Anything Political

[Brew 5,419]

45 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

which half of his own party don't support.

Really? By my reckoning it's a little less than half, 11 voted against, 18 wimps sat on the fence and did not vote, so 29 in all - from 349. A victory then for Sunak but I suspect the Lords will send it back to the commons which will start the whole thing again.

 

I have yet to hear a cogent argument against it, how is the Rwanda plan pointless and, leaving aside long term solutions which will probably never happen, what alternative would you suggest in the short term to stop the boats?

Immigration is a major plank in the Tory election campaign and I suspect has a lot of support among the voters so he has to do something. But I don't think they have enough time now to turn things around.

 

Starmer is as usual doing little and saying less. 

 

----------------

 

Oz, from an Australian report on recent tax changes:

 

"With these changes, around 94% of Australian taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 30% or less"

 

Seems pretty inclusive to me, not that I know much about life down under.

[Oztalgian 3,296]

10 hours ago, Brew said:

Seems pretty inclusive to me, not that I know much about life down under.

Suffice to know that we have a Federal Labor government that appears hell-bent on redistributing wealth towards the highest income earners and behaving as Conservatives would. Right now, I'll bet these cuts are abandoned or it will not end well for the Labor side of politics at the next election.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 1/18/2024 at 12:59 PM, Brew said:

Really? By my reckoning it's a little less than half, 11 voted against, 18 wimps sat on the fence and did not vote, so 29 in all - from 349. A victory then for Sunak but I suspect the Lords will send it back to the commons which will start the whole thing again.

 

Yes, your figures are correct and a lot of his opposition 'bottled it', though I suspect most of them had their eyes more on the coming election and saving their necks/seats, than any high principles.

 

On 1/18/2024 at 12:59 PM, Brew said:

I have yet to hear a cogent argument against it, how is the Rwanda plan pointless and, leaving aside long term solutions which will probably never happen, what alternative would you suggest in the short term to stop the boats?

 

It's pointless because even if it can be made to work, it's admitted that very few will be sent and the notion that it will act as a deterrent is unproven.

It's also legally questionable and the idea that by legislating, the Tories have somehow changed Rwanda from unsafe to safe at the stroke of a pen is not only ludicrous, but also a dangerous precedent.

What it comes down to is propaganda.  It's Sunak and his cronies trying to keep the focus of the electorate on illegal immigration which, although an important issue, isn't the NHS/Cost of Living/Housing etc..etc.. ad infinitum crisis which affect all of us much more. I reckon it's backfiring on them.

 

 

 

And then there's this:

 

 

On 1/18/2024 at 12:59 PM, Brew said:

Immigration is a major plank in the Tory election campaign and I suspect has a lot of support among the voters so he has to do something. But I don't think they have enough time now to turn things around.

 

Only illegal immigration.  Because of their almost complete lack of positive action on education, employment and training, exacerbated by their Brexit lunacy, we have massively increased legal immigration, mostly from countries where skin colour tends to be darker, and thus the new workers rather more obvious. Two own goals in one.

 

On 1/18/2024 at 12:59 PM, Brew said:

Starmer is as usual doing little and saying less. 

 

Starmer really doesn't need to do much but avoid a 'Kinnock style' cock up.

 

That said, neither he nor his minions seem capable of presenting much real vision,.. so they're currently winning by default.

 

For e.g, on QT the other night Emily Thornberry admitting that Labour would need to borrow to fund NHS etc, but utterly failing to highlight huge Tory borrowing, Truss advocating borrowing to fund tax cuts for the rfich etc., the fact that borrowing is an investment opportunity for the rich repaid by the poor, but not if it is repaid by properly taxing the rich.

 

And they should be using this:

https://view.news.oxfam.org.uk/?qs=e5f4f793818d9f0cd98e12554f41a9155c18c1b7984b037bb988879a9d6d4bc697f6b417141533988a2a39a2c46ed0027fae717f5bdc8569150e8e34d67e5eb15451ad8551ecbafeb706d50fa8248c39

 

 

 Also on Question Time Fiona Bruce seems genuinely shocked to learn that people are struggling to get NHS Dentistry.
Where has she been for the last 20 years? It may not affect her and her Tory Activist husband, but the fact she didn't know, just further demonstrates her complete inadequacy in the role.

[Brew 5,419]

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

t's pointless because even if it can be made to work, it's admitted that very few will be sent and the notion that it will act as a deterrent is unproven.

 

I'm surprised at that, surely something that's never been tried or tested can never be proved or disproved. 

 

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

t's also legally questionable and the idea that by legislating, the Tories have somehow changed Rwanda from unsafe to safe at the stroke of a pen is not only ludicrous, but also a dangerous precedent.

 

Immigration is as you acknowledge an important issue very much in the front of peoples minds, for a government of any colour to ignore it would be wrong on every level.

 

In principal the governments actions are only questionable whilst the law is ambiguous, remove the ambiguity and we remove the doubt.

The courts never said the proposal was illegal only that, at the time, Rwanda was on the HMG list of of unsafe states - now it's not. Whether that changes the safety is moot but it does change the legality. Ludicrous possibly, legal certainly.

 

 

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

isn't the NHS/Cost of Living/Housing etc..etc.. ad infinitum crisis which affect all of us much more. I reckon it's backfiring on them.

 

Of course they are important, but that's changing the subject, they were not the topic under discussion which was "what solution in the short tern should we adopt to stop people risking their lives crossing the channel".

 

The QT piece is arguable, only one instance of someone circumventing and taking undue advantage is proof it will not work?

Hashi Mohamed was actually in Rwanda and presumably whilst there searching for evidence to disparage the  proposal.

The only evidence against the plan he came up with were the actions or dodgy hearsay statement of one ne'er-do-well? Seriously?

 

He mentioned it's an Israeli arrangement. That's to say not the same thing as the UK plan, It's also important to make clear there was never an official agreement between Rwanda and Israel, a fact he conveniently forgot to mention and that Israel sent them there with no support.

Comparing apples with oranges?

 

Mohamed is blatantly left wing and giving us a well rehearsed diatribe, short on facts, long on supposition, conjecture and  the lefties loaded into the audience loved it. Typical for Starmerites there was no mention of a viable alternative

 

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Starmer really doesn't need to do much but avoid a 'Kinnock style' cock up.

 

Really? That seems somewhat complacent the election is his to lose and if he doesn't soon start showing some sort of leadership he'll do just that.

 

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

he fact that borrowing is an investment opportunity for the rich repaid by the poor, but not if it is repaid by properly taxing the rich.

 

Pure left wing rhetoric spouted by those who would I've no doubt  scream blue murder if they were taxed at 45%.

 

The Oxfam piece is pure shameless propaganda. 3 out 4 millionaires want to pay more taxes? apart from the fact I don't believe it, it rather depends on who they ask. I know at least three in the seven figure bracket and all take every legal opportunity to reduce their liability.

 

The Oxfam headline "top five double their money". No details just an  alarmist strapline so I looked a little deeper.

 

MUSK -  £5 billion to charity

Arnault - £19 billion 

Bezos -   £3 billion 

Ellison -   95% of fortune

Zuckerberg - £45 billion 

Not in the top list but Buffet has given £55 billion through the Gates foundation which in itself has given huge amounts to good causes.

 

There will no doubt be a tax deductible reason but the end result is the money goes directly to charity and not towards the bill for a broken down aircraft carrier.

The list goes one. The top ten between them have probably given more than the GDP of some small countries. 

 

Oxfam's innuendo is scurrilous manipulation to say the least and to my mind casts a shadow over the rest of the article.

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,296]

The man who is generally regarded as Australia's worst ever Prime Minister, Scott John Morrison is leaving Australian politics to take up a role with American Global Strategies after saying he needs a better salary than the AU$217,000 a back bencher gets. As an ex PM of 4 years. He will also get a taxpayer funded office, a lifetime gold travel pass and a very generous superannuation pension. He has been condemned in Australia as a liar, and an incompetent operator on both the domestic and global stages.

 

At the same time South Australia's former premier Stephen Marshall, the leader of the last conservative, one term, government has indicated that he too is leaving politics. As a premier he got us through the covid pandemic but in every other way he was almost invisible.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 1/21/2024 at 1:26 AM, Brew said:

I'm surprised at that, surely something that's never been tried or tested can never be proved or disproved

 

Surely it's more subtle than that? Some things can only be proved by testing.. that's true. However, in numerous situations, especially where politics, opinion and 'agendas' are concerned, the probability of any given outcome becomes a matter of opinion? In this case it is evident that opinion is deeply divided even within the ranks of the Conservative Party, not to mention in the wider community.

 

On 1/21/2024 at 1:26 AM, Brew said:

Immigration is as you acknowledge an important issue very much in the front of peoples minds, for a government of any colour to ignore it would be wrong on every level.

 

I don't think that any Govt. past, present, or future can really be accused of ignoring immigration. There are simply differing viewpoints and differing opinions on how to manage immigration.

Two things are blindingly obvious about the current Tory approach to immigration.

 

1. Whilst no sane or credible political viewpoint denies that immigration is an issue, the current Tory Administration is deliberately 'hyping up' the small boats issue.. keeping it 'front and centre' of it's narrative and keeping it rolling.. in order to distract from its catalogue of failures on Health, Education, Cost of Living, Housing, Regulation of Privatised Utilities, Criminal Justice etc.etc.. not to mention the slowly emerging evidence of corruption, misappropriation of public funds, etc.

 

2. Simultaneously, the current Govt. is q

[DJ360 6,730]

Sorry but my reply is spread over two posts, due to the over eager editing policies here.

 

  

 

Surely it's more subtle than that? Some things can only be proved by testing.. that's true. However, in numerous situations, especially where politics, opinion and 'agendas' are concerned, the probability of any given outcome becomes a matter of opinion? In this case it is evident that opinion is deeply divided even within the ranks of the Conservative Party, not to mention in the wider community.

 

On 1/21/2024 at 1:26 AM, Brew said:

Immigration is as you acknowledge an important issue very much in the front of peoples minds, for a government of any colour to ignore it would be wrong on every level.

 

I don't think that any Govt. past, present, or future can really be accused of ignoring immigration. There are simply differing viewpoints and differing opinions on how to manage immigration.

Two things are blindingly obvious about the current Tory approach to immigration.

 

1. Whilst no sane or credible political viewpoint denies that immigration is an issue, the current Tory Administration is deliberately 'hyping up' the small boats issue.. keeping it 'front and centre' of it's narrative and keeping it rolling.. in order to distract from its catalogue of failures on Health, Education, Cost of Living, Housing, Regulation of Privatised Utilities, Criminal Justice etc.etc.. not to mention the slowly emerging evidence of corruption, misappropriation of public funds, etc.

 

2. Simultaneously, the current Govt. is quietly not only allowing, but encouraging legal migration, to meet labour shortages it has created via it's gross incompetence in managing Education and Training policy, not to mention the effects of Brexit.

 

Quote

In principal the governments actions are only questionable whilst the law is ambiguous, remove the ambiguity and we remove the doubt.

The courts never said the proposal was illegal only that, at the time, Rwanda was on the HMG list of of unsafe states - now it's not. Whether that changes the safety is moot but it does change the legality. Ludicrous possibly, legal certainly.

 

Your pragmatism is showing again...  there's morality and political opinion in there somewhere too, not to mention the increasing Tory assault on our democracy and our institutions.  This Govt. is far too fond of using its ill-gotten majority to play 'fast and loose' with the Law.  When it suits them, they retreat behind existing Law and when it doesn't, as in this case, they change the Law to suit their agenda.  Of course, all Govt's are able to change the Law and it's part of what they exist for.  However, this lot are not just playing fast and loose with the law, but actually attacking the Judiciary.  Let's be absolutely clear here.. Parliament makes the Law, but the Judiciary interpret and apply it. Ever since Brexit we have seen repeated hysterical headlines such as the notorious 'Enemies of the People' rubbish in the Mail, whenever the Judiciary simply do their job. This should worry us all.

 

Quote

The QT piece is arguable, only one instance of someone circumventing and taking undue advantage is proof it will not work?

Hashi Mohamed was actually in Rwanda and presumably whilst there searching for evidence to disparage the  proposal.

The only evidence against the plan he came up with were the actions or dodgy hearsay statement of one ne'er-do-well? Seriously?

 

He mentioned it's an Israeli arrangement. That's to say not the same thing as the UK plan, It's also important to make clear there was never an official agreement between Rwanda and Israel, a fact he conveniently forgot to mention and that Israel sent them there with no support.

Comparing apples with oranges?

 

Mohamed is blatantly left wing and giving us a well rehearsed diatribe, short on facts, long on supposition, conjecture and  the lefties loaded into the audience loved it. Typical for Starmerites there was no mention of a viable alternative

 

I'm always intrigued by the way you approach conservative ideology pragmatically, but try to dismiss centre left ideology as somehow 'extreme', 'conjecture' etc.. Frankly, most of your characterisation of Mohamed's 'diatribe' (another of your favourite words employed to 'diss' centre left argument) is as much supposition as you claim his to be. What is the Tory projection of the effectiveness of Rwanda if not conjecture?

'Lefties loaded into the audience'? Really?  The opposite is the usual accusation levelled at QT audiences. I'd say that the audience was more than usually reflective of the general mood of the electorate.  You seem reluctant to accept that the 'the game is up' for the present Govt. and that most people see that.

 

It's also incorrect to state that 'Starmerites' didn't mention an alternative. Emily Thornberry described a future Labour emphasis on 'breaking' the smuggling gangs among other things. Opposing 'Rwanda' does not equate to doing nothing.  In fact, Sunak also constantly dribbles out stuff about breaking gangs etc..and claims they are working, yet he still pursues Rwanda. I repeat, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that he wants the issue front and centre to keep what's left of his electoral support frothing at the mouth.

 

Quote

Really? That seems somewhat complacent the election is his to lose and if he doesn't soon start showing some sort of leadership he'll do just that.

 

I'll admit that I'm also frustrated by Starmer's apparent lack of policy or vision, but he really is right to be super careful, since the almost totally right wing UK press will pounce on even the slightest perceived 'faux pas'.  Starmer is way ahead in the polls and as the Tories continune to tear themselvers apart there's no sign of him losing either that lead.. or the coming election.

 

Quote

Pure left wing rhetoric spouted by those who would I've no doubt  scream blue murder if they were taxed at 45%.

 

There you go again!  It is not 'rhetoric', to recognise that only the wealthy can seriously engage with the Bond Markets, whilst the profits on Bonds derive from taxation of the poorer majority.  Personally, I'd welcome the opportunity to owe 45% Tax.

 

Quote

The Oxfam piece is pure shameless propaganda. 3 out 4 millionaires want to pay more taxes? apart from the fact I don't believe it, it rather depends on who they ask. I know at least three in the seven figure bracket and all take every legal opportunity to reduce their liability.

 

Well of course they do. Their accountants will insist upon it.  But it doesn't follow that they would oppose an increase in taxation.  The people we are talking about are those who need their cash so much..that they don't spend it... they simply 'offshore' it, whilst the poorest provide them with it.

 

It is undeniable that the 'wealth gap' in this country has increased under the Tories.  It is after all, their unspoken objective, mentioned only in code via 'cutting public spending', 'reducing taxes' 'holding down pay to 'halt inflation ' ..etc.etc.

 

You don't need to believe Oxfam.  Look here..:

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/distributionofindividualtotalwealthbycharacteristicingreatbritain/april2018tomarch2020

 

Quote

 

MUSK -  £5 billion to charity

Arnault - £19 billion 

Bezos -   £3 billion 

Ellison -   95% of fortune

Zuckerberg - £45 billion 

Not in the top list but Buffet has given £55 billion through the Gates foundation which in itself has given huge amounts to good causes.

 

There will no doubt be a tax deductible reason but the end result is the money goes directly to charity and not towards the bill for a broken down aircraft carrier.

The list goes one. The top ten between them have probably given more than the GDP of some small countries. 

 

 

The short response to the above is 'So what?'  The fact that a few ulmost incomprehensibly wealthy individuals have given away amounts which are frankly 'Chicken feed' to them, in no way undermines the fact that they have also doubled their wealth.

 

They are the outliers at the extremes of the graph and are largely protected by managing to stay 'offshore' from everywhere.  The rich that I'm speaking of are the thousands of multimillionaires and the hundreds of billionaires in this country, plus thousands of others whose income is measured in multiples ot the UK 'Average' income.  Income re-distribution is urgently needed here.

 

Quote

Oxfam's innuendo is scurrilous manipulation

 

I thought I'd remove the supposition from that until you can prove your case.  It now reads:

 

Quote

Oxfam's

 

[Brew 5,419]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Surely it's more subtle than that? Some things can only be proved by testing.. that's true. However, in numerous situations, especially where politics, opinion and 'agendas' are concerned, the probability of any given outcome becomes a matter of opinion? In this case it is evident that opinion is deeply divided even within the ranks of the Conservative Party, not to mention in the wider community.

 

 

A matter of differing opinions is the very definition of needing proof, empirical evidence that can be analysed to reach a definitive answer. such a result will eliminate any division or argument.

The divisive never ending arguments,  legal and political, we have at the moment are taking us no nearer to a solution than we were 5 years and several billion pounds ago.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

the current Tory Administration is deliberately 'hyping up' the small boats issue.. keeping it 'front and centre' of it's narrative and keeping it rolling.. in order to distract from its catalogue of failures o

 

It is diverting govt; attention and resources away from the problems that desperately need addressing, true. They may have muddled priorities but I don't believe it's a deliberate ploy and surely makes a good case for decisive

action to present to the voters.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm always intrigued by the way you approach conservative ideology pragmatically, but try to dismiss centre left ideology as somehow 'extreme', 'conjecture' etc.. Frankly, most of your characterisation of Mohamed's 'diatribe' (another of your favourite words employed to 'diss' centre left argument) is as much supposition as you claim his to be. What is the Tory projection of the effectiveness of Rwanda if not conjecture?

 

I rather take he accusation of being a pragmatist as a compliment, among other things a synonym  for pragmatism is - good sense - common sense - realism........ 

 

Frankly you either didn't listen  without your blinkers or didn't read my post properly.

In my rebuttal of Mohamed speech I do not remember using the word 'extreme' and the word diatribe is in this case a perfectly proper use of the noun. You seem to have a problem with my syntax, this being the fourth time you've complained about my choice of words. And it's a possible smoke screen to hide behind the fact you've offered no evidence he's right, no counter-argument or facts and simply defending him on principle - he's bashing Tories so he must be right?

 

It is not supposition that he offered evidence of only one instance of failure. It is not supposition that the evidence came from a man who has confessed to taking advantage of the system, and committing further crimes. It is not supposition that he was wrong about UK actions in France, nor is it supposition the planned Rwanda facilities are anything like the Israeli version. And on another note of fact, he complained about 400 Million to be paid to Rwanda, measure that against the 3 Billion Spent so far accommodating them here. 

Is it my supposition the UK is to spend £476 million with the border force, where? actually in France. Is it my supposition he omitted to mention any of this?

 

It is by definition that a projection is conjecture, an informed guess if you like, but that does not mean it will be wrong.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The short response to the above is 'So what?'  The fact that a few ulmost incomprehensibly wealthy individuals have given away amounts which are frankly 'Chicken feed' to them, in no way undermines the fact that they have also doubled their wealth.

 

 

"!n no way undermines the fact that they have also doubled their wealth". - So what?

We, all of us, have much more than doubled our wealth over the years so is it the amount or the length of time they are trying impugn? It does not take away from the stupendous amount they have given away, chicken feed or not. I'm quite surprised at the disparaging and seemingly resentful attitude you have towards rich people,

 

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I thought I'd remove the supposition from that until you can prove your case.  It now reads:

 

 

So now you want proof?  You're happy to accept Rwanda will not work with out proof yet now want proof of the unprovable?

Is it proof  of the innuendo or do you accept that and want proof it's a scurrilous manipulation?

Turned around I'd say disprove it. Silly...

 

And after all this I can only reiterate:

I have yet to hear a cogent argument against it, how is the Rwanda plan pointless and, leaving aside long term solutions which will probably never happen, what alternative would you suggest in the short term to stop the boats?

 

[Oztalgian 3,296]

Talking of tax cuts, our Federal Government has amended the proposed stage three tax cuts to reduce the tax benefit of those earning over AU$250,000 from $9,075 to $4,529. In effect across the board all taxpayers will get a benefit of $804.

 

The conservative opposition are working hard to push the line that this is a massive "back-flip" and that Labor cannot be trusted to keep its election promises.

I think it is a pragmatic approach by Labor as in today's environment giving large tax cuts to the well off and high income earners was never an election winner.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 1/24/2024 at 5:23 PM, Brew said:

A matter of differing opinions is the very definition of needing proof, empirical evidence that can be analysed to reach a definitive answer. such a result will eliminate any division or argument.

The divisive never ending arguments,  legal and political, we have at the moment are taking us no nearer to a solution than we were 5 years and several billion pounds ago.

 

From the point of view of the dispassionate observer, of course your argument makes sense.  However, we are not governed by dispassionate observers, but by people with agendas and opinions. 'Opinions' flourish in the absence of empirical evidence, but in reality, our political system is a mix of opinion and fact.  The nearest thing we have to 'dispassionate observers' are our courts and judges, and in my view it is no accident that our courts and judges are subject to increasing defamation and even threat, by the forces of the Far Right, which have to a considerable extent infiltrated the Conservative Party.  Also, despite The House of Lords having a very clear Conservative majority which even the combined ranks of Labour and the Lib Dems cannot defeat, it consistently asks this Govt. to 'think again' on this issue.

 

On 1/24/2024 at 5:23 PM, Brew said:

It is diverting govt; attention and resources away from the problems that desperately need addressing, true. They may have muddled priorities but I don't believe it's a deliberate ploy and surely makes a good case for decisive

action to present to the voters.

 

Here again our respective views of the Govt. approach to 'Stopping The Boats', come down mostly to opinion. I believe it is a deliberate diversion to take the electorate's eye off the many other balls in play. You believe that it is the Govt., being involuntarily diverted by the issue.  I'd argue that I have more 'facts' on my side.

The Govt. betrays itself by its own utterances.  Recently, when Sunak did his 'big' Press Conference, and also at Prime Minister's Question Time, Sunak has mentioned various other measures which he says are effective, including 'interdicting' the supply of boats, 'Going after the gangs', etc.  And yet he continues to focus most loudly and clearly on the Rwanda issue which, even if it ever (literally) gets off the ground, is widely regarded as legally suspect, unproven, etc..etc. and is proving as divisive within his own ranks as it is elsewhere. OK, I withdraw my comments that is is 'pointless' or whatever. I don't need to prove or disprove its potential efficacy. I just feel obliged to point out the way it is being used as  pre-electoral propaganda in my view and in the view of many others.

 

On 1/24/2024 at 5:23 PM, Brew said:

I rather take he accusation of being a pragmatist as a compliment, among other things a synonym  for pragmatism is - good sense - common sense - realism........ 

 

It's a neutral observation, meant to neither criticise nor praise. My only issue is that you seem to me to more easily slip into 'disparaging' language when describing Centre Left utterances, than you do when discussing Conservative utterances.

OK, I accept your usage of the term 'diatribe' but I don't recall you using it to describe anything from the Conservative side, you seem to reserve if for Centre Left stuff with which you disagree.

 

On 1/24/2024 at 5:23 PM, Brew said:

Frankly you either didn't listen  without your blinkers or didn't read my post properly.

In my rebuttal of Mohamed speech I do not remember using the word 'extreme' and the word diatribe is in this case a perfectly proper use of the noun. You seem to have a problem with my syntax, this being the fourth time you've complained about my choice of words. And it's a possible smoke screen to hide behind the fact you've offered no evidence he's right, no counter-argument or facts and simply defending him on principle - he's bashing Tories so he must be right?

 

None of the above.  I offered it simply as an impassioned attack on Tory policy by a very articulate Barrister who is unashamedly 'of the left'.  You focus mostly on the one example of a Refugee he quoted., but there was much more to his argument, including his view, which I've been trying to get across for years, that 'they are attacking our judges'.  An internet search for this 'diatribe', results in numerous exampes of praise for his utterances. I couldn't find much from the Right Wing press, at all..and I did look.

 

Mohamed went on to attack the Tory government, saying that instead of presenting “real ideas”: “They’re attacking our judges. They're attacking our rule of law.

Quote

“They are dividing our society. They are making us feel like refugees are the scum and who are foreign. They refer to the European courts that we are a part of, that have United Kingdom judges, as foreign cour“It's not only just disgusting, as this young lady was saying, it's unconscionable. The rhetoric is poison and we have to acknowledge that. Mohamed asked how much better the £400 million the Tories have sent to Rwanda without deporting a single asylum seeker, could have been if it was spent developing proper monitoring systems on the French coast.The barrister’s contribution was praised on social media, with campaigner and author Dan White calling it “just brilliant and truthful”.READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: Scotland could provide grounds to challenge Tories’ vile Rwanda BillScottish Social Care Minister Maree Todd shared the clip and commented: “Well said.”“If you watch one thing today, it should be this. The Rwanda Scheme is totally ripped apart," another user wrote, as KC Jessica Timor added: "Please make this go viral. It’s never been articulated be....etc.

 

 

[Cliff Ton 10,467]

I've edited the previous post from DJ360 because it had caused problems with the format and layout of the page and site.

 

It seems likely the problem occurred because the original post was too big for the Reply box to cope with. I don't think the question has ever arisen before, but there is presumably a limit to the number of Quotes and Characters which the system can accommodate.

 

If anyone feels the need to say so much again, it's best to split everything into a number of consecutive posts rather than cramming it all into one mega-post.

 

 

[Brew 5,419]

 

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

From the point of view of the dispassionate observer, of course your argument makes sense.  However, we are not governed by dispassionate observers, but by people with agendas and opinions. 'Opinions' flourish in the absence of empirical evidence, but in reality, our political system is a mix of opinion and fact. 

 

How is that even halfway acceptable? How can the present paralysis be good governance?

The prime object of the Rwanda deal is being lost among self-righteous baloney and breast-beating, it’s stopping the boats – not immigration and failure to try should not be an option. Every effort has been thwarted so far by those whose agenda I suspect is more to do with politics than the wellbeing of the asylum seekers.

I haven’t said before but I can’t see the Rwanda deal being a roaring success, but nor will it be an abject failure. Like most schemes coming for Westminster it will be a mishmash even though there will be UK staff posted their and monitoring the situation. It will be followed by years of wrangling.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Here again our respective views of the Govt. approach to 'Stopping The Boats', come down mostly to opinion. I believe it is a deliberate diversion to take the electorate's eye off the many other balls in play. You believe that it is the Govt., being involuntarily diverted by the issue. 

 

We both recognise the problems however I’m taking the strategic view from Sunak’s perspective.

Prioritising the asylum seekers is a possible vote winner, and it’s the only topic he doesn’t have a glib answer for at question time. The NHS mess he can blame on industrial action, the utility prices are predicted to fall around about April etc. and Starmer helps to keep the boat pot boiling and in the public eye because he sees the indecision and weakness among the Tory rank and file.

Though it’s old hat to say this now but it’ all our own doing - it’s a Brexit bonus

 

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It's a neutral observation, meant to neither criticise nor praise. My only issue is that you seem to me to more easily slip into 'disparaging' language when describing Centre Left utterances, than you do when discussing Conservative utterances.

 

I do rather, but then again the likes of Starmer, Rayner, and Abbott make it so easy.

 

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

  I offered it simply as an impassioned attack on Tory policy by a very articulate Barrister who is unashamedly 'of the left'.  You focus mostly on the one example of a Refugee he quoted., but there was much more to his argument, including his view, which I've been trying to get across for years, that 'they are attacking our judges'.  An internet search for this 'diatribe', results in numerous exampes of praise for his utterances. I couldn't find much from the Right Wing press, at all..and I did look.

 

The Mohamed speech was full of impassioned fire and fury but no substance and wrong in at least one instance.

I concentrated on only one example? Of course I did it’s the only evidence he offered, how can I not? He moans not one single person has gone to Rwanda - who's fault is that? certainly not the governments

And please don’t tell me I never denigrate Tories or can you not remember BoJo the buffoon, Gove, Hunt and Jenrick et al? All of whom I’ve been less than complimentary about…

 

The support you quote for Mohammed is hardly surprising given they are far from friends of the Tories. They obviously like intellectual terms like ‘scum’. I’m also at a loss how, in his well-rehearsed answer to a carefully loaded question, he can claim the government have “no real ideas”. Whether he agrees with it or not Rwanda is very real and far more positive than Starmer’s  pie in the sky idea of tackling criminal gangs when we have no jurisdiction and resurrecting some sort of Dublin agreement, an agreement that entails exporting refugees back to France.

Is France preferable to Africa? It’s still booting them out!  Are the nimby population more comfortable sending people to a nice civilised Caucasian country rather an African country they know bugger all about?

How likely are the asylum seekers to be good little refugees and say “sorry we won’t do it again” when they can still see the white cliffs?

 

The attack on the judiciary is of concern and I’ve never denied it, but in this instance it’s a smoke screen. He answered the question, briefly, and then used the platform for a general anti-Tory speech

 ----

Oxfam: 

 

Let's remind ourselves of what the Oxfam piece says:

 

Yes lets, the words, the tone and  the nuance if you will, were designed to surprise and raise a few eyebrows. That the news is somehow shocking and we should collectively vilify the five individuals picked out. The rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer.

To state poverty can be ended in less than 250 years is not only nonsense it’s supposed to engender some sort of moral outrage and we can shorten that time if we squeeze the rich until they bleed, we can’t, it’s not called the Mathew effect without good reason and has been with us for thousands of years – so has the inequality gap.

 

Time to build a better world, a fairer system they say, quite what they think civilisation has been trying to do since time immemorial I don’t know…

 

'How do you conclude from the above that Oxfam's piece is 'innuendo', 'Scurrilous', 'Manipulative' etc.'

 

Because it’s emotive and trying to manipulate the way readers think about the rich, not directly by accusation but by insinuating they gained their fortune at the expense of the poor. It’s less than honest.

Why did they not encourage others to contribute by mentioning and giving kudos to the huge amounts the five have given away? Because it would ameliorate the message and lessen the impact.

 

They ask us to “Think what £22 billion could do” as if it’s enough to change anything.

Why not think what the 5’s £100 billion did?

 

 

 

[Brew 5,419]

1 hour ago, Cliff Ton said:

It seems likely the problem occurred because the original post was too big for the Reply box to cope with. I don't think the question has ever arisen before, but there is presumably a limit to the number of Quotes and Characters which the system can accommodate.

 

Think its the source of the quotes and the formatting of same, especially if they contain other links within them

[Stuart.C 491]

When I originally viewed DJ's response it went down and out the box through the bottom lines of the page and into the beyond.
The strange thing was it let me scroll down through it all to the end.

I'm on a P.C, I don't know if it would have allowed that on a tablet.

[DJ360 6,730]

15 hours ago, Cliff Ton said:

I've edited the previous post from DJ360 because it had caused problems with the format and layout of the page and site.

 

It seems likely the problem occurred because the original post was too big for the Reply box to cope with. I don't think the question has ever arisen before, but there is presumably a limit to the number of Quotes and Characters which the system can accommodate.

 

If anyone feels the need to say so much again, it's best to split everything into a number of consecutive posts rather than cramming it all into one mega-post.

 

 

 

Thanks for sorting it Kev.

 

I suspect it's more likely it was something about one of the quotes that I put up rather than just linked to, I generally try to avoid copy and paste of articles which also contain graphics etc.. but that one was pretty central to the discussion between Jim and me, so I wanted our audience, such as it might be, to also be clear on what it said.

 

Still never mind. All is well.

[DJ360 6,730]

4 hours ago, Stuart.C said:

When I originally viewed DJ's response it went down and out the box through the bottom lines of the page and into the beyond.
The strange thing was it let me scroll down through it all to the end.

I'm on a P.C, I don't know if it would have allowed that on a tablet.

 

I saw exactly the same Stuart., on both my PC and phone. Also, the 'Reply' box was overlain on top.  At that stage, I was unable to do anything to edit the post and the reply box would accept text but not create a post when I  pressed 'Submit Reply' to try move the thread on. Part of the issue is the very short window allowed for editing posts... I don't understand the need for that.  Other sites I go on have a time limit on post editing, but it's much longer.

What that creates is a  situation where, If you're posting a complex reply, you're a bit reluctant to post it and then add by editing, because you can be locked out of editing, so I at least, try to get it all done in one.

[DJ360 6,730]

Before I reply to Jim,

Here's the rest of my previous reply which Kev had to edit to sort things out. I copied it into a Document File on my PC before Kev deleted it.

 

  On 1/24/2024 at 5:23 PM, Brew said:

"in no way undermines the fact that they have also doubled their wealth". - So what?

We, all of us, have much more than doubled our wealth over the years so is it the amount or the length of time they are trying impugn? It does not take away from the stupendous amount they have given away, chicken feed or not. I'm quite surprised at the disparaging and seemingly resentful attitude you have towards rich people,

 

Let's remind ourselves of what the Oxfam piece says:

 

Quote

 

Quote

Have you heard the news? The rich just got richer. A lot richer. Again.

In the last three years, the world’s 5 richest men doubled their wealth. Meanwhile, 5 billion people got poorer.

Our new report, released as politicians and business leaders gather for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this week, shows that the inequality gap is widening. In fact, the way we’re heading, it’ll take less than 10 years for the world to get its first trillionaire while it could take 229 years to end poverty.

Even most millionaires want their wealth taxed more. A survey of 2,300 millionaires, released this week, revealed 3 out of 4 want to pay more taxes, so the world can better fight inequality, poverty, climate change and the cost-of-living crisis.

It's time to build a better system, a fairer world, where everyone has what they need to live.
 
If you agree, please share our social post so more people can be part of the conversation and help push for change. If you don’t have social media, please forward this email.

Since 2020, the richest 1% have been allowed to accumulate a staggering $26,000,000,000,000 (that’s $26 trillion!) in new wealth – nearly twice as much as the rest of us 99% put together.

Meanwhile, many people worldwide have continued to work harder and longer hours, often for poverty wages, in sometimes precarious and unsafe jobs. Across 52 countries, the average real wages of nearly 800 million workers have fallen.

And if you live in a country already affected by colonisation, war, or extreme weather, the impact of this stark inequality hits even harder.

If it all sounds a bit doom and gloom, remember: inequality and poverty are not inevitable.

It’s a result of choices made by governments worldwide. Choices that favour the richest at the expense of everyone else.

A fairer, more equal world is possible. What if governments taxed extreme wealth, and used the money raised to support people facing hardship? Did you know that a new UK tax on the very richest could generate up to £22 billion every year? Just imagine what £22 billion a year could pay for.

We can join together to end this inequality crisis.

Cassie,
Inequality Campaigner

 

 

 

 

The above outlines clear figures, relating to a clear and very recent time period. How do you conclude from the above that Oxfam's piece is 'innuendo', 'Scurrilous', 'Manipulative' etc?  It's clearly Political, but that doesn't make it any of the things you say it is.  What's more, figures from the UK Office of National Statistics, which I also linked to, bear out the fact that the UK rich have got richer while the poor have got relatively poorer.  That's not a political finding, it is a fact, and a fact relating to this period of Tory Govt.

 

As to the 'disparaging and resentful' attitude which you conclude that I have towards rich people...

 

Please quote anything disparaging etc., that I have aimed at anyone.

 

You misread me entirely. I have no problem with wealth 'per se', so long as it is legally and honestly gained. Neither do I have a problem with 'rich people', subject to the same caveats.  There are good, bad and indifferent people in all social strata and I view people on what they say and do.. not what they own. I too have some very wealthy friends, and some pretty impoverished ones. They are all friends.

 

My problem is not with rich people, it is with a system which, increasingly, demonstrably and very noticeably under the current 14 year Tory administration has not only allowed inequality to increase, but which actively pursues policies which will worsen the situation further. Truss's lunacy may have just been the most extreme example, but whole rafts of Tory politicians and their somewhat opaque backers and fellow travellers, constantly agitate for reduced taxation of the already wealthy, alongside the cutting of public spending, the destruction and neglect of public services, infrastructure etc, the utter failure to deal with injustices ranging from Grenfell and The Post Office, through to profiteering and mismanagement in Privatised Utilities, etc.. etc..

That's what I'm disparaging and resentful of.

 

[Brew 5,419]

34 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

 

As to the 'disparaging and resentful' attitude which you conclude that I have towards rich people...

 

Please quote anything disparaging etc., that I have aimed at anyone.

 

 

Oligarchs...  

[DJ360 6,730]

15 hours ago, Brew said:

How is that even halfway acceptable? How can the present paralysis be good governance?

 

I don't recall saying that anything the Tories have done counts as 'Good Governance'. I agree that there is paralysis, but I'd put that down much more to incompetence than anything else. But also, as you slightly acknowledge with regard to attacks on our Judiciary.. the current 'impasse' performes several functions form the perspective of Sunak and Co.

 

1. It provides endless opportunities to blame the Courts and the Judges, both home and abroad. Taken in the context of growing attempts, especially since Johnson waffled his way into power, by the Tories to set themselves above the Law, it is a worrying and anti democratic trend.

 

2. It allows Sunak to constantly dribble on about it, and as I've said, to keep 'Boats' front and centre, both to whip up 'Little Englander' votes, but also to divert attention from many equally..some would say more, important issues.

 

3. It allows Sunalk to claim..falsely, that Labour 'Have no plan'.

If you actually listen to what ALL Tory mouthpieces say as we approach the election, they all accuse Labour of having no plan', but claim that they Tories do..  More cobblers.

Let's look at Tory 'Plans'.  Ever since they have been in power, they have answered every question about their failings, and about socio-economic issues with the same bull****..

 

"We are reviewing the situation and will blah blah..due course.. blah blah."  Result?  Nothing!

" We have a plan"....  I'm still waiting for the Tories to HONESTLY declare that a single one of their 'plans' have come to fruition.

"Difficult Decisions"  Difficult for who?  Not for them and their pals.

 

16 hours ago, Brew said:

Though it’s old hat to say this now but it’ all our own doing - it’s a Brexit bonus

 

Not my doing. I didn't fall for the Brexit lies and neither, I believe, did you...

 

16 hours ago, Brew said:

Yes lets, the words, the tone and  the nuance if you will, were designed to surprise and raise a few eyebrows. That the news is somehow shocking and we should collectively vilify the five individuals picked out.

 

That's your interpretation.. not mine.

 

The reality is that the Oxfam article is written according to the same techniques employed by most of the UK Press.  A highly emotive, and possibly even 'actionable' headline, followed in the body of the text by more reasoned argument with plenty of stuff which can be quoted to defeat any legal challenge.  It's Oxfam doing its job.  Nowhere do they villify anyone.  Further in, they clearly state that the rapid increase in inequality is 'the result of decisions made by governments'. They place the blame where it belongs and are clearly encouraging people to vote in more enlightened Govts.  You can see where I've highlighted this stuff in the 'missing' part of the post which broke the internet yesterday.

[DJ360 6,730]

28 minutes ago, Brew said:

 

Oligarchs...  

 

Interesting...  I'm not sure whether it was here, or on Pinkfishmedia, where I queried the current usage of the term 'Oligarch'.

 

I was first made aware of the Term 'Oligarchy' whilst studying Political Theory at Uni in the 1980s. One particular book 'Political Parties', by Robert Michels was recommended and in it Michels outlines his 'Iron Law of Oligarchy', which basically states that in any  democracy, power will inevitably flow upwards to a small 'ruling elite' (an 'Oligarchy') which then maintains it's hold by controlling access to power and information etc. There's more than a grain of truth in it, which is part of why I'm so defensive of what Democracy we have, and at pains to point out abuses where I can.

Much more here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

 

However, just being a very wealthy Russian, or a very wealthy anything, does not automatically mean that you have true oligarchical access to power within any country or Govt.  I think the term is used too loosely these days.

 

[Brew 5,419]

21 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

I don't recall saying that anything the Tories have done counts as 'Good Governance'. I

You missed my point, it was a rhetorical question.

 

21 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

It allows Sunalk to claim..falsely, that Labour 'Have no plan'.

 They have NO workable plan. Starmer makes much of pursuing the gangs, how?

Resurecting the Dublin agreement is doubtful. Both elemnents of his plan require the agreement of the EU and France in particular. With the our less than stellar success negotiating with the EU it could take years to come to fruition, meanwhile...

 

21 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Let's look at Tory 'Plans'.  Ever since they have been in power, they have answered every question about their failings, and about socio-economic issues with the same bull****..

 

No, lets stick with the subject. The Tory plans central plank is Rwanda. Like it or not it's real, it's actionable and has a viewable timescale. Whether it will achieve it's objective is another matter all together.

 

23 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

It allows Sunak to constantly dribble on about it, and as I've said, to keep 'Boats' front and centre, both to whip up 'Little Englander' votes, but also to divert attention from many equally..some would say more, important issues.

 

I'm quite sure the 'little Englanders' need no whipping up and the demographic he aims for are perfectly ordinary people. 

 

30 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

That's your interpretation.. not mine

 

And I stand by it,

[Brew 5,419]

Oli

29 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

However, just being a very wealthy Russian, or a very wealthy anything, does not automatically mean that you have true oligarchical access to power within any country or Govt.  I think the term is used too loosely these days

 

In business terms it's presented as being one step below a monopoly, a cartel but controlled by one person...

 

Edit I missed a bit off..

 

[DJ360 6,730]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

And I stand by it,

 

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

Because it’s emotive and trying to manipulate the way readers think about the rich, not directly by accusation but by insinuating they gained their fortune at the expense of the poor. It’s less than honest.

Why did they not encourage others to contribute by mentioning and giving kudos to the huge amounts the five have given away? Because it would ameliorate the message and lessen the impact.

 

 

So, you are of course entitled your personal reading of a piece which nowhere states or insinuates that the 5 richest have become so at the expense of the poor. It is your interpetation.. not the actual words, which claims that Oxfam makes the 5 richest directly and deliberately responsible for impoverishing the poor.  Oxfam do not say that anywhere in their article.  They simply use the fact that the 5 richest have doubled their wealth, as a starting point.  There's nothing untrue about it. so I don't see how it is 'less than honest'.

 

You seem to have missed, or be denying this part:

 

"Since 2020, the richest 1% have been allowed to accumulate a staggering $26,000,000,000,000 (that’s $26 trillion!) in new wealth – nearly twice as much as the rest of us 99% put together."

 

Note please, 'since 2020', i.e., within the last 3 years. I seriously doubt that any of us mere mortals in the 99% have anything like doubled our wealth in 3 years.  30 years possibly, but 3 years? No way.

 

You also seem to have (at least twice) missed:

 

Quote

Oxfam- It’s a result of choices made by governments worldwide. Choices that favour the richest at the expense of everyone else.

The above is blaming Govts not the rich.
 

Quote

 

They ask us to “Think what £22 billion could do” as if it’s enough to change anything.

Why not think what the 5’s £100 billion did?

 

 

Well obviously 22 billion IS enough to change something when it is making the already wealthy, even wealthier, but seemingly it isn't when the money is pushed in the other direction..  Please explain how?

 

As for the 5's £100 billion..?  You're comparing apples with oranges because as far as I know that was not all given to the UK. It also equates very roughly to 10% of their total wealth and is no doubt tax deductable.

[DJ360 6,730]

By the way....  Nobody in the UK pays 45% tax on their income..

 

Let's look at somebody on £150k p.a.a.. figures approx.

 

Your Tax liability would be £52k, leaving £98k, so your tax is actually close to 33%, not 45%.  This is because you pay nothing on the first £12.5 K, 20% from £12.5k to £35k 40% from £35k to £125k and 45% on the rest. It's true you would also pay NI of £8.5k, but your take home pay would still amount to £89.5k, or roughly 3 times the UK median annual salary BEFORE tax etc.

 

Someone on £200k would of course get closer to 45% tax, as around £75k would be liable to 45%.. their 'take home' would be only £115k and their total tax just under £75k or around 37%

 

All of the above assumes no 'tax dodges', legal or otherwise.

 

Just sayin'...

[Brew 5,419]

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

owhere states or insinuates that the 5 richest have become so at the expense of the poor. It is your interpetation.. not the actual words

 

Not using the actual words is by definition insinuation. I wonder what your definition is?

 

With your penchant for nuances why you can't you see that drawing  comparisons between rich and poor in this piece and in this manner has  only negative connotations, if not why make them all? and we have to ask ourselves quite what was the point

Note also nowhere have I said any of it is untrue. The whole thing is taken out of context the implication is they sit on their piles of gold and make zero contribution to society by either donations or opportunity

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

They simply use the fact that the 5 richest have doubled their wealth, as a starting point. 

 

Why mention it at all? what's  the point?

 

 

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

You seem to have missed, or be denying this part:

Not so and nor did I mention the highfalutin tone of them being 'allowed' to make money. By whom? and obscure  and unamed corrupt agencies is not an acceptable answer.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Note please, 'since 2020', i.e., within the last 3 years. I seriously doubt that any of us mere mortals in the 99% have anything like doubled our wealth in 3 years.  30 years possibly, but 3 years? No way.

 

I do remember asking if it was amount  or the time taken. It seem s doubling our money in twenty years is OK, doing the same in three is not,,, curious really.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Quote

Oxfam- It’s a result of choices made by governments worldwide. Choices that favour the richest at the expense of everyone else.

The above is blaming Govts not the rich.
 

 

I didn't miss it, I ignored it as a typical left wing trope the "Government is always to blame no matter what".

 

And how is 'blame' attached without it being negative, and how is " favouring the rich at the expense of everyone else"  also a not so subtle negative innuendo?

 

 

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Well obviously 22 billion IS enough to change something when it is making the already wealthy, even wealthier, but seemingly it isn't when the money is pushed in the other direction..  Please explain how?

 

As for the 5's £100 billion..?  You're comparing apples with oranges because as far as I know that was not all given to the UK. It also equates very roughly to 10% of their total wealth and is no doubt tax deductable.

 

I have not forgotten Oxfam is a global organisation and no one claimed or even suggested the money was for UK consumption, if it was the effect would huge, but globally it's a drop in the ocean. Why 22 anyway what so special about the amount?

I don't quite understand the comment 'pushed in the other direction'.

 

£22 billion spent globally will have almost no noticeable difference, but what little difference it will make is only approx 20% of £100B, 

This is not comparing apples with oranges, this is comparing little apples with bigger apples.

-----