ska invita
back on the other side
That account had Tories in third place yesterday
Their seat projections are very best guessy
But point taken
That account had Tories in third place yesterday
The promised sunlit uplands0.1% growth announced today. Panic over. Phew, everything's going to be absolutely fine.
glad to see ireland projected to be reunited
Data was just a few years out.glad to see ireland projected to be reunited
Germany is in recession...0.1% growth announced today. Panic over. Phew, everything's going to be absolutely fine.
I’m surprised at you promoting such liberal bollocks Smokeandsteam , I’d have expected better from you. Why do you want equality in society? Don’t you realize it’s just a liberal canard?I’m arguing that sovereign governments do not have to follow the strictures of the market. Or, to put it another way, if government does follow those strictures that the doom loop of spending cuts/managed decline and the transfer of wealth from the bottom 70% to the richest is inevitable.
Reeves - who, presumably to keep the markets onside, has kept the cap on child benefit, removed the winter fuel allowance, denied the WASPI women compensation, hiked bus fares and taxed jobs - and Truss/Kwarteng are both examples of just how weak government is if it plays by the rules of the super rich.
There are lots of “logical” reasons to suppose that an equal society is better than an unequal one, if by “logical” you mean “based in some kind of measurable evidence”. Every measure of human well-being that we can think of is better across the board in more equal societies, even for those at the top of the hierarchy. Inequality is measurably caustic to a society.Why is a more equal society better or more correct than an unequal one? There is no logical reason to suppose so.
There are lots of “logical” reasons to suppose that an equal society is better than an unequal one, if by “logical” you mean “based in some kind of measurable evidence”. Every measure of human well-being that we can think of is better across the board in more equal societies, even for those at the top of the hierarchy. Inequality is measurably caustic to a society.
I do now wonder whether we should re-evaluate neoliberalism. You're assuming it's incorrect, and worse than other systems.Equality/inequality is a separate construct to that of liberalism, though, which derives from the primacy of individual freedom. Indeed, liberalism can run completely counter to equality, particularly in its radical form of neoliberalism.
Fair play, but I've been reading up on liberalism and it does seem just liberal nonsense to believe that one political system is better or more correct than any other - including those of Starmer and Trump. So:There’s a lot to unpick there, and I wish I had time. But in short, no. You are playing fast and loose with terms like “better” and “logical” and “subjective”, which are setting the whole thing on shaky grounds up front. Yes, you have to have criteria but these don’t tend to be controversial — “systems that leave very few or no people with meaningfully lower well-being and many people with more well-being are better”, for example. And you can measure things like inequality against those measures. You can — indeed, should — also include subjective experience within those well-being measures.
One thing I can promise you is that I am not “assuming” anything about neoliberalism, and I am actively involved in re-evaluating it based on its impact on human (and animal and environmental!) well-being.
No thoughts on this Smokeandsteam ? (am not intending to have a go at you on this - I'm interested in your view).Why is a more equal society better or more correct than an unequal one? There is no logical reason to suppose so.
I'm not sure exactly what kind of answer you want.No thoughts on this Smokeandsteam ? (am not intending to have a go at you on this - I'm interested in your view).