THE FOURTH OF JULY

[John Brown]

My daughter recently got her PhD and no she isn't as thick as two short planks.

My youngest stepdaughter is currently doing her PHD, and was a finalist in Only Connect a few years back. I reckon she could be smarter than Spectric. She almost certainly knows more about the state of education in this country, seeing as that's relevant to her PHD focus.

 

[Jacob]

In any case hand skills and general intelligence/capability are on the same spectrum - you don't have more of one and less of the other.
It's simple really; the decline in hand-tool teaching and practice is because there are now far more opportunities, new ways of doing things, new things to do, thanks to universal state education and new technologies.

 

[sploo]

Latest MRP poll show Reform on 18 seats

Labour 450 seats
Lib Dem’s 71 seats
Conservative 60 seats
SNP 24 seats
Reform 18 seats
Greens 4 seats

This country could do without a right wing populist agitating in parliament and getting excessive publicity

The big news though is possibility of Lib Dem’s getting more than Conservatives…..that would put them as official opposition and they would then get the commensurate media attention.

I doubt that would happen though

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20240626.html

18 seats for Grifters UK Ltd? Sad state of affairs.

 

[Jake]

That's good. She'll be a good manager and a Tory then.

There are other options. Bad manager and Tory is a common combo - I'm desperately trying to think of a gang of recent examples soon to be relegated to history.

[No offence to Adam or his daughter who I'm sure is an excellent manager and therefore probably not Tory]

 

[selectortone]

That is because of the education system, they are clever parrots in recitation but many lack comprehension, problem solving and common sense so might be clever in a different way and most lack basic hand skills which is probably the dads fault with the just replace it attitude rather than fix it.

I have three kids, one daughter teaches year 12 and 13 at a secondary school, the other is an MSc who is a sustainabilty auditor. My son is a PhD who founded a software company with a product he developed himself from scratch that now employs 10 extremely clever software engineers. Not much parroting going on there.

I must say Spectric, you are one of the most pessimistic people I have ever encountered on the Internet. I prefer to think that people like my kids, and the others mentioned in these last few pages understand what needs to be done to save this country and this planet, and it's we old curmudgeons that are the problem not them.

 

[Spectric]

and it's we old curmudgeons that are the problem not them.

We are only the problem because we have reached retirement and are leaving gaps everywhere, our Gp surgery has lost four doctors all to retirement so all the surgeries joined up to share the remaining doctors.

There is a big difference in understanding what needs to be done and getting it done, talking is always easier than actions as shown by politicians and we all need to accept the reality and not just hope someone else like our kids will fix it later because later is going to be to late.

 

[niall Y]

When all us "baby boomers" die off , there will be lots of houses, the NHS will no longer be under strain from all us, "old gits" with multiple conditions, and the burden of paying out for all of those pensions will finally be eased. Will this, in fact, be the case?

Though I won't be around to see it myself - I very much doubt it. will be as simple as that Bearing in mind that state pension is probably the biggest " Ponzi Scheme" ever perpetrated and has failed as all such schemes do when there are no longer enough "investors" to finance the pay-outs,

 

[RobinBHM]

We are only the problem because we have reached retirement and are leaving gaps everywhere, our Gp surgery has lost four doctors all to retirement so all the surgeries joined up to share the remaining doctors.

There is a big difference in understanding what needs to be done and getting it done, talking is always easier than actions as shown by politicians and we all need to accept the reality and not just hope someone else like our kids will fix it later because later is going to be to late.

The problem is inequality.

Over the last 40 years there has been a steady trickle of assets from the govt to the wealthy

And there has been a steady trickle of assets from ordinary working people to the wealthy.


The problem of your surgeries lack of Drs is not a Dr shortage it’s the cuts to the budgets of Dr surgeries.

Have a look at locums: they can’t get enough work because GP surgeries can’t afford them.


If you want the problem solved you need asset ownership to be reversed, so public services renationalised and a massive council house building programme + coupled with taxing capital the same as income.

But you won’t vote for that, nor will lots of people.

I don’t know your situation, but if you own a house would you be willing to see it’s value go down by say 40%?

And would you be willing to see your private pension or other investments be taxed the same as income?


The problem is not a lack of action, the problem is voters won’t vote for the real solutions.

The Reform party is free market, low tax, deregulation…..they represent the polar opposite of what this country needs

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Last night I went to a hustings. All the major contenders, bar one, were represented - LibDem, Labour, Greens and Reform. It took the form of a brief introductory statement, questions from the audience (topics pre-submitted but not the detail) and a closing statement.

The incumbent Tory candidate was a no show - no convincing explanation. It is evident if a Tory is part of a debate, they become the focus of criticism for the rest of the panel. Perhaps not attending was the best strategy to avoid universal criticism and vote loss.!

All other candidates seemed decent, courteous to one another, concerned for their local community etc. Most of their policies were well intended and sincere - I would guess there was a common 75% with the remainder being more party specific.

Sadly the one question not asked relates to the vast gap between funding realities and aspirations - highlighted earlier this week by the IFS. Had they been asked, I suspect the response would follow the party leadership - waffle and hope the issue goes away.

To deliver better services (including surgeries and doctors) taxes need to increase. The target group seems to depend on personal perceptions - those who earn lots, those with accumulated wealth, etc. Reality - all above a very average income will need to pay for material improvements.

Even with more funding, there are not enough staff to fill the new posts created. Immigration will need to fill the gap, making further demands on all infrastructure - housing, healthcare, education etc. It should be a short term expedient not an unsustainable long term strategy.

There needs to be a fundamental debate about how, with the demographic mix that exists, the (without immigration) demand for public services is matched with that which can be delivered., and the impact on resources removed from other discretionary spend.

Training and education can play a part. Thus there is a democratic balance to be struck between taxation, provision of public services and the freedom to spend that which is earned. There are no right answers - despite very dogmatic views held by some.

 

[RobinBHM]

sadly there is a very dark side to Reform

trigger warning: dont watch if you dont want to hear foul language or racist comments

https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/1806393073221669157

 

[RobinBHM]

The Labour leadership and support teams are not academically illiterate or ill educated - they know precisely what the funding challenges are, and could make entirely plausible estimates of costs, actions and consequences. They have failed to do so.

the problem is Terry, you almost certainly wouldnt vote for them (Im not suggesting are voting for them anyway) if they provided an honest manifesto outlining all the changes needed, which would cost you money

in any case the solutions are going to take 10 years+

rock and a hard place for any political party

 

[RobinBHM]

There are no right answers - despite very dogmatic views held by some

 

[sploo]

sadly there is a very dark side to Reform

trigger warning: dont watch if you dont want to hear foul language or racist comments

https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/1806393073221669157

It's staggering isn't it. I just can't work out how a party UK Ltd company headed by a bloke who's spent his life expressing jingoistic and anti-immigrant views would somehow attract people with such unpleasant opinions .

Anyway, if you could do with a laugh; this evening Rishi has made it clear that this election is "not a referendum on me, on the Conservative Party". That's exactly what an election is Rishi; a referendum on the parties and their leaders.

 

[RobinBHM]

Biden versus Trump is on at 2.00am BST

It will make the U.K. leaders debate look intellectual

 

[Terry - Somerset]

the problem is Terry, you almost certainly wouldnt vote for them (Im not suggesting are voting for them anyway) if they provided an honest manifesto outlining all the changes needed, which would cost you money

in any case the solutions are going to take 10 years+

rock and a hard place for any political party

In truth my political outlook is traditional slightly right of centre conservative.

Honesty on the part of Labour would probably reinforce my political outlook, not change it.

This lack of transparency afflicts all major parties, reduces a serious democratic process to an exercise in marketing and superficial personality cults, and popularity.

I am not sure that there are easy fixes - perhaps all manifestos should be subject to independent critical (Office for Budget Responsibility??) who would report as an "auditor" on the credibility of the document. Quality media to focus on reporting inadequacies and inconsistencies.

And pigs might fly.

 

[Yorkieguy]

The problem is inequality.

Over the last 40 years there has been a steady trickle of assets from the govt to the wealthy

In 1960, the net personal wealth of top 1% in the UK was 35%. It declined to 18% by 1996, and has remained at 20% or a little over since 2006. The UK is below that of Norway, Austria, Denmark, Portugal, Estonia, and the Netherlands, and half that of America, where the top 1% possess 40% in net Household wealth.

Rachel Reeves has introduced the rather novel concept into the Labour party of wealth creation rather than wealth redistribution, but then unlike the 'us 'n them' class warrior dinosaurs, she isn't intellectually illiterate and she does have a solid background in economics. Unfortunately, the anticipated as yet to be generated new 'wealth stream' has already been spent, at least on paper, on ambitious manifesto plans.

In a matter of days now, they'll have the keys to No 10 (and she to No 11). It will be interesting to see how long it takes for 'mission creep' to set in.

I do hope when Starmer takes over he'll come to realise that the term 'hard working families' and 'ordinary people' are meaningless. What constitutes a family these days? It used to be a married couple with 2.4 children on average. What about single people? And among the electorate many people are far from being 'hard-working', but are being propped up by taxes paid by people who are hard working.

What is an 'ordinary person', and when do they cease to be 'ordinary'?

As to the Labour's workers rights plan:

Quote:

"Labour's plan will make work pay. We'll boost wages, make work more secure and support working people to thrive – delivering a genuine living wage, banning exploitative zero hour contracts, and ending fire and rehire".

Unquote.

Can't argue with the sentiments, but boosting wages - for example in the fragile hospitality sector, will not 'make work more secure'. The current living wage is £11.44 per hour = £457.60 for a 40 Hr week, plus all the other overheads for an employer to pay (holidays, sickness absence, maternity/paternity leave, statutory bank holidays) . How much more would be a 'genuine' living wage be? In the UK, almost 60% of small businesses fail in their first three years of life.

I do wonder if Sir Keir Starmer has looked at the size of companies in the private sector and the proportion who are employed in SMEs (Small to Medium Enterprises). A few facts:

The UK private sector comprises largely of non-employing businesses and small employers. SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) account for 99.9% of the business population. The government's statistics show that in 2023 SMEs employed 16.7 million people in the UK, 61% of the total number of people employed by private sector companies

There were estimated to be 5.6 million UK private sector businesses.

1.4 million (26%) businesses had employees and 4.1 million (74%) did not employ anyone aside from the owner(s)

There were 5.51 million small businesses (with 0 to 49 employees), 99.2% of the total business population
There were 36,900 medium-sized businesses (with 50 to 249 employees), 0.7% of the total business population
A further 8,000 businesses were large businesses (with 250 or more employees), 0.1% of the total business population

The odious practice of 'fire and re-hire' has been by large firms such as P&O Ferries and Compass:

https://corporatewatch.org/broken-compass-the-scandals-of-compass-group/

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/...code-practice-fire-rehire-employers-need-know

But of 5.6 million private sector companies, only 8,000 (0.1% of the total) employ 250 people or more, and threequarters of private sector companies employ no-one but the proprietor, (many of who would probably be only to pleased to be making £457 and to only have to work 40 Hrs a week).

Those are the facts of life which any incoming government will have to face.

 

[TRITON]

"Labour's plan will make work pay. We'll boost wages, make work more secure and support working people to thrive – delivering a genuine living wage, banning exploitative zero hour contracts, and ending fire and rehire".

Unquote.

Can't argue with the sentiments, but boosting wages - for example in the fragile hospitality sector, will not 'make work more secure'. The current living wage is £11.44 per hour = £457.60 for a 40 Hr week, plus all the other overheads for an employer to pay (holidays, sickness absence, maternity/paternity leave, statutory bank holidays) . How much more would be a 'genuine' living wage be? In the UK, almost 60% of small businesses fail in their first three years of life.

Are you aware that the table used to show that workers would be worse off under a new labour government, was based on the worst country with a labour record, namely the US, where workers rights are pretty much non existent, and few are in trade unions.

I was watching Phil Moorhouse's YT channel on just this point.
Whenever they have a table/poll which shows an opposite result, you are best find out the circumstances of how that chart was formulated, and when you find its comparing against the worst performer, it becomes clear that that policy(in this case Labours) is a good policy.

The odious practice of 'fire and re-hire' has been by large firms such as P&O Ferries and Compass:

No firm has the power to change employment laws, this is 100% the work of the tory party.

Again with the tories its project fear. But the truth is that after 14 years of mismanagement, the tories are incapable of running the country for its people.
They've turned it into the good of the few outweighs the good of the many. And are in my humble opinion now best consigned to political history.

 

[selectortone]

Again with the tories its project fear.

Yep. That's all they've got. Apart from fictitious tax cuts, Ruanda and National Service. Oh, and Michelle Mone and Jacob Rees Mogg.

 

[Jacob]

In 1960, the net personal wealth of top 1% in the UK was 35%. It declined to 18% by 1996, and has remained at 20% or a little over since 2006. The UK is below that of Norway, Austria, Denmark, Portugal, Estonia, and the Netherlands, and half that of America, where the top 1% possess 40% in net Household wealth.
....

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/
https://www.jrf.org.uk/wealth-fundi...e/changing-the-narrative-on-wealth-inequality
https://fullfact.org/economy/wealth-uk-richest-1-and-poorest-20/

Rachel Reeves has introduced the rather novel concept into the Labour party of wealth creation rather than wealth redistribution, but then unlike the 'us 'n them' class warrior dinosaurs, she isn't intellectually illiterate and she does have a solid background in economics.

Unfortunately she appears to be scientifically illiterate and largely ignores Climate Change. She's not alone!
Wealth creation is a trivial issue, a daydream, compared to the changes coming our way.
In order to attain net zero, build the alternative infrastructure, cease CO2 generation by "wealth creation" (and deal with the consequential rates of unemployment), must inevitably involve massive redistribution of wealth.
Or in other words; it is quite infantile to propose "wealth creation" as a solution, when it is precisely the cause of the problem.

 

[planesleuth]

I cannot believe this thread is still rattling on. You are all concerned about and will be voting in an autocratic process called 'First Past The Post'. To make this abundantly clear; if in your constituency you have 7 candidates and all in general get voted for but one, and one alone, gets the biggest proportion of the vote ( as in the case of Blair who only achieved 21%) then that candidate becomes the MP. Taking from the example and so presuming that candidate gets 21% of the vote and none of the others get close to 21%...that means that 79% of the electorate for that constituency are not represented and all decisions made in Parliament are also always skewed towards that 21%. THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY! It is the reason why nothing ever gets done in this country, century after century. Chuck into the equation the cesspit called the House of Lords and the apathy of a previous commentator who claimed he votes because it is 'all we have' then we will never, ever get problems sorted! Register to vote but do not vote is the only way forward until we get complete electoral and legal reform!