Mailwatch(ed) Forum

It is a valid question though: "how would you do things differently?"

I'd have thought a "government in waiting" would have a plan, but I suppose it'll be dismissed with "but if we show our hand now the Tories will nick/discredit the idea".

Burnham, yesterday on R4 Today, tried hard to advance the hypothesis that wealth should be taxed. I say tried because Simon Jack shrieked over him like a demented sports commentator.

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:49 am It is a valid question though: "how would you do things differently?"

I'd have thought a "government in waiting" would have a plan, but I suppose it'll be dismissed with "but if we show our hand now the Tories will nick/discredit the idea".

Government in waiting is for 2023-4. Till then, opposition opposes.

So we just endure shit decisions rather than have a good idea nicked?

Fucking pathetic.

Maybe this is why I can't even make a phone call to my local GP practice to speak to someone as a follow-up to an electronic consultation about anti-depressants.

But hey, as long as we can score points.

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:20 am So we just endure shit decisions rather than have a good idea nicked?

Fucking pathetic.

I presume you’re aware that the Tories have a parliamentary majority of some 80 seats? Enduring shit decisions, as you put it, is unfortunately our lot until we are in a position to have these brigands voted out and a decent Labour government voted in. Unfortunately, that is still 3 years away. In the meantime, there is something called “strategy”, which any savvy opposition seeking to supplant a shit government needs in spades.

Well, the No Health Service will probably have me boxed up by then. And if you think we're going to get a Labour government in three years' time, you're misguided - which believe me Abers, is a much more polite version of what I'd written originally. They've no chance: Starmer - assuming he's still in post by then - will still be seen as "The Brexit Traitor" and will not get voted for.

As I head towards retirement next year (DV), I am working through subscriptions and standing orders I can cancel to ease the burden on my pension.

I think my Labour Party membership is next on the hit list.

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:20 am So we just endure shit decisions rather than have a good idea nicked?

Fucking pathetic.

Maybe this is why I can't even make a phone call to my local GP practice to speak to someone as a follow-up to an electronic consultation about anti-depressants.

But hey, as long as we can score points.

It's not "scoring points" to say something is bad. It's what opposition's have always done. They don't know what condition the economy will be in when they fight the election. They can set out themes (eg use more progressive tax) but beyond that, no need for a plan.

I don’t necessarily think we’ll get a Labour government in 3 years’ time - even I’m not that optimistic, but nor do I think that Labour has no chance. I talked about the opportunity, and that is what we have.

Yes, Tories will try to portray Keir Starmer as “The Brexit Traitor”, but that’s also the point of Labour’s strategy of not affording the Tories the chance to re-kindle Brexit hostility, for which certain individuals deal out frothing-gobbed ire for not immediately advocating re-join. And at the risk of labouring the point, that too is about strategy. You do get this, don’t you ?

I "get it" Abers, but I worry about the human cost now. People are falling apart mentally and physically now (I know - I'm one of them), but they can't be ignored for the sake of "strategy", surely? See the post I've made elsewhere - those of us within the Labour movement may not want to rekindle the Brexit fire but you can bet your bottom dollar that Conservative strategy will be just that - to remind the electorate that Starmer is the Brexit Traitor, and that's not one they will let go - it will win them votes.

Those killed by Johnson's incompetence? "would have died anyway".

I can only re-state that this is the nature of the representative parliamentary system of government that we have in this country.

We’d all love something to be done right now, but short of storming ten Downing Street with pitchforks and blazing torches I’m afraid that the options for action “now” are rather limited. In parliamentary terms, it’s that pesky ol’ 80 seat majority again. Not being able practically to ameliorate the plight of the Tories’ victims isn’t “ignoring” them. The party works as the official opposition within the constraints of the system we’re in.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:56 pm We’d all love something to be done right now, but short of storming ten Downing Street with cricket bats I’m afraid that the options for action “now” are rather limited.

FTFY

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:20 am So we just endure shit decisions rather than have a good idea nicked?

Fucking pathetic.

Maybe this is why I can't even make a phone call to my local GP practice to speak to someone as a follow-up to an electronic consultation about anti-depressants.

But hey, as long as we can score points.

Scoring points is the prerequisite to being in a position to replace the people making the shit decisions. The enduring is, unfortunately, not optional.

Johnson's lot are uniquely shameless. Give them a good idea - or indeed, any idea - and they will pass it off as their own (see attempting to claim credit for backing Marcus Rashford's actions while being the sole reason for him having to take action in the first place). For now, pointing out what is going wrong while seemingly being reasonable about backing things that need doing is the best tactic. It means the Tories either do nothing, or own what they do because it's all their shitty, half-baked idea.

Yes, people are suffering now. But the best we can make of that is to help where possible, and to ensure blame is laid at the feet of those who caused it so that when the opportunity arises to remove them, the appetite to do so is there.

You could forward a plan that’s fully paid for and how it would be delivered but if the Government says they aren’t raising taxes and then raise taxes. How? Other than what happened today and yesterday can it done differently.

Johnson wanted to deliver this without even a tax rise in place only to drop it in the budget next March.

They lie, lie and lie and it does eventually catch up. Miliband’s fuel freeze was announced three years before the election and what good did that do, it looked old hat at the polls and once the threat had been seem off the fuel companies then raised their prices.

Well, Johnson's put the NI increase through a vote. Absolutely absurd that this should happen a day after it was properly announced. Thanks, Jakey, you champion of Parliament, you.

I think this is a mistake. Labour don't have to have a fully formed care plan now. They can attack the NI rise in its own right, and put forward various suggestions that will be more popular.

Nicked from elsewhere:

"Here's my issue with it... The generation that now need social care had:
• Gold plated pensions.
• Triple lock state pensions.
• Cheap house prices.
Guess who is paying for all of those already? People not retired who are also unlikely to benefit from any of those. The defined benefit pension schemes have largely been scrapped but are hugely underfunded. The scale of the payments some companies have to make each year to fund now closed schemes are incredible and are payments that could be pumped back into the companies or extracted via corporation tax.

So great... after stumping up a huge multiple of earnings to buy a small house I now have to stump up a material amount of money each month to fund social care? I totally understand there are pensioners who don't have savings and rely on state pension but their generation left us with a huge bomb of deficit that we now have to fund and it doesn't feel fair or just."

I’m rubbish at maths/a bit thick. Could someone please explain why Johnson’s NI hike is 10%, not the advertised 1.25% - in words of one syllable if possible ?

Percentage increase v increase in percentage points.

In fairness to Johnson, most people understand these rises in terms of percentage points, which is what he is using. So no intention to deceive here. For once.

Still don’t really get it. How do you get to 10% ?

Oblomov wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:20 pm Nicked from elsewhere:

"Here's my issue with it... The generation that now need social care had:
• Gold plated pensions.
• Triple lock state pensions.
• Cheap house prices.
Guess who is paying for all of those already? People not retired who are also unlikely to benefit from any of those. The defined benefit pension schemes have largely been scrapped but are hugely underfunded. The scale of the payments some companies have to make each year to fund now closed schemes are incredible and are payments that could be pumped back into the companies or extracted via corporation tax.

So great... after stumping up a huge multiple of earnings to buy a small house I now have to stump up a material amount of money each month to fund social care? I totally understand there are pensioners who don't have savings and rely on state pension but their generation left us with a huge bomb of deficit that we now have to fund and it doesn't feel fair or just."

You don't even have to into it at that level to find major fault. It could stick to taxing incomes on the here and now, and use Income Tax and or some combination of taxes and make it more progressive.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:35 pm Still don’t really get it. How do you get to 10% ?

It's 12 points now. 10% of 12 is 1.2.