Keir Starmer's time is up

[gosub]

Some people, in fact most people, don't live in London and don't give a shit about ULEZ.

Glasgow one starting this summer Edinburgh next summer

 

[gosub]

And loads and loads of people in London think it's a good thing.

That should please Grant Shapps

 

[kabbes]

It's fucking silly - there's loads of money around. Profiteering from covid, energy, water, railways, landlords, millionaires, billionaires ... Windfall taxes would pay for the first round of payrises/investment in infrastructure that we need.

Indeed, this is real-terms GDP per capita since 1955



That tells you that there is theoretically twice as much money per person (after inflation) now than in 1980. Theoretically, we should be able to afford twice the public services per person now than 1980. Is this the case, or do we somehow actually seem to have less?

 

[Pickman's model]

It's fucking silly - there's loads of money around. Profiteering from covid, energy, water, railways, landlords, millionaires, billionaires ... Windfall taxes would pay for the first round of payrises/investment in infrastructure that we need.

Bringing in a window tax would raise many billions from canary wharf alone

 

[gosub]

Bringing in a window tax would raise many billions from canary wharf alone

Except it wouldn't.

With Offices Vacant, London’s Canary Wharf Seeks Growth Beyond Banking (Published 2023)

A major bank is leaving its headquarters in London’s purpose-built financial district. But the district’s owner has other plans for the area, which may help it survive the pressures it faces.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Johnny Vodka]

So basically, from now on, Labour can't be guaranteed to do the right thing by the environment/health either.

 

[two sheds]

It really would fuck him up if the tories announced just before the election that their fiscally responsible policies have enabled them to rush bills through parliament reinstating two-child benefits, increasing pay offers to NHS and other government staff, increasing infrastructure investments plus all the other things he's U-turned on.

 

[Pickman's model]

Except it wouldn't.

With Offices Vacant, London’s Canary Wharf Seeks Growth Beyond Banking (Published 2023)

A major bank is leaving its headquarters in London’s purpose-built financial district. But the district’s owner has other plans for the area, which may help it survive the pressures it faces.

www.nytimes.com

Tax the owners, not the tenants. Simples.

 

[Pickman's model]

So basically, from now on, Labour can't be guaranteed to do the right thing by the environment/health either.

All they want is power. They have no principles.

 

[agricola]

It's fucking silly - there's loads of money around. Profiteering from covid, energy, water, railways, landlords, millionaires, billionaires ... Windfall taxes would pay for the first round of payrises/investment in infrastructure that we need.

TBF it has always been about what the money is spent on, not how much of it there is.

Loads of people bang on about austerity, cuts and the rest but the fact is that government spending has been on a continual upward trend for ages now and this is almost entirely due to deliberate political decisions to have the state do its business inefficiently so that the private sector can get funded by it. The NHS really is massively inefficient, as is the military (especially procurement and housing) and I would have thought it must be obvious even to newly spawned tadpoles that the way the railway is set up is ridiculous from a managerial or financial standpoint.

Starmer isn't going to change anything of course, but it would be possible - in fact easily possible - for someone to come in and both restore the public finances and massively improve the quality of the services we pay for.

 

[agricola]

Tax the owners, not the tenants. Simples.

its like the Tithe Wars of north-east Wales in the late 19th century all over again

 

[Johnny Vodka]

All they want is power. They have no principles.

It would be too hard for them to re-jig the idea to perhaps make it a bit fairer (or to put the financial burden on the better off), and why risk losing Tory voters anyway?

 

[ska invita]

Beyond spineless....

 

[two sheds]

TBF it has always been about what the money is spent on, not how much of it there is.

Loads of people bang on about austerity, cuts and the rest but the fact is that government spending has been on a continual upward trend for ages now and this is almost entirely due to deliberate political decisions to have the state do its business inefficiently so that the private sector can get funded by it. The NHS really is massively inefficient, as is the military (especially procurement and housing) and I would have thought it must be obvious even to newly spawned tadpoles that the way the railway is set up is ridiculous from a managerial or financial standpoint.

Starmer isn't going to change anything of course, but it would be possible - in fact easily possible - for someone to come in and both restore the public finances and massively improve the quality of the services we pay for.

Yes replacing swathes of managers will be a great application for AI when it gets there.

 

[a_chap]

So basically, from now on, Labour can't be guaranteed to do the right thing by the environment/health either.

The penny's finally dropped?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Beyond spineless....

It’s actually a Tory polIcy.

 

[agricola]

Yes replacing swathes of managers will be a great application for AI when it gets there.

everyone thinks that it would be launching nukes that would result in someone trying to unplug an AI, the reality is that it would be when it starts to audit firms honestly

 

[Pickman's model]

Beyond spineless....

But apparently doing something right when shammer supports tory policies

 

[redsquirrel]

Tax the owners, not the tenants. Simples.

And if they can't/won't pay we'll have their building and land - and repurpose them for something that actually benefits workers.

 

[TopCat]

So basically, from now on, Labour can't be guaranteed to do the right thing by the environment/health either.

Anyone who stresses growth as an imperative (most of them) can’t be trusted on the environment.

 

[TopCat]

And if they can't/won't pay we'll have their building and land - and repurpose them for something that actually benefits workers.

You would need the force of arms to do this.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Well, Sir Starmer carries on with the purge of the far left with (check notes) Sadiq Khan?


(From guardian livestream)

Sometimes leaders get a little too addicted to purging. In early 1980s Albania there was not an iota of dissent in ruling party, decades of purges of real and perceived enemies of Enver Hoxha had wiped out any possible trace of opposition. But in 1981 Hoxha thought 'fuck it, I fancy another purge now' and made up a bunch of shit about people in the party to have them jailed or killed for seemingly no reason.* Starmer seems to be getting close to that 'fuck it' phase now.

* the motivation may have been to elevate and consolidate the position of Hoxha's preferred successor, Ramiz Alia, that needn't get in the way of this admittedly already stretched comparison.

 

[Elpenor]

At least Hoxha liked the films of Norman Wisdom

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyone who stresses growth as an imperative (most of them) can’t be trusted on the environment.

And anyone who says they're pro-business must be anti-worker

 

[mojo pixy]

You would need the force of arms to do this.

On the "war and the left" thread was posted recently a video of a Belarusian talking about why he is joining up to fight in Ukraine, where he explicitly says one reason for doing so is to gain combat experience in a modern war, that he feels will be important to have in future fighting the far right when regimes in his neck of the woods start collapsing. That's not the same as taking on a state, or a bunch of corporations (which would amount to the same thing anyway) but it relates.

I don't kid myself that 'we the people' could take on the UK state .. and one reason why is that even the idea of arming ourselves and learning to fight is anathema here IMO especially on the left. Yet the right have no such qualms, which has always been and still is really worrying - but if we're not signing up en masse to errr 'gain combat experience in a real modern war', or organizing boot camps for anarchist youth (which tbf could actually be wildly popular) - what should we do?

Oh no vote Labour obvs

 

[Pickman's model]

On the "war and the left" thread was posted recently a video of a Belarusian talking about why he is joining up to fight in Ukraine, where he explicitly says one reason for doing so is to gain combat experience in a modern war, that he feels will be important to have in future fighting the far right when regimes in his neck of the woods start collapsing. That's not the same as taking on a state, or a bunch of corporations (which would amount to the same thing anyway) but it relates.

I don't kid myself that 'we the people' could take on the UK state .. and one reason why is that even the idea of arming ourselves and learning to fight is anathema here IMO especially on the left. Yet the right have no such qualms, which has always been and still is really worrying - but if we're not signing up en masse to errr 'gain combat experience in a real modern war', or organizing boot camps for anarchist youth (which tbf could actually be wildly popular) - what should we do?

Oh no vote Labour obvs

It's like there were never any troubles in the six counties

 

[mojo pixy]

It's like there were never any troubles in the six counties

It is indeed like that. St Tony Blair and his Newlabour heroes solved the nasty mans problem, then did it again in Iraq.

So anarchists need proper training, basically.

 

[Gramsci]

On ULEZ etc in London. None of policies blamed on Khan are purely his idea. LTNs / ULEZ are not particular to the Labour party.

Problem imo for Labour party is that it sees push back on some of these policies but is not offering an alternative.

Which was the Green New Deal- a Just Transition. Now effectively ditched by Starmer and Reeves.

Secondly to be frank in my neck of wood some of Green ideas are seen as middle class.

Trouble is if there is to be a Just Transition its going to need a party that pushes for equality / redistribution of wealth/ as well as changes to reduce impact of climate change.

Its now saying this is to expensive to do.

I dont see that happening in political mainstream. What is likely to happen is green measures minus redistribution of wealth and power.So in future there will be push back which the far right will try to capitalise on ( see Vox in Spain for example}. Social Democrats need to argue for a Just Transition to counter this.

And going back to Blair years a lot of hectoring of people to "nudge" them to behave better.

I think what is forgotten about Blair years is that it was quite socially authoritarian edge to it.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Secondly to be frank in my neck of wood a some of Green ideas are seen as middle class.

I'm a member of the Scottish Greens and it's always environmental policy delivered in a socially just way, certainly at a members level. At the meets: young LGBT folk, older ex-Labour voters, vaugely anarchic types, etc. Nothing middle aged meets middle class.

 

[gosub]

I'm a member of the Scottish Greens and it's always environmental policy delivered in a socially just way, certainly at a members level. At the meets: young LGBT folk, older ex-Labour voters, vaugely anarchic types, etc. Nothing middle aged meets middle class.

15.7 million tree felled in Scotland since the millennium...to make way for wind farms