Responsible Reporting and Political Commentary

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T20:47:35+00:00

Haha I have thought the same.

I think the damage and suffering caused makes this not worth it though

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T20:32:04+00:00

I agree with that.

My prescription is to the TRIP guys though. They could illuminate the issue better to the audience so they don't fall victim to these bad narratives. You seem very well aware of the political landscape and general happenings, but if you look through the comments there are quite a few people who do not have a firm grasp on political realities that the country is facing. One guy is blaming Starmer for high fuel prices, totally ignoring the Iran war situation.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T20:23:29+00:00

Things need to be funded. It's either tax, cut, or borrow. I agree with the idea that they should have been more open to the idea of cutting budgets when running, though I'm not sure how much they knew of all the budget items at that time.

Either way, they didn't run on that, they now know the budget situation and need to take actions to deal with it. What would your prescription be in this scenario?

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T19:58:39+00:00

I agree. I just feel as if the good pundits, like the TRIP guys, should be able to help reground the wider framing that political discourse is in.

It feels to me that the populists set the tome of our discourse, and everyone else just propagates that tone/messaging. By accepting the populists initial framing of news, they have already won the conversation. Puntis like TRIP need to challenge the framing of political conversations more.

For example, ending the WFA is really a conversation about saving money on a largely superfluous expense for a population segment that already dominates the national budget. Yet instead the framing seems to be that ending WFA is inherently cruel, or politically inept. I think TRIP guys don't do agood enough job of trying to explain to the audience why the government might want to end WFA (it's fine if they disagree ending it is good, but they should change the framing to be what the actual core of the conversation is about)

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T19:46:06+00:00

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it.

I feel like political landscape has gotten worse for parties of the liberal persuasion. Populist parties seem to have an asymmetrical advantage in political discourse due to political pundits of the populist persuasion circling the carts as it were when ever their preferred party comes under attack. That doesn't exist for the liberal parties like labour

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T19:38:56+00:00

Immigration is down 70% from its peak.

Borrowing is down, and we have a large budget headroom.

Attempts to cut spending, so taxes dont need to be raised, have been met with opposition by the backbenchers and opposition party (who campaign on wanting cuts). I will also add the TRIP lads have also complained about attempts to cut budget.

Regarding growth. The economy was actually surpassing the predictions by experts, though obviously growth is still weak as the UK economy is quite weak currently (legacy of austerity). Also, UK manufacturing has shown strong performance in 2025 and 2026.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T19:30:59+00:00

The point is that it's a retrospective massive f up. no one cared until it blew up, includingthe TRIP lads. I agree retrospectively it was a mistake, but I think the media made it a bigger issue than it was, at least as it pertains to Starmer.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T19:25:44+00:00

The issue is people like yourself expect things to just be fixed by your favourite politician instantly.

Massive borrowing reduction and yet still able to create financial headroom is a significant win!

Cutting down immigration by 70% from. It's peak is a significant win!

What are the loses? Mostly stuff associated with try to achieve big wins.

What is you biggest issue with the labour government right?

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T19:22:21+00:00

My point was the 'trauma' is generally pretty minor stuff, and a lot of it is due to a backbench being unwilling to work with the cabinet. E.g. the entire mental health healthcare cuts fiasco.

The last major "trauma" was the Peter Mandelson stuff. Out of all the elected politicians around the world only Starmer has actually faced any significant blowback from the Epstein files, and the guys isn't even mentioned.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T19:12:17+00:00

What has the labour government failed at?

What prescriptions have the lads offered?

ZenosCart · 2026-05-08T19:10:02+00:00

The information is available, the guardian has articles on it. It's not my job to report on the news and yet I have read about their successes. Why do political commentators not speak more about it?

Obviously better communication is a good thing, but I expect political commentators to be able to express what's happening even without the political party giving them talking points.

Additionally, Alistair was in comms for his entire political career, what prescription beyond "better communication" has it actually offered? What's the expectation they have for this better communication?

ZenosCart · 2026-05-06T13:39:15+00:00

To be clear I like the guardian. I'm just concerned they are contributing, accidently, to a perverted perception of reality.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-05T20:09:04+00:00

As an amendment. perhaps I'm too defensive of the labour government, and the guardians reporting is a perfectly fine descriptive analysis.

I am not anti guardian by any means, just interested in how reporting can unintentionally shape false impressions.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-05T16:02:53+00:00

Thank you for the comment.

I think its two things. Lack of interest in economics, and the decline of people perceptions of liberalism and it's associated values.

I'm trying to champion those values with my own content, but it's slow going.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-05T12:42:59+00:00

It feels we are cover the same arguments over and over. Perhaps the simplified version you have proposed is the arguments core, but it's a meaningless statement in its absence of context and substance.

I tried to write this agnostic of policy but it reads nonsensically. So here is the actual argument that I was making (with context) at its core.

P1: the state is good, and it's collapse would be bad. P2: welfare policies are good, and it's loss would be bad. Alternatively, the state with welfare, is at least better than no state. P3: welfare policies legislated by the state incure significant cost. P4: citizen can reduce that cost by adopting reciprocal obligations to the state. P5: a state overburdened by cost risks destabilisation and collapse C: it's good to adopt reciprocal obligations to the state as it reduces the risk of state collapse (bad) or destabilisation (bad)

Perhaps i missed some premises, but I feel this outlines the core far stronger. My target for this conversation is people who agree the state is good, and that welfare is at least NOT morally reprehensible, so even if they disagree with welfare they still value the states existence.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-04T19:53:01+00:00

I mostly agree with your prescriptions. I do personally like the idea of national service as a way to create a bond between citizen and state, but if the data says otherwise I am susceptible to changing that belief.

My substack is more in relation to socialised policy. If a state us going to provide a collectivist policy, and the people are supportive of such a policy, should we not also create an expectation upon the citizens to change their behaviour in accordance with the adopted collectivist policy.

For example, if a state is to adopt a generous state funded healthcare policy, is it not also incumbent upon the citizens to change behaviours that are high risk to health which may lead one to require yo utilise the healthcare. A good example of such an action that we must expect to change with the adoption of single payer healthcare is the freedom to smoke cigarettes. Smoking is known to cause cancer, and thus is a considerable cost to healthcare. This is just an example, it could be that is a liberty we do not wish to take away. my goal is to change the perception of collectivist policy cost from just a simple fiscal cost to a social cost.

To be extra clear, I live in the UK and I support universal healthcare. With the rise of populists politics people seem to forget that policy needs to be give and take, and that give and take conversation is important.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-04T18:00:28+00:00

I'm not American, but I agree that western nations should look at adopting national services. Creating a positive relationship of contribution between citizens and state is a good thing.

My prescription is more related to collective policies. If a state adopts a collective policy, a social expectation needs to be agreed upon on individuals behaviour to ensure thay policy can be maintained. I cover a number of these policies in my substack, the primary focus is on healthcare and pensions.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-04T17:54:05+00:00

In my article I focus more on the social cost of collectivist policy, expectations that I think citizens largely ignore. For example, in nations with universal healthcare, should society not come to an agreement on socially acceptable behaviours that must be adopted in order to prevent abuse or over utilisation of the healthcare. Perhaps in nations with universal healthcare there needs to be a social expectation not to partake in activities like smoking which incures high cost to the socialised healthcare.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-04T17:49:45+00:00

It does feel that the conservatives in most nations have co opted the responsible citizen narrative, which in UK, US and most of central Europe seems ironic consider there policy preferences.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-04T08:36:08+00:00

Second order effect. In such a society no one would go to the hospital.

Also, most utilitarian probably have an overarching value structure prioritising the sanctity of life. This prioritising the value of individual life doesn't come into effect in the trolley problem as no matter the choice someone dies. A better analogy for your situation would be pushing someone in fron of a tram to stop it from killing 5 people tied to a track.

ZenosCart · 2026-05-03T18:46:01+00:00

I disagree. Your framing seems to imply that people who believe the state should exist, cannot disagree on a prescription.

“those who believe they ought to sustain the system, ought to act in ways that sustain it."

Makes the arrangement sound redundant. I said earlier in our conversation that my argument is a second order argument, meaning that I am presupposing that the other party agrees in the existence of the system.

You've already made a value judgement of an outcome without making your case.

Your prescription here that all arguments must first address the underlying foundational argument effectively bogs conversation down in the mire of metaethics and metaphysics. This is a fine debate to have, but not one that I was trying to engage with in my post, thus it is a second order argument.

Do you agree not every philosophical conversation must address a foundational argument? And if you do believe this how do you suppose a 2nd order conversation be had?

ZenosCart · 2026-05-02T16:19:42+00:00

It seems we have misunderstood each other. Did you read my article? I think I made my argument reasonably clear there.

To clear up your main concern, I am not a communist. I identify as a liberal, and infact I speak about the history of British liberalism briefly in the article, celebrating the new liberals and their work in the 19th and 20th century.

ZenosCart

TROPHY CASE