General Election - 8 June 2017

[Barrykearley]

Corbyn would just move all the unfortunates who can't find a job in to the palace.

they deserve so much more and are just made to sign on and do nothing by the rest of society. One thing I do know - is it's never their fault - always someone elses

[lotusesprit1]

 

Have you noticed the smile Corbyn has when he lets his communist roots show? example on the Andrew Marr show when he said something like well its about time we redistribute the wealth, another time something along the lines of giving / taking the rich peoples houses to the poor.

He has no respect of property rights.

Sadly I think he or someone similar will be voted in by generation rent.

Things are wrong in our country but Corbyn and Momentum are definitely not the solution and neither are the Tory's the way they are carrying on at the moment. I just wish there was a competent political party out there, I never had much confidence in May and once I read her manifesto I realized who really was running the Tory party/ May and her team.

 

 

 

[basalte]

Well considering 1% of the UK population own 14% of the wealth and 15% of the UK population own nothing of any value or are in debt, Corbyn is perfectly correct to raise wealth redistribution as an issue. But no I hadn`t noticed him smiling, the last politician whose smile I noticed a lot was Blair-not a good example to follow. Anyway if you follow politics as I do, you will be interested to know that Mr. Sainsbury (he of the supermarkets) has stopped funding Mr. Blair`s wing of the party.

Good, how bloody working class was Mr. Sainsbury ?! Same as Tristram Hunt who swans off to run an art gallery. Anyway I digress...      

You need have no fear for your bricks and mortar ! What Corbyn was actually suggesting (before the Daily Mail put its lying boot in)  was temporarily letting survivors and bereaved families stay in empty properties of which there are plenty in Kensington. Frankly if you buy a house as an investment opportunity and then swan off leaving it completely empty , why not move in families who`ve just seen their relatives burnt to death ?  Its called having a heart.

Labour proposes raising Corporation tax to 26 %. Under Margaret Thatcher it was 28 %. Now come on, that might be a lot of things but it sure ain`t Communism.

Yes he rightly wants to nationalise rail water gas and electricity industries. "Taking Back Control" of Britain`s arteries in other words, in a very direct and practical way.

-well, by the same token that makes Winston Churchill, Harold MacMillan and Edward Heath`s Governments  Communist as well !  

Things are wrong in our country and no-one will have all the answers or make everyone happy but I know Corbyn acts with integrity and honesty. And if you are wondering-no, he won`t be addressing any more pop festivals, Glastonbury is where specifically progressive causes get espoused (although less now the glittery welly crowd have moved in) and he is a long-time mate of the organiser.

 If you want some proof of integrity, he has the lowest expenses claim of any MP and that was before the expenses scandal broke which I am sure you were all outraged about !

Anyway look, nobody`s perfect. But I want someone who is not a grovelling slave to the billionaires (clue they have lots of money and power) who currently run the show and give ordinary folk a look in again.    

 

[C8RKH]

18 hours ago, basalte said:

. If the Royals are indeed such money spinners that is surely all the more reason for them to pay their way with lesser need for State allocations.. 

 

I agree with you! Scrap the agreement that gives them the civil list payments and give them back the Crown Estates. So the State saves £100m and loses £1.1bn.  Great deal. Even Corbyn would be proud of that.

You seem to be under an allusion the Royal Family is a nett cost. Well just on the return from the crown Estates the state is over 11 times better off.

Don't know how else I can explain they are not a nett cost. What don't you get?

[PaulCP]

59 minutes ago, basalte said:

15% of the UK population own nothing of any value or are in debt,    

 

Hmmm, & how many of these are the heavy smoking heavy drinking brigade who expect everything handed to them on a plate & complain that the govt doesn't give them sufficient hand outs to be able to afford to buy shoes for their kids.

[basalte]

Well Paul we are constantly being told how low unemployment is (although cynically they always include the impoverished self-employed in those figures) so that in itself would suggest that its a smallish number who prefer intoxicants to their kids.

...which leads us on to the Royal Family. They are incredibly wealthy simply for who they are and that is morally wrong. That is my real beef with them . Plenty of Americans and French felt the same way once -( much angrier than me about it !) 

That`s where we must resoundingly agree to disagree, I strongly suspect.

Same with the footballers (obviously skilled, but honestly.....terrible taste in cars too) and bankers (where do I start?)

Compare the earnings of the 1966 World Cup Squad and those of today and its just laughable. (That goes for the bankers too incidentally). 

This isn`t me being "jealous" of them as someone claimed, although I can`t prove that (which is exactly why it gets said in this context quite a lot).

I could do with quite a few quid and an XK120 don`t get me wrong, but these are veritable Himalayas of cash that I am talking about and am against. Billions not millions.

This is where me and the most gun-totin` GMC drivin` redneck are likely to agree-wealth ought to be earned through sweat, initiative and enterprise .

And again-(this is the difficult bit to get right and I can`t be the judge and jury, only a democracy can be) -the sky can`t be the limit anymore when it comes to wealth.

  -Incidentally I do not have to personally dislike people to think that they should not be filthy rich, even if they got there through accident of birth.

It`s a toughie. Some people will have worked really hard and/or are incredibly talented. Telling them they can`t have more than  a few million each will be tough and I can`t see it happening any time soon. But I think it has to be done if we are not ultimately to end up like that film "Elysium" -which was kind of trying to make that point. Not the best film I`ve ever seen incidentally.     

     

[silverfrost]

Corbyn needs a slap, watching him walk into parliament the other day when everybody dipped their heads to her Majesty the Queen who was present that day.   But Corbyn refused !  

If I had been present that day I would of clipped him on the the back of the head to make him do it.

 

 

[oilmagnet477]

"All pigs are equal, just some pigs are more equal than others"

Dan, your utopian view of the world is I fear fundamentally flawed. The human race just doesn't work like that, however much you might wish it did.

Divide up all the wealth in the country, evenly between everyone. In 10 years time, many will have pissed it up the wall and be looking for a hand out again. Others will have invested it or used it to further their aspirations and be considered the 'wealthy elite' again. Rinse and repeat ad-nauseum.

I would love it if it were easy to make lots of money, however, wherever it starts from, some people will just get lucky and be handed things on a plate - that, by your own admission accounts for a very small % of the population. The majority that do succeed have worked bloody hard for it and I will never ever agree that it is right for the Govt (of whichever colour) to take more than 40-50% - they do nothing for that money and who's to say that the Govt will spend it more wisely than any individual?

Funny how 99% of people living in Communist style countries end up at the bottom of the heap, where it is even more difficult (if not impossible) to work upwards, with a few mega rich individuals creaming off the top.

No system is perfect but ours does at least give those that want it an opportunity to get on in life. I appreciate that there will ALWAYS be some that can't or don't want to, but we don't and never will live in a 1 size fits all world.

[oilmagnet477]

@Buddsy - showing someone due respect (and she has earned it unlike some) doesn't mean giving up your sovereignty (not even sure I know what that means to be honest lol)

[oilmagnet477]

Interesting read - courtesy of Serge King

PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY
by Serge Kahili King
copyright by Serge King 1996

Personal sovereignty is an issue which affects each of us as individuals and as a society, whether we realize it or not. Understanding it can help us to interpret what is going on within us and around us. Increasing it can radically transform our existence.

The word "sovereign" means to be in supreme authority over someone or something, and to be extremely effective and powerful. Therefore, it is usually applied to gods, royalty and governments. We speak of kings and queens as sovereigns (even when they are figureheads), and of the sovereign rights of nations and States.

Personal sovereignty, then, would imply the intrinsic authority and power of an individual to determine his or her own direction and destiny. If that sounds suspiciously like free will, it's because personal sovereignty and free will are the same thing.

Just as being a sovereign nation means having the right and power to make decisions and take actions in the national interest without being forced to by another nation, so being a sovereign person means being able to choose oneÌs actions and reactions without being forced to by another person. To the degree there is free will in all such choices, national or personal, there is sovereignty.

Although sovereignty also means to be powerful and effective, it doesn't necessarily follow that once you have it you can do anything you want. Whether you are a nation or a person, you also have to consider the sovereignty of others. Of course, you could try to diminish or destroy the sovereignty of others to get what you want, the way nations and people sometimes do, but human experience shows that you can usually accomplish more by cooperating than by conquering.

Ultimately, however, we each have only as much sovereignty as we can demonstrate. Having sovereign rights and being sovereign are not the same thing.

The way to increase your personal sovereignty is to increase your use of free will. The way to do that is to decide for yourself what actions to take and reactions to have in any situation, and to decide for yourself how to interpret your actions and reactions whether they are freely chosen or not.

For instance, if you work for someone and are ordered to do an unpleasant task, it can feel like you have lost some of your free will. But in addition to remembering that you can always quit, you can also decide for yourself that you are not working for the boss; you are providing a compensated service, and you can decide to do the task because you choose to, not because you are ordered to. The point is, you can always choose your actions and reactions.

Beware, though. Personal sovereignty has a high price. It's called personal responsibility. As you increase your use of free will, you also increase your responsibility for your own actions and reactions. Increase it enough and you won't be able to blame your parents, your enemies, your friends, your lovers or spouse, society, fate, Satan or God for anything having to do with your experience.

If a lot of people were to greatly increase their personal responsibility our society would undergo tremendous change. Co-dependent and manipulative relationships would all but disappear; untold numbers of trial lawyers would have to find new professions; politicians would be held accountable for their decisions; insurance companies would have to change a lot of policies; people of different faiths would be more tolerant of each other, humanity would act more from love than fear... Now what kind of world would that be?

[franjipane]

Party leaders aren't supposed to bow for the Queen's speech, most leaders on both sides in the past have not bowed either, while some forget like Teresa or Gordon Brown, break protocol and bow anyway.

It is not a snub it is following correct protocol for the occasion.

The media are telling you fibs again, they like to do that to keep you on their side so check your facts...  Just a moment of research will clarify what is a fib and what isn't.  Jeremy was recently on tele stating the following

...Labour leader rejected suggestions he would abolish the British monarchy, saying: “It’s not on anybody’s agenda, it’s certainly not on my agenda.”

Appearing on The Battle For Number 10 on Sky News and Channel 4, he added that he had recently had a “very nice”chat with the Queen.

“We got along absolutely fine… I don’t think she should be brought into political discussion,” Corbyn said.

 

Anyway, i like the Queen, she's awesome.  I also think Jeremy is doing a pretty good job at the moment too.  Teresa... not so much.

 

[C8RKH]

22 hours ago, oilmagnet477 said:

"All pigs are equal, just some pigs are more equal than others"

Dan, your utopian view of the world is I fear fundamentally flawed. The human race just doesn't work like that, however much you might wish it did.

Divide up all the wealth in the country, evenly between everyone. In 10 years time, many will have pissed it up the wall and be looking for a hand out again. Others will have invested it or used it to further their aspirations and be considered the 'wealthy elite' again. Rinse and repeat ad-nauseum.

I would love it if it were easy to make lots of money, however, wherever it starts from, some people will just get lucky and be handed things on a plate - that, by your own admission accounts for a very small % of the population. The majority that do succeed have worked bloody hard for it and I will never ever agree that it is right for the Govt (of whichever colour) to take more than 40-50% - they do nothing for that money and who's to say that the Govt will spend it more wisely than any individual?

Funny how 99% of people living in Communist style countries end up at the bottom of the heap, where it is even more difficult (if not impossible) to work upwards, with a few mega rich individuals creaming off the top.

No system is perfect but ours does at least give those that want it an opportunity to get on in life. I appreciate that there will ALWAYS be some that can't or don't want to, but we don't and never will live in a 1 size fits all world.

Great post and you are so right about dividing it up and some will piss it up the wall.  Damn right about them whinging about the injustice of those who didn't and now have more than them.  This is what is wrong with society today. Entitlement syndrome.  Get off your flooking arse, work hard, and anyone can make a better life no matter where they start from.

Just sit around whinging about how sh1t life is and how it is not your fault will get you precisely, errr, nowhere. We should stop pandering to and feeling sorry for the latter. They are not worth it. Don't tell me they have no choice or opportunity. That is tosh.

[Barrykearley]

Ahh @C8RKH they are the most vulnerable people in our society. We should be helping them and giving them anything they want - last I heard hard drugs aren't cheap. Maybe that way we could cut the crime figures

[Chillidoggy]

I'm liking the bit about getting a shedload of cash and pissing it up the wall, then coming back for another free hand out.

[Bibs]

Sounds like your payday every month?

[Barrykearley]

9 minutes ago, ian29gte said:

I'm liking the bit about getting a shedload of cash and pissing it up the wall, then coming back for another free hand out.

Typical alcohol manufacturers and sellers - they are just exploiting them.....

[Winter]

Homework, or as I believe in certain circles, it's called "Prep": Read Robert Tressell's The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.  I suspect, but don't know for sure, that Dan has read it and embraced the sentiments.  I have.

[Gashead1105]

I recall reading that tripe when I was a student. Colossally hard work to get through and fundamentally a load of bollocks. 

#VoteJez

[Barrykearley]

47 minutes ago, Winter said:

 

Homework, or as I believe in certain circles, it's called "Prep":

 

Isn't this something one whom bats for the other team takes in tablet form to stop the dying from the old bum love ?

[Chillidoggy]

28 minutes ago, Gashead1105 said:

I recall reading that tripe when I was a student. Colossally hard work to get through and fundamentally a load of bollocks. 

#VoteJez

[Barrykearley]

Just looked the book up on Wikipedia- looks like yet another load of old shite written by someone whom frankly should have put a bit more effort in.

socialism - a definition of - a lazy mans excuse for under achievement coupled with the belief the world owes them a living

[Chillidoggy]

11 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

Just looked the book up on Wikipedia- looks like yet another load of old shite written by someone whom frankly should have put a bit more effort in.

socialism - a definition of - a lazy mans excuse for under achievement coupled with the belief the world owes them a living

 

I'd just like to point out you forgot the bit about anyone that might have made any money should be falling over themselves to give it away, thereby removing any incentive to better themselves.

[Barrykearley]

But they would have got that money by simply exploiting and treading all over those who are repressed. 

[Chillidoggy]

Of course, how silly of me to have missed that!

[basalte]

There is an understandable but fundamental misconception that you all adopt here. You are firing flaming bazookas  at an invisible target that you call "Socialism".

We are just told that household savings are at their lowest since the 1970s running at 1.7% of income. No-one can say that is a healthy state of affairs in our free enterprise society. Personal cerdit is running out of control with all the stress and depression that defaulting brings to a household.

(Of course one problem with Capitalism is that you run out of public assets to flog off to your megarich mates, but that`s another story).

The fundamental misconception you seem intellectually content to run with  is that "Socialism" these days means everyone gets to own everything equally and consequently "waste" it equally.

That was probably true for the year 1960 in a third world country - but not here in the UK -and never here in the UK.  

There is no serious socialist for decades who wishes to nationalise and collectivize everything. That has not worked-(I clearly don`t have to convince you of that ! )

The bone of contention here is that if you think that Corbyn wants to do that you are quite simply wrong. It used to be the case in this country that parties adhered to their manifestoes from a sense of honour and integrity. It would take a colossal betrayal amounting to a rejection of the foundation of democracy itself if Corbyn started acting like Chairman Mao in relation to the economy. (A great script for a film by the way, but fantasy nonetheless). 

Of course the Tories have performed several U-turns from their manifesto commitments but they only ever care for democracy when its going their way.

The setup in Scandinavian countries is one that should and will be sought to be emulated. Technically thats called "left social democracy" not "Socialism" . Bringing Communism into it is an utter red (obviously) herring. Marxism has much to offer in terms of economic analysis but has very little to offer politically as a solution except in the broadest sense of providing education health and welfare for all. If you read what Marx proposed as a political solution there`s sod-all. I would be the first to agree that you don`t achieve educatioon health and welfare for all simply by chucking money at it (though it certainly needs more chucked at it).  

Economies of scale apply. Key industry requiring targetted investment and co-ordination needs a national plan especially as we are leaving the EU. The hairdresser or (these days) coffee shop down the high street does not and never needed such a plan. The workshop manufacturing plumbing accessories does not need such a plan. The corporation employing thousands ? Well, maybe that does, especially if whole towns are reliant on its existence.