Reply to: The Autumn Statement 2023

[jamesbrown]

And Labour will win by Tory voters not turning out or getting pissed off with voter id.

They will mainly win by former Tory voters actively turning out to hammer the Tories.

[jamesbrown]

The current administration is wedded to a philosophy driven by HMT and the OBR

You're probably not a giant leap away from conspiracy theorist. The reality is that civil servants largely do what they're told, whether from a sense of duty or, if they strongly disagree, ministerial direction. They don't drive any particular philosophy, other than the natural tendency of any large organisation to moderate extremes and mitigate tail risks. There are individuals within HMT and OBR and every other acronymic organisation that have strong political views, obviously. The OBR is a product of a former Tory (coalition) gov't, designed to remove the politics from economic analysis and forecasting.

Blaming civil service "groupthink" on failed gov't policy is a space largely occupied by Telegraph loyalists and fringe thickos who cannot bring themselves to accept that the Tories are, ultimately, not very conservative anymore.

[SueEllen]

And Labour will win by Tory voters not turning out or getting pissed off with voter id.

[malvolio]

All of the considerable evidence of your posting history points to it being precisely that, for you, blind faith. You rarely (if ever) engage in any substantive criticism of the Tories, it’s all “but Labour…”, which is intellectually weak, as I’ve said. You strike me as a Tory voter by tradition and I doubt anything or anyone will ever convince you otherwise. Hey ho. Fortunately, the Tories are going to get absolutely smashed at the next GE.

Well, wrong. Again, you've not been looking at what I've said. The current administration is wedded to a philosophy driven by HMT and the OBR, neither of which are interested in personal wealth, merely acquiring income and running down an entirely nebulous national debt. That is not monetarism or any variation of Thatcherism I recognise. We had a PM with the balls (erm...) to introduce a proper policy but who stupidly made a total cock up of that, and Sunak has been too scared by that and the risk of trouble from the back benches to do anything but pursue the Osborne/Hammond/Hunt line which is why we are here now.

My point is that the Tories historically have a history of sorting out financial messes and Labour have one of creating them. That is a pragmatic view as to why I would prefer a Conservative mindset to a Socialist one. It's unlikely I will get that, largely down to the Tories incompetence levels, but we live in hope that they will find another statesman to make policy rather than relying on highly questionable advice. Right now, that is also unlikely.

But do not confuse arguing a certain standpoint with blind political belief. We have neither Labour nor Tory parties right now, merely two pinkish-bluish middle ground cowards, which makes your "Mal is a fierce Tory" dismissal a bit of a nonsense. I am, but this current shower is not a Tory party.

As for voting at the next GE, I probably won't bother. There seems little point.

HTH. BIDI.

[jamesbrown]

in my case it's not based on blind faith.

All of the considerable evidence of your posting history points to it being precisely that, for you, blind faith. You rarely (if ever) engage in any substantive criticism of the Tories, it’s all “but Labour…”, which is intellectually weak, as I’ve said. You strike me as a Tory voter by tradition and I doubt anything or anyone will ever convince you otherwise. Hey ho. Fortunately, the Tories are going to get absolutely smashed at the next GE.

[WTFH]

... in my case it's not based on blind faith.

Except you're saying we must always have a Tory government, because only the Tory government can ever do anything good for the country, no one else should ever be considered.

If that isn't blind faith, I don't know what is!

[SueEllen]

So Labour inheriting public services that are on their deathbed necessitating increasing in spending gets blamed on Tories?

Do you ever feel like you are wasting your time?

[JustKeepSwimming]

OK. Every Labour government since WW2 has left the economy in a worse state than it was when they took power. We have not seen any promises from Labour yet, just a string of soundbites centred on "You're doing it wrong". Fairly soon they will have to start proposing alternatives. And if you want a bad Tory government as a counter proposal, then look to Heath and Major; they make Sunak look competent.

And of course, let's ignore the over-extended economy when the coalition took power, Brexit, the pandemic and the little skirmish in Crimea and Ukraine, none of which were faced by the current' gang's recent predecessors but all have which have affected the last 13 years.

I'm not sure who is the bigger supporter of mediocrity, you or me (probably me!), but in my case it's not based on blind faith.

So Labour inheriting public services that are on their deathbed necessitating increasing in spending gets blamed on Tories?

[malvolio]

Your propensity to defend almost anything the Tories do as "not as bad as Labour" is intellectually weak and akin to political activism. Personally, I prefer to judge political parties on their actual record in gov't and the credibility of their promises. I'll probably vote for the Tories again when they rediscover their ability to actually "conserve" anything and not govern like a clownshoe. In the mean time, I'll be happy to vote for Labour (whether directly or indirectly) in the full knowledge that they will hammer contractors to roughly the same degree, or somewhat more, than the Tories, with the upside of not governing like a clownshoe.

OK. Every Labour government since WW2 has left the economy in a worse state than it was when they took power. We have not seen any promises from Labour yet, just a string of soundbites centred on "You're doing it wrong". Fairly soon they will have to start proposing alternatives. And if you want a bad Tory government as a counter proposal, then look to Heath and Major; they make Sunak look competent.

And of course, let's ignore the over-extended economy when the coalition took power, Brexit, the pandemic and the little skirmish in Crimea and Ukraine, none of which were faced by the current' gang's recent predecessors but all have which have affected the last 13 years.

I'm not sure who is the bigger supporter of mediocrity, you or me (probably me!), but in my case it's not based on blind faith.

[jamesbrown]

I agree a dividend tax has been imposed on monies taken for personal income by the Tories, so they didn't have to increase Income Tax as per their manifesto. That was a major irritant rather than a major imposition. However it was Labour who applied it to pensions funds by cancelling their exemption to such taxes, ruining quite a lot of very significant things in the process.

I may be over-optimistic about Tory plans, but I have seen nothing in the last 60 years to persuade me to be optimistic about Labour's.

Your propensity to defend almost anything the Tories do as "not as bad as Labour" is intellectually weak and akin to political activism. Personally, I prefer to judge political parties on their actual record in gov't and the credibility of their promises. I'll probably vote for the Tories again when they rediscover their ability to actually "conserve" anything and not govern like a clownshoe. In the mean time, I'll be happy to vote for Labour (whether directly or indirectly) in the full knowledge that they will hammer contractors to roughly the same degree, or somewhat more, than the Tories, with the upside of not governing like a clownshoe.

[WTFH]

hey we are caught between a pit of despair and a pile of pooh - what a choice.

I agree.
But we've had pooh for too long, so long that it's being pumped into our rivers and seas, and we're told we need to pay more to stop it (or just to keep the precious shareholders in their dividends, while we're in the pooh).

[WTFH]

That's just a lazy soundbite that ignores reality. I could poke several holes in that thesis to explain why we are where we are, but there would be little point.

Sadly the next election will be decided on just such SM-derived criteria.

You mean the criteria of 13 years of dodging responsibility, promising the world and delivering nothing?
If you think that repeating the same mistake and hoping for a different outcome is the way forward, then keep voting for the Tufton Street/Sun/Express/Mail/Telegraph/GBeebies parties.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time for a change. And it's not sad that the next election should be decided by the last decade plus of failures, people should be held to account.

[malvolio]

hey we are caught between a pit of despair and a pile of pooh - what a choice.

Bit like America really, choosing between someone detached from reality and someone who says what he thinks people want to hear. Only difference is ours are thirty years younger!

[vetran]

We just need to give them another chance, eh?
They've only had 13 years, that's not long enough.
Give them another chance.
Everyone will be worse than them.

hey we are caught between a pit of despair and a pile of pooh - what a choice.

[malvolio]

We just need to give them another chance, eh?
They've only had 13 years, that's not long enough.
Give them another chance.
Everyone will be worse than them.

That's just a lazy soundbite that ignores reality. I could poke several holes in that thesis to explain why we are where we are, but there would be little point.

Sadly the next election will be decided on just such SM-derived criteria.