On topic: Has anyone noticed that the attack on the Nordstream pipeline is an attack on Germany - a NATO country?
Fuck Israel
Last edited by uziq (2022-10-06 03:56:47)
considering there is no formal constitution demarcating this stuff, i'd say: arguable.Dilbert_X wrote:
From what I can see the Labour and Tory systems are near identical, no idea what your point is really, and its not as if they're a electing a President, just the PM who doesn't actually wield a whole lot of power - that rests with the cabinet and the parliament.
and, more relevantly, hunt went to charterhouse. of course he's the usual tory establishment slop.Dilbert_X wrote:
When will this hell end?
Hunt ... read Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Magdalen College, Oxford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hunt
From everything I can see Hunt is a colossal turd, corrupt and an ideological nutcase.
But he is another libertarian neo-thatcherite, neo-hayekian guffuziq wrote:
hunt is being brought in as ... the 'voice of reason' to nullify those plans and correct the course. but how can it be that an oxford PPE grad is counteracting the libertarian neo-thatcherite, neo-hayekian guff of truss?
I've identified the problem already.they have zero new ideas and no fresh candidates
LMAO. i love how brexiters like you have used brexit as a nonsensical excuse to 'get wogs out' of britain, and now this is your twisted rationale. sheer genius.OK good. Open borders migration with India would be calamitous, and there'd be no chance of being readmitted to Europe in any form if that were allowed.
ehm literally his first statement as chancellor was that taxes were going to have to rise and cuts put in place, broadly in line with the QT being prescribed by the IMF and central banks everywhere. there's nothing very neo-thatcherite or hayekian about increasing taxes, dilbert.Dilbert_X wrote:
But he is another libertarian neo-thatcherite, neo-hayekian guff.uziq wrote:
hunt is being brought in as ... the 'voice of reason' to nullify those plans and correct the course. but how can it be that an oxford PPE grad is counteracting the libertarian neo-thatcherite, neo-hayekian guff of truss?
Last edited by uziq (2022-10-16 02:12:11)
But I'm not a brexiter you stupid hipster, so your paragraphs of ranting fall flat.uziq wrote:
LMAO. i love how brexiters like youOK good. Open borders migration with India would be calamitous, and there'd be no chance of being readmitted to Europe in any form if that were allowed.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-10-16 02:16:12)
Lets see what he actually does, the fact is he is a Thatcher fan and does come up with some pretty radical Hayekian ideas.uziq wrote:
there's nothing very neo-thatcherite or hayekian about increasing taxes, dilbert.
yes, it's an irony that stupid brexiters voted to leave the EU common market, nonsensically to service their xenophobic dog-whistling racism.Dilbert_X wrote:
But I'm not a brexiter you stupid hipster, so your paragraphs of ranting fall flat.uziq wrote:
LMAO. i love how brexiters like youOK good. Open borders migration with India would be calamitous, and there'd be no chance of being readmitted to Europe in any form if that were allowed.
But the fact is people who voted for brexit are going to be mightily pissed to see their country flooded with indians.
Last edited by uziq (2022-10-16 02:58:36)
Last edited by uziq (2022-10-16 03:01:35)
Last edited by uziq (2022-10-16 16:17:51)
or here's a handy précis on why 'something that happened a decade ago' isn't irrelevant, after a decade of post-2008 fiscal policy:In the event, the austerity programme relied very heavily on cuts to public expenditure which comprised 89% of the fiscal consolidation. In turn, a substantial part of these cuts were implemented through reductions in grants to local authorities which fell by 36.3% on average between 2009/10 and 2015/16. Across local authorities the reductions in public spending per person ranged from 46.3% to 6.2% with the most deprived areas experiencing relatively large cuts (Innes and Tetlow 2015).
After 2010 support for UKIP in local elections surged to the extent that they became a serious electoral threat to the Conservatives who therefore promised a referendum on EU membership. In a difference-in-differences analysis, Fetzer (2018) shows that rising support for UKIP at the local level was strongly correlated over time with the impact of austerity in areas with weak socioeconomic fundamentals. The effects are sizeable: for a district experiencing the average austerity shock UKIP’s vote share would rise by 3.58 percentage points based on the pooled estimate for the post-2010 period and 11.51 percentage points based on the estimate for 2015. Given the tight relationship between the vote shares of UKIP in elections and Leave in the referendum, these results suggest that Remain would very probably have won in the absence of austerity.
Clearly, in principle, fiscal consolidation could have been designed differently; for example, increased taxation could have played a much bigger part. Also, the Conservatives winning a majority in 2015 and having to implement their referendum promise was something of a surprise especially as fiscal consolidation was still ongoing. As it turned out, however, the sequence of events seems clear – the financial crisis led to an austerity programme which boosted support for UKIP enough to make the Conservatives promise a referendum and antagonised left-behind voters whose protest votes were enough to tip the balance for Leave.
decimated public services ... cuts, closures, scale-backs ... flatlining living standards ... a dearth of opportunity thanks to stunted recovery and growth ... how surprising that right-wing nationalism and populism step into the breach to blame, er, Europeans. remind me again how the EU affected local economic growth in the UK? most of the most-deprived areas which swung hard to Brexit were the recipients of massive amounts of EU largesse, like your beloved south wales with your grumpy racist uncle.Years of austerity have taken their toll. As the results came in on the night of 23 June 2016, commentators were quick to diagnose that a significant proportion who had opted to Leave had used the EU Referendum as a protest vote.
Having visited the UK last year, Philip Alston, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, observed that “much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos… British compassion has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited and often callous approach apparently designed to impose a rigid order on the lives of those least capable of coping.”
Alongside a dramatic shrinking of the state, the recession had other consequences too. While the rich got richer in the crash’s aftermath, wages for most working people flat-lined. Housing became unattainable and job security a thing of the past.
“We still haven’t recovered what was lost,” Jack Leslie, research and policy analyst at the Resolution Foundation, told me. “Before the crisis, average pay was growing at about 2% in the UK in real terms. Since then, pay growth has been really weak and we’re still not quite back to average pay levels at the time of the crisis. Productivity has also been historically weak since the crisis.”