[Politics] Growth, Growth, Growth

[Barnet Seagull]

KS knows that the Conservatives can no longer win on the economy and that their time is up. He HAS to move labour to the centre and now is a good time when the Conservatice in-fighting is on economic policy which for the past 12 years has failed.

The question is, if or when do the mainstream media move? I think he's just increased the likelihood of "if"

 

[raymondo]

Economic growth - the world is obsessed with it as the measure of success. Surely you can't keep growing on finite resources? What climate emergency?!

Thank you...just saved me a post!! The way humans tend to do growth it's pretty much always destruction destruction destruction. I'm afraid I can't be positive about the future of this planet, at least not with the generally unenlightened (i.e. we have liars, cheats, noses in the trough, warmongers...generally speaking) 'leaders' we have around the world. Cheer me up someone.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The reason, apparently, was explained back in 2012, by Liz Truss, among others:

“Once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor.

The MPs – Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss – want Mr Cameron to adopt a more right-wing agenda of tax cuts and weaker labour laws."

That's what these Right-wing headbangers always mean with their populist calls to 'slash red-tape' or cut bureaucracy - yet more attacks on employment protection and workers' rights, and more precarious low-quality tenancies for renters, and even more power for swaggering bosses and rapacious rip-of landlords.

What all the Tory leadership contenders have pledged over the last fortnight is simply more of the same policies that have polarised and fragmented Britain over the last 40 years, and left the world's 5th or 6th richest nation with record levels of inequality, millions unable to afford to buy a family home, millions of workers reliant on top-up welfare benefits due to poverty wages paid by companies that pay their CEOs and shareholders £ millions, growing numbers of people reliant on food banks, and many pensioners forced to choose between eating or heating.

We'll be told that growth depends on people working harder, which in turn will apparently make them better-off, but workers must have learnt by now that however hard they work, they receive the same wage or salary; the rewards of their hard work go to those at the top.

The whole system is rigged against ordinary people; Britain is not a democracy, but a plutocracy.

An elegant post, regardless of the content of the original post, the nature of which has excaped me.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

KS knows that the Conservatives can no longer win on the economy and that their time is up. He HAS to move labour to the centre and now is a good time when the Conservatice in-fighting is on economic policy which for the past 12 years has failed.

The question is, if or when do the mainstream media move? I think he's just increased the likelihood of "if"

'if' not 'when', then? What has Starms done to let the gun slip and shoot himself in the foot?

 

[Simster]

'if' not 'when', then? What has Starms done to let the gun slip and shoot himself in the foot?

I am not convinced Starmer will win an outright majority. The left absolutely despise him, and a lot of the centre ground he's trying to win over are pro EU, and they might well wonder what the point of voting for him is.

He's pandering to the gammon in red wall seats, but that won't win him London or Scotland.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am not convinced Starmer will win an outright majority. The left absolutely despise him, and a lot of the centre ground he's trying to win over are pro EU, and they might well wonder what the point of voting for him is.

He's pandering to the gammon in red wall seats, but that won't win him London or Scotland.

He probably has London already. Not sure Scotland was ever a possibility. So red walls it is.

I am not expecting him to win an overall majority either, largely because the jock vote that served Blair so well is gone forever.

But that isn't relevant to the query I made of the post to which I replied, which seemed to me to be very negative about Starmer.

The way things are it will be hard now for anyone to win Labour an overall majority.

Hover over the picture to see the year of the GE...

 

[Guinness Boy]

True but growth gives more revenue to spend on the important stuff. (As long as they do!)

It’s not even chicken and egg. Without education you can’t have growth because you’ll be supporting a nation of dumbasses.

You’ll end up with a country full of the sort of people who believe Sun headlines or stuff written on the side of a bus.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Barnet Seagull]

What I was alluding to is that the media will back a winner to ensure influence. This is what happened with Blair and KS is positioning to get the same support.
I'm not sure that Labour will win a majority either but there is definitely an ABC, Anyone But Conservative, vote to be had. Also not sure how diluted it will be but i cant see the toxicity of the current government holding up a majority and I cant see anyone who could in good conscience form a coalition.

 

[Blue3]

I am not convinced Starmer will win an outright majority. The left absolutely despise him, and a lot of the centre ground he's trying to win over are pro EU, and they might well wonder what the point of voting for him is.

He's pandering to the gammon in red wall seats, but that won't win him London or Scotland.

Absolutely Labour will never win without Scotland, Cameron knew this and it’s one of the main reasons he granted Scotland the first independence referendum.

The only other way for labour to win is for the other parties to agree to target seats with the understanding to just get this awful lot out of government,

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It’s not even chicken and egg. Without education you can’t have growth because you’ll be supporting a nation of dumbasses.

You’ll end up with a country full of the sort of people who believe Sun headlines or stuff written on the side of a bus.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now, now. Play nicely, Draco

 

[The Clamp]

Growth, growth, growth.

 

[raymondo]

And the trouble with this old trope is that you choose to write in pidgeon English, making it barely legible - but I digress.

Regulations are like taxes, they are indeed a drain on business. Unfortunately though, they are both absolutely necessary. You cannot continue to cut tax because otherwise things stop working. You cannot continue to remove regulation, because otherwise you end up with the nation acting as a giant sweatshop. This, to me, is basic stuff.

So far, we've heard a lot of bullshit about cutting red tape, and so far the biggest change this has made is that untreated shit now flows down our rivers. I'm looking forward -as we all are - to the deregulation of the farming industry so that we can import chlorinated chicken from the US and mistreated animal produce from Australia. And I'm pretty sure any deregulation of the labour market will end up similarly advantageous to us all.

Call me strange, but I just felt things were better when we had the protection of European-wide river, food and Labour regulation. And tax was lower. And food banks weren't necessary. Nobody was calling us lazy back then. Maybe the Tories should just introduce a day for clapping workers to make themselves feel better? It worked a treat for NHS workers.

Super post, [MENTION=232]Simster[/MENTION] - you really
get to a critical point about 'regulations' and 'red tape'. These terms have grown over the years to often (or should I say always?) have negative connotations to the listener. That's why politicians can use them for there own means and many folk don't question it. Even a clear health indicator such as the traffic lights on food packaging only got implemented because of EU law, and despite the lobbying against it from our own food industries.
If more red tape and regulations mean:
- huge fines or jail for those that regularly pollute our rivers and coastal waters
- planning controls that will reverse the ridiculous amount of chicken farms destroying the river Wye
- better protection of workers rights
- better protection of tenants against unfair rents, and owners against unfair ground rents
- rules that ensure developers really do include properties that are truly 'affordable'
- if we're not going to take a profit tax against oil companies, then a legally binding commitment for them to put a vastly increased % of profits into renewables and carbon capture... annually
- ...

... then I'm all for it.

 

[raymondo]

The reason, apparently, was explained back in 2012, by Liz Truss, among others:

“Once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor.

The MPs – Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss – want Mr Cameron to adopt a more right-wing agenda of tax cuts and weaker labour laws."

That's what these Right-wing headbangers always mean with their populist calls to 'slash red-tape' or cut bureaucracy - yet more attacks on employment protection and workers' rights, and more precarious low-quality tenancies for renters, and even more power for swaggering bosses and rapacious rip-of landlords.

What all the Tory leadership contenders have pledged over the last fortnight is simply more of the same policies that have polarised and fragmented Britain over the last 40 years, and left the world's 5th or 6th richest nation with record levels of inequality, millions unable to afford to buy a family home, millions of workers reliant on top-up welfare benefits due to poverty wages paid by companies that pay their CEOs and shareholders £ millions, growing numbers of people reliant on food banks, and many pensioners forced to choose between eating or heating.

We'll be told that growth depends on people working harder, which in turn will apparently make them better-off, but workers must have learnt by now that however hard they work, they receive the same wage or salary; the rewards of their hard work go to those at the top.

The whole system is rigged against ordinary people; Britain is not a democracy, but a plutocracy.

Great post. If you want to go up against Gray in North Wilts... I'll vote for you.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What I was alluding to is that the media will back a winner to ensure influence. This is what happened with Blair and KS is positioning to get the same support.
I'm not sure that Labour will win a majority either but there is definitely an ABC, Anyone But Conservative, vote to be had. Also not sure how diluted it will be but i cant see the toxicity of the current government holding up a majority and I cant see anyone who could in good conscience form a coalition.

I used to be very much in the camp that the media are mostly tory and lie to the masses to keep the tories in power. But then they all (apart from the Fail) got behind Blair. Blair may not have been a communist, but he was no conservative either.

No, I think that 'the media' is interested first and foremost in its own income. That is dependent on having punters who buy the output, so saying what the punters want to hear (and appearing to have 'influence') is necessary for mass circulation media.....but as I say the Sun backed Blair.....once Blair made it clear he would not threaten Murdoch's income stream.....it was all about money.

But today the print media has lost its power. The only media in the UK with any reach is the BBC (which is why Johnson tasked mad nad with the job of destroying it). But the BBC has never been a cheer leader for any party. It is over-cautios in my view, but so it goes. I'm happy to have a national outlet that, at worst, is mildly irritating.

Where you may have greater insight than me, being younger (I played football with you once, and we are conncted via LinkedIn, so I know) is the world of the influencers, the internet echo chambers, the twittersphere.....but my understanding there is that there is no owner group that needs to be (or could be) persuaded to back labour, if it doesn't do so already. My understanding is that it is all being 'influenced' by people with a fixed agenda, much of it to do with a desire to destabilize the UK rather than to obtain the best leadership for the country - that and the ubiquitous desire to monetize whatever small talents the bloggers, floggers and doggers imagine they possess.

How do people decide how to vote, now, then? In many ways the population has become increasingly politically illiterate in the last 40 years. When I moved to Vancouver in 84 I was shocked by the lack of knowledge or interest in politics. People were so well off and untroubled they simply swiched off, leaving a minority of activists to dominate the voting, with a weird lot called SoCred running the province for decades. The UK has now become more like BC was in the early 80s. Realtively greater wealth: ironically, the plebs now have sufficient vittles, schmutter and gelt to distract them from the baffling world of party politics. That is, they were until very recently.....maybe fuel bills jumping from £1200 to £3400 a year, and petrol at £2 a litre may start to focus minds....

My guess is not, and that Truss will become an elected PM after being gifted the job by the geriatric 180,000. Boo. BOO!

 

[raymondo]

I used to be very much in the camp that the media are mostly tory and lie to the masses to keep the tories in power. But then they all (apart from the Fail) got behind Blair. Blair may not have been a communist, but he was no conservative either.

No, I think that 'the media' is interested first and foremost in its own income. That is dependent on having punters who buy the output, so saying what the punters want to hear (and appearing to have 'influence') is necessary for mass circulation media.....but as I say the Sun backed Blair.....once Blair made it clear he would not threaten Murdoch's income stream.....it was all about money.

But today the print media has lost its power. The only media in the UK with any reach is the BBC (which is why Johnson tasked mad nad with the job of destroying it). But the BBC has never been a cheer leader for any party. It is over-cautios in my view, but so it goes. I'm happy to have a national outlet that, at worst, is mildly irritating.

Where you may have greater insight than me, being younger (I played football with you once, and we are conncted via LinkedIn, so I know) is the world of the influencers, the internet echo chambers, the twittersphere.....but my understanding there is that there is no owner group that needs to be (or could be) persuaded to back labour, if it doesn't do so already. My understanding is that it is all being 'influenced' by people with a fixed agenda, much of it to do with a desire to destabilize the UK rather than to obtain the best leadership for the country - that and the ubiquitous desire to monetize whatever small talents the bloggers, floggers and doggers imagine they possess.

How do people decide how to vote, now, then? In many ways the population has become increasingly politically illiterate in the last 40 years. When I moved to Vancouver in 84 I was shocked by the lack of knowledge or interest in politics. People were so well off and untroubled they simply swiched off, leaving a minority of activists to dominate the voting, with a weird lot called SoCred running the province for decades. The UK has now become more like BC was in the early 80s. Realtively greater wealth: ironically, the plebs now have sufficient vittles, schmutter and gelt to distract them from the baffling world of party politics. That is, they were until very recently.....maybe fuel bills jumping from £1200 to £3400 a year, and petrol at £2 a litre may start to focus minds....

My guess is not, and that Truss will become an elected PM after being gifted the job by the geriatric 180,000. Boo. BOO!

Sadly, you're probably right, Harry

 

[bhatony]

"Growth, growth, growth" is what Guppy says when he is visiting ladyboyz in Thailand and trying to get half a teacake to impres them

Regards

DF

what a lot of rubbish you put on
what a sad life