Anything Political

[Brew 5,431]

Much believable than Twittwoo.

 

Will watch later but right at the outset she tells us Putin is a master of the dark art of disinformation using social media. I wonder if he has a Twitter account... 

[DJ360 6,738]

Just listen to all of it.

[radfordred 6,284]

[Brew 5,431]

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Plus the timing of this https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...er-lebedev-without-security-after-nato-summi

 What is your point? It is evidence of what exactly? There is nothing untoward there other than thinly disguised innuendo.

 

The party is well documented and evidenced with no suggestion of wrongdoing by anyone. Johnson got p****ed, so what? Been there done that myself, more than a few times. Attending a party (he did not fly on a private jet), hosted by a friend, albeit a very rich one, is not a crime. It may have been unwise, but that's hardly surprising for a tosspot like Johnson.

The link in the article mentioning an ex-KGB agent and the poisoning in London seems a deliberate conjecture to add weight and is highly biased.

I do not believe the supposition that Starmer withdrew his call for an inquiry into the matter  for the sake of unity.

But  I do agree with the conclusion that future scandals will continue to dog his time in office.

 

There are no  accusations that I can find that Evgeny Lebedev has done anything wrong other than being Alexander's offspring. Do we now visit the sins of the fathers upon the son?

 

The Cadwalladr clip.

What is she saying that we didn't already know? That Russia is spamming disinformation around social media? We knew that, but do we really believe other governments aren't doing the same? It has long been recognised that whoever controls the flow of information controls everything, which is why there are so many factions fighting for control of the internet.

The digital war has been ongoing for a long time. Her focus is more on the US and the FBI, Britain gets a scant mention about Brexit.

She is right that free speech is under attack, not just here, but around the globe.

 

Such is the amount of scurrilous information now, I'm reluctant to take anything at face value and question most things. I try to view with an open mind and from different perspectives, not simply those that align with my inclinations.

 

The libel case was nothing to do with contents of her talk, it was about her personal attack on Banks calling him a liar, not a clever thing to do against a vindictive billionaire.

[DJ360 6,738]

I think there comes a point when 'No smoke without fire', becomes a valid principle.

We could argue from now to 'kingdom come' about how much of the acceptance of Russian money/influence etc.., is 'imagined', how much is down to 'naivety' and how much is down to either just greed, or a tacit agreement with Putin's totalitarian ambitions and the way they align with the far right in the West.

 

On 3/13/2022 at 12:03 PM, Brew said:

The libel case was nothing to do with contents of her talk, it was about her personal attack on Banks calling him a liar, not a clever thing to do against a vindictive billionaire.

 

I can't believe you wrote that.  Given your oft repeated  dependence on not only the rule, but also the benificence of  'The Law', why would you advise her against taking refuge in the Law against a wealthy bully?

[DJ360 6,738]

On 3/13/2022 at 2:55 AM, Brew said:

The Overseas Company Ownership database for England and Wales says only four of 94,000 properties where the registered legal owner is an overseas company, are listed as being owned by Russian companies.

 

Which is of course totally unreliable.  Quite apart from the fact that the Land Registry is notoriously inaccurate and dependent upon 'submitted' info.. (i.e., it is not a proactive determinator of land/property ownership), I see no way in which the 'Registered Legal Owner'  of a parcel of land or a property , is necessarily the REAL owner. Ever heard of 'shell companies'?

[Brew 5,431]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

'The Law', why would you advise her against taking refuge in the Law against a wealthy bully?

I would advise anyone who does not have incontrovertible proof to say they didn't believe someone rather than call them a liar. Proof, something we can assume she didn't have, or it would never have reached the courts.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Which is of course totally unreliable.

 And is exactly my point. There were three examples of variations.

You, I, and everyone else  has to decide for ourselves  what is true and what is not. We choose what to believe from the information we gather through various mediums. But if we only read the Mail, or the Times, or the Guardian etc., we see only information that aligns with our convictions and accept it as true. How long can we claim the moral high ground?

 

There is corruption in Russia, there is also corruption here and in every state around the world.

In Germany, it was once, maybe still is, not only accepted but perfectly legal to offer bribes provided it was not claimed as a business expense and tax deductible

 

Different states have different laws, and we get high and mighty about it and demand actions if they are different to ours

How would we feel if the case was reversed and a foreign country punished the UK because they found our laws offensive, as many do?

 

In the west we do not send a gunboat as in the days of yore, but still try to make others dance to our tune, it's legal, financial and political imperialism with the US the chief exponent.

 

We are all up in arms, quite rightly too, about Ukraine, but do we really know what pushed Putin into a war? Is he mad, bad and dangerous to know, or is he a victim of another weapons of mass destruction story?

[DJ360 6,738]

He's a very naughty boy..

[DJ360 6,738]

Hmm. Let's examine the evidence against Putin.

-He has crushed internal opposition.

-He has silenced all independent media within Russia

-He has outlawed all anti War protest within Russia.

-He has murdered political opponents abroad..including in Britain.

-He has embarked upon an unprovoked invasion of a peaceful neighbour.

-He used conscript troops who thought they were on exercises, to invade Ukraine.

-Evidence of War Crimes by Russian troops is pretty much incontrovertible.

-He has threatened all supporters of Ukraine with Nuclear Weapons.

 

Sorry..but there is no excuse or justification and Putin needs to be gone. He is not a victim of anything other than his own ego. If he believed, and could prove,  his own publicity and his own justifications for invading numerous neighbours, he would have no need to pump out ridiculous propaganda.

Most telling of all is that his only 'friends' are all either existing, or 'wannabe' dictators, including Modi in India..and more worryingly, Orban within the EU.

[DJ360 6,738]

Jim, we've discussed,and disagreed on Govt borrowing before. Generally speaking, Govts, especially Tory Govts, love to threaten us all with the consequences of borrowing..and yet Tories are very keen on doing it. It doesn't compute..until you grasp the main point..

Govts borrow by issuing Bonds, which are mostly bought by big financial institutions and wealthy individuals. Those Bonds are repaid with interest, from taxes raised from mostly poor people.

 

Just another way of transferring money from the poor to the rich.

 

More here...

 

https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/tory-economic-prowess.266467/page-2#post-4650749

[DJ360 6,738]

And finally, for now..  the sodding Tories in the guise of the terminally thick Nadine Dorries are determined to sell off Channel 4.

 

As a reminder, this is owned by the COUNTRY, NOT THE SODDING TORIES., but they will use their ill gotten power to sell it, in all probability to a foreign media company...and we will have to contend with yet another foreign owned media company selling lies.

 

Enough to make you puke.

[Brew 5,431]

The PFM piece is an overly long history lesson that we were already aware of, and the South Sea Bubble was much like the French Mississippi Bubble, entirely due to bungling,  clever people getting it drastically wrong. His last paragraph is a fallacy, a left wing diatribe with conjecture as evidence.

Politics and economics make poor bedfellows.

 

It's at the root of Das Kapital that money from the production of benefit should not go to those who own the means of production. Saying they should be owned by the workers is a nonsense. That they should share in the proceeds, fine, but then again that's what we call a salary.

 We don't need lectures on Barons to know that since the start of the agrarian system, and accelerated in the 19th century the rich get richer, it has always been so.

Simply using the description of the circulatory route of money in a pejorative sense serves no purpose unless presenting a viable alternative. How could the economy run differently?

 

Money is symbiotic, the rich cannot become rich without the poor, just as the poor need the rich. How else would we have progressed from the Victorian slums of our grandparents, to multi car households and jetting round the world purely for our leisure like we do today. Moaning is the great British passion, but we should take a quick peek over our shoulders and realise just how lucky we are.

The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world – not bad for such a tiny island...

 

Like you, I've heard all the arguments about the advantages that financial power brings to some and in past times it was truly an abusive relationship, not so much today.

There will always be those who screw people over, but politics will have nothing to do with it.

 

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

 

Channel  4 owned by the people is an old saw and a hangover from  arguments about the utilities. Selling it off will not, as some of the PFM crowd probably suspect, catapult Johnson and his cabinet into the billionaire club. I'm minded to think it will probably be used to reduce part of the humungous debt due to Covid. 

Sell C4 to a foreign media company? Or issue shares ala Gas, Water and Electricity?

Which do you reckon voters would prefer, selling off a second rate TV channel or paying even more tax?

[DJ360 6,738]

Just Channel 4 for now...the rest later.  Channel 4 does not cost the taxpayer a single penny as it is entirely funded by advertising.

The sale will raise around a projected £1Billion, which Dorries claims she will spend on 'suporting creative industries'.  This of course represents the square root of bugger all in the wider scheme of public debt.

I'm not suggesting that the sale will make any Govt ministers or their cronies significantly richer, although I'm sure there will be a bit of cream skimmed off somewhere.  Even 1% of a £Billion is wealth beyond the dreams of avarice to 'yer average Joe'.

 

If the sale goes ahead and raises £1billion and IF Govt. actually spends all of that on 'Creative Industries', then that would be a 'one off', whereas Ch4 currently invests around the same amount per year, every year, in creative industries.

 

As Lucy Powell has just said on BBC News, "There is no logic to this sale, and no discernible benefit, either for the taxpayer, UK media or the Govt. You therefore have to question the motive.

It's also a massive distraction which will take up lots of Parliamentary time, as it is opposed by oposition parties and many in the Govt. That time would be better sent focussing on the very real issues of the Energy Crisis, Cost of Living crisis, war in Ukraine etc."

 

I am not the only one to conclude that the Tories , having pretty much gagged the BBC, now want to do the same with Channel 4 news, which is generally rather less deferential towards the Govt, and less afraid to 'speak truth to power'.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsmanchester/privatisation-of-channel-4-is-cultural-vandalism-says-lucy-powell-mp/ar-AAVS7AB

 

 

[Brew 5,431]

I think she needs to sit back and think about it, all this waffle about creative arts and job losses is just being shouty because that's what is expected of her, she's playing to the crowd. I note the prevarication on whether Labour would re-nationalise it.

Creativity is not a C4 strong point, they  buy ALL  programmes from third parties (it's stipulated in the licence), who are independent and will not be part of the sale. Creativity will not be affected or dictated to any more than it is now. It was originally to cater to minority or underrepresented audiences, but has since moved more to the mainstream.

You implied they spend huge sums in creative industries, they don't, they buy the output, much like book publishers which is a totally different thing. Will the independents go under without C4? Possibly, but that's the nature of competition

 

Perhaps she needs to do more research. Channel 4 has received government subsidy in the past. Back in 2007 it was suggested they were propped up with money from the licence fee and the BBC should share its toys, perhaps you remember the furore it caused.

There was even a campaign group (run by media financier Simon Bevan) asking for £100M, why? To allow it to pursue it's purchasing of American programmes, which would hardly help our creative industry.

 

Quote:

"Such a definition would allow Channel 4 to continue to invest under its commercial remit for US acquisitions".

 

OFCOM (in 2009), said it needs to be funded  by partnerships or mergers, offloading it is hardly a new idea.

 

Almost since the start of commercial TV it has evolved,  ABC became ATV, ATV morphed into Central, ITV to Grenada, Carlton and back to ITV etc.  there's a lot of history with independent TV companies.

 

Ch 5 is owned by Americans, (Paramount) and serves mainly pap, but I don't see a lot of political bias.

 

All this serves to lead me to the conclusion, despite the hype to the contrary, C4 is a bit of a lame duck, it does however make another stick to bash the Tories with now that partygate is done.

 

Now my point:

Channel 4 will be no great loss.

But, in my estimation, it's smoke and mirrors to actually pave the way for flogging off the BBC. Get the people used to the idea of selling a TV station and they won't kick up so much fuss when the Beeb goes under the hammer.

[DJ360 6,738]

I can't refute a lot of what you say, but as I think you know, Channel 4 can very easily be characterised as just another victim of the post Thatcher Tories' obsession with privatisation. There is no real central pillar to that obsession, other than that public ownership per se seems to offend them.  When it suits them, they will come up with any, or often no excuse. Also obviously much of their privatisation is 'justified' with rubbish about Private Sector Efficiency, etc..but is really driven by a need to satisfy lobbyists who want a slice of the public budget. They are also enthusiastic practitioners of the old 'Nationalise the Debt.. Privatise the Profit' principle, which is part of the story with Public Borrowing, but also recently demonstrated after billions of tax payer money went into 'rescuing' and nationalising banks, only for them to be immediatly privatised as soon as they were profitable again and before they had paid back any of the money taxpayers spent to rescue them...  But I digress...

The Channel 4 proposals don't really fit the usual pattern.  They really do just seem to be a sell off for the hell of it, but I don't think it's possible to ignore the fact that Channel 4 News is a 'go to' alternative to the BBC for many and has seriously mauled the Tories on numerous occasions. Tories really don't like that.

Channel 5 shows little bias in its news because it barely has any.

 

The BBC idea doesn't really convince me, because the best weapon the Tories have in that regard is the License Fee.

[DJ360 6,738]

On 4/5/2022 at 3:46 AM, Brew said:

 We don't need lectures on Barons to know that since the start of the agrarian system, and accelerated in the 19th century the rich get richer, it has always been so.

Simply using the description of the circulatory route of money in a pejorative sense serves no purpose unless presenting a viable alternative. How could the economy run differently?

 

Money is symbiotic, the rich cannot become rich without the poor, just as the poor need the rich. How else would we have progressed from the Victorian slums of our grandparents, to multi car households and jetting round the world purely for our leisure like we do today. Moaning is the great British passion, but we should take a quick peek over our shoulders and realise just how lucky we are.

The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world – not bad for such a tiny island...

 

Like you, I've heard all the arguments about the advantages that financial power brings to some and in past times it was truly an abusive relationship, not so much today.

There will always be those who screw people over, but politics will have nothing to do with it.

 

I could disagree vehemently with your point about the abusive relationship between the wealthy and the poor as I see that returning with a vengeance..  Food Banks anyone? Rees-Mogg?

 

As for your acceptance that the rich just get richer and it has always been so..  I know you well enough to understand that you make that point from pragmatism, not malice.  Still ..I find it morally repugnant and also innaccurate as that process has also increased dramatically under the Tories in the last decade, so it doesn't HAVE to be so. It is a clear political choice.

 

But mostly...

 

I think you are largely missing my point.  Of course all governments borrow to a greater or lesser degree but..

 

My point is that Tory Governments make a lot of fuss about Debt, but little about Borrowing. My point is that Tory Govt.s in particular have consistently used the same old argument about how 'bad', debt is, to justify tax increases, austerity, wage freezes, benefit cuts, spending cuts etc..etc., whilst consistently borrowing enthusiastically. My point is that this drivel has been employed so many times now that people ranging from the wealthy.. who stand to benefit anyway.. to the poor, who most definitely don't, all suck it up.  It makes sense.. you can't borrow more than you can afford and you have to repay your debts. "Stans ter reason dunnit!!"!

 

Well no.. It doesn't.

 

All the evidence I can find demonstrates clearly that Labour have consistently borrowed less and repaid more, whilst in office, than the Tories. The following article covers this in a lot of detail and compares Lab and Con by many different measures and the result is consistently the same.  Tories borrow more and repay less.  And what they do repay is mostly taken from low earners, cuts etc.

 

So why would they do that?

 

Well it's a lot to do with the nature of public borrowing as I've already pointed out.  The actual debt is a burden..but it's a burden which falls..or is deliberately placed disproportionately on the poor, in the form of 'cuts', taxation etc.. However the ownership of the debt., in the form of Bonds/Gilts, is an Asset.. a form of wealth.. and frankly a bloody good deal in recent years, compared to investing in trade/industry etc., which is predominantly owned by the rich. OK, some (But by no means all) of those Bonds etc.. are held by the likes of pension funds, but even there, the bulk of private and occupational pensions are still benefitting the wealthy, more than the poor.

 

That.. is how I see the Tory approach to borrowing, as being broadly just another method of transferring public money/tax take.. into the hands of the wealthy.

 

 

 

 

[Brew 5,431]

I could disagree vehemently with your point about the abusive relationship between the wealthy and the poor as I see that returning with a vengeance..  Food Banks anyone? Rees-Mogg?

I did not say it was right, moral or ethical, but nor do I say it’s wrong. I said it was a problem, though not so much now.

It’s a simple fact of life, the rich are getting richer, but, as I pointed out, so are the so called poor. It’s something we have to accept until,  a viable alternative comes along. People are jealous of the rich, of course they deny it but envy of the wealthy is only just below the surface else why do the pools or Lotto etc? Much it seems wants more.

You find the rich getting richer repugnant yet have in the past said you have no issue with profit. How then do we judge, and who judges what is repugnant and what is fair and equitable?

Let’s be clear, what are governments for? Hopefully to improve the lot of the people and though we argue the whys and wherefores there has been a steady rise in living standards overall. Now, despite all the problems, we have a higher standard of living than at any time in our history.

The worrabout food banks, I’m ignoring the remark about Rees-Mogg as irrelevant, is an indication in my mind of the growing inequality in our society, and that I can agree is a worry. The 20s and 30s saw a big fall in the inequality between the hoi polloi and well-to-do. Sadly it now appears to be on the rise but taxing the rich out of existence won't solve it.

I don’t know why they are so prevalent or what created the need, but in the 21^st century food banks should not exist.

We can discuss it till the cows come home but  we all contribute to the difficulty of paying our way, it's not solely down to government. They are crying out for more money in the NHS, but now Sunak has raised the contributions there’s a huge row.

Social care? Bugger that, people pull all sorts of stunts to avoid paying grannies care bill. It's hypocritical to demand the rich cough up more, and we're all for it so long as we don't have to.

 

There is a growing demand the rich pay more, but history tells us that in the 60s when tax went to 95%, the rich simply buggered off, became tax exiles  and paid nothing. Soaking certain individuals will not solve the underlying problems.

  

I think you are largely missing my point.  Of course all governments borrow to a greater or lesser degree but..

 

The need to borrow is not so the rich can trouser more taxpayers' money, as PFM would have it, there's usually a good reason.

Looking back, WW1, WW2, 2008 crash, now Covid are some off the top of my head, nothing any government could foresee or do anything about it. Yes some fly-by-nights made a packet but there's nothing political about that.

 

My point is that Tory Governments make a lot of fuss about Debt, but little about Borrowing. My point is that Tory Govt.s in particular have consistently used the same old argument about how 'bad', debt is, to justify tax increases, austerity, wage freezes, benefit cuts, spending cuts etc..etc., whilst consistently borrowing enthusiastically.

All the evidence I can find demonstrates clearly that Labour have consistently borrowed less and repaid more, whilst in office, than the Tories. The article is missing Col.  But basically there different interpretations.

 

 The bulk of private and occupational pensions are still benefitting the wealthy, more than the poor.

 

I don't agree, unless you mean some people have bigger pensions. I wonder how they manage that? Could it be they earned more and thus paid more into the fund

Only 5% of the bond market is owned by private investors, the biggest  is the Bank of England. 25% foreign investors, the rest by financial institutions.

 

That.. is how I see the Tory approach to borrowing, as being broadly just another method of transferring public money/tax take.. into the hands of the wealthy.

That sounds like the mantra of the hard left, grinding the face of the poor whilst the rich sit back and grow fat. The reality is somewhat different it's a shared burden, we all have to pay and 50% is no joke

[Brew 5,431]

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Channel 4 can very easily be characterised as just another victim of the post Thatcher Tories' obsession with privatisation.

 

Strange that, it was Thatchers government that created Ch4.

 

Rescuing the banks. If I remember rightly, it was always stated they would be returned to private hands as soon as they were stable. A Labour promise it seems the Tories kept.

[Brew 5,431]

Though not his greatest fan, for once I'm in total agreement with the blessed Boris re; trans athletes. You may chop bits off, or stitch bits on, but you are what you are, if in doubt count the chromosomes.

You can call yourself a male, a female, or even a toaster as far I'm concerned, dress how you like, but you cannot change what you are.

 

A cyclist good enough to set a record competing against men wants to compete against women? No.. just no. And arguments about complexity and nuances do not wash as far as I'm concerned.

 

It's getting out of hand now when a minority group has influence out of all proportion to their numbers and can browbeat organisers and participants of an international conference into submission.

[DJ360 6,738]

19 hours ago, Brew said:

I did not say it was right, moral or ethical, but nor do I say it’s wrong. I said it was a problem, though not so much now.

I still don't know how you can say that the problem of the abuse of wealth is 'not so much now', when we are confronted daily with the effects in everything from homelessness, food banks, the working poor, obscene wealth both displayed and utilised by the likes of Russian Oligarchs, not just for their own pleasure, but to distort the property markets in this country...etc, etc. None of this was , or remains inevitable.  It is all a result of political choices by UK Govt.

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

It’s a simple fact of life, the rich are getting richer, but, as I pointed out, so are the so called poor. It’s something we have to accept until,  a viable alternative comes along.

 

Covid is a 'simple fact of life'. Disease in general is a 'simple fact of life'. Climate Change is a 'simple fact of life'.  Do we roll over and just accept them..or do we try to mitigate their effects? You know the answer.. so why do we not try to mitigate the increasing wealth gap in this country?

Why is the right of the already wealthy to become more so..somehow immune to political action to mitigate it?

Frankly, I think that in the context of this discussion in particular.. it is disingenuous at best to speak of the 'so called poor'.  These people are not a fiction.  They exist, and they are not just relatively poor, they are actually poor. Working people reduced to using foodbanks. In what universe is that acceptable in one of the richest countries in the World?

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

People are jealous of the rich, of course they deny it but envy of the wealthy is only just below the surface else why do the pools or Lotto etc? Much it seems wants more.

You find the rich getting richer repugnant yet have in the past said you have no issue with profit. How then do we judge, and who judges what is repugnant and what is fair and equitable?

 

I don't personally envy the rich and I have enough for my needs.  But I am angry at a system which has seen a massive increase in the 'wealth gap' in the last decade.  I also disagree that everyone has benefitted, because it is accepted that living standards, especially for those on the lowest incomes, have just taken the biggest hit in 70 years. All of this is the result of political decisions made by a Tory Government.

I don't think that there is any neccessary proof that doing the Lottery implies envy of the rich.  A desire to join them maybe.. but not envy as such.

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Now, despite all the problems, we have a higher standard of living than at any time in our history.

 

I believe that to be no longer true.

19 hours ago, Brew said:

You find the rich getting richer repugnant yet have in the past said you have no issue with profit.

 

Again, you misrepresent what I am saying.  I find the increasing wealth gap repugnant when everybody knows that many are now having to choose between food and warmth. When every citizen of this country is fed, clothed and warmly housed, then I will stop caring how fast the rich continue to outstrip the rest of us.

20 hours ago, Brew said:

They are crying out for more money in the NHS, but now Sunak has raised the contributions there’s a huge row.

 

Of course there is because yet again it will be the poorest paying it. You also know as well as I do that the Tories are itching to get rid of the NHGS and have been quietly pprivatising swathes of it behind the screen of NHS England.

20 hours ago, Brew said:

The need to borrow is not so the rich can trouser more taxpayers' money, as PFM would have it, there's usually a good reason.

 

Two points.  First, you keep sniping at PFM. It has a huge membership representing much of the World and it has a very diverse range of political views, from left to right.  It is not the cosy left wing echo chamber you seem to think it is and it has a generally very well informed, erudite and mature membership. It is after all largely composed of old beardy blokes who are 'into' their hi-fi.  Second, I  have not said that borrowing is primarily designed to transfer money from the poor to the rich.  I have simply pointed out that it is less worrying than it is portrayed to be and that it has a profitable 'side effect' for those able to access it.

[Rob.L 1,091]

2 hours ago, Brew said:

.

You can call yourself a male, a female, or even a toaster as far I'm concerned, dress how you like, but you cannot change what you are.

 

A cyclist good enough to set a record competing against men wants to compete against women? No.. just no. And arguments about complexity and nuances do not wash as far as I'm concerned.

This all brings back memories of when the Soviet Union and other Eastern Block countries sent female athletes to the Olympics who were more butch, and probably had more testosterone in them, than the blokes.

 

Although I also remember the time when cyclist Beryl Burton beat all the blokes in a 12-hour cycle race. And she was most definitely female - I had a crush on her daughter in the early 70s!

[DJ360 6,738]

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Strange that, it was Thatchers government that created Ch4.

I know it was, which is why I said that it is the 'post Thatcher' obsession with privatisation which is in play.  Thatcher started the privatisation trend but I doubt she would have taken it to such extremes once she had broken the unions.

 

20 hours ago, Brew said:

Rescuing the banks. If I remember rightly, it was always stated they would be returned to private hands as soon as they were stable. A Labour promise it seems the Tories kept.

 

A very convenient interpretation of events. I don't recall what Brown actually said, but he certainly rescued the Banks and still got the blame for everything.  Even if Brown used the words you state, they are very much open to interpretation, and in any case, the Tories were under zero obligation to fulfill any perceived promise made by Labour.  The simple fact is that the Tories could have kept banks nationalised until they had repaid what the taxpayer had paid to save them.. but of course no Tory Govt. will ever pass up a quick buck, or rsist the attentions of lobbyists.

 

[Brew 5,431]

19 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

The simple fact is that the Tories could have kept banks nationalised until they had repaid what the taxpayer had paid to save them.

 

It was never a full nationalisation.

 

Not an interpretation, a statement of fact and it was Darling at the exchequer. I've no doubt  Brown was in the driving seat though.

 

From the Guardian:

 

The plan aimed to restore market confidence and help stabilise the British banking system, and provided for a range of what was claimed to be short-term "loans" from the taxpayer and guarantees of interbank lending, including up to £50 billion of taxpayer investment in the banks themselves. The government also bought shares in some banks, which have since been sold back to the market at an overall profit to the taxpayer.

 

Lloyds repayment shows almost a billion pound profit to the public account. The RSB is still to make a final settlement.

[Brew 5,431]

I still don't know how you can say that the problem of the abuse of wealth is 'not so much now',

 

I say not so much now, compared to the dreadful conditions of the Victorian working class. By abuse of wealth I mean the period before the Truck Acts and debt bondage.

 

As a measure of improvement I make the point that 77% of households are car owners and 81% of the population have access to one. (RAC)

 

The rich getting richer is a simple fact of life, am I opposed to changing to something more equitable? Not at all.

I keep banging on about it but my point is those radicals who want change, a lot of the time simply for changes sake, and are anti-establishment, and have no idea how to change or what system to change to.

 

Again show me a viable alternative… Simply hammering the rich just because we can makes no sense to me and smacks against my sense of fair play, yes I know some are sitting on a pile of ill-gotten gains – but not all.

 

To make the changes would mean a totally different economic model and I’ll bet whatever system that is, there will still be inequalities. People will be people, not automatons.

 

why do we not try to mitigate the increasing wealth gap in this country?

 

How? The only system I can think of is taxation.

Comparatively speaking we are rich at side of the homeless guy sat begging with his dog on a string. Are we to be taxed until there is zero inequality between us? Do we level up, or down? How is it fair that we have more money than the 200K homeless people in the UK?

Laying the solution at the feet of the rich without the rest of us contributing is to my mind an inequality, Quite frankly I don't see that the people will stand for it.

 

Why is the right of the already wealthy to become more so..somehow immune to political action to mitigate it?

 

They aren’t, no one has found a way to do it that works.

 

Frankly, I think that in the context of this discussion in particular.. it is disingenuous at best to speak of the 'so called poor'.  These people are not a fiction. 

 

I didn’t say they were, I said in the 21st century food banks should not exist. Poor is a relative term, compared to some I’m a pauper.

 

I don't think that there is any neccessary proof that doing the Lottery implies envy of the rich. 

 

Envy, greed, jealousy, are in the  basic human psyche, we wouldn’t  progress far without them. You don't need Maslows chart to see that.

 

You no longer think it true we have the highest standard of living in our history, when was it higher?

 

When every citizen of this country is fed, clothed and warmly housed, then I will stop caring how fast the rich continue to outstrip the rest of us.

 

Utopia, a nice idea,but taking all the money and distributing it evenly I doubt would acheive that.

 

They are crying out for more money in the NHS, but now Sunak has raised the contributions there’s a huge row.

Of course there is because yet again it will be the poorest paying it

 

No, everyone will pay in proportion to their earnings, however, neatly turned Col, but my point is that in principle no one wants to pay, but readily takes advantage. We're all reluctant to part with what we have.

 

The NHS is not fit for purpose and that may well be a deliberate policy by HMG, but that’s not a factor in the inequality discussion.

 

Two points.  First, you keep sniping at PFM.

I do, mainly because, despite your protestations. The posts I’ve read there are by lefties in a mutual admiration society bolstering their ego’s by joining in a Tory slanging match. Neither Hi-Fi nor beards has anything to do with it I'm sure. though I've not read any of those posts....

 

Second, I  have not said that borrowing is primarily designed to transfer money from the poor to the rich.

 

Sorry I misunderstood you when you wrote:

 

hat.. is how I see the Tory approach to borrowing, as being broadly just another method of transferring public money/tax take.. into the hands of the wealthy.

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,738]

Jim, Can you please just use the 'Quote' function?  Just highlight whatever I've said that you disagree with. It will come up with a 'Quote Selection' box. Click on that and your quote appears in your post.  As it is your quotes are coming up as barely legible pale blue text.