news & politics:discussion

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, SalviaPlath said:

The feelings of the previous incumbent of the Shadow role (an MP I trust implicitly) don't suggest to me that they take it seriously but the proof will be in the pudding. Let's hope they deliver.

In her resignation letter, Allin-Khan said: “It has been a pleasure to serve as the shadow cabinet minister for mental health over the last three and a half years. As discussed previously, and in our call earlier, you made clear that you do not see a space for a mental health portfolio in a Labour cabinet, which is why I told you many weeks ago that I would not be able to continue in this role.”

The new review plus the recent Child Action plan suggest they take it seriously. Apart from the ruined lives mental health problems are having a big impact on the benefits bill and reducing the work force. I don't think it needs a cabinet post seperate to Health and Social Care.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

hasn't private home ownership gone up a lot since the council home sell off in the 80s? 

Selling off those council homes increased home ownership so did rules for fair operating of lenders making getting a mortgage a more straightforward thing where you knew how much you could borrow, etc 

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

I don't think owning a home was easy back in the 60s/70s for low earners, but there would have been more social housing opportunities then...now you have to own a house otherwise you're some sort of loser c**t.

If you don't own a house you are a loser cos there's lots to be made from owning a house. I bought this one on a whim where I phoned up my lovely  mum and asked to borrow enough for the deposit and fees, never expecting her to say yes. She did  and Next day I had a fat bank account and a done deal.

[Neil]

53 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Silver spoon freeloader 😜 

no, all paid back in a couple of years.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, clarkete said:

Oh no we don't. 

you're right its just the tory enablers who do that.

[mattiloy]

4 hours ago, Ozanne said:

 

I think it's because of her previous experience as a shadow cabinet member and her current role in MH. They want to bring her back on board in some form and keeps the current shadow cab member for MH free to shadow the Tories. I would assume anyway, either way it's great Labour are putting focus on this.

It’s such a shame because it’s really important and it sounds like Labour are putting serious resources into it. Just to let a low quality former failed lib dem candidate bound in and make a complete bollocks of it.

And it’s a good example of why folks who think it’s all electioneering and that Starmer harbours radical ambitions are going to be disappointed.

Even if Keir himself is a secret radical (he’s not), his lieutenants are all poor quality blairites. Any intent towards radicalism will be suffocated to death under the pillows of the unoriginal, inadequate blairite decision makers who are trusted with its implementation.

It’ll be a Goveian radicalism rather than Bevanite one.

Edited January 14, 2024 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

It’s such a shame because it’s really important and it sounds like Labour are putting serious resources into it. Just to let a low quality former failed lib dem candidate bound in and make a complete bollocks of it.

And it’s a good example of why folks who think it’s all electioneering and that Starmer harbours radical ambitions are going to be disappointed.

Even if Keir himself is a secret radical (he’s not), his lieutenants are all poor quality blairites. Any intent towards radicalism will be suffocated to death under the pillows of the unoriginal, inadequate blairite decision makers who are trusted with its implementation.

It’ll be a Goveian radicalism rather than Bevanite one.

Plus she wasn't nice to your guy.

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

It’s such a shame because it’s really important and it sounds like Labour are putting serious resources into it. Just to let a low quality former failed lib dem candidate bound in and make a complete bollocks of it.

And it’s a good example of why folks who think it’s all electioneering and that Starmer harbours radical ambitions are going to be disappointed.

Even if Keir himself is a secret radical (he’s not), his lieutenants are all poor quality blairites. Any intent towards radicalism will be suffocated to death under the pillows of the unoriginal, inadequate blairite decision makers who are trusted with its implementation.

It’ll be a Goveian radicalism rather than Bevanite one.

Do you have to moan all the time?

It’s a very serious issue and there’s been some very encouraging signs from them on MH (waiting times etc), so can’t you just welcome this rather than have another one of your moans that it isn’t going to be good enough. 

[Neil]

problem with formalising mental health issues is that they impact into other stuff - there'll be loads more working age adults signed off on long term sick (and the cost of that will be money not available to spend on other labour plans).

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

It’s such a shame because it’s really important and it sounds like Labour are putting serious resources into it. Just to let a low quality former failed lib dem candidate bound in and make a complete bollocks of it.

 

She was appointed to shadow cabinet for mental health by Jeremy Corbyn after 9 years as a labour mp and other shadow minister health roles. It went downhill from there but she is a party member again and qualified for the role.

[Neil]

makes me laugh to see corbyn supporters complaining about low quality candidates.

[steviewevie]

Big week ahead for dishi rishi.

[steviewevie]

Blue Monday

[mattiloy]

Seeing plenty of this inflation argument being touted as justification for bombing Yemen.

Europe receives around 15-20% of its oil imports via the Suez Canal. Imports also forming a fraction of the oil supply.

The UK figure is even less.

The energy mix puts oil at around 30% of energy use in Europe.

LNG reserves are much higher than normal because of a mild winter and over egging it because of last winters fuel shock.

The oil price will go up a little bit, Europe will use more of the bountiful LNG it’s sitting on. Energy prices will increase a little bit, but not to a point where there is noticeable cost push inflation.

As for goods - the ratio of average container shipping costs to average container value is more than 10-1. That is to say the cost of shipping goods is less than 10% of the value of the goods.

Imported goods using the Suez Canal account for something like 30% of Europe’s imported goods.

Imported goods then account for a fraction of total goods. 

It’s not going to cause big cost push inflation. Politicians are either stupid or lying.

Edited January 15, 2024 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

11 hours ago, steviewevie said:

 

interesting follow up to that poll.

 

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Seeing plenty of this inflation argument being touted as justification for bombing Yemen.

Europe receives around 15-20% of its oil imports via the Suez Canal. Imports also forming a fraction of the oil supply.

The UK figure is even less.

The energy mix puts oil at around 30% of energy use in Europe.

LNG reserves are much higher than normal because of a mild winter and over egging it because of last winters fuel shock.

The oil price will go up a little bit, Europe will use more of the bountiful LNG it’s sitting on. Energy prices will increase a little bit, but not to a point where there is noticeable cost push inflation.

As for goods - the ratio of average container shipping costs to average container value is more than 10-1. That is to say the cost of shipping goods is less than 10% of the value of the goods.

Imported goods using the Suez Canal account for something like 30% of Europe’s imported goods.

Imported goods then account for a fraction of total goods. 

It’s not going to cause big cost push inflation. Politicians are either stupid or lying.

it isn't just politicians saying this.

and bombing Yemen actually risks escalation and more disruption to those trade routes.

[steviewevie]

Whether people like it or not,to many the Houthis are seen as the only Arab group actually willing to help the Palestinians against the Israeli onslaught.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Seeing plenty of this inflation argument being touted as justification for bombing Yemen.

Europe receives around 15-20% of its oil imports via the Suez Canal. Imports also forming a fraction of the oil supply.

The UK figure is even less.

The energy mix puts oil at around 30% of energy use in Europe.

LNG reserves are much higher than normal because of a mild winter and over egging it because of last winters fuel shock.

The oil price will go up a little bit, Europe will use more of the bountiful LNG it’s sitting on. Energy prices will increase a little bit, but not to a point where there is noticeable cost push inflation.

As for goods - the ratio of average container shipping costs to average container value is more than 10-1. That is to say the cost of shipping goods is less than 10% of the value of the goods.

Imported goods using the Suez Canal account for something like 30% of Europe’s imported goods.

Imported goods then account for a fraction of total goods. 

It’s not going to cause big cost push inflation. Politicians are either stupid or lying.

extra cost normally comes from adding value there's no added value from bigger shipping costs.

[Neil]

going back 300 years the uk has seen its job on the world stage to guarantee shipping lanes, taking down pirates - possibly because it had the largest navy, also because it used the seas to get to its colonies.

[mattiloy]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

extra cost normally comes from adding value there's no added value from bigger shipping costs.

You’ve missed the point of my post.

The impact on inflation of increasing shipping costs for containers diverting from the Suez Canal is marginal.

Politicians are bringing up the spectre of a new inflation shock when justifying the bombing of Yemen. Which disingenuously plays on the publics memory and fear of last winter’s inflation shock and which they either know to be untrue, or they are are lying.

I think lying to the public so that you can drop bombs is bad.

[Skip997]

4 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

I think lying to the public so that you can drop bombs is bad.

They need to keep the arms industry going somehow

[mattiloy]

31 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Inflation isn't the only reason given.  And it does impact inflation so...  I am missing your point.

Thats okay, some people need a bit of extra help sometimes. Reading can be hard!

The impact on inflation is negligible. The rate of inflation will still fall roughly in line with BoE’s expectations. It doesn’t justify war with Yemen.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

You’ve missed the point of my post.

The impact on inflation of increasing shipping costs for containers diverting from the Suez Canal is marginal.

Politicians are bringing up the spectre of a new inflation shock when justifying the bombing of Yemen. Which disingenuously plays on the publics memory and fear of last winter’s inflation shock and which they either know to be untrue, or they are are lying.

I think lying to the public so that you can drop bombs is bad.

history shows that actions  restricting the normal flow of oil can have huge impacts on all prices.

[lost]

The mistake the Somali pirates made was they didn't declare support for Hamas. People would of stood up for them then.

[Neil]

25 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Thats okay, some people need a bit of extra help sometimes. Reading can be hard!

The impact on inflation is negligible. The rate of inflation will still fall roughly in line with BoE’s expectations. It doesn’t justify war with Yemen.

you angle only exposes you ignorance of history not a fault in the inflation narrative!