Join the Labour Party and save your country!

bompington

PBlakeney wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Isn't that rather the point? Socialism always seems to end either in failure or tyranny.

Can you name any Countries that are/were 100% socialist?
Serious question.

The answer to that is that every time a new socialist experiment comes along - Venezuela is probably the most recent example - all the useful idiots rush along to say how wonderful it is that at last we have a real, successful socialist country.
Until it becomes obvious even to them that it isn't successful at all, and then out comes the "but that wasn't real socilism" line.

mamba80

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Isn't that rather the point? Socialism always seems to end either in failure or tyranny.

Can you name any Countries that are/were 100% socialist?
Serious question.

The answer to that is that every time a new socialist experiment comes along - Venezuela is probably the most recent example - all the useful idiots rush along to say how wonderful it is that at last we have a real, successful socialist country.
Until it becomes obvious even to them that it isn't successful at all, and then out comes the "but that wasn't real socilism" line.

All... why does it have to either or? this is the problem here, other european countries manage quite happily to take the best from both.

Venezeula was a basket case long before chavez came along.

pblakeney

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Isn't that rather the point? Socialism always seems to end either in failure or tyranny.

Can you name any Countries that are/were 100% socialist?
Serious question.

The answer to that is that every time a new socialist experiment comes along - Venezuela is probably the most recent example - all the useful idiots rush along to say how wonderful it is that at last we have a real, successful socialist country.
Until it becomes obvious even to them that it isn't successful at all, and then out comes the "but that wasn't real socilism" line.

Exactly. There has never been a socialist country. There are/were capitalist and communist and shades in between. The ideal is somewhere in that grey area, and it will never be fully agreed where on the scale it is.

shortfall

PBlakeney wrote:

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Isn't that rather the point? Socialism always seems to end either in failure or tyranny.

Can you name any Countries that are/were 100% socialist?
Serious question.

The answer to that is that every time a new socialist experiment comes along - Venezuela is probably the most recent example - all the useful idiots rush along to say how wonderful it is that at last we have a real, successful socialist country.
Until it becomes obvious even to them that it isn't successful at all, and then out comes the "but that wasn't real socilism" line.

Exactly. There has never been a socialist country. There are/were capitalist and communist and shades in between. The ideal is somewhere in that grey area, and it will never be fully agreed where on the scale it is.

Perhaps you could call it the third way? That didn't work out too well in the end either did it?

pblakeney

Shortfall wrote:

Perhaps you could call it the third way? That didn't work out too well in the end either did it?

Call it what you wish. You could even say we currently have a "Third Way" as we have a capitalist society with a level of social care. The debate really boils down to a little bit less, or a little bit more social care.

rick_chasey

Tangentially related, but letting areas get really poor is very costly, and not just in numbers.

Consistent economic deprecation in Blackpool is leading to a genuine health crisis there.



https://t.co/RTzuPQmlLr

bompington

...so hidden in that is that life expectancy in Blackpool has in fact been going up.

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

...so hidden in that is that life expectancy in Blackpool has in fact been going up.

It's possible to put a negative spin on just about anything in here if you try hard enough

rick_chasey

Aye, nothing like taking something out of context for petty point scoring innit.

I presume you both read the article?

shortfall

If you had to live in that sh1thole would you really want to live that long anyway?

Stevo_666

Shortfall wrote:

If you had to live in that sh1thole would you really want to live that long anyway?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aye, nothing like taking something out of context for petty point scoring innit.

I presume you both read the article?

I read the article, and I am aware of the issues - Dundee on many measures is worse off than Blackpool. And the graph does have a worrying downward tick at the end. Nonetheless, it illustrates the "inequality is the greatest evil" mentality* - the fact that life expectancy in a poor place has gone up is conveniently hidden because you can highlight the "look those rich bastards in K&C have got all the luck" end of the spectrum.


*otherwise known as "jealousy"

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aye, nothing like taking something out of context for petty point scoring innit.

I presume you both read the article?

I read the article, and I am aware of the issues - Dundee on many measures is worse off than Blackpool. And the graph does have a worrying downward tick at the end. Nonetheless, it illustrates the "inequality is the greatest evil" mentality* - the fact that life expectancy in a poor place has gone up is conveniently hidden because you can highlight the "look those rich bastards in K&C have got all the luck" end of the spectrum.


*otherwise known as "jealousy"

What, jealous that they live 8 years less long than those in Dorset?

I mean sheesh, what a thing to envy.

How dare they complain.

TBH, the fact their living standards are higher than they were in medieval times means they need to stfu. :roll:

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aye, nothing like taking something out of context for petty point scoring innit.

I presume you both read the article?

I haven't read the article. Of the 4 lines on the graph, 3 have broadly matched the UK average increase, whereas Blackpool has fallen below that rate. So, yes, whoever is responsible for health in Blackpool needs to look into what is causing that. Or looking at it another way, what is Glasgow (I'd guess greater poverty than Blackpool) doing that Blackpool isn't. While the correlation between poverty and poor health is well established it's clearly more complex than that.

mamba80

the article seems to think that blackpool is exporting its brightest and best and importing other areas poor, jobless and ill, so no great surprise life expectancy is much lower and not increasing to the same extent as West dorset, i mean most on UC dont spend it on BUPA do they?
so is this a result of the benefits cap forcing people either in work = good or those incapable of work into moving to much cheaper areas =bad.

i cannot see the jealous angle at all, you ll have to explain that one Bomp.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangentially related, but letting areas get really poor is very costly, and not just in numbers.

Consistent economic deprecation in Blackpool is leading to a genuine health crisis there.

End of life care costs much more than the working years so the poor areas are doing their best to alleviate the crisis.

rick_chasey

Spending constraints between 2010 and 2014 were associated with an estimated 45 368 (95% CI 34 530 to 56 206) higher than expected number of deaths compared with pre-2010 trends…. Projections to 2020 based on 2009-2014 trend was cumulatively linked to an estimated 152 141 (95% CI 134 597 and 169 685) additional deaths.

according to the BMJ medical journal. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e017722

rick_chasey

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... death.html

This is a good article on it actually.

tangled_metal

Actually I did see a news report on local news about the old seaside resorts such as blackpool and morecambe importing ppl on benefits into their area from outside the poor of Lancashire being dumped into blackpool with the hen and stag do's.

I also remember a documentary about research into the conditions and life expectancy in Lancashire cotton towns during their heyday. Similar towns with similar populations had vastly different life expectancy. The study determined the living conditions due to the geography had a big impact. Some towns were in steep valleys with increased damp IIRC was one major factor.

Not exactly relevant to blackpool. I think benefits sinkhole effect is more to blame.

Morecambe had a distinct path to where it is. When the two power stations were being built in Heysham the Morecambe hoteliers and B&B operators saw good money from renting rooms out on block to the construction company. Then when it finished they n had the double issue of old holiday maker regulars had be turned away so went somewhere else and the holiday patterns had changed to overseas holidays.

To fill the gap they turned to another money tree, the DSS! Morecambe is now the pits. A real shame because that bay is stunning with the lake district hills in the background.

BTW 15 years ago you could almost buy a street for £50k! Certainly a several properties. I saw an 8 bedroom house for for £15k. The estate agents details said that a specialist cleaning company would be needed to get it ready for renovation due to the used needles and human waste in the rooms! That was when I looked for a house a bit further away from morecambe.

rick_chasey

Ugly OBR numbers.

surrey_commuter

it is always best to give a budget 24-48 hours to digest but for me that is just an interventionist pile of sh1te

seems that we are now planning to run a permanent budget deficit.

And for those that think this does not matter you should know that we spend £50bn on debt interest a year

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

it is always best to give a budget 24-48 hours to digest but for me that is just an interventionist pile of sh1te

seems that we are now planning to run a permanent budget deficit.

And for those that think this does not matter you should know that we spend £50bn on debt interest a year

Out the best part of £800bn total spending. 6.25% of public spending.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

it is always best to give a budget 24-48 hours to digest but for me that is just an interventionist pile of sh1te

seems that we are now planning to run a permanent budget deficit.

And for those that think this does not matter you should know that we spend £50bn on debt interest a year

Out the best part of £800bn total spending. 6.25% of public spending.

And growing

rick_chasey

Would be closer to growing our way out of it like the rest of the dcevloped world had it not been for Brexit

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would be closer to growing our way out of it like the rest of the dcevloped world had it not been for Brexit

I don't understand how the rate of GDP growth is forecast to be lower than the annual budget deficit (as % of GDP) yet the overall debt is forecast to fall as a % of GDP

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

it is always best to give a budget 24-48 hours to digest but for me that is just an interventionist pile of sh1te

seems that we are now planning to run a permanent budget deficit.

And for those that think this does not matter you should know that we spend £50bn on debt interest a year

Out the best part of £800bn total spending. 6.25% of public spending.

And growing

Not suggesting it is great news, but I think it's important to see it in context.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

it is always best to give a budget 24-48 hours to digest but for me that is just an interventionist pile of sh1te

seems that we are now planning to run a permanent budget deficit.

And for those that think this does not matter you should know that we spend £50bn on debt interest a year

Out the best part of £800bn total spending. 6.25% of public spending.

And growing

Not suggesting it is great news, but I think it's important to see it in context.

A fair point but still means that one in sixteen pounds is spent on interest and this can only get worse. Interest rates returning to "normal" and the next economic shock could see this number doubling.

rick_chasey

The bigger issue is pay is not set to return to its 2008 peak until the middle of the next decade; I.e. a 17-year pay downturn.

That's not gonna give you any political room to deal with the deficit, let alone the debt.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

The bigger issue is pay is not set to return to its 2008 peak until the middle of the next decade; I.e. a 17-year pay downturn.

That's not gonna give you any political room to deal with the deficit, let alone the debt.

I have to say I don't really understand the attitude of helplessness around the productivity issue. Sure, it's not an easy one to solve, but other countries have managed to tackle this.

rick_chasey

Yup.

TBH that is the golden goose.

Improve people’s wages and you get the wiggle room to sort out things like deficits, state spending etc.