Off Topic Politics Thread

[Archers Road]

I know it is not exactly what you are saying ... but never underestimate a psychopath. It is a mistake that has been made over all the generations of my lifetime and always leads to chaos, mainly bloody chaos at that. Now we have a president elect who questions reason for false economic ends. I have 4 grand kids and I genuinely fear for their futures today more than I did a month ago. There has been much discussion on this forum thread about how we have got to where we are. Differing views on the disenfranchised, differing views on popular-ism, (whatever that means). BUT, It has left us with, in my view, a man without conscience, who will assume the most powerful office in the western world.....

You make a good point here. Many people around the globe are hoping Trump didn't mean all that stuff he said in the run up to the election, about deporting migrants, shutting the door to muslims, ripping up climate change agreements, alienating China and Iran, supporting the gun lobby, undoing universal health care etc.

The world once hoped Hitler didn't really mean all that stuff about the Jews...

 

[ImpSaint]

but how does leaving the EU stop the big corporate machine? Isn't the UK big corporate machine working out how to make the most money from us leaving the EU?

Of course. The big UK corporate machine including farmers are still on their broadcaster saying food will run out within 5 days if they don't get their cheap labour.

It will take time before they realise the game is up and people should be treated like people and not numbers. The EU was the biggest protector of it all though.

 

[ImpSaint]

I believe Hitler wanted to stop the big corporate machine - worked for a while - was popular with the masses - but sort of got out of hand - killed a few million people - and didn't really do a Germany on it's own a power of good. A bit of tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more namby pamby politics is probably a better way to release the ridiculous amount of money tied up by the 1% doing nothing to help the world?

You are describing socialism not conservatism. Thatcher said years ago "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."

The problem we have at the minute is not from Conservatism, it is from a mix of libertarianism and collectivism. Parties talk about laws for all but are very happy to help people avoid taxes all the while you pay yours and then they filter that money off to the rich as well. The same big corporates of Balfour and Kier etc are the ones that made a mint out of PFI, so much so they sold their government contracts for twice what they tendered for them. The PFI contracts they bought they sold on. Kier also has national contracts for anything to do with social housing improvements and Gordon Brown's favourite "decent housing standard." means that roofs, kitchens, flooring, bathroom groups are replaced whether needed or not. Never mind the people stuck in awful private housing conditions. That money is dedicated to improving things that don't need improving. At least we can tell now which houses are the private ones. The council owned ones have nice shiny slate roofs now.

NHS too. Your tax is going to those who don't pay taxes. The 1% worldwide are getting richer and you are paying them. That is not conservative capitalism nor socialism.

I don't know what to call it. but the big whigs keep on passing the money around each other while we hear they are giving it to us. we get it spend it and its back to them.

These people make Thatcher look like an Angel.

On the Trump thing I am still not sure whether he is the saviour or the next level of the same. American people have certainly put their trust in him to break up the circle though. They must be desperate.

 

[SaintinSerbia]

You are describing socialism not conservatism. Thatcher said years ago "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."

The problem we have at the minute is not from Conservatism, it is from a mix of libertarianism and collectivism. Parties talk about laws for all but are very happy to help people avoid taxes all the while you pay yours and then they filter that money off to the rich as well. The same big corporates of Balfour and Kier etc are the ones that made a mint out of PFI, so much so they sold their government contracts for twice what they tendered for them. The PFI contracts they bought they sold on. Kier also has national contracts for anything to do with social housing improvements and Gordon Brown's favourite "decent housing standard." means that roofs, kitchens, flooring, bathroom groups are replaced whether needed or not. Never mind the people stuck in awful private housing conditions. That money is dedicated to improving things that don't need improving. At least we can tell now which houses are the private ones. The council owned ones have nice shiny slate roofs now.

NHS too. Your tax is going to those who don't pay taxes. The 1% worldwide are getting richer and you are paying them. That is not conservative capitalism nor socialism.

I don't know what to call it. but the big whigs keep on passing the money around each other while we hear they are giving it to us. we get it spend it and its back to them.

These people make Thatcher look like an Angel.

On the Trump thing I am still not sure whether he is the saviour or the next level of the same. American people have certainly put their trust in him to break up the circle though. They must be desperate.

but if 99% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population (and only being used to buy a new island here and there) it would surely take a long time to spend that other peoples money? I'm a bit confused - that's what you're against isn't it?

 

[SaintinSerbia]

Of course. The big UK corporate machine including farmers are still on their broadcaster saying food will run out within 5 days if they don't get their cheap labour.

It will take time before they realise the game is up and people should be treated like people and not numbers. The EU was the biggest protector of it all though.

farmers? I guess you mean land owners (like the Queen) not small farmers relying on EU grants?

 

[Onionman]

"The 1%" (the 1% of the population of the world who own the most assets) includes anyone whose net assets are roughly £540K or over (may have changed since the collapse of the £). So anyone who owns their own home outright in Southern England and has a pension pot. Pretty sure there are about 2.7 million of "the 1%" in the UK.

Apparently the EU is a huge scam to give all those old retired dears all your money.

Ludicrous.

Vin

 

[SaintinSerbia]

You are describing socialism not conservatism. Thatcher said years ago "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."

The problem we have at the minute is not from Conservatism, it is from a mix of libertarianism and collectivism. Parties talk about laws for all but are very happy to help people avoid taxes all the while you pay yours and then they filter that money off to the rich as well. The same big corporates of Balfour and Kier etc are the ones that made a mint out of PFI, so much so they sold their government contracts for twice what they tendered for them. The PFI contracts they bought they sold on. Kier also has national contracts for anything to do with social housing improvements and Gordon Brown's favourite "decent housing standard." means that roofs, kitchens, flooring, bathroom groups are replaced whether needed or not. Never mind the people stuck in awful private housing conditions. That money is dedicated to improving things that don't need improving. At least we can tell now which houses are the private ones. The council owned ones have nice shiny slate roofs now.

NHS too. Your tax is going to those who don't pay taxes. The 1% worldwide are getting richer and you are paying them. That is not conservative capitalism nor socialism.

I don't know what to call it. but the big whigs keep on passing the money around each other while we hear they are giving it to us. we get it spend it and its back to them.

These people make Thatcher look like an Angel.

On the Trump thing I am still not sure whether he is the saviour or the next level of the same. American people have certainly put their trust in him to break up the circle though. They must be desperate.

As the Kinks said a few years back "I'm not the world's most intelligent guy" but I'm not getting what your solution is? just a list of things you don't like?

 

[ImpSaint]

farmers? I guess you mean land owners (like the Queen) not small farmers relying on EU grants?

Not many small farmers have much say in it. Small farms don;t sell direct apart from a few to farmer's markets. They are forced to sell into co-ops which then sell into the corporates which pack for the supermarkets. Many of the corporate food producers have already bought many of the farms anyway.

What we have with globalisation is just the latest return of liberalism with the old Adam Smith adage of free trade with no regulation. It is similar to Ayn Rand's "self interest" concepts to do with capitalism where no-one really cares about each other. They co-operate purely to make their own pots larger.

You are right about the 1%. It just accumulates the wealth unable to spend it because it is too much to spend. They prefer to play games with politics like Buffet and Soros. All this talk of maximising wealth for the benefit of all. These days they are keeping it for their club and not redistributing anymore.

Maybe why people like Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan hate Trump. He is either after a share of the spoils or wants to be the saviour that breaks the clique. That or whoever is manipulating Trump has agendas one way or the other.

There is always a lot of talk about altruism when they talk but thats all it is. The policies they all put out left or right are not altruist. The altruist aspect is purely cover to get through these things.

Do you think regulation will return? I don;t. The banks are already demanding less regulation again and the corporates only lobby for regulation that would give them the edge over their smaller competitors.

As to the Land. Does the Queen actually own the land or does the state? Are the Queen's riches hers or the states? We went through this argument a few hundred years ago did we not?

 

[ImpSaint]

As the Kinks said a few years back "I'm not the world's most intelligent guy" but I'm not getting what your solution is? just a list of things you don't like?

Probably. We will see what transpires over the next few years. Either they will keep control and we see no change or 'real' change happens.

Can;t remember the Kinks saying intelligent. Sure it was "most physical guy" and "passionate guy"

 

[ImpSaint]

"The 1%" (the 1% of the population of the world who own the most assets) includes anyone whose net assets are roughly £540K or over (may have changed since the collapse of the £). So anyone who owns their own home outright in Southern England and has a pension pot. Pretty sure there are about 2.7 million of "the 1%" in the UK.

Apparently the EU is a huge scam to give all those old retired dears all your money.

Ludicrous.

Vin

Vin where do you get that 500k is the 1%? When did old dears with a house become global businesses that push their weight around?

Ahh I see. Then we need a new name for it instead of the 1% because that is misleading. If 123,000 people in world have 45% of the wealth then why do they include normal folks that own a house and nothing else when talking about it? Could it be because the truth would be even more annoying to normal folks?

So 123,000 have 45% of the wealth of the world. That means that 0.000017% of the world's population own 45% of the world's wealth. That is anyone who has net assets of $50m or more.

So why do they constantly change that to the 1% (which is actually lower than 1%) to include people like my Mum and Dad who have not much more than their house and a couple of grand in the bank? To make us feel better?

 

[SaintinSerbia]

Not many small farmers have much say in it. Small farms don;t sell direct apart from a few to farmer's markets. They are forced to sell into co-ops which then sell into the corporates which pack for the supermarkets. Many of the corporate food producers have already bought many of the farms anyway.

What we have with globalisation is just the latest return of liberalism with the old Adam Smith adage of free trade with no regulation. It is similar to Ayn Rand's "self interest" concepts to do with capitalism where no-one really cares about each other. They co-operate purely to make their own pots larger.

You are right about the 1%. It just accumulates the wealth unable to spend it because it is too much to spend. They prefer to play games with politics like Buffet and Soros. All this talk of maximising wealth for the benefit of all. These days they are keeping it for their club and not redistributing anymore.

Maybe why people like Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan hate Trump. He is either after a share of the spoils or wants to be the saviour that breaks the clique. That or whoever is manipulating Trump has agendas one way or the other.

There is always a lot of talk about altruism when they talk but thats all it is. The policies they all put out left or right are not altruist. The altruist aspect is purely cover to get through these things.

Do you think regulation will return? I don;t. The banks are already demanding less regulation again and the corporates only lobby for regulation that would give them the edge over their smaller competitors.

As to the Land. Does the Queen actually own the land or does the state? Are the Queen's riches hers or the states? We went through this argument a few hundred years ago did we not?

I'm sorry to waste your time - again you have eloquently stated your opinion about the state of the world but again not your solution to the problems that we all face except that liberals are wrong - if you were writing a manifesto what would the first 5 most important points be?

 

[Archers Road]

As the Kinks said a few years back "I'm not the world's most intelligent guy" but I'm not getting what your solution is? just a list of things you don't like?

I think he said rational, but point taken...

You must log in or register to see media

 

[ImpSaint]

I'm sorry to waste your time - again you have eloquently stated your opinion about the state of the world but again not your solution to the problems that we all face except that liberals are wrong - if you were writing a manifesto what would the first 5 most important points be?

I don't think liberals are wrong. A lot of the ideology is well natured. equality of opportunity is an admirable ideal that I would support. I am talking about the liberal economical model. It would work if not for the fact that human nature is quite self centred. I am as guilty of anyone of thinking about myself, however when it comes to big big money and business that greed gets out of control.

I am all for the humanitarian ideals that liberals espouse but not the economical side of it nor the way that people who talk of being liberal and having liberal values then choose to manipulate populous to help them fight their causes.

I have no solutions. I am a normal man in a council house on a laptop. What solution do I have other than to keep voting and hoping?

Anyway, I bet Murdoch wins this time. Another failure of the system to stop monopolies.

 

[Treble]

Apologies for jumping in here, but I see on this thread the same points as many other threads/discussions about brexit. It seems that people on both sides seem to identify a lot of problems with the world and use these to justify their political views. One doesn't equate to the other and I think people need to realise quickly that whichever you voted, and whichever way the result had gone, the very essence of politics is that nothing much changes. So if you're expecting the best, or the worst, as a result of Brexit, you're very likely going to be wrong. You really are. 20 years from now, our problems will be the same problems we would've had anyway, even if we had voted to stay. The system is designed to maintain the status quo. Isn't that already obvious, considering all our brexit negotiations will be aimed to achieve exactly that.

 

[ImpSaint]

I think he said rational, but point taken...

You must log in or register to see media

I should have ignored that last one. It is passionate* but this isn't the music thread.

*according to all the online lyrics. I only knew the physical one. That's why intelligent flagged up in my tiny brain.

 

[ImpSaint]

Apologies for jumping in here, but I see on this thread the same points as many other threads/discussions about brexit. It seems that people on both sides seem to identify a lot of problems with the world and use these to justify their political views. One doesn't equate to the other and I think people need to realise quickly that whichever you voted, and whichever way the result had gone, the very essence of politics is that nothing much changes. So if you're expecting the best, or the worst, as a result of Brexit, you're very likely going to be wrong. You really are. 20 years from now, our problems will be the same problems we would've had anyway, even if we had voted to stay. The system is designed to maintain the status quo. Isn't that already obvious, considering all our brexit negotiations will be aimed to achieve exactly that.

I totally agree which I said in the heated days after the referendum and I read the same from US posters after their election. People will hope though and better for them to vote and hope for change than to take to the streets to change it themselves is it not?

Is that not the beauty of the system? Offer real change for votes yet change virtually nothing? We can always hope though.

 

[Treble]

I totally agree which I said in the heated days after the referendum and I read the same from US posters after their election. People will hope though and better for them to vote and hope for change than to take to the streets to change it themselves is it not?

Is that not the beauty of the system? Offer real change for votes yet change virtually nothing? We can always hope though.

I've read a few famous quotes earlier on, so I'll throw in one myself..."It's the hope that kills you". And after Blair and Obama, I think that quote is pretty much spot on.

And here's the other thing. Do people want REAL change? If they do, why the hell do we have a "race to centre" political system. That's because real change requires an acceptance by the population for some degree of pain. We seem to want the change without the hardship, so we go for the guy who promises it to us, where all our problems will be solved. Even with Brexit, the aim, the point of ALL the negotiations will be centred around economics and NOT the ideology of Brexit itself. If we want real change, we need to follow the ideology and be ALL in. I didn't vote for Brexit by the way, but **** it, lets cast the dye and see what happens. Be bold ffs, but we won't... and that's the sham of it all. And I'm not talking about "controlling borders" or "how much money is going to the NHS" bollox which is all a side issue. I'm talking about the ideology itself, which is to leave the EU and search for a domestic model for social welfare and economics that suits us and is self-sustainable.

 

[SaintinSerbia]

So in conclusion, we don't like how it is, so vote for someone who doesn't like how it is, and has no idea what to replace it with?

 

[ImpSaint]

I've read a few famous quotes earlier on, so I'll throw in one myself..."It's the hope that kills you". And after Blair and Obama, I think that quote is pretty much spot on.

And here's the other thing. Do people want REAL change? If they do, why the hell do we have a "race to centre" political system. That's because real change requires an acceptance by the population for some degree of pain. We seem to want the change without the hardship, so we go for the guy who promises it to us, where all our problems will be solved. Even with Brexit, the aim, the point of ALL the negotiations will be centred around economics and NOT the ideology of Brexit itself. If we want real change, we need to follow the ideology and be ALL in. I didn't vote for Brexit by the way, but **** it, lets cast the dye and see what happens. Be bold ffs, but we won't... and that's the sham of it all. And I'm not talking about "controlling borders" or "how much money is going to the NHS" bollox which is all a side issue. I'm talking about the ideology itself, which is to leave the EU and search for a domestic model for social welfare and economics that suits us which is self-sustainable.

I think you underestimate the electorate a little.

If they were not prepared to take the pain then recent events should convince you differently.

A) Corbyn and McDonnell are promising half a billion borrowing and everybody to get more money/end to austerity etc. They are losing support
B) The Tories have supposedly been implementing austerity yet their voteshare rose.
C) We were promised that things would get tougher from both sides. tougher instantly and forever from remain and most sensible leavers said we would take a hit before we recovered.........people voted leave.

Now I am being a bit cheeky talking austerity because the Tories talked of austerity but have not done austerity. They have just continued with the trickle to the 0.000017% blamed it on the austerity they say they have implemented. Osborne is out now. Hopefully May and Hammond realise the public are now watching this stuff and not listening to the media spin anymore.

I do agree with your post in the main though. Like Greece voted for anti austerity, got their party in and what happened? He is a full on EU lackie now.

 

[ImpSaint]

So in conclusion, we don't like how it is, so vote for someone who doesn't like how it is, and has no idea what to replace it with?

Thats the trouble with politicians Serbs. People voted for Blair on his promises and once in he changed his mind. He was pro re-nationalisation remember before he won. Not that I think the people at that time nor now really wanted re-nationlisation.

Peopl vote for someone and hope they will do what they say. Blair didn't though, Cameron didn't either. Giving the referendum and bringing through gay marriage is about the only thing he said he would do that he did. Certainly didn't tighten the country's belt to reduce the debt/deficit. They reduce budgets but the money still flows out the same.

If there was a really trustworthy independent auditor in this world that could handle auditing the state that would be good. not like PWC though who are part of the whole problem in the first place.