Westminster Politics

[TwoSheds]

Sacking every single manager in health, education, civil service, defence, police etc would certainly be one idea!

However you have to ask if every manager is failing simultaneously whether it's the lack of incentives that's the root of the problem, rather than thousands of people being coincidentally incompetant.


Where is all the money coming from to set up completely new infrastructure so that public bodies don't have to rely on private companies (which they've been doing for decades)? Likewise to invest in infrastructure? Presumably growing the economy also requires a chunk of governmental spend, given that you're taxing wealth creators more in your manifesto which will cause an economic contraction that would need offsetting? Tax is already at it's highest and most distributive for decades so will hammering the wealthy further actually raise more funds or will it kill investment and end updoing the reserve? Bear in mind that if the top 10 richest people in the UK donated their entire net worth to the treasury; it would run the NHS for just over a year. You'll very quickly run out of the ultra wealthy and end up needing to hammer small and medium sized businesses, the middle classes and then the lower-middle, which is exactly where we are now.

Also how are we doing all this if we're reducing borrowing at the same time, given that the budget deficit is £100b and being spent on public services?

To not only stop borrowing more but to reduce the budget deficit conservatively lets say you're raising another £80b a year in taxes. Add on infrastructure and educational investment and you're looking at, what, another £45b so £125b total per annum? You start out by taxing every billionaire an extra £10m per year (£1.77b), you then tax the people who earn £1m+ per year an extra £100k on top (£1.9b). You then tax every single personal earning £150k+ an extra £10,000 per year (£6b). You not only increase corporation tax to 25%, but decide to triple that and go to 37% (£6.6b). You then go after the 4.3m higher rate taxpayers (£50k+), having them pay another £2500 (£10b). You also assume that this aggressive taxation has no detrimental effect on consumer spending, employment, business investment etc and are what less than a quarter the way there?

It's common sense that the 19,000 people earning £1m per annum, or the 177 UK billionaires are a drop in the ocean when compared to an annual budget of a 1000 billion and a deficit of 100 billion every year.

There is no way on earth that taxing the rich more causes an economic contraction. The fact is that accumulating wealth at the top is almost entirely economically unproductive (evidenced by the fact they get disproportionately richer every year so cannot be spending it) and bringing that money back into the "everyday" economy via taxation is the only sensible way to attain growth.

Taxing earnings is also not the only way to claw back obscene wealth, I'd be all in favour of a wealth tax, even if only as a short term measure to pay down some debt or pay for infrastructure projects / investment. I'd also be in favour of taxing some businesses differently - the big tech companies for example pay a very small fraction of their earnings as corporation tax because they have many ways to make the profit disappear to a tax haven. So either we could find ways to prevent the money ending up in the tax havens (the network of British-affiliated tax havens is extensive), or we could just find more ingenious ways to tax large companies who pay low tax rates e.g. tax revenue in some way or tax transactions.

Clearly investment doesn't work instantly so expecting government debt to drop instantly would be foolish, which is why I say the long term aim should be to stop borrowing. You'll note that the government's aim has (notionally) been to reduce spending to cut borrowing for the last 12 years and yet the debt has kept skyrocketing. Almost like you can't cut your way to growth, and actually public services have a great economic value.

 

[Mart1974]

This is Sunak's answer....

 

[Eplel]

Sacking every single manager in health, education, civil service, defence, police etc would certainly be one idea!

You know damn well I meant the tories.

 

[TheGame]

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

She's a right wing person who's also authoritarian, I agree.

The Sunak government in general are authoritarian but certainly not right wing.

Finneh, I honestly can’t remember your last political post that had foundations in observable reality. And you post all the Fcuking time about politics.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

What's the solution?

Ending free market Capitalism. It ain’t hard buddy. You just can’t hear the answer as you’ll pay £20 for a 30 minute Uber instead of £6.50 for a 34 minute tube journey.

Live your life however you want, but your answers always seem to come from this weird nouveau riche point of position that enjoys pissing away money if it means you don’t have to meet anyone that’s not exactly like you.

 

[Rams]

He thinks it’s sad as in he thinks they should all feckin starve instead of getting free food.

 

[TheReligion]

Its sad that they exist BUT I’m let’s talk about inflation

 

[Dan_F]

There's no real way of avoiding a two, three or several tier offering for any commodity.

In the UK I avoid using buses and trains in favour of private transportation. I avoid using the NHS wherever possible by using private GP's and Bupa. In a few years I'll avoid the education system by sending my children private. I avoid using social housing by buying my own property. In the future I'll avoid using government social care as I've seen the standard of care and would want far better. I'll also avoid relying on a government pension as I'd want more than the most basic retirement. Hell I even avoid using the congested and pothole-filled public roads in favour of the M6 Toll whenever my trip allows it (and I wish there were far more private roads to use).

Bear in mind that these poor services across the board are despite record high taxes, a record budget deficit and record spend to GDP across government. Therefore it simply isn't the case that all these departments are underfunded; quite the opposite in fact.

The question then is if a trillion pound spend alongside record taxation results in poor healthcare, a poor education system, awful adult social care, terrifyingly underfunded childrens care, low pension payments, low unemployment payments, poor social housing infrastructure, a terrible transport network, an underfunded army/navy/airforce with outdated equipment, rapists regularly going unpunished due to an underfunded policeforce, an underfunded prison system with inhumane standards and non-existent rehabilitation, squalid conditions for asylum seekers and a judicial system at breaking point, to name but a few... What's the solution?

Not cutting spending so much in the first place that those services are left to ruin and then need fixing? Don’t we lag behind most other developed nations in terms of public health spending vs both GDP and per capita anyway?

Some forward thinking by our leaders to come up with plans to solve issues before they become massive problems? All the government has done for the last decade is be reactive. Have they actually tried to anything progressive for the majority of the country?

 

[finneh]

Finneh, I honestly can’t remember your last political post that had foundations in observable reality. And you post all the Fcuking time about politics.

I'd like to know the volume of my posts regarding politics compared with the majority of others who regularly post. I'd imagine I would be way, way, way down the list. Albeit I'm one of the few who don't think Ryan Giggs is right wing.

 

[Jericholyte2]

Sunak repeatedly refuses to confirm if he’s looking to take UK out of the ECHR…

Whilst he uses Putin as an excuse for fecking everything, he wants to join him be leaving the ECHR.

 

[finneh]

Ending free market Capitalism. It ain’t hard buddy. You just can’t hear the answer as you’ll pay £20 for a 30 minute Uber instead of £6.50 for a 34 minute tube journey.

Live your life however you want, but your answers always seem to come from this weird nouveau riche point of position that enjoys pissing away money if it means you don’t have to meet anyone that’s not exactly like you.

I simply want decent healthcare for my family and far, far better education for my children than the public sector gave to me in the 00's.

If you see that as pissing away money then fair enough; I'm sure you have far more important things you're saving for like overthrowing capitalism.

 

[TwoSheds]

I simply want decent healthcare for my family and far, far better education for my children than the public sector gave to me in the 00's.

If you see that as pissing away money then fair enough; I'm sure you have far more important things you're saving for like overthrowing capitalism.

and do you think you'd be banned from doing that with better universal services? Has it crossed your mind that the standard of private provision has to be higher if public services are of a higher quality? (The competition you crave perhaps?)

 

[Mr Pigeon]

"the chef we hired gets the best ingredients but constantly eats them all and gives the patrons beans on toast, which always results in explosive diarrhea. Clearly the only way to fix this is to give the patrons sawdust and charge 10x more for the proper food."

 

[Brwned]

I'd define a right wing government as one enacting low tax and low spend policies, with far less intrusive government intervention in the private sector. Small state involvement in sectors such as energy, transport, health, social care. More focus on the charitable sector rather than the state providing assistance to the poor.

I'd see right wing policies as those that progressively seek to spend less of other peoples' money for them, believing that people ultimately spend their own money far better than government. In reality this would translate to the transport sector becoming far less subsidised. The education system becoming more about choice (e.g. school vouchers). Progressively less involvement in health in favour of insurance based systems, allowing far more patient choice.

Likewise a right wing viewpoint would be that subsidising the wealthy with taxes from the poor and middle class is immoral and wrong. Etonians being subsidised by the taxpayer to go to Cambridge for example when they could afford the six figure cost would be an example. The top several deciles wouldn't get subsidised health, education, pensions, housing, transport etc as they can afford it without state help (with much lower taxes of course).

I'd see area's of spend right wingers would see as crucial would be defence and law & order. These state departments would be funded plentifully; particularly the military which I'd say would be 4-5% of GDP minimum.

The further right you go the more extreme this would be. A government that had no budget whatsoever for health, social care, transport, education, pensions, welfare, housing, social services, employment, agriculture, housing etc; but still had a large defence and public order budget would be very right wing (the third sector in this example would be solely responsible for helping those in need and the provate sector would provide all the services people desired).

On the flip side authoritarianism would be about control of people, rather than control of their money. A strict and dehumanising immigration policy would be authoritarian. ID cards to vote is authoritarian. Restricting freedom of movement, even via a passport is a form of authoritarianism. Using fear to limit civil liberties is authoritarianism. Surveillance of the populace is authoritarian. Treating people differently based on colour, sex, sexual orientation, creed, religious belief or any other way they choose to live their lives is authoritarian.

Control of money = left and right
Control of people = libertarian and authoritarianism

There’s no point in using words when you just make up the meaning of them. Right wing and left wing are not just descriptors of your economic ideas and preferences. They describe your social values too. Yet you’ve completely stripped out that second dimension to paint a picture of a “right winger” that sounds good to you.

Obviously you have right wing economic ideas and want to distance yourself from right wing social values, so you’ve gone to the trouble of inventing definitions that feel right to you. But when they don’t align when the academic consensus nor the cultural consensus then all you’re doing is arguing with your own imagination, and dragging people into the argument.

 

[Eplel]

There’s no point in using words when you just make up the meaning of them. Right wing and left wing are not just descriptors of your economic ideas and preferences. They describe your social values too. Yet you’ve completely stripped out that second dimension to paint a picture of a “right winger” that sounds good to you.

Obviously you have right wing economic ideas and want to distance yourself from right wing social values, so you’ve gone to the trouble of inventing definitions that feel right to you. But when they don’t align when the academic consensus nor the cultural consensus then all you’re doing is arguing with your own imagination, and dragging people into the argument.

Spot on. We cannot pretend that "right wing" is just economic ideas and policies, it's also a foundation of cronyism, and a bastion of racism, discrimination and disregard for anyone who is not rich. You can't say "I'm right wing, but without all the bad stuff".

 

[finneh]

There’s no point in using words when you just make up the meaning of them. Right wing and left wing are not just descriptors of your economic ideas and preferences. They describe your social values too. Yet you’ve completely stripped out that second dimension to paint a picture of a “right winger” that sounds good to you.

Obviously you have right wing economic ideas and want to distance yourself from right wing social values, so you’ve gone to the trouble of inventing definitions that feel right to you. But when they don’t align when the academic consensus nor the cultural consensus then all you’re doing is arguing with your own imagination, and dragging people into the argument.

The whole commentary started when someone was confused that a right wing donor might be turned off by the Tory party lurching to the left (the implication being that the current party is very right wing).

I was challenging that viewpoint as a key tenet (id argue the key) of right wing politics is low taxation and the current crop have increased taxes to a higher level than we've seen in 70 years. We've also seen the kind of social programs I've not seen in my lifetime in the form of furlough; again not the kind of policy you'd associate with a right wing government.

We've also seen unprecedented governmental intervention in a free market commodity via price capsà (energy), way before gas prices increased several-fold. We've seen the rates of tax frozen for a decade meaning hundreds of thousands of middle earners being dragged into higher tax rates.

We've seen a raid of businesses in the form of increasing not only corporation tax by a third, but also business rates, insurance tax, payroll taxes. We've seen entrepreneurs relief slashed. We've seen council tax increase massively.

If the counter to this plethora of left wing taxation, social "investment" and free market intervention is "yeah but they must be far right because even though net migration is at a record high they have an authoritarian nutcase as Home Secretary" or "Brexit something something culture wars"; then I'd disagree

Now if anyone wants to put an argument together as to why this government (since Bojo & Sunak's tax and spend spree) is far right without talking about Brexit (note Mick Lynch and the RMT were heavily pro-Brexit) and immigration/culture wars then fair enough.

 

[Brwned]

The whole commentary started when someone was confused that a right wing donor might be turned off by the Tory party lurching to the left (the implication being that the current party is very right wing).

I was challenging that viewpoint as a key tenet (id argue the key) of right wing politics is low taxation and the current crop have increased taxes to a higher level than we've seen in 70 years. We've also seen the kind of social programs I've not seen in my lifetime in the form of furlough; again not the kind of policy you'd associate with a right wing government.

We've also seen unprecedented governmental intervention in a free market commodity via price capsà (energy), way before gas prices increased several-fold. We've seen the rates of tax frozen for a decade meaning hundreds of thousands of middle earners being dragged into higher tax rates.

We've seen a raid of businesses in the form of increasing not only corporation tax by a third, but also business rates, insurance tax, payroll taxes. We've seen entrepreneurs relief slashed. We've seen council tax increase massively.

If the counter to this plethora of left wing taxation, social "investment" and free market intervention is "yeah but they must be far right because even though net migration is at a record high they have an authoritarian nutcase as Home Secretary" or "Brexit something something culture wars"; then I'd disagree

Now if anyone wants to put an argument together as to why this government (since Bojo & Sunak's tax and spend spree) is far right without talking about Brexit (note Mick Lynch and the RMT were heavily pro-Brexit) and immigration/culture wars then fair enough.

Yes, you’ve made it clear that you define right wing and left wing almost exclusively on economic dimensions. With many debatable economic positions, reliant almost exclusively on one school of economic thought. It’s also clear that this is not the only way to define these categories, nor is it remotely the norm on here. There’s no point in discussing labels when you can’t even agree on the basic definition of the labels, and you knew that their definition of right wing encapsulates much more than yours does. It’s not that people confuse labels. They’re defining them on different criteria to you. It’s obnoxious to just ignore that fact, and act as if your definition is the correct one.

 

[Jippy]

Surprised they haven't put Labour in the headline.

 

[F-Red]

The whole commentary started when someone was confused that a right wing donor might be turned off by the Tory party lurching to the left (the implication being that the current party is very right wing).

I was challenging that viewpoint as a key tenet (id argue the key) of right wing politics is low taxation and the current crop have increased taxes to a higher level than we've seen in 70 years. We've also seen the kind of social programs I've not seen in my lifetime in the form of furlough; again not the kind of policy you'd associate with a right wing government.

We've also seen unprecedented governmental intervention in a free market commodity via price capsà (energy), way before gas prices increased several-fold. We've seen the rates of tax frozen for a decade meaning hundreds of thousands of middle earners being dragged into higher tax rates.

We've seen a raid of businesses in the form of increasing not only corporation tax by a third, but also business rates, insurance tax, payroll taxes. We've seen entrepreneurs relief slashed. We've seen council tax increase massively.

If the counter to this plethora of left wing taxation, social "investment" and free market intervention is "yeah but they must be far right because even though net migration is at a record high they have an authoritarian nutcase as Home Secretary" or "Brexit something something culture wars"; then I'd disagree

Now if anyone wants to put an argument together as to why this government (since Bojo & Sunak's tax and spend spree) is far right without talking about Brexit (note Mick Lynch and the RMT were heavily pro-Brexit) and immigration/culture wars then fair enough.

You talk about left wing economic policies, even economists disagree with that viewpoint.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

The whole commentary started when someone was confused that a right wing donor might be turned off by the Tory party lurching to the left (the implication being that the current party is very right wing).

I was challenging that viewpoint as a key tenet (id argue the key) of right wing politics is low taxation and the current crop have increased taxes to a higher level than we've seen in 70 years. We've also seen the kind of social programs I've not seen in my lifetime in the form of furlough; again not the kind of policy you'd associate with a right wing government.

We've also seen unprecedented governmental intervention in a free market commodity via price capsà (energy), way before gas prices increased several-fold. We've seen the rates of tax frozen for a decade meaning hundreds of thousands of middle earners being dragged into higher tax rates.

We've seen a raid of businesses in the form of increasing not only corporation tax by a third, but also business rates, insurance tax, payroll taxes. We've seen entrepreneurs relief slashed. We've seen council tax increase massively.

If the counter to this plethora of left wing taxation, social "investment" and free market intervention is "yeah but they must be far right because even though net migration is at a record high they have an authoritarian nutcase as Home Secretary" or "Brexit something something culture wars"; then I'd disagree

Now if anyone wants to put an argument together as to why this government (since Bojo & Sunak's tax and spend spree) is far right without talking about Brexit (note Mick Lynch and the RMT were heavily pro-Brexit) and immigration/culture wars then fair enough.

Just to be clear, most of "Bojo & Sunaks tax and spend spree" as you call , was quite simply a method to syphon money out of the country and into hands of private companies or "friends" of the Conservatives. See PPE scandals, track and trace etc. Also look at the £60bn debt put on the country because of Truss and her extreme right wing economic policy which crashed and burned. The country also now has to pay for that.

Brexit alone is not a right wing concept. Leaving the EU also had a small section of socialist support. But the Leave campaign we had and the implentation we currently have is very right wing with the pending bonfire of workers rights, human rights and the shrinking of the state etc.

As for intervention on energy prices, that is essential for any economy in this situation, left or right. With rapidly increasing energy prices its is needed for the economy to continue functioning, unless you want a complete economic crash. Even Truss and Kwarteng could see this despite their blinkers and short term trashing of the economy and exchange rate etc.

All this is only the tip of the iceberg by the way.

 

[Jericholyte2]

I see the Gillead Commander’s newspaper of choice is asking how NHS workers sleep at night if people die today.

I heard two 999 call operators contact Tom Swarbrick (I know) on LBC and he put the question to one about if his parents had a heart attack today. He said he’d feel the same if they did yesterday as he believed they had the same chance of dying without an ambulance even before the strikes.

It’s staggering to remember that in 2010 the MHS received its highest patient satisfaction score!

 

[jojojo]

Surprised they haven't put Labour in the headline.

I ask the same question about the Tories every day.

 

[FireballXL5]

Surprised they haven't put Labour in the headline.

Tory policies have been responsible for thousands of deaths already, but an ambulance strike gets them triggered.

 

[jojojo]

Tory policies have been responsible for thousands of deaths already, but an ambulance strike gets them triggered.

There's a nice summary of their performance stats here:

From that well known source of leftwing propaganda the HoC library.

It's not been as simple as death by a thousand cuts - it's been death by combining cuts with redirection of funds into management companies and third party contractors and suppliers. .

Of course those are just the tip of the iceberg numbers. The collapse of the GP system in many parts of the country and the care sector generally has been even more severe. My local group GP practice has just reopened its appointments system after two weeks with it closed, "to clear the backlog". That's two weeks of being told to talk to 111, the pharmacist, read NHS online or "phone 999 or go to A&E if it's urgent". One way of reducing the treatment waiting lists etc - no GP referrals.

 

[Berbasbullet]

There's a nice summary of their performance stats here:

From that well known source of leftwing propaganda the HoC library.

It's not been as simple as death by a thousand cuts - it's been death by combining cuts with redirection of funds into management companies and third party contractors and suppliers. .

Of course those are just the tip of the iceberg numbers. The collapse of the GP system in many parts of the country and the care sector generally has been even more severe. My local group GP practice has just reopened its appointments system after two weeks with it closed, "to clear the backlog". That's two weeks of being told to talk to 111, the pharmacist, read NHS online or "phone 999 or go to A&E if it's urgent". One way of reducing the treatment waiting lists etc - no GP referrals.

Apparently the 111 line is insane at the mo, and of course A and E is a 10 hour wait or so. Meaning that someone close to me wont speak to anyone about something they need to (doctors have also closed off their online contact form they use too).

 

[Fluctuation0161]

There's a nice summary of their performance stats here:

From that well known source of leftwing propaganda the HoC library.

It's not been as simple as death by a thousand cuts - it's been death by combining cuts with redirection of funds into management companies and third party contractors and suppliers. .

Of course those are just the tip of the iceberg numbers. The collapse of the GP system in many parts of the country and the care sector generally has been even more severe. My local group GP practice has just reopened its appointments system after two weeks with it closed, "to clear the backlog". That's two weeks of being told to talk to 111, the pharmacist, read NHS online or "phone 999 or go to A&E if it's urgent". One way of reducing the treatment waiting lists etc - no GP referrals.

Absolutely. And try to sign up as a new patient at an NHS dentist. Very rarely an option now.

 

[jojojo]

Apparently the 111 line is insane at the mo, and of course A and E is a 10 hour wait or so. Meaning that someone close to me wont speak to anyone about something they need to (doctors have also closed off their online contact form they use too).

Yep. I was shocked when I went to check the online system for my GP last week - the phone system has been basically unavailable for months.

Not just a warning online that there were no face to face appointments etc available, you couldn't even leave a message online to ask about the results of a test or to check on a repeat prescription. The only way to talk to them was joining the line at the surgery to talk to the frazzled receptionist who had no appointments to offer and no idea when people would get a callback about other queries.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There's a nice summary of their performance stats here:

From that well known source of leftwing propaganda the HoC library.

It's not been as simple as death by a thousand cuts - it's been death by combining cuts with redirection of funds into management companies and third party contractors and suppliers. .

Of course those are just the tip of the iceberg numbers. The collapse of the GP system in many parts of the country and the care sector generally has been even more severe. My local group GP practice has just reopened its appointments system after two weeks with it closed, "to clear the backlog". That's two weeks of being told to talk to 111, the pharmacist, read NHS online or "phone 999 or go to A&E if it's urgent". One way of reducing the treatment waiting lists etc - no GP referrals.

Wow. Those graphs. That’s shocking…

It feels like a lot of the current bedlam is due to covid but you can see it was just the tipping point of a long-standing trend.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Wow. Those graphs. That’s shocking…

It feels like a lot of the current bedlam is due to covid but you can see it was just the tipping point of a long-standing trend.

Absolutely it predates Covid and the issues are exacerbated by transparent ideologically driven sabotage. The end goal is clear: increase the lucrative private healthcare sector in the UK as much as possible by destabilising the NHS to such an extent that this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[WPMUFC]

 

[The Corinthian]

It's still pretty shocking (and depressing af) that some people can still make excuses for the Tory govt that have led us to this. 12 years (!!) of Tories, and there's still excuses being made.

 

[Maticmaker]

I don't disagree but rich people can usually make shitty choices and survive.

Or as my mother use to say... "I'd rather be miserable with money, than miserable without it"

 

[villain]

There’s no point in using words when you just make up the meaning of them.

This statement alone could be applied to every political, social & economic issue we’re facing right now.
Words mean things, let’s get back to that.

 

[golden_blunder]

This statement alone could be applied to every political, social & economic issue we’re facing right now.
Words mean things, let’s get back to that.

When they are genuine. You could argue that politics contains a lot of spinning of meaning of words, to suit a parties own agenda

 

[Buster15]

Surprised they haven't put Labour in the headline.

The DM does not comprehend the basic different between Cause and Effect; not that it wants to understand of course because it suits their Tory worshipping narrative not to.

Are those NHS workers the cause of the problems. No. Are they in charge of the funding or the policy making. No.
They are the tragic effect of it.
They are the people who work for the NHS and who are trying to make the lack of funding and lack of resource and government policies work.

The DM and Sun are the lowest of the low and should be treated accordingly. Only fit for one thing, wiping your axx.

 

[finneh]

Just to be clear, most of "Bojo & Sunaks tax and spend spree" as you call , was quite simply a method to syphon money out of the country and into hands of private companies or "friends" of the Conservatives. See PPE scandals, track and trace etc. Also look at the £60bn debt put on the country because of Truss and her extreme right wing economic policy which crashed and burned. The country also now has to pay for that.

Brexit alone is not a right wing concept. Leaving the EU also had a small section of socialist support. But the Leave campaign we had and the implentation we currently have is very right wing with the pending bonfire of workers rights, human rights and the shrinking of the state etc.

As for intervention on energy prices, that is essential for any economy in this situation, left or right. With rapidly increasing energy prices its is needed for the economy to continue functioning, unless you want a complete economic crash. Even Truss and Kwarteng could see this despite their blinkers and short term trashing of the economy and exchange rate etc.

All this is only the tip of the iceberg by the way.

Wasn't this the maximum figure the Bank of England could have spent on government bonds; I thought it ended up sending around a tenth of this? You're not going to see me defending someone spending hundreds of billions with no way of funding it though; total fantasy politics.

Whilst I agree the useless duo of Johnson & Sunak did waste lots of money; they also gave incredible increases to health and also a fair bit to education and regional infrastructure. Health spend for example increased from £156b to over £180b, this is excluding the assitional funds provided to tackle Covid which raised it above £200b.

You talk about left wing economic policies, even economists disagree with that viewpoint.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Truss wasn't right wing? I'm talking about Johnson and Sunak.

Yes, you’ve made it clear that you define right wing and left wing almost exclusively on economic dimensions. With many debatable economic positions, reliant almost exclusively on one school of economic thought. It’s also clear that this is not the only way to define these categories, nor is it remotely the norm on here. There’s no point in discussing labels when you can’t even agree on the basic definition of the labels, and you knew that their definition of right wing encapsulates much more than yours does. It’s not that people confuse labels. They’re defining them on different criteria to you. It’s obnoxious to just ignore that fact, and act as if your definition is the correct one.

Again I'm happy to hear any argument as to how this government are very right wing. Record net migration, record taxation, record public expenditure, record budget deficit, unprecendented intervention in free markets, unprecendented social programs.

All I've seen so far is effectively "I don't like this, therefore it must be right wing", however ultimately very, very few people like the direction of this government. Very few people like cronyism, very few people like corruption, very few people like waste, very few people like mismanagement, very few people like rhetoric without results and very few people like public services crumbing (irrespective of spend).

 

[F-Red]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Truss wasn't right wing? I'm talking about Johnson and Sunak.

Apart from borrowing to pay for tax breaks, there isn't anything dramatic of fundamental that has changed in any of the economic policies of the Conservatives since the last general election, even though there's been three prime ministers. You refer to furlough quite heavily as a left wing policy, but I don't think any government had a choice in the matter unless they wanted their entire economy to collapse. The consequent 'left' economic policies you refer to certainly in taxation are a result of furlough, not through policy desire.

As for Sunak, well Rashford did a good enough job highlighting a significant right wing policy with free school meals. Let's not forget Johnson's comparing Muslim women to letterboxes. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I don't think it's occurred to him that one of the main reasons the UK is in such a state is that it is run by a government of incompetent right-wing populist fools who couldn't organise a village fête. They don't want high taxation, high public expenditure and so on. It's just that they are so bad at their jobs it's an inevitable consequence.

Sajid David has been Minister for six different departments in what nine years? Multi-talented expert. What a shambles.

 

[RoadTrip]

It’s bizarre that Finneh is genuinely using furlough as an example of a left wing policy. It’s lunacy. As if Covid wasn’t an event that no one on the planet had ever dealt with and therefore a unique policy wasn’t needed. What was the alternative? Mass unemployment and bankruptcy? It’s not a fecking left wing policy, it was a necessity.

More broadly, I can’t understand why considering economic policy at this time is particularly relevant. We are in an economic period which is unprecedented. Economic policy right now is not driven by right or left wing politics, it’s driven by what one sees as the best way to keep the economy stable.

Let’s not forget we haven’t seen a period of high inflation like this for decades. Let’s not forget that that high inflation combined with a recession is even more unique.

Trying to argue this government isn’t right wing based on these policies, at a time when the economic environment is unprecedented in decades, is just a nonsense.