[Politics] Liz Truss **RESIGNS 20/10/2022**

[Weststander]

Of course. Macron is a neo-liberal bank-funded scumbag like the rest of the lot. I hope the French people overthrow their government when this winter of chaos arrives.

He lucked by facing a fascist, the lesser of two right-wing choices.

Revealing both a strength and flaw in their particular republican system.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

They also know they don't need to fear 'the people' because come the general election, they'll promise the proles more crack-downs on immigration, asylum seekers, and welfare 'scroungers', and the plebs will love them for it.

Meanwhile, if Labour, the Lib Dems or the Greens offer even the mildest policies to tackle poverty wages, exorbitant rents or corporate tax evasion, the Tories, and their Pravda-like press (the Mail, the Express, the Sun and the Telegraph) will accuse them of being 'anti-business', promoting 'the politics of envy', and of being 'wicked unpatriotic Communists'.

I hate the way that the Tories screw ordinary people and only serve the interests of the rich, but I also hate the voters, particularly working-class Tories, who keep supporting the Tories because they are constantly convinced that the Tories genuinely care about them - merely because they both hate foreigners, 'scroungers' and 'the Woke'.

Robert Tressell's novel, The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists is as depressingly relevant today as when it was written over 100 years ago.

Totally this. Having said that, Mrs DiS noticed yesterday, the day after the budget that wasn’t a budget, there were far more Daily Mails left on the shelves than there were usually, and she saw someone actually pick one up, look at the front cover, say “I’m not buying that” and pick up the Mirror instead.

And in terms of the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist, I didn’t read it until about 10 years ago but it’s a life-changing book. Tragic and angry-making in parts, but in other places hilariously funny - meetings of the Aldermen, for example.

 

[Seagull27]

Liz Truss and Keir Starmer - tweedledum and tweedledee. The electoral system is designed and structured to prevent change - that is what is in the interests of the wealthy eltes. When there was an opportunity for potential change with Corbyn the entire force of the economic and political establishment (including the Blairites in the LP of whom Starmer was a leading figure)

Bollocks. Starmer was in Corbyn's cabinet so clearly JC trusted him enough. Starmer is a world away from Truss.

He may not be your ideal candidate for Labour, but if people like you continue to peddle this nonsense about him being as bad as Truss then you're partially responsible for the Tories getting in next time.

Right now we need the Labour party to be united, sometimes you have to accept "good enough" in place of perfect.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I know you've already grasped the following .... you're dealing with posters who thing Starmer/Reeves/G.Brown are Tory Light scum. JRG considers the lot evil capitalists or apologists for capitalists, from an armchair in another land he'd love to see this country smashed to pieces until politically minded workers and lay-abouts have complete control of the means of production. Then a political system so that never again can the Gordon Brown's, Starmer's or Truss's have any political power. Instead workers and lay-abouts committees.

As an aside, I find the obsession from abroad just with the UK interesting. France and Germany have huge numbers of millionaires and billionaires, with an exponential growth since Mar 20, they made their money from the pandemic. Sarkozy and Macron were/are centre-right and clearly right wing on economics and workers rights.

But not a peep. I wonder why foreigners want to UK to be torn apart in a revolution? That Brits don't want!

Is Macron trying to silence the national Broadcasting set-up? Rubbish experts? Silence Critics? Crack drown in a draconian way on protests? Deliberately giving loadsamoney in tax cuts to those who need it least? Threatening to Crack down on those on benefits to make them seek to work longer hours, irrespective of their home/personal circumstances? weakening or eliminating any official scrutiny or oversight measures or systems?

This is a genuine question in that I could not state categorically yes or no to any of those questions, but I would hazard a good guess.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Liz Truss and Keir Starmer - tweedledum and tweedledee. The electoral system is designed and structured to prevent change - that is what is in the interests of the wealthy eltes. When there was an opportunity for potential change with Corbyn the entire force of the economic and political establishment (including the Blairites in the LP of whom Starmer was a leading figure) was brought out to vilify and ridicule him and the electoral process was used to unseat him (the Blairites consciously acted to lose the election to Johnson simply to remove Corbyn).

You are delusional if you think that bourgeois parliamentary 'democracy' is in any way democratic or a potential vehicle for change.

As Swansman said - change has only ever come when people organise and take to the streets.

Do we take it from this that you would rather a neo-fascist right-wing Tory win the next election than a relatively moderate left of centre Labour Party which would be far more likely to address things like the cost of living crisis, child poverty, excessive profits of the energy companies, the greed of those working in the City?

Personally, I think Starmer would have been delighted to be part of a victorious Labour Party at the last General Election, which Corbyn lost against all the odds.

 

[Weststander]

Is Macron trying to silence the national Broadcasting set-up? Rubbish experts? Silence Critics? Crack drown in a draconian way on protests? Deliberately giving loadsamoney in tax cuts to those who need it least? Threatening to Crack down on those on benefits to make them seek to work longer hours, irrespective of their home/personal circumstances? weakening or eliminating any official scrutiny or oversight measures or systems?

This is a genuine question in that I could not state categorically yes or no to any of those questions, but I would hazard a good guess.

Immediately:

Macron's tax cut have benefitted the rich most:
https://www.reuters.com/article/france-tax-idINKBN1XT2D6
https://www.ft.com/content/3d907582-b893-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa852

Macron taking apart France's 100 year old Labour Codes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-france-economy-labor-law.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/macron-labour-laws-reforms-new-france-union-protests-a7962141.html

Non-British governments can be anti workers rights and pro the super rich too. That is Macron.

 

[Machiavelli]

[MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION], thinking ahead, I think you do too. The following could be worthy of a thread of its own, but I don’t many nsc’ers would be interested just now in the fiscal policies of a hypothetical government in Dec 2024 .

My question is, what exactly will Rachel Reeves do, what’s achievable? Simply reversing yesterday’s fiscal event won’t be enough, for example almost everyone here thinks far more should be spent on the NHS and everyone in the public sector deserves substantial pay rises to make up for 2008 to 2022. So many constraints on her or any chancellor …. will Russia still be trying to destroy the West, the huge PSBR, huge public debt serviced at higher interest rates. Plus I know through my profession and it’s widely accepted by civil servants/experts that financial behaviour changes with higher taxes for businessmen etc.

So many spending demands on that Starmer government - NHS, public sector wages, non-HS2 rail projects in the north promised, woefully underfunded mental health services, poverty.

Well read, in practical tax and spend policies, how do think Reeves will go about it?

I think it'd be a good idea to set up a fiscal thread.
I'm not that strong on policy detail, and RR will only drip feed a few proposals ahead of the release of the manifesto I suspect.
This comment will generate derision: I think Ed Miliband is the best PM the UK never had, and I'm delighted that Starmer has given him the energy/CC portfolio and made this the flagship policy. Today's announcement of 2030 as energy independence and full renewables is politically astute, well timed, given where we are now. 2x on-shore, 3x solar and 4x off-shore in that timescale is bold and ambitious (which is a welcome step out of Starmer's caution). This will cost, but I struggle to see how anyone can think it's not a good idea.
And you're right, the UK is in a deeply precarious position. The financial markets have turned against the Tories (when did that last happen?), and it's looking as though the after-effects of KK 'fiscal event' won't be pretty: falling XR which increases inflation, and swifter, sharper interest rate rises:
-- the going for growth strategy was always a gamble, especially given the BoE have said that we're technically in recession, although not officially; if the economy bumps along the bottom in 23y, they're in real trouble. I have been saying for a long time that growth has been anaemic and now even the CEx has admitted it. For me, the multiple issues -- or, better, crises -- indicate the need for an entirely different economic model to what we've had for the last four decades, but I'm not holding my breath.
-- the UK will sail past 100% debt to GDP, but the question is how the financial markets respond (eg France and US are +100%, Japan +200%). I don't understand why the public bought Osborne's austerity and are keeping quiet now. On public spending, that austerity has cut services to the bone -- see, for instance, barristers salaries, and we'll have to see what happens with public sector pay. As someone with kids, you ought to be aware of how education has suffered. The only 2 areas that have held up are pensions and (less so) the NHS and as you allude, and Paul Johnson of the IFS insists, these are going to drain the public purse in ensuing decades, all of which points to increased public spending. The alternative is to do what Badenoch proposed in her campaign is that the state stops doing certain things -- not convinced the public will allow that.
So we're heading for an almighty storm.

Labour committed to the 1p income tax cut too, so will need to raise money elsewhere, and will need to be radical. A land value tax would be a good idea, ditto rises in asset taxes and unnecessary consumption (eg on more than one flight per year).
As I've said many times, Piketty is my preferred guide (see ch 17 of Capital and Ideology), but we're a long way off this: advocates full transparency of everyone's finances; shift taxes to assets rather than labour; eyewateringly high taxes for the top decile, centile, and even higher further within that top 1%; co-determination between employers and unions for larger companies; global free trade; encouraging SME; roughly 50:50 public-private.

My expectation is that Labour will be timid and, if they're not, they'll be prevented from getting a radical programme through, but just to reiterate, the context and levels of pain are off the scales historically.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I think Swansman and JRG are more talking about ordinary people, working two jobs and still struggling. They don't understand the stoic nature of the British working class, not actually living here. Those people will do things the right way.

'stoic nature' -

A mass movement of the British working class defeated the poll tax and brought down Thatcher - then Kinnock tried to out-Tory the Tories and put Major back into power.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I'd rather have Truss than Putin, that Hungarian goon and the Brazilian fascist. So she's not in the bottom three I guess.

I'd rather have a democratically planned socialised economy where the government provides for the need of the population - not the profit of billionaires.

Truss, Putin, the Hungarian goon and the Brazilian fascist are all cheeks of the same a*se - working to protect the interests of the elites who line their pockets.

 

[Machiavelli]

PS agree with you on this lot not being fascists. Fascists deploy violence, and reject democracy. There's none of the former however unpleasant some of their policies are, and the current framework of extremely minimal democracy serves them extremely well, so they haven't tinkered much with it (despite plans to do so).
Putin has certainly fallen into the fascist camp. While we're on him, it's been exposed that he has spent £300m on far right movements in the west. We can only wonder how much of that Arron Banks/Leave.EU got of that, ditto with UKIP.

 

[Weststander]

I'd rather have a democratically planned socialised economy where the government provides for the need of the population - not the profit of billionaires.

Truss, Putin, the Hungarian goon and the Brazilian fascist are all cheeks of the same a*se - working to protect the interests of the elites who line their pockets.

… and Blair, Brown, Starmer?

Labour might be in power for 10 years from 2024, shirley you’re highly enthused by that.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'd rather have Truss than a communist revolution organised by an Irish pub bore, a Swedish troll and people who took Corbyn seriously.

Post of the week

The arrogance of people who can't get what the want from the ballot box and so call for revolution. Pillocks.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Bollocks. Starmer was in Corbyn's cabinet so clearly JC trusted him enough.

Corbyn was an idiot - he tried to accomodate the Blairites rather than acting against the threat that they posed. Starmer did what Corbyn should have done. Corbyn didn't introduce mandatory reselection of MPs to give the rank-and-file of the LP an opporunity to remove the Blairite MPs - as soon as Starmer became leader he expelled tens of thousands of left-wing memebrs of the LP.

Starmer is a world away from Truss.

NO he isn't - both are fully welded to neo-liberal capitalism - Starmer just doesn't come out with the nuttier medieval stuff.

He may not be your ideal candidate for Labour, but if people like you continue to peddle this nonsense about him being as bad as Truss then you're partially responsible for the Tories getting in next time.

Starmer would be resonsible for Truss getting relected - his Blairite LP is losing safe LP seats in council by-elections in LP heartlands. Working class people in Britain don't trust Starmer to be any different to the Tories (and they have zero evidence to make any other assessment) and they will stay away from the polls in droves.

Right now we need the Labour party to be united, sometimes you have to accept "good enough" in place of perfect.

The LP had a chance when the Blairites f*cked up and allowed Corbyn on the ballot for LP leader - shafting Corbyn will prove to be the deathknell for the LP.

What needs to happen now is that the trade union movement led by the RMT, the CWU and Unite need to disaffiliate from the LP and start the process of launching a new working class party.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

… and Blair, Brown, Starmer?

Labour might be in power for 10 years from 2024, shirley you’re highly enthused by that.

He's not a labour supporter

(He wants a new party, with Corbyn at the helm, and believes this will attract enough votes to win a majority. When I offered him £100 on it never succeeding he claimed to never bet. That's what I call bringing absolutely nothing to the door, let alone the table).

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I know you've already grasped the following .... you're dealing with posters who thing Starmer/Reeves/G.Brown are Tory Light scum. JRG considers the lot evil capitalists or apologists for capitalists, from an armchair in another land he'd love to see this country smashed to pieces until politically minded workers and lay-abouts have complete control of the means of production. Then a political system so that never again can the Gordon Brown's, Starmer's or Truss's have any political power. Instead workers and lay-abouts committees.

You got it in one - in the meantime the British working class (and the Irish working class) have to put up with arrogant little sh*ts who only care about lining the pockets of their wealthy friends and s*cking over working class people.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I think France and Germany will be in a similar situation, and I think their populations should and possibly do the same. For some reason the domestic politics of France and Germany are not as widely discussed here as English ones though, so the opportunity to discuss what is happening there doesn't come by as often.

Of course they are - the crisis being experienced at the moment is the most significant crisis of capitalism since the 1930s - Putin's war in Ukraine and the rise of the far-right is a symptom of that crisis. We are entering an era of catastrophe as capitalism plays out its death agony. The whiff of reaction in places like Sweden will likely provoke a significant backlash from working class people - they will have no choice.

 

[Guinness Boy]

'stoic nature' -

A mass movement of the British working class defeated the poll tax and brought down Thatcher - then Kinnock tried to out-Tory the Tories and put Major back into power.

Wrong. The poll tax riots were the rent-a-mob. The "mass movement" was people writing to their MPs, refusing to pay, not smashing up London. And Kinnock never was in power.

But then you were observing all that from your lonely bar stool on the other side of the sea.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

PS agree with you on this lot not being fascists. Fascists deploy violence, and reject democracy. There's none of the former however unpleasant some of their policies are, and the current framework of extremely minimal democracy serves them extremely well, so they haven't tinkered much with it (despite plans to do so).
Putin has certainly fallen into the fascist camp. While we're on him, it's been exposed that he has spent £300m on far right movements in the west. We can only wonder how much of that Arron Banks/Leave.EU got of that, ditto with UKIP.

It isn't a term I would have chosen to invoke, but if you accept the nazis are fascist, it is worth noting that they were democratically elected and only went full genocide later. Any party that manipulates the system to thwart democracy is on the fascist road. You don't need to dress up in a leather coat over women's rubber undies to be a fascist.

But, anyway, the direction of travel is my main concern, rather than the label. The current direction is worrisome.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Putin has certainly fallen into the fascist camp. While we're on him, it's been exposed that he has spent £300m on far right movements in the west. We can only wonder how much of that Arron Banks/Leave.EU got of that, ditto with UKIP.

The 'democratic West' has been funding (and arming) fascists and dictators since before WW2 - Putin is doing nothing that the Yanks, the Brits, the French etc have been doing for a hundred years.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'd rather have a democratically planned socialised economy where the government provides for the need of the population - not the profit of billionaires.

ah, the classic paradox of Marxism. democratically planned economy by the government. meaning, everything dictated by the state, the party telling you what to do, when and how.

trouble is, the people dont want this when given the choice.