Interesting Links for 14-06-2024

[andrewducker]

1. Make no mistake: Labour's manifesto is a return to austerity

(tags:uk labour austerity )

2. Just how ridiculous is politics in France right now

(tags:France politics EpicStupidity )

3. Ikea's CEO has solved the Swedish retailer's global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries, introducing flexible working and subsidizing childcare

(tags:work GoodNews ikea )

Comments

[rhythmaning]

I am heartened that it seems the parties on the left seem to have got their shit together, those on the (far) right seems at each others' throats and highly fissile. Macron seems to have been sidestepped and is resulting in name-calling.

It'd be funny were it not so important!

[andrewducker]

That's been my feeling about a lot of the last ten years!

[ninetydegrees]

Zemmour and Ciotti's parties got very low scores on all recent elections. They do play a small role when it comes to voting laws because of alliances but it's mainly yapping to exist in some media at this point. Unfortunately, it's distracting us from the very important laws which were being discussed before Macron decided to fuck us over completely and make things easier again for fascist parties and their supporters, and a few power-hungry idiots decided they wanted to star in a soap-opera.

[mountainkiss]

Since Andrew Fisher wrote the Labour Party manifesto that led to an 80-seat Conservative majority in 2019, I’m not certain that he’s my go-to authority on this topic.

[andrewducker]

Labour are winning because the Conservatives have run themselves into the ground. Net positivity scores for Labour are actually pretty low, the Conservatives are just even lower.

Also - Corbyn was definitely a drag on the party popularity, but I'm not convinced that their manifesto was a negative for many people.

[mountainkiss]

I at least partially agree with both these points, but there are other factors affecting both.

It may well be that the Labour Party is being overcautious with the voters - I tend to suspect this is so - but they are also hamstrung by post-Truss markets. That’s a meaningful factor.

The 2019 policy polling is interesting. Many individual policies did poll strongly, this is true, and Corbyn is certainly likely to have been the single biggest factor. But their collective expense and uncosted nature was also a significant factor.

I’m not sure why I’m arguing this. I think I just dislike the tone of the article because I don’t think the party has a realistic option with much higher spending at this point in the process. But I don’t dispute either of your points.

[andrewducker]

Loath though I am to link to the Guardian, here's a piece from 2019, where the first line is "Labour’s manifesto was accompanied by a document that detailed the cost of fulfilling its pledges and how that money would be raised." - because Labour's 2019 manifesto was, in fact, fully costed.

It was, I agree, going to be expensive. But not, I think, as expensive as letting the infrastructure of the country fall apart, which seems to have been the alternative.

Personally, I think the party has lots of options for higher spending. Reversing the ridiculous cuts that the Conservatives made over the last couple of years would be a good start. Voters are, in general,

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] services</a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Loath though I am to link to the Guardian, <A href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/21/labour-manifesto-comes-with-substantial-risks-but-costs-may-be-worth-it">here's a piece from 2019</A>, where the first line is "Labour’s manifesto was accompanied by a document that detailed the cost of fulfilling its pledges and how that money would be raised." - because Labour's 2019 manifesto was, in fact, fully costed.

It was, I agree, going to be expensive. But not, I think, as expensive as letting the infrastructure of the country fall apart, which seems to have been the alternative.

Personally, I think the party has lots of options for higher spending. Reversing the ridiculous cuts that the Conservatives made over the last couple of years would be a good start. Voters are, in general, <A href="In February, two separate YouGov polls showed that most Britons would prefer the government prioritise public spending over tax cuts."happy for taxes to go up to pay for public services</A>.

[mountainkiss]

I agree with nearly all this. I’m still not convinced that the public’s theoretical support for tax rises would outlast a sustained PR campaign against them. And I also think the markets argument is a bit stronger than you’re submitting. But the strongest point by far is that the failure to invest is more expensive than doing so, which is a much stronger point than any of mine.

In general I tend to think that they’re going to spend a lot more than they’re admitting right now and they’ll tax to fund it.

[andrewducker]

I really hope you're right, because otherwise the next few years will be miserable, and raise the chances of right wing populism.

[mountainkiss]

That’s not necessarily the same as “spending enough money to move the dial”. But I do think they will spend more than they’re talking about.

[mountainkiss]

The point is, really, that this is much more nuanced than “austerity budget”.

[bens_dad]

Why are you loath to link to the Guardian ?

[andrewducker]

Have some previous links on the subject
https://pinboard.in/u:andrewducker/t:guardian/t:transgender

[bens_dad]

I'm having difficulties with some of the X Tweets, but thanks for the links.

I'm not good at textual analysis, so the Guardian UK v Guardian US think surprised me. To me, "knowing" that the Guardian is leftish, the UK story read as showing the limitations of the children' minister and the conservative education select committee member.

I find the Guardian website much easier to read than X or Tumbler leaving me with more capacity to be critical of the content.

[andrewducker]

The Guardian website is great. And on some subjects they're good. But they've been terrible on trans rights for many many years now.

[mountainkiss]

I retract my comment about funding for the 2019 manifesto. I’ve looked it up and I was wrong. It would of course have crashed the markets but I don’t think that’s an issue in Corbyn’s book.

[andrewducker]

If you're thinking of the financial transactions tax then yeah, that's a really stupid idea.

[wenchpixie]

Looking at the proposed labour budget is deeply depressing, although (a)the alternative is even more so and (b)there is definitely a certain element of what is actually possible that won't unsettle the economy and cause it to tank even further (and how much of what they are proposing will they actually follow through on) - no matter what happens on the 4th there's not going to be a sudden sea change to improve things and we'll have the usual lack of say in any of it.