I’m reading a book called Nuclear War: A Scenario, which was written by Annie Jacobsen and released this year. It’s utterly terrifying (but worth reading).
There’s a bit of a false narrative about the 70s though, as runaway inflation, the four day week, and power cuts all happened on Ted Heath’s watch.
I agree, but the tories defence for recent times would be Covid & Putin. Except it would be a defence if they hadn't been so corrupt. That is what turned my vote.
The note is a symbol and isn't the only point I referenced. The Labour governments of Blair and Brown normalised high levels of borrowing and debt and that's why we were in such a worrying position when the crash inevitably came. This was foreseen. Kenneth Clarke - who left Labour a wonderful economic legacy - wrote at least as early as 2005 that Labour's high levels of borrowing were a problem. And yes, the supposed "austerity" of the Cameron government did nothing to address this fundamental problem. You're probably right that the Conservatives would have increased taxes, although in a different way. But then I have no interest in defending the Conservative party. They've essentially been a Blairite party since the mid-2000s and have adopted a similar high tax, high debt, high spend approach to government. This is part of the reason their vote collapsed at the election while Labour's barely rose at all. People will say they don't want tax cuts but people also complain about the cost of living. If you take surveys seriously (I tend not to) the NHS was also top-rated by international researchers in 2014 and 2017. It's only post-covid that it lost that position and I don't think that's about lack of spending, it's about the way the NHS is set up and the government response to covid. This is where the comparison to the 1970s becomes relevant. That was when the post-war consensus finally failed and was swept away. In my view we're now living in a period of post-Blair consensus, I think some call the economic aspect of this Blatcherism. I don't think Starmer's government has any economic answers. It seems to me that, like the post-war consensus, the current consensus is failing. All that remains to be seen is what replaces it.
It isn't complicated. Make sure taxes that are owed are paid. Invest in our society - through large-scale building schemes, re-nationalisation of sinkhole privatised industries (water being one), prioritising social care, education, the NHS and police. Deal with landlordism and the myth that we all desperately need house prices high. No, we need something to live in and for schemes like buy-to-let to be made illegal.
Every government tries to make sure taxes that are owed are paid. That is VERY complicated. There is no money to invest in anything. The bit in bold is so vague it doesn't actually mean anything. If you "deal with landlordism" and property prices fall significantly the millions of people who have mortgages will be screwed and may even be bankrupted.
1. I think some governments try harder than others. There are some clear routes money could be brought in. I also think we need to make internet sales companies pay tax at the point of sale and not on profit. 2. The bit in bold is not vague. We have to spend on our people if we want to empower them to make money. Investment is crucial for growth. 3. This is a total myth. House prices won't fall until you have enough houses for everyone to live in - and at that point we should just be happy everyone has a home. If you are suggesting that the minority of people in this country with a comfortable nest-egg are being propped up by a landlord culture keeping everyone else pretty much in servitude, I think you are very much mistaken. Artificially inflated house prices don't help anyone.
A video that contains footage of a black woman being shot dead in her own home, by the police, after calling them because she thought she had an intruder. In the USA. It’s not a graphic video.
The home office has confirmed that the Bibby Stockholm will not be used after the 18 months contract ends……great news for the people of Portland.
The autopsy of Jay Slater has revealed a number of broken bones, indicating that his death was related to a fall from height.
I haven't seen much in the way of comments on the sentences for the Just Stop Oil protesters. Does that mean that most people on here aren't too bothered about Cressida and her chums? While I think most people do take the environmental impact seriously, they have run out of patience with the JSO mob and their methods.
I am torn on it. I do think we need to have a sense of urgency on this topic and I have semi-admiration for people who put their love of the planet above their careers and cosy lives. However, I feel like JSO do more to make people angry about JSO than the issues -and that kind of defeats the purpose.
I think the sentence was OTT, but they disrupted above and beyond getting there message out. I would make them do community service by fixing pot-holes 1 day a week for four years.
Didn’t someone post a comparison about the same judge giving a much more lenient sentence for more violent crimes. And a clip of James O’Brien’s thoughts on the subject. I think I didn’t comment because I heard that on the day he broadcast it
Yes, it was Badger but I expected a greater response from others on here who are usually quite vocal about environmental issues. As there wasn't it made me wonder if they were unsympathetic to JSO because of the disruption they have caused to ordinary people rather than politicians. My impression is that many of the general public feel they have got their just deserts.
I’m genuinely torn about the JSO protestors. First, it has to be said that the sentences they received were absurd and totally disproportionate to any perceived or actual threat to society they might pose. I expect a judicial review to reduce the sentences, hopefully very soon. What I am torn about is that as others have said, the issues they are trying to address are real and scientifically validated, and simply have to be taken seriously by every government in the world and the population generally. However, if the nature of the protests causes the majority of people to react against the protestors rather than gaining sympathy and support for the cause they espouse, then those protests have been rendered counterproductive. I personally know some members of JSO and XR, and they are lovely, deeply caring people, but whose drive to make the deep crisis the planet faces more obvious to the wider population often blinds them to the fact that there are lines which it’s better not to cross, however bad things actually are.
I can understand why the judge sentenced so harshly tbf. If they'd been stopping a museum from opening, the protest actually affects very few people directly but creates a news story and sentencing for something like that would be more lenient I'd imagine. I think I've seen figures like 700,000+ cars affected, entire motorway closed for 121 hours and policing bills through the roof. People missed work that they weren't paid for, people missed hospital appointments and numerous funerals where mourners just couldn't get there. I didn't have a lot of time for the mum trying to get sympathy because her daughter will miss a family wedding. I absolutely respect people's right to protest, but not at the expense of 000s of ordinary people and businesses who have no recourse to claw back lost income
