news & politics:discussion

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

That’s also part of it, financial services makes up a big portion of the U.K. economy and are currently seeing a drain of people to other countries. So this helps with that and can also generate more via tax on those bonuses without raising taxes on working people. 

 

The overall inequality levels matter as well. We are back to Mandelson being relaxed about people getting filty rich whilst partying with Osbourne on Russian oligarchs yachts.

[steviewevie]

24 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'm mostly too young to remember '97, but the vibe I got as a kid and my historical understanding is that Blair managed to offer hope, positivity, and people were genuinely excited for New Labour, not just the end of the Tories?

I know there were plenty of problematic decisions taken by the Blair govt, but ultimately, the quality of life for the average person in the UK went up, the quality of public services went up, and fewer children starved. I'll always fight for Labour to hold progressive values, but I do think there's a big deal to be said for what was achieved.

However, with Starmer's I'm not getting any sense of positive feeling towards him generally. I'd liken it more to 2010, where the economy is floundering, people are grumpy with the sitting government, and those in swing seats will shift to the other major party basically by default.

I don't actually think this banker's bonus policy makes much material difference either way to the state of the economy. But it's sh*t optics to see Starmer reversing yet another pledge and selling yet more of Labour's soul for what is probably some lobbying around economic "experts/figures" publicly showing "trust" in Labour. I think it's mostly just a sad indictment of modern politics.

Politicians are disliked even more now than they were then...for multiple reasons I guess, and Blair is just a lot more charismatic than Starmer can ever be, and a much better politician. Plus, the general vibe is different. Back then things were just more positive, now we have come out of years of austerity, brexit shite, and we have climate change and war to worry about, back then there were problems, but didn't feel as existential as they do now. Trust in politicians, in government, in the institutions is low, everyone is fed up, and everyone is arguing on social media and efestivals.  It is hard to feel optimistic about the future. Blair inherited a growing economy, Starmer is inheriting a mess.

But, look how Blair turned out. Maybe Starmer will actually be a better PM than Blair. Maybe he'll be sh*t. We shall see. I'll judge him properly after one term in power, for now he is trying to win an election in a country that usually votes Tory. 

[steviewevie]

Oh, and I was 27 in 97...halcyon days...good time of my life that...renting, working, single, partying. And weather was great on election day and the days after, just felt so good to finally get the tories out.  I expect it will be a cold, wet autumn day when/if Labour win this time round. 🙂

[lost]

37 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

 ultimately, the quality of life for the average person in the UK went up, the quality of public services went up, and fewer children starved.

I'd say it depends. The quality of public services went up but I'm not sure about quality of life. I was at uni in 1997 (which was free) I did an unskilled job on the side for beer tokens and the people who were doing it as their full time job were earning enough to buy houses and raise families (before minimum wage and tax credits) those a bit higher up the ladder in the private sector still had final salary pensions.

I'm not saying any of that is labours fault as the change from the 1990's with things like housing and pensions has happened globally due to demographics but I think in the working class areas at least (if you were not a miner I suppose) they'd prefer the 90's.

[Skip997]

@ 15/2 I could win a good amount betting on a Tory majority when the "Great British Public" do the inevitable

[kaosmark2]

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Politicians are disliked even more now than they were then...for multiple reasons I guess, and Blair is just a lot more charismatic than Starmer can ever be, and a much better politician. Plus, the general vibe is different. Back then things were just more positive, now we have come out of years of austerity, brexit shite, and we have climate change and war to worry about, back then there were problems, but didn't feel as existential as they do now. Trust in politicians, in government, in the institutions is low, everyone is fed up, and everyone is arguing on social media and efestivals.  It is hard to feel optimistic about the future. Blair inherited a growing economy, Starmer is inheriting a mess.

But, look how Blair turned out. Maybe Starmer will actually be a better PM than Blair. Maybe he'll be sh*t. We shall see. I'll judge him properly after one term in power, for now he is trying to win an election in a country that usually votes Tory. 

The lack of vibe of negativity and Starmer feeding into it and denying even any nice things he promised as recently as 2 years really is hurting. It's fair to point out the differences at the state of the country at the time they're inheriting it. I do think Starmer probably won't be quite as much of a hateful Tory after the election, but I've got 0 optimism that he'll push anything progressive.

Guess we'll find out.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The lack of vibe of negativity and Starmer feeding into it and denying even any nice things he promised as recently as 2 years really is hurting. It's fair to point out the differences at the state of the country at the time they're inheriting it. I do think Starmer probably won't be quite as much of a hateful Tory after the election, but I've got 0 optimism that he'll push anything progressive.

Guess we'll find out.

yeah, I'm not optimistic really...yes be nice to have some groovy progressive stuff, but just normal stuff is going to be difficult, everything needs more money, and current govt are cutting taxes, and economy is flat.

And then there's the war with Russia to worry about....

[kaosmark2]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

And then there's the war with Russia to worry about....

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I don't think Britain gets dragged into a war properly unless India or China get involved somehow, and if either of those two do we're basically at WW3 anyway.

sh*t for the world though.

[lazyred]

24 minutes ago, lost said:

I'd say it depends. The quality of public services went up but I'm not sure about quality of life. I was at uni in 1997 (which was free) I did an unskilled job on the side for beer tokens and the people who were doing it as their full time job were earning enough to buy houses and raise families (before minimum wage and tax credits) those a bit higher up the ladder in the private sector still had final salary pensions.

I'm not saying any of that is labours fault as the change from the 1990's with things like housing and pensions has happened globally due to demographics but I think in the working class areas at least (if you were not a miner I suppose) they'd prefer the 90's.

The quality of public service did go up  and that had a massive impact on quality of life for some people. The NHS was really good by the mid 2000's. Stuff like the Sure Start child centres really made a difference. A lot of it is unseen unless you need them and so it was easy for the Tory/Lib Dems to cut them.

[steviewevie]

27 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The lack of vibe of negativity and Starmer feeding into it and denying even any nice things he promised as recently as 2 years really is hurting. It's fair to point out the differences at the state of the country at the time they're inheriting it. I do think Starmer probably won't be quite as much of a hateful Tory after the election, but I've got 0 optimism that he'll push anything progressive.

Guess we'll find out.

also...maybe there's a lot of expectation management going on so people don't get disappointed when things don't get much better after one term.

A lot of people felt massively let down by Blair, probably part of the reason why trust in politicians is so low.

[kaosmark2]

3 minutes ago, lazyred said:

The quality of public service did go up  and that had a massive impact on quality of life for some people. The NHS was really good by the mid 2000's. Stuff like the Sure Start child centres really made a difference. A lot of it is unseen unless you need them and so it was easy for the Tory/Lib Dems to cut them.

In addition, a lot of the things that were cut under austerity were indirectly supporting public services. For instance the status of care homes and the amount of funding/support they got took a huge amount of burden off the NHS. Little that was headline grabbing but just huge amounts of tackling the causes of problems instead of letting people struggle until they're completely broken.

[lost]

12 minutes ago, lazyred said:

The quality of public service did go up  and that had a massive impact on quality of life for some people. The NHS was really good by the mid 2000's. Stuff like the Sure Start child centres really made a difference. A lot of it is unseen unless you need them and so it was easy for the Tory/Lib Dems to cut them.

Yes I'm well aware I wasn't at an age that was using many public services and the difference between the old hospitals and new PFI ones was striking.

I feel like housing costs are such as massive component of quality of life. My girlfriend at the time who was a little older and went straight into work I think was working the police call centre for £6 an hour and bought a 1 bed cottage for £22k, she used to buy food at M&S because in her words she had more money than she knew what to do with. Another friend worked in a record shop and used to be out every night everywhere. That was the big difference for me if you worked, even an unskilled job there was a clear jump in quality of life, you'd have a decent amount of disposable income.

Edited January 31, 2024 by lost

[kaosmark2]

Just now, steviewevie said:

also...maybe there's a lot of expectation management going on so people don't get disappointed when things don't get much better after one term.

A lot of people felt massively let down by Blair, probably part of the reason why trust in politicians is so low.

I think there's something to be said for trying to sensibly introduce new ways to manage things instead of Tories and Labour just trying to cycle clicking undo on what the other did. The u-turns on pledges to undo sh*tty Tory policies suck, and they really hit emotionally, but sensible holistic govt wouldn't be "lets go back to the noughties" and is actually a "how do we fix this, and how do we fix this in a way the Tories can't just vote undo". 

Ofc, I don't know how many of these Starmer will actually pull off. Or gives any level of sh*t about.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

That's not actually how the overall economy works though. Even if its taxed, the wealthy getting wealthier doesn't keep the money flowing in the economy.

It's only relevant if you believe in the theory that the British financial sector needs to compete with other countries for high-rollers and big risk-taking "talent" in terms of individuals, which actually just leads to an international race to the bottom. Bonus caps work. High tax rates work. This won't trickle down to ordinary people.

In a world where Labour need to raise funds for their green investment plans, if they can show that bankers bonuses raises X amount then it’s less headroom taken up from borrowing and less reason for other taxes to go up. There will be less chance of the OBR tearing apart any Labour budget and risking the £ crashing like under Truss.

As I’ve said there is only a certain amount of Tory policies that Labour can reverse so they probably imagine that this is is one of the least vital ones so won’t use up Parliamentary time/political capital trying to reverse it. I don’t think this is a u-turn though as Labour never said they would reverse it?

Ultimately I doubt any of general public really have given this 2 thoughts and won’t make much of a difference anyway.

40 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

If triple a normal salary is too low for a MP to work in parliament, that means they were looking to exploit their political standing for their own gain, and I'm fine with them f**king off.

There is an argument that to get better calibre MPs you need to raise MPs salaries. If you did this then some MPs wouldn’t feel the need to take 2nd jobs plus top talent would be more interested in the job rather than looking at the private sector. You could raise MPs salaries but then also tighten rules on 2nd jobs too which might make it seem more fair all in all. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, lazyred said:

The overall inequality levels matter as well. We are back to Mandelson being relaxed about people getting filty rich whilst partying with Osbourne on Russian oligarchs yachts.

Sorry but I think that’s a bit of an over-exaggeration. Labour not reversing the bankers cap doesn’t mean we are back to inequality not mattering. 

[Guest]

 

[Neil]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

also...maybe there's a lot of expectation management going on so people don't get disappointed when things don't get much better after one term.

A lot of people felt massively let down by Blair, probably part of the reason why trust in politicians is so low.

The people who felt let down early in Blair were reacting to the words in their heads and not anything blair had said, a bit like how corbynistas feel let down by what they've made up about starmer.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

 

Unless they can wave a magic wand this has political failure shouting loud.

[lazyred]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Sorry but I think that’s a bit of an over-exaggeration. Labour not reversing the bankers cap doesn’t mean we are back to inequality not mattering. 

Its going back to being overly cosy with the city. Its symbolic and sends the wrong message feeding into the false "no different from the Tories" narrative. It also means that in April/May if the bank bonuses come out as excessive Labour will have nothing to say about it.

[Neil]

The failure will come with every passenger blaming the govt for the cost of the travel and any price rises 

[Guest]

Just now, lazyred said:

It’s going back to being overly cosy with the city. It’s symbolic and sends the wrong message feeding into the false "no different from the Tories" narrative. It also means that in April/May if the bank bonuses come out as excessive Labour will have nothing to say about it.

Labour have become more friendly with the City but I don’t think it feeds into that narrative at all. I doubt it’ll make much impact. 

[kaosmark2]

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

In a world where Labour need to raise funds for their green investment plans, if they can show that bankers bonuses raises X amount then it’s less headroom taken up from borrowing and less reason for other taxes to go up. There will be less chance of the OBR tearing apart any Labour budget and risking the £ crashing like under Truss.

As I’ve said there is only a certain amount of Tory policies that Labour can reverse so they probably imagine that this is is one of the least vital ones so won’t use up Parliamentary time/political capital trying to reverse it. I don’t think this is a u-turn though as Labour never said they would reverse it?

Ultimately I doubt any of general public really have given this 2 thoughts and won’t make much of a difference anyway.

There is an argument that to get better calibre MPs you need to raise MPs salaries. If you did this then some MPs wouldn’t feel the need to take 2nd jobs plus top talent would be more interested in the job rather than looking at the private sector. You could raise MPs salaries but then also tighten rules on 2nd jobs too which might make it seem more fair all in all. 

It raises pretty minimal amounts proportional to various policies. I did say that I thought the material difference was pretty minimal, and it's mostly the optics. The main issue politically is it removes a potential attack line and feeds into the narrative of "all politicians are the same".

Wrt MP salaries, I agree that they should be well paid, instead of the 1900s situation where only those that were independently wealthy could afford to make laws. My issue is that you need to tighten rules on 2nd jobs, and not have insanely high salaries and insanely high expenses. I don't think triple full-time minimum wage makes it low-paid!

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

cool, and cool hair too,  shame about it being on GB news but can't have everything.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Its going back to being overly cosy with the city. Its symbolic and sends the wrong message feeding into the false "no different from the Tories" narrative. It also means that in April/May if the bank bonuses come out as excessive Labour will have nothing to say about it.

well...we're a service based economy...and the city is our cash cow. 

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It raises pretty minimal amounts proportional to various policies. I did say that I thought the material difference was pretty minimal, and it's mostly the optics. The main issue politically is it removes a potential attack line and feeds into the narrative of "all politicians are the same".

Wrt MP salaries, I agree that they should be well paid, instead of the 1900s situation where only those that were independently wealthy could afford to make laws. My issue is that you need to tighten rules on 2nd jobs, and not have insanely high salaries and insanely high expenses. I don't think triple full-time minimum wage makes it low-paid!

Me I'd link mp pay rises to nmw rises. so MPs only get a rise if the lowest paid get the same rise.