If you have loads of spare cash sitting around and buy Government bonds you are inflation proofed, because interest payments on these track the RPI (according to the BBC, though the bonds that I could buy seem to be fixed rate to me eg 5% pa for a ten year bond). This is why for June the government has paid a record £19.4bn in interest alone on its debts (it also borrowed £22bn to cover the gap between tax receipts and spending - another record). So, those with spare capital sitting around, essentially massive financial institutions (you know, the ones who caused the 2008 meltdown) and other countries (the Chinese are especially keen on buying debt) are fine. Oh, pension funds own a lot too - so if they tell you bad market conditions mean your pension has fallen, tell them to **** off, what about the government bonds? Sunak of course, ‘forgot’ to act to cap these payments last year , as is the normal practice apparently. It would of course be totally out of line to speculate on how many of his acquaintances have benefitted from his forgetfulness. Truss wants to add another £30bn to this debt. Sunak says this will fuel inflation. Which will increase interest payments on a bigger debt. If I thought balancing the government books was anything other than fantasy island stuff I might be worried. As it is at some stage this is another excuse for Austerity II.
I was pondering this Uber, as, at least in my experience, I think it's fair to say that the Tory Party is open to electing anyone as their leader, irrespective of race, religion or gender. Or appointing anyone to cabinet. It's also true to say that their parliamentary party is less representative of minorities than Lab (Sb posted the stats up the thread somewhere) and the Tories generally also reject the idea of structural racism in society. By contrast, Labour are supportive of ideas around structural racism and gender inequalities, have better representation of minorities within their parliamentary party, but seem to have a real issue in election minorities to senior leadership positions, or appointing them into cabinets / shadow cabinets. I wonder if a little of this comes down to core beliefs. The Tories believe that hard work solves all ills, and you can pull yourself up by your bootlaces etc etc. This could quite naturally lead to a rejection of ideas like structural racism, opposition to concerted efforts to increase diversity in the parliamentary party, but a deep respect for those that have 'broken the glass ceiling' and elevated themselves into positions of authority. Hence having no qualms about electing two female PMs and a whole host of 'firsts' when it comes to ethnic minorities in senior cabinet posts, or Sunak having a good chance of becoming the first PM of Asian heritage. By contrast, Labour's core belief that inequality is entrenched - exacerbated for those who are working class, or from a minority - leads to broad acceptance of ideas of structural problems in our society. However, those views can veer towards the paternalistic, which potentially bleeds into how individuals are seen and treated, hence, for example, never having a female leader, or frankly a female candidate who has even been close to winning a leadership election. Quite possibly just raving mad rambling, but you got me thinking.
I actually don't know a single Tory party member, ypur post above sums it up perfectly. All my pals voted for brexit for no other reason than to stop foreigners coming in to the UK. All working class folk, who believed the narrative at the time. They voted for the Tories to act upon the referendum. They certainly wouldn't want a person of colour to be PM and wouldn't be afraid to say it as they weren't afraid to say why they voted to leave.
Watch it. This thread isn’t the place for proper thinking. Thought provoking. Labour obviously have all sorts of issues, and I think your core belief point is now allied to the mess of identity politics, which clearly isn’t the case for the Tories. But do the Tories really believe that the playing field is level for everyone as individuals?
You have indeed shut yourself in a dark room and pondered Raving. And possibly a ‘helicopter view’ that many would have - which is all the more surprising that people haven’t struck with ‘middle ground’ politics which removes the Conservative / Labour options. I know my parents had quite stark opinions, and beliefs, of society, gender and race that I could never associate with myself. Maybe those ingrained beliefs take much longer to evolve and change within such tribal political forces.
That’s a good question Col. I guess the easy answer is the LibDems. However while both the two main parties lean left and right, change leaderships and take on different outlooks to become more ‘voter friendly’ that centrist zone keeps moving around. I think people pretty much see themselves as either labour or conservative and the political scene shuffles on; the longer a third party sits outside the more they are seen as devoid of clarity and experience leaving people to choose, most often from the two leading protagonists.
I say this as someone that quite likes Starmer, but surely it's far too early to tell? He's (sensibly imo) not yet launched many policies. Assuming he starts doing so in the 18 or so months ahead of the May '24 election (so from now) we'll then be able to judge?
You may be right, but all the indications are that he wants to disassociate himself completely from the Corbyn/McDonnell manifesto, which I really liked. It wasn't the manifesto that did for Corbyn. I also don't like that fact that he's completely ruling out rejoining the Single Market.
With external assistance? The whole of Boris’ Levelling Up agenda was based on a recognition of structural inequality (based on geography rather than class or ethnicity) wasn’t it? I recognise of course that nothing was delivered against this agenda……and that it was political expediency to retain seats rather than genuine desire to ‘level up’ Doncaster that drove the rhetoric. The last few elections would indicate that the Tories are the ‘middle ground’ party, because they can capture enough of the floating vote to form a government. In some eras the ‘middle ground’ is much more to one side than the other, and I think we are in one of those periods.
I think the best hope for our democracy going forward might be a Lab/Lib coalition after the next GE offering another referendum on PR.
