The Labour government thread

[Arniepie]

9 minutes ago, Mook said:

There's a real problem with talking about immigration too, you get labelled right wing or a racist if you point out that the net immigration figure has been too high the last few years & it has in my opinion.

 

When you have such a demographic shift In such a short space of time, you will have societal problems, especially in less affluent areas. 

 

Labour could make themselves a lot more popular by getting a grip on energy prices & reducing the net immigration figure by a third over the next 18-24 months. There's nothing remotely racist about any of that.

I think they are trying to do that with net zero but reform is full of flat earthers and climate change deniers 

[Mook]

1 minute ago, Arniepie said:

I think they are trying to do that with net zero but reform is full of flat earthers and climate change deniers 

 

I don't think net zero is going to cut people's energy bills anytime soon.

 

They should nationalise it & half the ridiculous prices.

[Arniepie]

3 minutes ago, Mook said:

 

I don't think net zero is going to cut people's energy bills anytime soon.

 

They should nationalise it & half the ridiculous prices.

Whereas reform ironically would be fully in favour of selling it off

[Section_31]

Ausies and Canadians have voted for people now who're opposed to trump, Badenoch has been destroyed by trying to out reform reform, and starmer will probably go that way too.

[redinblack]

17 hours ago, bossy said:

It’s totally Trump’s (or Bannon’s agenda).

• Nigel Farage suggested that Reform UK could cut diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and climate change policy jobs, as well as ending working from home. He told the BBC: “If you work from home, forget it. If you’re a DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] officer, I suggest you look for another job.” Speaking in Staffordshire, the Reform UK leader said: “Maybe a bit of a warning if you do work for Staffordshire county council and you are involved in climate change policy, or involved with DEI, or anything like that. It may be time to go and look for a different job because we want county councils to do what they are there to do.”

How is he going to enforce not working from home? My home office is 200 miles from where I live. If companies want it they will just tell him to Get Fucked

[Arniepie]

5 minutes ago, redinblack said:

How is he going to enforce not working from home? My home office is 200 miles from where I live. If companies want it they will just tell him to Get Fucked

I Suspect we may see a few strikes popping up

[Section_31]

Be fun seeing how those councils get by, the reform councillors will be like the tory 2019 intake, absolute cranks. Nobody is going to want to work there for a start.

 

Also, I don't think they realise Doncaster Council isn't the United States federal government. You don't pick and choose what employment rights you choose to follow.

[AngryofTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Engineman Hicks said:

It’s correlation not causation though. They don’t vote reform because they are stupid, it’s because they are poor and the mainstream parties don’t have a vision for them. 

Correct.

 

Reform at least pretend to be on their side.

[AngryofTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Mook said:

There's a real problem with talking about immigration too, you get labelled right wing or a racist if you point out that the net immigration figure has been too high the last few years & it has in my opinion.

 

When you have such a demographic shift In such a short space of time, you will have societal problems, especially in less affluent areas. 

 

Labour could make themselves a lot more popular by getting a grip on energy prices & reducing the net immigration figure by a third over the next 18-24 months. There's nothing remotely racist about any of that.

No party of government has ever benefited from talking about numbers of immigrants.  Time and again the complex issue of immigration is reduced to "x,000 is too high; we will reduce it to y,000!". And, of course, reality is more complex than that, so the opposition parties can just point at your failure.

 

I'd love to see a serious, informed national debate about immigration (one in which any talk of "this number is too high, we should reduce it to that number" is the very last item on the agenda) but I reckon that's never going to happen.

[AngryofTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Mook said:

There's a real problem with talking about immigration too, you get labelled right wing or a racist if you point out that the net immigration figure has been too high the last few years & it has in my opinion.

The real problem is that the people who shout loudest about immigration - drowning out any rational concerns - are undeniably racist.

[AngryofTuebrook]

22 minutes ago, redinblack said:

How is he going to enforce not working from home? My home office is 200 miles from where I live. If companies want it they will just tell him to Get Fucked

Ask him that question at his next constituency surgery in Clacton.

[Mook]

6 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

No party of government has ever benefited from talking about numbers of immigrants.  Time and again the complex issue of immigration is reduced to "x,000 is too high; we will reduce it to y,000!". And, of course, reality is more complex than that, so the opposition parties can just point at your failure.

 

I'd love to see a serious, informed national debate about immigration (one in which any talk of "this number is too high, we should reduce it to that number" is the very last item on the agenda) but I reckon that's never going to happen.

 

Do you not think 750,000 (net) a year is too high when services are stretched to breaking point & there is so much extreme division over the issue?

 

I genuinely can't see how it is sustainable with such lamentable politicians in power. I've seen huge changes in the demographic in Edinburgh over the last six years (Glasgow has seen even more change) & people are concerned.

 

I completely agree it should be a transparent discussion at all levels & I'm happy to be educated on why these sorts of figures can work in the current set of circumstances.

[redinblack]

1 minute ago, Mook said:

 

Do you not think 750,000 (net) a year is too high when services are stretched to breaking point & there is so much extreme division over the issue?

 

I genuinely can't see how it is sustainable with such lamentable politicians in power. I've seen huge changes in the demographic in Edinburgh over the last six years & people are concerned.

 

I completely agree it should be a transparent discussion at all levels & I'm happy to be educated on why these sorts of figures can work in the current set of circumstances.

I see your argument regarding the resources available to public services and the strain on them, I would counter it by saying that government's have consistently tried to reduce funding and float discussions such as "should government be funding certain services at all?" ( yes they fucking should is the answer)

[redinblack]

6 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Ask him that question at his next constituency surgery in Clacton.

He will be on a Teams call from the US. I'll get on it

[Mook]

7 minutes ago, redinblack said:

I see your argument regarding the resources available to public services and the strain on them, I would counter it by saying that government's have consistently tried to reduce funding and float discussions such as "should government be funding certain services at all?" ( yes they fucking should is the answer)

 

I completely agree with that but we've had austerity & the destruction of the NHS for 20 years and it doesn't look like slowing down anytime soon. With circa 4 million people arriving every 5 years, things are only going to get worse.

 

I don't see why we can't talk about a reduction in numbers. To be clear, I'm all for immigration & diversity but it has to be manageable.

[redinblack]

3 minutes ago, Mook said:

 

I completely agree with that but we've had austerity & the destruction of the NHS for 20 years and it doesn't look like slowing down anytime soon. With circa 4 million people arriving every 5 years, things are only going to get worse.

 

I don't see why we can't talk about a reduction in numbers. To be clear, I'm all for immigration & diversity but it has to be manageable.

I would agree with the last paragraph insofar as you should be able to ask the question without being called racist. Big topics need more discussion not less.

[Arniepie]

I can't wait for Darren grimes to go into work on Tuesday morning to be met with a huge list of potholes that need fixing 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, Arniepie said:

the newly elected mayor of hull for reform has announced he will lower taxes.

 

its actually beyond parody at this stage 

Can he lower my taxes too while he’s at it. I mean, if we are making it up as we go along. 

[AngryofTuebrook]

45 minutes ago, Mook said:

 

Do you not think 750,000 (net) a year is too high when services are stretched to breaking point & there is so much extreme division over the issue?

 

I genuinely can't see how it is sustainable with such lamentable politicians in power. I've seen huge changes in the demographic in Edinburgh over the last six years (Glasgow has seen even more change) & people are concerned.

 

I completely agree it should be a transparent discussion at all levels & I'm happy to be educated on why these sorts of figures can work in the current set of circumstances.

I think there are other reasons why public services are at breaking point - not least, privatisation and chronic underfunding.  I also think a lot of the division over the issue is deliberately stirred up by rich and powerful cunts with a vested interest in keeping us divided.  

 

I don't know about numbers, but I think it should be managed better (for example, by helping new arrivals to integrate).

[SasaS]

I know that no one will agree with me, but often all those "legitimate grievances" are just zeitgeist and cyclical political trends based on irrational beliefs and/or expectations. It goes way beyond UK. It's been about a hundred years, it's probably time for a great swing to the right again.

[AngryofTuebrook]

10 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I know that no one will agree with me, but often all those "legitimate grievances" are just zeitgeist and cyclical political trends based on irrational beliefs and/or expectations. It goes way beyond UK. It's been about a hundred years, it's probably time for a great swing to the right again.

Someone used to publish annual UK opinion surveys where they would ask people questions like "what proportion of the people do you think are on benefits/Muslims/illegal immigrants" etc.  People's estimates would invariably massively overestimate the real statistics, and always in the way the right-wing headline-writers want us to think.

 

If your beliefs are based on lies and bullshit, they're unlikely to be rational.

[Arniepie]

32 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I know that no one will agree with me, but often all those "legitimate grievances" are just zeitgeist and cyclical political trends based on irrational beliefs and/or expectations. It goes way beyond UK. It's been about a hundred years, it's probably time for a great swing to the right again.

Did I miss the swing to the left?

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Someone used to publish annual UK opinion surveys where they would ask people questions like "what proportion of the people do you think are on benefits/Muslims/illegal immigrants" etc.  People's estimates would invariably massively overestimate the real statistics, and always in the way the right-wing headline-writers want us to think.

 

If your beliefs are based on lies and bullshit, they're unlikely to be rational.

 

You may be also underestimating our willingness to believe lies and bullshit.

 

And people are way more irrational that we are usually prepared to admit, is my take from decades of arguing over issues. 

 

You (I think) mentioned a rational debate on immigration for example, in the exchange with Mook, I don't think it's possible because it deals with identity, which in itself isn't particularly rational nor is the sense of danger to it, and which always has to have some xenophobic if not racist undertones and cannot be rational because it tends to preserve something which only exists at one moment in time / history and then proceeds to change - indigenous identity. Immigration erodes it and it is hard to rationally agree on the speed or level of acceptable erosion.

 

 

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

Did I miss the swing to the left?

 

Well, post WWII in general with the rise of social democracy and its policies, welfare state, health care, society getting constantly more liberal and opening up to gender equality, sexual orientation permissiveness etc. 

[Jairzinho]

The first part (the economic part) started reversing from the late 70s though.