Topic: Doesn't matter who you vote for as long as it's for the right reasons!

[So… Howard Philips]

And the usuals are moaning about kissing the flag.

The real problem is finding and identifying British made goods (and what constitutes 'made') to buy.

Not Starmer's fault obviously but a little more detail about country of origin marking for example would put a bit of flesh on the bones.

[Red-Soldier]

The real problem is finding and identifying British made goods (and what constitutes 'made') to buy.

Not Starmer's fault obviously but a little more detail about country of origin marking for example would put a bit of flesh on the bones.

We've spent decades outsourcing and selling everything off.  Recent events have highlighted the importance of self-sufficiency, and not to be overly reliant on imports.

The "Just in Time" model may be efficient and cost effective for businesses, but it's not very resilient.

[TepidT2O]

Buy British seems very 1970s……

[Sangria]

Buy British seems very 1970s……

It's where we as a country currently want to be.

[Dr. Beaker]

Buy British seems very 1970s……

Thats because that was when we used to make stuff.

[TepidT2O]

Thats because that was when we used to make stuff.

Most of it fell apart though

[Dr. Beaker]

Most of it fell apart though

Yeah, me mate had a triumph.

[rob1966]

Yeah, me mate had a triumph.

My Dad worked for Triumph in Speke. The things he told me as a kid makes it easy to understand why.

[Zeb]

And the usuals are moaning about kissing the flag.

Thought it was funny McDonnell pointing out that Corbyn had a very similar policy announcement. But you can go back to Milliband for something almost identical. Amusing that those who preach about the electorate's false consciousness are equally bewildered by packaging. I suppose in some ways it does at least make a virtue out of a necessity post-Brexit...

----

Starting to get a few hints about Batley and Spen result. Journalists and pollsters are saying party is indicating that the ward level data there is showing that Labour were pulling over Tory voters, ones perhaps crudely described as 'Lib Dem leaning'. Which is progress, to be balanced against what Galloway was up to and how the party (and communities) respond to that.

[west_london_red]

There's also a case for it being pure self-interest. Question doesn't specify whose taxes are going up so you get a sliding scale down from pensioners through to school leavers/new grads based on the normal assumption that it means income tax and the effects that would have on their personal finances.

I think that’s human nature isn’t it? The person earning £25k thinks everyone earning more then £30k should pay more tax, the bloke earning £30k thinks everyone earning over £40k should pay more tax etc etc. Those in work think we should cut spending on benefits because they are all scroungers, old people think young people are frivolous with money, young people think older people had it easy because housing was more affordable for them and they should contribute more, I could probably go on but you get the drift. Everyone likes people contributing more as long as it’s not them doing the contributing.

[Sangria]

I think that’s human nature isn’t it? The person earning £25k thinks everyone earning more then £30k should pay more tax, the bloke earning £30k thinks everyone earning over £40k should pay more tax etc etc. Those in work think we should cut spending on benefits because they are all scroungers, old people think young people are frivolous with money, young people think older people had it easy because housing was more affordable for them and they should contribute more, I could probably go on but you get the drift. Everyone likes people contributing more as long as it’s not them doing the contributing.

That's why Labour should construct a narrative whereby everyone contributes a bit more than they're required to by the Tories, not just financially but also socially. Covid has shown that this is tolerable to the overwhelming majority of people. But cultural liberal issues, foreign affairs issues, etc. that are political lifeblood to some on the left leave them cold. They're sufficient to spoil the chances of the left of centre, but only to make it easier for the right to win. Even people like Bastani have admitted this is the case, although he and his ilk think this is a good thing.

[Elmo!]

I think that’s human nature isn’t it? The person earning £25k thinks everyone earning more then £30k should pay more tax, the bloke earning £30k thinks everyone earning over £40k should pay more tax etc etc. Those in work think we should cut spending on benefits because they are all scroungers, old people think young people are frivolous with money, young people think older people had it easy because housing was more affordable for them and they should contribute more, I could probably go on but you get the drift. Everyone likes people contributing more as long as it’s not them doing the contributing.

It's why I think universalism is important. People will be more willing to contribute more if they see they are getting something back for it. Not just contributing to give other people things.

[west_london_red]

It's why I think universalism is important. People will be more willing to contribute more if they see they are getting something back for it. Not just contributing to give other people things.

Completely, I’m just not sure if our right wing drifting country is ready for such radical socialism as putting in a few extra quid into the kitty even when you show them the receipt.

[Yorkykopite]

I think that’s human nature isn’t it? The person earning £25k thinks everyone earning more then £30k should pay more tax, the bloke earning £30k thinks everyone earning over £40k should pay more tax etc etc. Those in work think we should cut spending on benefits because they are all scroungers, old people think young people are frivolous with money, young people think older people had it easy because housing was more affordable for them and they should contribute more, I could probably go on but you get the drift. Everyone likes people contributing more as long as it’s not them doing the contributing.

That is such a bleak view of life. Fortunately I don't think it's true. There's not a great deal in the historical record to support it at least, although fundamentalist free-market capitalism, of the type we have not had since the first Factory acts, requires human nature to be like this in order to work properly. 

It's why I think universalism is important. People will be more willing to contribute more if they see they are getting something back for it. Not just contributing to give other people things.

Wholeheartedly agree with this.

[Zeb]

I think it's easier to make wide ranging proposals when you're pitching it to a country which hasn't just had its wages absolutely crunched for a decade as part of a deliberate policy to create a low wage economy. That particularly will hold true for younger voters whose wages are pisspoor historically without even the consolation of job security and a decent pension etc. at the end of it. Much as with social care proposals, the electoral impact of it is going to really depend on the who and how much and whether the case for the 'why' is well made. It's also a timing issue although the political part of it was where Labour got lost 2010 to 2015.

[west_london_red]

That is such a bleak view of life. Fortunately I don't think it's true. There's not a great deal in the historical record to support it at least, although fundamentalist free-market capitalism, of the type we have not had since the first Factory acts, requires human nature to be like this in order to work properly. 

You don’t think there’s a lot to support it yet we have had 11 years of Toryism and austerity that’s been built on that mentality?

[Dr. Beaker]

People unfortunately only measure their benefits in financial terms. Paying tax (ie me losing money) so that others gain (money). They need to be educated to the point of realising that paying tax in order to attain better education for their kids, healthcare for their parents and law and order to keep us all safe, are benefits in kind. I'm not holding my breath on that one. Maybe attacking tax evasion and avoidance should become a more potent political weapon. There is now a massive bill to be paid, hopefully over many many years and this is probably where the main political battles will now be fought, more than ever.

[Sangria]

People unfortunately only measure their benefits in financial terms. Paying tax (ie me losing money) so that others gain (money). They need to be educated to the point of realising that paying tax in order to attain better education for their kids, healthcare for their parents and law and order to keep us all safe, are benefits in kind. I'm not holding my breath on that one. Maybe attacking tax evasion and avoidance should become a more potent political weapon. There is now a massive bill to be paid, hopefully over many many years and this is probably where the main political battles will now be fought, more than ever.

We've had 2 years of the country inconveniencing itself for the benefit of its most vulnerable. The will is there, if the left can frame it in the right way.

[west_london_red]

I think it's easier to make wide ranging proposals when you're pitching it to a country which hasn't just had its wages absolutely crunched for a decade as part of a deliberate policy to create a low wage economy. That particularly will hold true for younger voters whose wages are pisspoor historically without even the consolation of job security and a decent pension etc. at the end of it. Much as with social care proposals, the electoral impact of it is going to really depend on the who and how much and whether the case for the 'why' is well made. It's also a timing issue although the political part of it was where Labour got lost 2010 to 2015.

That’s pretty much what I was thinking. I think it was in 97 that Labour campaigned on a 1p increase in income tax for the NHS and it seemed to go down well with voters from what I can remember, but it’s a lot easier to say to people give us 1% in extra income tax to fix the NHS when your getting an average pay rise of 7% (that’s what it was according to the ONS in 1997, sounds high so feel free to correct me). When you are looking at real wages frozen or falling for millions for the last decade, particularly those already not earning very much it becomes a much harder conversation.


https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/kgq2/qna

[Yorkykopite]

You don’t think there’s a lot to support it yet we have had 11 years of Toryism and austerity that’s been built on that mentality?

For sure. But you said that "human nature" was like this. That suggests a somewhat longer time span than 11 years and a somewhat more permanent state of affairs!

[Dr. Beaker]

We've had 2 years of the country inconveniencing itself for the benefit of its most vulnerable. The will is there, if the left can frame it in the right way.

Looks like the will has gone, to me.

The last two years have shown to those that think in those terms, that there is a magic money tree. It's all about choices. Tax is going to be the next subject upon which the public need to be educated, now that we're all expert virologists.

[Zeb]

That’s pretty much what I was thinking. I think it was in 97 that Labour campaigned on a 1p increase in income tax for the NHS and it seemed to go down well with voters from what I can remember, but it’s a lot easier to say to people give us 1% in extra income tax to fix the NHS when your getting an average pay rise of 7% (that’s what it was according to the ONS in 1997, sounds high so feel free to correct me). When you are looking at real wages frozen or falling for millions for the last decade, particularly those already not earning very much it becomes a much harder conversation.


https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/kgq2/qna

Yeah, it's difficult. Then again, it's where the timing thing comes in, isn't it? The Tories are obviously gearing up to returning to their austerity arguments as soon as they either shift Johnson or he waddles off of his own accord. I don't think it's an easy counterargument to make but Labour can do it. Thought Rob Ford has it about right:

A window of opportunity may open for the opposition soon. The political conversation, dominated for over a year by Covid, may soon return to more traditional topics as the pandemic threat finally fades. The boost the government has received from its successful vaccination programme will probably fade too, as the country moves out of crisis mode, and minds turn to post-pandemic recovery. Labour may then have a chance to focus attention on the structural weaknesses and inequalities exposed by the pandemic, and set out its ambitions to address these. It is a chance the party would do well to seize. A Labour party with aspirations to govern after the next election needs to do a lot better than cling on in seats it already holds.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/04/analysis-why-is-the-narrow-labour-byelection-victory-in-batley-and-spen-being-treated-as-a-comeback

Focus on investment for the future and rectifying some of the inequalities, and it'll all need to be paid for but Reeves has the nouse to not do it as if 'taxes or cuts this manifesto?' are the only options. Just being sensible and believable about it, not throwing everyone's favorite policy into a grab bag and dumping it in front of the electorate. There is the longer term support for redistributive policies, increasingly cross-party with the Tories 2017 and 2019 new voters, so there's something there to work with by appealing to aspiration and 'fairness'.

[Sangria]

Yeah, it's difficult. Then again, it's where the timing thing comes in, isn't it? The Tories are obviously gearing up to returning to their austerity arguments as soon as they either shift Johnson or he waddles off of his own accord. I don't think it's an easy counterargument to make but Labour can do it. Thought Rob Ford has it about right:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/04/analysis-why-is-the-narrow-labour-byelection-victory-in-batley-and-spen-being-treated-as-a-comeback

Focus on investment for the future and rectifying some of the inequalities, and it'll all need to be paid for but Reeves has the nouse to not do it as if 'taxes or cuts this manifesto?' are the only options. Just being sensible and believable about it, not throwing everyone's favorite policy into a grab bag and dumping it in front of the electorate. There is the longer term support for redistributive policies, increasingly cross-party with the Tories 2017 and 2019 new voters, so there's something there to work with by appealing to aspiration and 'fairness'.

There needs to be a cohesive and popular vision rather than popular policies. Unpopular policies can be tolerated if they're part of a well-framed and popular vision. They can even contribute to the popularity of the overall vision, like a bad tasting medicine. The Tories will be doing this with austerity.

[west_london_red]

For sure. But you said that "human nature" was like this. That suggests a somewhat longer time span than 11 years and a somewhat more permanent state of affairs!

If I have to lecture you on the worst aspects of human history then things have definitely gone wrong, but as you are very aware an awful lot of our history is one group screwing over another! It’s what we do.

[Yorkykopite]

If I have to lecture you on the worst aspects of human history then things have definitely gone wrong, but as you are very aware an awful lot of our history is one group screwing over another! It’s what we do.

Build civilisations too, that outlast wars and famines. Poverty is conquered, tribalism tamed, superstitions discarded, racism identified and fought against. Once Thomas Hobbes was the last word of wisdom in political philosophy - a philosophy built entirely on your own bleak view of human nature. Now we've raised our sights a bit. We've learned that cooperation can work as well as competition. We've learned that neighbours can be trusted as well as feared. History is not just one long tedious document of human hatred, human fear and human suffering. That's not just what we do. Not by a long way.

Leave that pessimistic view of humanity to the Tories.

[Zeb]

There needs to be a cohesive and popular vision rather than popular policies. Unpopular policies can be tolerated if they're part of a well-framed and popular vision. They can even contribute to the popularity of the overall vision, like a bad tasting medicine. The Tories will be doing this with austerity.

Reeves was doing that with Marr this morning and talking about social care. However the funding is done, it's going to be hugely unpopular if the care is to match people's expectations. It's part of building a perception, I suppose, as much as a long term solution is going to require a realistic view of where the money comes from.

[Dr. Beaker]

Covid's legacy should be that it embarrassed us into treating our carers fairly. There can barely be a person in the land who doesn't feel guilty about how our carers are treated. It's not that we can't afford it, it's that we choose not to afford it. Maybe Labour should shame people into being better people.

[Yorkykopite]

Covid's legacy should be that it embarrassed us into treating our careers fairly. There can barely be a person in the land who doesn't feel guilty about how our careers are treated. It's not that we can't afford it, it's that we choose not to afford it. Maybe Labour should shame people into being better people.

Thought for a moment you were asking us to become more professionally single-minded there Doc. But I see what you mean. Agree with it too.

[Dr. Beaker]

Thought for a moment you were asking us to become more professionally single-minded there Doc. But I see what you mean. Agree with it too.

;)Fixed

[Yorkykopite]

;)Fixed

Ha ha.

I do agree with you though. Apart from one small thing. Labour shouldn't need to use "shame". As you say practically everybody feels guilty already. What would be more efficient than "shame" is "pleasure". West london red will probably laugh at my naivety here, but Labour should point out not just our obligation to social carers, but also how most of us would be honoured, as decent people ourselves,  to see them put right.

I'm making a general point here about democratic socialist politics. Progressive taxation works best not when folk are guilt-tripped into paying it, but when they comprehend that in paying it they are honouring their own sense of fair play and becoming part of a movement toward natural justice. 

"Of course carers should be paid more. Of course I'd be delighted to help" - that's the sense of it.

[Dr. Beaker]

Ha ha.

I do agree with you though. Apart from one small thing. Labour shouldn't need to use "shame". As you say practically everybody feels guilty already. What would be more efficient than "shame" is "pleasure". West london red will probably laugh at my naivety here, but Labour should point out not just our obligation to social carers, but also how most of us would be honoured, as decent people ourselves,  to see them put right.

I'm making a general point here about democratic socialist politics. Progressive taxation works best not when folk are guilt-tripped into paying it, but when they comprehend that in paying it they are honouring their own sense of fair play and becoming part of a movement toward natural justice. 

"Of course carers should be paid more. Of course I'd be delighted to help" - that's the sense of it.

Agreed, totally. A feel good factor from out of the blue. Kinnock would have been able to carry it off. Starmer almost appeared to be human the other day, but probably Burnham would be best suited to lead this kind of charge. People could maybe like feeling good about themselves, after all the sniping and bitchiness of the last few years. Ah well, we can dream.

[Yorkykopite]

Agreed, totally. A feel good factor from out of the blue. Kinnock would have been able to carry it off. Starmer almost appeared to be human the other day, but probably Burnham would be best suited to lead this kind of charge. People could maybe like feeling good about themselves, after all the sniping and bitchiness of the last few years. Ah well, we can dream.

My own feeling on this Doc is that it shouldn't be left to just one man, or one woman.

Labour should make a virtue of being a TEAM - something that Johnson's government emphatically is not. It might also play to the sense in Britain that we have lost something with increasingly 'presidential' styles of leadership. The party should therefore promote its brightest talents and give them almost joint-billing with Starmer. Burnham certainly, but Rayner, Lammy, Cooper, Benn, Phillips, Creasy, Sadiq Khan too. Get them in front of the cameras, get them on billboards as a team, get them on the radio shows. A collective of people who trust and like each other and who are from a diversity of backgrounds, north and south, versus the corrupt egomaniac who doesn't trust anyone, keeps his own government in the dark, and is running the country into the ground while making himself personally very wealthy indeed.   

It only works of course if you give each individual a certain latitude so they don't appear to be talking like automatons following a crib sheet. The brief would be - and it's a bloody difficult one I admit - "don't sound like politicians." Jess Phillips knows how to do it. So do Creasy and Lammy. The others would have to learn.

[west_london_red]

Ha ha.

I do agree with you though. Apart from one small thing. Labour shouldn't need to use "shame". As you say practically everybody feels guilty already. What would be more efficient than "shame" is "pleasure". West london red will probably laugh at my naivety here, but Labour should point out not just our obligation to social carers, but also how most of us would be honoured, as decent people ourselves,  to see them put right.

I'm making a general point here about democratic socialist politics. Progressive taxation works best not when folk are guilt-tripped into paying it, but when they comprehend that in paying it they are honouring their own sense of fair play and becoming part of a movement toward natural justice. 

"Of course carers should be paid more. Of course I'd be delighted to help" - that's the sense of it.

I’d call it idealism rather then naivety

[Sangria]

My own feeling on this Doc is that it shouldn't be left to just one man, or one woman.

Labour should make a virtue of being a TEAM - something that Johnson's government emphatically is not. It might also play to the sense in Britain that we have lost something with increasingly 'presidential' styles of leadership. The party should therefore promote its brightest talents and give them almost joint-billing with Starmer. Burnham certainly, but Rayner, Lammy, Cooper, Benn, Phillips, Creasy, Sadiq Khan too. Get them in front of the cameras, get them on billboards as a team, get them on the radio shows. A collective of people who trust and like each other and who are from a diversity of backgrounds, north and south, versus the corrupt egomaniac who doesn't trust anyone, keeps his own government in the dark, and is running the country into the ground while making himself personally very wealthy indeed.   

It only works of course if you give each individual a certain latitude so they don't appear to be talking like automatons following a crib sheet. The brief would be - and it's a bloody difficult one I admit - "don't sound like politicians." Jess Phillips knows how to do it. So do Creasy and Lammy. The others would have to learn.

Is there another John Prescott whose elevation to not-leader might soothe the left, or have the Labour left wholly turned against any Labour party not under their control?

[Wilmo]

My own feeling on this Doc is that it shouldn't be left to just one man, or one woman.

Labour should make a virtue of being a TEAM - something that Johnson's government emphatically is not. It might also play to the sense in Britain that we have lost something with increasingly 'presidential' styles of leadership. The party should therefore promote its brightest talents and give them almost joint-billing with Starmer. Burnham certainly, but Rayner, Lammy, Cooper, Benn, Phillips, Creasy, Sadiq Khan too. Get them in front of the cameras, get them on billboards as a team, get them on the radio shows. A collective of people who trust and like each other and who are from a diversity of backgrounds, north and south, versus the corrupt egomaniac who doesn't trust anyone, keeps his own government in the dark, and is running the country into the ground while making himself personally very wealthy indeed.   

It only works of course if you give each individual a certain latitude so they don't appear to be talking like automatons following a crib sheet. The brief would be - and it's a bloody difficult one I admit - "don't sound like politicians." Jess Phillips knows how to do it. So do Creasy and Lammy. The others would have to learn.

God damn that's a good point.

[Yorkykopite]

I’d call it idealism rather then naivety

I can live with that. 

An essential element of course in left-wing politics. Preferably mixed with a sense of reality and a willingness to compromise.....and then move on to the next stage. I reckon after a century you'd be amazed by what you'd achieved. 

[Studgotelli]

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/04/johnson-set-to-press-on-with-plans-for-greater-control-over-nhs?__twitter_impression=true

[Red-Soldier]

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/04/johnson-set-to-press-on-with-plans-for-greater-control-over-nhs?__twitter_impression=true

Someone posted in the transfer thread the other day not to post amp links:


Why AMP is bad for your site and for the Web

https://medium.com/@danbuben/why-amp-is-bad-for-your-site-and-for-the-web-e4d060a4ff31


The original link for the post above:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/04/pm-confirm-19-july-end-covid-restrictions-scientists-warnings-england

[TSC]

Starmer just on sky news calling Johnson’s Covid actions (removing all restrictions) ‘reckless’.  What’s new eh.

[Red Raw]

Starmer just on sky news calling Johnson’s Covid actions (removing all restrictions) ‘reckless’.  What’s new eh.

Just saw this on Twitter from a SAGE report released today.

Importance of maintaining low prevalence

Although vaccination of most vulnerable groups will have reduced the proportion of community infections that lead to hospitalisation and death, there remain many advantages from an epidemiological perspective in maintaining both low prevalence and R<1. It makes it easier to prevent a return to rapid growth in the epidemic which could lead to the NHS being overwhelmed (e.g. because it gives more time to react to increases when starting from a low baseline, it is easier to spot outbreaks in advance of them growing large, and Test Trace and Isolate (TTI) can be more effective at lower prevalence).  This has been shown in some countries that have very low or near-zero Covid-19, since occasional outbreaks can then be dealt with quickly, including rapid sequencing of all cases to search for new variants. Lower transmission also reduces the in-country risk of the emergence of variants of concern as well as slowing spread of any VoCs (including imported VoCs). Lower infection rates will also reduce impact of post-Covid syndromes and allow more NHS capacity to be used for routine care. Since groups from a lower socioeconomic position and minority ethnic backgrounds have higher risk of infection and lower vaccination rates then any increase in prevalence is also likely to increase health inequalities in Covid-related illness and death.

There is significant risk in allowing prevalence to rise, even if hospitalisations and deaths are kept low by vaccination. If it were necessary to reduce prevalence to low levels again (e.g., VoC become more pathogenic for others previously less affected), then restrictive measures would be required for much longer.

From: EMG, SPI-M and SPI-B: Considerations in implementing long-term ‘baseline’ NPIs, 22 April 2021
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emg-spi-m-and-spi-b-considerations-in-implementing-long-term-baseline-npis-22-april-2021

They've run out of tosses to give haven't they?