UK Conservative Party Leadership Election

[mack341]

Good article from the spectator, 18 oct, so just pre Truss going:

Rishi Sunak lost. Get over it​

The WhatsApp message doing the rounds in Westminster yesterday was succinct: ‘Rishi PM. Hunt CX. Penny FS. And it’s a done deal’. Except that the only thing that’s ‘done’ is the Conservatives as a credible party of government. If there is indeed a stitch-up, one that sees the installation of the beaten leadership candidates as prime minister, chancellor, and foreign secretary, then the Tories can kiss goodbye not only to the next few general elections but also to their very existence as the most successful governing party in the democratic world.

How has the party that swept back into power just three years ago with a massive 80-seat majority so comprehensively trashed its reputation for competent government? How has the world’s oldest election-winning machine, the party of Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher – not to mention Boris Johnson – transformed itself into a global laughing stock, universally regarded with a mixture of pity, loathing and contempt?

This farce is not about the fast-dissolving political career of Liz Truss; it is the existential struggle for the very survival of the party which has governed Britain for much of the past two centuries. The behaviour of those aspiring to lead the Tories – and the country – has more closely resembled vicious ferrets fighting in a sack than serious people with the interests of the nation at their heart.

Above all, it is the actions of those disgruntled supporters of Rishi Sunak that bear the most scrutiny. These malcontents have never reconciled themselves to the fact that their lofty choice for prime minister did not accord with the preferences of the lowly party members to whom they all owe their jobs. So, arrogantly affronted by Sunak’s defeat in the leadership contest, they set about planning the swift downfall of Truss and the substitution of their chosen Messiah via the back door of an uncontested coronation – this time without the irritating participation of those pesky party members.

Asked about the electoral prospects of Giscard d’Estaing, like Sunak an immensely wealthy figure with a glacially remote relationship to the sorrows and joys of ordinary folk, French President Charles de Gaulle replied: ‘Giscard? His only trouble is the people’.

We have to go all the way back to 1965 to find the first time Tory MPs, rather than party grandees, got to pick their party leader in a contested election. The leader they chose, supposedly representing the arrival of the common man in the rarefied upper counsels of Conservative politics, was Edward Heath. Since Heath spent the next decade losing three elections out of four and running the Tory brand into the mire, his selection is hardly a ringing endorsement of the collective wisdom of Conservative MPs. If they succeed in sneaking Sunak in against the wishes of their own party, his elevation is likely to prove equally electorally disastrous.

The woman who replaced him, Margaret Thatcher, was chosen against the better judgment of her own MPs and only proved her worth by passing through devastating crises like the Falklands War, the miners’ strike and the IRA bombing campaign. In the end, she triumphed in each of the three elections she fought before being brought down, not by Labour, but by the betrayal of her own treacherous MPs: a Conservative coup that seems likely to repeat itself today if Truss is defenestrated.

It is quite clear that Truss is no Thatcher. For better or worse she is, however, the leader that the Tory party faithful has freely chosen. If the squabbling rabble on the benches behind her, having already deposed the leader who won them their stonking majority, now destroys her too in the desperate hope of saving their own skins, they will instead ensure their own political extinction. And it will be no one’s fault but their own.

WRITTEN BY Nigel Jones
Nigel Jones is a historian and journalist. His next book ‘Kitty’s Salon: Sex, Spying & Surveillance in the Third Reich’ will be published by Bonnier next year.

 

[goatwack]

The parties that don't get voted out by the people will just inevitably eat themselves from within.....and whilst people favour continuity, it's inevitable that attitudes shift over time, as new voters come into the equation, as well as governments and cabinets changing over, say, a decade.....

So as mentioned, the Conservatives of 2022 are nothing like the class of '10, and everything else in-between. Voters are slowly realizing it's a pantomime, with the MPs its chief performers, and manifestos thrown away like last month's Radio Times.

Then showcase their complete contempt for anything resembling the middle classes and below, one soon comes to the realization that they view the voting public as nothing more than useful idiots to further their own political aspirations. These public servants are rarely held to account over their mistakes, and you'd just as likely see them resurface six months down the line in another top governmental post....

But more than anything, 13 years and counting heralds general war- weariness and borderline apathy towards those that have had so much time to supposedly strengthen people's lives, irrespective of how many crises they've had to endure throughout their tenure. Instead, we see coups, betrayals and economic bungling that highlight that the party's pretty much had it, and in need of a shake-up, away from power.

I'm not enthralled at Labour's current lot being the catalyst for a great mop-up job, as I'd rather the early 2000s roster took over, they would've been more adept, but I think even the Tories must acknowledge this is all of their own making, and that clinging on to power at any cost is going into the realm of self- delusion. Not that they'd forfeit it though, they'd rather it was prised from their necrotized clutches, even if to the detriment of their constituents, party and country they claim to represent.

It's certainly not doing anyone any favours, and after nigh-on a decade and a half of rule, would anyone truly begrudge Labour at least a shot? Can't be any worse than now, can it?

Because whatever Labour-beating polls the Tory PR machine is cooking up now, no one asked for this, no one wants this, and as the Tories victory-rub each other towards building something useful only to themselves, the country is left murmuring to itself:

"Do we really want this circus"

 

[mack341]

I think I'd rather give the Lib dems a chance over labour, starmer aside they give me no confidence of careful stewardship, and being socially conservative; they seem determined to want to remodel society/life itself as there's always too much 'ism' of one kind or another for their liking.

That's what drives them, and is the basis of their political capital now, so they want to use it. [Whereas I expect a labour/worker's party to bang on about zero hr contracts, an example of something with which I'd agree are a pernicious development.]

But on the other hand the tories have become a shambles, that's the impression, they have a large HOC majority and don't know what to do with it, or are either so disunited can't agree what to do.

Yet we have plenty of things that need attention.

Govts get tired and perhaps we'll soon have to stomach some more of new Labour's medicine

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Good article from the spectator, 18 oct, so just pre Truss going:

Rishi Sunak lost. Get over it​

The WhatsApp message doing the rounds in Westminster yesterday was succinct: ‘Rishi PM. Hunt CX. Penny FS. And it’s a done deal’. Except that the only thing that’s ‘done’ is the Conservatives as a credible party of government. If there is indeed a stitch-up, one that sees the installation of the beaten leadership candidates as prime minister, chancellor, and foreign secretary, then the Tories can kiss goodbye not only to the next few general elections but also to their very existence as the most successful governing party in the democratic world.

How has the party that swept back into power just three years ago with a massive 80-seat majority so comprehensively trashed its reputation for competent government? How has the world’s oldest election-winning machine, the party of Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher – not to mention Boris Johnson – transformed itself into a global laughing stock, universally regarded with a mixture of pity, loathing and contempt?

This farce is not about the fast-dissolving political career of Liz Truss; it is the existential struggle for the very survival of the party which has governed Britain for much of the past two centuries. The behaviour of those aspiring to lead the Tories – and the country – has more closely resembled vicious ferrets fighting in a sack than serious people with the interests of the nation at their heart.

Above all, it is the actions of those disgruntled supporters of Rishi Sunak that bear the most scrutiny. These malcontents have never reconciled themselves to the fact that their lofty choice for prime minister did not accord with the preferences of the lowly party members to whom they all owe their jobs. So, arrogantly affronted by Sunak’s defeat in the leadership contest, they set about planning the swift downfall of Truss and the substitution of their chosen Messiah via the back door of an uncontested coronation – this time without the irritating participation of those pesky party members.

Asked about the electoral prospects of Giscard d’Estaing, like Sunak an immensely wealthy figure with a glacially remote relationship to the sorrows and joys of ordinary folk, French President Charles de Gaulle replied: ‘Giscard? His only trouble is the people’.

We have to go all the way back to 1965 to find the first time Tory MPs, rather than party grandees, got to pick their party leader in a contested election. The leader they chose, supposedly representing the arrival of the common man in the rarefied upper counsels of Conservative politics, was Edward Heath. Since Heath spent the next decade losing three elections out of four and running the Tory brand into the mire, his selection is hardly a ringing endorsement of the collective wisdom of Conservative MPs. If they succeed in sneaking Sunak in against the wishes of their own party, his elevation is likely to prove equally electorally disastrous.

The woman who replaced him, Margaret Thatcher, was chosen against the better judgment of her own MPs and only proved her worth by passing through devastating crises like the Falklands War, the miners’ strike and the IRA bombing campaign. In the end, she triumphed in each of the three elections she fought before being brought down, not by Labour, but by the betrayal of her own treacherous MPs: a Conservative coup that seems likely to repeat itself today if Truss is defenestrated.

It is quite clear that Truss is no Thatcher. For better or worse she is, however, the leader that the Tory party faithful has freely chosen. If the squabbling rabble on the benches behind her, having already deposed the leader who won them their stonking majority, now destroys her too in the desperate hope of saving their own skins, they will instead ensure their own political extinction. And it will be no one’s fault but their own.

WRITTEN BY Nigel Jones
Nigel Jones is a historian and journalist. His next book ‘Kitty’s Salon: Sex, Spying & Surveillance in the Third Reich’ will be published by Bonnier next year.

Sorry mack that's largely a pile of crap, I know they're not your words but you say it's a 'good article' (I mean, he's right on some points, but the way he gets there is all kinds of messed up.)

No one made Truss and Kwarteng release their utterly disastrous mini-budget, they've been planning it for at least a decade (as per 'Britannia Unchained) and despite everyone telling them it was economically incoherent nonsense, most notably and recently by Sunak DURING THE ACTUAL LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN, they went and did it anyway. There's a certain irony that these champions of free market economics were brought down by..... free market economics.

The Tory party's members are wildly unrepresentative of even most Tory voters, let alone the population as a whole - as I said back on Page 1 of this thread, I thought Truss would win because she's fucking crazy and she's going to tell all the old codgers who make up the Tory party membership exactly the kind of bollocks they want to hear.

Thatcher was brought down because she'd utterly lost touch with how to win elections, the Poll Tax is the most memorable example of course, but it wasn't the only thing by a long chalk.

Tory MPs are culpable in the destruction of their own party because they allowed Truss to get through to the last two, but the decision to put her into the highest office in the land, despite her clearly being absolutely unfit for the job, is down to the Tory party members. Nice of them to blow up their own government though, and clear the path for Labour to take office - so cheers for that Tory party members!

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Govts get tired and perhaps we'll soon have to stomach some more of new Labour's medicine

Yes being able to see your GP within 48 hours again instead of two weeks or more will be terrible for everyone I'm sure.

 

[mack341]

Sorry mack that's largely a pile of crap, I know they're not your words but you say it's a 'good article' (I mean, he's right on some points, but the way he gets there is all kinds of messed up.)

No one made Truss and Kwarteng release their utterly disastrous mini-budget, they've been planning it for at least a decade (as per 'Britannia Unchained) and despite everyone telling them it was economically incoherent nonsense, most notably and recently by Sunak DURING THE ACTUAL LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN, they went and did it anyway. There's a certain irony that these champions of free market economics were brought down by..... free market economics.

The Tory party's members are wildly unrepresentative of even most Tory voters, let alone the population as a whole - as I said back on Page 1 of this thread, I thought Truss would win because she's fucking crazy and she's going to tell all the old codgers who make up the Tory party membership exactly the kind of bollocks they want to hear.

Thatcher was brought down because she'd utterly lost touch with how to win elections, the Poll Tax is the most memorable example of course, but it wasn't the only thing by a long chalk.

Tory MPs are culpable in the destruction of their own party because they allowed Truss to get through to the last two, but the decision to put her into the highest office in the land, despite her clearly being absolutely unfit for the job, is down to the Tory party members. Nice of them to blow up their own government though, and clear the path for Labour to take office - so cheers for that Tory party members!

Don't people on the left say the same about corbyn and friends in the labour party, they're generally popular with the members but have been excluded by the MPs?

Putting aside the press headlines, can you specify the individual faults with her budget plan [3 or 4 say?] and what labour would do different on these?

[The tax cut for earners over 150k was a bit silly and they responded and removed it.]

----------

My memory returned earlier, Boris got pushed out not directly over the lockdown 'parties' but for giving a role to that gay MP called Pincher, who was alledged to have pinched someone on the bum while drunk or something, and the subsequent investigations were then dropped by the watchdog, not sure the police are looking into them either.

It's been a stitch up from day 1 to install Sunak, except the loyal members preferred Truss, they knew he happily sat alongside Boris for 2 years and then plotted and schemed to take his position, now he gets a 2nd bite of the cherry one month later.

 

[mack341]

Yes being able to see your GP within 48 hours again instead of two weeks or more will be terrible for everyone I'm sure.

Sorry I recall around 2007 people near me having to queue out in the cold, before the GPs opened, in hope of getting an 'emergency' appointment from any cancellations. Otherwise it was a two week wait.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Let's not forget the stifling of GP's independent advice, who can now be struck off if they suggest anything other than the Covid narrative, all under the Tory government.

Though recently, 5 hours after having the latest Covid booster, my Aunty had a dizzy spell and fell, hurt her shoulder and lay there waiting for an ambulance. Her brother went to her aid along with my cousin who managed to get her up and waited with her. They waited from midday until 20:45 when the hospital called and said they could fit her in at 21:20 if she can get there. Still no ambulance after 9 hours.

My cousin returned and took her. The hospital said the dizzy spell 'may' have been caused by the vaccine. I wonder how long it will be before all healthcare staff are censored against their better judgement. Duty of Care? No such thing anymore, only a push to sell more vaccines, pills and treatments.

Pfizer reveal hundreds of pages of blank documents to the EU, which spent more on this vaccine than any before. Meanwhile, in the States, Governors still pushing the vaccines and treating the unvaccinated as outcasts.

Any mysterious movement or strange decisions for leadership can be put down to big business interests that carve out policies and lobby the government.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Putting aside the press headlines, can you specify the individual faults with her budget plan [3 or 4 say?] and what labour would do different on these?

I have done this earlier in the thread and over in the Brexit thread too, for example when interlog asked why I had a problem with Kwarteng removing the cap on banker's bonuses:

Brexit - whats the difference..... - Page 207 - Casinomeister Forum

The fundamental issue with all of Truss's crazy plans was that they would continue to increase wealth inequality, which is bad news for everyone who isn't rich, and also of course that she was talking about borrowing shitloads of money to give tax breaks to the wealthy. The government borrowing money isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on what it does with the cash, but increasing government debt to line the pockets of the rich is a shit plan, all that talk about 'growing the pie' is nonsense, as is the whole notion of 'trickle down economics' - and the thing to remember here is that the markets know it too.

The markets know that trickle down economics doesn't work, the markets know that if you give a load of cash to the rich they either squirrel it away or do economically unproductive stuff like buy up houses with it, which is why they reacted the way they did. The markets also know that talk of growing the economy is for the birds whilst we're still outside the Single Market and Customs Union.

The entire mini-budget was economically incontinent gibbering horseshit, and it's not even like they weren't told about it. But they still did it anyway. Incompetent fools, and dangerous too.

Still, one has to look for silver lining in all things.

 

[mack341]

I have done this earlier in the thread and over in the Brexit thread too, for example when interlog asked why I had a problem with Kwarteng removing the cap on banker's bonuses:

Brexit - whats the difference..... - Page 207 - Casinomeister Forum

The fundamental issue with all of Truss's crazy plans was that they would continue to increase wealth inequality, which is bad news for everyone who isn't rich, and also of course that she was talking about borrowing shitloads of money to give tax breaks to the wealthy. The government borrowing money isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on what it does with the cash, but increasing government debt to line the pockets of the rich is a shit plan, all that talk about 'growing the pie' is nonsense, as is the whole notion of 'trickle down economics' - and the thing to remember here is that the markets know it too.

The markets know that trickle down economics doesn't work, the markets know that if you give a load of cash to the rich they either squirrel it away or do economically unproductive stuff like buy up houses with it, which is why they reacted the way they did. The markets also know that talk of growing the economy is for the birds whilst we're still outside the Single Market and Customs Union.

The entire mini-budget was economically incontinent gibbering horseshit, and it's not even like they weren't told about it. But they still did it anyway. Incompetent fools, and dangerous too.

Still, one has to look for silver lining in all things.

View attachment 174573

I think the removal of the banker's bonus cap is the one thing J. Hunt didn't reverse. [afaik]

Wealth inequality getting bigger is generally not a good sign or healthy for society, so I don't disagree on that, but what is the best way to reduce it.

I don't think membership of the EU would help there either, as having a free market for labour [across europe incl many poorer countries with lots of unemployment ] definitely suppresses wage competition at the bottom, classic supply and demand. And probably the real reason why the FT and big business is in favour of membership, certainly not the reverse - that they would have to pay the local/national workforce more.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I think the removal of the banker's bonus cap is the one thing J. Hunt didn't reverse. [afaik]

Wealth inequality getting bigger is generally not a good sign or healthy for society, so I don't disagree on that, but what is the best way to reduce it.

I don't think membership of the EU would help there either, as having a free market for labour [across europe incl many poorer countries with lots of unemployment ] definitely suppresses wage competition at the bottom, classic supply and demand. And probably the real reason why the FT and big business is in favour of membership, certainly not the reverse - that they would have to pay the local/national workforce more.

Completely agree.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I think the removal of the banker's bonus cap is the one thing J. Hunt didn't reverse. [afaik]

Wealth inequality getting bigger is generally not a good sign or healthy for society, so I don't disagree on that, but what is the best way to reduce it.

I don't think membership of the EU would help there either, as having a free market for labour [across europe incl many poorer countries with lots of unemployment ] definitely suppresses wage competition at the bottom, classic supply and demand. And probably the real reason why the FT and big business is in favour of membership, certainly not the reverse - that they would have to pay the local/national workforce more.

There's loads of stuff that can be done to reduce wealth inequality either in or out of the EU, but good luck expecting the Tories to ever do any of it.

Labour will be better but their policy plans aren't exactly radical, and I haven't seen any serious talk from them about wealth taxes, which is what's really needed.

The EU is a red herring when it comes to wealth inequality, the will just needs to be there in government to start to tackle it.

 

[goatwack]

I mean, I like radiant optimism and positivity as much as the next man, but if Labour's pledge is to reduce GP appointment times down to within 48 hours, then that's the kind of hallucinogenic brainstorming that reminds voters as to their unsuitability.

We all love a good yarn but can recognize when someone's just outright unrealistic, because in no known universe is lessening waiting times that drastically feasible, down from the two to three weeks that appear to be the average now. Unless they mean by 'seeing a GP' that would entail a video call - but then where does that fit in with older patients unable or unwilling to use such tech?

Unless we're to believe Labour have a magic wand to undo chronic problems within our Health sector, made all the worse throughout Covid, and simply 'magic' several thousand new doctors into view, never mind those that actually want to attend their clinics in person, away from the comforts of Peleton. Woosh! Abracadabra!

GP waiting times have been in terminal decline for the last 20+ years I've seen it, where they've gone down FROM circa 48 hours to the eye-watering three plus weeks we see before us, through both Labour and Conservative governments. So if talking about remedying actual face-to-face appointments down to within 48 hours, I'd take Labour's idealistic pipe dream with a large grain of salt, given that it's, you know, completely unworkable.

You can fall on to your knees and thank your lucky stars if one even gets a telephone appointment within a week, so let's keep a semblance of perspective, at least, eh?

 

[Mr_Slot5]

There's loads of stuff that can be done to reduce wealth inequality either in or out of the EU, but good luck expecting the Tories to ever do any of it.

Labour will be better but their policy plans aren't exactly radical, and I haven't seen any serious talk from them about wealth taxes, which is what's really needed.

The EU is a red herring when it comes to wealth inequality, the will just needs to be there in government to start to tackle it.

The EU is built to facilitate neo liberalism. Neo liberalism promotes wealth inequality.

It’s that simple.

What people seem to not understand is that to tackle wealth inequality you are going to have to rock the economy.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I mean, I like radiant optimism and positivity as much as the next man, but if Labour's pledge is to reduce GP appointment times down to within 48 hours, then that's the kind of hallucinogenic brainstorming that reminds voters as to their unsuitability.

We all love a good yarn but can recognize when someone's just outright unrealistic, because in no known universe is lessening waiting times that drastically feasible, down from the two to three weeks that appear to be the average now. Unless they mean by 'seeing a GP' that would entail a video call - but then where does that fit in with older patients unable or unwilling to use such tech?

Unless we're to believe Labour have a magic wand to undo chronic problems within our Health sector, made all the worse throughout Covid, and simply 'magic' several thousand new doctors into view, never mind those that actually want to attend their clinics in person, away from the comforts of Peleton. Woosh! Abracadabra!

GP waiting times have been in terminal decline for the last 20+ years I've seen it, where they've gone down FROM circa 48 hours to the eye-watering three plus weeks we see before us, through both Labour and Conservative governments. So if talking about remedying actual face-to-face appointments down to within 48 hours, I'd take Labour's idealistic pipe dream with a large grain of salt, given that it's, you know, completely unworkable.

You can fall on to your knees and thank your lucky stars if one even gets a telephone appointment within a week, so let's keep a semblance of perspective, at least, eh?

Labour aren't pledging 48 hours now, because it's clearly going to be a ten year plus programme (and then some) to get the NHS back into a decent shape. The 48 hour pledge was a New Labour thing back in the mid-2000s, and they largely managed to achieve it, albeit not without issues of course. (When New Labour entered government in 1997, the average waiting time to see a GP was often around a week or more.)

My comment above about 48 hours was simply a case of picking something that New Labour did well on, and to compare it to where we are now after twelve years of Tory austerity.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Labour aren't pledging 48 hours now, because it's clearly going to be a ten year plus programme (and then some) to get the NHS back into a decent shape. The 48 hour pledge was a New Labour thing back in the mid-2000s, and they largely managed to achieve it, albeit not without issues of course. (When New Labour entered government in 1997, the average waiting time to see a GP was often around a week or more.)

My comment above about 48 hours was simply a case of picking something that New Labour did well on, and to compare it to where we are now after twelve years of Tory austerity.

Didn’t New Labour privatise more of the NHS than the Tories ever have? Never seems to get mentioned for some reason though!

 

[pinnit2014]

Didn’t New Labour privatise more of the NHS than the Tories ever have? Never seems to get mentioned for some reason though!

Same as the PFI deals really being ramped up under Blair's leadership - it's oft overlooked and not spoken about much (by some )

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Same as the PFI deals really being ramped up under Blair's leadership - it's oft overlooked and not spoken about much (by some )

Exactly. It’s why I roll my eyes when I see guff about Labour protecting the NHS and the Tories wrecking it. It’s bollocks.

 

[goatwack]

Post-Austerity waiting times really did take a rather large turn for the worse though it must be said. Prior to that they were naturally getting longer but still within the realm of a week, compared to the two to three days in the early 2000s.

Cameron took a bit of a scalpel to Health services, as well as Work and Pensions, as they were among the first to be deemed cullable.

But I'd attribute that more to Cameron's scorched earth way of doing things, during that time at least. The kind of Health razing that set in motion a decline we've seemingly not quite recovered from!

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Exactly. It’s why I roll my eyes when I see guff about Labour protecting the NHS and the Tories wrecking it. It’s bollocks.

So you think the NHS is in better shape now than it was in 2010?

I'm well aware of the PFI stuff and private elements that New Labour introduced to the NHS, I opposed it at the time and still do - but despite their methods being questionable in some regards, they did at least improve patient care across the board and on any metric you'd care to pick.

New Labour were to the right of my personal politics, as are Starmer's Labour, but I'd take them over the Tories any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[pinnit2014]

A party can pledge to things like 48hrs all they want, but how's it going to happen? We have housing developments springing up everywhere - sure, housing developers pay an amount to support infrastructure with the new houses etc, but it's spread so thinly it barely makes a difference. Might get new traffic lights out of it and a roundabout.

Other elements of it as well is people are living longer - living longer, but with more aliments = more 'customers' for the practice.

I mean we've seen the decline of NHS dentists over the years, even here in socialist Scotland so you'll have to pardon my dubious, left twitching eye that, even in 10 years we'll reverse a trend of X years in the space of a few World Cups.

All for seeing a plan, that's been sense checked and grounded in reality but won't hold my breath until i do (good job as i wont be able to see my GP until Jan-23 if i do)

 

[Mr_Slot5]

A party can pledge to things like 48hrs all they want, but how's it going to happen? We have housing developments springing up everywhere - sure, housing developers pay an amount to support infrastructure with the new houses etc, but it's spread so thinly it barely makes a difference. Might get new traffic lights out of it and a roundabout.

Other elements of it as well is people are living longer - living longer, but with more aliments = more 'customers' for the practice.

I mean we've seen the decline of NHS dentists over the years, even here in socialist Scotland so you'll have to pardon my dubious, left twitching eye that, even in 10 years we'll reverse a trend of X years in the space of a few World Cups.

All for seeing a plan, that's been sense checked and grounded in reality but won't hold my breath until i do (good job as i wont be able to see my GP until Jan-23 if i do)

To be honest, immigration is the huge elephant in the room. It’s all well and good preaching the benefits of economic migration but if the infrastructure isn’t there to support it then things like this happen; an overwhelmed system.

Any economic benefit is being dwarfed by the strain on infrastructure. I’ve said before that the carrying capacity of the UK has long been breached. We’re building over precious greenbelt land, which is unforgivable. We have the second highest population density in Europe. Only the Netherlands beat us on that I think.

 

[pinnit2014]

To be honest, immigration is the huge elephant in the room. It’s all well and good preaching the benefits of economic migration but if the infrastructure isn’t there to support it then things like this happen; an overwhelmed system.

Any economic benefit is being dwarfed by the strain on infrastructure. I’ve said before that the carrying capacity of the UK has long been breached. We’re building over precious greenbelt land, which is unforgivable. We have the second highest population density in Europe. Only the Netherlands beat us on that I think.

Greenbelt protection certainly doesn't seem to have as much protections around it as it once did - up here we see the Local Council's refusing Planning Permissions only for the developer to appeal, gets booted up to the Scot Govt and, hey presto, they're now free to roll up with the diggers under the guise of: overrides the wider, National, interest

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Greenbelt protection certainly doesn't seem to have as much protections around it as it once did - up here we see the Local Council's refusing Planning Permissions only for the developer to appeal, gets booted up to the Scot Govt and, hey presto, they're now free to roll up with the diggers under the guise of: overrides the wider, National, interest

It’s utterly shocking.

The countryside and green spaces have a special place in my heart because I grew up in those surroundings. My grandad had a rural farm and later, after he retired he’d take me and my brothers on day trips to such beautifully untouched places. So much greenery around the Shropshire/Cheshire plains, up into the peaks etc.

Seeing the demise of this pure land is gut wrenching.

 

[pinnit2014]

It’s utterly shocking.

The countryside and green spaces have a special place in my heart because I grew up in those surroundings. My grandad had a rural farm and later, after he retired he’d take me and my brothers on day trips to such beautifully untouched places. So much greenery around the Shropshire/Cheshire plains, up into the peaks etc.

Seeing the demise of this pure land is gut wrenching.

Absolutely - Northern Ireland is perhaps the least affected out of the other Nation's but every time i go home i keep saying: is the distance between these two towns getting shorter or are they just expanding? You obviously have other things that the Farmers in some places are looking out, selling land etc.

I grew up somewhere where 2 cars at a roundabout was considered a traffic jam but you can even feel there becoming a bit more congested, a bit busier, a bit less green and, overall, a bit less nice.

 

[goatwack]

Look at you lot with your tales of lush greenery and milking the cows.

Try London - someone need only mention 'green' and you'll have the Blazing Squad descend upon you thinking you're about to spark up a joint

 

[pinnit2014]

It's ok, we still have wars raging here between Green and Orange

 

[bamberfishcake]

Ok, so here is a radical idea, a brilliant lightbulb moment if I do say so myself on how to tackle wealth inequality.

I don't profess to know much about the inner workings of taxation, but, I have conjured up a brilliant plan that the sharpest economic minds would be proud of.

Now, bear with me, as some of you with lesser intelligence or foresight may find this hard to follow, so, I will break it down step by step.

Step 1 - Tax the rich more.

The End.

 

[goatwack]

So it seems that Sunak/ Johnson's burning the midnight oil resulted in Sunak telling Boris to 'do one' after all!

But then, it would have been rather foolhardy for Sunak to relinquish his commanding lead to a Churchillian tribute act who actually thought he'd strike an agreement to take over. Someone tell that man he's had his time, please!

 

[goatwack]

Ok, so here is a radical idea, a brilliant lightbulb moment if I do say so myself on how to tackle wealth inequality.

I don't profess to know much about the inner workings of taxation, but, I have conjured up a brilliant plan that the sharpest economic minds would be proud of.

Now, bear with me, as some of you with lesser intelligence or foresight may find this hard to follow, so, I will break it down step by step.

Step 1 - Tax the rich more.

The End.

I agяee, comяade!

 

[bamberfishcake]

I agяee, comяade!

View attachment 174591

That's far too political a solution for me to begin to understand or comprehend, so, comrade, I go back to my original, and far more simplistic suggestion.

Damn pigeon-holers always looking to put you in one gang or another

 

[pinnit2014]

Someone's Trade Union Membership hasn't lapsed

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Ok, so here is a radical idea, a brilliant lightbulb moment if I do say so myself on how to tackle wealth inequality.

I don't profess to know much about the inner workings of taxation, but, I have conjured up a brilliant plan that the sharpest economic minds would be proud of.

Now, bear with me, as some of you with lesser intelligence or foresight may find this hard to follow, so, I will break it down step by step.

Step 1 - Tax the rich more.

The End.

You are completely right bamber. We need to tax wealth as efficiently as we tax income.

I'm sure we're all very aware of how good the government is at taxing income (same applies here on the IOM!), we earn money, we pay our tax and NI, and we can see it on our payslips, we don't have any way to 'dodge' it.

But for some reason wealth sits outside that, and wealth generates more wealth, once you've got about ten million quid you can passively generate 3-5% on that without doing a thing, just stick it into a broad spread of non-risky investments and you'll clear £500K per year, and you don't even have to get out of bed in the morning.

Taxing the super-rich at 1-2% per year of their total wealth would generate tens of billions of pounds per year for the UK government to spend on essential services, and to be clear on this, they'd still be getting richer, we'd just be taking a bit of what they get for doing literally fuck all, so they'd just be getting even richer a bit less quicker than before.

Now obviously the Tories aren't going to do this, because they are literally the party of the rich and are bankrolled by the rich, but Labour must do better on this, they're talking around the edges of it (windfall taxes on the energy companies, for example, which is definitely a step in the right direction), but IMO they need to get serious on wealth taxes. It simply cannot be right that hard working men and women end up paying higher overall tax rates than some posh fucker who just happened to inherit fucking millions - and who then has to do NOTHING except sit back and watch those millions generate more millions.

 

[goatwack]

I'd agree that many corporations will do their utmost to pay lower tax burdens, and I'd imagine will exploit every loophole imaginable to do so.

But then it falls into 'legal' versus 'moral', isn't that what we're constantly told is acceptable, say, with casinos and software houses?

I'd also wager every single person here would do exactly the same to protect their wealth, so that argument isn't steeped in any sense of reality.

Yet most importantly, advocating the effective siphoning of someone who's wealthy as a 'justified' theft, based on the fact 'they're rich and that' is infantile, and smacks of entitlement.

So because someone has a lot of money they're accountable for the world's ills, and where the highest tax band of 45% just isn't good enough ?

Give it to the state, at once! How dare you hoard that money, that you've just as likely have built up for yourself and already paying more relative to anyone else! I take it every one who's accrued wealth for themselves must have had it handed to them?...

Who is anyone to tell someone else what they can do with their money, irrespective of how much they have?

Fact is, a country that pools the income via legitimate means off its 1%ers will always be better off than driving the wealthy into exile, based on an idealistic 2% Wealth Envy Tax

 

[goatwack]

Well it looks like Boris cut short his holiday in vain, as Churchill-lite drops outta the running!

I hope everyone's Ready 4 Rishi! (this time)

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well it looks like Boris cut short his holiday in vain, as Churchill-lite drops outta the running!

I hope everyone's Ready 4 Rishi! (this time)

On some level I'd have preferred the Tories to press the nuclear self-destruct button and go for Johnson, but they do at least appear to have retained some basic sense of self preservation, although I'm not sure Rishi will be able to carry it over the line at the next general election.

If you want next week's lottery numbers just send me £1000 through my nominated Nigerian bank account.

I have a good guy called Adanna and he'll happily keep taking your bets on the Tories even if you're not called 'Sir' and you're not a CEO.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Well it looks like Boris cut short his holiday in vain, as Churchill-lite drops outta the running!

I hope everyone's Ready 4 Rishi! (this time)

I'm struggling to understand why Rishi would want to touch this with a barge pole at this point. PM for what, 18 months until the seats are wiped out at the next election?

Rishi offers very little at this point. Damage has been done to the Tories and mere 'stability' going forward won't cut it. He won't be popular in the red wall seats that were gained from Labour last time around- so we can count on those going red again at the next election plus he's tarred with the same brush as Boris as he had a high profile role in his cabinet. Therefore the traditional heartlands may vote Lib Dem or even Labour if wanting a change.

So, the future for the Tories is bleak-very bleak. Landslide territory for Labour at the next election IMO.

 

[goatwack]

Looks like the Tories are actually thinking long-term with Sunak and effectively ceded to Labour. Because even with Johnson at the helm, they'd likely only consolidate some seats, yet still get trounced at the next GE.

After which, Johnson'd be sacked and they'd find themselves looking for another leader anyway - assuming Johnson even lasted until the next GE, that is!

It's a clean break for sure. So all in all, great for the party post-2024 as a sort of rebranding. But even they must realize that all hope of a 2024 victory kind of sailed away with Truss-gate

 

[goatwack]

It was all looking so good too for the prodigal son. What a difference a party shunning makes!

 

[bamberfishcake]

I'd agree that many corporations will do their utmost to pay lower tax burdens, and I'd imagine will exploit every loophole imaginable to do so.

But then it falls into 'legal' versus 'moral', isn't that what we're constantly told is acceptable, say, with casinos and software houses?

I'd also wager every single person here would do exactly the same to protect their wealth, so that argument isn't steeped in any sense of reality.

Yet most importantly, advocating the effective siphoning of someone who's wealthy as a 'justified' theft, based on the fact 'they're rich and that' is infantile, and smacks of entitlement.

So because someone has a lot of money they're accountable for the world's ills, and where the highest tax band of 45% just isn't good enough ?

Give it to the state, at once! How dare you hoard that money, that you've just as likely have built up for yourself and already paying more relative to anyone else! I take it every one who's accrued wealth for themselves must have had it handed to them?...

Who is anyone to tell someone else what they can do with their money, irrespective of how much they have?

Fact is, a country that pools the income via legitimate means off its 1%ers will always be better off than driving the wealthy into exile, based on an idealistic 2% Wealth Envy Tax

Agreed. Lots of food for thought morally and legally.

Legally, there is no real problem when the appointed democratic government are responsible for creating the laws that bind the will of the people. And if laws are flawed then fix them to stop the top pilfering and cut down the transfer. It really should be that easy, but it's not because laws are bent to the will of the rich and corrupt, which begs the question if the 1% have grown considerably richer over the last decade by corrupt means. And also, my four-legged friend, if they truly are responsible for the world's ills? They have by far the most influence.

Morally speaking, it should not be about the 1% getting what they deserve, not that they deserve it, we should be rewarding the gifted, not the corrupt. But, all that aside, we are all one family in the same boat, I am not talking about a socialistic ideology, but, would a heavier tax in times of need really be so bad for a country? Possibly the wealthiest 10%? You don't take more from people who live in the same house, you share and take care of one another.

Make them keep money in UK banks instead of sending it off-shore. I think we have to remember that a big chunk of this money is leaving the UK. Pay politicians the fattest wage in the land but ban lobbying and share-dealing - sure, the city would be shocked to its core, but you could manage that and find new ways for home-grown investment to keep the money in the UK.

P.s. I say drive them into Exile. No man is irreplaceable. Or Woman

 

[mack341]

Feels very much like Sunak is being forced upon us, he has not got a mandate as prime minister, unlike Boris who he just mugged it off, so a general election needs to be called. The tories have had 12 years, so more than enough time has been spent fannying around waiting for them to be actual conservatives.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Feels very much like Sunak is being forced upon us, he has not got a mandate as prime minister, unlike Boris who he just mugged it off, so a general election needs to be called. The tories have had 12 years, so more than enough time has been spent fannying around waiting for them to be actual conservatives.

Agree, call a GE and let's rip the plaster off.

 

[goatwack]

I'd have no qualms about a GE being called, the Tories in their current form have shown themselves unfit to lead. We'll also bear witness to their desperation as they'll do anything NOT to call one.

But the ayes have it. Aye!

 

[bamberfishcake]

Pew! Pew!

 

[goatwack]

Johnson bowing out with the most gracious of speeches, citing his running "would not be the right thing to do"

Which is code for "You bunch of wankers ruined my homecoming and think I'm about as useful as Larry The Cat, and so I would have been soundly thrashed at any final result. I'm doing this to unite the party. Laters"

- Boris Johnson, blonde-mopped breeder and failed ex-PM

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Talk about a graceless exit from the race, should have just done a Cartman for the full effect.

So finally we are all Ready4Rishi, nothing better than a guy worth the better part of a billion quid to get on the side of people who can't afford to put food on the table.

 

[Siohmy]

So even the Tory party realise how batshit crazy it would have been to put Boris back in after all that has happened.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So even the Tory party realise how batshit crazy it would have been to put Boris back in after all that has happened.

I suspect he didn't even have the nominations, and was just lying about it. Certainly he didn't have 100 public nominations.

It'll be interesting to see if Mordaunt can get the 100 nominations and decides to stay in the race, if it goes out to the members it's possible she'd beat Sunak.

 

[Luckyscouser45]

So excited for the middle England meltdown over a brown man being PM popcorn at the ready

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Penny doing well with maths here.