The Labour Government

[Chippy_boy]

He’s also ignoring - or perhaps more accurately is ignorant of the fact - that the last Budget delivered by the Labour ahead of the 2010 election actually targeted a larger tightening of fiscal policy, and a larger decline in the deficit, than Osborne actually managed to achieve during 2010 to 2015.

Yet still they push this Tory austerity narrative, and argue that austerity was the choice of the Tories and the Tories alone. Utterly false.

Indeed. I remember Alasdair Darling was fully supportive of it. I also remember Labour clamouring for an even more generous - and expensive - furlough scheme.

 

[hilts]

We have had forty-odd years of neo-liberalism, privatisation and cuts in public expenditure under governments of various labels. It hasn't worked.

The idea that we should be better off going even further in that direction is literally incredible.

Of course, some people would be better off. The ultra-rich.

The root of the present discontent is the ever-widening gap between the ultra-rich and almost everyone else, where 1% of the population hoard a huge percentage of the total wealth, far more than they could spend in five lifetimes.

What statistical evidence there is suggests that the happiest, most contented countries are those with relatively small wealth gaps. In other words, Scandinavia, not the USA.

(For clarity, a relatively small wealth gap does not mean that the CEO and the janitor get the same money. I find one has to spell this stuff out.)

You put it better than I did :-)

 

[hilts]

Personally, I don’t stick by one party and prefer to see them as the elected government of the time, that way I can hold people, not parties, to account.

As for that shower, looking at it from an unbiased point of view, this government has done more for its people within 12 months than the tthe likes of Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak (were there more?) did in over 15 years. And I’ll make judgement on that at the end of this Parliament, not after an initial period where they are trying to clean up the absolute shit show that was left behind.

Unbiased?

:-)

 

[threespires]

Cameron was about as wet as Tory goverments get, essentially just continuing with Blairite policies of open borders, high taxation, big goverment, woke ideology. Amplified by sharing power with the Libdems (FFS). People like Rory Stewart should have been nowhere near a Conservative government and yet was typical of the Tory front bench. He used to be a member of the Labour Party and clearly is chums with Alasdair Campbell. We haven't seen a "proper" right wing, low taxation, small government, high individual freedoms, less state interference government in 30 years.

Depends on how you look at it. As a percentage of GDP, Thatcher broadly maintained the welfare state at its existing rate whereas Cameron and Osborne cut it quite significantly. In fact Thatcher didn't really shrink the state in economic terms she shrank the level of power and control of the state on the assumption that at a later point this would in turn reduce the size of it. I will be generous and suggest that when she restructured the role of the state she genuinely believed that private enterprise and the deregulated markets would behave in a way that was advantageous to the country as a whole. We will all have our own opinions on how that has or hasn't worked out. I would say for a supposed prudent shop keepers daughter she allowed the country to be subjected to an American driven experiment at a scale that no other developed country had tried.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Depends on how you look at it. As a percentage of GDP, Thatcher broadly maintained the welfare state at its existing rate whereas Cameron and Osborne cut it quite significantly. In fact Thatcher didn't really shrink the state in economic terms she shrank the level of power and control of the state on the assumption that at a later point this would in turn reduce the size of it. I will be generous and suggest that when she restructured the role of the state she genuinely believed that private enterprise and the deregulated markets would behave in a way that was advantageous to the country as a whole. We will all have our own opinions on how that has or hasn't worked out. I would say for a supposed prudent shop keepers daughter she allowed the country to be subjected to an American driven experiment at a scale that no other developed country had tried.

Experiment or not, you have to remember the context. We'd just come off the back of years of fairly hard left government, with a top rate of tax y in extremis - of 98%. The state had it's claws into every aspect of daily life, from trains to supplying your milk in the morning. Union power was never higher and we had strikes crippling the UK economy every week. Huge reform was necessary and she delivered it.

 

[threespires]

Experiment or not, you have to remember the context. We'd just come off the back of years of fairly hard left government, with a top rate of tax y in extremis - of 98%. The state had it's claws into every aspect of daily life, from trains to supplying your milk in the morning. Union power was never higher and we had strikes crippling the UK economy every week. Huge reform was necessary and she delivered it.

I don't think I'd argue there wasn't some need for reform, I just think what we got wasn't what we needed. It broke the post war social consensus and led to a decline in social mobility and increase in inequality which in turn has contributed significantly to our stagnation as a nation. We're now in a situation where in some jobs an honest days graft isn't enough to put decent food on the table but you can sit on your arse and your wealth can accumulate with no absolutely no productive benefit to our wider economy. She might not have had that in mind but it's what we ended up with. She went all in on an ultimately failed experiment. Who knows what might have happened had her obvious operational drive and energies been directed towards a better strategic model that benefited the country as a whole.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I don't think I'd argue there wasn't some need for reform, I just think what we got wasn't what we needed. It broke the post war social consensus and led to a decline in social mobility and increase in inequality which in turn has contributed significantly to our stagnation as a nation. We're now in a situation where in some jobs an honest days graft isn't enough to put decent food on the table but you can sit on your arse and your wealth can accumulate with no absolutely no productive benefit to our wider economy. She might not have had that in mind but it's what we ended up with. She went all in on an ultimately failed experiment. Who knows what might have happened had her obvious operational drive and energies been directed towards a better strategic model that benefited the country as a whole.

I can't say I agree. I think it's an unfortunate reality that rewarding under performance cannot ultimately lead to overall prosperity, and as a result you have have to put up with significant disparity between rich and poor, or alternatively, mediocrity or worse for all.

Actually I think AI will fix this, and after a couple of decades of strife and upheaval, we'll find a more equitable method of wealth distribution than capitalism. But for now, capitalism is the only thing that works.

 

[BigJoe#1]

I can't say I agree. I think it's an unfortunate reality that rewarding under performance cannot ultimately lead to overall prosperity, and as a result you have have to put up with significant disparity between rich and poor, or alternative mediocrity or worse for all.

Actually I think AI will fix this, and after a couple of decades of strife and upheaval, we'll find a more equitable method of wealth distribution than capitalism. But for now, capitalism is the only thing that works.

I agree with most of your comments and sentiments, even the point on capitalism.

However, I believe the point on AI is for me way off the mark in as much as yes it will fix some things, no doubt about that but the human race is not ready to accept it and it will ultimately destroy us.

I have always said and have mentioned in these threads in the past that the world would be completely wasted if someone or something somewhere decided to switch off the internet. Our global society would be totally obliterated.

..... anyway, back on topic and as much as I'd like to, I cannot lay the blame for any of this at the feet of the Labour Government.

 

[BigJoe#1]

The foresight and competency of these ministers is absolutely unbelievable. Streeting is fucking deluded.

[On Labour] "We have expanded free school meals to half a million schoolchildren - that one measure is lifting 100,00 schoolchildren out of poverty"

Really Wesley, you serious?

It's silly assumptions like this that totally discredit the people that make them. How on earth does providing one school meal a day, term time only, take a child out of poverty?

 

[hammocity]

After both wars people had no choice but to crack on there was no NHS or benefits were at a minimum. We had state pension first but “no jobs” was behind the advent of unemployment benefit.
I don’t have the answers but I’m sure Covid has played a part in the current rise in people claiming benefits.

Time to move on, can't keep using it as an excuse.

 

[BlueHammer85]

We have had forty-odd years of neo-liberalism, privatisation and cuts in public expenditure under governments of various labels. It hasn't worked.

The idea that we should be better off going even further in that direction is literally incredible.

Of course, some people would be better off. The ultra-rich.

The root of the present discontent is the ever-widening gap between the ultra-rich and almost everyone else, where 1% of the population hoard a huge percentage of the total wealth, far more than they could spend in five lifetimes.

What statistical evidence there is suggests that the happiest, most contented countries are those with relatively small wealth gaps. In other words, Scandinavia, not the USA.

(For clarity, a relatively small wealth gap does not mean that the CEO and the janitor get the same money. I find one has to spell this stuff out.)

No system ‘works’ and no system will please everyone especially In a divided left/wing social media society we have nowadays - genuinely believe Labour try to balance between the two and what’s best for the nation but people feel alienated as they need a leader who has a stance for their side - so Labour I feel will get hammered eventually and likely Reform will be in Government, let’s see how voting ‘different’ will make everyone happy then.

 

[hampshireblue]

1. didn't warrant a response
2. OK, stand corrected. I am sure you can multipy £37 x 1.6 instead of £27k.

Fair enough. But don't expect not to be challenged when you quote a figure nearly 50% wrong.

It would also seem that apart form Truss you are unable to come up with a "true tory" from anywhere within the last 30-40 years. Surely there are another couple you admire and wish were back in power?

Where does 1.6 come from?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Fair enough. But don't expect not to be challenged when you quote a figure nearly 50% wrong.

It would also seem that apart form Truss you are unable to come up with a "true tory" from anywhere within the last 30-40 years. Surely there are another couple you admire and wish were back in power?

Where does 1.6 come from?

Sorry mate, can't be arsed. Do your own Googling if you're genuinely interested, which I doubt.

 

[threespires]

I can't say I agree. I think it's an unfortunate reality that rewarding under performance cannot ultimately lead to overall prosperity, and as a result you have have to put up with significant disparity between rich and poor, or alternatively, mediocrity or worse for all.

Actually I think AI will fix this, and after a couple of decades of strife and upheaval, we'll find a more equitable method of wealth distribution than capitalism. But for now, capitalism is the only thing that works.

Very little wealth is generated these days by the meritocractic performance of the individual and imo that's one of the major reasons for stagnation. The reason I think the decline in social mobility is important is that broadly speaking countries with high social mobility perform well economically. The lower the IGE the better the economy performs. The fact that capitalism is increasingly not working for so many people is a major driver in the rise of populism.

We'll never know, but I do wonder if, at that mid 70s inflection point, we had worked harder to keep and adapt the post war social contract where might we be now ? It wouldn't have been easy given the global challenges but compared to where we are now? Re. your point about AI I suspect amongst other things technology companies wouldn't be as out of control as they clearly are now. We can see some elements of the paths not followed in other countries, but we can also look to the US to see the path we'll be going down even further if we vote in a populist government. Things are not great but we can still avoid compounding our mistakes.

As for whether AI ultimately delivers a solution or Armageddon, well that's definitely another thread!

 

[bluenova]

The foresight and competency of these ministers is absolutely unbelievable. Streeting is fucking deluded.

[On Labour] "We have expanded free school meals to half a million schoolchildren - that one measure is lifting 100,00 schoolchildren out of poverty"

Really Wesley, you serious?

It's silly assumptions like this that totally discredit the people that make them. How on earth does providing one school meal a day, term time only, take a child out of poverty?

I understand that it sounds odd, but it's simply because there is a cut off point where households are defined as being in poverty. It's never a perfect calculation, but the Government, and organisations campaigning on behalf of children and families, all use a figure, so that they can see whether things are improving, or getting worse.

If there are 4 million+ children living in relative poverty, then there will be a spread of family incomes, with some children in deep poverty, and others only just below the poverty line.

School meals cost around £500 a year for one child, so it's not surprising that a £500 boost for a family pushed some people above the poverty line.

 

[BigJoe#1]

I understand that it sounds odd, but it's simply because there is a cut off point where households are defined as being in poverty. It's never a perfect calculation, but the Government, and organisations campaigning on behalf of children and families, all use a figure, so that they can see whether things are improving, or getting worse.

If there are 4 million+ children living in relative poverty, then there will be a spread of family incomes, with some children in deep poverty, and others only just below the poverty line.

School meals cost around £500 a year for one child, so it's not surprising that a £500 boost for a family pushed some people above the poverty line.

I fully understand and to a very limited degree agree with you.

However, IMO it is a very weak and subjective, almost desperate argument. I very much doubt that the families of the 100,000 families will realise any material difference on account of their children getting free school meals, whereas the Government are playing it like a trump (note the lower case t) card. Is this eally the best they can claim?

 

[Don Karleone]

We're here again. I swear to fucking god this country never learns.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

We're here again. I swear to fucking god this country never learns.

Don’t worry, Labours messaging is so shit that it may lead to UKIP getting in and cutting all medical care and benefits for those that need it.

It’s an interesting dynamic, possibly seeing people voting against their best interests, and how changes will impact them.

If future governments carry on with the last 15 years of cuts, and they do want to get rid of things like free NHS, I expect that my NI contribution will be cut completely and I am allowed to put that to my health insurance and private pension.

Noting how the US works, think I’ll have prof’d on that.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I agree with most of your comments and sentiments, even the point on capitalism.

However, I believe the point on AI is for me way off the mark in as much as yes it will fix some things, no doubt about that but the human race is not ready to accept it and it will ultimately destroy us.

I have always said and have mentioned in these threads in the past that the world would be completely wasted if someone or something somewhere decided to switch off the internet. Our global society would be totally obliterated.

..... anyway, back on topic and as much as I'd like to, I cannot lay the blame for any of this at the feet of the Labour Government.

Don't get me wrong, what I mean is AI will fix this *eventually*.

What we are going to see in the short and medium term is a shocking, dramatic and sudden increase in unemployment to hitherto unimaginable levels. Ultimately AI and robotics are going to result in near 100% unemployment.

Long before that though, when unemployment is like 20%, 30%, 40%, society will break down with civil unrest on a huge scale. It will get very ugly. But through this ultimately will come change that will throw out capitalism in favour of a kind of neo socialism where work is optional and people are paid a high proportion of a full wage for doing nothing. There can be no other solution when all human endeavour has no value.

This is the positive outcome, btw. The alternate is just that we all die...which is also quite possible.

 

[Vic]

I can't say I agree. I think it's an unfortunate reality that rewarding under performance cannot ultimately lead to overall prosperity, and as a result you have have to put up with significant disparity between rich and poor, or alternatively, mediocrity or worse for all.

Actually I think AI will fix this, and after a couple of decades of strife and upheaval, we'll find a more equitable method of wealth distribution than capitalism. But for now, capitalism is the only thing that works.

AI disagrees

Copilot Search

Copilot Search delivers AI-powered insights, helping you explore topics, uncover relevant instant answers, and connect ideas seamlessly.

www.bing.com