Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
Will probably vote Trump - 43%, Will certainly not vote Trump - 49% Will probably vote Harris - 48%, Will certainly not vote Harris - 44%
Enthusiasm for the election - Dems 85% (+39 since June), Reps 71% (=), Inds 53% (+19)
Everyone should note the Dems have a major hurdle imminent. Their Convention is just down the road from the largest Palestinian community in the USA. Demos on Gaza are pretty much certain. I doubt a 1968 redux but it may puncture the idea of a boost to Harris being certain courtesy of the Convention
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
On telly - I've just set about watching "Going Straight" - the follow up to Porridge. Surprisingly, it's just as good. Interesting bit of late 1970s social history - themes like inflation and societal decline - but at the same time it was unremarkable for a career criminal to own quite a nice house in North London.
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
My comment is that in France and Germany they got where they are by starting from where they were. I don't wish to see that happen here, and I think RefUK, and certain elements or former elements of the Tories, may be attempting to mainstream the far right - either deliberately or to try and save themselves.
That's what I think Lee Anderson may be doing - in Ashfield and certain neighbouring areas that is dog whistling to the old Right of Conservative vote, from UKIP out to BNP.
On SM I'm seeing an overlap between RefUK commentators and Trump-types, and it's a concern that we may get more of elements of the crusader type narrative adopted as a fake cultural icon.
Here's what can happen when individuals swallow the message without thinking, and are groomed, for a moment or more permanently, into values they did not previously hold.
A woman who called on Facebook for a mosque to "be blown up with the adults inside" has been jailed for 15 months.
Julie Sweeney, 53, of Cheshire, admitted a charge of sending a communication threatening death or serious harm, when she appeared at Chester Crown Court.
Sweeney, from Church Lawton near Alsager, posted the comment after riots flared across England in the wake of the killings of three young girls in Southport, last month.
The court heard she was responding to an online post picturing people helping to repair the mosque in Southport after it was damaged during violent disorder that followed the stabbings.
Interesting sentence. Feels on the high side to me, despite horrific content. I think I am getting out of date. Keyboard warriors look out.
I'd need to see the sentencing remarks.
That might be protected speech in the USA, or it might not - it is not "fighting words" of the sort "I'm going to do *this* to you". In the UK it is fairly clear incitement, I think.
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
It'll be their equivalent of Eurotrash. How those funny chaps overseas do things.
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
It'll be their equivalent of Eurotrash. How those funny chaps overseas do things.
I don’t think that’s the case. It’s more their version of Neighbours or marriage at first sight Australia: cheap and enjoyably undemanding TV licensed in to pad the schedules.
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
(Allied wartime propaganda, if you're worried about clicking on anything dodgy, it's quite clean and very funny!)
Brings home how much more central Japan was to the US involvement in WW2 than it was to us or the USSR, despite our wartime losses in Asia.
I'm of the offensive neorealist school of thought of international relations. Not out of choice, or because I want it to be true, but simply because that's how countries behave, given all the available evidence. Empirically, it fits.
One can either view that as depressing, or inevitable, or both.
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
That's a circular argument. A growing state, with a largely unproductive part demanding more in tax from the productive part, limits and eventually reverses economic growth. Eventually the size of the state has to match the size of the tax base.
Productivity growth has been weak everywhere since 2008, not just in the public sector.
You might argue that is because there hasn't been a large public investment in the economy, with things like HS2, Northern Powerhouse rail, "levelling up". Or that people in the UK have not been educated properly, or that their health is not good enough to properly contribute to the economy.
We could increase taxation to French levels and spend 12% of GDP on infrastructure without touching current spending.
Public sector productivity isn't the same as being 'the productive sector' - by the productive sector I mean the wealth creating sector. Take more and more away from that via taxation, regulation, green levies etc., and give it to the state, and eventually you kill the wealth creation that feeds the state.
The only time I've heard the phrase "productive sector" is in relation to tangible stuff like agriculture, mining, quarrying. Raw materials.
It's a slightly odd distinction. Do you think a doctor working in the private sector is part of the productive sector? How about a GP practice? Or a construction company building a new road with public funds?
Most of the wealth creating staff at a major multi-national will have been educated and cared for by the state until they are 22. The real wealth creator, in terms of their human capital, is the government.
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
I don't think the small state is as unpopular as you think, probably 60% of people don't get benefit from the large state apart from the nhs. There crimes aren't solved, social care cost their relatives money if they saved any or have an asset etc.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
Interesting piece from Margaret Hodge about tackling the BNP at the Barking Constituency in the General Election in 2010. Similarities and differences.
And how much of it related to addressing perceptions of local conditions.
WHEN LABOUR swept back into power in last month’s British general election, I felt elated. But I also grew worried about the potential implications of the results for mainstream politics. The numbers that emerged on the night of July 4th reminded me of what happened in Barking from 2001 to 2010, when we lived through the alarming rise of the British National Party (BNP). The far-right, anti-immigrant riots that have erupted in English towns and cities in recent days make it even more important to learn the lessons we can from the east London constituency I represented for 30 years. ... What emerged strongly was that it was anger, not apathy, that kept voters away. They were angry about the conditions they lived in. They were furious at what they saw as an elite political establishment failing to listen to them. They had lost faith in mainstream political parties. By 2005 their anger against us turned into a protest vote for the BNP. In 2006 the BNP stood 13 candidates in the local elections and won 12 seats. Had they stood candidates in all the 51 seats that were up for election, we would have had a BNP-run council (local government).
It could well be that it was anger, not apathy, that kept voters away on July 4th. And it also seems probable that a vote for the populist and divisive Reform agenda was a protest vote against the mainstream parties.
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
I don't think the small state is as unpopular as you think, probably 60% of people don't get benefit from the large state apart from the nhs. There crimes aren't solved, social care cost their relatives money if they saved any or have an asset etc.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
To put some numbers on that, 54% of UK residents are net recipients from the state, while 46% contribute.
About 46% of non-retired people are net recipients. So it's pretty close - though much depends on the measurement of in-kind benefits and so on.
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
I don't think the small state is as unpopular as you think, probably 60% of people don't get benefit from the large state apart from the nhs. There crimes aren't solved, social care cost their relatives money if they saved any or have an asset etc.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
To put some numbers on that, 54% of UK residents are net recipients from the state, while 46% contribute.
About 46% of non-retired people are net recipients. So it's pretty close - though much depends on the measurement of in-kind benefits and so on.
That is because a lot of uk residents pay little income tax and the nhs costs far outstrip their contributions, you only need an incident every few years
OPINION: US President Joe Biden’s hesitancy has allowed Russia to escalate the conflict in Ukraine.
Now, Kamala Harris must indicate that she won’t allow Vladimir Putin to set the terms of war.
The reason Putin thought he could get away with invading Ukraine is because Trump's antics on 6th January 2020 made him think the US would be too distracted by its own inner troubles to stop him.
The reason for Biden's 'hesitancy' is that Trump-aligned forces in Congress, several of them indirectly or even directly in the pay of Russia, have kept blocking aid packages.
Ironically, for that reason instead of being rapidly defeated Russia has found itself bogged down in a war that's lasted for getting on for three years, destroyed its army, wrecked its reputation, ruined its economy, exacerbated a major demographic crisis and even further away from restoring the Soviet empire Putin dreams of than it was in 2010.
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
When I did my long crossing of the Baltic last year, a lot of Scandinavian TV seemed to be subtitled daytime British shows.
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
When I did my long crossing of the Baltic last year, a lot of Scandinavian TV seemed to be subtitled daytime British shows.
Am doing Stockholm->Tallinn by ferry day after tomorrow. Which routes did you take?
Notwithstanding that a lot of the items in his list stem from trying to put right the last government’s idiocy or neglect, is the Tories’ new campaigning slogan really going to be ’Look - they’re as shit as we were!’ ??
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Notwithstanding that a lot of the items in his list stem from trying to put right the last government’s idiocy or neglect, is the Tories’ new campaigning slogan really going to be ’Look - they’re as shit as we were!’ ??
If people voted Labour based on competence not issues, it's not a bad first whack.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
What about bins/environmental health? Just as an example.
That's the least of it with him. Trump on steroids, massively vulgar and obnoxious for no reason, and, interestingly given his comments there, mouthing off all the time on twitter.
Interesting piece from Margaret Hodge about tackling the BNP at the Barking Constituency in the General Election in 2010. Similarities and differences.
And how much of it related to addressing perceptions of local conditions.
WHEN LABOUR swept back into power in last month’s British general election, I felt elated. But I also grew worried about the potential implications of the results for mainstream politics. The numbers that emerged on the night of July 4th reminded me of what happened in Barking from 2001 to 2010, when we lived through the alarming rise of the British National Party (BNP). The far-right, anti-immigrant riots that have erupted in English towns and cities in recent days make it even more important to learn the lessons we can from the east London constituency I represented for 30 years. ... What emerged strongly was that it was anger, not apathy, that kept voters away. They were angry about the conditions they lived in. They were furious at what they saw as an elite political establishment failing to listen to them. They had lost faith in mainstream political parties. By 2005 their anger against us turned into a protest vote for the BNP. In 2006 the BNP stood 13 candidates in the local elections and won 12 seats. Had they stood candidates in all the 51 seats that were up for election, we would have had a BNP-run council (local government).
It could well be that it was anger, not apathy, that kept voters away on July 4th. And it also seems probable that a vote for the populist and divisive Reform agenda was a protest vote against the mainstream parties.
Glad someone has realised the Tories' job is to oppose Labour.
He's growing on me like a bad case of athlete's foot.
It is their job to oppose Labour (where warranted, obviously in reality oppositions do not oppose on principle everything that ever happens), but it's only been a month or so and they have been gearing up for an internal party battle, I think it's been a bit overhyped to suggest, as some have, that they are neglecting their duty somehow.
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
When I did my long crossing of the Baltic last year, a lot of Scandinavian TV seemed to be subtitled daytime British shows.
Am doing Stockholm->Tallinn by ferry day after tomorrow. Which routes did you take?
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
What about bins/environmental health? Just as an example.
Bins are paid for from local government I am talking most now about central. Not to say local government also doesn't need a shake up.
If my house gets burgled for example, as someone that pays more tax than I get out the state how do you think that makes me feel about whether my tax is being pissed away when I can't even get a police response except a crime number....it makes me resent the tax I am paying is the answer
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
It'll be their equivalent of Eurotrash. How those funny chaps overseas do things.
I don’t think that’s the case. It’s more their version of Neighbours or marriage at first sight Australia: cheap and enjoyably undemanding TV licensed in to pad the schedules.
In my experience from 2 or 3 decades ago, Swedish people loved British TV. Actually all things British. The most britophile country I've experienced. Might be different now.
Interesting piece from Margaret Hodge about tackling the BNP at the Barking Constituency in the General Election in 2010. Similarities and differences.
And how much of it related to addressing perceptions of local conditions.
WHEN LABOUR swept back into power in last month’s British general election, I felt elated. But I also grew worried about the potential implications of the results for mainstream politics. The numbers that emerged on the night of July 4th reminded me of what happened in Barking from 2001 to 2010, when we lived through the alarming rise of the British National Party (BNP). The far-right, anti-immigrant riots that have erupted in English towns and cities in recent days make it even more important to learn the lessons we can from the east London constituency I represented for 30 years. ... What emerged strongly was that it was anger, not apathy, that kept voters away. They were angry about the conditions they lived in. They were furious at what they saw as an elite political establishment failing to listen to them. They had lost faith in mainstream political parties. By 2005 their anger against us turned into a protest vote for the BNP. In 2006 the BNP stood 13 candidates in the local elections and won 12 seats. Had they stood candidates in all the 51 seats that were up for election, we would have had a BNP-run council (local government).
It could well be that it was anger, not apathy, that kept voters away on July 4th. And it also seems probable that a vote for the populist and divisive Reform agenda was a protest vote against the mainstream parties.
Interesting piece, but I think the low turnout was both apathy and anger, as well as a rather unappealing venue from the two main parties.
When labour fail to change anything I suspect turnout will be even lower next time, conservative voters will still be sitting out because the tories wont get there shit together, so will a lot of labour voters
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
What about bins/environmental health? Just as an example.
Bins are paid for from local government I am talking most now about central. Not to say local government also doesn't need a shake up.
If my house gets burgled for example, as someone that pays more tax than I get out the state how do you think that makes me feel about whether my tax is being pissed away when I can't even get a police response except a crime number....it makes me resent the tax I am paying is the answer
Fair enough. Although most local government spending is paid out of central government.
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
I don't think the small state is as unpopular as you think, probably 60% of people don't get benefit from the large state apart from the nhs. There crimes aren't solved, social care cost their relatives money if they saved any or have an asset etc.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
There are quite a lot of things which could be ditched with very little long term damage at-all, although working out how to ameliorate the short term effects might be tricky.
For example - housing benefit. We spend £16 billion a year subsidising landlords by inflating the cost of rented housing. It only exists because rented housing is unaffordable because there isn't enough housing to go round. All it actually achieves is making rented housing even more unaffordable by adding an extra £16 billion to the money chasing that housing.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
What about bins/environmental health? Just as an example.
Bins are paid for from local government I am talking most now about central. Not to say local government also doesn't need a shake up.
If my house gets burgled for example, as someone that pays more tax than I get out the state how do you think that makes me feel about whether my tax is being pissed away when I can't even get a police response except a crime number....it makes me resent the tax I am paying is the answer
Fair enough. Although most local government spending is paid out of central government.
Yes it is but we have to start somewhere, fixing everything in one foul swoop is probably not possible
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
I don't think the small state is as unpopular as you think, probably 60% of people don't get benefit from the large state apart from the nhs. There crimes aren't solved, social care cost their relatives money if they saved any or have an asset etc.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
There are quite a lot of things which could be ditched with very little long term damage at-all, although working out how to ameliorate the short term effects might be tricky.
For example - housing benefit. We spend £16 billion a year subsidising landlords by inflating the cost of rented housing. It only exists because rented housing is unaffordable because there isn't enough housing to go round. All it actually achieves is making rented housing even more unaffordable by adding an extra £16 billion to the money chasing that housing.
Yes I agree and the only way to fix that is to make landlords have to compete for tenants which at the moment is the other way round
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
I don't think the small state is as unpopular as you think, probably 60% of people don't get benefit from the large state apart from the nhs. There crimes aren't solved, social care cost their relatives money if they saved any or have an asset etc.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
There are quite a lot of things which could be ditched with very little long term damage at-all, although working out how to ameliorate the short term effects might be tricky.
For example - housing benefit. We spend £16 billion a year subsidising landlords by inflating the cost of rented housing. It only exists because rented housing is unaffordable because there isn't enough housing to go round. All it actually achieves is making rented housing even more unaffordable by adding an extra £16 billion to the money chasing that housing.
And rented housing is the largest segment of UC payments. However. If you simply removed it, then plenty of part time, or term time working single mothers would be evicted.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
What about bins/environmental health? Just as an example.
Bins are paid for from local government I am talking most now about central. Not to say local government also doesn't need a shake up.
If my house gets burgled for example, as someone that pays more tax than I get out the state how do you think that makes me feel about whether my tax is being pissed away when I can't even get a police response except a crime number....it makes me resent the tax I am paying is the answer
I suggest you would do better resenting the government that was in power for a decade and led to this situation instead. Fortunately, they're now gone. You can judge the new one at the next election,
Sounds slightly ridiculous. but Ukrainian helicopter pilots performed near-miracles in resupplying Mariupol in the early days of the war.
That hasn't happened.
I could believe that Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups are operating in the area, and there's been a case of Russian helicopters firing at Russian units in some of the confusion, but it's too far behind the current front line to be dropping people in.
It reminds me of the computer game video of the four Russian helicopters taken down by MANPADS early in the war.
The Mariupol helicopter flights were to a large extent over the sea, of course.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Pointless gesture politics.
Its a gesture to have good education to 18, a working system for law and order, a working safety net and health care system and have a functional defence force? Its a view I guess but a stupid one
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
I don't think the small state is as unpopular as you think, probably 60% of people don't get benefit from the large state apart from the nhs. There crimes aren't solved, social care cost their relatives money if they saved any or have an asset etc.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
There are quite a lot of things which could be ditched with very little long term damage at-all, although working out how to ameliorate the short term effects might be tricky.
For example - housing benefit. We spend £16 billion a year subsidising landlords by inflating the cost of rented housing. It only exists because rented housing is unaffordable because there isn't enough housing to go round. All it actually achieves is making rented housing even more unaffordable by adding an extra £16 billion to the money chasing that housing.
And rented housing is the largest segment of UC payments. However. If you simply removed it, then plenty of part time, or term time working single mothers would be evicted.
The key is more housing, once prospective rentals outnumber tenants then prices will drop and the quality of rental will be higher
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Pointless gesture politics.
Its a gesture to have good education to 18, a working system for law and order, a working safety net and health care system and have a functional defence force? Its a view I guess but a stupid one
You know, I know, everyone knows, that the problematic part of your idea is the last 6 words.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
What about bins/environmental health? Just as an example.
Bins are paid for from local government I am talking most now about central. Not to say local government also doesn't need a shake up.
If my house gets burgled for example, as someone that pays more tax than I get out the state how do you think that makes me feel about whether my tax is being pissed away when I can't even get a police response except a crime number....it makes me resent the tax I am paying is the answer
I suggest you would do better resenting the government that was in power for a decade and led to this situation instead. Fortunately, they're now gone. You can judge the new one at the next election,
Its not just a tory thing it was a new labour thing too till the 90's housing wasn't an issue....remind me which party was the one to open the flood gates. Take your party political point and shove it up your arse because I wasn't making one I blame both parties for it.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Pointless gesture politics.
Its a gesture to have good education to 18, a working system for law and order, a working safety net and health care system and have a functional defence force? Its a view I guess but a stupid one
You know, I know, everyone knows, that the problematic part of your idea is the last 6 words.
Only in your mind but then you think you are intelligent because you are an academic, yes you are intelligent on your chosen subject....doesn't make you intelligent anywhere else, btw you are so intelligent you cant even count the last sentence even allowing for elision by the apostrophe was 9 words and doesn't make sense without the "it's a view" part
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Social care for the elderly. Pensions for the retired. public sector housing. Roads. Water, sewage and other infrastructure. The foreign office. Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
I don't think the small state is as unpopular as you think, probably 60% of people don't get benefit from the large state apart from the nhs. There crimes aren't solved, social care cost their relatives money if they saved any or have an asset etc.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
There are quite a lot of things which could be ditched with very little long term damage at-all, although working out how to ameliorate the short term effects might be tricky.
For example - housing benefit. We spend £16 billion a year subsidising landlords by inflating the cost of rented housing. It only exists because rented housing is unaffordable because there isn't enough housing to go round. All it actually achieves is making rented housing even more unaffordable by adding an extra £16 billion to the money chasing that housing.
And rented housing is the largest segment of UC payments. However. If you simply removed it, then plenty of part time, or term time working single mothers would be evicted.
The key is more housing, once prospective rentals outnumber tenants then prices will drop and the quality of rental will be higher
No, because each time a new or existing home becomes a rental property, it means one less home available for a first time buyer. That first time buyers remains a renter, and the cycle continues.
Have run across a dubbed version of "Location, Location, Location" in primetime on one of Sweden's main TV channels. Can't they find or make anything better?
It'll be their equivalent of Eurotrash. How those funny chaps overseas do things.
I don’t think that’s the case. It’s more their version of Neighbours or marriage at first sight Australia: cheap and enjoyably undemanding TV licensed in to pad the schedules.
In my experience from 2 or 3 decades ago, Swedish people loved British TV. Actually all things British. The most britophile country I've experienced. Might be different now.
A few years back I was in Denmark, and Geordie Shore was on one of the TV channels. Actually the only time I've watched it.
Not sure my ante post bet on Leeds for the Championship was the wisest choice. Getting cut apart by Boro.
I’m a Boro fan of some 40 years standing and I think we might just have a squad this season that could finally deliver promotion back to the Premier League. Reports that Conway has been signed from Bristol City tonight as well.
And Carrick is the best Boro manager since McClaren.
The other thing is that Lgov is in the wrong direction. The Ukrainian advanced in the last couple of days have been mostly to the east and west, pushing the buffet zone to cover a greater extent of the border.
So if they were to try something like this then the place they'd target would be Rylsk.
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
I don't think the small state is as unpopular as you think, probably 60% of people don't get benefit from the large state apart from the nhs. There crimes aren't solved, social care cost their relatives money if they saved any or have an asset etc.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
But they blame those things on a shrunken state - because the Tories had been in power for 14 years, and with the exception of the Boris interlude when there were big spending promises - were cutting back some things while championing that approach rhetorically, even if weren't actually getting the overall bill down by all that much.
It's not that it's permanently unpopular - heck, the smaller state was popular as recently as the 2015 election - just that these things go in cycles and having not had much to show for their time in power it could be a long one. There's a widespread perception, especially among those under 40 (so the growing part of the electorate), that those 14 years were a dismal failure and thus its two main themes austerity (for which we can read a smaller state) and Brexit are toxified by that.
Brexit isn't going to be undone any time soon of course due to the complexities of doing so and political bandwidth it would take up, but a more active state is the likely default for a good while. Especially as one of the Tories' few remaining strongholds is among those who personally rely on the state most - the elderly - so it'll be very difficult to find cuts that don't either a) annoy remaining supporters b) further turn off those already alienated.
So what I was getting at is that Conservatives, and small staters in particular will need new big ideas on how to get there that can appeal to people, so they don't just switch off, think of the past 14 years and go "yeah we tried that, it was rubbish".
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Yes, let's not bother mending any potholes, keeping the railways safe, providing any sports facilities or any social care that isn't directly healthcare, cleaning up any polluted rivers, addressing flood risks, having any kind of industrial policy, funding research or tertiary education, running embassies etc etc until Pagan is happy about an arbitrary list of stuff. Because of course none of those underpin the success of the economy needed to do those things and can be left to go to hell.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
What about bins/environmental health? Just as an example.
Bins are paid for from local government I am talking most now about central. Not to say local government also doesn't need a shake up.
If my house gets burgled for example, as someone that pays more tax than I get out the state how do you think that makes me feel about whether my tax is being pissed away when I can't even get a police response except a crime number....it makes me resent the tax I am paying is the answer
I suggest you would do better resenting the government that was in power for a decade and led to this situation instead. Fortunately, they're now gone. You can judge the new one at the next election,
Its not just a tory thing it was a new labour thing too till the 90's housing wasn't an issue....remind me which party was the one to open the flood gates. Take your party political point and shove it up your arse because I wasn't making one I blame both parties for it.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Social care for the elderly. Pensions for the retired. public sector housing. Roads. Water, sewage and other infrastructure. The foreign office. Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
Better to make a list of things that are currently funded and shouldn't be and what the savings would be.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Pointless gesture politics.
Its a gesture to have good education to 18, a working system for law and order, a working safety net and health care system and have a functional defence force? Its a view I guess but a stupid one
You know, I know, everyone knows, that the problematic part of your idea is the last 6 words.
Only in your mind but then you think you are intelligent because you are an academic, yes you are intelligent on your chosen subject....doesn't make you intelligent anywhere else, btw you are so intelligent you cant even count the last sentence even allowing for elision by the apostrophe was 9 words and doesn't make sense without the "it's a view" part
If the far-right is such a significant force in the UK, why did far-right parties get pretty much zero votes at the election, due to the fact that no far-right parties put up candidates, (unless you include Heritage which got about 0.02%). By contrast, the far-right got 33% and 37% in the two rounds of the French election.
Yes - in the UK, there aren't really any true 'far right' parties, because they don't exist. I think they are proscribed.
This term ('far right') is more often used as a way of associating something someone doesn't like, with something evil (fascism) - sort of a rhetorical trick. Its use is often revealing of the politics on the part of the person involved, they are probably part of the 'liberal elite'.
Looking at the Reform party, and reading its manifesto, its ideas are not very radical, they seem to me to be part of the political mainstream. I'm saying that in all honesty, not to try and shock people. I don't see much real difference between Labour and the Reform party, other than the labour manifesto is perhaps more realistic and deliverable.
If you then consider all the main British political parties to be of a similar vein, what would you look for in a Party to mark it as distinct and (perhaps) worthy of your support?
There seems on here to be a strong conservative voice which feels politically homeless now - by conservative I mean "small state" so lower taxes and cuts in spending.
The problem is we cannot afford a "small state". Small state works when the economy is growing and the tax revenues generated allow the public finances to be kept either in balance or surplus. With weaker growth, it becomes much harder to balance the bookes without resorting to either tax rises or damaging spending cuts.
These are interesting questions. I generally just see hazards with all the options, so go for the safest one, this time around it was the labour party. Trump v Harris is a genuinely difficult one that fortunately I don't have to make. The issues are obvious with Trump but I don't think people really see the enormity of the potential problems with Harris and the Democrats.
Notwithstanding all that, I am receptive to the idea that something needs to change fundamentally, so could be persuaded by a start up party, one with totally different ideas to the mainstream.
I think the 'small state' idea is dead, it was disproved by the pandemic. There are legitimate questions though as to what the state should do however.
I don't think it was the pandemic that killed it, rather austerity of the type Cameron and Osborne chose as politically feasible. Their theory was that the post-2008 deficit was an opportunity to make cuts to the state because it made cutbacks much more popular than was the case. Once you'd sorted the deficit you could then do tax cuts that made that settlement permanent as Labour would be terrified of putting up people's taxes and/or borrowing.
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
Paradoxically, you won't get people to ask for a smaller state until you raise taxes to the point that they, and not their grand-kids, are paying for the current size of the state.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Social care for the elderly. Pensions for the retired. public sector housing. Roads. Water, sewage and other infrastructure. The foreign office. Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
Pensions for the retired and social care for those who cant pay is part of the safety net
Students can pay for their degrees, Water and sewage is already privatised we do need a I agree a stronger ofwat. The foreign office is largely a waste of space and I doubt any of us would notice if it was culled to about 5%. For example do we need an embassy in every country...we could probably manage with a consulate officer in mosts sharing an embassy with other countries. Roads just hypothecate road tax and fuel duty its more than enough to pay for those
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
What about bins/environmental health? Just as an example.
Bins are paid for from local government I am talking most now about central. Not to say local government also doesn't need a shake up.
If my house gets burgled for example, as someone that pays more tax than I get out the state how do you think that makes me feel about whether my tax is being pissed away when I can't even get a police response except a crime number....it makes me resent the tax I am paying is the answer
I suggest you would do better resenting the government that was in power for a decade and led to this situation instead. Fortunately, they're now gone. You can judge the new one at the next election,
Its not just a tory thing it was a new labour thing too till the 90's housing wasn't an issue....remind me which party was the one to open the flood gates. Take your party political point and shove it up your arse because I wasn't making one I blame both parties for it.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Social care for the elderly. Pensions for the retired. public sector housing. Roads. Water, sewage and other infrastructure. The foreign office. Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
Pensions for the retired and social care for those who cant pay is part of the safety net
Your original post said, "I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability". But social care and pensions aren't time limited (except by death, but just about everything is limited by that).
Dude is hilarious. Hasn't yet reached the heights of Giuliani's Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference, but he's showing real promise. Is he on Kamabla's payroll?
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Social care for the elderly. Pensions for the retired. public sector housing. Roads. Water, sewage and other infrastructure. The foreign office. Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
Pensions for the retired and social care for those who cant pay is part of the safety net
Your original post said, "I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability". But social care and pensions aren't time limited (except by death, but just about everything is limited by that).
You dont class old age or needing social care as extreme disability?
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Yes, let's not bother mending any potholes, keeping the railways safe, providing any sports facilities or any social care that isn't directly healthcare, cleaning up any polluted rivers, addressing flood risks, having any kind of industrial policy, funding research or tertiary education, running embassies etc etc until Pagan is happy about an arbitrary list of stuff. Because of course none of those underpin the success of the economy needed to do those things and can be left to go to hell.
Tbf, we already don't do quite a lot of that. Potholes, pollution, flood risks, Tertiary Ed.
Of course, we *should* be doing them but we're not and I doubt if that will change any time soon.
Not sure my ante post bet on Leeds for the Championship was the wisest choice. Getting cut apart by Boro.
I’m a Boro fan of some 40 years standing and I think we might just have a squad this season that could finally deliver promotion back to the Premier League. Reports that Conway has been signed from Bristol City tonight as well.
And Carrick is the best Boro manager since McClaren.
Yes. They were as impressive as Leeds were poor. Defensively sound and took their chances.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Yes, let's not bother mending any potholes, keeping the railways safe, providing any sports facilities or any social care that isn't directly healthcare, cleaning up any polluted rivers, addressing flood risks, having any kind of industrial policy, funding research or tertiary education, running embassies etc etc until Pagan is happy about an arbitrary list of stuff. Because of course none of those underpin the success of the economy needed to do those things and can be left to go to hell.
Tbf, we already don't do quite a lot of that. Potholes, pollution, flood risks, Tertiary Ed.
Of course, we *should* be doing them but we're not and I doubt if that will change any time soon.
I also wasn't saying don't do any of those things, I was saying get the basics right first and foremost. If there is money to do the nice to haves great.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Yes, let's not bother mending any potholes, keeping the railways safe, providing any sports facilities or any social care that isn't directly healthcare, cleaning up any polluted rivers, addressing flood risks, having any kind of industrial policy, funding research or tertiary education, running embassies etc etc until Pagan is happy about an arbitrary list of stuff. Because of course none of those underpin the success of the economy needed to do those things and can be left to go to hell.
Tbf, we already don't do quite a lot of that. Potholes, pollution, flood risks, Tertiary Ed.
Of course, we *should* be doing them but we're not and I doubt if that will change any time soon.
I also wasn't saying don't do any of those things, I was saying get the basics right first and foremost. If there is money to do the nice to haves great.
Not polluting our rivers and stopping them from flooding everywhere are 'nice to haves?'
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Social care for the elderly. Pensions for the retired. public sector housing. Roads. Water, sewage and other infrastructure. The foreign office. Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
Pensions for the retired and social care for those who cant pay is part of the safety net
Your original post said, "I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability". But social care and pensions aren't time limited (except by death, but just about everything is limited by that).
You dont class old age or needing social care as extreme disability?
Well, I think they should be funded. But no, being retired is not an "extreme disability". Nor are most things supported by social care.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Yes, let's not bother mending any potholes, keeping the railways safe, providing any sports facilities or any social care that isn't directly healthcare, cleaning up any polluted rivers, addressing flood risks, having any kind of industrial policy, funding research or tertiary education, running embassies etc etc until Pagan is happy about an arbitrary list of stuff. Because of course none of those underpin the success of the economy needed to do those things and can be left to go to hell.
Tbf, we already don't do quite a lot of that. Potholes, pollution, flood risks, Tertiary Ed.
Of course, we *should* be doing them but we're not and I doubt if that will change any time soon.
I also wasn't saying don't do any of those things, I was saying get the basics right first and foremost. If there is money to do the nice to haves great.
Not polluting our rivers and stopping them from flooding everywhere are 'nice to haves?'
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Social care for the elderly. Pensions for the retired. public sector housing. Roads. Water, sewage and other infrastructure. The foreign office. Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
Pensions for the retired and social care for those who cant pay is part of the safety net
Students can pay for their degrees, Water and sewage is already privatised we do need a I agree a stronger ofwat. The foreign office is largely a waste of space and I doubt any of us would notice if it was culled to about 5%. For example do we need an embassy in every country...we could probably manage with a consulate officer in mosts sharing an embassy with other countries. Roads just hypothecate road tax and fuel duty its more than enough to pay for those
Disappointed that you're already compromising and willing to fund the Foreign Office.
Harris campaign says it has “accepted CBS' invitation to a Vice Presidential Candidate Debate on October 1. Governor Walz looks forward to debating JD Vance -- if he shows up.”
Not sure my ante post bet on Leeds for the Championship was the wisest choice. Getting cut apart by Boro.
I’m a Boro fan of some 40 years standing and I think we might just have a squad this season that could finally deliver promotion back to the Premier League. Reports that Conway has been signed from Bristol City tonight as well.
And Carrick is the best Boro manager since McClaren.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Social care for the elderly. Pensions for the retired. public sector housing. Roads. Water, sewage and other infrastructure. The foreign office. Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
Pensions for the retired and social care for those who cant pay is part of the safety net
Students can pay for their degrees, Water and sewage is already privatised we do need a I agree a stronger ofwat. The foreign office is largely a waste of space and I doubt any of us would notice if it was culled to about 5%. For example do we need an embassy in every country...we could probably manage with a consulate officer in mosts sharing an embassy with other countries. Roads just hypothecate road tax and fuel duty its more than enough to pay for those
Disappointed that you're already compromising and willing to fund the Foreign Office.
What about the Royal family?
I am not a royalist so don't really care, and the only reason to fund any foreign office is to have a consulate officer there is for citizens who have problems abroad. I regard it as part of the safety net.
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Yes, let's not bother mending any potholes, keeping the railways safe, providing any sports facilities or any social care that isn't directly healthcare, cleaning up any polluted rivers, addressing flood risks, having any kind of industrial policy, funding research or tertiary education, running embassies etc etc until Pagan is happy about an arbitrary list of stuff. Because of course none of those underpin the success of the economy needed to do those things and can be left to go to hell.
Tbf, we already don't do quite a lot of that. Potholes, pollution, flood risks, Tertiary Ed.
Of course, we *should* be doing them but we're not and I doubt if that will change any time soon.
I also wasn't saying don't do any of those things, I was saying get the basics right first and foremost. If there is money to do the nice to haves great.
Not polluting our rivers and stopping them from flooding everywhere are 'nice to haves?'
Water is privatised, give ofwat more teeth
Flood defences are central government, not the water companies.
In 2007 when we had those terrible floods they were run by Susan Acland-Hood, now overseeing the disaster at the DfE having crashed the legal system in the meanwhile.
Harris campaign says it has “accepted CBS' invitation to a Vice Presidential Candidate Debate on October 1. Governor Walz looks forward to debating JD Vance -- if he shows up.”
1) Defence 2) A free at point of use health service that is effective 3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control) 4) Free education to 18 that is good education 5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
Social care for the elderly. Pensions for the retired. public sector housing. Roads. Water, sewage and other infrastructure. The foreign office. Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
Pensions for the retired and social care for those who cant pay is part of the safety net
Students can pay for their degrees, Water and sewage is already privatised we do need a I agree a stronger ofwat. The foreign office is largely a waste of space and I doubt any of us would notice if it was culled to about 5%. For example do we need an embassy in every country...we could probably manage with a consulate officer in mosts sharing an embassy with other countries. Roads just hypothecate road tax and fuel duty its more than enough to pay for those
Disappointed that you're already compromising and willing to fund the Foreign Office.
What about the Royal family?
I am not a royalist so don't really care, and the only reason to fund any foreign office is to have a consulate officer there is for citizens who have problems abroad. I regard it as part of the safety net.
I don't really know what the Foreign Office does or achieves, so I'd have to find out before agreeing to cut it by 95% - some of it might be important.
Comments
https://www.armas.co/p/this-sceptred-isle?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=1ke0l&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Will probably vote Trump - 43%, Will certainly not vote Trump - 49%
Will probably vote Harris - 48%, Will certainly not vote Harris - 44%
Enthusiasm for the election - Dems 85% (+39 since June), Reps 71% (=), Inds 53% (+19)
Everyone should note the Dems have a major hurdle imminent. Their Convention is just down the road from the largest Palestinian community in the USA. Demos on Gaza are pretty much certain. I doubt a 1968 redux but it may puncture the idea of a boost to Harris being certain courtesy of the Convention
Shapiro even more popular there though Pennsylvania Net Favorables:
Shapiro: +24%
Walz: +7%
Casey: +7%
Fetterman: +5%
Harris: -2%
McCormick: -2%
Trump: -9%
Vance: -10%
RFK Jr: -25%
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1823784240317599828
JL Partners has Trump still narrowly ahead nationally
Presidential Polling:
Trump (R): 43% (-6)
Harris (D): 41% (+3)
Kennedy (I): 5%
Oliver (L): 2%
J.L Partners / Aug 11, 2024 / n=1001
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1823752574329348284
Monmouth and Yougov Harris ahead nationally
Harris (D): 48%
Trump (R): 43%
Monmouth / Aug 12, 2024 / n=801
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1823752574329348284
Harris (D): 46%
Trump (R): 44%
Kennedy (I): 3%
YouGov / Aug 13, 2024 / n=1407
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1823748970805330325
Florida Trump ahead with Mainstreet
Trump (R): 50%
Harris (D): 47%
Mainstreet Research / Aug 11, 2024 / n=1040
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1823748598913237497
https://x.com/politicoeurope/status/1823805064713998745
OPINION: US President Joe Biden’s hesitancy has allowed Russia to escalate the conflict in Ukraine.
Now, Kamala Harris must indicate that she won’t allow Vladimir Putin to set the terms of war.
(Allied wartime propaganda, if you're worried about clicking on anything dodgy, it's quite clean and very funny!)
That might be protected speech in the USA, or it might not - it is not "fighting words" of the sort "I'm going to do *this* to you". In the UK it is fairly clear incitement, I think.
https://x.com/RuthfulThe/status/1823516773016121400
Isn’t it great to have the ‘grown ups’ back in charge?
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1823638328240922764
Seriously. All lovers of UK rock and roll music from around 1970 should listen to all of Leon Russell's eponymous debut solo album
It was recorded in London in the autumn of 69 and released in 1970. Its astonishing who he has playing with him
This track, Roll Away The Stone, is with Winwood, Clapton, Wyman and Watts
https://youtu.be/-k8HCUexXUs
He has George and Ringo playing with him on Shootout At The Plantation
https://youtu.be/SJJp_X4ckCo
The whole album has swiftly become one of my all time favourites
It didn't work out that way as they chose to salami slice and pick the politically easiest cuts, and to protect older people and homeowners, as their voters. The result being to cut but get nowhere fast as many things that were ditched - like infrastructure spending - proved counterproductive longer term. Or starving councils of cash while limiting their tax raising abilities at a time when the number of elderly people needing it was set to rocket.
Meanwhile, things like the winter fuel allowance and triple lock remained sacrosanct even as the bill to the state goes up. While it feels to everyone that their community and services are decaying if you're outside an area that's attracting investment.
Anyway, it's killed the small state as an idea for a while - because it didn't work - which is not to say it couldn't work. But only if those doing it are braver and less Machiavellian and self-interested. The only way it can come back I think is someone suggesting that the government just shouldn't do some pretty significant things at all. Which probably only happens if technology reaches a point where that abandoning those things is fairly cost free to the public.
Royce White, the Republican nominee for the US Senate in Minnesota:
“Women have become too mouthy”.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1823570630966435868
One can either view that as depressing, or inevitable, or both.
It's a slightly odd distinction. Do you think a doctor working in the private sector is part of the productive sector? How about a GP practice? Or a construction company building a new road with public funds?
Most of the wealth creating staff at a major multi-national will have been educated and cared for by the state until they are 22. The real wealth creator, in terms of their human capital, is the government.
Social housing is a prime example.....not saying its a bad idea....just since the 70's when it was allocated on a needs first basis most people don't see themselves ever getting to the top of the list.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1823816935911358513
And how much of it related to addressing perceptions of local conditions.
WHEN LABOUR swept back into power in last month’s British general election, I felt elated. But I also grew worried about the potential implications of the results for mainstream politics. The numbers that emerged on the night of July 4th reminded me of what happened in Barking from 2001 to 2010, when we lived through the alarming rise of the British National Party (BNP). The far-right, anti-immigrant riots that have erupted in English towns and cities in recent days make it even more important to learn the lessons we can from the east London constituency I represented for 30 years.
...
What emerged strongly was that it was anger, not apathy, that kept voters away. They were angry about the conditions they lived in. They were furious at what they saw as an elite political establishment failing to listen to them. They had lost faith in mainstream political parties. By 2005 their anger against us turned into a protest vote for the BNP. In 2006 the BNP stood 13 candidates in the local elections and won 12 seats. Had they stood candidates in all the 51 seats that were up for election, we would have had a BNP-run council (local government).
It could well be that it was anger, not apathy, that kept voters away on July 4th. And it also seems probable that a vote for the populist and divisive Reform agenda was a protest vote against the mainstream parties.
https://archive.ph/6pjrq#selection-1105.75-1105.76
About 46% of non-retired people are net recipients. So it's pretty close - though much depends on the measurement of in-kind benefits and so on.
He's growing on me like a bad case of athlete's foot.
The reason for Biden's 'hesitancy' is that Trump-aligned forces in Congress, several of them indirectly or even directly in the pay of Russia, have kept blocking aid packages.
Ironically, for that reason instead of being rapidly defeated Russia has found itself bogged down in a war that's lasted for getting on for three years, destroyed its army, wrecked its reputation, ruined its economy, exacerbated a major demographic crisis and even further away from restoring the Soviet empire Putin dreams of than it was in 2010.
Leon (RIP) thought St Magnus had a certain "noom" quality. This is why.
I regard these as essential services for citizens
1) Defence
2) A free at point of use health service that is effective
3) Law and order ( covers police, judicial and border control)
4) Free education to 18 that is good education
5) A safety net for those that fall on hard times (though I think the safety net should be time limited except in the case of extreme disability)
In my view till we have all 5 working we shouldn't be funding other stuff
He will go far in today's Republican Party.
Getting cut apart by Boro.
If my house gets burgled for example, as someone that pays more tax than I get out the state how do you think that makes me feel about whether my tax is being pissed away when I can't even get a police response except a crime number....it makes me resent the tax I am paying is the answer
@MickPuck
·
4h
Hillbilly Allergy is such a big crowdpuller
Although most local government spending is paid out of central government.
For example - housing benefit. We spend £16 billion a year subsidising landlords by inflating the cost of rented housing.
It only exists because rented housing is unaffordable because there isn't enough housing to go round. All it actually achieves is making rented housing even more unaffordable by adding an extra £16 billion to the money chasing that housing.
However. If you simply removed it, then plenty of part time, or term time working single mothers would be evicted.
Vance: The average new car costs nearly $50k a year…
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1823788502980735158
I could believe that Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups are operating in the area, and there's been a case of Russian helicopters firing at Russian units in some of the confusion, but it's too far behind the current front line to be dropping people in.
It reminds me of the computer game video of the four Russian helicopters taken down by MANPADS early in the war.
The Mariupol helicopter flights were to a large extent over the sea, of course.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1823793055356608806
He's Tom Vilsack...
Pensions for the retired.
public sector housing.
Roads.
Water, sewage and other infrastructure.
The foreign office.
Our University system.
So many necessary public services without which we would not have a working, wealth creating society. I'm open to the idea the State tries to do too much and spreads itself too thin but your list is way too short.
And Carrick is the best Boro manager since McClaren.
So if they were to try something like this then the place they'd target would be Rylsk.
It's not that it's permanently unpopular - heck, the smaller state was popular as recently as the 2015 election - just that these things go in cycles and having not had much to show for their time in power it could be a long one. There's a widespread perception, especially among those under 40 (so the growing part of the electorate), that those 14 years were a dismal failure and thus its two main themes austerity (for which we can read a smaller state) and Brexit are toxified by that.
Brexit isn't going to be undone any time soon of course due to the complexities of doing so and political bandwidth it would take up, but a more active state is the likely default for a good while. Especially as one of the Tories' few remaining strongholds is among those who personally rely on the state most - the elderly - so it'll be very difficult to find cuts that don't either a) annoy remaining supporters b) further turn off those already alienated.
So what I was getting at is that Conservatives, and small staters in particular will need new big ideas on how to get there that can appeal to people, so they don't just switch off, think of the past 14 years and go "yeah we tried that, it was rubbish".
Students can pay for their degrees, Water and sewage is already privatised we do need a I agree a stronger ofwat. The foreign office is largely a waste of space and I doubt any of us would notice if it was culled to about 5%. For example do we need an embassy in every country...we could probably manage with a consulate officer in mosts sharing an embassy with other countries. Roads just hypothecate road tax and fuel duty its more than enough to pay for those
They think Harris is 'weird' with her laugh?
I haven't said tories didn't make things worse, so did labout from 97....hint I am not a tory
Of course, we *should* be doing them but we're not and I doubt if that will change any time soon.
What about the Royal family?
Harris campaign says it has “accepted CBS' invitation to a Vice Presidential Candidate Debate on October 1. Governor Walz looks forward to debating JD Vance -- if he shows up.”
In 2007 when we had those terrible floods they were run by Susan Acland-Hood, now overseeing the disaster at the DfE having crashed the legal system in the meanwhile.