Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Buster15 said:
It would cost the UK a great deal more than £3bn on the defense budget if Russia defeats Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Its going to cost a lot more than 3 billion in lost work hours and poor productivity due to helth service cuts, neve rmind the human cost.

We live in a country that sold half of London to russian oligarchs, including an ex KGB man who served with putin owning a national newspaper. Then we put his son, who laughed about spying on this country, in the house of lords.

The time to worry about russia was 20 years ago. If we can't feed the kids of this country or keey the old people warm, the idea we can go toe to toe with their military is just hopeless, idiotic fantasy.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Its going to cost a lot more than 3 billion in lost work hours and poor productivity due to helth service cuts, neve rmind the human cost.

We live in a country that sold half of London to russian oligarchs, including an ex KGB man who served with putin owning a national newspaper. Then we put his son, who laughed about spying on this country, in the house of lords.

The time to worry about russia was 20 years ago. If we can't feed the kids of this country or keey the old people warm, the idea we can go toe to toe with their military is just hopeless, idiotic fantasy.
Click to expand...
I think it is a real shame that the economy is a household, and the government can only spend the money it raises through taxation.
 
Frosty said:
I think it is a real shame that the economy is a household, and the government can only spend the money it raises through taxation.
Click to expand...

Obviously that is not how fiat monetary systems work. However, it is how reeves is running state funding, by artificially limiting funding with a lie about 'balancing the books', so that is how we have to discuss her spending plans.

In reality, her own party proves it all a nonsense. Current debt is around 103% of GDP, and mostly owned to ourselves. In 1945 it was 250% of GDP, and owed to actual people, mainly the US government. They were able to fund the creation of the welfare state, the NHS and build 1 million council homes. Now apparently, we can't even feed hungry children.
 
Smores said:
Out of interest, how much is it forecast to cost if Russia wins and why?
Click to expand...
No one can possibly answer that but if Russia wins in Ukraine they aren't just stopping there, Putin wants the old Soviet empire back and some of those targets are NATO countries, if Trump wins the US election then NATO is in trouble and the rest of the alliance will likely have to foot more bills
 
Red in STL said:
No one can possibly answer that but if Russia wins in Ukraine they aren't just stopping there, Putin wants the old Soviet empire back and some of those targets are NATO countries, if Trump wins the US election then NATO is in trouble and the rest of the alliance will likely have to foot more bills
Click to expand...

It's laughable at this stage to still be claiming that Russia are an imminent threat to NATO or even that Russia might believe they could win such a battle.

I'm not against funding Ukraine but I really doubt a Russian victory in Ukraine would cost more than the current economic costs and direct funding.
 
Smores said:
It's laughable at this stage to still be claiming that Russia are an imminent threat to NATO or even that Russia might believe they could win such a battle.

I'm not against funding Ukraine but I really doubt a Russian victory in Ukraine would cost more than the current economic costs and direct funding.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they are an imminent threat, they're not, but if Trump wins the US election that might very well change
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

Then people scoff when they are compared to the Tories.

Public services are in a total mess, oversubscribed GP's, crumbling NHS with crazy wait times, overcrowded hospitals, practically impossible in a lot of places to access a NHS dentist, thousands on housing waiting lists, schools which can't find lunches or stationary, crumbling social services, poor and overpriced public transport and almost every council service being shite due to lack of resources. And the answer is to not put any more money into these things.....

All while private companies are racking up record profits.
 
Frosty said:

'Ants are everywhere': Labour MP's tenants reveal state of flats​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyg1j0lv1go

A Labour MP rents out flats with black mould and ant infestations, the BBC has discovered.

Jas Athwal, the newly-elected MP for Ilford South, owns 15 rental flats, making him Parliament's biggest landlord.

In one block of seven flats owned by Mr Athwal nearly half the tenants said they had to regularly clean their bathroom ceilings to remove mould.

The BBC also saw evidence of ant infestations in a number of the seven properties.

"The ants are everywhere," one resident said, pointing to insects climbing up a door frame. "They are on my kid’s body and on their clothes."

Another resident said they had been threatened with eviction by the letting agent if they complained about problems in their flat or started claiming benefits.

Mr Athwal said the properties were managed by an agency, he had not been aware of these problems, and denied any tenant had been threatened with eviction.

He said he did not take on tenants on housing benefit to avoid conflicts of interest with his role as the local council leader.

He described himself as a "renters’ champion".
Click to expand...
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

Seems fine. He is clearly speaking as a representative of the rogue landlords who were coming for the tenants.

iaor63wzk3uc1.jpeg
 
Smores said:
Out of interest, how much is it forecast to cost if Russia wins and why?
Click to expand...

The UK is struggling with trying to increase the defence budget to 2.5%. were Russia to win in Ukraine, the whole of NATO would have to be prepared to increase that further. And there would be a significant risk to the global economy.
That is all I know.
 
Sweet Square said:
:lol:

I’m amazed the party hasn’t got a staffer to spend the day deleting old tweets.
Click to expand...
the real shocker in that story other than the crass hypocrisy of a labour MP, is the bbc journalist reporting how some of the tenants were strongly intimidated by the MPs people into no longer co-operating.

slum landlording led to the 58 Notting Hill riots, here we are more than 60 yrs later and its rife in lots of deprived / ethnic minority areas, but this time most of the landlords are from the same communities. scumbags.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Its going to cost a lot more than 3 billion in lost work hours and poor productivity due to helth service cuts, neve rmind the human cost.

We live in a country that sold half of London to russian oligarchs, including an ex KGB man who served with putin owning a national newspaper. Then we put his son, who laughed about spying on this country, in the house of lords.

The time to worry about russia was 20 years ago. If we can't feed the kids of this country or keey the old people warm, the idea we can go toe to toe with their military is just hopeless, idiotic fantasy.
Click to expand...

No one was suggesting we are going to go toe to toe with Russia on our own. But as part of NATO, that can not be discontinued.

And yes of course we should be able to do both.
What I am certain about is that it is significantly cheaper to provide sufficient resources to keep Russia out of Ukraine than to have to react to them at NATO front door.
 
Smores said:
It's laughable at this stage to still be claiming that Russia are an imminent threat to NATO or even that Russia might believe they could win such a battle.

I'm not against funding Ukraine but I really doubt a Russian victory in Ukraine would cost more than the current economic costs and direct funding.
Click to expand...

Prior to WW2, the UK defence budget was just over 4.5%.
By the end of WW2, it was well over 50% of GDP.
I am not suggesting there will be another such war. But it is always cheaper to fight any war as far from your country as possible.
 
Sweet Square said:


Click to expand...


Starmer basically ran his leadership bid in a left wing platform and then got into power and shrugged and said “oh yeah we need to get rid of the left wing of the party” and did.


He then ran the party up to the election announcement criticising Tories for their austerity and promised when they get into power they will increase public spending and fix our broken services. The election campaign started and he flipped and promised austerity.


While campaigning on sensible austerity he was keen to point out that the difference between him and his government will basically only be honestly and an end to cronyism.

Since he has got into power he’s been nothing but dishonest and ramped up the cronyism.



Honestly I am having real trouble arguing that Starmer and Reeves are not Tory plants, positioned in the Labour Party as the backup plan for when the Tory castle inevitably collapsed.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Obviously that is not how fiat monetary systems work. However, it is how reeves is running state funding, by artificially limiting funding with a lie about 'balancing the books', so that is how we have to discuss her spending plans.

In reality, her own party proves it all a nonsense. Current debt is around 103% of GDP, and mostly owned to ourselves. In 1945 it was 250% of GDP, and owed to actual people, mainly the US government. They were able to fund the creation of the welfare state, the NHS and build 1 million council homes. Now apparently, we can't even feed hungry children.
Click to expand...
Isn't this the reason we are struggling?

After WW2 our debt was owed to some one else i.e the Marshall Plan, which we eventually paid back to the US, over a reasonable period, with the last payment sometime around the late 80's or early 90's.
This helped the post war government build the NHS and the 1 million (mainly pre-fabricated construction) homes.

We can't borrow, (under the same conditions of the Marshall Plan) and repay our debts to ourselves until the economy improves, otherwise we are storing up massive debt problems for future generations.... and we don't know that the economy will grow at anything like the rate/level we need to support what will be required.
It is almost a perfect 'catch 22' situation.

It seems that Starmer is going to take 'a long slow run up at it', spread over at least ten years.... and praying everyday we don't get another bout of Covid type pandemic or Brexit, or war in Europe happening within those ten years.
 
Superden said:
the real shocker in that story other than the crass hypocrisy of a labour MP, is the bbc journalist reporting how some of the tenants were strongly intimidated by the MPs people into no longer co-operating.

slum landlording led to the 58 Notting Hill riots, here we are more than 60 yrs later and its rife in lots of deprived / ethnic minority areas, but this time most of the landlords are from the same communities. scumbags.
Click to expand...
Yep such a crazy situation. The repeating problems is maddening and pretty much why I got into Marxism.

Pexbo said:
Starmer basically ran his leadership bid in a left wing platform and then got into power and shrugged and said “oh yeah we need to get rid of the left wing of the party” and did.


He then ran the party up to the election announcement criticising Tories for their austerity and promised when they get into power they will increase public spending and fix our broken services. The election campaign started and he flipped and promised austerity.


While campaigning on sensible austerity he was keen to point out that the difference between him and his government will basically only be honestly and an end to cronyism.

Since he has got into power he’s been nothing but dishonest and ramped up the cronyism.



Honestly I am having real trouble arguing that Starmer and Reeves are not Tory plants, positioned in the Labour Party as the backup plan for when the Tory castle inevitably collapsed.
Click to expand...
Agree. Starmer has been rewarded for lying. On a individual level he probably thinks he can just carry on doing it.

Varoufakis made the interesting point that Starmer could be more right wing than the tories in an effort to please the British ruling class.



Structurally the labour right like the tories still haven’t got a positive answer to the 08 crash. It’s just been austerity and call the nice jam man a Stalinist. Plus I think it David Garber who used to talk about how centrist politics needs the rise of the far right in order to do the lesser of two evils shtick. It’s part of the centrist electoral strategy.

The incoming future will be Starmer types enforcing anti democratic policy in attempts to deal with fall out from more austerity.
 
Maticmaker said:
Isn't this the reason we are struggling?

After WW2 our debt was owed to some one else i.e the Marshall Plan, which we eventually paid back to the US, over a reasonable period, with the last payment sometime around the late 80's or early 90's.
This helped the post war government build the NHS and the 1 million (mainly pre-fabricated construction) homes.

We can't borrow, (under the same conditions of the Marshall Plan) and repay our debts to ourselves until the economy improves, otherwise we are storing up massive debt problems for future generations.... and we don't know that the economy will grow at anything like the rate/level we need to support what will be required.
It is almost a perfect 'catch 22' situation.

It seems that Starmer is going to take 'a long slow run up at it', spread over at least ten years.... and praying everyday we don't get another bout of Covid type pandemic or Brexit, or war in Europe happening within those ten years.
Click to expand...

Just as well Covid and Ukraine didn't affect any other country. Just as well Brexit is finished when in fact the effects of Brexit have only just started and will get much worse over the coming years.

North of London, and elsewhere, the government built more than prefabs, they built the New Towns like, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage, Harlow and many others elsewhere in the country, each well designed for the period where local areas had shopping precincts, schools end even churches and pubs.

So how bad will it get before Labour start to react?
 
listening to andrea jenkyns on LBC on my drive down this am. Labour really have nothing to worry about, unfortunately.
shes nuts. the tories cant put together a cohesive argument, she's was complaining about labours handling of the economy, whilst dismissing the tories efforts as because of ukraine, covid and bizarrely brexit, considering she was a loony leaver. the labour treasury note (there no money left) also got an airing, as well as the bizarre argument that Truss didnt have long enough to undo the shitshow she created.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
North of London, and elsewhere, the government built more than prefabs, they built the New Towns like, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage, Harlow and many others elsewhere in the country, each well designed for the period where local areas had shopping precincts, schools end even churches and pubs.
Click to expand...
Didn't have the same effect 'up North,' it was mainly extension housing, built on what would now be called 'brownfield' sites' and mostly prefabricated structures many single story/bungalow types, which were supposed to last 10-15 years but most were still operating well into the 1960's... ultimately replaced with the ubiquitous 'tower blocks'.

There were some so called 'new towns' planned in the North, but initially containing only houses and the odd park, no real services provision (initially not even schools in some instances). These were designated 'clearance sites' built mostly for use as 'council houses' (now called social housing) to house people from areas that had been decimated, either by bombing in WW2, or whose older pre-war industries were just memories, but these Mills and factories had been left idle and decaying for years (still are in some places!!)

This will of course likely happen again, lots a of 'new town' developments to be planned in the shires, (upsetting the local NIMBY's of course) but becoming less prevalent as you move North (it gets an 'overcoat colder' once you clear the Cheshire Plain).

Starmer must not repeat the errors in planning of the past and the fact he has made great play about 'changing the planning laws' bodes well for progress. However being something of an old sceptic I see many problems ahead unless Starmer attacks vested interest forcibly with his 170 majority and will not... " let the sword sleep in his hand..." etc.
 
Maticmaker said:
Didn't have the same effect 'up North,' it was mainly extension housing, built on what would now be called 'brownfield' sites' and mostly prefabricated structures many single story/bungalow types, which were supposed to last 10-15 years but most were still operating well into the 1960's... ultimately replaced with the ubiquitous 'tower blocks'.

There were some so called 'new towns' planned in the North, but initially containing only houses and the odd park, no real services provision (initially not even schools in some instances). These were designated 'clearance sites' built mostly for use as 'council houses' (now called social housing) to house people from areas that had been decimated, either by bombing in WW2, or whose older pre-war industries were just memories, but these Mills and factories had been left idle and decaying for years (still are in some places!!)

This will of course likely happen again, lots a of 'new town' developments to be planned in the shires, (upsetting the local NIMBY's of course) but becoming less prevalent as you move North (it gets an 'overcoat colder' once you clear the Cheshire Plain).

Starmer must not repeat the errors in planning of the past and the fact he has made great play about 'changing the planning laws' bodes well for progress. However being something of an old sceptic I see many problems ahead unless Starmer attacks vested interest forcibly with his 170 majority and will not... " let the sword sleep in his hand..." etc.
Click to expand...

I know all of those in the South up to Peterborough, and there were quite a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_towns_in_the_United_Kingdom
They were mostly council houses, not "affordable" or "unaffordable" homes.

I even lived in for many years and worked and got married in one of them.
 
Kaos said:
Would love a journalist to question her on this, and why she suddenly seems to have had a change of opinion on macro-economics.
Click to expand...
Same. It would interesting to see her response. Although my guess is Reeves would talk shite about black hole of debt she only found out after going into office.
 
Sweet Square said:
Same. It would interesting to see her response. Although my guess is Reeves would talk shite about black hole of debt she only found out after going into office.
Click to expand...
As predictable as that response would be, I'd be keen for her to be pressed about whether she thinks austerity actually works, debt black hole or otherwise. She was pretty clear about how self-destructive she thought it was as an economic policy 4 years ago. Has she suddenly stopped believing in Keynesian economics?
 
Kaos said:
As predictable as that response would be, I'd be keen for her to be pressed about whether she thinks austerity actually works, debt black hole or otherwise. She was pretty clear about how self-destructive she thought it was as an economic policy 4 years ago. Has she suddenly stopped believing in Keynesian economics?
Click to expand...
Tbf if Reeves was honest she could say she believes in cutting benefits and fiscal rules before she believed in Keynesian economics!

She added: "It is not an either/or question. We would be tougher [than the Conservatives]. If they don't take it [the offer of a job] they will forfeit their benefit. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare
Click to expand...

Speaking ahead of the latest public finance figures due to be published today, she will say: "The chancellor might claim to be on track when today's public sector finances figures new come out, but he is only on track for targets which have already been revised up by a staggering £158bn.

"When resources are so constrained, we must also be absolutely ruthless in demanding maximum value for taxpayers' money, unlike this Conservative-led government, which seems to care so little about public services that it is shockingly casual and complacent about wasting scarce resources." - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/feb/20/labour-fiscal-policy-rachel-reeves
Click to expand...

I still find it very strange how someone like her who has no real beliefs in anything can spent over a decade in politics.
 
NHS queues mean most Britons expect to pay for healthcare, says report

https://www.theguardian.com/society...tons-expect-to-pay-for-healthcare-says-report

Most people in the UK now believe they will have to spend their own money on private healthcare for routine services such as dentistry, physiotherapy and counselling because they won’t be able to get them quickly on the NHS, pioneering new research has found.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says its findings, based on extensive focus group analysis, is evidence that Britons have undergone a “critical shift in expectations” about the health service’s capacity to meet their needs.

For the first time, the foundation has adjusted its minimum income standard, which sets out what working-age adults believe is the base level of money they need to live a decent life in the UK, to include £200 a year for spending on private health care.

----

Country's finished.
 
Frosty said:
For the first time, the foundation has adjusted its minimum income standard, which sets out what working-age adults believe is the base level of money they need to live a decent life in the UK, to include £200 a year for spending on private health care.
Click to expand...
It's already here, I spend way more than that on teeth and glasses.
 
Frosty said:
NHS queues mean most Britons expect to pay for healthcare, says report

https://www.theguardian.com/society...tons-expect-to-pay-for-healthcare-says-report

Most people in the UK now believe they will have to spend their own money on private healthcare for routine services such as dentistry, physiotherapy and counselling because they won’t be able to get them quickly on the NHS, pioneering new research has found.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says its findings, based on extensive focus group analysis, is evidence that Britons have undergone a “critical shift in expectations” about the health service’s capacity to meet their needs.

For the first time, the foundation has adjusted its minimum income standard, which sets out what working-age adults believe is the base level of money they need to live a decent life in the UK, to include £200 a year for spending on private health care.

----

Country's finished.
Click to expand...
"It's the UK....but not as we know it Frosty (Jim!)"..........Mr Spock ;)
 
Are the tories running for President now or something?

20240901-121948.jpg



When did this become a thing in UK politics?
 
Frosty said:
NHS queues mean most Britons expect to pay for healthcare, says report

https://www.theguardian.com/society...tons-expect-to-pay-for-healthcare-says-report

Most people in the UK now believe they will have to spend their own money on private healthcare for routine services such as dentistry, physiotherapy and counselling because they won’t be able to get them quickly on the NHS, pioneering new research has found.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says its findings, based on extensive focus group analysis, is evidence that Britons have undergone a “critical shift in expectations” about the health service’s capacity to meet their needs.

For the first time, the foundation has adjusted its minimum income standard, which sets out what working-age adults believe is the base level of money they need to live a decent life in the UK, to include £200 a year for spending on private health care.

----

Country's finished.
Click to expand...
You get much change from that £200 from an initial consultation with a specialist, let alone treatment, and more likely it will cost north of £300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.