Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Telegraph thinks Johnson can turn Tory fortunes round – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
    I don't think its necessarily a warning of danger. It might be regarded as assurance of opportunity.

    He doesn't seem very radical, which means he may have more scope to actually be a bit radical. For better and worse.
    If he's really a ruthless leftwinger he'll do a bait and switch with Rachel Reeves and appoint someone else as Chancellor after winning the election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    rcs1000 said:

    checklist said:

    Driver said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    I think that could be the plan, but it relies on him getting a majority of more than 20.
    I think he's so cautious that the bigger the majority the more concerned he will be not to scare off the first time labbers. Everything points to that. Probable upgrade to quadruple lock.
    Under Even Newer Labour, it will be the sextuple lock. Pensions will rise at the highest of:

    Prices
    Michael Gove
    2%
    The Baltic Dry Index
    Wages
    The increase in Conservative vote share at the most recent council by-election
    What about Michael Gove? They will double every time he gets a policy right, i.e. every six years?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Ghedebrav said:

    eek said:

    The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.

    There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.

    It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.

    Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
    Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.

    Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
    250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.

    200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.

    If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.

    (My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
    100 others excluding the SNP sounds very high.

    You might want to check your maths.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    checklist said:

    Driver said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    I think that could be the plan, but it relies on him getting a majority of more than 20.
    I think he's so cautious that the bigger the majority the more concerned he will be not to scare off the first time labbers. Everything points to that. Probable upgrade to quadruple lock.
    Under Even Newer Labour, it will be the sextuple lock. Pensions will rise at the highest of:

    Prices
    Michael Gove
    2%
    The Baltic Dry Index
    Wages
    The increase in Conservative vote share at the most recent council by-election
    What about Michael Gove? They will double every time he gets a policy right, i.e. every six years?
    I was thinking of the other meaning of "high".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    checklist said:

    Driver said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    I think that could be the plan, but it relies on him getting a majority of more than 20.
    I think he's so cautious that the bigger the majority the more concerned he will be not to scare off the first time labbers. Everything points to that. Probable upgrade to quadruple lock.
    Under Even Newer Labour, it will be the sextuple lock. Pensions will rise at the highest of:

    Prices
    Michael Gove
    2%
    The Baltic Dry Index
    Wages
    The increase in Conservative vote share at the most recent council by-election
    What about Michael Gove? They will double every time he gets a policy right, i.e. every six years?
    I was thinking of the other meaning of "high".
    I'm an idiot.

    *smack head*
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    kle4 said:

    Driver said:

    Taz said:

    North East devolution has long been hampered by petty and self-defeating trans-Tyne rivalries.

    The new solution is “fine”, I suppose, although it effectively re-creates a region rather than a metro as such.

    The Gardenwalker solution would have been a Northumberland County, a Durham County, and a Newcastle-Sunderland Metro with lower level authorities underneath for local planning etc.

    The metro would have an elected mayor, the counties would have elected sheriffs…

    I’ve already been seeing a few comments on some of the Facebook groups that this is a disaster and will simply be set up for the benefit of Newcastle.

    The trans Tyne rivalry really should be put aside when it comes to non soccer related issues.

    I am pleased something is now getting up and running. We need some investment and more local decision making. However the mayor is going to be key and I hope the main parties pick the right candidate. On labours side I cannot see either Driscoll or Kim McGuinness being that.
    I'm not sure the trans-Tyne rivalry has much to do with it.
    Blimey, the trans debate has moved on even more than I thought.
    Trans on the Tyne is all them/theirs, them/theirs...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    rcs1000 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    eek said:

    The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.

    There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.

    It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.

    Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
    Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.

    Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
    250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.

    200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.

    If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.

    (My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
    100 others excluding the SNP sounds very high.

    You might want to check your maths.
    I don't think that's what he said...
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    checklist said:

    Driver said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    I think that could be the plan, but it relies on him getting a majority of more than 20.
    I think he's so cautious that the bigger the majority the more concerned he will be not to scare off the first time labbers. Everything points to that. Probable upgrade to quadruple lock.
    Under Even Newer Labour, it will be the sextuple lock. Pensions will rise at the highest of:

    Prices
    Michael Gove
    2%
    The Baltic Dry Index
    Wages
    The increase in Conservative vote share at the most recent council by-election
    What about Michael Gove? They will double every time he gets a policy right, i.e. every six years?
    I was thinking of the other meaning of "high".
    I'm an idiot.

    *smack head*
    ISWYDT !
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    checklist said:

    Driver said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    I think that could be the plan, but it relies on him getting a majority of more than 20.
    I think he's so cautious that the bigger the majority the more concerned he will be not to scare off the first time labbers. Everything points to that. Probable upgrade to quadruple lock.
    Under Even Newer Labour, it will be the sextuple lock. Pensions will rise at the highest of:

    Prices
    Michael Gove
    2%
    The Baltic Dry Index
    Wages
    The increase in Conservative vote share at the most recent council by-election
    What about Michael Gove? They will double every time he gets a policy right, i.e. every six years?
    I was thinking of the other meaning of "high".
    I'm an idiot.

    *smack head*
    ISWYDT !
    Really?

    *looks round deserted kitchen nervously for the hidden camera*
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    Heathener said:

    The Telegraph has gone batshit crazy. Article after article is off the wall. A reactionary rump of rabid right-wingers dribbling into their dotage.

    On the other hand, I fear Johnson more than any other leader. He's toxic but he would be the only one who could drag the tories to c. 200 MPs at the next election.

    I disagree.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    North East devolution has long been hampered by petty and self-defeating trans-Tyne rivalries.

    The new solution is “fine”, I suppose, although it effectively re-creates a region rather than a metro as such.

    The Gardenwalker solution would have been a Northumberland County, a Durham County, and a Newcastle-Sunderland Metro with lower level authorities underneath for local planning etc.

    The metro would have an elected mayor, the counties would have elected sheriffs…

    Agreed, although at least the NE Metro is better then the utterly moronic current model that is based on the demonstrable fiction that the Gateshead bank of the river, 150 yards from Newcastle City Centre, is not part of Newcastle. Hopefully this new set up with go some way to destroying the die hard parochialists in the area who have hampered a great city’s progress for far too long.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    If you haven't done so, rewatch Glass Onion.

    There are an extraordinary number of signposts in there telling you what really happened, and which you don't get until you know the "twist".
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    eek said:

    The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.

    There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.

    It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.

    Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
    Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.

    Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
    250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.

    200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.

    If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.

    (My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
    100 others excluding the SNP sounds very high.

    You might want to check your maths.
    I don't think that's what he said...
    You are absolutely right, and I'm an idiot.
  • ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    eek said:

    The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.

    There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.

    It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.

    Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
    Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.

    Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
    250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.

    200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.

    If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.

    (My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
    100 others excluding the SNP sounds very high.

    You might want to check your maths.
    I don't think that's what he said...
    Certainly not what I intended to say. Counting in tens, I'm imagining
    50 SNP
    20 NI
    20 Lib Dem
    10 odds'n'ends
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,577
    Biden signs bill to remove bust of Dred Scott decision author from Capitol
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3790538-biden-signs-bill-to-remove-bust-of-dred-scott-decision-author-from-capitol/

    Fairly surprising this didn’t happen years ago.
    Hard to think of a direct UK equivalent, but it would be a little like having a bust of Oswald Mosley in Parliament.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    If you haven't done so, rewatch Glass Onion.

    There are an extraordinary number of signposts in there telling you what really happened, and which you don't get until you know the "twist".
    Aaargghh. There’s a twist. You’ve ruined it. (iT crowd)
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    eek said:

    The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.

    There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.

    It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.

    Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
    Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.

    Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
    250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.

    200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.

    If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.

    (My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
    100 others excluding the SNP sounds very high.

    You might want to check your maths.
    I don't think that's what he said...
    Certainly not what I intended to say. Counting in tens, I'm imagining
    50 SNP
    20 NI
    20 Lib Dem
    10 odds'n'ends
    Counting in tens, I suspect 10 odds'n'ends is 10 too high. Lucas again, no doubt, a couple of other Greens at most, and maybe a random independent somewhere?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,577
    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    Well that is pretty deliberate.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774
    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    I always thought billionaires were like Hugo Drax or Blofeld.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    North East devolution has long been hampered by petty and self-defeating trans-Tyne rivalries.

    The new solution is “fine”, I suppose, although it effectively re-creates a region rather than a metro as such.

    The Gardenwalker solution would have been a Northumberland County, a Durham County, and a Newcastle-Sunderland Metro with lower level authorities underneath for local planning etc.

    The metro would have an elected mayor, the counties would have elected sheriffs…

    Bloody hell you can be trans-tyne as well? Is that a mix of Ant, Dec and Cherly Cole?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,577
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    I always thought billionaires were like Hugo Drax or Blofeld.

    Few are as nice as Blowers.
    And most more like Richard Drax.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    Worth noting that - despite Ben Shapiro's insane rant - the Miles Bronson character was almost certainly not modeled on Musk. Glass Onion was originally written back in 2018, when Musk was nowhere near as famous as he is today.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Nigelb said:

    Biden signs bill to remove bust of Dred Scott decision author from Capitol
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3790538-biden-signs-bill-to-remove-bust-of-dred-scott-decision-author-from-capitol/

    Fairly surprising this didn’t happen years ago.
    Hard to think of a direct UK equivalent, but it would be a little like having a bust of Oswald Mosley in Parliament.

    Even without Dredd Scott, Taney was a pretty lamentable justice.
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 583
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    eek said:

    The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.

    There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.

    It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.

    Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
    Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.

    Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
    250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.

    200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.

    If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.

    (My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
    100 others excluding the SNP sounds very high.

    You might want to check your maths.
    I don't think that's what he said...
    Certainly not what I intended to say. Counting in tens, I'm imagining
    50 SNP
    20 NI
    20 Lib Dem
    10 odds'n'ends
    Counting in tens, I suspect 10 odds'n'ends is 10 too high. Lucas again, no doubt, a couple of other Greens at most, and maybe a random independent somewhere?
    add 3-4 Plaid and there is your 10
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,577
    Tulsi appalled by a politician lying.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3790193-tulsi-gabbard-tears-into-george-santos-during-interview-do-you-have-no-shame/

    Wait ‘til she finds out about Kari and Donald.
  • eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    The government has announced there will be a “metro mayor” for the entire North East.

    That’s quite a big “metro”.

    Yep - it's frankly insane but unavoidable due to the politics that has occurred over the years.

    Northumbria and County Durham should be separate areas but the local councillors in both places didn't want to lose their "power" so voted against retaining control with their own mayor.

    The irony is that it's really just the North East Regional Assembly with Teesside separated out with limited powers.
    Dumbinic Cummings is going to go apeshit.

    So it's not a totally insane idea.
    Given that Mr Cummings hatred came from his fears from what would happen to secondary areas (such as County Durham) - the one thing this plan does is ensure all his fears will come true.

    Little to no investment will occur in Durham as it will all head towards Newcastle and to a lesser extent Sunderland / Washington.
    Sort of like how many of the endpoints of the fallout of 2016 leave the UK with less control of its destiny?
    Given this actually mimics one of the EU's big plans, your comment is rather ill informed.
  • Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    eek said:

    The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.

    There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.

    It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.

    Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
    Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.

    Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
    250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.

    200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.

    If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.

    (My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
    100 others excluding the SNP sounds very high.

    You might want to check your maths.
    I don't think that's what he said...
    Certainly not what I intended to say. Counting in tens, I'm imagining
    50 SNP
    20 NI
    20 Lib Dem
    10 odds'n'ends
    Counting in tens, I suspect 10 odds'n'ends is 10 too high. Lucas again, no doubt, a couple of other Greens at most, and maybe a random independent somewhere?
    Plus three (at the moment) Plaid.

    Could be four rounding down to zero, but equally could be five rounding up to ten.

    Put it all another way, the 2019 result was Con 365, Lab 202, leaving 83 for everyone else. It doesn't need many Lib Dem gains to turn 83 into close enough to 100.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    I always thought billionaires were like Hugo Drax or Blofeld.

    I've known a number of billionaires.

    None were idiots, but really the only differences between them and millionaires were:

    1. No amount of money/success was ever enough
    2. Extremely willing to take risks, even when they had a lot to lose
    3. A little more good fortune
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Penddu2 said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    eek said:

    The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.

    There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.

    It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.

    Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
    Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.

    Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
    250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.

    200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.

    If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.

    (My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
    100 others excluding the SNP sounds very high.

    You might want to check your maths.
    I don't think that's what he said...
    Certainly not what I intended to say. Counting in tens, I'm imagining
    50 SNP
    20 NI
    20 Lib Dem
    10 odds'n'ends
    Counting in tens, I suspect 10 odds'n'ends is 10 too high. Lucas again, no doubt, a couple of other Greens at most, and maybe a random independent somewhere?
    add 3-4 Plaid and there is your 10
    Ah. I count them in with the SNP, that would explain why I didn't see that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    eek said:

    The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.

    There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.

    It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.

    Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
    Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.

    Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
    250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.

    200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.

    If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.

    (My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
    100 others excluding the SNP sounds very high.

    You might want to check your maths.
    I don't think that's what he said...
    Certainly not what I intended to say. Counting in tens, I'm imagining
    50 SNP
    20 NI
    20 Lib Dem
    10 odds'n'ends
    Counting in tens, I suspect 10 odds'n'ends is 10 too high. Lucas again, no doubt, a couple of other Greens at most, and maybe a random independent somewhere?
    Plus three (at the moment) Plaid.

    Could be four rounding down to zero, but equally could be five rounding up to ten.

    Put it all another way, the 2019 result was Con 365, Lab 202, leaving 83 for everyone else. It doesn't need many Lib Dem gains to turn 83 into close enough to 100.
    While that's true, it also looks very likely that Labour will make gains in Scotland.
  • Also, the times call for left-wing solutions.

    Neo-liberalism is as dead as a dodo, it has failed to deliver sustainable and widespread prosperity.

    Neither will standing in a bucket and trying to pull ourselves up by the handles.

  • Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    Nigelb said:

    Biden signs bill to remove bust of Dred Scott decision author from Capitol
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3790538-biden-signs-bill-to-remove-bust-of-dred-scott-decision-author-from-capitol/

    Fairly surprising this didn’t happen years ago.
    Hard to think of a direct UK equivalent, but it would be a little like having a bust of Oswald Mosley in Parliament.

    Goddard, perhaps?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayner_Goddard,_Baron_Goddard
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,921

    Also, “North East” is a shitty term.
    There is already a word for “Northumberland and Durham” and that is “Northumbria”.

    Northumbria should rightly include Edinburgh.

    Also, “North East” is a shitty term.
    There is already a word for “Northumberland and Durham” and that is “Northumbria”.

    Northumbria should rightly include Edinburgh.
    and York - as the capital.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited December 2022
    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    The government has announced there will be a “metro mayor” for the entire North East.

    That’s quite a big “metro”.

    Yep - it's frankly insane but unavoidable due to the politics that has occurred over the years.

    Northumbria and County Durham should be separate areas but the local councillors in both places didn't want to lose their "power" so voted against retaining control with their own mayor.

    The irony is that it's really just the North East Regional Assembly with Teesside separated out with limited powers.
    Dumbinic Cummings is going to go apeshit.

    So it's not a totally insane idea.
    Given that Mr Cummings hatred came from his fears from what would happen to secondary areas (such as County Durham) - the one thing this plan does is ensure all his fears will come true.

    Little to no investment will occur in Durham as it will all head towards Newcastle and to a lesser extent Sunderland / Washington.
    Sort of like how many of the endpoints of the fallout of 2016 leave the UK with less control of its destiny?
    Given this actually mimics one of the EU's big plans, your comment is rather ill informed.
    LOL.
  • Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
  • The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    It might just be me but in the last few years I've gone from rather admiring Daniel Craig to finding him slightly irritating.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    I always thought billionaires were like Hugo Drax or Blofeld.

    I've known a number of billionaires.

    None were idiots, but really the only differences between them and millionaires were:

    1. No amount of money/success was ever enough
    2. Extremely willing to take risks, even when they had a lot to lose
    3. A little more good fortune
    And I think it's (1) that supports @Sean_F 's point.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,577
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Biden signs bill to remove bust of Dred Scott decision author from Capitol
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3790538-biden-signs-bill-to-remove-bust-of-dred-scott-decision-author-from-capitol/

    Fairly surprising this didn’t happen years ago.
    Hard to think of a direct UK equivalent, but it would be a little like having a bust of Oswald Mosley in Parliament.

    Goddard, perhaps?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayner_Goddard,_Baron_Goddard
    No, he’s too obscure.
    You’d need to find a judge who was ostentatiously racist, and who bore direct responsibility for precipitating a bloody civil war that still has contemporary political resonance.

    A Cromwell without the mitigating factors ?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    If you haven't done so, rewatch Glass Onion.

    There are an extraordinary number of signposts in there telling you what really happened, and

    which you don't get until you know the "twist".
    I worked it out 60-70 minutes in. Thought it was quite simple plot. Still enjoyed it a lot mind.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boris will definitely make a move in 2023. I thought he'd try again when Truss imploded, but clearly decided to bide his time. He'll want Rishi's premiership to be crushed beneath a tidal wave of public-service collapse, soaring inflation, crippling tax rises, urban riots and rampant food-and-fuel poverty before making his move.

    There is that already bar riots, by next summer there may be a peace deal in Ukraine and lower inflation.

    Boris had over 100 MPs ready to back him when Truss went, mainly redwall. His problem was Rishi had 200 MPs backing him as most bluewall MPs were backing him
    Barring war in Taiwan, inflation will be falling this year. At some point, wage rises will start to outpace inflation.

    I think that's inevitable, and could happen sooner than people think. (And which could lead to a bit of a boom.)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    Disagree.

    It's not as good as Knives Out, but the twist is original, the characters entertaining, and the pacing generally very good.

    If it wasn't for the ending, I'd rate it higher than the first movie.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,076

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    It might just be me but in the last few years I've gone from rather admiring Daniel Craig to finding him slightly irritating.
    I recently reqatched "Our Friends in the North". He was very good in that.

    Though made in the nineties, and about the decades before, it has a lot to say that is applicable today on housing, regional neglect, and corruption big and small.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    If you haven't done so, rewatch Glass Onion.

    There are an extraordinary number of signposts in there telling you what really happened, and

    which you don't get until you know the "twist".
    I worked it out 60-70 minutes in. Thought it was quite simple plot. Still enjoyed it a lot mind.

    So. If you rewatch it, listen to the exact words spoken to Benoir when he is the bath at the beginning.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited December 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    Disagree.

    It's not as good as Knives Out, but the twist is original, the characters entertaining, and the pacing generally very good.

    If it wasn't for the ending, I'd rate it higher than the first movie.
    Eh?

    The California sun has addled your faculties.

    The characters were poor, the pacing downright odd, the dialogue clunky. Even the set design was piss-poor.

    I mean, I “enjoyed” it, but perhaps in the same way I enjoy a left-over trifle.

    I’m currently mulling over whether it even surpasses “Fierce Creatures”, the un-missed sequel to “A Fish Called Wanda”.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    edited December 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    Disagree.

    It's not as good as Knives Out, but the twist is original, the characters entertaining, and the pacing generally very good.

    If it wasn't for the ending, I'd rate it higher than the first movie.

    I preferred it to the first picture, although agree that the ending dragged a bit. Could and should have been 20 minutes shorter.

    I’m not sure the ‘twist’ - if you can call it a twist - is that original. I can think of a at least one famous book that uses a similar plotline, but don’t want to publish spoilers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    Disagree.

    It's not as good as Knives Out, but the twist is original, the characters entertaining, and the pacing generally very good.

    If it wasn't for the ending, I'd rate it higher than the first movie.
    Eh?

    The California sun has addled your faculties.

    The characters were poor, the pacing downright odd, the dialogue clunky. Even the set design was piss-poor.

    I mean, I “enjoyed” it, but perhaps in the same way I enjoy a left-over trifle.

    I’m currently mulling over whether it even surpasses “Fierce Creatures”, the un-missed sequel to “A Fish Called Wanda”.
    You one of a very select minority.
  • Naturally, Putinist-minded CUPers are pumping - and pimping - for Boris Johnson to stage a comeback as PM.

    Just like Punitinist-minded GOPers are just as eager for Donald Trump to return as Real (as opposed to Secret) POTUS.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,577
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    So Johnson has gone back to his traditional role of plotting from the back benches.

    Not quite. It isn't his 'traditional role' until he knocks up his secretary.
    That's his 'traditional roll'.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Company lost 2/3s of its value in a year? Start throwing adolescent shade at some random on the media platform you bought, you know it makes sense.


    I'm really disappointed when it turns out billionaires are just as prone to being childish fools as anyone else. Whatever happened to the shadowy, aloof elite who barely even noticed the common man they were trampling on, except as a figure on a spreadsheet?

    He's definitely reminding me of the chap from Glass Onion, who everyone thought was a complicated genius.
    I always thought billionaires were like Hugo Drax or Blofeld.

    I've known a number of billionaires.

    None were idiots, but really the only differences between them and millionaires were:

    1. No amount of money/success was ever enough
    2. Extremely willing to take risks, even when they had a lot to lose
    3. A little more good fortune
    And I think it's (1) that supports @Sean_F 's point.
    Many moons ago, I was visiting Los Angeles for the E3 trade show, and met up with a friend in the video game industry.

    We were discussing a mutual acquaintance of ours (who blew up spectacularly), and the difference between millionaires and billionaires. He said "once I'd sold my company for £20m, the incentive to keep getting up at 6 in the morning and working 16 hour days just wasn't there any more. Charles on the other hand, no amount of money would ever be enough. He fight as much for the ten billionth pound as the first one."

  • Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Nigelb said:
    Tim Stanley has been an idiot for a long time.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    So Johnson has gone back to his traditional role of plotting from the back benches.

    Not quite. It isn't his 'traditional role' until he knocks up his secretary.
    That's his 'traditional roll'.
    He'll be back in the saddle...
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,397
    rcs100 said: "I've known a number of billionaires."

    I wonder how many follow a pattern I saw years ago in an article listing American folks who had make big bucks, starting from little: A very high proportion of them were drop-outs, most from college, but at least one or two from high school. They couldn't wait to get started making serious money.

    This was before his time, but Bill Gates is an obvious example now. As Edwin Land, who founded Polaroid, was, then.
  • Jonathan said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
    The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

    10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

    You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,577

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    It might just be me but in the last few years I've gone from rather admiring Daniel Craig to finding him slightly irritating.
    Tainted by woke ?
  • OT

    I've just had my energy statement fir the month. I've used approx 20% less gas and electricity than last December yet my bill is almost double.

    I also notice that according to national grid status the cost of electricity on their market is 2.2p/kwh, yet we're paying 32p? Something wrong, surely.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,577
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Tim Stanley has been an idiot for a long time.
    And indeed has been a Telegraph writer for some time, too.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited December 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    Disagree.

    It's not as good as Knives Out, but the twist is original, the characters entertaining, and the pacing generally very good.

    If it wasn't for the ending, I'd rate it higher than the first movie.
    Eh?

    The California sun has addled your faculties.

    The characters were poor, the pacing downright odd, the dialogue clunky. Even the set design was piss-poor.

    I mean, I “enjoyed” it, but perhaps in the same way I enjoy a left-over trifle.

    I’m currently mulling over whether it even surpasses “Fierce Creatures”, the un-missed sequel to “A Fish Called Wanda”.
    You one of a very select minority.
    I do seem to be. But I’m totally confident that the passing of time will bear out my judgement on this.

    Those Rotten Tomatoes reviews remind me of the absurd 5 star rating given on its day of release to “Be Here Now” by Q Magazine, an album which even created queues in music stores in relatively Oasis-skeptic Auckland NZ.
  • More comic relief from the GOP = Grifters On Parade

    Politico.com - Republican Jewish Coalition denounces Santos for lies about his credentials
    After a New York Times investigation, the congressman-elect told the New York Post that he had indeed fabricated elements of his background, including his Jewish heritage.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/27/republican-jewish-coalition-denounces-santos-for-lies-about-his-credentials-00075625
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Jonathan said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
    The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

    10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

    You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
    Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    The baby is dead. The bath water is poisonous.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    rcs1000 said:

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    Disagree.

    It's not as good as Knives Out, but the twist is original, the characters entertaining, and the pacing generally very good.

    If it wasn't for the ending, I'd rate it higher than the first movie.
    Eh?

    The California sun has addled your faculties.

    The characters were poor, the pacing downright odd, the dialogue clunky. Even the set design was piss-poor.

    I mean, I “enjoyed” it, but perhaps in the same way I enjoy a left-over trifle.

    I’m currently mulling over whether it even surpasses “Fierce Creatures”, the un-missed sequel to “A Fish Called Wanda”.
    I'll give it a miss I think. Clunky dialogue above all things I can't watch.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs100 said: "I've known a number of billionaires."

    I wonder how many follow a pattern I saw years ago in an article listing American folks who had make big bucks, starting from little: A very high proportion of them were drop-outs, most from college, but at least one or two from high school. They couldn't wait to get started making serious money.

    This was before his time, but Bill Gates is an obvious example now. As Edwin Land, who founded Polaroid, was, then.

    Point of order: Bill Gates didn't start from little, he came from a pretty well off family.

    By contrast, Steve Jobs was adopted by a lower middle class family. And Jeff Bezos came from very humble beginnings.

    On the other hand, Musk grew up relatively wealthy and Zuckerberg was solidly middle class (parents were dentists, I believe).
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
  • rcs1000 said:

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    Disagree.

    It's not as good as Knives Out, but the twist is original, the characters entertaining, and the pacing generally very good.

    If it wasn't for the ending, I'd rate it higher than the first movie.
    Eh?

    The California sun has addled your faculties.

    The characters were poor, the pacing downright odd, the dialogue clunky. Even the set design was piss-poor.

    I mean, I “enjoyed” it, but perhaps in the same way I enjoy a left-over trifle.

    I’m currently mulling over whether it even surpasses “Fierce Creatures”, the un-missed sequel to “A Fish Called Wanda”.
    I'll give it a miss I think. Clunky dialogue above all things I can't watch.
    Have to admit I didn't think much of a fish, or clockwise for that matter.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Nigelb said:

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    It might just be me but in the last few years I've gone from rather admiring Daniel Craig to finding him slightly irritating.
    Tainted by woke ?
    How can a man who makes vodka commercials be described as woke?.
  • Jonathan said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
    The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

    10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

    You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
    Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
    They both like arguing with people on the Internet.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    The public transport being out of date has much more to do with the planning/judicial review industry than the funding.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Precisely this.

    Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.

    I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.

    But that shit turned toxic some time ago.

    The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport


    that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Spot on.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,076
    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Little remarked on, but a few days ago the government slipped out that standards will be low for a further 36 years. Another Brexit benefit.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/22/target-date-for-cleaning-up-waterways-in-england-is-moved-back-by-36-years
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Precisely this.

    Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.

    I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.

    But that shit turned toxic some time ago.

    The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
    I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago.
    Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS.
    I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start.
    Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Driver said:

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    The public transport being out of date has much more to do with the planning/judicial review industry than the funding.
    It’s a combination of both of the above, and a misplaced view by Thatcher that urban public transport should be marketised.

    I’m a great admirer of Thatcher, but she got this wrong. Mind you, this ought to be have been spotted by New Labour but they were in many ways just as in thrall to “neo-liberalism” as she was.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Little remarked on, but a few days ago the government slipped out that standards will be low for a further 36 years. Another Brexit benefit.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/22/target-date-for-cleaning-up-waterways-in-england-is-moved-back-by-36-years
    Disgraceful as this sounds, I believe it relates more to the persistence of certain contaminants rather than an intention to do nothing for 36 years.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    As a few of us have been saying.

    "Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

    But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

    If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

    Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
    The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

    10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

    You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
    I’m glad to pay my share. In the meantime, I can’t understand how anyone with a brain cell can vote Conservative in the light of the past 12 months. They need a break.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs100 said: "I've known a number of billionaires."

    I wonder how many follow a pattern I saw years ago in an article listing American folks who had make big bucks, starting from little: A very high proportion of them were drop-outs, most from college, but at least one or two from high school. They couldn't wait to get started making serious money.

    This was before his time, but Bill Gates is an obvious example now. As Edwin Land, who founded Polaroid, was, then.

    Point of order: Bill Gates didn't start from little, he came from a pretty well off family.

    By contrast, Steve Jobs was adopted by a lower middle class family. And Jeff Bezos came from very humble beginnings.

    On the other hand, Musk grew up relatively wealthy and Zuckerberg was solidly middle class (parents were dentists, I believe).
    I say that Bezos started from humble beginnings, but it turns out Amazon's first investors were his parents, who put $300k in.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Precisely this.

    Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.

    I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.

    But that shit turned toxic some time ago.

    The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
    I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago.
    Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS.
    I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start.
    Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
    So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.

    And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Precisely this.

    Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.

    I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.

    But that shit turned toxic some time ago.

    The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
    I'm hardly a loony lefty either, yet it's pretty obvious that the current model for the UK doesn't work properly. I also don't think Labour have any of the answers, they, like the Tories, aren't even asking the right questions.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Little remarked on, but a few days ago the government slipped out that standards will be low for a further 36 years. Another Brexit benefit.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/22/target-date-for-cleaning-up-waterways-in-england-is-moved-back-by-36-years
    Disgraceful as this sounds, I believe it relates more to the persistence of certain contaminants rather than an intention to do nothing for 36 years.
    Surely the Guardian isn't spinning shamelessly, and surely Foxy hasn't fallen for it hook, line and sinker?
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,397
    rcs1000 - It is certainly true that Bill Gates was not from a poverty-stricken family, and that he got a big head start from the computer at his private high school, Lakeside.

    But that wasn't my point, rather that he dropped out of Harvard to start a company with his buddy, Paul Allen. And they didn't start it with much money from his family.

    Let me make my question more directly: In your experience, are billionaires more likely to be drop-outs? From high school, college, or their first jobs?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,076

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Little remarked on, but a few days ago the government slipped out that standards will be low for a further 36 years. Another Brexit benefit.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/22/target-date-for-cleaning-up-waterways-in-england-is-moved-back-by-36-years
    Disgraceful as this sounds, I believe it relates more to the persistence of certain contaminants rather than an intention to do nothing for 36 years.
    So you are saying that we have been polluting our waterways for so long that it will be generations to clean up like that is OK?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Little remarked on, but a few days ago the government slipped out that standards will be low for a further 36 years. Another Brexit benefit.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/22/target-date-for-cleaning-up-waterways-in-england-is-moved-back-by-36-years
    Disgraceful as this sounds, I believe it relates more to the persistence of certain contaminants rather than an intention to do nothing for 36 years.
    So you are saying that we have been polluting our waterways for so long that it will be generations to clean up like that is OK?
    If there hadn't been an arbitrary and impossible-to-meet target imposed from outside, would this even be a story?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 - It is certainly true that Bill Gates was not from a poverty-stricken family, and that he got a big head start from the computer at his private high school, Lakeside.

    But that wasn't my point, rather that he dropped out of Harvard to start a company with his buddy, Paul Allen. And they didn't start it with much money from his family.

    Let me make my question more directly: In your experience, are billionaires more likely to be drop-outs? From high school, college, or their first jobs?

    Drop outs?

    Definitely.

    But many - perhaps most - of the self made billionaires had the advantage of parents who were relatively wealthy. And who were often able to, as in the case of Microsoft and Amazon among others, directly invest in their offsprings' business.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Precisely this.

    Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.

    I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.

    But that shit turned toxic some time ago.

    The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
    I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago.
    Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS.
    I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start.
    Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
    So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.

    And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
    I fall victim to this thinking myself at times. Why upgrade your phone as soon as the next one comes out? Stop getting Costa lattes. Make a packed lunch. All partially valid but they ignore the scale of the challenge. That, and the credit card lifestyle is here to stay. My parents had to wait for things and saved up. However there weren’t that many things to save up for either.
    It’s easy to forget what life was like 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago, even when we’ve live through it. TV with three channels. No mobile phones. Cameras that have film, actual film in them. Very few Christmas lights outside houses. Fewer cars. Single glazing and outside loos.

    I think the young are very privileged and also very hard done by, at the same time. Modern life is often amazing, and yet the simpler dream of owning a three bed semi in a nice part of the world is often beyond them. And then there is parenting. My parents and my wives parents got by with one earning and one caring when we were kids. Now it seems almost impossible for many families to do that, or at least without a significant drop in quality of life.

    None of this is easy, but some of the Boomer generation fail to see how lucky they have been. Of course they had their struggles too, but right now, many are into the third decade of comfortable retirement in nice houses, and with foreign holidays twice a year.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 - It is certainly true that Bill Gates was not from a poverty-stricken family, and that he got a big head start from the computer at his private high school, Lakeside.

    But that wasn't my point, rather that he dropped out of Harvard to start a company with his buddy, Paul Allen. And they didn't start it with much money from his family.

    Let me make my question more directly: In your experience, are billionaires more likely to be drop-outs? From high school, college, or their first jobs?

    Drop outs?

    Definitely.

    But many - perhaps most - of the self made billionaires had the advantage of parents who were relatively wealthy. And who were often able to, as in the case of Microsoft and Amazon among others, directly invest in their offsprings' business.
    It seems you need to start with parents who have several “hundy” available to fund your first, second or third venture.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Little remarked on, but a few days ago the government slipped out that standards will be low for a further 36 years. Another Brexit benefit.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/22/target-date-for-cleaning-up-waterways-in-england-is-moved-back-by-36-years
    Disgraceful as this sounds, I believe it relates more to the persistence of certain contaminants rather than an intention to do nothing for 36 years.
    So you are saying that we have been polluting our waterways for so long that it will be generations to clean up like that is OK?
    No. But there are sources of pollution, such as landfill, that will keep adding to the problem for many years, and they may well be outside the control of the water companies.

    Pollution is not ok, but it is important to keep a sense of perspective. For instance, drinking bottled water that may well be far worse than water from the tap.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Driver said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Little remarked on, but a few days ago the government slipped out that standards will be low for a further 36 years. Another Brexit benefit.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/22/target-date-for-cleaning-up-waterways-in-england-is-moved-back-by-36-years
    Disgraceful as this sounds, I believe it relates more to the persistence of certain contaminants rather than an intention to do nothing for 36 years.
    Surely the Guardian isn't spinning shamelessly, and surely Foxy hasn't fallen for it hook, line and sinker?
    The issue is more complex than the guardian presents it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Precisely this.

    Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.

    I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.

    But that shit turned toxic some time ago.

    The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
    Adam Smith himself said that large corporations were dangerous and should be broken up - the Government has an active role to play in the economy, just not running it.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Precisely this.

    Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.

    I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.

    But that shit turned toxic some time ago.

    The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
    I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago.
    Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS.
    I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start.
    Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
    So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.

    And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
    Because most pensioners don't actually look or see the real world because they are very comfortable within their own little world.

    Heck the only time your typical pensioner will discover the true state of the NHS service is if / when they get seriously ill and discover how bad A&E is nowadays.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited December 2022

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    I liked it, if not as much as Knives Out.

    We are so inundated with detective and mystery fiction that everything that can be done, has been done, so to stand out its about style and performance, and both had that (I actually felt Benoit Blanc was practically a distraction in Knives Out, whereas he felt more central to events this time). Certainly it falls apart a bit more than Knives Out when you stop to think about it, but then I thought that about Murder on the Orient Express a lot more, and people tell me that is a classic.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    The spoiler for Glass Onion is that it is shite.
    Daniel Craig and Janelle Monae are both good, but the whole thing is badly written, badly designed dreck; an in-joke about an in-joke.

    It’s a shame because Knives Out was very good.

    It might just be me but in the last few years I've gone from rather admiring Daniel Craig to finding him slightly irritating.
    Tainted by woke ?
    How can a man who makes vodka commercials be described as woke?.
    Those horiffic moccasins in the latest Bond film. That was a woke footwear choice if I ever saw one.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    MaxPB said:

    Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.

    The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.

    There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
    I dont think so.

    Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.

    My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
    There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.

    Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.

    And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.

    Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.

    Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.

    Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
    Precisely this.

    Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.

    I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.

    But that shit turned toxic some time ago.

    The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
    I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago.
    Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS.
    I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start.
    Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
    So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.

    And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
    They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
This discussion has been closed.