Liberal, Briton, ‘Centrist Fun Uncle’. Co-mod of m/neoliberal and c/neoliberal.
This is patently absurd. Labour already inherited the highest tax burden in 70 years from the Conservatives - this budget increases the tax burden by a further £40bn to fund extra spending. Government borrowing is also going to increase by an average of £32bn a year for the next five years due to this budget.
If this is what they call austerity, I’d hate to see what these people think government largesse looks like…
He’s obviously talking his own book, but there does seem to be genuine concern that the government’s analysis of the non-dom crackdown suggests that, yes, it will lead to a reduction in tax revenue. Because many of these people can in fact just move…
Imagine the queue to see Larry lying in state.
Never heard of him. Do you mean Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?
I was disagreeing with you perpetuating the lump of labour fallacy that one can be anti-immigrant for pro-worker reasons.
When nativists use this argument, it’s usually shit-stirrers deliberately trying to pit people against each other. They rely on the fact that the average person probably hasn’t taken the time to conduct a literature review of the economic studies of immigration, but might be able to be seduced by a superficially easy argument that all their ills can be blamed on some minority and drawing on some cherry-picked anecdotes.
The reality of immigration bears little relation to the skewed narrative the nativists are trying to sell. Irregular migration represents only a tiny fraction of UK immigration. Immigrants are no more likely to commit crime than natives. Immigration grows the economy and has little or no effect on jobs and wages. Immigrants are net contributors to the NHS and public services. Once you knock away all the far-right’s factual lies, it’s hard to find the nugget of a ‘legitimate’ reason why people might consider immigration to be one of the major ‘problems’ facing this country that doesn’t start and end with xenophobia.
The idea that the unions would legitimately oppose immigration is nonsense. Economic analysis of the actual impact of immigration has consistently shown that immigration has little-to-no negative impact on the incomes of native workers - immigrants don’t undercut the wages of native workers so the unions shouldn’t be worried about them.
A large part of that is because of the ‘lump of labour’ fallacy. Unthoughtful people assume there’s a fixed number of jobs to be filled, but the reality is that immigrants don’t just fill jobs but also create jobs through their own demand for goods and services. But there are other factors too like entrepreneurialism and business start ups - immigrants, as evidenced by them being part of the small subset of people who are prepared to pack up their lives and move to another country, tend to be more entrepreneurial than the general population in either their home or host countries. Some of our biggest high street names like Tesco and M&S have immigrant origins.
The small caveat to this is that immigration in recent decades has been shown to have a tiny negative impact on the incomes of the lowest paid 20% of the population (of about -0.5%) but this is dwarfed by the positive impact it has on those further up the income spectrum (e.g. +1.7% for the richest 10%). Obviously +1.7% of a very rich person’s income is a lot more than -0.5% of a poor person’s income. So if the unions are rational and actually want to improve the lot of the poorest in society then they should be campaigning for a lot more immigration and a very small increase in taxes on the richest to fund redistribution of this income, which will more than compensate the poorest for the fraction of a percentage point of lost income from over two decades worth of immigration.
He didn’t ‘appear’ to justify the rioting.
He literally said ‘of course it’s politically justified!’ There’s no ambiguity here.
That is obviously untrue. I’m a second-gen immigrant and hard-Remain/Rejoin, Schengen-supporting-as-an-eventual-bridge-to-global-free-movement, neoliberal shill, who disagrees hugely with Labour’s cautious official stance on immigration (although I doubt it’s what Starmer and his senior team - Remain-voting, 2nd referendum supporters to a person - actually believe).
Even I can see that Starmer is a million times better than Farage - the guy who campaigned for a freeze on all non-NHS immigration, a ban on immigrants bringing their partners and children to the UK, supported the Rwanda scheme, and more generally has made a whole career out of demonising immigrants and refugees.
Imagine being so far off to the left than you can no longer tell the difference between Keir Starmer and Nigel fucking Farage 😂
The 1906-22 Liberal-led governments gave the UK progressive taxation, unemployment benefits, the state pension, the first tax-funded healthcare, the end of the primacy of the House of Lords. This was one of the most transformational progressive governments in our country’s history and this is partly why they were winning by-elections in working-class seats right up to the start of the First World War.
I think you’re overestimating the existence of underlying ‘political’ causes of the rise of Labour and underestimating the pure ‘electoral’ factors around the Asquith/Lloyd George split.
Good. It’s bonkers we were handing out non-means-tested fuel benefits to pensioners living in million pound homes, while young people and families in genuine need were struggling.
Pure Tory pork-barrel politics to bribe the one generation that most reliably voted for them. Now let’s get rid of the pension triple lock next please.
Parliament could reduce annual illegal immigration to zero with a one-line piece of legislation: ‘All immigration is legalised’…
I’m not suggesting we quite go that far. But any attempt to address the problem of illegal immigration needs to start off with a recognition of how 14 years of Tory home secretaries and 13 years of authoritarian New Labour home secretaries before home (the choice of home secretaries were always the worst thing about the Blair and Brown governments) have conspired to ramp up the barriers and hurdles to a regular hardworking immigrant - someone who wants to work and pay taxes and obey the law - actually being able to legally enter the UK and work.
It depends which way the Tories go. If a) the Tories elect another extremist and if b) the Tory-Reform split nonetheless persists into a second election, FPTP makes all sorts of crazy outcomes possible.
This is essentially what happened in the 1920s that allowed Labour to displant the Liberals in the first place over the course of two elections. Looking from the position of the 1906 Liberal landslide or even coming out of the First World War when the Liberals were still the largest party, the idea of Labour replacing them as a major party would have seemed fanciful. But the Asquith/Lloyd George split led to two Liberal Parties standing against each other in the 1918 and 1922 general elections, and by the time the Liberals reunited in 1923 the damage was done - Labour had snuck through in Liberal seats to become the 2nd party and, given how relentlessly majoritarian our system is, the reunited Liberal Party was unable to reassert themselves.
What a pathetic frog-faced snowflake.
What’s astonishing here is that Priti Patel is only about the third or fourth most lunatic extremist of the current set of candidates…
Interesting. I do think The West Wing has encouraged that among American liberals, although I don’t think it originated it.
For 6 out of Bill Clinton’s 8 years as President, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. And for the entire 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, the Democrats controlled the House. The notion that politicians need to work across party boundaries to pass legislation used to be normal in America.
The West Wing’s issue is that it prominently espoused this view just as things were changing and giving way to the modern American political culture of division and extreme partisanship on the right - and you obviously can’t cooperate with extremists who see any form of cooperation as a betrayal.
I think there are actually two distinct factors going on here.
The first is that the traditional rightward shift as you age has broken down among millennials, as you note.
The second - and I actually think this is as if not more important - is that the Tories have abandoned the field on left/right ‘economic-based’ politics anyway. Sunak presided over the highest tax burden in 70 years. The Tories’ post-2016 pitch to the electorate has always been about cultural conservativism - Brexit, immigrants, toilets for trans people, etc - not right-wing economics. And unlike left/right issues, there was never a trend for people to become more culturally conservative as they age. People just form their cultural norms and values when they’re young, and then carry these values with them through life, reacting against things that diverge from their norms.
By abandoning economics for culture wars, the Tories have built their electoral castle out of demographic sand. As the people who grew up in an overwhelming white and insular 1950s and 60s Britain give way to Millennials and Gen Zs who grew up in a ethnically diverse EU member state, the Tories have increasingly set themselves up in opposition to the cultural norms of the British electorate - and that is a stench it’s going to be hard for them to shift.
It depends what you’re looking for. As a TV drama, it’s timeless. The characters are great, the humour and wit is great.
But the politics is very much of its time - it came out relatively early in the era in which extreme partisanship in the US (and wider Western world) was taking hold, and so often hearkened back to an earlier halcyon era of bipartisan cooperation - from a modern perspective, in the age of Trump, Brexit, etc, that attitude will look quite naive.
Any government of any party would consider it to be a major breakdown in party discipline for one or more of its MPs to vote against its own Kings Speech.
That’s why they’ve been suspended. If this amendment had been tagged on to a piece of legislation then this would have just been a regular rebellion, of the sort that happens all the time in Parliament. Rebelling on your own party’s Kings Speech is an altogether different matter.
The goal here is that it’s famously difficult for third parties to get an appropriate measure of media attention in the UK. The newspapers are highly partisan, and the TV news interprets the ‘balance’ requirement to mean they can just give the government view and the main opposition view on every issue (unless the government and main opposition happen to agree - which is why the Lib Dems got a fair hearing in the media on Iraq in the early 2000s).
So third parties need to have a gimmick to trick the media into giving them airtime, which then allows them to talk about their issues. Charles Kennedy did it but being entertaining on chatshows and HIGNFY; Nigel Farage does it by being outrageous and offensive; and Ed Davey has worked out that he can do it through stunts.