5 years hard labour ?

[Bper]

11 minutes ago, First_Toyota said:

I’m aware that what I’m about to write may sound ‘defeatist.’ To some extent it is, but bare with me.

We all tend to look at things through the prism of our lifetime, especially our adult lifetime. That’s natural. The thing is, the reasons the U.K. is in the position it is now and has been for the last fifty years at least, run deeper and back farther into history.

I think of this country as a bit like a lower league football team that received some unexpected good fortune or investment and ended up in the Premier League. They then did well for a few seasons but couldn’t ultimately compete with the really big teams and their resources. Think of the U.K. as Watford, Wimbledon, Bournemouth or Wigan Athletic. Meanwhile China, India, the USA…they’re Manchester United, Liverpool, and Manchester City.

We are a small island that over achieved. Without our Empire and the resources that flowed into the country over two centuries, we would never have been able to achieve Premier League status. That means like a lot of football fans of smaller teams that do well and then fall back, our expectations are now unrealistic. 

We want to still be a ‘great power’ but we simply don’t have the resources to maintain that status any more. We pretend we can, we pretend it’s about ‘difficult choices’ but I feel it’s a fact. We all expect the NHS to receive more and more funding, to have ‘world class’ Armed Forces, councils that deliver the moon on a stick for us, fantastic free state schools…I could go on. We also look back, whether consciously or not, to the past and the great accomplishments of this country (and I’m not suggesting the Empire was either good or bad as the reality is somewhere in between when seen in the context of the times) and expect to compete at the top of the Premier League when the reality now is more like mid-table Championship.

To the point about austerity after the financial crisis, the situation goes far further back. Both World Wars and post-war reconstruction, especially after WW2, reduced our ability to really compete and do what we thought we ought to be able to do. Successive Governments could actually do little, as public perception wouldn’t have accepted that we should actually live within our means as we’d lived a champagne lifestyle for so many decades. Shocks like the financial crisis simply shone a bright light on how fragile our position was, and remains.

This isn’t a new thing. The enclosed is worth a watch, albeit twenty minutes long. This was the 1970s. Inflation, unexpected war and instability, poor public services, not enough houses being built, not enough council houses, young people not able to afford rents or deposits…sound familiar?  Life was getting worse then for much the same reasons as we consider it is still getting worse now.

 

"Hi Ed, very true. But like any football team that doesn’t perform especially those in danger of relegation what do they do? They sack the manager. The biggest problem is that we’ve only had two managers to choose from for so long. Both have regularly shuffled their team but have consistently underperformed. Over the years, the teams have lost their fans, who are the lifeblood paying their wages. Despite reassurances from the managers, the first few games have produced only own goals.

As they’ve gradually lost game after game, another small club, with the heart and determination to make it as a Premier League contender, is slowly climbing up. Other clubs’ fans are starting to see they’re playing the kind of football they actually want to watch. With each win, the new club’s manager can now start bringing in players who want to win and value the fans' support. Meanwhile, the original clubs sink further down the league, left with only their die-hard supporters. Football and politics are the same with both who like kicking balls.😂👍

."

[Cyker]

8 hours ago, Bper said:

Totally agree,as infrastructure is fundamental to the operation of any economy, it should be managed independently of political influence. Appoint individuals who not only understand the importance of infrastructure but also have practical experience in relevant industries. A cross-party committee of financially independent accountants could oversee budgets, contracts, and ensure value for money. This committee would report to a minister who, in turn, could provide regular updates to the government and the public on progress.👍
 

I'd vote for that! Successive government have shown they're terrible at long term planning, instead preferring to squabble and one-up each other.

Having a cross-party or even non-aligned permanent section to deal with long term projects and critical core infrastructure in a fair, neutral and far-sighted way would save so much wasted effort and money.

 

 

11 hours ago, Primus1 said:

The publicis paying the price for 14 years of unnecessary austerity..

I didn't think it was unnecessary and is one of the few things I thought was a good idea at the time - 

The problem is we're currently a bit like the USA - Have a big deficit so have to keep borrowing more money to fill the gap.

However, part of the reason for this is we borrowed so much so we're having to pay bazillions in interest which we are effectively borrowing more money to pay it off which increases the interest which means we need to borrow more and so on. The USA are deeply in this death spiral and are basically ****ed at this point - I'm pretty sure China will technically own the whole country in the mid-to-far future as a good chunk of those loans can be traced back to there.

This is quite a common problem in a lot of countries except the very sensible ones (e.g. Norway). However, I am aware of one country that was in that death spiral but got out of it - Canada.

They endured 2 decades of pain and suffering under austerity to greatly reduce their debt and it paid off, mostly.

Our government at the time thought this a good idea and started working on bringing down that debt, thinking we could endure it. However, a) they were wrong and b) They're idiots; They didn't consider how dependent a lot of people in this country are on welfare, and when we'd started clawing back a good chunk of the debt, some of them apparently forgot why we were doing this and went Oooh we've freed up all this money cutting back on public services, schools, NHS etc., lets waste it on something else! And then covid hit.

So because of bad luck and incompetence we're instead suffering from the downsides of austerity without getting any of the benefits.

We have two choices - Try again, or just keep increasing our borrowing limit like the US do every year.

Both have pros and cons, mainly one is more painful short term and the other long term, but everyone involved needs to pick one or the other and stick with it - Flip-flopping between the two is just throwing money down a fiery drain!

[Bper]

So many issues are piling up: post office closures, tax hikes, rising council taxes, a broken NHS and care sector, and crumbling infrastructure. Farmers are paid not to grow crops, inheritance law changes may lead many to lose their farms, and schools are literally falling apart. Motoring costs are at an all-time high, crime is out of control, and we have a police service focused on ‘woke’ issues rather than serious crime. Migration is unchecked, and the cost of living is soaring. Meanwhile, a four-day work week is becoming the norm, manufacturing is dwindling, and energy costs are the highest they’ve ever been. Politicians accept freebies, pubs and high street shops are closing at record rates, and public services are failing.

We’ve seen cover-ups from institutions like the church on abuse issues that have spanned centuries. And now, some politicians can’t even define basic concepts like what a woman is. All of this is just a glimpse of what has been broken by politicians who, over time, have systematically eroded the core of our country. And here we are 68 million people and rising, being dictated by a few who couldn’t be trusted to run a bath.🤬

.

 

[Rhymes with Paris]

I think we're all doomed, doomed I tell ye.

Not a very comprehensive answer I know, and not addressing any of the serious issues presented here.

But it works for me to take the easy way out of the complex thinking required to analyse the problems beyond my understanding.

And trying to articulate any answers that make sense.

So I reiterate, we're all doomed.🫣

[Primus1]

23 minutes ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

I think we're all doomed, doomed I tell ye.

Not a very comprehensive answer I know, and not addressing any of the serious issues presented here.

But it works for me to take the easy way out of the complex thinking required to analyse the problems beyond my understanding.

And trying to articulate any answers that make sense.

So I reiterate, we're all doomed.🫣

They don’t like it up em…!

[Bper]

38 minutes ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

I think we're all doomed, doomed I tell ye.

Not a very comprehensive answer I know, and not addressing any of the serious issues presented here.

But it works for me to take the easy way out of the complex thinking required to analyse the problems beyond my understanding.

And trying to articulate any answers that make sense.

So I reiterate, we're all doomed.🫣

"Heaven never bars one’s way."

Even in the darkest times, there’s always a way through. Maybe we’re not as doomed as we think!😀

[Rhymes with Paris]

53 minutes ago, Bper said:

Maybe we’re not as doomed as we think!😀

Oh we are.

Doomed I tell ye.

[Haliotis]

PMQ on BBC Politics Live gives a good indication of how insolent politicians are.  At the dispatch box, a difficult question is always avoided - instead a repeated speel of what they [think] they have achieved, or a scurrilous rant is aimed at the opposing party.  We all know what happens when two trains approach each other on the same rail track and that is exactly what happens with political decisions.  They simply let disasters take their course and changing direction in time is just not in their make-up - blaming the “other side” is seen as a valid way to clear their conscience (what conscience? , I here you ask!).

[AndyN01]

I've posted before that the behaviour in PMQ's is disgraceful.

How do "we" expect "society" to be fair, reasonable and honest when the folks that run the country behave like infant school kids in the playground - who are (or should be) rapidly reprimanded.

I have a great deal of respect for any politician who actually answers a question with a straight answer. I might agree or disagree with their view but hats off to them for having the courage of their convictions to give their opinion.

And maybe that's the problem - too many snake oil slimy's and not enough with solidly held beliefs and the guts to say stuff that might be unpalatable but true?

 

[Bper]

37 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

I've posted before that the behaviour in PMQ's is disgraceful.

How do "we" expect "society" to be fair, reasonable and honest when the folks that run the country behave like infant school kids in the playground - who are (or should be) rapidly reprimanded.

I have a great deal of respect for any politician who actually answers a question with a straight answer. I might agree or disagree with their view but hats off to them for having the courage of their convictions to give their opinion.

And maybe that's the problem - too many snake oil slimy's and not enough with solidly held beliefs and the guts to say stuff that might be unpalatable but true?

 

From the two main parties which politician has ever answered a question with a straight forward answer.?😂

[Bper]

59 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

PMQ on BBC Politics Live gives a good indication of how insolent politicians are.  At the dispatch box, a difficult question is always avoided - instead a repeated speel of what they [think] they have achieved, or a scurrilous rant is aimed at the opposing party.  We all know what happens when two trains approach each other on the same rail track and that is exactly what happens with political decisions.  They simply let disasters take their course and changing direction in time is just not in their make-up - blaming the “other side” is seen as a valid way to clear their conscience (what conscience? , I here you ask!).

What makes me laugh is they have prior knowledge of the questions to be asked. This gives them time to deflect. The house of commons is theatre it's just a shame the curtain is pulled down and the show cancelled.😂

[AndyN01]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

From the two main parties which politician has ever answered a question with a straight forward answer.?😂

Maggie?

More recently..... Erm......

[Haliotis]

Straight-talking ministers don’t last that long - others are afraid of them from the PM down, and so an early demise is  quick in coming.  I wonder if they wear Kevlar vests under their jackets to protect themselves from each other???

[Bper]

2 hours ago, AndyN01 said:

Maggie?

More recently..... Erm......

Actually you're right i missed that one she 

 

2 hours ago, AndyN01 said:

Maggie?

More recently..... Erm......

Ah your right I missed that one she was probably the only one that did since Cromwell 😂

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

Straight-talking ministers don’t last that long - others are afraid of them from the PM down, and so an early demise is  quick in coming.  I wonder if they wear Kevlar vests under their jackets to protect themselves from each other???

With the amount of public school boys in there they probably need Kevlar pants.😂