Yeah agree, I should have said life changing money. My overall point that I am tying to make is that I am sick of people that are living in an amazing country, built on a system of hard work and the amazing capitalist system, and screaming about how **** it is Then to top it off, voting for politicians who also hate capitalism and then destroy the country. It’s sheer ignorance and lack of history knowledge. Try telling anyone from Eastern Europe that socialism/communism is great and capitalism is the route of all evil. Most people that think this way can’t even define what capital is!
This is kind of political… I read this in an interview with Stanley Tucci about the movie Conclave … “Priests used to be married many years ago but the Catholic church stopped that. The excuse was that priests needed to devote themselves to God. But really it was because when they died, everything went to their wives. It wasn’t about devotion but money”
Same interview, but Ralph Fiennes, I think these are words for Left of Centre parties to heed … “I think it comes back to a story and how it’s put out. Trump told a story. The way he described the problem with America and what he could do, was a story. He has a remarkable gift for talking and accessing people’s deeper gut feelings. And the story in its simplicity appealed. Whatever you think of the horror of the language and the racism and sexism that we all identify on the liberal side, it speaks to people. He’s the man in the bar who says: “I’ll get rid of this ****. We’ll make your lives better.” His win was a visceral response to a man saying: “I’m going to sort it for you.” Basically, his story won. It’s not my country, but it seems to me that the Democrats were increasingly perceived as a sort of removed elite. Theirs wasn’t a story that I think was put across very strongly. Trump told the best story, whether you like it or not”
Absolutely. The Dems ran on ideology and "we're not Trump". Trump ran on policies that the regular person could see might improve their lot. That's why he won.
Saw this on Twitter about what will happen to farms now that Starmer is cosying up to blackrock This is the playbook the corporations used elsewhere and what will happen here: 1. They will start buying up small plots of agricultural land at double the normal price. They will issue a directive to all of their energy companies simultaneously to aggressively acquire plots for carbon capture. These third parties will start bidding against each other and force the value of agricultural land up. 2. Initially farmers won't believe their luck - "these city folks are mad! if they want to buy an acre for £50K, who am I to say no to these fools" is what you'll hear down the pub. 3. These crazy prices will set record high comparisons for agricultural land. When a farmer dies, their farm will be valued using these new metrics and the next generation will discover the farm they thought was worth £3M is worth £9M and they don't have anything close to the money needed to cover the tax. 4. In swoops a BlackRock subsidiary with a "Agri Debt Finance Tax Relief" product to lend them 20% the "value" of their farm so they can pay the taxes. 5. The debt will come with conditions (a covenant) that the farm has to adopt and maintain certain practices. It has to use certain BlackRock owned fertilisers, software, machinery and labour solutions that get the farm ready to interface with a larger conglomerate. 6. When a farm cannot make its debt payments, it is sold at auction. BlackRock subsidiaries are instructed NOT to buy these farms at auction. They have a special arrangement to buy the unsold farms at a rate that covers the unpaid debt plus outstanding fees and taxes to government... basically what the farm was originally worth. 7. A BlackRock subsidiary then takes over the farm, consolidates it with a massive group of farms and uses illegal immigrant labour to staff the farm (which will be another government program they institute to deal with the immigration crisis). The government will literally pay for the labour costs as part of this plan making the farms wildly profitable and making small family farms unable to compete.
I assume you are referring to inheritance tax again. I can’t see how anyone in farming cannot see that as a positive. Because of the income, the land is to all intents and purposes worthless, unless you are buying it for tax avoidance purposes - the price per acre has skyrocketed over the last 20 years simply because of this. It’s not longer an asset for production and just a financial engineering commodity. by closing that loophole, the price of land can come down and smaller scale farmers are unlikely to be affected by inheritance tax. Even as it is with various land use benefits, the land needs to be worth £5 million to need to pay it. As I said previously the problem lies in the consumer. The low prices are caused by food manufacturers who create the ultra processed ease of use foods that we all buy and supermarkets driving down prices. Both do have very healthy profit margins, but not on specific products. They are just very good and bringing us in to buy the low margin goods at low prices and getting us to buy the high margin goods at the same time. Convenience, choice and price come at a cost - health, the world we live in and the farming industry
The government has committed £5 billion to farmers, so hardly stealing from them. And if some of the money being spent on foreign farms helps prevent food shortages, causing refugees to flee from starvation and clamber into boats to cross the channel as asylum seekers, it can only be a good thing.
Still amazes me how often certain groups use othering to make their points. Othering of the foreign in an attempt to create false allegiance with the local rich. Othering of the Muslim, in an attempt to divert attention from our own failing social investment. Othering of the ‘illegal’ immigrant to distract from the greedy landlords. Othering of the workers to appease the business owners.
This woman is an absolute class act. I have no idea what her personal politics are, which is in itself a commendation of her professionalism.
That would work better if Kuenssberg was chief political correspondent or the political editor of the Beeb. She's neither these days.
Bristol Town Square is now allowing views from people outside of our echo chamber. We asked for any dissenters to be silenced but they refused insisting every view should be allowed. So we're off to Cambridge where their townsquare enforce "right think" forcefully. Dismantle the bridge, we're off." TBH I'm surprised that bridge isn't barracaded daily with nice fair minded people on the right side of history demanding its removal due to where Bristol got its money from to build it! It is disgusting such a monument to the riches gained by the slave trade is allowed to remain in position.
Probably something along the lines of "look.....Tories, Labour and the uniparty are smashing it. Beating the German's numbers for 4 years straight. Let's celebrate"
If it were a capitalist trading block we would still be in it. Its the spread from being a trading block into a political body that wants to control everything else that caused the problem. They moved from the economic co-operation idea (albeit a protectionist racket in reality) into being a complete European government. That is the problem.
Two Heads are better than one. 2 people can make sure they come up with serious fact based stuff: But seriously the idea is more that you don't need 1000 chiefs to manage 10000 indians (are we allowed to use that phrase anymore?) Its about thinning out waste with 2 "great minds" at the top to get the cull started. Which 1 will win out between them? place your bets
And there was I, thinking that only one side of political lobbying involved big business in it for a benefit to themselves? Of course Soros and Buffet on the other side though just put their money up because of philanthropical aims and not because they are trying to change things for their own benefit? Can there not be an element of also wanting to change things for other people as well? Or is the assessment that its 100% for themselves (Musk, Soros, Buffet et al) and zero to do with a general desire to change things for other people including the plebs?
