You keep banging on about how no-one comes to see the royals but I've seen no answer from you Re the fact the royal wedding (a one off event) generated £2billion for tourism and also brought an additional 4 million visitors to the country. Please explain how we would maintain that asset of being able to generate such huge tourist numbers and figures for individual royal events, if we don't have any royals? The royals are an asset for the country that we should take advantage of. Not a reason to bitch and moan.
He's an Arsenal fan And a big Arsenal fan at that, he has had motions brought forward in the House of Commons to congratulate Wenger and Arsenal on multiple occasions lol
Oh and there is no chance Corbyn will win a general election. He's going to make politics interesting over the next five years hopefully, but there is no chance he will win the middle ground unless he makes some rather large compromises on his views.
The House of Commons Edit: just do a quick google search for corbyn and arsenal and you'll find loads of stuff, he tweets about our games etc...
Labour was not winning the next election even if they had Jesus Christ as its leader, with Kylie Minogue as His deputy. May as well be honest and differentiate now as opposed to chsing after an ever-shrinking market of centre-ground voters that have loyalty cards for the Sun and the Mail.
Jeremy Corbyn is about to win a whole new group of fans – or perhaps lose some – after this. That’s because it has been revealed that the 66-year-old MP, who is favourite to be named Labour leader next month, is a massive Arsenal fan who once voted for the club to be named the ‘best team in the world’. Corbyn signed a motion in 2004 after Arsenal’s famous ‘Invincibles’ season for the Gunners to be officially recognised as the world’s best football team. Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2015/08/13/jeremy-corbyn-tried-to-pass-a-law-to-make-arsenal-officially-named-the-best-team-in-world-5339967/#ixzz3ltlFwvsI
I think it'll make things interesting over the next five years as he is such a different option but he won't be becoming PM any time soon!
Overpopulation is a myth. There is enough space in Texas to house the global population with 90sqm each. Granted that is not possible if you consider logistics. The truth is, the current economic model absolutely demands population growth. Your government borrowing absolutely demands population growth because they are borrowing on the heads of future generations for the last 3 deacdes. What Cameron borrows now is paid back by your kid's great great grandkids. Furthermore growing economics drives population growth. So you have economics and state now dependent on population growth and economics fueling population growth it depends on. Catch 22 but only because all of the actual wealth, ie land and resources are sucked out of the ecomomy. Stock maket futures markets are massive, bets on future population growth. Take Ted Turner in the US owns 2 million acres. That's one man. Given there is 60 million acres of "wild lands" in the US, 2 million is a huge slice. Consider we produce enough food for 12 to 14 billion people calorie wise every year. Much of that is thrown in the bin. So if you have people like Turner owning land like that, then year there could be a problem in the not so distant future. The problem is sustainability and efficiency which are at odds with Keynesian economics which is augmented with neoliberal ideology, feed the rich to feed the poor logic on top of the ludicrous idea of an ever growing economy on a finite planet, the only commodity that increases is PEOPLE, and we know that if you want your economy to double in size, your economic consumers have to double in population. Currently keynesian economics is out of sync with population growth, the vast funnelling of wealth out of the economy means population outstrips economy. This is where we are at now. Enter austerity, the p;utocrats have taken so much money out of the ecomony we the plebs had to put our money in to replace the money stolen. To make a point, there is not nearly enough jobs to cater for those leaving education let alone the under and unemployed. People leaving education with skills are working non skilled jobs that people with no degree once did, which pushes the lower classes even lower. The plutocracy try tackle a restless highly educated population by rising the cost of education.. to reduce the education levels because a highly educated restless youth bring about revolution or at least severe reform. There is no way around it, our keynesian economics drives population growth, but removes the very wealth to support that population growth.. meaning overpopulation is a "problem" only because the current economic models steal all of the wealth faster than people can multiply to generate more. Money not backed by any tangible resource has allowed this economic fiction to occur. Gold backed money would have caused the global population to grow at a much slower rate.
There are a handful of motions about Arsenal and Wenger he has voted for and a list of tweets about Arsenal too The irony of the anti-war MP being a fan of a football club with a gun for a symbol was pointed out on our board lol
Don't think anyone expects him to. I voted for burnham, but even had he won instead of Corbyn I expected him to do more of a Kinnock role than win the next election. Remember, Kinnock lead to Smith, not Blair. Blair and Mandleson just got ****ing lucky.
Despite the man having all sorts of pie in the sky ideas, one thing I do like is he hasn't given his position on pulling out of the EU. He is euro sceptic and wouldn't rule out campaigning to leave the EU.
Exactly, people are waking up, this guy sees what is going on. he is wrong though, Osborne is not economically illiterate, he is just working for the plutocracy, the likes of the Cameron family, who deal in government bonds, the very thing the UK is selling to borrow and put you deeper into debt and your kids, and their kids and their kids.
Under whatever law we abolish the monarchy. It's not their assets in the first place though. It belongs to the people. The royal family have their own private significant wealth. George gave up all private rights to the crown estate in exchange for British government taking on his debt. Now, if the Royal family can come up with a few hundred billions in intrest payment maybe they can have them back. The crown estate also has its origins in feudalism, a concept now illegal in Britain. Britain need only say we're no longer a feudalistic nation and strip the holdings that way (perhaps royal family should pay reparations too for centuries of illegal activity if they think they own it). The "crown" is a British institution and therefore Britain has whatever say they want in how that wealth is redistributed. Britain has every right to abolish the "crown" and redistribute that money as they did in the days BR was nationalised they could redistribute wealth from BR how they wanted. I am not for removing the queens private assets but the crown estate is public assets. Has been since George gave it to parliament in exchange for taking on his personal debts.
It would have still brought in tourism If they were no longer official. Were not state sponsored. No-one is talking about beheading them like the French. Just make them independent private individuals with no government role or funding.
Exactly, as private citizens they can still be ogled by tourists, no need for the tax payer to fund them and yes no one is talking of beheading them
I fail to see how an OAP needs to be paid all that money every year, she can barely walk ffs. meanwhile the average OAP has seen their pensions and services destroyed by bankers
The crown estate is NOT publicly controlled. And the idea that we would simply remove the royals and automatically assume control over those assets is wrong.
