General Election 2029 is going to be a ****ing embarrassment. In the dumbed down bullshit world it is simply going to be two blocs. One saying Anyone But Reform (but not being able to offer a credible vision of why) the other saying Anyone But Labour (and being given a free hit on record in office because they don't have one whilst being able to out-nasty the other bloc no matter how far right they've shifted the window by then).
So depressing.
To be fair it was anyone but Tory last time apparently.
Least worse option is a shite way of voting. It just empowers the least worse option which can still be bad.
Few more cycles of awfulness and the public might want something better that has little to do with the RW way of doing things - it's exhausted anyway and offers no solutions.
It's just taking time to prove that to the 'sensible' middle ground.
To be fair it was anyone but Tory last time apparently.
Least worse option is a shite way of voting. It just empowers the least worse option which can still be bad.
Few more cycles of awfulness and the public might want something better that has little to do with the RW way of doing things - it's exhausted anyway and offers no solutions.
It's just taking time to prove that to the 'sensible' middle ground.
I mean 3-4 parties all offering a version of austerity as a solution to the problems created by austerity is just plain dumb.
General Election 2029 is going to be a ****ing embarrassment.
It's going to be a simple re-run of the brexit vote. Establishment politicians with their patronising there is no alternative prospectus vs an insurgent populist party with a groundswell of anger, resentment and hatred fuelling their momentum. We've seen it before and we know exactly how it will go. The main uncertainty is whether the corporate and media establishment remains aligned to the Tories and/or Labour, or jumps ship to Farage as they've done in the US with Trump. If the former there might still be a chance of an anyone-but-Farage outcome, if the latter it's game over.
Starmer and Reeves have a lot to answer for. Mabye it needs to happen to shock the centrists out of their hubris, but the price will be an end to the welfare state and a fully privatised NHS.
The main uncertainty is whether the corporate and media establishment remains aligned to the Tories and/or Labour, or jumps ship to Farage as they've done in the US with Trump.
The media jumped years ago.
"Here to comment on that without challenge is Nigel Farage..."
It's noticeably ramped up since Labour became the government. He no longer needs to appear; journalists/presenters put forward his "concerns" on his behalf for him seemingly on autopilot these days. And there's a feedback loop between social media and print and broadcast news that's being very successfully played by the right (through ownership and control of amplification on the big platforms) that aligns so so nicely for Farage.
The media jumped years ago.
True, but I don't think the corporate establishment are anywhere close to jumping on the Reform bandwagon yet. I would know because I work for a firm which is very good at positioning itself politically and I've not yet heard anything at work which indicates that they're taking Farage very seriously yet. For now Reform support resides mainly among the reactionary angry white men (and their wives) cohort. That's still enough to cause major damage to Labour and the Tories but probably not enough to win an election outright. I can see the next Labour election campaign being fought on a 'vote Tories get Reform' slogan which might just be enough to scare tory liberals into throwing their lot in with Labour centrists.
I don't think the corporate establishment are anywhere close to jumping on the Reform bandwagon yet
Not UK companies perhaps. But a few big USA companies are already on it... some very embedded in the UK.
Reeves on live now - speaking in delusional terms about her choices. Claiming she got the economy on sure footing and now the world economy is causing all the problems she faces. (We always have a world economy.)
"Got to get public debt down" apparently - good luck with that as doing that is diametrically opposed to getting growth.
Absolutely no self-reflection on her choices.
She has everything back to front - she's prepping us for tax rises of course which will do further damage.
I wish she'd stop trying to straddle all bases too - you can't talk up reducing the 'debt' and point out bad roads etc that need fixing.
Either government invests its own money to fix the problems and you let the very optional 'debt' increase or you try to balance the books and **** every up.
"Deal with the world as we find it - rather than the world i'd like it to be." is the Centrist mantra of the irresponsible. The government does make society, it does create jobs, and wealth.
It's one of the most disingenuous speeches I've ever heard a politician selling to the broken public.
Greens can have a few more points.
It might be better now to let SKS and Reeves have their idiotic budget, so we can get rid of the worthless lying oligarch owned time wasters as soon as possible. Everyone can now see the emperor is naked.
For the love of god can ‘the 6’ not just turn every thread into another one with you lot indulging in your competitive Starmer slagging? 🙄
This thread is about Farage and Reform. You clearly hate the present government, but just imagine what a Reform one would look like
For the love of god can ‘the 6’ not just turn every thread into another one with you lot indulging in your competitive Starmer slagging? 🙄
This thread is about Farage and Reform. You clearly hate the present government, but just imagine what a Reform one would look like
Nothing more than I would expect from a member the centrist mob, (the real big 6), so obsessed with attacking the left they don't even know what thread they are on.
You might have got a bit mixed up there Binners.
Anyway, Reeves is telling the public how it is. They won’t like it. The promise in headline tax rates at the last election is going to look very foolish, when it was obvious to all parties that tax rises this Parliament were going to be necessary. Whoever put that promise into the manifesto should go.
Whoever put that promise into the manifesto should go.
Along with whoever continually repeated it of course...
Anyway, Reeves is telling the public how it is. They won’t like it.
Not really - she's constructed a new messy neoliberal narrative to try and not undermine her original narrative.
Neither narratives are accurate or necessary.
(And she even managed pop in there we need to spend on defence. How so - the public finances are dire?)
All this exists because of:
a) her own fiscal rules
b) misunderstanding how the government funds the state
c) kow-towing high finance (which doesn't fund the state) through bond markets which the government enables
d) lying about tough decisions.
e) refusing to deal with hoarding wealth.
f) entrenching the idea of black-holes in the mind of folk - without actually explaining that money has actually gone somewhere in the economy. Dumb.
Every single one of those things is within her remit to change.
The only thing she can't easily change is - there being no appetite for tax rises. But they could have handled that better from the start.
For the love of god can ‘the 6’ not just turn every thread into another one with you lot indulging in your competitive Starmer slagging? 🙄
This thread is about Farage and Reform. You clearly hate the present government, but just imagine what a Reform one would look like
Nothing more than I would expect from a member the centrist mob, (the real big 6), so obsessed with attacking the left they don't even know what thread they are on.
On this forum I've never once told Centrists to shut up going on about Brexit, Farage, Trump, Tories etc. and yet the forum is chock full of a ratio of about 10:1 of abuse of all things screaming right-wing but we must go soft on the government of the day. (Also to the right .. go figure.)
How can this be?
It's a distortion of understanding political arguments. In other words the framing of bad politics is always okay when it's not Labour.
More delusion.
This thread is about Farage and Reform. You clearly hate the present government, but just imagine what a Reform one would look like
I'm not comfortable with this logic.
We have a bad governance. One many on here chose (for the correct reasons) - a government that has done its best to borrow from Reform whilst not addressing its remit for fix the country.
One does have to ask Centrists what sort of solutions do you actually want? Because if you don't want progressive solutions then why does Reform bother you so much?
Labour are closer to Reform than the greens.
So what do you want?
For the love of god can ‘the 6’ not just turn every thread into another one with you lot indulging in your competitive Starmer slagging? 🙄
Well go on then, this is your opportunity to tell everyone what a great job Sir Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister. Where do you want to start?
Btw it's a bit more than 6 people that think SKS is a doing shite job, apparently only 18% think he is doing well, which is about the same who say they would vote Labour if there was a general election now.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-prime-minister-approval
(I did think Labour had lost Binners anyway!)
Just noticed Reeves called Brexit an 'ill-concieved one.' Told ya - she won't go in on Brexit. Just this version.
The solution to all this mess is definitely ID cards.
(I did think Labour had lost Binners anyway!)
Yeah but apparently people aren't allowed to criticise his fallen hero.
It must be hard waiting 14 years for the 'grown ups' to be in charge only to find they are even worse as at least with tories and reform you know what you are going to get.
Anyway, Reeves is telling the public how it is. They won’t like it.
And that's exactly the problem. The public expect their politicians to represent their interests and ensure a level playing field so the work and effort they put in are rewarded. Reeves is doing nothing more than confirming to the public that they're being f##### over by a system which she has no intention of changing. The public in response will quite rightly say 'well f### you then, we'll get someone else in who will do something about it'.
We all know the corruption the tories allowed to happen shifting vast sums to a select few will take some sorting out. I do believe that tax increases should be focused on those who gained from that.
Dividends should be taxed at the same rates as income. The loopholes that allow so much avoidance need sorting out. That there is a whole industry dedicated to exploiting the loopholes just shows how many and beneficial they are to those rush enough to be able to exploit them
The public in response will quite rightly say 'well f### you then, we'll get someone else in who will do something about it'.
And that, I suspect, is going to be the big challenge next election. There is no party at the moment who is willing to play the long game and initiate the fundamental overhaul that needs to happen across the big hitters of the public finances eg tax, welfare and health.
kow-towing high finance (which doesn't fund the state) through bond markets which the government enables
could you explain this, because i don't see a way through that doesn't see the bond markets punishing us if she ditches her rules ala Truss
Anyway, Reeves is telling the public how it is. They won’t like it.
And that's exactly the problem. The public expect their politicians to represent their interests and ensure a level playing field so the work and effort they put in are rewarded. Reeves is doing nothing more than confirming to the public that they're being f##### over by a system which she has no intention of changing. The public in response will quite rightly say 'well f### you then, we'll get someone else in who will do something about it'.
Unfortunately there is no changing the system that has been in place throughout the western world since WW2 without full cooperation from every country, good luck with that due to the rise of A.I and companies such as blackrock/palintir etc essentially buying governments
kow-towing high finance (which doesn't fund the state) through bond markets which the government enables
could you explain this, because i don't see a way through that doesn't see the bond markets punishing us if she ditches her rules ala Truss
Okay so first thing is Truss didn't singularly cause the bond market 'melt down.' A string of things did -bad timing with the BoE and Pension leverage (LDI) using gilts as collateral were more of the weakness there. Truss was certainly a drunken sailor but the ship was a wreck. The BoE ahead of Truss signalled large scale selling of bonds. This was the start of the melt-down as this signals to traders to unload. Gilt yields are already on the way up by now.
Then Truss announces her budget. Couple this bonkers tax cutting affair and you've got a nasty reaction in the markets. Had the BoE been in communication with Truss as they should then this wouldn't have happened.
There now follows big margin calls on those LDIs causing even further chaos.
That's a simplified version but is more comprehensive than Truss crashed the market. Which has just become political simplicity.
You have to remember the bond market is a construct of government. Meaning without government it doesn't exist. So it sits under democracy and government. Truss was weak - and she could have implemented what she wanted but her resolve was pathetic (and misguided as the market thought her tax cuts would drive up inflation and thus higher rates needed. Hence the yields shifting.)
Also remember that the BoE corrected the 'truss' melt-down within days buy mopping up bonds and restoring order. Had they been more on it - it might not have even happened.
The whole interplay is a silly misuse of resources to give life to a market that really is controlled by government via the BoE.
Our bond market is entirely optional - it is not a necessity to exist. It's a construct for safe money to accrue interest as opposed to being reserves
It needs us we don't need it. There is large demand for bonds because of the security for funds. After all the money is guaranteed - by government.
The money used to purchase bonds is prior government spending circulating around the system.
So again, it can't exist on private credit - it needs government spending.
So the idea that we are beholden to it is tripe. It needs government spending, it needs market rules and constructs - further to that the price at auction is based on where the primary dealers think the interest rate is heading. Set of course by the BoE. (Government).
So it's totally impossible for the bond market to lecture the government on its power. It's power is false and assumes ignorance of how it works.
That said I'm not stupid enough to realise they are a big player and Pension rely on it.
The market simply needs telling in clarity what the government is going to do forcefully with the support of the BoE. They simply have no choice then to get in line.
What is happening now is the government hands then the power superficially. Because it's an easy get out. We can't do that because xyz.
If Reeves wanted to she could do much more.
Ultimately we don't really on market to find the state. So what are we scared of?
It seems to me that the government are happy to accept it normal that the country is in pieces - but never willing to tell the bond market their place.
So what's the future?
We can never fix anything because of a market construct that is entirely unnecessary to government spending?
Does that sound like a good solution?
No.
Sorry a few typos as I tried to edit the piece for clarity but ran out of time.
I rewrote the end paragraph of my previous post.
What is happening currently is the government hands the bond market power superficially. Because it's an easy get out. We can't do that because 'markets'.
If Reeves wanted to she could do much more.
Ultimately we don't rely on the market to fund the state. The government funds it. So what are we scared of?
It seems to me that the government are happy to accept it being normal that the country is in pieces - but never willing to put the bond market in its place. Decaying infrastructure is fine but bond market wobbles are not! That mentality is bonkers. Truly insane.
So what's the future? We can never fix anything because of a market construct that is entirely unnecessary to government spending?
Does that sound like a good solution?
No.
Murphy did a good piece on this budget stuff today.
Unfortunately there is no changing the system that has been in place throughout the western world since WW2 without full cooperation from every country
Don't be silly. The financial system we have now is incomparable to Bretton Woods. Bretton Woods was based on Gold Standard currencies, war bonds (to both fund the war and rebuild), strict controls on the movement of capital and the tight regulation of the financial sector. All that was dismantled in the 70s/80s to move to a world of fiat currencies, cheap credit, monetarism and privatisation. Then it changed again in 2008 to a system propped up by central banks via QE combined with austerity and low interest rates. Then covid happened and they doubled down on QE to directly prop up the entire economy. Now they're trying to row back to something that looks like pre-2008 and the system can't cope hence massive paranoia about govt devt, bond yields and resultant stagnant growth.
The financial system has been through approx four cycles of change since Bretton Woods so trying to claim it cant be changed is clearly nonsense. We need a new system, and it's the job Reeves and others to figure that out.
The financial system has been through approx four cycles of change since Bretton Woods so trying to claim it cant be changed is clearly nonsense.
True. Are you arguing about cooperation from/with other countries though? The truth is a maverick reforming of the system by the UK alone isn't going to end well. That's the sticking point.
Are you arguing about cooperation from/with other countries though?
The vast majority of the stuff we need to change is within our own control. We have our own fiat currency which is a major reserve currency backed up by a thriving (despite it's problems) fully developed modern economy with a GDP of approx 3.5 trillion per year. Almost all transactions within our economy use GBP and the govt has full legislative control over the Central Bank, (it's independent in name only), fiscal policy and the markets which operate in the UK. We have all the power we need to reform the system internally so that it works for the benefit of everyone rather than a tiny few investors, traders, bankers and corporate executives. Don't fall for the lie that there is no alternative. It's nonsense.
Decaying infrastructure is fine but bond market wobbles are not! That mentality is bonkers. Truly insane.
Even announcing that you plan to 'fix' the bond market would likely lead to a wholesale meltdown, interest rates up and inflation kicking people in the nads
Obviously the BoE could do more by buying up government debt , but then is that not the same QE trap that Dazh is talking about? If the BoE is buying the debt itself, then its because we have a fiat currency that the £ would devalue hugely and inflation would skyrocket
I The truth is a maverick reforming of the system by the UK alone isn't going to end well. That's the sticking point.
thats another thing I dont see a way around, the investors buying this debt have plenty of other options to buy from , if they walk away the government (the UK ) is boned
its the same with a wealth tax, maybe if we were still members and you had the whole of the EU on board you could make it work, but because the way the tax burden falls highest on the few very rich earners (>25% of tax take from the top 1%- which I have no problem with!) then it would only take a small number of them moving to make a big dent in finances
Greens can have a few more points.
Especially if Reeves funds cuts to renewable energy policy costs from the warm homes budget. This idiotic move will put up energy prices in the long run.
of course an AI driven stock market collapse will end up with all plans in tatters
True. Are you arguing about cooperation from/with other countries though? The truth is a maverick reforming of the system by the UK alone isn't going to end well. That's the sticking point.
I think the idea that the UK is a (metaphorical) island because it has a sovereign currency is a massive oversimplification. Any solution to the current problems is going to have to be an international solution. The right are already aligning (see Trump propping up Argentina for the most recent example) and it would be nice if leftwing governments started declaring and supporting their international partners.
Or actually, it would be nice if we even had any leftwing governments instead of centrist governments LARPing with some socialist symbolism.
The problem is the world's elite continue stealing everyone's money. An international effort is the only way to fix this.
On the subject of Argentina, any MMT experts want to weigh in on how Argentina is not an example of MMT principles gone wrong?
I see Shabana Mahmood is the latest to be drawn into the false narrative that illegal working is primarily down to illegal immigration. So, in their race to the bottom with Reform and their obsession with immigration she will be going after illegal working. But which kind, Shabana? Just the nail bars and food delivery services, or the (far bigger) cash in hand, lose the VAT, don't put it through the books kind?
No, not that kind of illegal working. 🙄
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/04/shadow-economy-britain-migrants-labour-reform
On the subject of Argentina, any MMT experts want to weigh in on how Argentina is not an example of MMT principles gone wrong?.
Yeah simply - it's mostly the exact opposite of that.
I think the idea that the UK is a (metaphorical) island because it has a sovereign currency is a massive oversimplification
That the relationships between spending, borrowing and tax matters is not changed by the fact that you don’t have to first collect tax before government spending can happen. Yes, the government doesn’t collect money in taxation and then spend it. And tax and spending do not need to be equal (they never are). That doesn’t negate the need to collect tax (or to change how much tax is collected) to avoid negative effects being felt by the public.
Increasing public spending, and also increasing taxation, can improve more lives by transferring wealth from the private sector to public services. Something right wingers are dead against. Unfortunately the UK public are quite right wing about taxation, even when it isn’t paid by them or anyone they know. Labour will not find a route back to popularity through tax increases (see the response to tax increases for estate owners and private education). Labour are about to write their obituary budget I fear.
It doesn't even qualify as an 'MMT example' because it has a large debt denominated in a foreign currency and is pegged to the dollar. (And there's no taxation in dollars.)
Define large.
The UK is quite high on this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
And not particularly high on this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position
So I think assuming Liz Truss could have stayed the course if she had just stuck with it is wrong. The UK has a massive footprint in terms of assets but also external debt. That makes it particularly vulnerable to any kind of loss of confidence in the £. Or loss of confidence in the government.
Also, the Argentinian peso hasn't been pegged to the dollar since 2002. Although there have been shenanigans to 'manage' it, whatever that means.
Note that Argentina can feed itself, and does. The UK doesn't, and can't. The value of the £ matters in your shopping basket.
And debt costs aren't just a problem for the government directly, if they get this wrong you'll feel it in your housing costs.
Define large.
The UK is quite high on this list.
There are no government issued securities denominated in anything other than sterling, whereas Argentina has issued dollar denominated government bonds and borrowed from the IMF and the US.
Are you seeing it yet?
Define large.
The UK is quite high on this list.
In the UK there are no government issued securities denominated in anything other than sterling, whereas Argentina has issued dollar denominated government bonds and borrowed from the IMF and the US.
Are you seeing it yet?
Those lists tend to group public and private liabilities together. Sovereign liabilities are what we are talking about. Private liability - if they can't pay they go bankrupt. Debt is wiped.
As an aside we definitely have a private debt problem.
But we're talking about the government in the case of the UK and the Argentina.
(Double post)
Hilarious. Shutting down debate rather than offering an alternative.
To be fair Jamz did offer an alternative.......apparently the cause of the UK's alleged decline (it's the sixth wealthiest nation on Earth) is due to "welfare", according to Jamz
Hilarious. Shutting down debate rather than offering an alternative.
To be fair Jamz did offer an alternative.......apparently the cause of the UK's alleged decline (it's the sixth wealthiest nation on Earth) is due to "welfare", according to Jamz
Welfare oh yeah - 'a requirement of capitalism.'
Funny how neoliberal governments require a stock of unemployed people to keep wages suppressed/inflation in check - so easier and cheaper to pay welfare?
Doesn't Jamz know the features of his own ideology?
Hilarious. Shutting down debate rather than offering an alternative.
To be fair Jamz did offer an alternative.......apparently the cause of the UK's alleged decline (it's the sixth wealthiest nation on Earth) is due to "welfare", according to Jamz
Seems a waste of a post to be annoyed at a post or a poster.
Contribute or scroll down.
So I think assuming Liz Truss could have stayed the course if she had just stuck with it is wrong. The UK has a massive footprint in terms of assets but also external debt. That makes it particularly vulnerable to any kind of loss of confidence in the £. Or loss of confidence in the government.
Agree on truss. She was wrong. But I said at the time this will scare progressive governments for all the wrong reasons.
But you need to separate out private debt and government 'debt' when talking about macro issues related to MMT government spending.
Loss of confidence in the pound is misplaced these days. There's always a seller and there's a buyer. And it goes up and down. Often recovering a few days later.
So what?
Private debt is a whole other thing.
I think the key difference is between internal and external debt.
MMT tends towards thinking of government finance as a closed loop system. And when you are the World's reserve currency it pretty much is a closed loop system (although the US government is doing its best to lose the USD's status as such, as far as I can see).
Countries with large amounts of external debt (which is most countries) can't really afford to act as if no one has any option but to hold their currency.
Are you seeing it yet?
I can't tell if you are on the way up the first peak of the Dunning-Kruger curve or if you have only ever read what Stephanie Kelton has to say about economics and simply aren't interested in reading anything else.
Your absolute confidence of your assessment of international finances (honestly, you are far more confident than people I've met with PHDs in economics) doesn't strike me as someone who has read widely on the subject. You seem to have a 100% guaranteed answer for everything and I'm pretty sure none of these answers has ever disagreed with anything Stephanie Kelton has said.
I hear Chris Mason practically blowing his load on R4 now - about the latest erroneous prisoner release. 🙄
Yup, “the story of the day”, apparently, according to Evan Davies on the same show. Nothing much else happening in the UK.
James Cartlidge used up every question at PMQs today on it (hoping we’ve all forgotten how our justice and prison services got so damn broken). Jenrick very excited about it as well, obviously.
the usual right wing grifters wik be frothing with excitement that its another asylum seeker sex offender,nit pays nicely into farage's Broken Britain line too
iiirc there were over 200 prisoners released in error last year, no one wil care that the Tories broke the system
^^ Guy on channel 4 news said that around one person a day is released accidently, it's just that it's only been making the news recently.
So what's the bets on 'Rachel fom accounts'? anouncement?
I don't think they will hit S&S ISAs, and they already hit employers with NI last time...
I'm betting they will hit the middle/lower class on CGT/IHT whilst casualy ignoring the very rich, which are the 'greenest meadows to plough' in terms of generating tangible tax revenues, in my opinion.
could you explain this,
Oh God, please... no
😆
Hilarious. Shutting down debate rather than offering an alternative.
No-one's ever shut you down. This thread has *pages and pages* of you banging on about your esoteric views about currencies, government borrowing and money supply. That's what makes the request for more information so amusing!
I hope it is CGT/IHT, especially the former. If your earnings are from assets rather than employment, why should you be taxed at a lower rate than those working hard with no assets? Taxation is currently skewed against working people and in favour of those with wealth.
CGT is already 22% for a 'normal' person, though, the big problem, IMO, are those offshore multi 'illionaires who pay NOTHING.
The money is there in spades, it's just held by the ultra rich who can afford to offshore or have very good accountants.
But no government would dare to tax the biggest multi-national cash cows, (grab the bull by the horns if you like) that are ironicaly hurting society the most, as that's who are furnishing their very own wallets.
iiirc there were over 200 prisoners released in error last year, no one wil care that the Tories broke the system
Yep, the important bit of data is which type of prisoners are being accidentally released and from where. Can only assume that rapists, murderers, serious criminals and the like are not being accidentally released?
Can only assume that rapists, murderers, serious criminals and the like are not being accidentally released?
I fear you're underestimating how decimated the justice system is
Im willing to bet that 1 thing Reeves doesn't have in her giant Budget Excel sheet is £100s of millions in the Justice System column
Another own goal by Lammy this morning. Why put up an abrasive, gobby, aggressive, loud character like Alex Davies-Jones to take the heat on R4?
He needs to front up and say:
"Yes, it's a bloody nightmare. We're going to fix it. Given the size of the prison system there will always be a handful of releases in error. If people are too thick to realise that or won't acknowledge it in order to stir the pot, I can't do anything about that. What I can do is put in place a graded series of checks according to the severity of the original offence and this will happen as of next week. My quip about buying a suit was a plain error on my part, it was a stupid thing to say".
Or similar.
Putting out the minister for 'Eastenders style aggro in a Welsh accent' was counterproductive.
Wow, that’s how you heard that interview? Interesting. I thought Emma Barnett (who I usually rate highly) was just after blood not answers.
All media outlets seem to be happy to focus on aslym seekers who turn out to be criminals beyond all normal sense of proportion. And expect politicians to be doing the same. When politicians do focus on these cases, they can never do enough.
I fear you're underestimating how decimated the justice system is
Nope, I know what a state it is in. I am just interested in the data that would show whether the process issues are in the 'lighter' prisons/offenders or it is all, just for a sense of perspective and seriousness.
Wow, that’s how you heard that interview? Interesting. I thought Emma Barnett (who I usually rate highly) was just after blood not answers.
She was after blood once she realised she wasn't going to get any answers.
And to have someone being that abrasive and gobby whilst not actually answering any questions probably wound her up more. It put me back in mind of the last days of the Tories under Sunak when they sent some arrogant twerp out to shout over interviewers. I think Barnett did quite well not to say "oh just piss off, then, it's time for the sport".
So, yes, I totally heard it that way. Because that is how it was.
gobby
Are you male and from a "nice" part of the south east of England by any chance? She definitely sounded defensive and frustrated. But didn't sound "loud", "gobby", or "aggressive" to me.
Are you male and from a "nice" part of the south east of England by any chance?
Yes to the male bit and no to the geography.
From your previous posts on this and many other threads, I expected better of you than a lazy swipe like that.
Rishi Sunak is abrasive and gobby. As is Kemi Badenoch. As is Chris Philp. David Lammy is not. Nor is Keir Starmer. Of course there are other virtues and failings to pick up with everyone mentioned above.
I'm confused. I could be racist, sexist, regionalist or any variety of ist now. And I'm not even sure what my unidentifiable prejudice is based on.
Or maybe I just hear abrasive, gobby people as abrasive and gobby.
There's an argument rumbling on on this forum about pushback against folk who immediately go to the nuclear option and scream "RACIST!" when a bit of clumsy, muddled terminology pops out of someone's mouth. Thanks for enlightening me on what it feels like to be pitchforked and lazily caricatured.
👍
There's an argument rumbling on on this forum about pushback against folk who immediately go to the nuclear option and scream "RACIST!" when a bit of clumsy, muddled terminology pops out of someone's mouth. Thanks for enlightening me on what it feels like to be pitchforked and lazily caricatured.
I don't think you were called racist, I just think you were asked for clarification of your tone and what the meaning behind it was.
As a counter point to the claim that people are too quick to call racist, I think people are too quick to call, 'You just called me racist!'
Unfortunately racism is on the rise and a text based forum often loses the nuance of words. One person could write with a particular tone in mind, someone can read it with a different tone and get a completely different meaning.
People should be able to ask about what was said without resorting to the nuclear option of, 'You called me a racist!'
Interesting comments on the allegedly proposed EV per-mile tax.
Obviously they need a way to replace fuel duty for EVs but the stated system seems pretty daft. People will fit mileage blockers and also how will it discriminate between UK miles and abroad? I did nearly 4000 miles in Europe last year. They can FRO if they think I am paying the UK government 120 notes for that, when France already bent me over for toll road usage.
ANPR on major roads might be a better way to implement it, although I suppose it may have the effect of pushing traffic onto local roads.
The idea is being discussed, apparently. I'd hope those questions are part of the discussion.
I don't think you were called racist
I wasn't. It was heavily implied that I was sexist and held regional prejudice. I was merely drawing parallels with the folk who scream "racist" at the slightest thing.
In any case, the point is being lost already in posts of varying amounts of confusion.
The net effect for me is pretty minimal. I can't be offended by something so laughably lazy in any case. All it has done is reduce my respect for another poster (with whom I agree on a great many things) by a notch. 🤷♂️
Others can read your post. Only you know if her being welsh and a woman affected how you heard her, and the words you used to describe her. I'm not calling you anything.
All it has done is reduce my respect for another poster (with whom I agree on a great many things) by a notch.
If you stopped creating new accounts then I'd know for sure what we agree on! As it is, I think we agree on a great many thing, but it's very confusing. Why do you keep doing that? If you are. Burning old opinions? We're allowed to change our minds on things. I often don't agree with myself from yesterday, never mind years ago. The multiple accounts thing just makes people suspicious of you. Expect extra questions because of all that. No need to be churlish when people ask what you mean by your posts, and where you're coming from.
Interesting comments on the allegedly proposed EV per-mile tax.
This was trailed a lot before the election, with the Conservatives claiming it was already Labour policy. You'd hope they'd be looking into duty based on weight, or taxes based on miles, or more road tolls, and all the other options that might eventually replace current "charges" on road users that are based on fuel use and engine type/size. A future where drivers use the roads virtually tax free, while those who chose to either drive less or not at all subside them, isn't a sustainable one.
Last post from me on this mini thread derailment.
I'm not calling you anything.
You didn't. You heavily implied it.
Others can read your post.
As they can yours.
The multiple accounts thing
No idea what you mean. I don't have multiple accounts. Is this accusation a standard MO if some people don't like how a discussion is going?
No need to be churlish when people ask what you mean by your posts, and where you're coming from.
You didn't ask me what I meant by my post. You dressed an insinuation up as a question, though. As above, people can read what is there in black and white.
You have right of reply, obviously. But don't expect an answer. I'm drawing a line under this spat for myself.
I don't have multiple accounts.
In that case you're a new user (welcome to the forum, sorry for the suspicion) and I have no idea who you are, or your opinions, so asking you about you and your post to work out where you're coming from shouldn't seem odd to you.
CGT is already 22% for a 'normal' person
The "top rate" is 32% (but more normally 24% for higher rate tax payers) no matter how much it's paid on, whereas some people are paying 47% on their higher earnings. Before getting those workers to pay even more than 47%... or definitely before getting anyone further down the wage distribution to pay more, that 24% needs looking at. Harmonisation should be a long term goal, but slowly further decreasing the gap would do for now. I don't see why workers should be paying a higher rate of tax on their wages than those who get their earnings by owning things.
The CGT thing should be addressed, you should pay more tax on unearned wealth than earned.
Can't see the EV thing going anywhere yet, they will have to plug the fuel duty hole at some point although it's worth noting that's supposed to be an emissions tax and goes into general expenditure so doesn't fund the roads per se. At the moment I just can't see it's going to work, a mileage 'tax return' every year for EV drivers? Will be a nightmare manage and costly. If it's mileage based it's going to need some sort of 3rd party black box GPS linked recording but I can't see that going down well in the current climate.
Feels like they are throwing out all sorts of mad ideas to lessen the blow of whatever it is they are planning which I'm fairly sure no one is going to like very much. Interesting to see there have been flurry of reports / statements recently about the ballooning welfare state and the number of people of working age who are economically inactive. Be interesting to know where that's being driven from, right wing media demonising people in receipt of benefits or the government trying to set the scene for cuts in benefits?
No idea what you mean. I don't have multiple accounts.
You may be the victim of an ex-poster called dannyh who had a very similar posting style who went through a number of accounts after angrily flouncing during a discussion about brexit (I think). Or you may be Danny himself*, who knows? 🤷♂️
*danny if that is you FGS just say so. It’s very silly.
Be interesting to know where that's being driven from, right wing media demonising people in receipt of benefits or the government trying to set the scene for cuts in benefits?
An independent report commission by the government was published... a lot of it comes from that... so we can't blame just the media... some of this absolutely is "sparked" by this government.
Some good stuff in there... "hoping" more employers step up when it comes to assistance for workers isn't enough, there will need to be legislation about how employers can and should help people back to work. If that comes to anything, expect complaints for the "hands off government" right wing types.
Rishi Sunak is abrasive and gobby.
I don't think that's true at all. The only time I ever saw him anything other than mealy-mouthed and condescending was when he showed a bit of passion about hearing racist abuse, and the effect it had on him and his kids. That was after he was binned, and the first time I found him engaging. I totally disagree wirh his politics fwiw
Nope, I know what a state it is in. I am just interested in the data that would show whether the process issues are in the 'lighter' prisons/offenders or it is all, just for a sense of perspective and seriousness.
some data on the accidental releases, hard to be sure as the category violence is quite broad!
A third of them, 87, were in prison for crimes under the category of “violence against the person”. This is the largest group, but we don’t know from the data what the specific offences were.
The category covers everything from the threat of violence and common assault, through to more severe offences like grievous bodily harm or murder.
