited was Miles Plattin in Manchester. Horrendous.

The parents of Lesley Ann Downey certainly thought so. It was from the fairground at Miles Platting near Ancoats that she was abducted in December 1964.  It sounds such a nice place.  Many years ago, when I worked for Browne Jacobson and Roose on Friar Lane, our road traffic offence clients were represented in court by a retired, fairly high ranking police officer. Lovely man. Everyone liked and respected him.  In his earlier days, he had worked on the Moors Murders investigation. The only time I ever saw clouds cross his face was when that was mentioned. He cheerfully admitted that he would have been happy to pull the lever for Brady and Hindley. He was also convinced that they had committed numerous other murders which have never come to light. Manchester was a dangerous place in those days.

[benjamin1945 16,160]

Worked Manchester many times........was always pleased to get out of the place.......for some reason it always felt Hostile.........

     I love our country and have enjoyed working everywhere bar...

          Luton and Manchester..........

 

[Brew 5,419]

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I think you need to be a little more specific about what was 'forcibly taken', and the reasons why.

 

First and foremost I was not making a statement against nationalisation (for utilities I actually support it), but making the point that  the idea held by some some that the ‘national assets/treasures’ belonged to the people by divine right or were somehow  sacrosanct is wrong, they weren’t.

 

The rail system began way back in the 1500s and was privately owned and developed by private enterprise into a nationwide network until it was taken over "in the national interest".

Nationalising the rail system was not something the owners agreed with or had a choice about thus 'forced'.

The same applies to others as well.

-----

The article in the link is fact checking a Labour claim/complaint.

It is a little disingenuous if taken at face value and highly selective with its figures, proof of the aphorism ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’.

It focusses purely on one aspect, the claim that subsidies increased 200% since privatisation.

And so they did, but the exorbitant cost of HS2 and the Elizabeth line, which to my mind should not be in the ‘subsidy’ column seriously skews the result. Setting them aside would make the  figures look somewhat different. It suits the Labour claim that there is no analysis.  There is no mention of the huge increase in passenger numbers, or the fact figures in the link are hopelessly out of date, nor does it recognise the meteoric rise in subsidies began under Blair…

 

It’s a bald statement of fact, taken out of context to  outrage the faithful.

 

Water was nationalised over a hundred years ago way back in the 1900s. It should never have been sold.

 

I can’t really agree with your assessment of the punters who bought shares needing to cash in to meet immediate needs, it implies some sort of desperate act to keep the wolf from the door. To my mind it's just puffery and fails to acknowledge they had enough money to speculate in the first place.  At least one sell off was oversubscribed by more than a million.

When they sell the NHS there will be uproar, questions in the house, protest marches throughout the land, there may even be letters to the Times - but there will also be queues round the block  to buy a piece of it...

 

‘Nationalise the Losses, Privatise the Profits’ is not a principle, it’s simply a political war chant along the same lines as, ‘Labours boom and bust’

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Seeing how inflation was almost zero, or even negative, for years, 4% represents a gigantic increase,

 

Keeping inflation so low for so long is in itself an acknowledgment of a Tory success. 

But is 4% really a gigantic increase?  On an average UK mortgage it amounts to approx. £7.50 a week.

By comparison is it as big as the inflation rate of 25% that we endured under Harold Wilson and the Labour government who inherited a rate of 10% from the Tories – a somewhat larger rise in only two years?

 

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

However, those few names you quote are a thin and chronologically extended bunch compared to the concentrated evil of the present Criminal Enterprise

 

I did say there were more and yes they cover quite a time span, but it was an example and in terms of time served in office it’s comparable.

[Brew 5,419]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Are minorities actually in the majority?  Are those areas 'run down' because of the presence of ethnic minorities, or are ethnic minorities there because they can't afford or access better?

 

Looking at the census several of the poorer areas have a greater than 45% Asian population. Are they they a cause or a symptom of urban decay?

There must be many factors in play to bring this about and far too many to generalise.

Think how much regeneration there could have been had they foregone a tram system

 

I wonder how many realise that Polish is the second most common language in the city

[letsavagoo 963]

17 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

Dangerous and inaccurate generalisation which also makes massive assumptions about cause and effect.

 

Are minorities actually in the majority?  Are those areas 'run down' because of the presence of ethnic minorities, or are ethnic minorities there because they can't afford or access better?

I was born in the heart of Radford in the mid 50’s. I was not really aware of what was happening in my area until perhaps the early 60’s. We had an outside lavatory but it was not a deprived area at all. Walking down the street to school the noise of galvanised buckets and seeing women scrubbing their front steps was a daily occurrence. The houses were immaculate and generally well cared for. We moved away in 1971 but I was back in the general area within a year and eventually bought a nice house in 1982 not far from my childhood home but on a cul de sac and with semi and detached property, what I considered the posh part in previous years. Over the next few years there was an influx of ethnic minorities into the area. As individuals I got on well with them but in generally, by no means all, they did not look after their houses, certainly externally. Walls just knocked down and left with raw edges to enable several cars to park and shoddy poorly built extensions. Car dismantled on drives, rubbish, old furniture etc put outside and not moved. A general decline so much although I liked many aspects of my home we sold up and escaped to the county. I’ll never return to the city area to live.
My father in law still lives a stones throw from my old home and the area is now 95+% ethnic and a tip. 
I have to agree with Col however as there are many other areas both in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country, not dominated with ethnic minorities that have suffered a similar fall into deprivation with feral gangs, crime and drugs. 

[Beekay 5,151]

What part of Radford did you live Lets? And which school was it, you walked to.? I lived off top end of Denman street, on Denton street. Stayed there until we moved to Kennington road in 1957. I'm always interested in anybody who lived in my neck of the woods, ( even though I'm a bit older than you ).

[IAN FINN 808]

All i know is my Grandma and Grandad lived on Denman st.until the late forties when they moved to Nuthall and thats where i began life.

[letsavagoo 963]

On 1/10/2024 at 9:28 AM, Beekay said:

What part of Radford did you live Lets? And which school was it, you walked to.? I lived off top end of Denman street, on Denton street. Stayed there until we moved to Kennington road in 1957. I'm always interested in anybody who lived in my neck of the woods, ( even though I'm a bit older than you ).

I’ve sent you a pm Beekay.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 1/9/2024 at 3:39 PM, Brew said:

First and foremost I was not making a statement against nationalisation (for utilities I actually support it), but making the point that  the idea held by some some that the ‘national assets/treasures’ belonged to the people by divine right or were somehow  sacrosanct is wrong, they weren’t

 

We agree over utilities.  Water in particular seems to me to be a gift of nature.. It's the storage, processing and distribution of water (both clean and waste) which incurs a cost, but in my view should not generate a profit beyond reasonable recompense for industry employees and contractors.  The current situation, where the new 'owners' are not only incompetent, but being allowed to charge their customers to rectify their incompetence, is ludicrous, by any standards.

 

The thing with Rail is that the 'boom years' of the 19th C were well over by the end of WW1 and it's well known that the 'Golden Age' of the 30's, the romance of which I like as much as the next man, largely represented a triumph of marketing over fact, as average speeds/journey times even for the Gresley 'Pacific' hauled East coast expresses and the Stanier 'Pacific' hauled West Coast expresses weren't that special. WW2 left Rail in a run down mess and that, plus the  economically essential nature of a national rail network made Nationalisation inevitable and preferable my view.  I would have loved the days of beautiful steam locos, especially the 'big stuff', to have continued, but once the decision to stick with steam was made, the British Railways approach of developing a range of 'Standard' locomotive types probably made sense, even if it was less romantic.

Beeching OTOH, got loads wrong, especially the complete closure of the Great Central.. but I digress...

 

I'll come back on the rest later.

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,298]

Our State Government Labor premier has come out in favour of the conservative side of politics Stage III tax cuts.

 

In Australian dollars These cuts reduce the number of tax brackets from 5 to 4 by eliminating the 37% tax bracket. the effect of this is that someone earning between $45,000 and $200,000 will have marginal tax rate of 30%.

People earning $100,000 pa will save $1,375  (The average Salary is around $90,000)

If you are earning $150,000 pa you will save $3,975

If you are lucky enough to earn $200,000 pa then you will save $6075 in tax.

 

How can a Labor government support a policy that gives proportionally more tax benefits to those already earning more?

Our tax system is badly broken and needs revising, we urgently need a fairer system.

If the current Labor Federal government goes ahead with these tax cuts I fear a change of government at our next General Election due no later than September 2025.

[DJ360 6,730]

Great news!

That nice Mr Hunt said only the other day that he 'has a plan' and has made 'difficult decisions'

And now, as I speak Sunak is congratulating himself on the success of his 'plan' to partly repair the damage his party has caused to the economy,  and his pointless Rwanda plan, which half of his own party don't support.

 Such a relief!!