Also in the News - Part 2

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, dsr-burnley said:

As does the concept of blaming the government for everything!  

Well, given we have the most corrupt, brazen and incompetent bunch of sandbagging system gamers this country has ever had to endure in charge, it doesn't seem quite so unreasonable.

[Lionator]

15 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

As does the concept of blaming the government for everything!  

Pretty much all the problems facing this country now can be blamed on government policy over the past 13 years: a completely broken asylum system, lack of housing (especially social housing), complete lack of oversight on large coporations and how they treat workers, a tired, dysfunctional health system, dreadful welfare system etc etc, and that's without the B word. 

Edited 20 July 2023 by Lionator

[Tuna]

This pisses me off

 

 

[Lionator]

Just now, Tuna said:

This pisses me off

 

 

Judging by that photo, being a spokesperson for Boris Johnson clearly ages you by 20 years. 

[urban.spaceman]

OK that is funny, I'll give him that.

 

 

 

[Wymsey]

How can this happen in the 21st century?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-66253389

 

Absolute vile..

 

[Jattdogg]

3 hours ago, Wymsey said:

How can this happen in the 21st century?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-66253389

 

Absolute vile..

 

It's India mate. I am not surprised in the least as it's not as advanced of a country as some like to believe/think.  For every beautiful thing you can find there are many bad things.

 

Corruption is rampant, sexual violence, criminal gangs, racial violence, caste violence, nepotism etc. Name it, India has and does it all. As of 2018 or so our family (extended) has no more land/ home there. We have all fooked off to England and Canada since the mid 50s till now. Followed the british i suppose "hey, where are you going, i am coming too" (quote maybe taken from russel peters)

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66261072

 

When students are instructed on the various duties and trades performed by slaves, lessons must now include how these skills "in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit".

And during lessons on the growth and destruction of black communities during the Reconstruction era, including events like the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, students must be made aware of how violence was perpetrated both "against and by African Americans".

 

Florida policymakers very much comfortable enough to go masks off and say that slavery was actually nice in a way for black people and put it in a school textbook, then.

[Grebfromgrebland]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66261072

 

When students are instructed on the various duties and trades performed by slaves, lessons must now include how these skills "in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit".

And during lessons on the growth and destruction of black communities during the Reconstruction era, including events like the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, students must be made aware of how violence was perpetrated both "against and by African Americans".

 

Florida policymakers very much comfortable enough to go masks off and say that slavery was actually nice in a way for black people and put it in a school textbook, then.

That's the kind of education I received at school when looking at the British empire and how Britain was best country in the world. 

 

I was actually surprised when I first went abroad to see that other countries had roads and trains and were functioning quite well.

[Daggers]

If only we had something topical in England we could talk about. I fear the by-election results, Khan’s expansion of the ULEZ zone, and the wholesale rank stupidity and pig ignorant selfishness of the residents of Uxbridge all might be deemed as a bit political. 

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

That's the kind of education I received at school when looking at the British empire and how Britain was best country in the world. 

 

I was actually surprised when I first went abroad to see that other countries had roads and trains and were functioning quite well.

The way that public transportation actually... well, works (outside the capital city anyway) over here really is a marvel compared to the UK.

[StanSP]

Tories hold Uxbridge then. Big loss for them on Selby & Ainsty. 

[Zear0]

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Tories hold Uxbridge then. Big loss for them on Selby & Ainsty. 

 

The £12 ULEZ charge clearly explains the Uxbridge result being different. Even my anti-politics brother, who moves around outer London for work, has grumbled about ULEZ.

Ironically, if Johnson had had the guts to re-stand, my guess is that he'd have lost them the seat as the byelection would've become a bit more about him and a bit less about ULEZ.

 

I'm also pretty sure that Labour HQ cocked up through complacency. Although inactive for years, I'm still a party member and got several mass emails seeking practical or financial support for the Selby campaign....but not for Uxbridge.

 

The Uxbridge result might suggest that Labour general election gains in outer London could be limited, though bigger issues  would dominate a general election campaign so maybe not.

The other 2 results suggest the Tories are in big trouble nationally. Although Starmer has yet to gain the positive or charisma-led support of Blair, it does feel a bit like the closing years of Major's 1990s Tory Govt.

The polls might narrow a bit if the economy improves in the next 15 months (perhaps probable, but not inevitable) or if the Tories find money for election tax gifts (likely, but probably limited given what happened with Truss).

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the Tories regain Selby at the general election but lose Uxbridge. The Somerton & Frome result suggests a lot of Tory rural/small town/prosperous suburb seats in the SW & SE could be vulnerable to LDs.

 

A long way to go. Still time for Labour to win more positive, not just anti-Tory support - or to make massive cock-ups, have public splits, get monstered by Tory media. 

Then there'd just be the small matter of taking over a damaged country with a struggling economy, devastated public services, massive debts and serious structural issues (climate change, low growth, aging population, lack of housing...).

As a relatively non-partisan leftist, I seriously hope that any incoming Labour-led Govt not only performs exceptionally well (that won't be enough - this mess will take decades to address) but sees the importance of electoral reform and of forming alliances in power with other parties like the LDs and Greens. Lack of Lab-LD hostility is a good sign, but Labour excluding moderate candidates/members who are slightly at odds with the leadership is a bad sign.

[Daggers]

Laurence Fox, the coked up father for injustice lost his deposit. I’ll celebrate that.

[Dunge]

Not gaining Uxbridge could ultimately be a positive thing for Labour HQ, serving as a reminder that there’s still work to do and people to listen to so that they can properly get over the line. Also a coalition with the Lib Dems wouldn’t be the worst thing for them - it didn’t hurt the Conservatives after all.

[Sparrowhawk]

9 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

Corruption is rampant, sexual violence, criminal gangs, racial violence, caste violence, nepotism etc. Name it, India has and does it all.

I am pleased that I live in the UK, which has literally none of these things!

[Lionator]

5 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Not gaining Uxbridge could ultimately be a positive thing for Labour HQ, serving as a reminder that there’s still work to do and people to listen to so that they can properly get over the line. Also a coalition with the Lib Dems wouldn’t be the worst thing for them - it didn’t hurt the Conservatives after all.

My worry is that because it was due to ULEZ and that's seen as a green policy, it'll just push Labour to be even more conservative in what they're offering. The population just want boring, centrist politics and while that feels safe, it also wont solve our long term issues.

Edited 21 July 2023 by Lionator

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The £12 ULEZ charge clearly explains the Uxbridge result being different. Even my anti-politics brother, who moves around outer London for work, has grumbled about ULEZ.

Ironically, if Johnson had had the guts to re-stand, my guess is that he'd have lost them the seat as the byelection would've become a bit more about him and a bit less about ULEZ.

The issue is communication. Johnson introduced ULEZ and the push to expand the zone was foisted on Khan. The notion that this is a Labour thing is completely wrong, it’s an inevitable thing. Parties need to address how they can make it palatable rather than negatively trying to point the finger at someone else. 
 

 

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Lionator said:

My worry is that because it was due to ULEZ and that's seen as a green policy, it'll just push Labour to be even more conservative in what they're offering. The population just want boring, centrist politics and while that feels safe, it also wont solve our long term issues.

 

If anything, I suspect it will encourage Labour to continue to be conservative on tax/spend promises (not necessarily policies once in office? ), rather than making them conservative on green policy.  

Green growth/industrial policy still seems central to their policy offering, even if implementation is delayed by a year to give a public impression of fiscal prudence and of no plans for major tax hikes.

 

I reckon Labour know that a lot of voters support green policies - but many baulk at it having an impact on their personal finances. Public subsidies of investment in wind turbines wouldn't lose votes, but a £12 daily ULEZ fee during a cost of living crisis does. I reckon it's a bit like voters wanting low tax but high-quality public services, the majority want action on climate change but don't want it to have any impact on their living standards (esp. in difficult economic times).

 

To some extent that's the usual "the public is an ass" problem that faces all parties. Though the ULEZ scheme doesn't seem very well thought through. It's a good idea to discourage use of polluting vehicles, clearly, but a fixed £12 daily fee is effectively a regressive tax, isn't it? It hits those hardest who have lowest incomes - a particular problem during a cost of living crisis. I take @Daggers' points that this wasn't originally a Labour idea and that action is inevitable, but there must be better ways of introducing such policies - though they may be beyond the means and resources of regional govt / London mayor and may require greater central govt funding.....a problem under the Tories currently. As I understand it, there are govt grants for people to upgrade to less polluting vehicles, but they only cover a fraction of the cost, rendering it non-viable unless you're wealthy....so most folk still cannot switch to non-polluting vehicles, but end up paying a regressive tax.

 

Whether Khan could've approached it any other way, I don't know, but it seems as if, with the best of intentions, he's fallen into a Tory trap by hitting the pockets of those who are not minted (though maybe £12 seemed less of a burden a year or two back when a post-Covid economic recovery looked likely?). In part, it also seems like another example of how the Tories cynically use local govt funding to get a stick with which to beat Labour - they cut local funding via central govt support, then encourage voters to blame their Labour council when it has to make cuts or provides a poor-quality service....while the Tory central govt boasts of supporting low tax, partly funded by outsourcing public spending cuts and social deprivation to local councils. It's base cunning, but it often works as most voters have a limited interest or understanding of politics. Lucky we have internet forums where mutual education is possible through political debate, eh?  

[leicsmac]

46 minutes ago, Lionator said:

My worry is that because it was due to ULEZ and that's seen as a green policy, it'll just push Labour to be even more conservative in what they're offering. The population just want boring, centrist politics and while that feels safe, it also wont solve our long term issues.

Oh, it will...

 

.... just in a way that would be satisfactory to only the most ardent survivalists and nihilists.

 

Nature, after all, does always reassert an equilibrium.

[Daggers]

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If anything, I suspect it will encourage Labour to continue to be conservative on tax/spend promises (not necessarily policies once in office? ), rather than making them conservative on green policy.  

Green growth/industrial policy still seems central to their policy offering, even if implementation is delayed by a year to give a public impression of fiscal prudence and of no plans for major tax hikes.

 

I reckon Labour know that a lot of voters support green policies - but many baulk at it having an impact on their personal finances. Public subsidies of investment in wind turbines wouldn't lose votes, but a £12 daily ULEZ fee during a cost of living crisis does. I reckon it's a bit like voters wanting low tax but high-quality public services, the majority want action on climate change but don't want it to have any impact on their living standards (esp. in difficult economic times).

 

To some extent that's the usual "the public is an ass" problem that faces all parties. Though the ULEZ scheme doesn't seem very well thought through. It's a good idea to discourage use of polluting vehicles, clearly, but a fixed £12 daily fee is effectively a regressive tax, isn't it? It hits those hardest who have lowest incomes - a particular problem during a cost of living crisis. I take @Daggers' points that this wasn't originally a Labour idea and that action is inevitable, but there must be better ways of introducing such policies - though they may be beyond the means and resources of regional govt / London mayor and may require greater central govt funding.....a problem under the Tories currently. As I understand it, there are govt grants for people to upgrade to less polluting vehicles, but they only cover a fraction of the cost, rendering it non-viable unless you're wealthy....so most folk still cannot switch to non-polluting vehicles, but end up paying a regressive tax.

 

Whether Khan could've approached it any other way, I don't know, but it seems as if, with the best of intentions, he's fallen into a Tory trap by hitting the pockets of those who are not minted (though maybe £12 seemed less of a burden a year or two back when a post-Covid economic recovery looked likely?). In part, it also seems like another example of how the Tories cynically use local govt funding to get a stick with which to beat Labour - they cut local funding via central govt support, then encourage voters to blame their Labour council when it has to make cuts or provides a poor-quality service....while the Tory central govt boasts of supporting low tax, partly funded by outsourcing public spending cuts and social deprivation to local councils. It's base cunning, but it often works as most voters have a limited interest or understanding of politics. Lucky we have internet forums where mutual education is possible through political debate, eh?  

This point crops up so much in the general debate about green policy.

 

As per previous discussions, it's true, and needs to be both considered and acted upon by policymakers, as that is by far the most assured method to see things succeed. However, again as per before, it's a pretty critical example of the very human propensity to not stop smoking/drinking/eating badly because the consequences are far away, with the end result always being a whole heap of regret when those consequences manifest themselves. And they will. They already are, for some.

[Foxdiamond]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This point crops up so much in the general debate about green policy.

 

As per previous discussions, it's true, and needs to be both considered and acted upon by policymakers, as that is by far the most assured method to see things succeed. However, again as per before, it's a pretty critical example of the very human propensity to not stop smoking/drinking/eating badly because the consequences are far away, with the end result always being a whole heap of regret when those consequences manifest themselves. And they will. They already are, for some.

Uxbridge people in favour of dirty air? Is there not enough public transport in that area so car use should not be required as much?

[ealingfox]

Worth pointing out that Labour would likely have won comfortably if the by-election had taken place during Brunel University term time.

 

It's definitely a communication point on ULEZ - 9 out of 10 people won't need to pay it and there are 15+ year old cars out there which are ULEZ-compliant. But I think the right have been successful in bullshitting people into thinking that everyone will be paying it every time they open their car door, which needed countering.