jamesdaustin.bsky.social
This again. Outdoors. Politics. Sport. Not always in that order. Labour. Trade Unionist. Trying to do community things. Views entirely my own
2,222 posts
7,516 followers
1,679 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
It's very notable there isn't even a attempt at balance here
comment in response to
post
It's very notable how anything left Labour does is just banked, isn't it?
comment in response to
post
'But a supply side solution will lower prices'
Right
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I think there are questions around some policy choices. But it's clear that ner zero is a core aim of this govt and they're driving towards it
comment in response to
post
Lol. I mean this would be a huge break in the curve of price rises! And a even bigger fall when you consider real terms cost!
And let's not forget you're injecting a load more demand on the other end via immigration!
'The Govts policy will achieve its aims. This is bad'. Deeply unserious
comment in response to
post
A lot of the criticism by this panel doesn't seem to engage with the spending review and its intentions at all.
It's also a notably unbalanced panel. I mean, only Toynbee represents even a vaguely mainstream left perspective
comment in response to
post
There is certainly some very motivated reasoning
comment in response to
post
Yes, it is, isn't it. It's also very striking how unbalabced this panel is. No one from the mainstream centre left aside from Toynbee
comment in response to
post
Are there more socially useful ways of spending that cash? Sure! But they crucially don't end up with you having a load of weapons which is kind of the point
comment in response to
post
Like... this is just silly. It misses that at the same point were predicted to inject large amounts of demand and that fall is hugely against trend.
Dhitta seems to miss that the purpose of military spending isn't just growth - its to, you know, rearm
comment in response to
post
It struck me quite a few of these were reflex critiques which didn't actually engage with the spending review
comment in response to
post
They wouldn't be doing this unless a) they didn't care about a settlement b) they think they will win
comment in response to
post
If they get a fairly wide precedent here its going be very hard for the AI companies
comment in response to
post
It notes how Warren Buffett is a investor who justfollows data unemotionally and... didn't he essentially cash out a few months back?
comment in response to
post
'fun'
comment in response to
post
MMP for the win
comment in response to
post
Weirdly he's the one people went most horny over so... it tracks they made him the focus
comment in response to
post
Plus it's a lot better for active travel, has maximisation effects etc etc.
Fancy letting Martin Fodor know that?
comment in response to
post
I'm very aware there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise - you couldn't even see your own absurdity when Aiden pulled you apart last night. So why bother? Particularly as you've repeatedly misrepresented what I've said (I've repeated, explicitly said, I'm not going to give you sources)
comment in response to
post
I mean, given your views very quickly led to you arguing for a closed economy yes, they obviously do.
As I say, I don't need to argue with you on this. MMT has been discredited for years. There is a reason no serious economist follows it and why it's mainly left to cultists on the left.
comment in response to
post
They may do - but sadly there is no way out of this without building in bulk; and we do no one any favours by pretending there isn't.
Ideally we should build densely and have lots of social homes (and good funding for that today) but you do need to build.
comment in response to
post
I never refered to legilsation or said I'd be as specific as possible. You decided i need to give you that - and I pointed out you were sea lioning. Which you are and continue to be.
anyways, back to laughing about how you haven't noticed global trade has fundimentally broken your arguement
comment in response to
post
I always think there is a strong corrolation between good constituency MP who takes that role seriously, and good politician more generally.
Notable Kemi apparently hasn't done a surgery for years
comment in response to
post
I'd listen a bit more! Particularly to Steve Reed - and take a look at some of what Natural England are putting out as well.
Because it's very much there is policy. And TBH that's what matters. For example the DEFRA is doing stuff like this: www.theguardian.com/environment/...
comment in response to
post
Personally I'm still just laughing at your 'I don't want bananas' post
comment in response to
post
Turns out that being nice is actually a really good way to achieve change and being a dick to people mainly means they're a dick back
comment in response to
post
Yeah, it's a sign of a politician who thinks they're too important for the little people. And that is rarely a good thing
comment in response to
post
But I gather he has the ear of the PM?
comment in response to
post
I always think there is a strong corrolation between good constituency MP who takes that role seriously, and good politician more generally.
Notable Kemi apparently hasn't done a surgery for years
comment in response to
post
So he ended up on the sofa in my student house, drinking team from a battered mug with the 20 or so people I'd cobbled together. And he spent time; answering questions, giving advice, well past the point where he aides wanted him to go.
Imagine he's a nightmare to staff
comment in response to
post
... what wasn't normal was that I got a phone call from his office 3 months later saying Ed was in Nottingham, that another meeting had fallen through, he'd remembered that he'd cancelled on us and would we like to meet him? In, say, 2 hours?
comment in response to
post
He's a man whose suprisingly generous with his time for a senior politician.
I've used this example before, but back in 2009 when I was a Labour Students chair he cancelled an event I'd arranged at fairly short notice. Pretty normal....
comment in response to
post
Yeah, if the ball squirts out of the scrum...
But i don't get the impression he wants to move role or to 'advance'. I don't think the Great Offices of State particularly appeal to him; he's genuinely incredibly passionate about and interested in climate policy and is where he wants to be
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I think so. Think he's aware that time has come and gone - but he's pretty happy having this clear mission
comment in response to
post
Hell yes, he's tough enough, but he'll buy you a pint after
comment in response to
post
It's remarkable how the senior Labour source keeps briefing and Ed keeps winning, isn't it?
almost like its just a well connected person with a axe to grind
comment in response to
post
They did - but the point was that he was the Ambassador (if that makes sense)
comment in response to
post
Plus you have things like banning bottom trawling, committing to 30x30, new national forests, land use framework focusing on nature restoration and so forth. I don't think the 'labour are anti-nature' thing really stands up
comment in response to
post
TBH the more I read of the bill, the less I'm convinced by that critique. The NRF has the potential to be a step change in nature restoration (in a positive way) if it's delivered well
comment in response to
post
He basically took his team with him - so suspect he was very much the driver
comment in response to
post
That very much helps
comment in response to
post
And a nice mix of ministers as well - lots of policy specialists
comment in response to
post
Notably even during the Blair/Brown years he was the guy who kept comms channels open between each side.
comment in response to
post
Very capable and hard working, with a good policy head. Understands the system, clear goals and does the reading.
Plus he's also very personable, has a very good relationship with the PM and a harder edge than some think. Has the important ability to disagree/fight well