Also in the News - Part 2

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

They die. 10k's per year are already in/directly due to climate change. 

Quite apart from not interceding where possible to help those countless millions being utterly reprehensible on the part of those with the power to do so, a step further....

 

...what happens when it is a place 'more important" (viz. armed to the teeth) that begins to suffer the same way?

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

it's when the world finally wakes up and see's what Mass Migration really means. 

 

You will literally see who countries worth of people moving out of their existing countries in order to survive. 

 

It will be catastrophic and absolute carnage on a scale we haven't seen before. 

 

Yes.

 

And when the dust has settled and the blood has finally soaked into the soil, I hope (beyond hope) there will be accountability for any and all of those, no matter who, who had the power to prevent it and didn't.

[Dunge]

6 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

LOL fair play for having the patience for describing all the above. When the state is literally paying for us to turn the lights on, I think any 'magic money tree' b0llocks rhetoric is long gone

You do realise there are consequences to that? Big consequences? As I say, national debt, inflation. You don’t get this stuff for free, it’s just kicking the can down the road. And that policy is a temporary one; a lot of what Corbyn wanted to bring in was permanent, ie would have to be afforded year after year.

 

Like in the list Greg provided:

Healthcare rises - largely popular across the country. The question is always how much. How much tax are people willing to pay for improved service? You get what you pay for.

National care service - Another can currently being kicked down the road because of how massively expensive it would be.

Nationalising industry - Has its benefits but has its expenses, particularly in the short term.

Replacing Universal Credit - Very broad phrase but with what? There’s a question here that goes along with Corbyn and Momentum in how far they’re willing to go with this, and whether they’re willing to change course when things start to go wrong, which is part of government.

 

Corbyn’s history is not one of compromise or changing his views. I’ve seen a couple of people saying things along the lines of him valuing people - that’s not my view of it at all. The man puts dogma first, always has. The kind of emergency measures we were putting in place temporarily to get through a pandemic - and that we’re having to pay for now - are exactly the kind of things his lot have always idolised as standard. Having him and McDonnell in charge of a country would have been an utter disaster to me, far more than this still-crap Conservative government. (Truss aside.)

 

And as for the man himself, someone who allowed antisemitism to run rife through his party, dismissing whistleblowers because they were speaking out against his friends and were inconvenient to his dogma, someone who would have habitually hidden in his office when we had a pandemic on, someone who genuinely (I still can’t believe this) said we should send a sample of Novichok to Russia so they could advise on whether they had just committed a state-sanctioned poisoning on our territory…

 

This man was a disaster. His government would have been a disaster. I’m amazed people are still trying to defend him.

[Greg2607]

3 minutes ago, Dunge said:

You do realise there are consequences to that? Big consequences? As I say, national debt, inflation. You don’t get this stuff for free, it’s just kicking the can down the road. And that policy is a temporary one; a lot of what Corbyn wanted to bring in was permanent, ie would have to be afforded year after year.

 

Like in the list Greg provided:

Healthcare rises - largely popular across the country. The question is always how much. How much tax are people willing to pay for improved service? You get what you pay for.

National care service - Another can currently being kicked down the road because of how massively expensive it would be.

Nationalising industry - Has its benefits but has its expenses, particularly in the short term.

Replacing Universal Credit - Very broad phrase but with what? There’s a question here that goes along with Corbyn and Momentum in how far they’re willing to go with this, and whether they’re willing to change course when things start to go wrong, which is part of government.

 

Corbyn’s history is not one of compromise or changing his views. I’ve seen a couple of people saying things along the lines of him valuing people - that’s not my view of it at all. The man puts dogma first, always has. The kind of emergency measures we were putting in place temporarily to get through a pandemic - and that we’re having to pay for now - are exactly the kind of things his lot have always idolised as standard. Having him and McDonnell in charge of a country would have been an utter disaster to me, far more than this still-crap Conservative government. (Truss aside.)

 

And as for the man himself, someone who allowed antisemitism to run rife through his party, dismissing whistleblowers because they were speaking out against his friends and were inconvenient to his dogma, someone who would have habitually hidden in his office when we had a pandemic on, someone who genuinely (I still can’t believe this) said we should send a sample of Novichok to Russia so they could advise on whether they had just committed a state-sanctioned poisoning on our territory…

 

This man was a disaster. His government would have been a disaster. I’m amazed people are still trying to defend him.

You may well be right on that. I don't know the man well enough to say whether he would have been effective or not.   It's easy to have a rose-tinted view on the "unknown" as I find it hard to believe it could have been worse than the current lot. 

 

Ultimately, we will never know.... but let's not forget, instead, we employed a man who LITERALLY hid in a fridge during the election campaign.  We should have all known then that he wasn't keen on scrutiny or accountability. 

 

[grobyfox1990]

6 minutes ago, Dunge said:

You do realise there are consequences to that? Big consequences? As I say, national debt, inflation. You don’t get this stuff for free, it’s just kicking the can down the road. And that policy is a temporary one; a lot of what Corbyn wanted to bring in was permanent, ie would have to be afforded year after year.

 

Like in the list Greg provided:

Healthcare rises - largely popular across the country. The question is always how much. How much tax are people willing to pay for improved service? You get what you pay for.

National care service - Another can currently being kicked down the road because of how massively expensive it would be.

Nationalising industry - Has its benefits but has its expenses, particularly in the short term.

Replacing Universal Credit - Very broad phrase but with what? There’s a question here that goes along with Corbyn and Momentum in how far they’re willing to go with this, and whether they’re willing to change course when things start to go wrong, which is part of government.

 

Corbyn’s history is not one of compromise or changing his views. I’ve seen a couple of people saying things along the lines of him valuing people - that’s not my view of it at all. The man puts dogma first, always has. The kind of emergency measures we were putting in place temporarily to get through a pandemic - and that we’re having to pay for now - are exactly the kind of things his lot have always idolised as standard. Having him and McDonnell in charge of a country would have been an utter disaster to me, far more than this still-crap Conservative government. (Truss aside.)

 

And as for the man himself, someone who allowed antisemitism to run rife through his party, dismissing whistleblowers because they were speaking out against his friends and were inconvenient to his dogma, someone who would have habitually hidden in his office when we had a pandemic on, someone who genuinely (I still can’t believe this) said we should send a sample of Novichok to Russia so they could advise on whether they had just committed a state-sanctioned poisoning on our territory…

 

This man was a disaster. His government would have been a disaster. I’m amazed people are still trying to defend him.

Yes please don't worry, I work in finance so definitely realise the basics of fiscal rules.

 

Given this Govt is more Corbyn than anything Corbyn ever promised to do (to reiterate, they are literally paying your gas bills, right now), what do you think of them? What do you think is going to happen to public finances in the short-medium term?

 

I am not defending him, I did not vote for him, but it is clear you do not understand a jot of what is happening with UK public finances right now if you are still parroting the 'we could not have afforded it!!' line.

[Dunge]

Corbyn and McDonnell are a button to me, it seems. As soon as his name popped up on the previous page I knew I wouldn’t be able to leave it. 

 

For what it’s worth, I think the two current leaders of Conservatives and Labour are miles better than what we’ve had for years. Although there are so many Tories that need voting out, starting with the Home Secretary, that I can’t currently look past voting for Starmer at the next election.

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yes please don't worry, I work in finance so definitely realise the basics of fiscal rules.

 

Given this Govt is more Corbyn than anything Corbyn ever promised to do (to reiterate, they are literally paying your gas bills, right now), what do you think of them? What do you think is going to happen to public finances in the short-medium term?

 

I am not defending him, I did not vote for him, but it is clear you do not understand a jot of what is happening with UK public finances right now if you are still parroting the 'we could not have afforded it!!' line.

The public finances are going to take a hit from paying the gas bills. The government are essentially covering that, meaning that it has to be “paid off” in the future instead.

 

I’d welcome you to offer alternative analysis if you disagree with that. If you do agree with it then I welcome you to elaborate on your point.

[RobHawk]

If we look at energy bills as an example, surely the best comparison is how Corbyn would have differed to what's actually happened. 

 

It's pretty clear that Corbyn would have nationalised the energy companies. What the Tory's have done is provide money to the energy companies in a manner that protects their profits but ultimately means we are paying it via taxes anyway. 

 

I am left leaning, not a fan of Corbyn but ultimately think we would have been a disaster, not because his ideas were bad, unthought out, or wrong but because the markets would have reacted so badly to him, because he didn't care about companies profits and unfortunately it's money that runs the world these days

[grobyfox1990]

15 minutes ago, Dunge said:

The public finances are going to take a hit from paying the gas bills. The government are essentially covering that, meaning that it has to be “paid off” in the future instead.

 

I’d welcome you to offer alternative analysis if you disagree with that. If you do agree with it then I welcome you to elaborate on your point.

I think we are saying the same thing?? You write a cheque, it has to be paid off eventually. Agreed

 

Corbyn promised to write a cheque for £X, yes we would have had to pay for it. The Tories have already written, and continue to write cheques for, £XXX. It will have to be paid off. 

 

My main point is, we cannot say 'Corbyn would have ruined the country' anymore, because the funding he promised in 2019 pales into comparison against what one of the most left-wing Govts of recent times have paid for in the last three years. The UK of 2023 is a state-run country. That was Corbyn's dream

 

 

[Dunge]

8 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I think we are saying the same thing?? You write a cheque, it has to be paid off eventually. Agreed

 

Corbyn promised to write a cheque for £X, yes we would have had to pay for it. The Tories have already written, and continue to write cheques for, £XXX. It will have to be paid off. 

 

My main point is, we cannot say 'Corbyn would have ruined the country' anymore, because the funding he promised in 2019 pales into comparison against what one of the most left-wing Govts of recent times have paid for in the last three years. The UK of 2023 is a state-run country. That was Corbyn's dream

 

 

Where it looks like we differ is that the paying of the gas bills and the lockdown bailout are (hopefully) one-off events, or at least finite. So you pay for the one expense by spreading it down the line in the form of credit/debt (depending on which side of the fence you’re viewing it from). But the kind of policies that Corbyn advocated were permanent changes, were they not? So therefore you don’t get the chance to pay them off in the future. Rather than a debt, they instead represent a deficit. That’s why I maintain the “can’t afford it” argument is still valid.

 

*Or at least can’t afford it without severe consequences, such as a lowering credit rating or higher inflation.

Edited 23 March 2023 by Dunge

[grobyfox1990]

16 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Where it looks like we differ is that the paying of the gas bills and the lockdown bailout are (hopefully) one-off events, or at least finite. So you pay for the one expense by spreading it down the line in the form of credit/debt (depending on which side of the fence you’re viewing it from). But the kind of policies that Corbyn advocated were permanent changes, were they not? So therefore you don’t get the chance to pay them off in the future. Rather than a debt, they instead represent a deficit. That’s why I maintain the “can’t afford it” argument is still valid.

 

*Or at least can’t afford it without severe consequences, such as a lowering credit rating or higher inflation.

Got you - yes I misunderstood - sorry about that.

 

I think the policies the lefties in power have implemented are generational. We are in a dangerous position now whereby every time something bad happens, we run to the state expect them to look after us. Can't afford to put the lights on? Govt should pay! Decided of my own free will to have a child but can't afford to look after it? Govt should pay! Football is in a bit of a mess? Govt should create a regulator and pay!

 

Of course this is my opinion, and you are right in that what Corbyn proposed was definitely everlasting change

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Got you - yes I misunderstood - sorry about that.

 

I think the policies the lefties in power have implemented are generational. We are in a dangerous position now whereby every time something bad happens, we run to the state expect them to look after us. Can't afford to put the lights on? Govt should pay! Decided of my own free will to have a child but can't afford to look after it? Govt should pay! Football is in a bit of a mess? Govt should create a regulator and pay!

 

Of course this is my opinion, and you are right in that what Corbyn proposed was definitely everlasting change

I'm still waiting to see if the power of private markets can solve the problem we discussed above, as much as they are apparently investing into it, though.

[weller54]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

Corbyn and McDonnell are a button to me, it seems. As soon as his name popped up on the previous page I knew I wouldn’t be able to leave it. 

 

For what it’s worth, I think the two current leaders of Conservatives and Labour are miles better than what we’ve had for years. Although there are so many Tories that need voting out, starting with the Home Secretary, that I can’t currently look past voting for Starmer at the next election.

Sunak had an opportunity to change things!... He should have had a good clean out of the likes of Raab, Gove, Braverman, Cleverly etc....all tarred with the Johnson/Truss brush!!

But I suppose the right of the party wouldn't allow that to happen!!  Sunak is perhaps just their hand puppet!!

I personally cannot wait until the likes of JRM are just a bad memory and are chucked out of politics forever!

 

[grobyfox1990]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm still waiting to see if the power of private markets can solve the problem we discussed above, as much as they are apparently investing into it, though.

Climate change?? Definitely yes, there is masses of regulation coming in from June onwards, get on board or go out of existence. Public bodies have dallied about with this problem for literally decades and gotten nowhere. The bigger question is a 'just' transition, no point putting in a framework to save the world if no one can afford it. Social issues are rightly gaining traction - as the saying goes - 'it's not all climate you know!!!'

[Otis]

2 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

by the same token.... 

 

Increase the Health Budget - Tories have allegedly done this.... 

Hold a 2nd Referendum on Brexit Deal (most people will agree that Brexit has been a disaster, so wouldn't we have wanted a say on the deal before it was agreed??)

Rise Minimum Wage to £10ph - Tories have done this.... 

Stop State Pension Age Rises (Hunt has literally just done this)

Introduce a National Care Service - Tories didn't QUITE do this.... but the raise in NI was meant to pay for it before it was reversed

Bring Forward Net Zero Target

Nationalise Energy Firms & Water Industries - Starmer has highlighted a back door way to do this.... create a national green energy firm......  either way, i think we can all agree that the state owned energy companies on the continent has kept other countries energy bills lower than ours... 

Replace Universal Credit

Abolish Private Schools Charitable Status - Wouldn't have cost the tax payer anything. 

Free Bus Travel for under 25's

Build 100,000 Council Homes a Year - The country is desperate for more social housing and this would then deliver an income to the government for generations ahead rather than it sitting with Private Social Housing Companies or Private Landlords. 

 

Do you think all of the above would have bankrupted the country?? I certainly don't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said do we think we would be in a worse state than we are now. Then go on to stay the Tories have implemented some of the ideas. So is the country a mess or not?

The financial implications of Some of the ideas would take years to filter through. 

I'm not saying they're all bad ideas but many have a negative cost to them.

 

Can you tell me more about Starmers plans Green energy firm?

 

[Greg2607]

2 minutes ago, Otis said:

You said do we think we would be in a worse state than we are now. Then go on to stay the Tories have implemented some of the ideas. So is the country a mess or not?

The financial implications of Some of the ideas would take years to filter through. 

I'm not saying they're all bad ideas but many have a negative cost to them.

 

Can you tell me more about Starmers plans Green energy firm?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/27/great-british-energy-what-is-it-what-would-it-do-and-how-would-it-be-funded

[Dunge]

17 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Sunak had an opportunity to change things!... He should have had a good clean out of the likes of Raab, Gove, Braverman, Cleverly etc....all tarred with the Johnson/Truss brush!!

But I suppose the right of the party wouldn't allow that to happen!!  Sunak is perhaps just their hand puppet!!

I personally cannot wait until the likes of JRM are just a bad memory and are chucked out of politics forever!

 

I have to credit Starmer with how quickly and decisively he acted to take control of the Labour Party back from its left wing. Whether Sunak could have done similar in the Conservative Party from its right wing, I don’t know - the very attempt may have brought down the government. Maybe it wasn’t the right timing. But you’re right that, for whatever reason, he hasn’t done it and very likely won’t succeed in doing it now.

 

53 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Got you - yes I misunderstood - sorry about that.

 

I think the policies the lefties in power have implemented are generational. We are in a dangerous position now whereby every time something bad happens, we run to the state expect them to look after us. Can't afford to put the lights on? Govt should pay! Decided of my own free will to have a child but can't afford to look after it? Govt should pay! Football is in a bit of a mess? Govt should create a regulator and pay!

 

Of course this is my opinion, and you are right in that what Corbyn proposed was definitely everlasting change

I’m not a fan of dependency on the state either. Ultimately I guess it depends on what the people want to vote for. As long as they have a choice there should hopefully be balance.

 

Although @leicsmac will be glad to hear that I do think the climate change problem is influencing a lot of the direction of travel right now. And moreover it’s a significant enough problem that young people have lost a lot of faith in more traditional government because they aren’t seeing it get the needed results on the subject. That and housing availability I think are particular drivers right now in terms of movement toward the left and I do have sympathy with both.

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

Where it looks like we differ is that the paying of the gas bills and the lockdown bailout are (hopefully) one-off events, or at least finite. So you pay for the one expense by spreading it down the line in the form of credit/debt (depending on which side of the fence you’re viewing it from). But the kind of policies that Corbyn advocated were permanent changes, were they not? So therefore you don’t get the chance to pay them off in the future. Rather than a debt, they instead represent a deficit. That’s why I maintain the “can’t afford it” argument is still valid.

 

*Or at least can’t afford it without severe consequences, such as a lowering credit rating or higher inflation.

Yes, but we would also nationalise the profits. Whereas at the minute we don't get the profit. We subsidise the losses for the energy retailers.  

[Otis]

8 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/27/great-british-energy-what-is-it-what-would-it-do-and-how-would-it-be-funded

Pie in the sky then.

It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power station.

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

Yes, but we would also nationalise the profits. Whereas at the minute we don't get the profit. We subsidise the losses for the energy retailers.  

I’m never overly keen on nationalisation because I’m not overly keen on having a large public sector, beyond the big beasts such as education and health. I’d rather have regulated industry and incentivise innovation. But I’m persuadable. I figure for nationalising industries such as energy, there’s probably a better argument for doing it longer term than shorter term, where it would be a costly transition.

 

While I fully accept I don’t know all the ins and outs, I can see an argument for it linked in with longer term sustainability. Instinct is that Starmer’s view of taking a small(ish) first step is probably the right way to go to avoid spooking the markets. ie Claim it’s a bold policy, but that’s mostly in presentation.

[Robo61]

3 hours ago, Otis said:

Ahhh.... the magic money tree.

Last seen chasing Liz Truss out the door.

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

Pie in the sky then.

It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power station.

Which is sort of the point.  We need a long term vision for our country.  If it takes 10 years, so be it, but let's build something that our kids and grandads will benefit from.

 

It's good enough for Germany, France, the US, Holland etc to have publically owned utilities. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/23/uk-energy-suppliers-publicly-owned-crisis

Edited 23 March 2023 by Greg2607

[marbles]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

Pie in the sky then.

It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power station.

China could have one built in a week

[Otis]

23 minutes ago, marbles said:

China could have one built in a week

Only because their local councils don't hold up any development for  9 1/2 years 🤣

[Facecloth]

Perfectly reasonable debate deleted