Politics

[Renton 20776]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

I think I would ask all the pragmatists on here something along the lines of... do you think Starmer would have lost if he'd come out with Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto minus the personal baggage and antisemitism stuff?

 

I don't think he would have. I don't for a second think he would have. I think Labour hugely underplayed their hand this election - maybe that makes them more sustainable over time but honestly I think we're going to start struggling to see daylight between them and Cameron's Tories, longer term. And if that is the case, what is even the point.

 

It would have been fucking disastrous if he had won a GE on that manifesto, would have made the Truss crash look like a blip. 

 

What do you think about things like the employment rights bill and renters rights bill? The waters special measures Bill? Planning reforms to build more houses? Would a Cameron government have enacted any of that? Would they fuck. 

[Renton 20776]

6 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

Bit of revisionism going on here. Corbyns manifesto seems radical mainly because everybody is singing to the Tories tune. They might have lost the election bit it seems everyone has bought their arguments

Corbyn manifesto would be centre left in any number of European countries

 

Stuff like free WiFi was canny batshit like, even at the time. But as Gemmill says, we are a long way past those days and it would have been fiscal suicide in 2024.

[Alex 34440]

Where Corbyn’s manifesto was positioned on the political spectrum didn’t necessarily make it deliverable then and it’s without a doubt less deliverable now. I don’t know why people get too hung on manifestos anyway. No one reads them or sticks to them 

Edited Monday at 20:42 by Alex

[NJS 4334]

4 hours ago, Alex said:

Where Corbyn’s manifesto was positioned on the political spectrum didn’t necessarily make it deliverable then and it’s without a doubt less deliverable now. I don’t know why people get too hung on manifestos anyway. No one reads them or sticks to them 

I agree but they represent broad intent. Corbyn's was all about real change, Starmer's is about status quo despite the big claim of change. 

[Dazzler 9018]

5 hours ago, NJS said:

I agree but they represent broad intent. Corbyn's was all about real change, Starmer's is about status quo despite the big claim of change. 

I’d rather have someone say we can’t do xyz because we’re skint.

 

A Corbyn type manifesto would have had to have been massively walked back on and they would be slammed as liars - this would have been true of Corbyn too, no way he’s delivering those promises when the economy is bollocksed.
 

The big claim of change was down to competence, something in short supply in government in the last decade. So far so good in that respect IMO. 

[Renton 20776]

8 hours ago, NJS said:

I agree but they represent broad intent. Corbyn's was all about real change, Starmer's is about status quo despite the big claim of change. 

 

Status quo because you'll dismiss every incremental benefit he introduces, which cumulatively will be real significant changes. Just like you did with New Labour. You'll also not consider the counterfactual, 10 more years of tory power. 

[Gemmill 43541]

I love how there's now a "national insurance controversy" because it looks like they're going to raise Employer's NI. The press and the Tories trying to suggest this is breaking a manifesto promise, even though it was abundantly clear that it was Employee's NI that was being talked about during the campaign. 

 

The way the press will just run with the Tory line as if there are questions to be answered, instead of just going "Aye that's bollocks, we can ignore it" just again speaks to how they've forgotten how to actually do they're job, because they're so addicted to drama. 

[Ayatollah Hermione 13710]

Glad we’re giving out Ozempic to the obese and jobless though. We’ll not bother doing anything about making genuine healthy food affordable or limiting ultra processed shite, just take this and get into work 

[Alex 34440]

52 minutes ago, Ayatollah Hermione said:

Glad we’re giving out Ozempic to the obese and jobless though. We’ll not bother doing anything about making genuine healthy food affordable or limiting ultra processed shite, just take this and get into work 

The best ways to tackle obesity are 1) provide proper lessons in how to cook in schools, with enough time and resources. 2) spend a lot more money of sports facilities* and on outdoor recreational resources to make them more widely accessible to different social groups. I’ve thought that was canny obvious for decades. 
 

*especially in schools but for the wider community 

[Renton 20776]

3 hours ago, Alex said:

The best ways to tackle obesity are 1) provide proper lessons in how to cook in schools, with enough time and resources. 2) spend a lot more money of sports facilities* and on outdoor recreational resources to make them more widely accessible to different social groups. I’ve thought that was canny obvious for decades. 
 

*especially in schools but for the wider community 

 

I'm in the process of losing weight. I nudging obese levels on the BMI scale which for me was the time to think seriously about losing weight. I've lost 14 kg since April (about 2 stone) and am on target to get down to 82 Kg by next April which will put me at the top end of the normal range. I intend to stay there. Fuck me its hard though. The only way you can do it is through calorie control, burn more than you use and be obsessive about it. I walk on average 15,000 steps a day now but exercise is only a small part of it, 20% to be exact. The rest is all about changing your diet. I've massively cut down on carbs and eat a lot of salad and fruits. It's fucking expensive though and takes will power. 

 

I just don't know if these are governmental responsibilities. How are they going to subsidise fresh food and make it accessible? Who is going to pay for leisure centres? Ozempic (Semaglutide) is very effective but it's long-term safety and efficacy is not known, I can easily imagine rebound effects after stopping treatment being disastrous. Long story short, I think you're right but it feels we need some kind of joined up thinking here to promote healthiness more as a concept. Again, New Labour were more into preventative treatments but Cameron scrapped these initiatives.  

[NJS 4334]

It's a big state vs little state question. We've had 45 years minus a N arguable brief respite of a push toward individual responsibility being the basis of society and it's got us here. 

 

Trying to deal with inner city crime when cuts to youth services are to blame, shoring up infrastructure devestated by more cuts, the rivers and seas full of shit because of the drive for dividends over service and also dealing with obesity caused by poor education, bastard food firms exploiting the poor and cuts to leisure services as you mention. 

 

We've now been beaten down to accept that the 5th biggest economy on the planet can't afford anything as the wealth has been migrated from poor to rich deliberately and any suggestion of reversing that is communist heresy. 

 

This is why I think your incremental change is doomed - only major surgery will make any difference and I'm resigned to the fact it won't happen. 

[Renton 20776]

3 hours ago, NJS said:

It's a big state vs little state question. We've had 45 years minus a N arguable brief respite of a push toward individual responsibility being the basis of society and it's got us here. 

 

Trying to deal with inner city crime when cuts to youth services are to blame, shoring up infrastructure devestated by more cuts, the rivers and seas full of shit because of the drive for dividends over service and also dealing with obesity caused by poor education, bastard food firms exploiting the poor and cuts to leisure services as you mention. 

 

We've now been beaten down to accept that the 5th biggest economy on the planet can't afford anything as the wealth has been migrated from poor to rich deliberately and any suggestion of reversing that is communist heresy. 

 

This is why I think your incremental change is doomed - only major surgery will make any difference and I'm resigned to the fact it won't happen. 

 

On the one hand you have suggested Corbyn's manifesto was centre left and incremental, and on the other you're suggesting you want revolution? 

 

We can both agree it isn't going to happen at least, but what would this look like? How could it be enacted without spooking the market, given we are at 100% GDP/debt ratio already? Can you put some more meat on the bones cos honestly, of course I want everything you've said but I just don't know how it can be realistically achieved. 

 

Stuck record, aye, but it genuinely felt like it worked well enough for me under New Labour, I'd be over the moon to get back to those days personally. And that happened incrementally.