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

[Jolly Red Giant]

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.

The Nazis never won a majority in any election (and they got most of the votes they received through violence and intimidation) - indeed with the German industrialists were putting them into power, support for the Nazis

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.

There isn't a single democratic country on the planet - all are controleld and manipulated by wealthy oligarchs. The UK first past the post system is one of the more undemocratic parliamentary processes.

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

Again - the current 'direction' is a symptom of the nature of the crisis within capitalism. The post-war boom and welfare state that capitalism afloat for decades is gone - we are now in the actual reality of the nature of capitalism.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Corbyn was an idiot

Exactly why he never got elected. The bloke couldn't run a bath.

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

Interesting that you are so interested in the Premier League and NFL though - two of the most neo-liberal capitalist organisations on the planet.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

… and Blair, Brown, Starmer?

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

Blair, Brown and Starmer are nothing mroe than Saville Row versions of the same a*se-cheek. Remember Blair lied through his teeth to send British troops into Afghanistan and Iraq - the guy is a war criminal (something that Johnson is not - no matter how decrepit he was in other respects).

 

[nicko31]

Sounds like you have a proper Tory now.

Welcome to Unpopulism

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

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.

Strictly speaking, the Nazis won about 37% of the vote in July 1932 falling to 32% in a second election in November (yes, I did just check that). Under our beloved FPTP system 37% probably would have won them a majority of seats, but didn't at the tine. Hitler became chancellor because of various backroom machinations, emergency acts and political violence. Even after seizing power they didn't get a majority of votes or seats in the only multi-party election they held.

I'm not sure what my wider point is to be honest. I basically agree with you.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The Nazis never won a majority in any election (and they got most of the votes they received through violence and intimidation) - indeed with the German industrialists were putting them into power, support for the Nazis


There isn't a single democratic country on the planet - all are controleld and manipulated by wealthy oligarchs. The UK first past the post system is one of the more undemocratic parliamentary processes.


Again - the current 'direction' is a symptom of the nature of the crisis within capitalism. The post-war boom and welfare state that capitalism afloat for decades is gone - we are now in the actual reality of the nature of capitalism.

You've convinced me. Suicide it is, then. I'll bring the cyanide and you can bring some nice Irish malt to wash it down.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Exactly why he never got elected. The bloke couldn't run a bath

The guy was and is an idiot - but that is not why Corbyn's LP didn't win the election - that was down to the Blairites within the LP who he didn't remvoe (including Starmer who was one of the chief architects in ensuring the LP would lose the election) working in cahoots with the media and the political establishment in Britain.

Interesting that you are so interested in the Premier League and NFL though - two of the most neo-liberal capitalist organisations on the planet.

We live in a capitalist world GB - its kind of hard to avoid interacting with it.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

You've convinced me. Suicide it is, then. I'll bring the cyanide and you can bring some nice Irish malt to wash it down.

Nah - I much prefer to work to bring this decrepit economic system to an end - I want my grandkids to have a decent life.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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.

Fair enough, but from that Reuters article, it’s by no means of the same magnitude. I’ve seen figures of between £40k and £59k of how much the richest will benefit per year from Kwarteng’s tax cuts. This article quotes €790 per year - not quite the same!

The combined effect of the measures was an increase of 1.1% in households’ income on average last year, INSEE said. Meanwhile, the 10% richest households saw a gain of 1.4% due to the end of the wealth tax and the flat tax.

The measures lifted wealthy households’ income by 790 euros on average while gains for the rest of the population ranged from 130 to 230 euros, INSEE found.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

We live in a capitalist world GB - its kind of hard to avoid interacting with it.

It's exactly that kind of bourgeoisie attitude that keeps the working class' noses in the dirt.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Now, unlike the previous post I've seen of yours, I understand this. I also agree with it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Strictly speaking, the Nazis won about 37% of the vote in July 1932 falling to 32% in a second election in November (yes, I did just check that). Under our beloved FPTP system 37% probably would have won them a majority of seats, but didn't at the tine. Hitler became chancellor because of various backroom machinations, emergency acts and political violence. Even after seizing power they didn't get a majority of votes or seats in the only multi-party election they held.

I'm not sure what my wider point is to be honest. I basically agree with you.

Something about it not being entirely clear what boxes you need to tick to be awarded the accolade bona fide 'Nazi', and it not being particularly . . . . interesting?

 

[Machiavelli]

This is interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...own-what-the-uk-needs-is-middle-out-economics

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Thank you for the history lesson. While I agree with much of what you're saying, you don't seem to have grasped the difference between being fascistic and funding fascism. We could also talk of how the big industrialists and liberal politicians facilitated Hitler, as Sid in S has pointed out.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Something about it not being entirely clear what boxes you need to tick to be awarded the accolade bona fide 'Nazi', and it not being particularly . . . . interesting?

Oh probably something like that.

Never trust anybody?
Kill literally everybody? Wait no, I don't think that.

These people never win by playing by the rules, they engage just enough to twist the whole thing their way and then rewrite history to say everybody always agreed with them, and no true german/brit/scotsman ever disagreed.

 

[Weststander]

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.

I’m a floating voter, latterly voting Lucas. I’m quite excited about what I’ve said all along will happen, a clean start in Dec 2024. I had that feeling in 1997 [forget his pro EU credentials much-loved on nsc …. Major was an awful leader, way out of his depth, Ken Clarke the lone star]. The only potential spanner would be a very disruptive Sturgeon, with a following of just 1.24m yet the ability to screw Starmer’s premiership over 67m souls.

With hindsight (a wonderful thing), austerity was a huge mistake. Brown also had an austerity plan at the 2010 GE, Newsnight last week reminded a Labour politician that the IFS had said at the time something like there was just a narrow margin between all the parties plans in 2010. An interesting summary with graphics here.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/28/general-election-2010-spending-cuts-ifs

The cuts planned by all 2010 GE parties simply weren’t needed, when interest rates were so low. Instead, it should’ve been a Keynesian time for investment. Interestingly this was/is an international issue, Mediterranean countries are still bitter about the austerity imposed (in effect) by Germany. I think you’ve posted along those lines for a long time. I had thought the opposite, caught up in the near universal mood music at the time.

Looking forward again, I think and hope that spending will be directed into THE critical areas eg mental health, non-HS2 rail infrastructure, small nuclear power plants, the NHS (frontline only!), the restoration of closed Sure Start centres, on the NHS and similar staff wages. In a very changed environment now I can’t see the need for private railway companies and energy suppliers, but it’s not a priority. I await sarcastic [MENTION=15734]harry[/MENTION] Wilson’s tackle labelling me a Commie .

Taxation - this is where we probably differ. I don’t believe in taxing high and very high earners until the pips squeak. Not necessarily for an ideological reason, but working in the tax world, you get behavioural changes. For example legitimate tax planning, people moving overseas, or retiring early, cutting back their hours, or just not being incentivised to start that extra project, take that extra risk. I don’t believe in any marginal tax rate which is a deterrent.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It's exactly that kind of bourgeoisie attitude that keeps the working class' noses in the dirt.

Welcome back sir.

 

[Weststander]

Fair enough, but from that Reuters article, it’s by no means of the same magnitude. I’ve seen figures of between £40k and £59k of how much the richest will benefit per year from Kwarteng’s tax cuts. This article quotes €790 per year - not quite the same!

The combined effect of the measures was an increase of 1.1% in households’ income on average last year, INSEE said. Meanwhile, the 10% richest households saw a gain of 1.4% due to the end of the wealth tax and the flat tax.

The measures lifted wealthy households’ income by 790 euros on average while gains for the rest of the population ranged from 130 to 230 euros, INSEE found.

To be clear I’m not in favour of Kwarteng’s tax moves, if anything it’s (excuse the pun) a suicide note.

We only have to suffer it for 27 months. In those 27 months hard cash hasn’t actually been robbed from the poor to the rich … it delivers modest bribes to the hoi polloi, huge cash handouts to big earners, all funded by public borrowing.

 

[Weststander]

Strictly speaking, the Nazis won about 37% of the vote in July 1932 falling to 32% in a second election in November (yes, I did just check that). Under our beloved FPTP system 37% probably would have won them a majority of seats, but didn't at the tine. Hitler became chancellor because of various backroom machinations, emergency acts and political violence. Even after seizing power they didn't get a majority of votes or seats in the only multi-party election they held.

I'm not sure what my wider point is to be honest. I basically agree with you.

A very elderly Hindenburg and the Prussian establishment reluctantly backed them at the bitter end as the lesser of two evils, scared of the Communists after seeing 1917 Russia.

 

[Weststander]

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.

But you must be optimistic that the UK’s own direction of travel takes a huge about-turn in 2024? You’ve been consistently very pleased with Starmer’s leadership.