Anything Political

[Brew 5,412]

On 3/29/2024 at 6:53 PM, siddha said:

And if she were a Tory there would be nobody hounding her to reveal the details of her tax advice.

 

Rubbish, obviously you have a selective memory.

The press will go for the throat regardless. It doesn't take much to find stories of cock-ups, corruption and wrong doing in general by our blessed leaders. Why should Starmers foul mouth deputy be different.

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,728]

On 3/30/2024 at 1:02 PM, Brew said:

Yeahbutnobut?

 

What you say is true but it's not, so far. illegal. GB News is as we know little more than a right wing mouth piece but unless they break the rules then the right to freedom of speech must prevail and they be allowed their say whether we like it or not.

 

Yes, but they have been judged to have broken impartiality rules at least FIVE TIMES. It seems to me that there is something very wrong with either the rules, their enforcement, or both.

[DJ360 6,728]

On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:

Without a profit incentive there is no business and in my mind 'essential' is a bit of a stretch.

 

You seem to be a bit out of touch with this whole issue.

 

 

On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:

I would hazard a guess the vast majority of nurseries are for pre-schoolers.

 

Exactly. That is what they are.  I'm surprised you need to guess.

 

The predominant societal model at present is one where both parents (need to) work full time. Our economy is also largely built on presumptions around this model.

It follows that young children will most likely have to be looked after by a third party, before they are old enough to be in full time school. That, plus the desired 'socialising' aspect, is why I described it as  'essential',  This is generally known as 'Early Years' or 'Nursery' Provision.  It is widely accepted and is deeply embedded in Govt. Policy. Govt. also wants both parents to be working..

 

It is all here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-education-and-childcare--2

 

On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:

Your description of childminding is of what amounts to an ad hoc school run arrangement with a friendly neighbour.

 

That's broadly true, but 'Ad Hoc' is way off. Even 40 years ago, when we employed a Child Minder to drop off and collect our kids from school, the 'Minder' was required to be Registered, properly Inspected, trained Insured etc.

Of course there will be those who are able to rely on friends, relatives and trusted neighbours etc., but the minute a 'commercial' Minder is employed, Regulations apply.

 

On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:

For many it starts way before school age and he kids were looked after in someone's home for most of the working day. 

 

By definition, Nursery and Early Years provision is about care prior to 'compulsory' school age. It is 'Pre School Provision.'

 

The reality for my youngest daughter is that her almost 3 year old is looked after by a combined effort from Mrs Col, Daughter's partner on his days off, and a couple of days in per week 'Nursery' Provision.  Nursery provision is prohibitively expensive for many parents, (My daughter pays around £100 per day) so that it becomes a balance between earning potential of the parent, and cost of Nursery. My Daughter is Freelance, working from home and effectively works full time.

 

On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:

When political correctness burst on the scene and every officious know-all had something to say it became an industry and regulated to the point it was virtually impossible to continue in a domestic environment.

An entirely different setup to the one you describe and one many thousands relied on.

Without it commerce stepped in to the fill the gap.

 

That's a very jaundiced (and convenient) analysis on your part.

 

Try here: 

https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Nuffield Final Report historical 27 September 2016.pdf

 

From which:

 

Quote

Historical context
The development of publicly-funded early years education and care in England over the
past 100 years has been patchy with little overall planning. Historically, there has been a
clear divide between nursery education and childcare. Following the 1918 Education Act
local authorities could apply for grants to assist with funding nursery education if they
wished to make such provision available. During World War II nursery education expanded
as a result of the widespread employment of women... (et.seq.)

 

 

 

On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:

Do I see a pattern in your links? Yes of course it's called business and the prime objective is business and making profits.  Quite why some can't see that beyond legal requirement corporate responsibility doe not extend to social responsibility, is difficult to understand.

 

The problem with your position is that you ignore the PURPOSE of provision and you are ignoring the point that financial 'big boys' are dominating the scene, hoovering up what is effectively Taxpayer's money...  again...

 

On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:

I'm under the impression some think a government or council run scheme is required.

 

That.. broadly, is what we have..except that as ever... it is chaotic, poorly funded and ripe for exploitation by 'big money'.

 

On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:

Do we really want a state run system of regimented pre-school education?

 

Who said anything about 'regimented'.  There is a huge difference between regulation in the interests of child safeguarding, quality of provision etc.. and some sort of 'Doctrinaire' approach.

 

And since you don't ask... I'm quite taken by the general Continental and Scandinavian approach to 'early years' in particular, and education in general, where formal tuition is delayed for a couple of years in favour of play and 'exploration' stuff, which is provided for all, and doesn't seem to damage children's academic progress whatever.

[Brew 5,412]

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

You seem to be a bit out of touch with this whole issue.

 

 

 

I seriously doubt it. From a recent and an ongoing situation I simply hold a different view. You seem to have entirely missed my point and moved the focus to finance and funding.

 

The LSE report has a fair synopsis of childcare from 1918 onward and acknowledges that until 1996 the local authorities had power but no duty and thus it was very much a laissez-faire arrangement.

It's focus is on funding, not the control and regulation of or how it radically changed childcare in the late 90s which is the point I was making.

 

I agree your point that Early Years or Nursery' Provision is widely accepted and is deeply embedded in Govt. Policy.  It's also part of the problem. Childminders came under the scrutiny of Ofsted, Council Social Service, Environmental health etc. plus were expected to become parttime  teachers. Childminding started to morph into nursery schools and became commercial enterprises. Many minders could not meet these conditions and obligations so simply gave up leading to the demand we now see filled by businesses. 

 

From the BBC:

"A drastic decline in childminders could lead to a shortage of places, early years providers are warning. There were 9,800 fewer childcare workers in 2022 than in 2019, with childminders down by a fifth. 

 

And from Ofsted:

"The number of childminders has declined over the past decade, from 56,200 in 2013 to 27,900 in 2023 - a fall of 50%".

 

Someone has to meet the demand if not business then who?

Again I really can't agree with the claim of profiteering and the implication the taxpayers coffers are being raided or ripped off despite a few scurrilous headlines.

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,728]

49 minutes ago, Brew said:

I agree your point that Early Years or Nursery' Provision is widely accepted and is deeply embedded in Govt. Policy.  It's also part of the problem. Childminders came under the scrutiny of Ofsted, Council Social Service, Environmental health etc. plus were expected to become parttime  teachers. Childminding started to morph into nursery schools and became commercial enterprises. Many minders could not meet these conditions and obligations so simply gave up leading to the demand we now see filled by businesses. 

 

There has always been a distinction between Childminding and Nursery Care.  Yes it's true that as a society we have moved more towards a Nursery Care model..increasingly seen as integral to, or a precursor to.. Compulsory Education.

 

But that is where we are, and was not my point at the start of this discussion.  The rights and wrongs, the purpose or otherwise, and the type of Early Years Education we provide, was not my point.  My point was quite simply that strong evidence exists that 'big money', is becoming dominant in the sector, and it is driving out smaller enterprises.  That was the point of the article I linked to. It's not much of a stretch to see lobbyists behind the recent increase in funding, which seems more easily exploited by the big money.

Meanwhile, thousands of parents seem unlikely to be able to access the 'promised' 30 hours per week.

Quote

The analysis shows nurseries backed by investment companies – including private equity firms, asset managers and international pension funds – reported double the profits of other private providers and seven times those of non-profits.

JRF said the findings underlined the need for stricter controls on the sector. In a new report, the anti-poverty thinktank calls for “social licensing” of childcare providers. This would demand commitments on workers’ pay and value for money from nursery chains – potentially including a profits cap. Firms in receipt of public funding would also be expected to be financially transparent.

Abby Jitendra, the JRF’s principal policy adviser on care, said: “Our childcare system is a wild west where the biggest providers cash in while others struggle and workers live on poverty pay – pouring billions into it without proper controls is utterly irresponsible.”

The companies backed by private equity or investment firms covered by the analysis – which represent some of England’s largest childcare providers – reported average profits equivalent to 22% of their turnover over the five-year period between 2018 and 2022.

This is twice the 11% reported by other private providers not backed by investment companies, and more than seven times the 3% reported by the non-profit companies analysed.

Profits are not necessarily paid out to shareholders: they can be used to repay debts or reinvested in the business to improve services.

But Stacey Booth, a national organiser of the GMB union, said: “Too many nurseries are run as a business first and education establishment second. We need more regulation – hopefully an incoming Labour government will deliver this.

“Any profits in education and childcare should be invested back into the sector, lifting the wages of workers and ensuring good career pathways. Happy staff equal happy children.”

The analysis shows that the combined debt of England’s 43 largest childcare companies, regardless of ownership, rose dramatically in the same five-year period from £0.6bn in 2018 to £1.13bn in 2022, an 85% rise. The increase has mainly been driven by providers backed by investment firms, who are more willing to take on larger debts in order to finance rapid expansion.

The research also found a debt disparity between providers backed by global investors and those in other for-profit providers. While other private providers had an average debt of 1.3 times their income, debt among those providers backed by investment firms was three times the size of their income during the period 2018 to 2022.

Unison’s head of education, Mike Short, said: “There’s clearly big bucks to be made in childcare, but this is all so wrong. Large investors have muscled in on the sector, siphoning off the profit, piling on the debt and forcing smaller nurseries out. This is extremely bad news for infants, parents and childcare workers.”

Previous Guardian analysis revealed that the number of nurseries backed by investment companies, including private equity firms, pension funds and venture capital, doubled between 2018 and 2022.

Experts worry that lax financial regulation combined with the financial model of these global investors – profit-focused and with high levels of debt – poses a risk to thousands of nurseries that could be vulnerable to collapse.

Vivek Kotecha, director of Trinava Consulting, said companies “are comfortable taking on more debt with the expectation that their income and profitability will grow over time due to more places and rising fees”.

 

 

 

[Brew 5,412]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

My point was quite simply that strong evidence exists that 'big money', is becoming dominant in the sector, and it is driving out smaller enterprises

But that is the nature of business just as supermarkets are detrimental to the High Streets. It is the nature of competition to grow a business and if that sees off smaller competitors it is seen as a success. Like supermarkets big business can offer economies of scale and again like supermarkets offer better deals than the corner shop. We live in a capitalist society, that's how it works.

The original premise was big business is making unreasonable profits at the taxpayers expense. Looked at dispassionately they're meeting a demand at reasonable rates and making reasonable profits doing so.

You quote £100 a day, having employed several tradesmen over the last few months that seems to be the going rate for one man (some quote much more), and that's without premises and overheads.

[letsavagoo 963]

On 3/30/2024 at 12:03 PM, DJ360 said:

There have been so many Tory scandals in the last ten years that most people have lost count and and are now so inured to them that they barely register.  And of course the Tory owned/owning Press and Media don't pursue them equally c.f. Labour and others.  You know this.

So where do you hear about all these Tory scandals if they control the press and presumably hush them up. 
 

[DJ360 6,728]

14 hours ago, Brew said:

We live in a capitalist society, that's how it works.

 

Only because of deliberate bias towards the Private Sector since Thatcher.  You know full well that the ascendent  economic philosophy and resulting policy decisions since Thatcher has led to an economy where every activity, including pulic services, essential utilities etc.. are seen as cash cows for 'big money'.

 

You know full well that this approach has been disastrous for public services, and for the majority of ordinary folk in Britain.

 

You know that privatisation was sold on the basis of lies, and assumptions that Private is always more efficient. And yet, successive Govt's have employed exceptionally dubious business models, ranging from bizarre 'Privatisation' models, to PFI, to 'Preferred Bidders' such as Crapita et.al, to facilitate profit taking from areas where profit should not be the prime motive. You know all of this.

You may also have spotted that once the UK stopped being a major industrial force, 'Big Money', fronted by the Tories, started looking about for other sources of cash.. I.E. the money spent on Public Services and decided they wanted it.  This is all so blindingly obvious. Privatisation has nothing to do with 'efficiency' or any of the other tripe trotted out by the Neo Con mob. All that is simply a smokescreen for their incessant raiding of the public finances. The promised efficiencies, the promised 'trickle down' and the promised 'jam tomorrow', NEVER materialise and they never will.

 

We don't quite yet live in a pure Capitalist society, thank God. We live in a mixed economy, in which for me and many others, unrestrained Capitalism has permeated far too deeply into areas where it really should not be operating. This mostly since Thatcher.

You know what I mean.  Water bills rising and service quality falling. Creeping Privatisation in the NHS, Ruined Public Services, etc.. etc.. And everywhere..the constant search for more, more, more, frm the Big Money.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the development of Private Nursery Provision is just another example of the above.

Other countries manage it properly, as an integral part of the education system, not just another bloody 'investment opportunity' where the model is so obviously flawed that OUR public money ends up in the hands of speculators.

[Brew 5,412]

3 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Only because of deliberate bias towards the Private Sector since Thatcher.  You know full well that the ascendent  economic philosophy and resulting policy decisions since Thatcher has led to an economy where every activity, including pulic services, essential utilities etc.. are seen as cash cows for 'big money'.

 

You know full well that this approach has been disastrous for public services, and for the majority of ordinary folk in Britain.

 

 

What I know Col is that we as a society have progressed and grown since the war from a bankrupt country to the fifth largest economy on the planet.

What I know is that the standard of living has grown beyond all recognition over the past 70 years. This despite the ups and downs of various governments 

 

Every government has had successes, every parliament has had failures. The obvious riposte to that is the Tories have had more failures that Labour, statistically it would be difficult for that not to be true. 

The Labour party is 120 years old and they have been in power for just 30 of them so although we can say they helped, the vast majority of progress was made by Tory governments.

 

You seem to have a real problem with big business and the Tories so I'll reiterate something I've said many times.

Big business doesn't give a rats tuchuss who is in power they will cosy up to them regardless when they see an opportunity to make money

 

You have just (quite rightly), vilified the use of PFI. Starmer is, as I posted a while ago, going to climb into bed with and rely on 'strong partnerships' with big business'. I wonder if you will be so disparaging of Labour polices then...

Will you be so enthusiastic in your condemnation of Labour when they refuse to sort out the debacle that was privatisation?

 

There will always be inequalities and iniquities in every government. Politicians are people some good, some bad and some are a waste of breath.

[siddha 825]

I cannot see why you need to deliberate over such matters.

There will always be exploitation however you wish it to be described.

There will always be those that seek to encourage a fairer way of doing things.

The pendulum swings..............

 

[Brew 5,412]

1 hour ago, siddha said:

I cannot see why you need to deliberate over such matters.

 

Would you prefer we simply accept what we're told, blindly complicit and never question the rights and wrongs in society?

 

You recently implied that Raynors tax investigation would be buried by the press if she was a Tory, from which I assume you are on the left and offering a different point of view.

Am I wrong therefore to counter that and point out the widely reported tax evasion and non-Dom status of Sunak's wife, wife of the Prime Minister? They didn't bury that, and I would also point out that as a result of the press campaign she relinquished her Non-Dom and started paying UK tax.

We need checks and balance.

You must surely see that only by deliberation can we arrived at a consensus.

 

Why do I personally need to argue? Because I don't know, I'm never a hundred percent sure I'm right and want to hear other views and opinions.

Should anyone want to plod along and play follow my leader that's fine, so far it's a free choice. But to my mind it's a sad fact that politically a vast number of voters never really consider their options and vote the same way every time regardless.

 

 

[siddha 825]

Please set out your views as you would wish. And do not assume anything about me based on what I choose to write.

I agree with you that large numbers oh those who vote do not ask questions or hold those they elect to account.

[DJ360 6,728]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

What I know Col is that we as a society have progressed and grown since the war from a bankrupt country to the fifth largest economy on the planet.

 

That is of course undeniable, but it doesn't follow that it was a result of the actions of ANY Govt. Living standards have improved in all Western Democratic societies, since WW2, as they also have in many less democratic societies.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

What I know is that the standard of living has grown beyond all recognition over the past 70 years. This despite the ups and downs of various governments 

 

Again, true, but far too generalist. You do not mention the huge increase in wealth inequality, homelessness etc.. nor the crumbling state of our infrastructure, public services etc, which I will argue are mostly the result of Conservatism in the post Thatcher period.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

Every government has had successes, every parliament has had failures. The obvious riposte to that is the Tories have had more failures that Labour, statistically it would be difficult for that not to be true. 

The Labour party is 120 years old and they have been in power for just 30 of them so although we can say they helped, the vast majority of progress was made by Tory governments.

 

It's not really appropriate to speak of 'successes and failures', because the question then becomes 'success or failure for whom?

I'm sure that for e.g.,the 'pro privatisation' lobby regards its progress so far as a huge success.  So much so that it keeps lobbying for more. Yes, it's been a success for their bank accounts. But in both societal and national economic terms it has clearly been a disaster.

The NHS has been broadly a huge success for the vast majority of the population and though few would argue that it is perfect or beyond criticism I see little evidence that creeping privatisation has helped.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

You seem to have a real problem with big business and the Tories

 

I have no problem whatever with business, large or small, in its proper place. My 'problem', which I prefer to see as valid criticism, is with business involvement in what should properly be publicly managed AND owned activities. Under no circumstances should business, and by definition, the profit motive, be allowed to control essential public services.  What next?  Privatise the Armed Forces?

As you rightly point out, 'business has no conscience'. Surely that is all you need to know about the approach 'business' takes to the acquisition and subsequent management of essential Public Services.  If and for me it is a big if.. there is any merit in privatisation.. it can only be properly achieved with accompanying and very effective regulation. That has not happened.

 

The Tories?  I've explained this numerous times before.  I disagree with much of 'traditional' Conservative thinking, which, for me, is simply a series of hyperbolic justifications for maintaining the unequal 'status quo'. I sincerely believe that the bulk of 'traditional' Conservative voters were either intent on maintaining their current advantage, or were deluded 'working class Tories', who really believed that Conservative Governments would let them into 'the club'. I'm sure we've all met people who were solid Labour voters until they bought a house, whereupon they miraculously transformed into rabid Tories.

So.. up until Thatcher, I simply disagreed with most of the 'traditional conservative' position, especially on Economics.

 

Since Thatcher, I have grown to detest the Tory Party, which for the last 30 years has been seemingly determined to asset strip the entire UK, resulting in all of the problems currently afflicting our public services, our infrastructure and our society.

 

Tory Neo Con thinking is so pervasive and all embracing, that even when the Tory Party seems to genuinely seek solutions to social and economic problems, it is clearly incapable of moving away from its 'market' view of both economy and society, so that it continues to fail.  ( See 'Definition of insanity'- 'doing the same thing' attributed to 'various')

From the above I can only conclude the following.  Either, the Tories know perfectly well that their policies are socially divisive and economically illiterate.. in which case they actually don't want to fix things... or they don't understand that policies are socially divisive and economically illiterate..  either case, they clearly should not hold office whilst in their currently indefensible state, as both a party and a government.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

You have just (quite rightly), vilified the use of PFI. Starmer is, as I posted a while ago, going to climb into bed with and rely on 'strong partnerships' with big business'.

 

At this stage, neither you nor I know what Starmer means by that, and we'll just have to wait and see. If I were to speculate, I'd see it as Starmer simply putting out a general message that he doesn't intent to 'attack' big business, but wants to work with it. The specifics are not yet known. More generally, I'm not impressed with Starmer's plan of attack, his pronouncements or his lack of real electoral 'hooks'..so far. I do however completely understand him wishing to 'keep his powder dry'.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

I wonder if you will be so disparaging of Labour polices then...

Will you be so enthusiastic in your condemnation of Labour when they refuse to sort out the debacle that was privatisation?

 

Again..I think you fail to understand my position on Labour.  At one time I was both a Labour Member and a Labour Councillor. At present I am neither.

My politics have not changed. I am Democratic Centre Left, as I have always been since my personal politics matured in the 1970s.  I'm not fooled by the Populist Right, nor am I what some would (deeply annoyingly) class as a 'Woke Lefty'.

 

I believe in a mixed economy, properly regulated for the benefit of society as a whole, in which the excesses of capitalist greed are restrained for the protection of Society and Democratic Governance. We clearly don't have that at present, as 'lobbying' by assorted nefarious 'bad actors' is rife, and apparently effective.

For me, certain key activities and entities MUST remain firmly in public ownership. Pretty much the opposite of what we have at the moment, but in no way extreme.

I have no problem with anyone who is able to make money within the legal framework which I would like us to return to.

 

Any residual 'loyalty' I have to Labour is at the moment limited to doing my bit to see that they unseat this appalling Government at the next election. They are the only party with a realistic chance of doing so and getting rid of Sunak et.al. is an absolute priority. It is difficult to imagine even the most naive or incompetent Labour Govt actually being worse than what we have. They will however have a long and uphill battle against established financial, press, media etc.. power if they are to put things right.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

There will always be inequalities and iniquities in every government. Politicians are people some good, some bad and some are a waste of breath.

 

That is obviously true, but I truly believe that the level of 'inequalities and iniquities' emanating from the policies, the incompetence, the arrogance and the clearly anti democratic ambitions of many on the Tory Right, which are clearly tolerated by whatever the rest of the Tory Party should most properly be described as, has reached such epic and damaging proportions that they HAVE TO GO. Once they are in opposition, I confidently predict that they will tear themselves into at least two parts.

[DJ360 6,728]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:54 AM, letsavagoo said:

So where do you hear about all these Tory scandals if they control the press and presumably hush them up. 

 

Firstly, apart from scanning the headlines in the Newsagents, I do not buy or read newspapers. I hear about stuff on the BBC News and occasionally on ITV, or Sky News.

I didn't say the newspapers 'hush up' scandals. I said that the right wing, (I.E' most of, the UK press) pursues what it chooses to define as 'Looney Lefty', Woke' etc.. far more vigorously than it does the Right. The Daily Mail specialises in such tripe and lies.

 

[Brew 5,412]

15 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

That is of course undeniable, but it doesn't follow that it was a result of the actions of ANY Govt.

 

Of course it does, or are you saying it happens by accident regardless? All western economies have grown, true, but we have grown more than any other apart from Germany who have a far bigger population and were given a huge economic kick-start after the war. France is the closest to us, is much larger and has a slightly bigger population. - and the advantage of not being an island.

 

37 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

You do not mention the huge increase in wealth inequality, homelessness etc.. nor the crumbling state of our infrastructure, public services etc, which I will argue are mostly the result of Conservatism in the post Thatcher period.

 

Can't say you're wrong but even China and Russia has chronic poverty and billionaires.

The number of homeless in the UK peaked to an all-time high in 2004 then steadily declined to a low in 2009. There was slight increase up until 2017 before falling to an all- time low in 2019. Sadly it's on the rise again but there are nowhere near the number we imagine. Still regrettable though.

 

59 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

It's not really appropriate to speak of 'successes and failures', because the question then becomes 'success or failure for whom?

 

For we the people. Sucesses like the regeneration in London. Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. Failure like privatisation of utilities, reduced policing, failure of our care systems, allowing foreign investment in essential services and the total shambles of the NHS.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I have no problem whatever with business, large or small, in its proper place

 

I rather think you do Col. You regularly claim they steal from us; regularly mention they raid the public purse and on many occasions have inferred there is a covert plot by 'big money' to purely line their pockets with 'our' money.

 

"I sincerely believe that the bulk of 'traditional' Conservative voters were either intent on maintaining their current advantage, or were deluded 'working class Tories', who really believed that Conservative Governments would let them into 'the club"

 

Not sure what this means but what advantage, and can you really justify calling people deluded?

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

 

At this stage, neither you nor I know what Starmer means by that

 

And he expects us to vote for it knowing full well nobody understands what it means or the implications. Your view that he's sending a message to big business and intends to work with them is as obscure as Starmers statement itself.

 

The view that he's 'keeping his powder dry' is at best naive. Why is he? if he has a viable policy why not shout it from the rooftops! Keeping his powder dry implies he's going to ambush us at a later date.

 

"Sir I have a cunning plan"...

 

 

 

[Brew 5,412]

7 hours ago, siddha said:

And do not assume anything about me based on what I choose to write.

Siddha quite what the point of anyone writing anything if it's not to impart your views from which we are to draw conclusions is beyond me, of course I'm going make assumptions.

[siddha 825]

Assume away ..............  I guess it would help if I used facts.

[Brew 5,412]

And out of the blue more evidence labour has no ideas of their own.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68723552

[letsavagoo 963]

19 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

Firstly, apart from scanning the headlines in the Newsagents, I do not buy or read newspapers. I hear about stuff on the BBC News and occasionally on ITV, or Sky News.

I didn't say the newspapers 'hush up' scandals. I said that the right wing, (I.E' most of, the UK press) pursues what it chooses to define as 'Looney Lefty', Woke' etc.. far more vigorously than it does the Right. The Daily Mail specialises in such tripe and lies.

 

So although you don’t read the newspapers you’re able to say they are heavily bias and concentrate on articles of looney left, wokism etc with the Daily Mail especially being experts in such matters. But the broadcast media, bbc, itv and Sky where you ‘hear about stuff’ and gather your information from, as does the vast majority of the population incidentally, provide a more left wing or balanced approach. 

There wasn’t a word from you about Angela Raynor’s alleged wrong doing despite it being heavily reported across the networks and press.

Perhaps you see what you choose to rather than take a balanced view. I think it was Brew who suggested recently that you are far more to the left than you claim to be. 
 

[DJ360 6,728]

On 4/3/2024 at 2:19 PM, Brew said:

Of course it does, or are you saying it happens by accident regardless? All western economies have grown, true, but we have grown more than any other apart from Germany who have a far bigger population and were given a huge economic kick-start after the war. France is the closest to us, is much larger and has a slightly bigger population. - and the advantage of not being an island.

 

I'm saying that there has been a steady growth in living standards which was a pretty much inevitable result of post war economics, technological progress, increased democratisation in much of Europe, the development of the EU, etc. Remember Spain and Portugal were both Fascist Dictatorships. WEST Germany was crippled by the aftermath of Nazism but became pretty prosperous post WW2. Deliberate investment by the West as also with Japan.. etc..etc..Germany is also now 'recovering' from reunification, and in its own way doing a damned sight better at its own 'levelling up' of the former GDU, than the Tories in Britain. Also the much reduced influence of the UK Aristocracy after WW2. Also what might be classified as the 'first peace dividend'.

 

All governments are 'blown about' to a greater or lesser extent by World Economics and Politics. Labour were severely damaged by the 2008 crash, not of their own making, whilst the Thatcherite Tories gained from (and arguably squandered)  North Sea Oil and a very convenient Patriotic War in the Falklands. Just dumb luck.

Do I need to point out that Thatcher deliberately crashed UK manufacturing in favour of us all taking in each other's washing?

 

And of course.. there's a universal fact regarding the size of any national economy. Quite simply, the size/power or whatever of any National Economy says little about the equity or otherwise of participation in and benefit from, said economy. The UK economy was the World's largest in the 19th C and before the US took the reins, but at the same time the UK had horrific levels of poverty and disease, largely the result of Govt. failure to recognise or mitigate the structural changes to employment and housing brought about by the Industrial Revolution. Nothing changes.

 

On 4/3/2024 at 2:19 PM, Brew said:

The number of homeless in the UK peaked to an all-time high in 2004 then steadily declined to a low in 2009. There was slight increase up until 2017 before falling to an all- time low in 2019. Sadly it's on the rise again but there are nowhere near the number we imagine. Still regrettable though.

 

We could debate the figures, the statistical methodology etc, but it wouldn't help much. It comes back, as ever, to Govt. policy.

From: https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/homelessness-knowledge-hub/homelessness-monitor/england/the-homelessness-monitor-england-2023/

 

Quote

• Baseline forecasts show core homelessness rising significantly in the immediate future, with overall core homelessness in 2024 one fifth higher than 2020 levels. Current drivers of these increases relate primarily to inflation squeezing real incomes and increasing poverty and destitution, alongside rising private rents and evictions, and declining social rented lettings.
   
• In the shorter term, the most effective policies for reducing core homelessness would be allocation of a significant proportion of social lettings to core homeless households, increasing the level of the Local Housing Allowance, and maximising prevention activity to the level of the higher performing local authorities.

 

On 4/3/2024 at 2:19 PM, Brew said:

For we the people. Sucesses like the regeneration in London. Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. Failure like privatisation of utilities, reduced policing, failure of our care systems, allowing foreign investment in essential services and the total shambles of the NHS.

 

Well I'm pleased we cleared that up.

 

On 4/3/2024 at 2:19 PM, Brew said:

I rather think you do Col. You regularly claim they steal from us; regularly mention they raid the public purse and on many occasions have inferred there is a covert plot by 'big money' to purely line their pockets with 'our' money

 

Let's be clear here Jim. NOWHERE have I EVER said that I have a general problem with 'Big Business'.

 

Of course I want to see legitimate business do well and I have no problem with them doing so, mainly in the Private Sector.

 

BUT, it is patently obvious to me and many others that there are numerous businesses and organisations currently engaged in profiteering from UK Govt. money, via outright fraud (a.k.a. theft) illegal Lobbying etc., and mu8ch if not all of that surrounds attempts to access Govt. spending.

  

You will not change my view on that.

 

You claim that Business is cold and pragmatic, yet certain elements never stop trying to access UK Public Spending. If it is such a 'basket case', why do they do this unless they see Profit?  It has now been proven beyond doubt that allowing Private Business to run Public Services fails.. time and again..witness Rail, Water, Energy, The Post Office.. even Prisons, Probation, etc etc.

There is, as you admit, a fundamental conflict between the profit motive of Private Business, and the Service Motive which must drive Public Services.

Even the oft quoted 'Flagship' of the UK privatisation scam, I.E. BT, has been seen as presenting a security risk to the UK via its involvement with Chinese Govt. owned Huawei and is still claiming it can't 'purge Huawei from its infrastructure in less than a decade'. Who allowed that situation and why are they not in Gaol?

Do I need to point out yet again that Truss was pretty much a puppet of the nefarious 'Tufton Street Mob' of so called think tanks and far right actors often with strong links to Tobacco and Fossil Fuel interests?  You are not that naive Jim.

 

Truss and her kind may be out of office, but they haven't gone away and Tufton Street is still very active.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63039558

 

Corporate Fraud against the UK Govt. is rife.. to the extent that some might even see it as 'tolerated' in certain Govt. quarters....

And do I need to mention Carillion?

 

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/197302/fraud-and-corruption-against-government-large-gaps-remain-in-governments-understanding-of-risks/

 

On 4/3/2024 at 2:19 PM, Brew said:

And he expects us to vote for it knowing full well nobody understands what it means or the implications. Your view that he's sending a message to big business and intends to work with them is as obscure as Starmers statement itself.

 

The view that he's 'keeping his powder dry' is at best naive. Why is he? if he has a viable policy why not shout it from the rooftops! Keeping his powder dry implies he's going to ambush us at a later date.

 

I've said several times that I would prefer Starmer spelled out his ideas, but I've also said that anything he proposes will immediately be jumped on by 'The Meedja' with cries of 'How yer gonna pay for that then..eh? More Taxes?', which is a stock right wing accusation which the Tories could just as easily fire at themselves, but still believed. At present, he's on course for a landslide victory just by doing nothing.  Why would he risk that?

[DJ360 6,728]

6 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

So although you don’t read the newspapers you’re able to say they are heavily bias and concentrate on articles of looney left, wokism etc with the Daily Mail especially being experts in such matters. But the broadcast media, bbc, itv and Sky where you ‘hear about stuff’ and gather your information from, as does the vast majority of the population incidentally, provide a more left wing or balanced approach.

 

More balanced than the DM, Telegraph and Times, and even comics like the Sun and the Star.

Whether you like it or not, the Guardian is by far the most balanced and it is the only major paper not owned either by Murdoch, or some other foreign, absentee who wants to interfere in British Politics and Public Opinion.

Just because I no longer buy or read neswpapers, doesn't mean that I never have.

 

6 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

There wasn’t a word from you about Angela Raynor’s alleged wrong doing despite it being heavily reported across the networks and press.

 

It barely registered with me because it was a 'non story'. It still is, until anything is proven and even then it might concern £1500 quid. If she's done wrong I'll be disappointed and I'm sure she'll face whatever consequences. Are you equally eager to condemn the misogynistic abuse she's been subjected to by the benches opposite?

 

Really.. you should listen to yourself... 14 years of Tory graft, corruption, incompetence, failure and anti democratic activity accompanied by countless scandals and a dangerous drift to the right, barely draws comment from you.. yet the hint of a possible failing by a senior Labour member and you're practically wetting yourself...

 

6 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Perhaps you see what you choose to rather than take a balanced view. I think it was Brew who suggested recently that you are far more to the left than you claim to be. 

 

I'm not going to spell out again, my moderate centre left views. If you choose to ignore, or misinterpret what I post, that's your problem.

 

I'll just ask whether you realise how far right your posts sound..even though you say little of consequence on wider politics and seem mostly fixated on immigration and attacking my politics.

 

I'll also point out that it was you who raised the ludicrous and nebulous concept of the 'Woke Left'.

 

From what you post, think I might be justified in concluding that you regard anyone even marginally to the left of Attilla The Hun as a raving loony lefty.

 

I rather think that Jim can speak for himself.

[DJ360 6,728]

20 hours ago, Brew said:

And out of the blue more evidence labour has no ideas of their own.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68723552

 

 

It doesn't say that at all.  Read it again Jim.

[Brew 5,412]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

t doesn't say that at all.  Read it again Jim.

 

Labour will back the childcare expansion plan being rolled out by the government if it wins the next general election.

 

Which bit says it's not a Tory initiative?

 

There is of course a get out clause hidden among the smoke and mirrors. They will commission a review of childcare, but only after they are safely in No 10

I suspect the review will reflect the views of whoever is paying the bill.

[DJ360 6,728]

That doesn't say they don't have any ideas of their own. And if I read the article properly, Labour say they would make the childcare expansion plan workable, which is more than can be said for the current shambles.

 

Quote

In a letter to her Labour counterpart, Ms Keegan (Conservative) wrote: "Parents have told me that they are now uncertain whether they should go back to work, grow their families, or take a promotion, because they don't know if they will still have this childcare provision.

"Will the Labour party commit to supporting our policy of giving working parents 30 hours free childcare a week from when their child is nine months old to when they start school?

"If not, how would you make up for the 60,000 fewer people in work that our policy will support?"

Ms Phillipson (Labour) responded with a letter of her own, promising a reformed childcare system that will "stand the test of time".

"I am delighted to see the Conservatives have finally woken up to the importance of childcare after 14 years of smashing the system to pieces," she wrote.

"As we have made abundantly clear, Labour will not be removing any entitlements offered to families now or those promised to them in the future.

"Your suggestion to the contrary is an outright lie - and the public will not believe a word of it."

 

[Brew 5,412]

6 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

 

As we have made abundantly clear, Labour will not be removing any entitlements offered to families now or those promised to them in the future.

 

Phillipson (Labour) responded with a letter of her own, promising a reformed childcare system that will "stand the test of time". 

 

Which nicely illustrates Labours double talk.

 

"We will support the present system, but we are going to change it before we do"

 

And the doubt and uncertainty you highlight is back, but hidden behind a banner headline claiming they will keep it as is.

 

Labour you say will make it work, how? Wil that be another secret they are keeping close to the chest?...

 

The article in my link doesn't say Labour has no ideas but as with every other blurb they put out they're noticeable by their absence.

 

Anyone accepting the mishmash of statements from Labour is sleepwalking into the unknown.