this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
35 points (88.9% liked)

UK Politics

3580 readers
159 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The democratic recession does not begin when a far-right party takes office. It begins when a centrist party crushes hope in democracy. When Keir Starmer’s government takes a chainsaw to people’s aspirations for a fairer, greener, kinder country, he cuts off not just faith in the Labour party but faith in politics itself. The almost inevitable result, as countries from the US to the Netherlands, Argentina to Austria, Italy to Sweden show, is to let the far right in.

So what’s the game? Why adopt policies that could scarcely be better calculated to prevent your re-election? Why stick to outdated fiscal rules when projections suggest they’ll make almost everyone worse off, especially those in poverty? Why impose devastating attacks on wellbeing, such as sustaining the two-child benefit cap, freezing local housing allowance and cutting disability benefits?

Why pursue austerity when the country voted so decisively to end it? Why cut and cut when years of experience show this will undermine the government’s primary (and ill-advised) goal, economic growth?

Why taunt, insult and abuse a crucial part of your political base: people who care about life on Earth? Why trash environmental commitments, abandon protections, expand airports and tie down green watchdogs? Why sustain and defend the most extreme anti-protest measures in any nominally democratic country?

Why seek to nix the financial regulations inspired by the 2008 crash, when the likely result is a repeat performance? Why reject a wealth tax, when a 2% levy on assets of over £10m could raise £24bn a year? Why not adopt the measures proposed by Patriotic Millionaires, generating £60bn a year? Or those suggested by political economist Richard Murphy, worth £90bn in tax revenue? Why abandon plans to tax non-doms properly? Why not demand an end to the Bank of England’s destructive quantitative tightening?

Why bury policies that might help restore democracy, such as proportional representation? Why introduce new political funding rules without actually addressing the capture of politics by the rich?

Why adopt Reform’s messages, Reform’s branding and Reform’s cruelty, to compete over who can most brutally beat up asylum seekers? An abundance of evidence shows that when centre-left parties take radical-right positions, they lose more voters on the left than they gain on the right. Adopting far-right messaging helps far-right parties win.

These policies might seem incomprehensible. But there’s a thread running through them. They all arise from the same doctrine: neoliberalism. This ideology, which has dominated the UK since 1979, demands austerity, the privatisation and shrinkage of public services, curtailment of protest and trade unions, deregulation and tax reductions for the rich. Justified as a means of creating an enterprise society, it has instead delivered a new age of rent, as powerful people monopolise crucial assets, from water to housing to social media. It leaves a government with few options but to scapegoat asylum seekers and other vulnerable groups for the problems it fails to address.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

@[email protected]

This is precisely it.

A: several businesses competing to provide the service

This is really the main argument, if two companies supply a widget then they will both keep undercutting each other to gain custom. Hopefully that will come from identified efficiency gains through better production methods or removal of middle management who drain the budget without providing value.

However what is more likely to happen is that quality will decrease, think bulking out chocolate with palm oil, which then depends on the informed customers part to avoid reduced quality and support those that identify real cost savings. But that is unlikely to happen here as everyone jams crappy palm oil in their products and we can't easily reward those that provide a proper chocolate.

You can see the support for this on the c/buybritish and c/buyeuropean groups but it requires real effort, an effort that most people don't have the time for.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Yeah, this is what I meant by informed consumer, In thory if the consumers are okay with palm oil chocolate so long as it's cheaper then that's what the market will provide. If they don't like it then it won't sell.

But if they don't know the difference they will go for the cheaper one then conclude they don't like chocolate as much as they used to and buy less so both the customer and the brands providing real chocolate lose out.

The more insidious version of this are additives which actually taste better but with less obvious long term health detriments, e.g. packing everything with sugar and salt.

Nutrition labelling helps ofc, but even then who has the time to check the stats of every product they buy?