MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Truss doesn’t have a plan for growth.
I don’t think other than her personal financial situation she has ANY plan whatsoever.
So we have gone from claiming that Truss is sticking to the narrative outlined in Britannia Unchained, as well as the one from the Institute of Economic Affairs, to today claiming that she has no plan at all?
Just because you don't agree with her plan, or she is struggling to implement it, or it is likely to fail, does not mean that Truss doesn't have a plan - she very clearly has one.
And it is precisely this plan and her vision for the UK that the Anti-Truss Coalition should be drawing voters attention to.
Her plan is to trickle-up the economy to her backers - that's it.
So basically the opposite to what the Labour Party's plan should be.
This inalienable fact should be made clear to voters rather than pretend that Truss has no plan.
Instead voters are presented with the claim that both the Tories and Labour have the same basic plan and they only need to decide who is more likely to succeed in implementing it.
MoreCashThanDash
Then a lot of people need educating so that they understand what growth is and does.
but "people" don't WANT educating what "people" want is outcomes that directly affect them preferably with some meaningless infographics and a "customer journey".
To be a bit STW it's like weather forecasting.
I personally use the met office because I'm interested and it's astonishingly accurate measured as probabilities.
e.g. if they say 10% chance of rain it's correct nearly 100% of the time (that is over a period their 10% is correct) but "people" don't want that they want umbrella icons or happy looking Sun icons and they focus on the presentation layer.
When I say "people" I mean in general, including well educated and well paid people.
If anything this trend is increasing ... just to take a random example, you are reading this because your browser made a request so for this purpose completely ignoring the STW Forum software stack and software application layers, who is actually interested in HOW that request gets back to the specific browser window you issued the request to in terms of OSI protocol layers? In reality even the architect for the forum software probably doesn't care what's happening at OSI layers 1-4.
The kind of education that requires government investment so that they get better results from school, better prospects, better jobs that will boost the growth that would fund the government to invest….etc etc
Lets see if we can do a simplistic Venn diagram or Boston Square with Axes of Service/Goods and Local/Remote.(or physical/remote??)..
How does "better results at school" pan out for remote services or even remote manufacturing?
Even if we shift the local/physical then someone has to work in a Amazon type warehouse and do the physical delivery or cut your hair, drive you to a meeting etc. but should we (real question) then say having a hair cut is something that only the top n% of the UK will be able to afford?
As a point of reference I think Tony and Guy locally are £60 or something whereas my local barber is £12 so some junior stylist at Tony and guy would (unless using staff free/discount**) never be able to get a haircut where they work.
So lets expand that to barrista's or people that make sandwiches ... posh coffee place has rent, heating (maybe in reverse now) etc. then staff wages then tax/NI and the sandwich maker also pays tax/NI/travel etc. so they can never afford a coffee (unless using staff free/discount**)
** So the real question is when we combine them... how does the sandwich maker pay for a haircut at a cost that makes it possible for the junior stylist can buy a coffee on the way to work?
are presented with the claim that both the Tories and Labour have the same basic plan
By whom? No one could have followed both conferences and come away with that impression at all. So, if people are being “presented” with that claim, who by?
OSI Model and Tony & Guy in the same post.
Props!
Considering the inexplicable choice of walk on music as well, is it possible someone in her advisory team is setting her up for public humiliation? Nobody can be that lacking in foresight and common sense, surely?
Oh.
By whom?
You need to pay more attention. The Tories and the Labour Party both publicly claim that there goals are the same, whether it is the economy, climate change, NHS, transport, education, etc. Both promise a better economy and better services, the only thing that voters need to decide is which one they trust most to deliver on their promises.
For example, Starmer at the Labour Party Conference:
"We can grow the economy and raise living standards for everyone"
Truss at the Tory Party Conference:
"Growth, growth, growth"
The reality is that goals are not the same, or at least shouldn't be the same, and the goal of the Tories is to shift power and wealth in favour of the wealthy elite, whilst the goal of the Labour Party is/should be to shift power and wealth in favour of working people.
Convince voters of this inalienable fact, rather than pretend that the Tories don't know what they are doing and have no plan, and you win elections. Once the electorate become class aware the Tories have a huge problem.
intheborders
Her plan is to trickle-up the economy to her backers – that’s it.
you have to admit it's pure genius,
What's happening is a huge and short term transferral of wealth that will be paid for by the plebs for decades.
A one off grab of pensions .. speculation on the pound transferred hundreds of billions we just didn't get to cash in yet. Not only did our pensions fall in sterling but they fell again in buying power whilst kids not even born yet will be paying for this transfer of wealth for their entire lives.
Both promise a better economy and better services
Those are aims/goals, they don't have the same "plan".
For example: Labour plan to grow a state owned renewable energy supplier. Tories plan to allow (and indeed encourage with tax breaks) private companies to extract more fossil fuels from new fields, on and off land, via fracking and accelerating expansion in the North Sea. A stark difference. To pretend they are the same because both involve stimulating economic activity (growth) is disingenuous.
This is interesting, various sources claiming tax reductions don't even offset stealth increases by freezing starting and higher rate boundaries.
Unless you're hugely wealthy presumably.
Those are aims/goals, they don’t have the same “plan”.
So you agree that the aims and goals should be the same for the Tories and Labour and it's only the "plan" that is different.
It's that sort of muddled thinking and lack of class-conscious which explains why the UK Tory Party is one of the most successful political parties in the western world.
No, you claimed that certain goals were shared (improving the economy and services). Those aren't the only goals of either party, are they? If anything, they are very secondary to the main goals of the current Tory party (redistribute wealth upwards and get the state out of the way of certain industries via deregulations). I said, to those two ends, the party don't have the same plans, in response to your claim that...
Instead voters are presented with the claim that both the Tories and Labour have the same basic plan and they only need to decide who is more likely to succeed in implementing it.
They don't have the same basic plan. At all. Just because both address changes needed in terms of the economy and public services doesn't mean that they propose the same changes. They very clearly do not. And no one should pretend that they do. This "both parties are the same" lie needs to end. No one watching the two conferences would come to that conclusion. They'd only come to that conclusion by listening to people wanting that disingenuous claim to live on, for whatever ends they have. Time for that narrative to end. It is not true.
I agree with you Kelvin and fail to see where Ernie is going with this?
So Truss is planning on more immigration to drive growth
And Braverman wants to (dreams no less) reduce immigration the the low tens of thousands
Does that make her part of the anti-growth coalition?
Does that make her part of the anti-growth coalition?
Nope because Truss is talking about good immigration and Braverman about bad immigration. Two completely different things which should not be confused even if they are easy to do so.
Worth looking at the front pages today. Most papers seem to have gone with Truss pulling the most insane facial expressions possible.
Gave me a chuckle anyway.😁
Most papers seem to have gone with Truss pulling the most insane facial expressions possible.
I am not a great fan of those sort of photos since they often seem based on stepping through a video to find the worse one.
In other news. Mad nad thinks the current government is a bit right wing.
Two completely different things which should not be confused
TBF I'm easily confused.
Kelvin
Those are aims/goals, they don’t have the same “plan”.
No they aren't....
Both promise a better economy and better services
Two completely worthless and throwaway metrics without the detail...
Better Services?
Take the NHS, the Tory's offer a "better NHS" it's just not FREE at the point.. or open to everyone. (Or for that matter called the NHS)
They aren't going to say that because the overwhelming majority of the Tory party members aren't rich in the way Trusso-nomics is meant to benefit. To be more specific these are the poor folk earning less that a 100M a year.. so just slightly wealthier versions of working class in the vast scheme of things.
Even bankers on say £10M a year can't afford their own private police and fire service... though to be fair they can maybe just about live in gated communities with their own shared ones.
explains why the UK Tory Party is one of the most successful political parties in the western world.
I thought that was due to First Past The Post?
I agree with you Kelvin and fail to see where Ernie is going with this?
The same place he always goes…
In other news. Mad nad thinks the current government is a bit right wing.
Terrifying isn’t it. She also says you can’t just ditch a whole manifesto and go off in a different direction just because you’ve got a new leader
There was a Truss supporter on Radio 4 this morning basically saying this is year zero and she can do what the hell she likes, irrespective of the manifesto touted at the last election
At least we know where we are
You can forget all that namby pamby levelling up stuff! It’s 1984 in oh so many ways
I thought that was due to First Past The Post?
Well obviously not, because FPTP gives the Tories no advantages over the Labour Party.
The Labour Party does not represent a minority point of view. At least it shouldn't.
The Labour Party should benefit as much, if not even more, than the Tories from FPTP. Which explains precisely why no Labour government has abolished it and the current Labour leader refuses to make it Labour policy.
Well obviously not because FPTP gives the Tories no advantages over the Labour Party.
Not true at all. Good material for another thread though.
Not true at all.
That is because you apparently spectacularly fail to understand the class nature of UK politics.
The Tories represent the interests of the 1-2%, there is no reason why FPTP should benefit them. On the contrary.
And yet despite that they are one of the most successful political parties in the western world.
Edit: The reason why the Tories are successful is because there is a consistent failure to understand whose interests they represent, not because of FPTP.
Yeah, it’s me that doesn’t understand. Of course it is.
Yeah, it’s me that doesn’t understand. Of course it is.
At last, something that we can both agree on 😉
If you really want to argue that FPTP doesn't favour the Tories above other parties, start a thread on it. You are wrong though. And as you've changed the subject towards "understanding whose interests they represent" and other things that are true but irrelevant to the point, I suspect you know you are. FPTP favours the Tories more than Labour.
If you really want to argue that FPTP doesn’t favour the Tories above other parties, start a thread on it.
What's wrong with talking about it here? I really don't understand this pedantic thread policing. This is a politics thread no? So discuss politics!
FPTP benefits the party who wins. Given their previous record in supporting and collaborating with the tories I can't think of anything worse than a labour govt being beholden to lib dem support in a coalition which would almost certainly be the outcome of PR.
FPTP benefits the party who can gain support with the right geographic spread to win the most seats. In the UK, the demographics means that if your support is weighted towards older and retired or soon to retire people your voters are spread across town and country seats giving you a better chance of winning more of those seats. That's the advantage the Tory party has. For Labour, growth in support often happens with younger and working people, who are more concentrated in the cities... this means that a swell in support often just means winning bigger majorities in city seats, rather than winning additional seats in the town and country seats. That's the very basics of it. Let's not have pages and pages of it here please... it's a possible huge distraction from this thread that can run on and on.
Gerrymandering of constituency boundaries benefits the tories. FPTP can be reformed to remove the tory advantage. My main problem with PR is it promotes the maintenance of the status quo. When the tories are in power that's a mild positive, but when Labour it's a massive negative because it would prevent them bringing in the radical policies which we desperately require. That's assuming of course that labour would require support from the lib dems and SNP. If the green party could somehow improve their presence it could be different, but we're a long way from that.
Your very first sentence contains the precise point I am making:
FPTP benefits the party who can gain support with the right geographic spread to win the most seats.
"FPTP benefits the party who can gain support". The Labour Party's problem isn't FPTP it's lack of support. The Tories aren't one of the most successful political party in the western world because of FPTP but because of the support which they receive.
The primary problem, for Labour, is that voters don't recognise whose interests the Tories represent. And that fact serves the Tories extremely well. To add to the problem, and to the Tories's extreme good luck, Labour is generally terrified of talking class politics.
The previous Labour leader talked of "for the many, not the few", they soon put a stop to that.
First past the post favours the Tories more than Labour. All your other whataboutery might be true, but doesn't change that fact. As for your closing attempt to make this yet another thread about the previous Labour leader, or the latest one, or both... **** that, life is too short.
Worth looking at the front pages today
Put a pint in her hand in that Times picture & it could be Farage in a blonde wig.
Big parties who send MPs to parliament: Tories, Labour, Libs, SNP. In addition the Greens get a big vote. UKIP did once but are now integrated into the Tories.
This means that the Tories get all the right wing votes, whereas the progressive vote (we can argue about bits of SNP and sorry Plaid) gets spread, making it less likely a given candidate on this side will win against a Tory whose vote isn't split.
The end.
Unless you want to go on to tactical voting, PR etc. Or just go on telling us how bad you think Labour is.
All your other whataboutery might be true, but doesn’t change that fact.
All my "whataboutery" gets to the very heart of why the Tories are such a successful political party - they have huge support among the electorate, approximately 30-40% support, despite serving the interests of only about 1-2% of the electorate.
Do you believe that most Tory voters recognise that? Do you believe that 99% of Tory voters simply vote Tory as a philanthropic act to benefit the 1-2%?
Whatever problems FPTP might throw up it is not the primary problem, which is the electorate's lack of awareness of whose interests the Tories represent.
As for your closing attempt to make this yet another thread about the previous Labour leader, or the latest one
What an idiotic comment.
What an idiotic comment.
Raising the tone of discussion as usual.
approximately 30-40% support, despite serving the interests of only about 1-2% of the electorate.
Not everyone votes in their own personal interest. Though Tories are most likely to, obv, or to think that's what they're doing. And wealthy old folks are more than 2% of those who actually vote.
Put a pint in her hand in that Times picture & it could be Farage in a blonde wig.
Ever seen them together in tbe same room? Makes you think....
The ownership demographics of the press can't harm, either.
The Greenpeace protest that disrupted Liz Truss's Tory party conference speech yesterday actually "did her a few favours" and broke the ice for her, according to a body language expert.
There was a lot of references in the news bulletins yesterday that the Greenpeace protest galvanized Truss's Tory audience as they rallied to express their disapproval.
This clearly seemed to be the case and she certainly seemed to welcome it. I think it's stretching it a bit though to claim that apart from those two points it did her any favours.
The audience Truss was really talking to wasn't a few hundred loyal Tory Party members who were always by and large going to agree with every word she uttered, it was the millions watching it on the news in their homes.
For them it provided a powerful reminder that no one had voted for defining points of Liz Truss's political programme, bankers bonus, fracking, tax giveaways which have caused financial instability, etc.
The way the TV cameras zoomed in on the protestors showing their relaxed confidence, especially after the banner was ripped from their hands and they calmly picked it up and held it high again, will have done the Tories no favours at all.
Nor will the fact that the Greenpeace protestors managed to get all the delegates credentials, circumvent all the security and smuggled in a banner. Are they not concerned about possible terrorist attacks? Truss banged on about increasing defence spending during her speech, the Tories can't even organise effective security at their annual conferences.
Are you suggesting they now nuke Birmingham?
Actually… that doesn’t sound like a bad idea
Whatever problems FPTP might throw up it is not the primary problem,
Actually, I think it is.
Actually, I think it is.
Which isn't in the least bit surprising as issues concerning class interests are overwhelmingly ignored in UK politics.
Recent opinion polls have suggested staggering Labour majorities of well over a 100 if a general election was held right now under FPTP.
So the Tories can easily lose elections under FPTP.
The reason the Tories are polling so badly at the moment is because of Liz Truss's policy of rewarding the rich for being rich and expecting everyone else to pay for it, through lower wages and almost certainly poorer services and benefits.
Bankers will get huge mindboggling bonuses and nurses will get real wage cuts.
This provides a stark reality check to British voters that this government represents the interests of an elite few - and they make very little attempt to even bother hiding it.
FPTP is not necessarily an obstacle in defeating the Tories. What is vital however is that voters understand whose interests the Tories exist to serve. Once that has been established it becomes relatively easy to defeat the Tories.
ErnieLynch
That is because you apparently spectacularly fail to understand the class nature of UK politics.
The Tories represent the interests of the 1-2%, there is no reason why FPTP should benefit them. On the contrary.
And yet despite that they are one of the most successful political parties in the western world.
Edit: The reason why the Tories are successful is because there is a consistent failure to understand whose interests they represent, not because of FPTP.
Whilst that is true longer term ...
The current Tory policy doesn't represent anything like the top 1-2% ... more like 0.01-0.02%
Some exec on 200k just had 10%+ of her pension fund wiped out that she's been paying into for probably longer than a decade. Her mortgage has gone up
Lets randomly take Shell PLC (since Truss used to work for her) that employs 6000 or so but there are probably <15 earning 200k or close and probably 5,000 on NMW working in service stations.
Anyway the marginal tax gains on say 200k are hardly going to compensate for the loss of pension, mortgage etc. thanks to Truss-o-nomics
Do you believe that most Tory voters recognise that? Do you believe that 99% of Tory voters simply vote Tory as a philanthropic act to benefit the 1-2%?
Erm nope the Red Wall voted tory because of Wokism... and they will next time
Those, especially red wall ex traditional labour are just sick of being told what they can and can't think or say and would rather be broke than have more Wokism
Erm nope the Red Wall voted tory because of Wokism… and they will next time
That's obviously your opinion based on the now well-established stw vilification of working-class voters.
I strenously disagree on two levels. The 2019 general election result had nothing to do with "wokism", and there is no evidence that "the Red Wall" will vote Tory next election.
In fact the evidence currently is that Tory support in those areas has haemorrhaged far more than in other areas.
Has "wokism" ceased to be an issue, or is it connected to the current Tory leader's unashamed determination to make the wealthy elite even wealthier?
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-red-wall-voting-intention-3-4-october-2022/
Our latest Red Wall poll finds Labour leading the Conservatives by 38%, a staggering twenty-three points more than in our previous poll two weeks ago, and the largest lead ever achieved by any party in our Red Wall polling. Altogether, the results of our poll (with changes from 19-20 September) are as follows:
Labour 61% (+12)
Conservative 23% (-11)
Reform UK 3% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 7% (+2)
Green 4% (–)
Plaid Cymru 1% (+1)
Other 1% (–)
Has “wokism” ceased to be an issue, or is it connected to the current Tory leader’s unashamed determination to make the wealthy elite even wealthier?
It's a meaningless word but that doesn't top it determining how people vote.
That’s obviously your opinion based on the now well-established stw vilification of working-class voters.
No it's my opinion based on former lifelong Red wall labour voters.
STW not withstanding then vilification is a little abstract and does your definition of "working class" extend to the 98%?
You said
Do you believe that 99% of Tory voters simply vote Tory as a philanthropic act to benefit the 1-2%?
Another way to look at this... Red Wall voters voted for things that were more important to them than money... they also voted strongly to leave the EU.
You or I may not agree with their reasons BUT independent of who the following is attributed to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" this is what Labour have failed to do.
Another way to look at his is there is almost no working class anymore.
there is almost no working class anymore.
So who inhabits these "Red Wall" seats which you appear to attach a great deal of importance to and see as some sort of typical Tory voter?
Affluent middle-class professionals?
*sips latte while reading the Guardian*
What shall we call this?
https://twitter.com/emilythornberry/status/1578070802125185025?s=21
Operation “Bigger Fridge”?
Operation “Don’t ask me, I’m only the PM”?
No, no, needs to be three letters…
“Leave in silence”?
Rubbish… can some brighter minds apply their brain cells to it…?
Erm nope the Red Wall voted tory because of Wokism… and they will next time
Those, especially red wall ex traditional labour are just sick of being told what they can and can’t think or say and would rather be broke than have more Wokism
An interesting take I suppose.
And TBF I think the Tory party still see those who define their political world view mainly by what they're 'against' rather than 'for' as worth attracting, it's more "anti-wokism" or maybe US style libertarianism that they're keen to cultivate.
Cruella Braverman certainly likes to blow that dog whistle and Lizzy's list of groups that make up the "Anti-Growth Coalition" was clearly intended to play a similar tune...
But I think it's worth noting the Red wall voters were promised quite a lot in 2019 and they'd maybe be prudent to ask if much ever came of those promises...
"Growth, growth and growth!" is being focussed on by both major parties, what really is the difference between "Growth" and "Levelling up" at the end of the day?
As nice as it would be if blocks of voters simply voted on single issues, very few people are that simple in their motivations.
Back in 2019 the overlap between ardently anti-woke, fiscally conservative, habitual Tory voter, starry-eyed believer in Levelling up, brexiteer, etc all nicely overlapped for Bozza to give him some new seats...
I don't think Liz can rely on her team presenting the same Venn diagram any time soon...
sips latte while reading the Guardian
Please tell me that it's not made with cow's milk.
Tories aren’t one of the most successful political party in the western world because of FPTP but because of the support which they receive.
It doesn't hurt though as your comment about being the most successful party in the Western world demonstrates. I'd be happy to have PR as it will prevent extremist left or right wing parties running the executive. It will allow them representation and damp that part of the electorate that feels that they aren't given a voice.
The breaking the link between constituency and MP under PR is a canard as, for example, my local MP has no link with my constituency being parachuted in from Cambridge CC. See also one Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson and sundry other MPs currently sitting in the house.
Please tell me that it’s not made with cow’s milk
It is, but it’s organic, free-range, fair trade and locally sourced
We’re not animals
I’d be happy to have PR as it will prevent extremist left or right wing parties running the executive.
That is an interesting comment as one of the most claimed benefit of FPTP is that it denies a foothold to small extremist parties.
A good example of this is UKIP which despite its past widespread support (it once had the largest share of the vote of any party in a national local election) I believe has only once ever managed to win a parliamentary seat.
Under proportional representation UKIP would have very likely won many dozens of Westminster seats, and quite possibly would have ended up coalition partners with the Tories, if not kingmakers.
Very recently in Denmark under their PR system the far-right became kingmakers. Even more recently under the Italian system the far-right did even better.
I very strongly support PR btw, but apparently not for the same reasons as some.
I've learned a life lesson over the last year or four, 'don't ever say that no PM could be worse than the previous one'.
wait until she cans free childcare and shuts schools to make them online only
No one watch QT last night?
I bloody hate it when I have to agree with Piers Morgan.
@ernielynch Sweden, not Denmark. And the racists are busy trying to avoid responsibility for working in our parliament right now.
Actually, I guess KD (Christian Democrats) are more of the kingmakers. They are the way smaller party but are religious headbangers and not out and out racists.
Stupidly, I did. Thought zahawi was going to pop on a few occasions, obviously struggling with defending this shower. Didn't know when to shut up either.
EDIT: I’ve been reliably informed that Truss wore the dress before Years&Years was broadcast. Still, it’s a look.
what really is the difference between “Growth” and “Levelling up” at the end of the day?
I think there's a big difference and it's key to Tory thinking.
Levelling up has proved incompatible with their ideology as it works on the redistribution of wealth from top to bottom. They've been a great pains to point out that there has been too much focus on 'distribution of the pie' as they call it. Rather, they want to assuage the anguish of the 'left behind' only if it means that the rich can get richer while the lives of the less well off are improved -'growing a bigger pie'.
We know of course that this is nonsense and unless there is real redistribution of wealth, the left behind will fall even further.
Without going through to some dodgy think tank websites, is there an actual list of what things they want to get rid of, not STW nightmares, but what the guardian is basing its article on?
After the conference, I doubt Liz Truss can actually get anything radical through parliament now. They can only trash stuff that a minister can sign off.
Sorry, the link didn't work.
I'm referring to the guardian article about lash and burn ideas that the IEA and tax payers alliance want.
I’m referring to the guardian article about lash and burn ideas that the IEA and tax payers alliance want.
This?
'Lash and burn'....Cynthia Payne?
ernielynch
So who inhabits these “Red Wall” seats which you appear to attach a great deal of importance to and see as some sort of typical Tory voter?
Affluent middle-class professionals?
That really depends how each and every one of those words is defined... especially in this context for the dilemma Labour face in being relevant to their traditional voters.
At a very simple level, you can see this linguistically by comparing Mick Lynch with Keir Starmer the former using "working class" and the latter "the workers" and "working people".
Fundamentally, the post WWII red wall working class I was born and brought up into doesn't really exist because low paid workers have abandoned their self reliance and pride in their self reliance opting for aspirational middle-class lifestyles (that they quite probably can't afford in full due if done en-masse and as a lifestyle).
Partly the world has changed but only in part and these have worked together destroying the working class identity.
Many things that were shameful to a working class family in my youth are everyday things for people today claiming to be working class.
A quick example ... and since I mentioned Mick Lynch I'll use transport for that example and how it's impacted what was the working class.
Postwar working class had a philosophy of equality of the working class that has vanished.... your time and comfort was the same as everyone else's time and comfort but this has been eroded by working class people using middle-upper class services.
Take taxi's... anyone taking a taxi on a regular basis (e.g. more than a couple of times a year) is demonstrating their time is worth more than the taxi driver's... the taxi driver pays for fuel, wear and tear tax and NI and pays a cut to some controller etc. who also pay tax and NI and costs. On a simple level if you can afford a taxi on a regular basis then the taxi driver must be paid a LOT less than you value your time/comfort. So if you are "working class" what does that make a taxi driver?
Because of this shift public transport services have been cut and to all intents and purposes wrecked so whether the "working class" can afford it or not they don't have a choice.
A recent example was I went to the walk in centre... who due to potential seriousness of my injuries said I had to go to A&E. The nurse (working class?) said she'd call me a taxi... I refused and she had to go get another nurse to witness my refusal. I asked about a bus .. she just looked at me.
It's 5 1/2 miles so perfectly walkable although there is one bus service from the town centre that goes hourly so it's as quick to walk.
So last week I was at the fracture clinic at the hospital (having walked as nowhere safe to lock a bike)
They want me to go to the other hospital to see a physio... NO CONNECTING BUS SERVICE at all and another (further) 7.5 miles between hospitals.
In what world does it make sense to have 2 sister NHS hospitals not connected via public transport?
How are working class patients even expected to get between them?
This came my way via Facebook
Thoughts?
In taxis?
A significant number of working class people use taxis as a) it eliminates the fixed costs of owning a car and b) busses are shite
In what world does it make sense to have 2 sister NHS hospitals not connected via public transport?
How are working class patients even expected to get between them?
I have no idea but I reckon that you need to move to London - I have never known public transport to be better in London than it currently is.
Which is why I am assuming that you don't live in London.
Thoughts?
George is more attractive.
Take taxi’s…
Taxi's are public transport.
Take taxi’s… anyone taking a taxi on a regular basis (e.g. more than a couple of times a year) is demonstrating their time is worth more than the taxi driver’s… the taxi driver pays for fuel, wear and tear tax and NI and pays a cut to some controller etc. who also pay tax and NI and costs. On a simple level if you can afford a taxi on a regular basis then the taxi driver must be paid a LOT less than you value your time/comfort. So if you are “working class” what does that make a taxi driver?
In "working class" areas, it is very common to have a free telephone to ring the local taxi company to pick you up, as it's not possible to get home with your weekly shop without a car.
I saw this in the NE and up around Glasgow. This wasn't a thing at the supermarkets near Tunbridge Wells.
Thoughts?
Good luck getting that through to @sendembackdave1959
Take taxi’s… anyone taking a taxi on a regular basis (e.g. more than a couple of times a year) is demonstrating their time is worth more than the taxi driver’s
No they are demonstrating they need to hire a service, skill, equipment they do not have access to.
People regularly have to pay for someone who earns more then them or the same. This someone may have expertise, experience and or equipment that they don't. People don't just buy things of people who are poorer than themselves. It may be how your world works but not for most.
I see 'working class*' people take taxis all the time, usually at Asda. If you can't afford a car but still need a weekly shop, and you're not right on the bus route then it makes sense. Big shop once a week that you can't carry, £10 for a taxi is a lot cheaper than your own car. And it's also comparable to all the bus fares you'd need to go several times a week if you were only getting one bag's worth at a time cos it's all you can carry the 3/4 mile to the bus stop.
Don't judge until you know - it's what Tories do.
* obviously you can't tell by looking at people if they are working class or not. I really mean people who don't appear well off.
Some good stuff in this one 🙂
https://twitter.com/RussInCheshire/status/1577992292102819841?s=20&t=Pn7Cr0acRZsWLrjQRnr5Yw
Thoughts?
Whilst I wouldn't underestimate the seriousness of the situation I reckon Monbiot ignores a couple of important points in his attempt to paint a dark picture.
Firstly he claims that the postwar consensus was driven by a fear of a return to fascism which is why there was a recognition of the importance of "people's needs".
I strongly disagree with that for too many reasons to mention. But among the reasons relevent to the debate is that universal suffrage required capitalism to make huge compromises, especially if it was to stem the tide of socialism, in the form of mixed economies and universal welfare states.
Secondly whilst he focuses on Truss and what it means for the advance of neo-liberalism Monbiot ignores two important facts. Firstly he ignores the fact that the two previous Tory prime ministers, especially the last one, had moved the Tory party away from extreme neo-liberalism. And the reason they did so is very important - it wasn't working. Not if the aim was to hang onto power.
Secondly Monbiot ignores the fact that within a month of Truss's premiership and her laying out her extreme neo-liberal plan it caused hugely negative reactions from both the markets, ironically, and from it would appear the electorate - all recent opinion polls put Labour on around a staggering fifty percent of the vote, which I can assure you has nothing to do with the charisma of its leader.
Neo-liberalism has hit a brick wall.
I wouldn't want to underestimate the seriousness of the situation though, so if you are feeling that you might be happier than you deserve to be Monbiot makes some interesting and very valid points which deserve attention imo
Some good stuff in this one 🙂
quote of the thread...
Truss's brain is like a dazzlingly high-tech stealth weapon: impossible to detect, but still capable of inflicting enormous damage
anyone taking a taxi on a regular basis (e.g. more than a couple of times a year) is demonstrating their time is worth more than the taxi driver’s
Are they? is it? Do they?
My MIL regularly takes Taxis mainly because of having a long term respiratory condition that means marching to the local Bus stop isn't really an option, she's a pensioner and never learnt to drive, very much working a class person with a mobility need...
TBH it's a big part of her maintaining her independence, she spends a proportion of her Pension income on Taxis so she can get herself to the shops, appointments or to see her friends and not feel like she has to rely on lifts or stagger to the nearest bus stop to take 3 busses to travel a couple of miles...
She certainly doesn't have some sort of hierarchical idea about the value of her time Vs a Taxi drivers. If she has to spend an hour+ pissing about on busses it has a very real impact on her health...