RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:37 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 10:48 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:06 pm

Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.

Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.

Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.

But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... es-385977/

Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.

While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.

The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.

Puja

I understand WHY the government are looking to target rich investors, but this approach risks making that more of an attractive option as actual farmers have to sell up. For investors land will be on sale which they can then rent out to actual farmers and sit back to collect their rents.

You mention that the tax could be only on 0.5m. Over 10 years. When your profit is about 30k per year, how do you find even that. The government can’t even be certain on how many farmers will be affected by this. The fact is that farming is not an industry that makes anyone rich. Profit margins are minimal and since brexit the various subsidies have been or are about to be cut right back.

This feels like a poorly thought through policy, and I get why farmers see it as the final straw.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:37 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 10:48 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:06 pm

Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.

Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.

Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.

But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... es-385977/

Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.

While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.

The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.

Puja

I understand WHY the government are looking to target rich investors, but this approach risks making that more of an attractive option as actual farmers have to sell up. For investors land will be on sale which they can then rent out to actual farmers and sit back to collect their rents.

You mention that the tax could be only on 0.5m. Over 10 years. When your profit is about 30k per year, how do you find even that. The government can’t even be certain on how many farmers will be affected by this. The fact is that farming is not an industry that makes anyone rich. Profit margins are minimal and since brexit the various subsidies have been or are about to be cut right back.

This feels like a poorly thought through policy, and I get why farmers see it as the final straw.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:23 pm As the assisted dying bill approaches Parliament, I would urge all of my friends to (re)watch this documentary from one of the greatest humanists of our time.

If you then choose to write to you MP after doing so, and balancing against other opinions, facts and concerns - that is entirely up to you.

In my personal opinion, strenuous checks and balances are obviously required, but the right to choose should be there.



#YourBodyYourRules

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:29 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:23 pm As the assisted dying bill approaches Parliament, I would urge all of my friends to (re)watch this documentary from one of the greatest humanists of our time.

If you then choose to write to you MP after doing so, and balancing against other opinions, facts and concerns - that is entirely up to you.

In my personal opinion, strenuous checks and balances are obviously required, but the right to choose should be there.



#YourBodyYourRules

Passes with a majority of 55,a nd goes to committee, where the fun will start.

IMO, the current bill is set too tight; but I doubt that it'll get any looser.
What it really needs is a royal commission to take its time, gather evidence, look at the lay of the land in other countries, learn from their successes and their mistakes; and suggest a new law, based on "intolerable suffering", including the suffering of mental health.

MEanwhile, I'd like one of those MPs voting against this because palliative care is a mess - introduce a member's bill to address palliative care then - these things are NOT mutually exclusive.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 6:20 pm Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 9:47 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 6:20 pm Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 7:43 am

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 9:47 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 6:20 pm Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:59 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 7:43 am

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 9:47 pm

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:59 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 7:43 am

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 9:47 pm

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 10:23 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:59 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 7:43 am

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 10:42 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 10:23 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:59 am
The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 6:18 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 10:42 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 10:23 am

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 8:16 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 6:18 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 10:42 pm
I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 10:13 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 8:16 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 6:18 am

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 10:43 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 10:13 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 8:16 am
Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:40 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 10:43 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 10:13 am

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 1:52 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:40 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 10:43 am

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 2:33 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 1:52 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:40 am

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

Just had my cheese sandwich, crisps and snickers.

But I can move with the times; also had a kiwi fruit.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 2:53 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 2:33 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 1:52 pm

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

Just had my cheese sandwich, crisps and snickers.

But I can move with the times; also had a kiwi fruit.

Kiwi fruit?!?!? Living off your inflated house price you did nothing to earn or deserve. You boomer, you.