OV9

I have no faith that any of the current parties wouldn’t jump straight to predatory American style insurance so I’m not for it.

As I said earlier in the thread, the NHS has been deliberately underfunded for at least a decade. We should resolve that before we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:17 pm I have no faith that any of the current parties wouldn’t jump straight to predatory American style insurance so I’m not for it.

No-one is suggesting that nor would it ever happen. The most radical suggestion is put forward by Reform and that's a French style system. The silly bogeyman of the US system is a significant impediment to having a proper discussion (just like the accusations of racism for people wanting less than net migration of 650k per annum).

It is a recipe for ploughing on like before with no real change. Which is of course what Labour represents. More punitive taxes, more wasteful spending, more quangos, etc. etc. etc.

In some ways it is something to be tolerated. 5 more years of no change and then perhaps a sea change will happen. It certainly will not be easy for Starmer when the boats do not stop, core/services inflation and rates stay high and the economy carries on bumping along the bottom.

As I said, I think we should properly fund the NHS before we decide it’s fucked and throw it away.

I don’t believe anything Labour are saying at the moment. Every one of them will say whatever is politically expedient in that moment. Even if it directly contradicts something they’ve said previously.

GG. wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:22 pm

It is a recipe for ploughing on like before with no real change. Which is of course what Labour represents. More punitive taxes, more wasteful spending, more quangos, etc. etc. etc.

In some ways it is something to be tolerated. 5 more years of no change and then perhaps a sea change will happen. It certainly will not be easy for Starmer when the boats do not stop, core/services inflation and rates stay high and the economy carries on bumping along the bottom.

You say there'll be no change multiple times - what change do you think would happen if the Tories got back in? They've had 14 years to show us, so why does it come down to this election?

Rich B wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:37 pm

GG. wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:22 pm

It is a recipe for ploughing on like before with no real change. Which is of course what Labour represents. More punitive taxes, more wasteful spending, more quangos, etc. etc. etc.

In some ways it is something to be tolerated. 5 more years of no change and then perhaps a sea change will happen. It certainly will not be easy for Starmer when the boats do not stop, core/services inflation and rates stay high and the economy carries on bumping along the bottom.

You say there'll be no change multiple times - what change do you think would happen if the Tories got back in? They've had 14 years to show us, so why does it come down to this election?

There won't be - that's why I'm not supporting the Conservatives - they need to be cut down and build back up to move away from a toxic Blairite neo-socialist legacy. Either that or they'll wither away any be replaced or merge with Reform.

Blairite and socialist are contradictory. Blairism fell squarely into neo liberalism

Bliarite economic policy was Brownite and socialist. So perhaps more accurate to refer to neo-Brownite economic policy.

GG. wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 9:54 am At a fundamental level though, even QE was needed as a result of external factors - i.e. the GFC.

The interface behind the scenes between Treasury and MPC is an interesting one and I haven't seen written about much (probably because of the limited transparency - really the meetings between the Treasure and MPC should be minuted and disclosed to the public). This is an interesting blog post https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/202 ... ying-that/

So it was actually the BofE's QT (which, is obviously a novel concept in itself as QE only tried since 2008) which rocked the market as much as the borrowing Truss announced (which was half the size of the QT). Ironically it could have been that the markets would have reacted the same way because of the BofE's independent action on QT!! I would be interested to know exactly when bond yields moved. Interestingly you think that the BofE's action was deliberately to cut off the proposed budget - is there any evidence to support that, or just pure conjecture?

So Truss/Kwarteng could actually be doubly unfairly maligned. They didn't change the Bank Rate and the BofE's action again was either too much too soon or too little too late (as seemingly always) or deliberate political intervention (which I think is unlikely).

Was QE needed because of external factors? Well, it depends what you call external, and what you mean by needed. GFC of 2007 was ultimately caused by a combination of excessive formal deregulation and a decent chunk of "informal deregulation" (i.e. turning a blind eye to various irresponsible practices), both here an in the US. If that's an "external factor" then, yeah, it was caused by "external factors", but ultimately there is culpability internally because decisions were taken to pursue laissez-faire regulatory practices.

As for whether it was "needed"....that is debatable. My own opinion is that it was *never* an appropriate tool - I believe governments have a responsibility to manage the economy in both reactive and counter-cyclical ways through public expenditure, taxation and interest rates, and that involves compromises and careful balancing. QE is basically an attempt to "cheat" the system, to have your cake and eat it, stimulate the economy without having to spend cash on public services or cut interest rates (if you have anywhere to cut them too!). But it doesn't really come for free - it comes with catastrophic redistributive consequences. The economists at the time might have optimistically predicted a trickledown on the new money based on the hypothesised "wealth effect", but the reality is that it just inflated asset prices and created an environment for ever more speculative investment. A more cynical man that myself might suggest this was fully conscious, given that the people it benefits are those in government, their donors and their wealthy voters.


WRT the BoE's actions in response to Liz/Kwasi - no they didn't do it *in response* to the mini budget, their sale of bonds was part of a scheduled programme which the markets had already factored in (whether or not that actually pushed us into net QT, I'm not sure without checking, but I don't think so). They, as they are supposed to do, just carried on with their already-announced programme and did not waver in the face of political pressure. What moved rates was someone coming and suddenly proposing an *extra* £60bn of borrowing above and beyond what had been planned/announced at exactly the same moment, effectively threating to crash the price through oversupply (and a little bit of the fear factor when it appeared that BoE and the L/K government weren't aligned in the objectives or actions).

ETA - Liz/Kwasi were maligned to the extent that the headlines of "they cost the country £72bn" were largely, in the longer term, false. They were however, deeply arrogant in their approach, desperately naive (or maybe wildly optimistic) in their economic analysis, and the only reason there aren't the kinds of consequences that were alleged is that there were some adults in the room in the form of BoE.

First time I think I’ve seen “judeo-Christian values” being said by a British politician.

Farage never gives the impression of being religious tbh.

I think labour will win with a big majority conservatives 2nd biggest but reform 3rd biggest party by stealing Tory votes. Not sure if that’ll translate into seats though

ZedLeg wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 9:50 am First time I think I’ve seen “judeo-Christian values” being said by a British politician.

Oh, that's because he's pedding dogwhistles to racists. He means "white, christian values".

https://theconversation.com/why-judeo-c ... ight-85922

Time and again, when Farage and Trump use the term, what they really imply is an “us-versus-them” division between the West and Islam. This is not about the inclusion of Jews in the values of these nations, then, but about the xenophobic exclusion of an “other”.

Invoked in anti-immigration rhetoric with the goal of excluding Muslims, this phrase is actually used to scaffold a false narrative about Christians being persecuted, threatened or besieged, which gives motivation for the protection of “Judeo-Christian values”. In fact, Christians are not persecuted in the countries where Farage and Trump make their homes.

How about if you were born here and don't believe in judeo Christian values, either because you're an atheist or you have some other religion?

Beany wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 12:08 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 9:50 am First time I think I’ve seen “judeo-Christian values” being said by a British politician.

Oh, that's because he's pedding dogwhistles to racists. He means "white, christian values".

Be honest - he just means white. He’s no christian. He’s a Trump mini-me.

DaveE wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 12:28 pm How about if you were born here and don't believe in judeo Christian values, either because you're an atheist or you have some other religion?

It's got nothing to do with your religion. It's about race.

That's why dogwhistles exist. The statement isn't really about any specific values - not really - it's about the very specific exclusion of muslims (brown people) because judeo-christian in this context, from this person, means 'white'. Which some people recognise and go "yes, Farage is for the whites, not the brown people I don't like". Other people pick up on it in a "you didn't notice, but your brain did" way, in that sort of 'woops, I did a racism thing' and some people roll their eyes at because this is typical right wing populist behaviour.

In the same way, any time he mentions 'George Soros' or 'globalists' I swap it in my head for 'Jews' because he has been very pally pally with people who gleefully operate in the realms where people are lot more open about that being what they mean when they say it. You know, your Steve Bannons and Alex Jones of the world and their fanbases.

Because to actually say "Jews are trying to take over the world" is antisemitic. To say globalists are trying to take over the world is economic theory and thus plausibly deniable. Despite these people demonstrably having a minimal understanding of global economics beyond the surface level stuff their staff feed them.

Another example would be 1488. If you see that in someone's screen name etc, they're almost certainly a neo-nazi, or want to get the attention of neo nazis.

If you don't know about this ( https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/1488 - now you do ) then you might not even notice it. But a neo nazi notices it. So if you want to signal to neo nazis that you're cool with them, you drop that in there somewhere.

A bit more context on this
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/1 ... ign-racism

More examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

@Sundayjumper I left that part there as Farage claims to be a Christian, although it's funny how he only brings that up when he's got an opportunity to bash brown people.

I mean, it's not like one of the single most important stories in the bible is about two asylum seekers and their newborn escaping persecution in Judea from King Herod.

Because that would be hilarious for someone spouting 'judeo-christian' values to forget and demonstrate just how little he actually cares about them.

Because it's not about values. It's about racism.

Beany wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 12:08 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 9:50 am First time I think I’ve seen “judeo-Christian values” being said by a British politician.

Oh, that's because he's pedding dogwhistles to racists. He means "white, christian values".

https://theconversation.com/why-judeo-c ... ight-85922

Time and again, when Farage and Trump use the term, what they really imply is an “us-versus-them” division between the West and Islam. This is not about the inclusion of Jews in the values of these nations, then, but about the xenophobic exclusion of an “other”.

Invoked in anti-immigration rhetoric with the goal of excluding Muslims, this phrase is actually used to scaffold a false narrative about Christians being persecuted, threatened or besieged, which gives motivation for the protection of “Judeo-Christian values”. In fact, Christians are not persecuted in the countries where Farage and Trump make their homes.

Yeah, I know the history. Just interesting to see them stop hiding that they’re all reading the same script.

Oh I know you know the history Zed, I was more using it as an educational tool on how populist fucksticks operate for others

DaveE wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 12:28 pm How about if you were born here and don't believe in judeo Christian values, either because you're an atheist or you have some other religion?

Isnt what he is saying basically….

If your values go against basic right and wrong then we are aren’t interested ?

It certainly doesn’t scream down with the browns, foreigners fuck off.

Dave!

It's not a message aimed at you Dave, because you're not a frothing at the mouth racist.

It's aimed at frothing at the mouth racist, a little nod and a wink that says "You know I mean 'not them dirty muzzies'" because frothing at the mouth racists know that it means, despite it sounding comparatively reasonable and defensible.

Again, that's the entire point of a dogwhistle. Think about how a dogwhistle works (edit: in popular culture, I can't remember the last time I saw a real one ) - most people can't hear it, but the dog immediately perks it's ears up.