Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[jon0844]

I think there are plenty of homes, but many are in need of major repairs. Given how many EU nationals returned home, I am sure there are more properties available than ever before.

I suspect a lot of Ukrainians are finding themselves homeless after the rather suspect scheme to take refugees in, whereby it was found a lot of rather suspect individuals were offering to put up Ukrainian women - and many allegations where made of inappropriate behaviour. The screening process was subpar, which is not surprising given how understaffed all Government agencies are at the best of times, and not just when there was a sudden crisis to deal with.

 

[Yew]

That is of course appalling and desperately sad. But to my mind, it mostly reflects the problem that we simply don't have enough homes in the UK for everyone here. And if there aren't enough homes then it's inevitable that someone is going to end up homeless: That is dictated by basic laws of mathematics. To be fair, the report you cite does suggest the Government could provide more financial support for refugees, but I'm not clear how that can solve the problem of there not being enough homes. The only thing I can think of in the short run is to do more to incentivise more people to take in lodgers. We urgently need to build more homes but that takes time. It's also hard not to avoid pointing out that if it hadn't been for Freedom of Movement in previous years, the problem would probably not be as bad as it currently is (although lack of Government action on housebuilding is also a huge issue).

You talk about freedom of movement, as if it is the main driver of the problems, rather than something that has highlighted the poor decision making and short-sightedness of Thatchers right to buy schemes and their limits on local authority housing stock replenishment.

There seems to be an element of personal responsibility missing from that analysis As far as I'm aware, no-one is forced to buy fast food, nor on the whole are people forced to drive half a mile instead of walking to pick up their fast food or a couple of things from the local shops. Those are choices that individuals make. And if more people chose, for example, to buy healthy food or to exercise more, then you'd very quickly see more businesses spring up to cater for that demand - because that is how the free market works!

Such companies relentlessly A/B test these products, and have pervasive advertising using as many psychological tricks as they can find. There are entire floors full of people at say, Mcdonalds, whose sole purpose is to increase the amount of burgers we consume. Surely you can recognise that this is not a fair fight?

 

[Dent]

how driving is encouraged more than walking and cycling for relatively short journeys

Who is encouraging driving for short journeys which could be walked or cycled? I have certainly never seen any such encouragement, and all the rhetoric I've seen from various sources has been the complete opposite.

 

[Falcon1200]

Who is encouraging driving for short journeys which could be walked or cycled? I have certainly never seen any such encouragement, and all the rhetoric I've seen from various sources has been the complete opposite.

I would certainly agree with that. Sometimes however the reason for using the car for a short journey is understandable, eg inclement weather or having heavy shopping to carry home.

 

[JamesT]

Who is encouraging driving for short journeys which could be walked or cycled? I have certainly never seen any such encouragement, and all the rhetoric I've seen from various sources has been the complete opposite.

The planners of most of our urban environments for the last few decades? Building retail developments with massive carparks, widening roads to allow motor traffic to flow. Extremely limited infrastructure if any for active travel.
The talk might not be encouraging driving, but the actions have been.

 

[Dent]

The planners of most of our urban environments for the last few decades? Building retail developments with massive carparks, widening roads to allow motor traffic to flow. Extremely limited infrastructure if any for active travel.
The talk might not be encouraging driving, but the actions have been.

That is not encouraging anyone to drive for short journeys that they would otherwise walk or cycle, that is simply providing a useful facility for those who need to use it. Retail developments with "massive" car parks are not typically in locations were their customer base lives within a practical walking distance, and also people tend to go there to do shopping so need a car to carry their shopping.

 

[al78]

That is not encouraging anyone to drive for short journeys that they would otherwise walk or cycle, that is simply providing a useful facility for those who need to use it. Retail developments with "massive" car parks are not typically in locations were their customer base lives within a practical walking distance, and also people tend to go there to do shopping so need a car to carry their shopping.

It is when roads are designed for the fast movement of motor traffic in urban areas which makes conditions more hostile for vulnerable road users, hence we are trying to emulate car-is-king America with some of the most congested roads in Europe and lackluster alternatives to driving. My home town is a good example, cycling around town should be easy, it is only three miles in diameter, but it is not great for anyone with a nervous disposition. It involves dealing with roundabouts, urban dual carriageways, and traffic lights with sub 10-second green phases which seem to nearly always go amber-red when I am 50 meters away, then go green when there is a queue of traffic behind me all trying to get to the next red light as fast as possible. Out of town retail developments are exactly the sort of thing that encourages driving due to them being out of the way as opposed to town center shops easily accessible by public transport, foot or bicycle, then we wonder why our high streets are in a state of decline . Actions >> consequences.

 

[brad465]

I broadly agree with you about the need to focus on sustainability, but why would that cause immigration demands to drop off? The only part of immigration that it might plausibly impact is companies seeking foreign workers because they can't find UK workers, but my understanding is, that accounts for only a fairly small proportion of immigration.

If we're not constantly growing the economy we're not creating constant jobs that in our low fertility country have to lead to net immigration. What we could also have is a rule similar to the EU's freedom of movement, where any immigrant who does not contribute for a set period (they have 3 months) is deported. Seeing as this was used often by remain supporters to counter claims of freedom of movement being too out of control (apparently the UK Government didn't really enforce this rule, but I can't confirm that right now), they and other pro-immigration supporters would likely accept such a rule. Therefore, take away the demand with the first point, have an enforced rule that prevents residing here with no valuable contribution to the economy, and the demand should drop off.

There seems to be an element of personal responsibility missing from that analysis As far as I'm aware, no-one is forced to buy fast food, nor on the whole are people forced to drive half a mile instead of walking to pick up their fast food or a couple of things from the local shops. Those are choices that individuals make. And if more people chose, for example, to buy healthy food or to exercise more, then you'd very quickly see more businesses spring up to cater for that demand - because that is how the free market works!

And how do people obtain this personal responsibility? They do so through education, as nobody is born with a fully programmed brain fit for how today's world works. We need improved education in critical thinking (which can help resist advertising cons) and in essential life skills like cooking (this education is not as widespread as it used to be) to help tackle this sort of problem. Sure, there will always be a few who don't know what they're doing and make no effort to sort themselves out, but the levels of obesity/unhealthy lifestyle in our society can only happen through systemic problems.

Who is encouraging driving for short journeys which could be walked or cycled? I have certainly never seen any such encouragement, and all the rhetoric I've seen from various sources has been the complete opposite.

JamesT put it best below, but would give a specific focus to the many housing developments that have arisen with little or no amenities provided within, making them just joyless estates and ensuring residents have to go further to get to the amenities. Also for cycling this is being discouraged by both the lack of infrastructure to support them and the lack of road maintenance. Potholes/sunken drains are bad enough for vehicle suspensions, but on a bad day they are fatal for cyclists. Actions are doing more to encourage driving, but there is also limited verbal encouragement for walking and cycling, which combined with lack of suitable infrastructure makes driving the default, even if no verbal campaign towards driving exists.

The planners of most of our urban environments for the last few decades? Building retail developments with massive carparks, widening roads to allow motor traffic to flow. Extremely limited infrastructure if any for active travel.
The talk might not be encouraging driving, but the actions have been.

 

[dosxuk]

What we could also have is a rule similar to the EU's freedom of movement, where any immigrant who does not contribute for a set period (they have 3 months) is deported.

The EU's Freedom of Movement rules referred to the freedom of movement of goods and labour. There is no enshrined right to just go and live in another EU country under these rules, so many states enforced rules that required you to be in employment, self supporting, or established other ties to the area you are living, in order to be permitted to stay or have access to government support / benefits / services. You were permitted unlimited travel throughout the EU area, which makes it a little more difficult to police, but there isn't really that many (any?) people gaming the system by migrating across the continent continuously changing residency while claiming benefits only open to locals.

Seeing as this was used often by remain supporters to counter claims of freedom of movement being too out of control (apparently the UK Government didn't really enforce this rule, but I can't confirm that right now)

They didn't. It was too much effort and too much expense for a group which overall contributed to the economy to go chasing the few that didn't. We didn't have the tourist resident problems that parts of Spain and France suffer from, where there were significant costs from providing health care to aging foreign tourists who had decided to move there to retire - countries which brought in such requirements - the vast majority of our EU immigration was from working age people, coming here to work.

they and other pro-immigration supporters would likely accept such a rule. Therefore, take away the demand with the first point, have an enforced rule that prevents residing here with no valuable contribution to the economy, and the demand should drop off.

Obviously, we could have had such a rule without leaving the EU, if it was seemed to provide some sort of tangible benefit to the UK. However, your problem with getting such a rule accepted is not with the remainers and pro-immigration people, it's with the leavers and anti-immigration people - the majority of which has zero interest in such a rule being introduced as it was more important to stop people coming here at all than to make sure the people coming were being productive.

As for not growing the economy, that is going to be a very hard prospect to sell. Are *you* happy with getting poorer as you age?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for not growing the economy, that is going to be a very hard prospect to sell. Are *you* happy with getting poorer as you age?

Depends what you mean by growth. Economic growth is largely a Ponzi scheme which is why we have to have "busts" to go with "booms" - actual growth is constrained by the availability of resources on Earth. There's no real reason why the economy can't stay static in size, with near-zero inflation.

Individual companies of course can grow (but may choose to stay the same), but others will fail to offset that.

 

[JamesT]

Depends what you mean by growth. Economic growth is largely a Ponzi scheme which is why we have to have "busts" to go with "booms" - actual growth is constrained by the availability of resources on Earth. There's no real reason why the economy can't stay static in size, with near-zero inflation.

Individual companies of course can grow (but may choose to stay the same), but others will fail to offset that.

Economic growth is defined by the utility we get from what is produced increasing. If you can become more productive then we can grow the economy whilst using the same amount of resources and having the same population.

 

[DC1989]

Depends what you mean by growth. Economic growth is largely a Ponzi scheme which is why we have to have "busts" to go with "booms" - actual growth is constrained by the availability of resources on Earth. There's no real reason why the economy can't stay static in size, with near-zero inflation.

Individual companies of course can grow (but may choose to stay the same), but others will fail to offset that.

Or in the case of Britain - a economy smaller than 4 years ago with record high inflation

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Depends what you mean by growth. Economic growth is largely a Ponzi scheme

Really? If economic growth is as bad as you claim, would you be happy if - say - we'd decided 200 years ago to avoid having any economic growth, and we were therefore all, today, living with the same standard of living that people had in 1820?

 

[dosxuk]

Going back to the wider party, looks like the Privileges Committee is ready for a fight with Boris.

They've released a report this afternoon - https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/34228/documents/188328/default/ - which details the evidence and lines of discussion that they intend to talk to Boris about. And it holds no punches - it all but says they don't even need to talk to him to find him guilty of deliberately and repeatedly misleading the house.

32. There is evidence that the House of Commons may have been misled in the following ways which the Committee will explore:
a) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson said on 8 December 2021 that no rules or guidance had been broken in No. 10. The Second Permanent Secretary and the Metropolitan Police have already come to the conclusion that was not correct, including in relation to specific gatherings for which Mr Johnson asserted this was the case.
b) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson failed to tell the House about his own knowledge of the gatherings where the rules or guidance had been broken. That is because there is evidence that he attended them.
c) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson said on 8 December 2021 that he relied upon repeated assurances that the rules had not been broken. Initial evidence to us suggested Mr Johnson was assured by two individuals who had worked at No. 10 at the time that they did not think the gathering of 18 December 2020 had broken Covid rules.
d) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson gave the impression that there needed to be an investigation by the second permanent secretary to establish whether the rules and guidance had been broken before he could answer questions to the house. While repeatedly making that statement to the house he appears to have had personal knowledge that he did not reveal.

They seem more annoyed by the Government making it difficult for them to get evidence

The Government responded to our request by providing, on 24 August, documents which were so heavily redacted as to render them devoid of any evidential value. Some material had been redacted even though it was already in the public domain.

and that Boris had set his lawyers on them (there's an entire report and response dedicated to this).

They finish up with a few excerpts from Whatsapp, where it appears even the people telling Boris what to say, didn't know what to say.

[No. 10 official, 25/01/2022, 08:04:46] “I’m trying to do some Q&A, it’s not going well”
[Director of Communications, 25/01/2022, 08:05:12] “I’m struggling to come up with a way this one is in the rules in my head”
[Director of Communications, 25/01/2022, 08:05:20] “PM was eating his lunch of course”
[No. 10 official, 25/01/2022, 08:06:47] “I meant for the police bit but yeah as ridiculous as the cake thing is it is difficult”
[No. 10 official, 25/01/2022, 08:06:56] “’Reasonably necessary for work purposes’”
[Director of Communications, 25/01/2022, 08:07:40] “Not sure that one works does it. Also blows another great gaping hole in the PM’s account doesn’t it?”

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really? If economic growth is as bad as you claim, would you be happy if - say - we'd decided 200 years ago to avoid having any economic growth, and we were therefore all, today, living with the same standard of living that people had in 1820?

I'd say technological development is more relevant to that than economic growth. More people have big tellies because in real terms big tellies are quite cheap now, not because of the wider value of the economy or even their wage.

 

[Broucek]

I'd say technological development is more relevant to that than economic growth. More people have big tellies because in real terms big tellies are quite cheap now, not because of the wider value of the economy or even their wage.

Bigger and better TVs are a symptom of technological improvement and globalisation both of which have been of net average economic benefit to both richer and developing countries.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd say technological development is more relevant to that than economic growth. More people have big tellies because in real terms big tellies are quite cheap now, not because of the wider value of the economy or even their wage.

I would say, more correctly, the technological development leads to economic growth, which we generally experience as higher standards of living. Breaking it down a bit more for your example of bigger tellies: The technological innovation allows tv's to be produced more cheaply/efficiently, so like-for-like prices of tv's fall. People respond to that fall in price by buying bigger, better tv's instead since it's now affordable to do so. When measuring GDP, that should appear in the figures as growth once you've correctly adjusted for inflation (in this case, the negative inflation for like-for-like tv prices).

 

[Broucek]

I would say, more correctly, the technological development leads to economic growth, which we generally experience as higher standards of living. Breaking it down a bit more for your example of bigger tellies: The technological innovation allows tv's to be produced more cheaply/efficiently, so like-for-like prices of tv's fall. People respond to that fall in price by buying bigger, better tv's instead since it's now affordable to do so. When measuring GDP, that should appear in the figures as growth once you've correctly adjusted for inflation (in this case, the negative inflation for like-for-like tv prices).

Nice, thoughtful response. Globalisation has also been a driver in the reduced price/higher spec of TVs (and made a general contribution to economic growth)

 

[brad465]

Nice, thoughtful response. Globalisation has also been a driver in the reduced price/higher spec of TVs (and made a general contribution to economic growth)

In the short term, yes. In the long term it has helped certain dodgy regimes, thinking especially of China, gain strength and influence and risks derailing everything that was previously gained. I'm all for globalisation as a form of integration, and because no country can be self sufficient for everything, but as soon as it's clear a nasty regime is exploiting the dependence of others on it, the dependents need to get out fast.

Also, a belief that globalisation wasn't working was cited as a reason for votes for both Brexit and Trump. If it's true globalisation hindered them more than helped, then reform is needed; if it's more beneficial, its advocates need to do a better job of selling it and/or dealing with whatever is causing their hardship.

 

[Broucek]

In the short term, yes. In the long term it has helped certain dodgy regimes, thinking especially of China, gain strength and influence and risks derailing everything that was previously gained. I'm all for globalisation as a form of integration, and because no country can be self sufficient for everything, but as soon as it's clear a nasty regime is exploiting the dependence of others on it, the dependents need to get out fast.

Also, a belief that globalisation wasn't working was cited as a reason for votes for both Brexit and Trump. If it's true globalisation hindered them more than helped, then reform is needed; if it's more beneficial, its advocates need to do a better job of selling it and/or dealing with whatever is causing their hardship.

Globalisation has had a HUGE positive effect on global prosperity, living standards, health and education accross the developing world. It's very hard to overstate this. But capitalists have completely failed to communicate this huge win... Too busy with the day job, I guess.

Of course the knock-on has been somewhat negative for lower skilled workers in developed countries and it's a pity that we and other countries weren't more thoughtful about how to tackle this issue.

Finally, whilst I suspect I despise the CCP as much as you do and regret its greater global influence, I'm pleased that people in China have, on average, more economic stability and food security than they did in the past.

 

[yorksrob]

Globalisation has had a HUGE positive effect on global prosperity, living standards, health and education accross the developing world. It's very hard to overstate this. But capitalists have completely failed to communicate this huge win... Too busy with the day job, I guess.

Of course the knock-on has been somewhat negative for lower skilled workers in developed countries and it's a pity that we and other countries weren't more thoughtful about how to tackle this issue.

Finally, whilst I suspect I despise the CCP as much as you do and regret its greater global influence, I'm pleased that people in China have, on average, more economic stability and food security than they did in the past.

They've also failed to translate this into real life wins for populations of Western societies, as evidenced by falling living standards ever since the 2008 financial crash. Big failure for the global corporations.

I'm glad that you enjoy your happy-clappy view of globalisation and the CCP, however one only has to look at the surpression of citizens in Hong Kong to see the contempt that the CCP has for its own people, and that's before we consider its funding/tacit support for a war in Europe to support its own ends.

 

[brad465]

Globalisation has had a HUGE positive effect on global prosperity, living standards, health and education accross the developing world. It's very hard to overstate this. But capitalists have completely failed to communicate this huge win... Too busy with the day job, I guess.

Of course the knock-on has been somewhat negative for lower skilled workers in developed countries and it's a pity that we and other countries weren't more thoughtful about how to tackle this issue.

Finally, whilst I suspect I despise the CCP as much as you do and regret its greater global influence, I'm pleased that people in China have, on average, more economic stability and food security than they did in the past.

But you should never put all your eggs in one basket, we saw the many flaws this has with covid and the impact on supply chains because of China being "the world's factory". If the CCP do decide to invade Taiwan, the whirlwind reaped will be even greater, particularly as most of the world's chip production comes from there, and all that technology you bragged about will suddenly not be so accessible/cheap.

My point is this, globalisation as a concept isn't an issue, but anyone partaking in it has to look before they leap when it comes to who they rely on for what. Just because somewhere is cheapest doesn't mean it's the most sensible place to look.

 

[yorksrob]

If globalisation means funding enemy powers willing to undermine western values of freedom and democracy, then it's not worth pursuing.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Going back to the wider party, looks like the Privileges Committee is ready for a fight with Boris.

They've released a report this afternoon - https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/34228/documents/188328/default/ - which details the evidence and lines of discussion that they intend to talk to Boris about. And it holds no punches - it all but says they don't even need to talk to him to find him guilty of deliberately and repeatedly misleading the house.



They seem more annoyed by the Government making it difficult for them to get evidence and that Boris had set his lawyers on them (there's an entire report and response dedicated to this).

They finish up with a few excerpts from Whatsapp, where it appears even the people telling Boris what to say, didn't know what to say.

Hes banged to rights but will get away with a slap on the wrist in the end. Be in no doubt the establishment will make sure of that.

 

[Broucek]

I'm glad that you enjoy your happy-clappy view of globalisation and the CCP, however one only has to look at the surpression of citizens in Hong Kong to see the contempt that the CCP has for its own people, and that's before we consider its funding/tacit support for a war in Europe to support its own ends.

I said that I "despise" the CCP. How is that a "happy clappy view"?

 

[jfollows]

Hes banged to rights but will get away with a slap on the wrist in the end. Be in no doubt the establishment will make sure of that.

Yes, but has the tide of opinion turned against Boris Johnson now? By that I mean that I felt swept away by an opposing tide in the 2019 election, but it could now be that the tide has reversed and my opinion joins the main flow again. I get the feeling that Rishi Sunak has demonstrated the value of doing what a prime minister ought to do, working in the interest of the country rather than for himself for example, and I'm hopeful that he's shown up Boris Johnson (and Liz Truss) as the poor alternative now. Sunak should be able to implement his EU agreement despite opposition from Boris Johnson now, and the Privileges Committee is showing up why Boris Johnson is bad in many ways, so it could all lead to the end of his parliamentary career. Obviously it's hard and unwise to make predictions on someone who is such a loose cannon, but I hope I'm right.

 

[yorksrob]

I said that I "despise" the CCP. How is that a "happy clappy view"?

For someone who despises the CCP, you seem very relaxed about it building up its wealth and prestige off the back of Western economies.

The economic and political spheres can't be neatly packaged up and dealt with separately. They are intertwined. This is something western countries are learning.

 

[Snow1964]

For someone who despises the CCP, you seem very relaxed about it building up its wealth and prestige off the back of Western economies.

Sorry to be naive, but what is a CCP, trying to link it to thread title about Sunak and Conservatives, guessing CP is Conservative Party, but what does first C mean

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry to be naive, but what is a CCP, trying to link it to thread title about Sunak and Conservatives, guessing CP is Conservative Party, but what does first C mean

The Chinese Communist Party.

 

[Broucek]

Sorry to be naive, but what is a CCP, trying to link it to thread title about Sunak and Conservatives, guessing CP is Conservative Party, but what does first C mean

If you read TCW (The Conservative Woman - a fair way to the right of the Daily Mail...) the policies of post-Thatcher conservatives are pretty much communist