DJ360

Members
  • Content Count

    9,314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95

Posts posted by DJ360

  1. 29 minutes ago, Brew said:

    There is little point in educating anyone by any means unless is to the benefit of society as a whole, how its delivered and what cost is irrelevant. Parents who not only support the state system but are also prepared to forego the benefits from the state system must surely be making a greater contribution.

     

    That sort of sophistry almost makes the parents themselves sound charitable when you and I both know that people choose private education because of the perceived benefits to their child(ren), not out of altruism.

     

    29 minutes ago, Brew said:

    Interesting to note you have blithely ignored my answer to your claim private education is seen as some sort of betterment and superior status. I'm referring of course to the perception attached to grammar school kids and the advantages they have.

     

    Not ignored, just overlooked. (I have a backlog of righteousness to dispense... :rolleyes:)

    Yes it's true that Grammar Schools provided an arguably 'better' education to their students, who, in turn, benefitted by improved access to  some post school opportunities. But only because their pupils had already proven their capability in a test open to all. It's equally arguable that many others would not have benefitted from such an education. We had a few 'transfers', both 'in' and 'out'.

    We could argue forever about how suited the 11+ exam was to the task, but it was what it was.

    It was the 1944 Education Act which provided first of all for FREE Secondary Education for all, but also for streaming into Grammar, Technical and Secondary Modern.

     

    The 1944 Education Act: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/overview/educationact1944/

     

    However, the elephant in the room is that Grammar Schools were selective on merit.. not on ability to pay. I had no idea I was going to HP until a letter dropped through my letter box. It was not my choice, nor that of my parents. It was determined by what at the time was a progressive system.

  2. On 2/22/2024 at 12:32 PM, letsavagoo said:

    I don’t read the Guardian but a little internet research indicates it has a centre left stance so would suit you. It would not appear to have the internationally acknowledged neutral stance you claim.

     

    Yes, the Guardian has a Centre Left stance, which is very far from being 'extreme left' or even 'far left'.

     

    You are correct about the international picture.  What is internationally acknowledged is that the Guardian is the 'most trusted' UK paper.

     

    From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

     

    Quote

    The Guardian is a British daily newspaper. It was founded in 1821 as The Manchester Guardian, before it changed its name in 1959.[4] Along with its sister papers, The Observer and The Guardian Weekly, The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group, owned by the Scott Trust Limited.[5] The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference".[6] The trust was converted into a limited company in 2008, with a constitution written so as to maintain for The Guardian the same protections as were built into the structure of the Scott Trust by its creators. Profits are reinvested in its journalism rather than distributed to owners or shareholders.[6] It is considered a newspaper of record in the UK.[7][8]

     

    In an Ipsos MORI research poll in September 2018 designed to interrogate the public's trust of specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest for digital-content news, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what [they] see in it".[16] A December 2018 report of a poll by the Publishers Audience Measurement Company stated that the paper's print edition was found to be the most trusted in the UK in the period from October 2017 to September 2018. It was also reported to be the most-read of the UK's "quality newsbrands", including digital editions; other "quality" brands included The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and the i. While The Guardian's print circulation is in decline, the report indicated that news from The Guardian, including that reported online, reaches more than 23 million UK adults each month.[17]

     

    Also from Wiki

    'In 2007, the newspaper was ranked first in a study on transparency that analysed 25 mainstream English-language media vehicles, which was conducted by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda of the University of Maryland.[325] It scored 3.8 out of a possible 4.0'

    https://web.archive.org/web/20080515174519/http://www.icmpa.umd.edu/pages/studies/transparency/main.html

     

  3. On 2/22/2024 at 6:47 PM, Brew said:

    Tonight no doubt  you'll be thinking of reasons why you absolutely must have and will die without something costing oodles of dosh, but you're a hopeless case so enjoy...:rolleyes:

     

    You misread me entirely.  Barring accidents, my hi-fi system is now at a standard which I'm happy with, so that barring any catastrophic failure, I'm not looking to upgrade or replace anything.

    I was at one point sorely tempted by the latest 2x 12" vinyl disc repressing/mastering of Joni Mitchell's seminal 'Blue' album at a mere £150, but I decided that my original 1970 copy, my later Reprise re-press and my 2 CD copies are enough. In any case, though in my view musically unimpeachable, Blue always had some recording issues, which I doubt can be fixed. They don't spoil my enjoyment of the music.

     

    My friend on the other hand bought four or five 'sooper-dooper' vinyl pressings for around £400 total. He was quite restrained by his standards.  But then again, he is presently using Tannoy 'Canterbury' Loudspeakers, which have a current retail price in excess of £32k.  They are part of the Tannoy 'Prestige' series which is topped out by the 'Westminster Royals'

    at £55k. I've heard the Westminsters at the Tannoy factory and they are simply the best I have ever heard, anywhere.

     

    I heard some very nice systems, mostly out of my price range, but it was all good fun.  I had a catch up and chat with Andy Whittle from Rogers Loudspeakers, who made my speakers 26 years ago. He seemed genuinely happy that I'm still happy.

    Also a good natter to Steve Rowlands from Mitchell, who made my turntable. He was making very nice noises with Michell's cheapest record player, the 'Technodec', (£2k including 'Techno Arm' and cartridge), through a British 'Arcam' amplifier and some very impressive PMC loudspeakers also at a little under £2k. Michell are best known for the Gyrodec..

     

    gyro_se_gallery_-_2-1920w_1200x1200.jpg?

    And the Orbe, which I have.. though mine has clear perspex and silver finish in places.

    th?id=OIP.hcPXqk7IRjk3DErmRFbyyAHaDt%26p

    It seems Steve is working on a new player which will sit above the Orbe in the hierarchy (and cost) and therefore challenge some of the more expensive players from the likes of Linn, Clearaudio and many others.

  4. 13 hours ago, Brew said:

    Has anyone actually read, word for word, what was said? He is accused of racism, because it suits some to do so. however he referred to Islam and Islamists, not as a general slur but a very pointed accusation against Khan and his pals.

    Islam, as far as I'm aware is a religion not a race so at worst it's discrimination, but if you can work the racism angle it carries more weight.

     

    He accused Khan of being 'controlled' by Islamists and he refuses to withdraw the comment. Where is his evidence?  How about if I accused some politician or political entity of being 'controlled by Jews, or Zionists?'  How long would it be before everybody rounded on me?

     

    Anderson has no place in civilised society, much less in Parliament.  He should be prosecuted for inciting religious hatred.

  5. 10 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

    The "wokelings are alive and well, as I see today that BBFC(British Board of Film Classification)has raised the rating of Mary Poppins from a G General or U Universal rating to a PG Parental Guidance rating as some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. Apparently, it is all about the use of the word Hottentots which is now regarded as racially offensive.

    I doubt very much that a young child of today would know what a Hottentot is/was.

    FFS how the heck did we get here, we must take back control and stop this stupidity. I suggest we start by not using neutral gender words. A female who acts is an actress and a male who acts is an actor, any other suggestions?

     

    I'm disappointed that you are perpetuating the misuse of the term Woke.  There is no coherent 'woke' conspiracy. Woke is now degraded to a term which is used to belittle and undermine any and all opposition to the status quo.  I might agree with you over Mary Poppins, but I'm not playing the 'Woke' 'culture wars' game.

  6. On 2/21/2024 at 5:56 PM, Brew said:

    Did they? is that what they said?

    You think the Tories should have been aware of the fraudulent work and disregard if the rules at Grenfell, so by the same metric it puts Labour firmly in the frame for failing to see the Post Office fiasco.

    Both ideas are clearly nonsense.

    It may seem insensitive to say it but Grenfell and the Post Office must run their course and resist knee jerk reactions.

     

    Not at all. The whole thing is a result of long term and determined de-regulation, including the privatisation of Regulatory bodies, which ALL result from Thatcherite and NeoCon obsession with establishing a business free for all. You dismissed Peter Apps before, can you dismiss this as easily?

     

    http://regulation.org.uk/library/2021-peter_apps-grenfell_deregulation_timeline.pdf

     

    And yes, you can probably argue that Labour should have reversed some of this, but the fact remains that Deregulation and Privatisation are Tory policies and mantras and they must bear responsibility for the results. The main point here though, is that whatever the Govt. did or did not know at the time of Grenfell it was SEVEN YEARS AGO, and they have done precious little to change things because they are still obsessed with deregulation and privatisation and still 'in thrall' to big money.

     

    Re., the Post Office. For years, the victims were isolated and told that it was 'only them'. It's hard to pin down exactly when the issue became public knowledge, but a group of 'victims' took legal action against the Post Office in 2015, by which time the Tories had had 5 years to act.

     

    From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56718036

    Quote

    In 2017, a group of 555 sub-postmasters took legal action against the Post Office. In 2019, it agreed to pay them £58m in compensation, but much of the money they received was swallowed up by legal fees.

    Although campaigners won the right to have their cases reconsidered, as at 15 January 2024, only 95 convictions had been overturned.

    The Metropolitan Police is also investigating the Post Office over potential fraud offences arising from the prosecutions.

    A public inquiry began in February 2021, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams.

     

    And SEVEN YEARS ON.. Govt.,which effectively owns the Post Office, is still not gripping the issue.

    There is no excuse.

  7. On 2/20/2024 at 8:31 PM, Brew said:

    The vast majority if independents are not like Harrow, Eton or Roedean. they are quite small, Iona, Hollygirt etc with pupils in the ten, hundreds. Perhaps you could propose a rebate for the the cost of a place at state school that they forgo? 

     

    The size of the school is irrelevant. I would have no objection to a rebate in principle if it could be accurately worked out, which I seriously doubt because that would involve Govt. in some pretty embarrassing  number crunching and revelations.

     

    The issue of 'Charitable Status' is one of principle. You are obliged by law to ensure that your child is educated to age 16. (Let's leave the post 16 rules aside for now.)

    You have the basic choice of State Education, Home Schooling, or Independent, fee paying education.  If you choose the latter, you are effectively purchasing education as a commodity, but you are also purchasing a kind of exclusivity, because most Independent, Fee Paying schools are selective.

    I see no reason whatsoever why Independent schools should qualify for Charitable Status, which mostly confers benefits in terms of taxation and this especially because such schools expect fees to be paid in full which amounts to purchase of a service in exchange for cash.

     

    From: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05222/

    Quote

    What is a charity?

    The Charities Act 2011 defines a charity as an institution which is established for charitable purposes only and is subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Act lists descriptions of a charitable purpose and states it must be for the public benefit.

    The advancement of education is one description of a charitable purpose and so independent schools are capable of being charities. Educational charities, like all other charities, must demonstrate they are for the public benefit. There is no statutory definition of what this means.

     

    It's all very wooly and convenient isn't it? Apart from a very few 'scholarships' offering fee remission, I'd be interested to read exactly what 'Public Benefit' derives from Charitable status of Independent schools.

     

    It's also fascinating that 'the poor' can be described as beneficiaries of Independent Schools, but that there is no legal definition of 'the poor'. In fact, Eton was set up specifically for 'the poor', though pinning down a definition of those is difficult too.

     

    In contrast, I have the (largely theoretical) choice to choose NHS Dentistry, or to pay for Private Dentistry. Idon't expect charitable support for my Private Dentistry and neither, as far as I know, does my Dentist.

     

    On 2/21/2024 at 5:56 PM, Brew said:

    It may seem insensitive to say it but Grenfell and the Post Office must run their course and resist knee jerk reactions.

     

    Knee jerk reactions? Grenfell happened almost 7 years ago and as yet, to my knowledge NOBODY has yet been held responsible for the failures in regulation and deliberate negligence which caused it. Furthermore, thousands of innocent people around the country, in both social and privately owned/rented property have their lives blighted by the failure of Govt. to 'grip' this situation and get on with addressing both the safety and financial concerns people are living with. It is just another example of big business effectively 'getting away with it'.  Just like Carillion.

     

    As for the Post Office.. This goes back 20 years though it was largely rerpressed in the early stages.  I'm literally listening to the Govt. Business Committee enquiry into that mess as I type. It is quite astounding to hear how 'The Post Office' as an edifice, continues to duck, dive, obfuscate, avoid, deny, delay and do anything else 'it' can to avoid both blame, and reparation. One witness went so far as to suggest that the Post Office is 'a Dead Duck', which should be sold to somebody like Amazon, who would undoubtedly make a 'better fist' of things.  I'm not sure I'd agree with that, as being a raving lefty I'd favour re-nationalisation, but I certainly believe that the organisation and management of the Post Office (A Private Company Limited by Shares),has become an impenetrable 'rogue bureaucracy' which serves nobody well and which is populated by people with self interest and the avoidance of personal blame/consequences driving the whole 'Horizon Scandal' process.

    Watch it and listen to what is being said. It is appalling, whatever your politics.

    Govt. has the power to fix this very quickly.  Will it?  Don't hold your breath.

  8. 5 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

    Well they do.

     

    All govt.s tax and spend. The present lot are exceptional in that regard.  It is debateable whether Labour live up to the label they are constantly saddled with by the UK print media.  In addition, you know as well as I do that even the relatively balanced BBC, still start their questioning of Labour politicians from those assumptions, and yet they do not focus on Debt, etc., in the same way with Tories. They don't focus on Tory spending cuts, privatisation etc.. etc.

     

    5 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

    Otherwise known as haven’t a clue.

     

    No. It's a reasonable electoral strategy. WHATEVER labour propose in terms of specifics, will attract the same bile and it's clear from recent election results that Labour don't need to expose themselves to that.

    OTOH, the Tories came in promising to:

    -Halt illegal immigration.  Fail.

    -Get Brexit dun. Fail

    -Implement Brixit 'benefits' Fail

    -Fix Adult Social Care. Fail, etc.,. etc..

    After 14 years, trying to blame everything on Covid is frankly pathetic.

    5 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

    I constantly hear and read plenty of criticism and alarm at the current government in general, the levels of borrowing, debt and policies. You can’t miss it. How come you don’t. You must be reading the Tory bias press. I am surprised. I thought you’d more likely subscribe to ‘the socialist worker’

     

    I don't buy ANY newspaper. Only the Guardian has anything approaching a neutral stance based on facts and internationally acknowledged as such. It's not owned by big business, or foreigners.  A look at the headlines on display in the local newsagent is enough to put me off.  I don't doubt that there is criticism of govt. within the pages of most/all newspapers, but that is not the overt stance suggested by their headlines, or adopted by broadcast media.

    Your comment about the Socialist Worker, or the Morning Star, or whatever you meant..is unnecessary and borderline Ad Hom. You know full well that I have repeatedly defined my politics as Democratic and Centre Left.

  9. 14 hours ago, Brew said:

    The vast majority if independents are not like Harrow, Eton or Roedean. they are quite small, Iona, Hollygirt etc with pupils in the ten, hundreds. Perhaps you could propose a rebate for the the cost of a place at state school that they forgo? 

     

    Irrelevant.

    I'm talking about removing 'charitable' status. If Private schools cannot exist without that, plus the fees they charge. then why do they exist? You know as well as I do that parents pay for private education because they perceive it as advantageous to their kids and in terms of pupil teacher ratios etc, and the 'advantages' of selection, then it probably is, but I fail to see how that warrants charitable status.  There are also deeply ingrained perceptions in some quarters that the fact of having been to a Private school somehow means that someone is 'better' in some way. There are similar attitudes to 'Oxbridge' graduates, which are not borne out by reality.

     

    The idea of a rebate has been raised before. It could be implemented, but isn't, and whenever I've heard parents of those at private fee paying schools questioned over it, they generally don't seem bothered.  Maybe because it would actually reveal the difference in spending per pupil between Public and Private?

     

    As an aside, I note that 'Independent' schools are subject to a different inspection regime to 'state' schools and do not seem to fall victim to 'One Word' assessments.

    https://www.etoncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Eton-ISI-Educational-Quality-Inspection-Report-2021.pdf

     

    14 hours ago, Brew said:

    They need holding account by the government? No!  the law should take it's course without pressure from the executive. It's a fundamental principle of our democracy.

     

    Well yes, Govt. is not and should not be above the Law, but it does ultimately make and alter the Law. It seems to have a distorted perception of priorities, having invested huge amounts of its own and Parliaments' time in pursuit of , for e.g., the Rwanda Bill.. i.e. effectively changing the Law, but very little on making sure that the Law is effective in bringing to book those responsible for Grenfell and other iniquities, or indeed preventing future repeats.  As ever, the forces of self interest are quietly carrying on business as usual.

    Here is the last entry in Hansard which I can find:

     

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-06-16/debates/46295776-85FD-4B4E-B044-D6FE22A9F1FA/GrenfellTowerFifthAnniversary

     

    ...and after several thousands of words of debate, the conclusion, from Labour member Richard Burgon, said:

     

    Quote

    I want to finish with two brief quotes. One is from the journalist Peter Apps, who wrote in a recent article:

    “What has emerged is a profoundly depressing portrait of a private sector with a near psychopathic disregard for human life, and a public sector which exists to do little more than serve or imitate it.”

    However, I want the final words of this debate, fittingly, to be from the families, the bereaved and the survivors of Grenfell United, who said:

    “We must pave a new way forward. We must hold those responsible to account.”

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Share this specific contribution

    Our thoughts are with all those families affected by this awful tragedy, but particularly at this time.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Resolved,

    That this House has considered the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire.

     

    It's not good enough is it?

     

    15 hours ago, Brew said:

    Exactly, all we have at the moment is hearsay, rumour and conjecture, he said she said. Those affected have been treated abominably, but who do you want making decisions, the courts or civil servants  whispering in dark corners?

     

    No. We have an admission by the Post Office that hundreds of people were wrongfully prosecuted and convicted, up to 20 years ago. We also have a process of compensation in place. That compensation is way too late for some, who have died of natural causes or even taken their own lives. There can be NO justification for continuing delays in paying compensation because there is no legal impediment to doing so.

    The historical facts and legal issues surround blame for the issues with Horizon, the roles of the Post Office, Fujitsu, Post Office 'enforcers', Civil Servants and Govt.etc.,etc. and should not be used to delay payments of compensation.

     

    15 hours ago, Brew said:

    PFI?  There are 719 such agreements with a cost to the tax payer of over £300 Billion! one of which has  seen the collapse of an NHS trust (South London), due to payments. It's also worth remembering the majority came about under labour. It's part of Blair/Brown legacy that is helping to cripple the NHS.

    The jibe about neoCon is a bit of a worrabout.

     

    It is within Govts power to end ALL PFI contracts tomorrow if they wished. They don't 'wish', because there is too much at stake for the PRIVATE contractors who are hoovering up our cash.

    I'm not defending Brown, Blair, but neither am I ignoring the origins with Major, nor the continuation with Osborne. It's 14 years since the Tories came to power and they have done nothing to stop this legalised theft.

    The NeoCon comment is not a jibe, it's a fact. PFI originates from NeoCon ideology.

     

    15 hours ago, Brew said:

    Perhaps because they recognise vast amount covid cost, and is sill costing, this country:

    From the treasury.

     

    We all know Covid cost a fortune.  The real question is around how effectively that money was spent, and where huge chunks of it actually went. Govt borrowing was rising before Covid.

     

    16 hours ago, Brew said:

    One last point;

    Thatcher inherited 0ver 17% inflation, with two years had it down to single figures - how is another matter.

     

    Yep, and that 'other matter' consisted of destroying British manufacturing, massively increasing interest rates and unemployment all for a temporary appearance of 'success'.  The woman was a psychopath and I will never be convinced otherwise.

  10. From another place... and complete with another confirmation of Godwin's Law.

     

    Quote
    Thatcherism isn’t a failure. If it were, you”d think there would be an electable party proposing to ‘reverse” Thatcherism. Where are they?

    Really?

    Thatcherism has failed even on it’s own terms;

    Controlling inflation = fail
    Stabilising the economy = fail
    cutting public spending = fail

    more relevant is the failure of privatisation to deliver the promised benefits to energy, trains, water, elderly Care, dentistry

    deregulation has delivered 2008, a housing crisis, work insecurity and weakened Health and Education

    also, lets not forget growing inequality, in work poverty the rise of food banks.

    Thatcherism has been good for the rich, which seems to be all that counts for some.

    Your defence of Thatcher on the grounds of popularity is also a defence of the rise of Hitler.

     

    Also:

    Quote

    Money in our economy is an IOU, and accounting mechanism, or a scorekeeper. Which is why saying that we've run out of money is just as absurd as saying we’ve run out of numbers. The score board in cricket is the tally keeper, to say the scoreboard has run out of numbers is illiterate.

    I maintain that economics is quite simple, it’s about the allocation of resources and in modern times it is a question of either allocating public money to public good, or private pockets, or more simply, is government spending on public services a good thing, or a bad thing? Economics gets complicated when economists start to devise complex mathematical models that purport to demonstrate supposed universal laws and rules. They speak a foreign language to explain that spending is a bad thing because it always and everywhere leads to inflation. But if you dig down into those models they all rest on ‘if = then’ models in which ‘if’ is assumed to be true even when it is not. And it does take a fair bit of digging, which is of course how they get away with it.

    It is like all those pre-reformation priests who read the latin bible, then tell their congregation what it means. You have to be able to understand latin in order to realise that the ‘meaning’ that they pass on serves a political purpose. And as you say, part of that purpose was to maintain that the earth was the centre of the universe. Nowadays these ‘priests’ from the Treasury try to tell us that our taxpayers money is at the centre of the universe. It isnt

     

  11. 2 minutes ago, letsavagoo said:

    We’ll surely that’s the cue to say how they’re going to pay. 
    Alleged?

     

    Well no..for the reasons I've already outlined. The 'meedja' work from the ASSUMPTION that Labour will Tax and Spend, and yet I don't hear the 'meedja' complaining about the huge increase in UK debt under the Tories.  Since 2016 alone.. and that is the backdrop against which Truss thought it a good idea to borrow even more to fund tax cuts for the rich..

     

    Quote
    Table 1: General government gross debt
    General government gross debt, UK, financial year ending March 2016 to financial year ending March 2021
    Financial year ending March² 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
    Debt (£ billion)¹ 1,651.0 1,719.8 1763.2 1,820.6 1,875.7 2,223.0
    Debt (as % GDP)³ 84.5 84.3 83.5 82.8 83.0 103.7

    Source: Office for National Statistics - UK government debt and deficit

     

    As I keep sayiong, the Media and especially the Print Media aply totally different assumptions and standards to Labour, which is why they have little choice but to play their cards close to their chests.  It's also a fairly reasonable position to argue that they don't know what they'll have to deal with by the time the Tories finally call an election.

     

    All above said, I'm a bit less bothered about Govt Debt than many seem to be and I don't fully subscribe to 'conventional economic wisdom' around debt/taxation etc..  But then I don't write headlines for the DM or the Mirror.

  12. 2 hours ago, Brew said:

    An oxymoron and serves no purpose other than to pad out your diatribe with rhetoric. I don't take issue with most of your criticisms but I say again if it's legal and you don't like it - change the law. 

     

    Here's a 'back of a fag packet' set of proposals I offered on another site a week or so back...

     

    Quote
    •  
    Labour have done this to themselves.

    (I said)
    That is a valid interpretation though not quite in line with mine.

    If I was making Labour policy pronouncements, they'd be along these lines, though possibly with some input from someone who knows more about the true workings of the Treasury, or how to deflect the inevitable Tory attack. If pushed I'd call this 'Economic Populism'.

    1. I would either scrap or seriously re constitute Ofwat, to give it real teeth. I would legislate to cap Water Company Chief Exec's Salaries and Bonuses, plus Shareholder Dividends until they became genuinely compliant with Water Supply, Flood Management and Sewage Outflow standards. If they didn't like it, or comply, I'd Nationalise them.
    This is definitely a Green proposal.

    2. I'd make similar proposals around Energy and Public Transport..especially Rail. A Green element here too.

    3. I would legislate to stop any further 'Absentee' a.k.a. foreign investment in UK housing stock and consider the threat of compulsory purchase to 'encourage' sale of such back into UK ownership.
    4. I would use similar tactics to end the ownership and control of UK infrastructure, transport, waste disposal energy and other essentials by foreign companies, especially where those companies are in turn owned by foreign govt.s

    5. I would aim to reduce Legal Migration of otherwise non vulnerable individuals into such as Health Care, Social Care, Hospitality etc.., by increasing training of UK citizens to resolve self inflicted labour shortages and by ensuring minimum salaries.

    6. I would end numerous Tax loopholes. I'm not talking about just 'Taxing the Rich', which is too vague and too easily attacked, but issues such as 'Non Dom Status' etc. Also I'd be asking serious questions about why it is that someone whose salary allows them to invest say £50k per year in investments and THEN get tax relief on top and still have take home pay of multiples of most people's Gross pay?.....

    7. I would seriously 'go after' the crooks responsible for Grenfell, The Post Office Scandal etc.

    8. I would end the tax breaks and 'Charitable Status for ALL religions and for ALL Independent Schools.
    Why do they and their membership deserve benefits which Atheists and Agnostics, or even those of 'independent' faith do not enjoy?
    The likes of Eton College already supply us with a disproportionately high number of (mostly Right Wing) Politicians etc. Why should we subsidise them?

    I reckon that most habitual Labour and huge numbers of Lib Dem, Left Wing Tory etc. voters would find little to disagree with in that lot. It might even hoover up a few of the dummies who support 'Reform' because they only really see its immigration drivel and haven't read the rest of its horrific manifesto.

     

    Although clearly in need of expansion and refinement, several agreed with the general thrust of my proposals.

    One suggested that it would get 'monstered' by the Press, although I suspect it would only get that because it was from Labour.  As I've already said, the Press do not examine Right Wing parties in the same way...

     

     

    2 hours ago, Brew said:

    Grenfell had little to do with government, although they make a convenient whipping boy. The apology by Gove was for not knowing how building regs were applied. Do we really expect government to be au fait with the minutiae of council decisions?

    The blame is with Kensington council who have been declared responsible by the high court. 

     

    Do you not think that the manufacturers of the cladding hold the major responsibility?  The stuff is clearly not fit for purpose and yet was sold to numerous developers and property owners. The manufacturers KNEW it wasn't suitable.

    And do you not think that Govt. taking its eye off the 'Regulation' ball was another factor? And finially, I certainly hold Govt. to account for taking so long to resolve all of this. Manufacturers etc., will not own up, so they need holding to account.  By Govt.

     

    2 hours ago, Brew said:

    The Post Office scandal is still progressing.. For someone who favours due process, I suggest you're  jumping the gun in apportioning blame

     

    I'm not sure 'progressing' is a word I'd use.  Only yesterday one of the victims was on TV explaining that the actual settlement and payment of compensation has been booted down the road yet again.. until after the election.  At the same time the former Post Office  Chief Exec (Staunton?) and Badenoch are in a very public spat, though Badenochj seems to like using Parliamentary Privelege to respond to him. I don't know who's right, but this Pantomime does nothing for the victims.

     

    2 hours ago, Brew said:

    Interesting that you didn't mention the same committee  after it criticised pretty much the same thing when Brown was PM ("an over-reliance "on a small 'oligopoly' of large suppliers") or the fiasco that came to light regarding the NHS IT system that cost over £10 Billion before it was scrapped, or the recent complaint of the outrageous interest payment now falling due on NHS PFI contracts.  Another triumph for Blair opening the doors to private finance.

     

    I'm not defending Blair or Brown here, but let's not forget that it was Major who started PFI to get public Debt 'off the books'  Also, Osborne, for the Tories simultaneously argued that PFI was wrong and yet..

     

    Quote

    Despite being so critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor.[27]

     

    Fundamentally, PFI is a NeoCon 'wheeze', which is supposedly attractive to Govt., because both the Debt AND much of the risk, are transferred to the Private Sector.  How very noble of them..

    The reality is that PFI simply replaces Govt. borrowing on the Bond markets with much more expensive borrowing via the Private Sector, which is also tied up in ridculously complex 'contracts' which involve facility management and maintenance schemes which again are ludicrously expensive. In short PFI is a massive con.

     

     

  13. On 2/15/2024 at 8:05 PM, Brew said:

    Screaming at the Tories and accusing them of theft is quite frankly something we long ago dismissed, they have stolen nothing!

     

    They have systematically enabled 'legalised theft', by not only the headline grabbers such as Mone and Harding, but by creating Privatised Cartels from former publicly owned assetts such as water, transport etc., etc.

     

    They have also utterly failed to pursue those responsible for huge misappropriation of public money, such as Crapita, Carillion etc..and continue to fail to bring to account those responsible for the Post Office scandal, Grenfell, and many, many other iniquities which originate from the Tory onsession with privatiastion and refusal to 'take on' big business, no matter how 'bent'.

     

    In the case of Carillion, hundreds of £millions in 'dividends' were paid out, £29 million went in fees to the Auditor KPMG who then sued when they were blamed for their part in Carillion's failure. Meanwhile, nobody went to gaol, the big money quietly settled matters among themselves and it was just 'business as usual', while several hospitals and other projects were delayed and sent 'overbudget'. Another triumph for the wonders of Privatisation and 'Outsourcing'.

     

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/17/kpmg-pays-13bn-to-settle-negligent-auditing-claim-by-carillion-creditors

     

    From which:

    Quote

    A separate report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, in July 2018, blamed the UK government for outsourcing contracts based on lowest price, saying its use of contractors such as Carillion had caused public services to deteriorate.

     

    It never stops with these crooks.

     

    Allowing Water Companies to charge more, to fund the cleaning up of their own act, which is entirely down to their business failure and circumvention of regulation..whilst continuing to pay shareholder dividends AND 'fat cat' salaries/bonuses.. might not fall within the legal definition of theft, but it clearly is theft in reality.

    • Like 1
  14. 12 hours ago, Brew said:

    Labour I'm sure are going to win and wish washy Starmer will prove to be a bad PM

     

    Too soon to say what sort of P.M. Starmer will be and I wouldn't rule out a leadership challenge after the election.  As I've just pointed out to Letsavagoo.. he's saddled with an almost universally hostile 'meedja', which is poised to pounce on the slightest hint of 'Tax and Spend' etc.. and yet which does not apply the same scrutiny to either Tories or Reform.

  15. On 2/19/2024 at 9:36 AM, letsavagoo said:

    Tory voters are disillusioned with the current shower but are equally unimpressed with Labour who don’t seem to have any answers and are not seen as a viable option. That’s where a 3rd party option will gain ground. I think it will damage the Tory’s more than Labour.

     

    I'm certain that Reform will damage the Tories more than they'll damage Labour. Judging by recent by election results it looks to me as if many are so sick of the Tories that they will vote for anyone who will be able to replace them in Parliament and that, logically, can only be Labour.. whatever reservations people might have.

     

    That said I still think that Reform is simply jumping on the 'bandwagon' of popular discontent with 'The Boats', and a few other high profile issues, such as NHS, Housing etc. And yet, if you actually read their manifesto it is full of contradictions and illogicalities.  It is also pretty heavy on stuff which most would interpret as 'anti-environmental', such as coal mining etc.,etc. It's not much of a stretch to see the influence of 'the usual suspects', in the form of the Oil lobby, the so called 'Institute of Economic Affairs' etc etc.  The same broad far right gang who have been forced into a bit of a retreat within the Tories and so are now looking for influence outside.

    These are all self interested dangerous people who, in my view, represent a threat to our democracy and to the Institutions which have kept it functioning for hundreds of years.

    'Beware of Greeks bearing gifts...'

     

    I do accept that Labour are having some difficulty selling a 'vision'..but it's important to remember that whilst for e.g., Reform, is gaining much attention for its electoral progress it is otherwise barely scrutinised in the 'Meedja', whereas every single policy statement from Labour is greeted with howls of 'How you gonna pay for that?, with added fantasies about Labour's alleged 'Tax and Spend' record. Meanwhile, 'the meedja' does at least highlight Sunak's gaffs and difficulties, but barely mentions the Tory borrowing record, much less asks where has all that borrowed money gone..given the parlous state of our public services, infrastructure, utilities, etc....etc...

  16. On 2/18/2024 at 8:08 PM, Brew said:

    Well yes i.e. they're loony, not to be taken seriously.

     

    I think we're into semantics here.  You appear to favour the 'silly' end of the definition spectrum. I've always considered it to be more closely aligned with its (UK) etymological root . 'Lunatic'. I don't think that the use of the term 'loony' necessarily implies that some person or group is not to be taken seriously, or seen as a potential threat, anymore than a genuine 'lunatic' can be so regarded.

     

    Of course in the political context there's always a slight distortion by association with the 'Official Monster Raving Loony Party', originated by the late 'Screaming Lord Such'. And of course the very purpose of the 'Raving Loony Party' is to project a not entirely misplaced satirical and ironic view of British politics.

     

    From Dictionary.com

    Quote

     

    adjective,loon·i·er, loon·i·est.
    1. lunatic; insane.

    2. extremely or senselessly foolish.

    noun,plural loon·ies.
    1. a lunatic.

     

    1.  

     

    The US definition below doesn't even mention Lunatic, but relies on associations with the Loon bird.

    Quote
    Loony is an adjective that means foolish, eccentric, or loony. It comes from the noun loon, which is a type of bird. See synonyms, examples, etymology, and related words of loony.

     

     

  17. 28 minutes ago, Brew said:

    Wow Godwins law is till working I see.

     

    As is the invocation of same! ;)

    28 minutes ago, Brew said:

    Use of the term 'loony' is you must admit somewhat light-hearted and even flippant. 

     

    But is it?  Is it flippant when Tories go on about the 'loony left'?

     

    28 minutes ago, Brew said:

    Was Herr H a lunatic? only in the popular perception of the man.  A lunatic in my opinion could assume power by default, but to rise through the ranks... I doubt it...

     

    He certainly ended up detached from reality and though there might have been some sort of cold rationale behind his political ideology and rantings earlier on, he gained power through violence, by exploiting a political vacuum and by employing crude populism to appeal to a nation which had lost both a war and its national pride.  Same old same old... simple solutions. It was 'all the fault of the elites' and especially the Jews..but he then set about creating an entire mythology around Aryanism, even employing archaeologists, geneticists, eugenicists and even occultists, to try to construct a new and entirely false 'creation myth' about Germany. Effective, for a while at least..but irrational.

     

    I see echoes of that stuff in the rantings of Trump, Farage etc., although to be fair Tice is a bit less 'obvious' about it.

     

    Eitherway, whilst Tice and co attack 'elites', in the form of The House of Lords, the 'Establishment' etc... it's plain to me that they are actually a faction within that same 'establishment', trying to replace the current 'top dogs' themselves. They are only using what they can snaffle of the 'popular' vote to achieve their ends. 

  18. 1 hour ago, Brew said:

     Exactly my point. Poo pooing any extreme (left or right), organisation as not worthy of serious consideration is something we do at our peril. 

     

    Well yes, but I don't think I said they were not worth watching. I've been stressing all along that there are 'dark forces' gaining political ground, here and across the world. However, it's possible to be 'loony' and dangerous at the same time.. unless you think of course that Hitler and his pals were rational?

  19. Whilst it clearly cannot be reliably ascribed to individuals, there is strong evidence that Xenophobia was both an underlying message from the Leave campaign, and a motivator for many who voted Leave.

     

    https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/xenophobia-brexit/

     

    https://www.vox.com/2016/6/25/12029786/brexit-uk-eu-immigration-xenophobia

     

    It follows that since Reform is a re-badged Ukip/Brexit Party, then xenophobia will be rife in its ranks.

  20. 21 hours ago, Brew said:

    Such inflammatory language without proof is to no ones credit and the disparaging reference to being 'loony' runs the risk  of them not being taken seriously.

     

    Yes. I accept your point and I withdraw the 'unsubstantiated' tag of 'racist', though I think it would be harder to argue against an accusation of xenophobia.

     

    Reform is a clearly Far Right ( Many of them really DO think that both Conservatives and Labour are 'Socialists') Party which has decided to jump on a Populist Bandwagon with fanciful solutions to problems. Some of those problems exist.. others are simply manufactured 'threats', to which of course only Reform has the solution. It's the oldest trick in the Political Extremist book, employed by everyone from Hitler to Trump and many others besides.

     

    I've long held, and I think expressed here, the view that people, including and maybe especially politicians are better judged on their actions than their utterances.

     

    I really can't be bothered getting into too much detail. It's all there online for anyone who wishes to look and points to a membership populated largely by assorted oddballs and misfits, united only by their obsession with Brexit and the mythology which underpins it.

     

    That said I do think it's worth noting Tice's admiration for US Far Right Republican Ron DeSantis, who is a major Trump supporter, favours the banning of books, and invokes political interference in what is taught in schools, especially if it comes from the progressive left. DeSantis is also a major opponent of 'Woke', which according to him is basically anyone who disagrees with his Far Right Conservative; world view.

     

    Tice has presented for Talk TV and GB News, which for me, says it all, since both are essentialy Right Wing propaganda shows and not worthy of the title 'News'. YMMV

     

    Tice has also had associations with Aaron Banks and is currently, since his divorce, in a relationship with Isabel Oakshott, whose political affiliations and journalistic style I will refrain from commenting on, lest I lapse back into 'inflammatory language'.

     

    Reform has moved on from its UKIP and Brexit Party origins to base itself in a broader 'populist' stance and much of what it advocates is certainly superficially appealing, until you look a little deeper..when it gets quite worrying. E.g.,

     

    -A blanket statement that the BBC and the Civil Service are both 'bloated'. Evidence? 

    -A claim that the NHS can be sorted out by re-arranging the funding deck chairs.. and yet almost in the next breath, a call for more NHS privatisation..... Really?

    A call to resume both Fracking and Coal Mining, justified by arguing that we are currently importing foreign coal to fire our power stations.  Yep, probably true, but we only have ONE coal fired power station and it's closing this year...

     

    I could go on, but instead I'll just advise reading the Reform Manifesto, reading between the lines and remembering where this party came from and who it REALLY represents.

    It also amuses me that many of the actual and also perceived 'ills' of our current socio economic situation stem directly from the very same Brexit which underpins Reform UK's platform.

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1