Where did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
Didn’t say the govt’s of the 70s were socialist (hence “as well”) so straw man.
You fail to quantify what “gone well” would entail but since we’re discussing growth we’ve gone from the third to second in GDP in Europe since the 1970s.
You seem to bemoan a lack of socialist governments in the UK (apologies if I’ve misread your sarcasm). So I’d ask on return to name a country who has been a socialist state since the 1970s who have had better outcomes than us?
Not sure why you've brought socialism into it then if you weren't referring to the 70's governments. My original comment just made reference to the 70's and wealth inequality since.
And no, my comment wasn't bemoaning a lack of socialist government (although the last government to deliver any form of major social reform ended in 1951). The UK has been on a gentle slide of decline since then - particularly accelerated since the 1980's.
Respectfully, I disagree entirely
Although you’ve failed again to quantify which metric you are using so I can only assume what you are referring to when you repeat the “country ain’t what it used to be” cliche.
Where did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
Didn’t say the govt’s of the 70s were socialist (hence “as well”) so straw man.
You fail to quantify what “gone well” would entail but since we’re discussing growth we’ve gone from the third to second in GDP in Europe since the 1970s.
You seem to bemoan a lack of socialist governments in the UK (apologies if I’ve misread your sarcasm). So I’d ask on return to name a country who has been a socialist state since the 1970s who have had better outcomes than us?
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 1:41 pm
This utopian social democracy you so wistfully desire in order to create a more caring society cannot exist without taxing the billionaires/corporates so that wealth can be redistributed to reduce inequality. Its been done before with some success.
If humanity is to survive, the drive for profit at all costs, the exhaustion of the planet and its resources and permanent war must end.
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:15 am
It is sad and just as sad that neo liberal capitalism will bring down liberal democracy and leave us with a brutal and ugly fascism.
YES, sadly so.
See how Yvette Cooper is already adopting the Faragist mantra of asylum seekers being to blame for all kinds of horrors and will employ loads of extra staff to facilitate deportation. See how Rachel Reeves is already determined to delete benefits for ordinary people to cover the wild mis-spending of the Tories. She penalises the ordinary folks, suggesting they are costing the country too much. This is the result of Starmer's determination to remove Labour from the democratic socialist principles on which the party was founded in order to get elected.
Many people had hoped that Starmer would implement something akin to Corbyn's vision of humanity and social care. Instead we are getting the same as before.
I suspect that by the time of the next election Starmer will be deemed as having failed both sides.
And Farage will be loving it.
P.S: No wonder then that the Tories are currently considering which extremist loon to select as their next leader.
I posted on the Labour thread why there's no point blaming Labour for this (although, don't hold out any hope that they can solve it either). This is structural.
I posted on the Labour thread why there's no point blaming Labour for this (although, don't hold out any hope that they can solve it either). This is structural.
Can I ask - What does that mean for me ?
Does it mean interest rates are going to go up ? Inflation ?
If I'm going to get f*cked I'd like to know the direction the f*cking is coming from.
I posted on the Labour thread why there's no point blaming Labour for this (although, don't hold out any hope that they can solve it either). This is structural.
Can I ask - What does that mean for me ?
Does it mean interest rates are going to go up ? Inflation ?
If I'm going to get f*cked I'd like to know the direction the f*cking is coming from.
The good news is that you wont need to worry about second guessing. The bad news is that's because you're going to get f*cked from every direction.
Generally, it indicates we're grappling with structural problems. The result is higher Government debt costs, which they will typically seek to finance through taxation and/or spending cuts. We could well end up with increased taxes and more austerity.
A further option is money printing, but that risks a return to double-digit inflation, which leads to higher mortgage repayments, recession, unemployment and low investment.
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 3:14 pm
So basically, after decades of low taxes, under-investment, State-shrinking, profit-extracting, the game is now up?
Yeah, although we didn't even get low taxes* and have still ended up here.
*When you factor in all forms of taxation that most ordinary people are exposed to - not the super rich.
It's also worth considering that Labour, for all their many faults, are the last bastions of the "political centre". When they fail, which is looking increasingly inevitable, then the extremes will seek to exploit the gap.
Conkles is going to get the "another way" he's been banging on about.
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 3:28 pm
It's also worth considering that Labour, for all their many faults, are the last bastions of the "political centre". When they fail, which is looking increasingly inevitable, then the extremes will seek to exploit the gap.
Conkles is going to get the "another way" he's been banging on about.
This was always going to happen.
If only someone had been brave enough to step up and offer us all an alternative vision. A different way of doing things. Never mind.
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 3:28 pm
It's also worth considering that Labour, for all their many faults, are the last bastions of the "political centre". When they fail, which is looking increasingly inevitable, then the extremes will seek to exploit the gap.
Conkles is going to get the "another way" he's been banging on about.
This was always going to happen.
If only someone had been brave enough to step up and offer us all an alternative vision. A different way of doing things. Never mind.
