Mailwatch(ed) Forum

And then there are the victims' families to consider. A nothing-to-lose criminal might just relish going out in what they consider to be a blaze of glory.

(Shudders)

Apply some critical thought: what does this demand (that the convicted be in the dock to hear sentencing) actually mean?

That the perpetrator should be confronted with the effects and consequences of their transgressions. Surely the sentence confronts them with the consequences, and I'm not sure you can force someone to listen to victim statements.

That the perpetrator should be semi-publicly humiliated as a consequence of their transgression (quite probably the reason the offender refuses to attend, of course). Is the humiliation of the offender an appropriate course? In some cases there there might be a negative effect on rehabilitation, but where that does not apply is it just an opportunity for people to express their anger? Is this a substitute for public flogging or hanging?

Or it shows that the forces of society have established control over the outsider, the rogue element, so reinforces the normative or conformative aspects of social pressure, and that this control could affect anyone.

What does the team think?

[6 typos corrected, one sentence recast to more clearly express an idea]

Wanting to grow the economy makes you a pound shop Boris Johnson.

Virtually all Prime Ministers say this stuff- see Jim Hacker. Nothing specifically Johnsonian about it.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 6:23 pm Apply some critical thought: what does this demand (that the convicted be in the dock to hear sentencing) actually mean?

That the perpetrator should be confronted with the effects and consequences of their transgressions. Surely the sentence confronts them with the consequences, and I'm not sure you can force someone to listen to victim statements.

That the perpetrator should be semi-publicly humiliated as a consequence of their transgression (quite probably the reason the offender refuses to attend, of course). Is the humiliation of the offender an appropriate course? In some cases there there might be a negative effect on rehabilitation, but where that does not apply is it just an opportunity for people to express their anger? Is this a substitute for public flogging or hanging?

Or it shows that the forces of society have established control over the outsider, the rogue element, so reinforces the normative or conformative aspects of social pressure, and that this control could affect anyone.

What does the team think?

[6 typos corrected, one sentence recast to more clearly express an idea]

It's nothing so philosophical. Thomas Cashman didn't attend his sentencing, and everyone agreed he was a coward or laughing at justice and something must be done. So here we are. I hope Shabana's managed to extract us all from that nonsense.

Some good news. If the rate of this year's growth (63%) is maintained, the government will meet its heat pump target of 600,000 in 2028.

You know how there's been some criticism of Reeves' measures designed to stimulate economic growth on the (probably legitimate) grounds that most of them (the third runway at Heathrow, planning reform, building reservoirs and nuclear power stations, etc etc etc) probably won't begin to yield the desired economic growth immediately, but will take some time to do so.

But can you think of any measure that would stimulate instantaneous economic growth? I'm buggered if I can.

I'm reminded that the Labour government elected in 1997 stuck rigidly to a pre-election (and probably un-necessary) commitment to keep to Tory spending plans for the first two years of that government, before turning the spending taps on and really beefing up the NHS and Education. and tackling child poverty. I also don't recall Blair's government getting anything like the same level of criticism for doing so as Reeves/Starmer are getting now for failing to deliver instant prosperity.

Can you begin to imagine why ?

I wouldn't say that is legitimate criticism of Reeves. We fucked up egregiously in the last decade by not starting on new nuclear, with a cross party coalition of fools telling us it would take a decade to begin producing power. The better criticism is that there are other costs to set against the growth which aren't being considered. We can discuss that.

Yeah, the difference between now and 1997 are very striking. Media environment seems completely different. One thing I would say is that Starmer hasn't helped himself with gratuitous left bashing at times. What's the point of eg Streeting saying he'll take on "middle class lefties" who are sceptical of the private sector doing NHS work? Just make the case for it positively.

But can you think of any measure that would stimulate instantaneous economic growth? I'm buggered if I can.

Luck. Oil prices falling, cut in USD or Euro interest rates, international trade liberalisation measures etc. The art of a national politician is to take the credit without being a hostage to fortune (so it's not all your fault when the winds change).
What can be instant is setting out a strategic direction and calming international markets and institutions that your're not a government of halfwits and nutcase zealots. Starmer's achieving this.

International trade liberalization would be a slow burner, but yeah, you can't beat it a little bit of bloomin' luck.

Number of heat pump trained staff rose by 15% last year. The last government deserves some credit for that, as it does for the increased number of heat pumps installed. Might have got some more Tory-LD votes if it had bothered to make the case.

George Monbiot asks who voted for this. The planning changes were well trailed before the election. But it's certainly possible they end up pleasing nobody.

Perhaps the only intelligent point I've heard from Farage is whether growth makes you wealthier per capita if you're achieving it by increasing the population. Any fool can do that, India's GDP is massively higher than Luxembourg's, so what?

Capital investment, unless it's awful, improves GDP per capita.

I think immigrant and non-immigrant GDP can be measured separately.

Funny how we haven't heard much about this.

Government intervention saved the Newton Aycliffe train building factory, when it was about to be hit by a shortage of work. One area where nationalization ought to be better is that orders for trains can come through steadily. Privatized firms were actually better than people think at ordering new rolling stock (it didn't seem like it because the growth in passengers meant that the old stuff had to be kept going longer). But there was a feast or famine situation. Hopefully that'll improve.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 3:51 pm Funny how we haven't heard much about this.

Government intervention saved the Newton Aycliffe train building factory, when it was about to be hit by a shortage of work. One area where nationalization ought to be better is that orders for trains can come through steadily. Privatized firms were actually better than people think at ordering new rolling stock (it didn't seem like it because the growth in passengers meant that the old stuff had to be kept going longer). But there was a feast or famine situation. Hopefully that'll improve.

I heard about that at the time - Radio 4 I think. Astonishingly, a Google search doesn't find any reports from the Telegraph,
Mail, Express etc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj67eg2809o

Edited because I CAN spell Telegraph correctly and I was bothered that I didn't.

I saw Chris Mason suggesting Rachel Reeves growth announcements had to work this time.

I kind of don’t remember him summing any kind of Ultimatum to his pals in the Tory party

Yeah, I read that. Dreadful.

He shouldn't even have been there. Should have been an Economics correspondent.

Ah Labour's Future the gift that keeps on giving.

I think if we are being honest, it's doubtful Labour will win the next election. Both Tories and Reform are gaining support with every bad policy Labour enact. And in Scotland former SNP voters who gave Labour their vote at this election are gradually drifting back to them. And it's nobodys fault, except for this Starmer government.
They promised change and are delivering more austerity. People voted for change and things are getting worse, pensioners had the WFA cut to approx 10 million pensioners who aren't eligible for Pension credit. But those remaining many millions are on an income of less than 12k. WASPI women promised support by numerous Labour mps including the PM , before the election, had it renoved by Labour when in power.
The decision came after months of stalling to disregard the recommendations of the ombudsman to pay compensation of between £1000 - £2999 to WASPI women..then the farmers hit by inheritance tax meaning thousands of family farmers may have to be sold and will mean food shortages as we do not produce enough food in UK now, if we lose farms we will need to import a lot more food, causing rising prices.
Now we hear Rachel Reeves is looking at reducing sick and disability bill by £3 billion..
Targeting vulnerable disabled people. These policies which are not what anyone voting Labour would have expected are the reason why Labour are plummeting in the polls.
And parties like the Tories and reform are gaining support.
And seeing Labour supporters justifying these policies is sickening and it's disappointing after waiting years for a Labour government we have ended up with this one. There are good Labour mps but sadly the leadership is authoritarian and they are forced to toe the line , unable to vote in a way that will benefit their constituents.
Many people are disappointed with this government and yes it's only 7 months since they came to power but in that time, their every policy has been poor .
This is my opinion and lots of other people . Obviously many will disagree and that's fine . My own Labour mp is great, helping constituents and always there trying to improve things in the constituency .

Man that place has gone downhill.

You'd have thought they might have got over 2015 by now.