• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
During Covid pandemic, the performance of our health & social care system was compared unfavourably with particularly the German, Japanese and South Korean systems. But of course none of those three countries operate a free-at-the point of service universal system. They do all supplement their essentially private health & social care systems with state-backed safety net for those that need it and all three offer consistently better health & social care outcomes than we receive in the UK.

Just wanted to pick up on this point. Back in 2010 the NHS was a world beating healthcare system with as positive outcomes as any of these countries.

Poor decisions under the tories such as

1. poorly researched austerity cuts
2. Attempts to drive privatisation of the NHS and
3. Restructure the NHS as a commercial venture with competing Trusts (when it is and should always remain a public service)

Have led to the deterioration of the NHS to the condition it finds itself in today.

Reform is necessary to address the inefficiencies but not privatisation. The NHS needs good strategic direction governance and funding as it once had under Labour. It does not need privatisation.

Surely by now we have seen enough failed attempts at privatising public services in this country to understand that privatisation is not the answer to improving public services?
Click to expand...
Water and the state of our rivers and sea is a particular area of interest to me and the amount of money those companies have made while pumping sewage out his an absolute fcuking disgrace.

So I'm in agreement they should go into public ownership. I will criticise any party when they make a fcuk up. But I think under Labour we will see improvements we would not under the tories.
 
Rorschach said:
We should. This is more less the central tenet of Degrowth. Growth in the appropriate things for the appropriate reasons.
Click to expand...

thfcsteff said:
I think it'd be great if inappropriate labels were not used. It is not 'Marxist' to say that, it is happening before your eyes. I mean, fine, go ahead and label it as Marxist if you like, the fact remains that we are in an era of 'steroided capitalism' that is increasingly pushing human resources to a brink. The days of middle ground are (temporaily I hope) over, and it is now extremes on all fronts, from viewpoints to economic policies.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to find ways of growth being directed better, and also agree that shutting down growth is not the way forwards. Sadly, for that to be a genuine and realistically helpful for society proposition, those that drive growth have to have a greater scope of what (exactly) a decent society is, how it operates, what it comprises, and how to achieve it.
Click to expand...

'De-growth' seems the most inappropriate of labels. When growth, development and change is central to its aims! Could be renamed Better Growth, or Targeted Growth. It is the most misleading of terms.

To achieve development to be cleaner we do need to harness existing humans structures whether commercial or otherwise. There isn't any going backwards, just forwards into a better place, in the appropriate direction.

Marx was just the first to identify the Capitalist/market flaw, which is you can't have growth of markets indefinitely. There will always be some kind of crash or correction. What central banks try to do is manage growth so its kept stable at around 2% maybe a little more. The reason they have this target is not because they are hungry ravenous capitalists.... It is simply because recession is a cliff edge that they don't want to be too close to! So economies are seen to be healthy with a small amount of growth because it avoids recession.

Idk what Steroided Capitalism is, but I would say global cooperation to 1. measure and 2. address the worst excesses of carbon and methane release is far more vital right now. There are gas extraction plants that leak the equivalent of the UKs whole yearly footprint. This is low hanging fruit to fix. Why western nations aren't funding a hit squad to go around and help address such issues is a mystery.
 
Gutter Boy said:
It would just be illegal under labour protection laws to work more. Most places already have them, just set at higher numbers at the moment. Its primarily about redistributing the essential work that is there, while reducing the overall net work done.

The ban would be on virgin materials. So e.g. no new plastics, only recycled ones can be used. Want a new mobile, trade in an old one + other old electronics for dismantling and reuse. That kind of thing.

And essentials would be healthcare, education, transport, agriculture, energy, maintenance of buildings and infrastructure, arts and leisure. They'd be the key priorities for the workforce. Everything else would make do with whatever spare hours people want to contribute afterwards.
Click to expand...

What happened in Communist nations when the government controlled all goods in such a fashion? Did it go well? Was there a black market that filled in the gaps? And did the economies thrive or fail?

It is good to have these kinds of ideas, and to explore which are viable. But as you know, the above isn't going to happen. If you really care, you need to come up with viable solutions.
 
SpurMeUp said:
'De-growth' seems the most inappropriate of labels. When growth, development and change is central to its aims! Could be renamed Better Growth, or Targeted Growth. It is the most misleading of terms.

To achieve development to be cleaner we do need to harness existing humans structures whether commercial or otherwise. There isn't any going backwards, just forwards into a better place, in the appropriate direction.

Marx was just the first to identify the Capitalist/market flaw, which is you can't have growth of markets indefinitely. There will always be some kind of crash or correction. What central banks try to do is manage growth so its kept stable at around 2% maybe a little more. The reason they have this target is not because they are hungry ravenous capitalists.... It is simply because recession is a cliff edge that they don't want to be too close to! So economies are seen to be healthy with a small amount of growth because it avoids recession.

Idk what Steroided Capitalism is, but I would say global cooperation to 1. measure and 2. address the worst excesses of carbon and methane release is far more vital right now. There are gas extraction plants that leak the equivalent of the UKs whole yearly footprint. This is low hanging fruit to fix. Why western nations aren't funding a hit squad to go around and help address such issues is a mystery.
Click to expand...

Robert Reich wrote a book called Supercapitalism back in 2007 which went into what 'steroided capitalism' (another phrase) was all about. This was back in 2007!!!!!!!!! Here's a quote from the book; it offers a pretty clear explanation.

"In Reich’s view, capitalism has triumphed in the form of hyper-competitive markets, and the transformation merits adding his new word, supercapitalism, to our lexicon. This virulent strain of capitalism, he contends, produces better products and higher stock market returns but comes at the cost of inequality, uncertainty and a decline in democracy. This economic pressure cooker squeezes companies toward ruthless penny-pinching, decimates unions, degrades the environment and pushes government further into the pockets of lobbyists."
 
SpurMeUp said:
'De-growth' seems the most inappropriate of labels. When growth, development and change is central to its aims! Could be renamed Better Growth, or Targeted Growth. It is the most misleading of terms.

To achieve development to be cleaner we do need to harness existing humans structures whether commercial or otherwise. There isn't any going backwards, just forwards into a better place, in the appropriate direction.

Marx was just the first to identify the Capitalist/market flaw, which is you can't have growth of markets indefinitely. There will always be some kind of crash or correction. What central banks try to do is manage growth so its kept stable at around 2% maybe a little more. The reason they have this target is not because they are hungry ravenous capitalists.... It is simply because recession is a cliff edge that they don't want to be too close to! So economies are seen to be healthy with a small amount of growth because it avoids recession.

Idk what Steroided Capitalism is, but I would say global cooperation to 1. measure and 2. address the worst excesses of carbon and methane release is far more vital right now. There are gas extraction plants that leak the equivalent of the UKs whole yearly footprint. This is low hanging fruit to fix. Why western nations aren't funding a hit squad to go around and help address such issues is a mystery.
Click to expand...
I would agree that the name is somewhat triggering though it is quite appropriate. I've had more than a few discussions where my antagonist is arguing against the word rather than the proposals. I tend to tune out at that point as I know they haven't done the reading.

If you want to know more I would recommend someone like Jason Hickel (Less is More) or Julia Steinberger, though there are a multitude of voices in this space now. What they say will resonate if you are open to the idea that system change is all but required at this point.

We are already going backwards, to use your analogy. Degrowth just means we are still holding the steering wheel as it happens.
 
thfcsteff said:
...you're missing some important things out don't you think?
Click to expand...
Not really. This idea that the PPE contracts were corruption is largely pie in the sky Ministers, MPs and peers were only able to refer contacts to the "VIP lane" as they were able to vouch personally for the contract being fulfilled. Although these referrals went into a fast track process ultimately the contracts were awarded or rejected by independent civil servants, not by party representatives. So this idea that government ministers were "handing out contracts to their mates" falls apart very quickly as soon as anyone actually looks into what was going on in any detail.
 
Kompakted said:
Not really. This idea that the PPE contracts were corruption is largely pie in the sky Ministers, MPs and peers were only able to refer contacts to the "VIP lane" as they were able to vouch personally for the contract being fulfilled. Although these referrals went into a fast track process ultimately the contracts were awarded or rejected by independent civil servants, not by party representatives. So this idea that government ministers were "handing out contracts to their mates" falls apart very quickly as soon as anyone actually looks into what was going on in any detail.
Click to expand...
You make it sound so orderly. Roll eyes.
 
Rorschach said:
I would agree that the name is somewhat triggering though it is quite appropriate. I've had more than a few discussions where my antagonist is arguing against the word rather than the proposals. I tend to tune out at that point as I know they haven't done the reading.

If you want to know more I would recommend someone like Jason Hickel (Less is More) or Julia Steinberger, though there are a multitude of voices in this space now. What they say will resonate if you are open to the idea that system change is all but required at this point.

We are already going backwards, to use your analogy. Degrowth just means we are still holding the steering wheel as it happens.
Click to expand...

There is a fundamental issue however. Which is we need existing human structures to achieve the aims. However, many commentators have a different perspective: that we must alter the existing structures to achieve the aims. And this is somewhat naive, and doesn’t respect or learn from historical evidence. This is a blinkered perspective and curtails the possibility of success.

The misleading term encapsulates this slightly deluded viewpoint.

There is very little societal level change that is imposed top down and doesn’t evolve. The lessons of communism e here such approachs failed, should provide ample warning to do better this time.
 
Last edited:
thfcsteff said:
Robert Reich wrote a book called Supercapitalism back in 2007 which went into what 'steroided capitalism' (another phrase) was all about. This was back in 2007!!!!!!!!! Here's a quote from the book; it offers a pretty clear explanation.

"In Reich’s view, capitalism has triumphed in the form of hyper-competitive markets, and the transformation merits adding his new word, supercapitalism, to our lexicon. This virulent strain of capitalism, he contends, produces better products and higher stock market returns but comes at the cost of inequality, uncertainty and a decline in democracy. This economic pressure cooker squeezes companies toward ruthless penny-pinching, decimates unions, degrades the environment and pushes government further into the pockets of lobbyists."
Click to expand...

Personally I don’t buy this. Have workers ever been as protected within western societies as they are today? Are our approaches to inclusion bettered in past decades? Or was there a greater focus on carbon footprints previously within our capitalist system?

Ironically, China, a nation run by the communist party of China, has some of the least represented workers in the world. There are ample protections in the UK and Europe, the same can’t be said of China.

But that is not my biggest gripe with this negative outlook. It is that it offers no alternative. Or how we should get there.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
You make it sound so orderly. Roll eyes.
Click to expand...
I didnt say it was orderly. I used the word "desperation" to describe the process. The root cause of it did probably lie in pandemic planning around PPE and supply chain resilience (good luck with a foreign supplier in a global pandemic). I just take exception with hyperbolic factually inaccurate claims, particularly where it has become mantra across media and public that "the government handed contracts to their mates" not one bit of that sentence is even remotely true.
 
Melt blown plastic, the filter part of the mask was the most expensive commodity in the world during the first months of covid, that is if you could find.
My supplier was getting calls from all over the world from people and companies he had never heard of telling him they would buy whatever quantity he had just name his price.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Tugendhat looks the competent one and the one who might attract the Blair/Cameron swing voters. But no way their rabid members would ever select him. They'll need another Duncan-Smith 2nd/3rd term in opposition before holding their noses for someone electable
Click to expand...
Tugendhat has no chance with the electorate. It's got to be Jenrick for me. Ultimately Tories have got to square the circle of how do you rebuild a centre-right coalition which involves enticing many of the people that voted Reform back to the fold while also enticing back those that went to Lib Dem and to a lesser extent Labour and Green.

Jenrick is the only one who is hard-line enough on key issues to appeal to Reformers while also being articulate, pragmatic and moderate enough on others to make him stomachable by the others.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...on-non-doms-may-raise-no-money-officials-fear

Utterly predictable piece of ideology over reality. Sums never added up on this one. For a start you had to pay an annual fee to retain Non Dom status, which based on c. 74K non doms on latest figures would be bringing in circa £2.2 billion in certain revenue which Labour then proposed to get rid of and replace with an uncertain tax take of circa £5 billion meaning a revenue raise of £2.7-2.8 billion. Only that rather depends on all the non doms choosing to keep their assets in the UK without non-dom status, which is kind of like SDS executives going "if we end our permanent 50% off sale we could make an extra 50% per sofa" and then act surprised when the reality is that at double the price they have no customers left.
 
Last edited:
Kompakted said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...on-non-doms-may-raise-no-money-officials-fear

Utterly predictable piece of ideology over reality. Sums never added up on this one. For a start you had to pay an annual fee to retain Non Dom status, which based on c. 74K non doms on latest figures would be bringing in circa £2.2 billion in certain revenue which Labour then proposed to get rid of and replace with an uncertain tax take of circa £5 billion meaning a revenue raise of £2.7-2.8 billion. Only that rather depends on all the non doms choosing to keep their assets in the UK without non-dom status, which is kind of like SDS executives going "if we end our permanent 50% off sale we could make an extra 50% per sofa" and then act surprised when the reality is that at double the price they have no customers left.
Click to expand...

Better off without the leeches either way. Everyone should pay fair tax, or fudge off to some desert hellhole.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Better off without the leeches either way. Everyone should pay fair tax, or fudge off to some desert hellhole.
Click to expand...
Ok, so do it as a bit of ideology like we got rid of the tier1 investment visa scheme. But don't pretend to everyone and yourselves you're going to make money doing it and make it part of your funding strategy. They've been moaning about a £22 billion "black hole" left by the last government. They've already added £2 billion to it and they've only been in office 5 minutes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back