ml1dch Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 3 minutes ago, Chindie said: Creating an unloseable position for Labour. Change? Everything is change! Nonsense. It's **** obvious that the country needs fundamental shifts on a great many different fronts if we're to improve. The direction of travel must alter. If that does not happen, if the only difference is the faces talking and fundamentally the ideas and plans are essentially the same, we're ****. Saying there's no money isn't good enough. And if we're to be told that that is all we can expect, and we're getting change because the rosettes are red now, what is the **** point? There needs to be fundamental tax reform. There needs to be a massive housing boom, but that has to be done understanding that you can't just throw houses up you have to develop infrastructure around those houses, and it also has to be done knowing that that is economically complicated given the focus on ever increasing property prices. There needs to be massive NHS investment and realignment. There needs to be infrastructure spending everywhere. There needs to be massive restructuring of local government funding. And so on and so on and so on. Sure. Personally, I don't disagree with any of that. But if you are a Reform UK voter and the only political change that you are interested in is "I want no more foreigners to come into the UK, I want to leave the ECHR and I want Nigel Farage to become king", then if a party did all the stuff above then they won't recognise it as their version of what "change" looks like. If all the stuff above is done and immigration doesn't come down, then they haven't been given their "change", have they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: Just for the sake of argument, what are the tangible changes that you would be pleased to see? Because it's probably in the eye of the beholder. If the tangible things that other people want to see changed happen, but you don't recognise them as "tangible", that doesn't mean they're not doing what they were elected to do. If, for example they take the decision to move closer to Europe on youth mobility, security and harmonisation of agricultural and chemical regulation then that is a tangible change from the previous Government, and one that will probably be popular with the majority of their voters. It might not be popular with you, but that doesn't mean it's not a change of direction that will make a big difference to a lot of people. If the change that you want is "leave the ECHR and freeze immigration" as per the Reform manifesto for example, then no there probably won't be any change. But the people who gave him a massive majority aren't looking for that sort of "tangible change", are they? Correct I’m not looking for those changes, let see if he can increase GDP per capita to 4% or more 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 54 minutes ago, one_ian_taylor said: And if there is no money for public spending, then all you are left with is small... They have promised everything with growth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_ian_taylor Posted July 5 VT Supporter Share Posted July 5 Just now, paul514 said: They have promised everything with growth Change. Small change It was a bad joke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 Just now, paul514 said: They have promised everything with growth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 2 minutes ago, paul514 said: Correct I’m not looking for those changes, let see if he can increase GDP per capita to 4% or more *shrugs* Let's pump out those short-term employment visas then. Easy way to increase GDP per capita to compensate for our elderly, unfit, non-working aged 40-60 population. Graph goes up, paul is happy that GDP per capita increases and skips merrily to the polling station in 2028 to endorse Starmer's reelection. No? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, ml1dch said: *shrugs* Let's pump out those short-term employment visas then. Easy way to increase GDP per capita to compensate for our elderly, unfit, non-working aged 40-60 population. Graph goes up, paul is happy that GDP per capita increases and skips merrily to the polling station in 2028 to endorse Starmer's reelection. No? Go for it, your lot are in charge now. It won't work but it is your turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, ml1dch said: *shrugs* Let's pump out those short-term employment visas then. Easy way to increase GDP per capita to compensate for our elderly, unfit, non-working aged 40-60 population. Graph goes up, paul is happy that GDP per capita increases and skips merrily to the polling station in 2028 to endorse Starmer's reelection. No? This is pretty much exactly why our GDP per capita has stalled, we've got an influx of low-skilled, low-paid workers, who might be more productive than the average UK citizen (including economically inactive), but they also have license to bring their dependents 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 5 VT Supporter Share Posted July 5 29 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Sure. Personally, I don't disagree with any of that. But if you are a Reform UK voter and the only political change that you are interested in is "I want no more foreigners to come into the UK, I want to leave the ECHR and I want Nigel Farage to become king", then if a party did all the stuff above then they won't recognise it as their version of what "change" looks like. If all the stuff above is done and immigration doesn't come down, then they haven't been given their "change", have they? If your only metric of change is the successful addressing of a single issue for someone we've got bigger problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted July 5 VT Supporter Share Posted July 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 4 minutes ago, paul514 said: Go for it, your lot are in charge now. It won't work but it is your turn. “His lot” aren’t in charge. You keep making this error. The you must be Labour / Left assumption because you disagree with me is rather dull and just shows you up 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Davkaus Posted July 5 Popular Post Share Posted July 5 I don't know how you solve the problems we have with immigration, and there are an awful lot of problems Problem is, I think there's so much fear about admitting what a mess we're in that it's impossible to even have a proper conversation about it on the national stage. We do have a problem that our population is aging, and having too few kids and that there is a pension timebomb ticking, and one of the few viable answers is to keep the pyramid scheme going by piling in more workers. We do have a problem that we do absolutely nothing to culturally integrate migrants, leading to fuel to the far-right fire like violent religious clashes in Leicester. There are solutions to this that aren't "stop letting the **** muslims in" but first we have to admit there are problems We do either have to make a trade off of letting in lots of cheap overseas labour, or do more to get British workers doing the jobs that not many people want to do We just get "it's too high and I'll stop it", but I can't remember there ever being any kind of sensible debate around immigration, it's a subject our politicians are terrified of. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPJCB Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 6 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I don't know how you solve the problems we have with immigration, and there are an awful lot of problems Problem is, I think there's so much fear about admitting what a mess we're in that it's impossible to even have a proper conversation about it on the national stage. We do have a problem that our population is aging, and having too few kids and that there is a pension timebomb ticking, and one of the few viable answers is to keep the pyramid scheme going by piling in more workers. We do have a problem that we do absolutely nothing to culturally integrate migrants, leading to fuel to the far-right fire like violent religious clashes in Leicester. There are solutions to this that aren't "stop letting the **** muslims in" but first we have to admit there are problems We do either have to make a trade off of letting in lots of cheap overseas labour, or do more to get British workers doing the jobs that not many people want to do We just get "it's too high and I'll stop it", but I can't remember there ever being any kind of sensible debate around immigration, it's a subject our politicians are terrified of. One of the few sensible things I’ve read on this topic- bravo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_ian_taylor Posted July 5 VT Supporter Share Posted July 5 15 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I don't know how you solve the problems we have with immigration, and there are an awful lot of problems Problem is, I think there's so much fear about admitting what a mess we're in that it's impossible to even have a proper conversation about it on the national stage. We do have a problem that our population is aging, and having too few kids and that there is a pension timebomb ticking, and one of the few viable answers is to keep the pyramid scheme going by piling in more workers. We do have a problem that we do absolutely nothing to culturally integrate migrants, leading to fuel to the far-right fire like violent religious clashes in Leicester. There are solutions to this that aren't "stop letting the **** muslims in" but first we have to admit there are problems We do either have to make a trade off of letting in lots of cheap overseas labour, or do more to get British workers doing the jobs that not many people want to do We just get "it's too high and I'll stop it", but I can't remember there ever being any kind of sensible debate around immigration, it's a subject our politicians are terrified of. I feel you could say similar things about health - all most politicians will say is some variation on increasing NHS funding, when there are major things that are never really discussed properly that mean that just increasing funding isn't sustainable - e.g. ageing population, poor public health. Reading MD in Private Eye, it seems we spend too little on public health, social care and primary care and as a result demand for much more expensive acute care is a lot higher than it could me. Examples - poor housing quality and GP availability lead to more costly hospital admissions. Low uptake of active transport or exercise/diet more generally lead to obesity, mobility issues, increased morbidity. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 (edited) 13 minutes ago, one_ian_taylor said: I feel you could say similar things about health - all most politicians will say is some variation on increasing NHS funding, when there are major things that are never really discussed properly that mean that just increasing funding isn't sustainable - e.g. ageing population, poor public health. Reading MD in Private Eye, it seems we spend too little on public health, social care and primary care and as a result demand for much more expensive acute care is a lot higher than it could me. Examples - poor housing quality and GP availability lead to more costly hospital admissions. Low uptake of active transport or exercise/diet more generally lead to obesity, mobility issues, increased morbidity. Yup I'd agree with that, I'm hoping the next 5 years and having some grown ups in government might see us have a more mature political dialogue, but I suspect that's quite naïve. You start saying that "This is a complex issue that..." and the audience are already half asleep, and you have some gobshite presenter screaming "IT'S A YES OR NO QUESTION". I think the ills of the NHS fall into two categories, one is as you allude to, aging population, poor health, it's going to get worse and worse, and is linked to my above post. We absolutely need to have sensible conversations about it, how long we live, how much we can spend on people, and if our balance of quality-adjusted life year is correct and adequate to let us give people the care they need. The other side of it is less difficult and is just a question of restoring services that are essential. Social care is in the **** bin. Readers of the parenting or health threads might know we've been in hospital with our little one since January. We probably could have been discharged in April, but there's no spare capacity to get us care at home (which she'll need for life), so we're just sat taking up a side room in a busy children's hospital, for months and months, with no end in sight. There's no ifs or buts, adequate social care funding saves a huge amount of money if you're not tunnel-visioned looking at specific balance sheet entries, we're spending 10 quid to save 50p. "Record levels of funding for the NHS (but don't look at all the extra work it's being forced to do)" Edited July 5 by Davkaus 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_ian_taylor Posted July 5 VT Supporter Share Posted July 5 11 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Yup I'd agree with that, I'm hoping the next 5 years and having some grown ups in government might see us have a more mature political dialogue, but I suspect that's quite naïve. You start saying that "This is a complex issue that..." and the audience are already half asleep, and you have some gobshite presenter screaming "IT'S A YES OR NO QUESTION". I think the ills of the NHS fall into two categories, one is as you allude to, aging population, poor health, it's going to get worse and worse, and is linked to my above post. We absolutely need to have sensible conversations about it, how long we live, how much we can spend on people, and if our balance of quality-adjusted life year is correct and adequate to let us give people the care they need. The other side of it is less difficult and is just a question of restoring services that are essential. Social care is in the **** bin. Readers of the parenting or health threads might know we've been in hospital with our little one since January. We probably could have been discharged in April, but there's no spare capacity to get us care at home (which she'll need for life), so we're just sat taking up a side room in a busy children's hospital, for months and months, with no end in sight. There's no ifs or buts, adequate social care funding saves a huge amount of money if you're not tunnel-visioned looking at specific balance sheet entries, we're spending 10 quid to save 50p. "Record levels of funding for the NHS (but don't look at all the extra work it's being forced to do)" I read the parenting thread, and I've no idea how you do what you do as a parent. I agree on social care, and I think that part of the issue may be the optics of being seen to take money away from NHS to give to local authorities (as well as obviously the terrible state of public finances). And then with public health initiatives, politicians are often scared of being perceived to be controlling or nannying people - but if the price of getting more people walking, or eating better, or not smoking etc etc and saving a shed load of cash (not to mention the improvements in quality of life) is a few people getting wound up about being told what to do, then I'm quite happy for them to be pissed off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post paul514 Posted July 5 Popular Post Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, bickster said: “His lot” aren’t in charge. You keep making this error. The you must be Labour / Left assumption because you disagree with me is rather dull and just shows you up We don't have a centre in this country we have 6 left to varying degrees and 1 right. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, paul514 said: We don't have a centre in this country we have 6 left to varying degrees and 1 right. Are you pretending that Reform don't exist, or are you claiming that the Tories are left wing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 4 minutes ago, paul514 said: We don't have a centre in this country we have 6 left to varying degrees and 1 right. There’s no fixed left/right scale. They’re all right wing economically if you’re a socialist, depends on your perspective 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 13 minutes ago, paul514 said: We don't have a centre in this country we have 6 left to varying degrees and 1 right. In that case there’s no point in having a conversation with you 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts