Topic: Never mind 'Stop the Boats' - STOP THE TORIES

[Wabaloolah]

I know exactly how you feel, posted the same in the past, as far as I was concerned a Labour victory was a cert. got a few cans in to celebrate watching the results come in. gutted.
I always put that result down to the last 2 weeks of Tory+media scare campaigning. I worked with one lad who bought his council house, new f,, all about politics but I put him down as a Labour voter up till then.
The Torys hammered the scare of a Labour government bringing very high interest rates, how millions wouldn't be able to afford to pay their mortgage, millions will lose their homes, millions will lose their jobs, I had a mortgage but never fell for it, we were all talking about the election in a few days, up pops this lad as though he's all clued up telling us the only concern he has is a Labour government will bring high interests rates which will mean high mortgage payments leading to people losing their homes and higher unemployment.  he was scared stiff of losing his home. it really pissed me off and told him he's got that from the Torys and they are just trying to scare you, am convinced he and millions more fell for it as well.

and ironically within a few months of getting elected, the Tories increased interest rates to 15% before falling out if the ERM and reduced it back to 10%

[Wabaloolah]

I was 21 at the time of the 1992 election, lived in Neil' Kinnock s constituency of Islwyn. My Mum was heavily involved in his campaign and we got to know Neil quite well during that time.

She was at the count in the evening and we saw her on the TV when Neil arrived at the count.

My Dad and I watched the results at home, buoyed at first by the exit poll showing Labour as largest party but as soon as Basildon came in we knew it was game over.

I have never been so down about an election result, much more so than 2019 as that was an obvious defeat. We genuinely thought that we would be living in the PMs constituency.

The Security around that election was huge, a massive increased police presence and a policeman positioned constantly outside the Kinnock's small terraced house on Sir Ivor's Road.

I felt sad for Neil and Glenys, sad for the Labour Party but sadder for the country who would have to put up with another 5 years of Tory rule.

2024/25 could be the same of course and there is some precedent. A 102 majority won in 1987 versus an 80 seat majority in 2019 meaning both were very difficult to turn around.

I think much will depend on the Reform Party. If they stand in every constituency there's a very good chance that the right wing vote will split. They will also take some votes from Labour, particularly in the red wall constituencies but have potential to damage the Tory vote substantially.

Think Yorky said the other day, he wants the Tories humiliated. I share that view, one seat win is one too many for me

[Nobby Reserve]

Is Nobby saying he wants to end capitalism, or merely pointing out that's what some want?

Thank you, Paul.

OldFordie is getting carried away in his little paddy 

I'd actually put myself in the 'less left' category, believing capitalism to be useful - as long as its properly regulated to keep it under control and to mitigate the as many of its inevitable evils as possible.


I look at the economic system issue as a spectrum that we're all somewhere along. At one end is unfettered/laissez-faire/ultra-free market capitalism; at the other is a full command economy.

The vast majority of people will sit within a concentration toward the middle; some more left of centre, others more right. The question is where we sit on that. I'm probably about halfway between the centre and 'command'.

I'll also say that we could have a sub-spectrum focused only on public ownership/control of economic functions with the same two ends. The vast majority of us was some level of public ownership/control (eg, police, army, fire, tax collection, etc) but there's disparity over how far that goes,



Saying all that, I'm coming to a growing conclusion that, in order to manage our economies as they shift towards increasing automation and AI, we need a modern adaptation of the communist economic model. The alternative is a much greater concentration of wealth in the possession of the owners of capital.

[Circa1892]

The fat lump of semen Gullis responding to the Q about 200 abducted children with a heckle of "they shouldn't have come here illegally".

200... children, kidnapped by traffickers on their watch and thats his response.

This oaf was a Minister for School Standards just a few months ago. Sack of shit the lot of them.

[Dr. Beaker]

The fat lump of semen Gullis responding to the Q about 200 abducted children with a heckle of "they shouldn't have come here illegally".

200... children, kidnapped by traffickers on their watch and thats his response.

This oaf was a Minister for School Standards just a few months ago. Sack of shit the lot of them.

The party of law and order. This should have us all hanging our heads in shame.

[Red-Soldier]

We've currently got the very worst of humanity in government.  They have no shame.

[PaulF]

Thank you, Paul.

OldFordie is getting carried away in his little paddy 

I'd actually put myself in the 'less left' category, believing capitalism to be useful - as long as its properly regulated to keep it under control and to mitigate the as many of its inevitable evils as possible.


I look at the economic system issue as a spectrum that we're all somewhere along. At one end is unfettered/laissez-faire/ultra-free market capitalism; at the other is a full command economy.

The vast majority of people will sit within a concentration toward the middle; some more left of centre, others more right. The question is where we sit on that. I'm probably about halfway between the centre and 'command'.

I'll also say that we could have a sub-spectrum focused only on public ownership/control of economic functions with the same two ends. The vast majority of us was some level of public ownership/control (eg, police, army, fire, tax collection, etc) but there's disparity over how far that goes,



Saying all that, I'm coming to a growing conclusion that, in order to manage our economies as they shift towards increasing automation and AI, we need a modern adaptation of the communist economic model. The alternative is a much greater concentration of wealth in the possession of the owners of capital.

Could we have a model where all companies are 'owned' by the employees? Profits are shared equally.  Staff can still be paid extortionate amounts if the staff feel they are worth it.  Football clubs not a great example, but if the manager or the chief exec, or the head of recruitment is considered to be the best in the business, then they can be paid 60% upwards of company revenue if that makes sense (obviously not all 3 can be paid 60% of revenue each, unless the staff vote to borrow to pay them!). Poorly performing companies can still fail and there is still profit motive, but everyone benefits.  Not as far left as as everything owned by the state, but not as purely capitalist as we have now.

[PaulF]

We've currently got the very worst of humanity in government.  They have no shame.

You forgot to put 'humanity' in quotes

[Nobby Reserve]

The fat lump of semen Gullis responding to the Q about 200 abducted children with a heckle of "they shouldn't have come here illegally".

200... children, kidnapped by traffickers on their watch and thats his response.

This oaf was a Minister for School Standards just a few months ago. Sack of shit the lot of them.

Some of these Tories are inhuman and I think would have been gleeful Gestapo officers or death camp Kommandants

[oldfordie]

Thank you, Paul.

OldFordie is getting carried away in his little paddy 

I'd actually put myself in the 'less left' category, believing capitalism to be useful - as long as its properly regulated to keep it under control and to mitigate the as many of its inevitable evils as possible.


I look at the economic system issue as a spectrum that we're all somewhere along. At one end is unfettered/laissez-faire/ultra-free market capitalism; at the other is a full command economy.

The vast majority of people will sit within a concentration toward the middle; some more left of centre, others more right. The question is where we sit on that. I'm probably about halfway between the centre and 'command'.

I'll also say that we could have a sub-spectrum focused only on public ownership/control of economic functions with the same two ends. The vast majority of us was some level of public ownership/control (eg, police, army, fire, tax collection, etc) but there's disparity over how far that goes,



Saying all that, I'm coming to a growing conclusion that, in order to manage our economies as they shift towards increasing automation and AI, we need a modern adaptation of the communist economic model. The alternative is a much greater concentration of wealth in the possession of the owners of capital.

I know what the political spectrum is, am sure you do as well, little tweaks isn't the way I would describe it, changing the capitalist economic system is the priority.
It's the reason you have given for refusing to support the Labour party. what other party supports your views.

[oldfordie]

Could we have a model where all companies are 'owned' by the employees?Profits are shared equally.[/b] Staff can still be paid extortionate amounts if the staff feel they are worth it.  Football clubs not a great example, but if the manager or the chief exec, or the head of recruitment is considered to be the best in the business, then they can be paid 60% upwards of company revenue if that makes sense (obviously not all 3 can be paid 60% of revenue each, unless the staff vote to borrow to pay them!). Poorly performing companies can still fail and there is still profit motive, but everyone benefits.  Not as far left as as everything owned by the state, but not as purely capitalist as we have now.

So who puts the investment in to start up every company in the UK. am not even hinting your a communist Paul we are certainly loosing our way and heading down that road.

[PaulF]

So who puts the investment in to start up every company in the UK. am not even hinting your a communist Paul we are certainly loosing our way and heading down that road.

Very good question. I've clearly not put a lot of thought into this . I am sure there are plenty of other issues. But I'm liking the idea.  There would have to be two answers though, one while we are establishing the system  , and one where it's up and running.

[Nobby Reserve]

So who puts the investment in to start up every company in the UK. am not even hinting your a communist Paul we are certainly loosing our way and heading down that road.

What's your suggestion on how we massively reduce wealth/income inequality then?

[Circa1892]

Some of these Tories are inhuman and I think would have been gleeful Gestapo officers or death camp Kommandants

Genuinely 100% with Gullis.

He fucking stinks aswell.

[oldfordie]

What's your suggestion on how we massively reduce wealth/income inequality then?

Easy, get into power and then you can do it.
Ive no problem with arguments for changing our tax system to bring in more revenue to spend on improving lives, same with the Nom Doms and all tax evasion, Labour have gone out of their way to argue for this to happen as well but yet you still bring it up as if it's a reason not to support Labour.
Massively reduce wealth isn't the argument I would make.  massively reduce the exploitation of the man in the street by the wealthy is the argument I would make. it's also the answer to the income inequality. ive no problem with people becoming Millionaires/billionaires. it may seem wrong but that's how the world runs, stop it here and they will move elsewhere.
I think we have to remember how we got here in the first place. it took years to happen but the spiral downwards to low wages came with the approval of millions as those wages were subsidised by all governments since Thatcher. the problem came when those subsidies were chopped by the government.

[west_london_red]

I was thinking a similar thing myself, do we need or want reduced inequality or do we want to make sure everyone has a dignified existence and strong public services? Not sure myself. To a degree we will need to reduce inequality to ensure everyone does live a dignified live but at the same time like yourself I’m not opposed to the idea of millionaires and billionaires as long as they are paying their taxes like the rest of us.

[Nobby Reserve]

I was thinking a similar thing myself, do we need or want reduced inequality or do we want to make sure everyone has a dignified existence and strong public services? Not sure myself. To a degree we will need to reduce inequality to ensure everyone does live a dignified live but at the same time like yourself I’m not opposed to the idea of millionaires and billionaires as long as they are paying their taxes like the rest of us.

The multi-millionsires and billionsires made their money through the labours of others.

The current system rewards the owners of capital far too greatly.

And, as we know, for some people too much is never enough.

[TepidT2O]

What will happen is this:


By the end of the week (or maybe a tiny bit longer), Zahawi will step down saying he is innocent but speculation is getting in the way of (insert some government policy that’s pure fucking fantasy) and to ensure this doesn’t continue he will be stepping aside (to spend more time with his money).  He will thank Sunak for his support.


As predicable as Everton that


Btw, if new details have come to light as Sunak said, then Zahawi must have lied to him last week so he should have sacked him for this alone

[TepidT2O]

[oldfordie]

Very good question. I've clearly not put a lot of thought into this . I am sure there are plenty of other issues. But I'm liking the idea.  There would have to be two answers though, one while we are establishing the system  , and one where it's up and running.

The idea does seem good, the Communist theory sounds a brilliant idea, everyone works for a company and the profits are shared by the workers and the people.  that was the theory back in the early 1900s but that theory has been tested and proven to be a disastrous failure for many reasons, all for another thread really. point is Communism isn't a economic theory anymore, it's a failure.
I know your making a different point but it will still need money,  if the money comes from investment then the investors will want a return for the risk which is basically Capitalism, it would be impossible for all the workers in this country to club together to take over their company,  if the funding comes from the government then we are moving towards a Communist type system.
We do have a system to allow what you ask already, workers have bought out their company as a going concern, nothing wrong with that, they took a risk and ploughed their own money into it, good luck to them but that's nothing to do with trying to help with inequality etc.

[Lee1-6Liv]

The fat lump of semen Gullis responding to the Q about 200 abducted children with a heckle of "they shouldn't have come here illegally".

200... children, kidnapped by traffickers on their watch and thats his response.

This oaf was a Minister for School Standards just a few months ago. Sack of shit the lot of them.

And people got in a tiz when the torys were labelled as scum.

[TSC]

Some of these Tories are inhuman and I think would have been gleeful Gestapo officers or death camp Kommandants

Then of course there is the pervert paradise that is the Met.  Let’s not worry as the Home Secretary could sort this once she’s stopped chasing small boats.

[Wabaloolah]

What will happen is this:


By the end of the week (or maybe a tiny bit longer), Zahawi will step down saying he is innocent but speculation is getting in the way of (insert some government policy that’s pure fucking fantasy) and to ensure this doesn’t continue he will be stepping aside (to spend more time with his money).  He will thank Sunak for his support.


As predicable as Everton that


Btw, if new details have come to light as Sunak said, then Zahawi must have lied to him last week so he should have sacked him for this alone

absolutely there's no way he can continue. He will resign but I agree the question is why hasn't Sunak sacked him already. The answer is because he is weak and cannot afford pissing off a single MP let alone a group of them

[Indomitable_Carp]

I was thinking a similar thing myself, do we need or want reduced inequality or do we want to make sure everyone has a dignified existence and strong public services? Not sure myself. To a degree we will need to reduce inequality to ensure everyone does live a dignified live but at the same time like yourself I’m not opposed to the idea of millionaires and billionaires as long as they are paying their taxes like the rest of us.

I see your point to an extent. Ensuring better living for those at the bottom is of course the priority.

But history has shown time and time again that increased inequality leads to unhappy and unstable societies. I don't know what I'd consider the upper limit of acceptable wealth, but individuals having the many tens of billions of pounds and roaming the planet in private jets and huge yachts definitely breaches it. It's simply obscene.

More than that,  the wealth of those at the top is directly siphoned off from those at the bottom. Reducing inequality goes hand-in-hand with improving the living standards of those at the bottom.

[Red-Soldier]

I see your point to an extent. Ensuring better living for those at the bottom is of course the priority.

But history has shown time and time again that increased inequality leads to unhappy and unstable societies. I don't know what I'd consider the upper limit of acceptable wealth, but individuals having the many tens of billions of pounds and roaming the planet in private jets and huge yachts definitely breaches it. It's simply obscene.

More than that,  the wealth of those at the top is directly siphoned off from those at the bottom. Reducing inequality goes hand-in-hand with improving the living standards of those at the bottom.

Exactly. 

[Red-Soldier]

Richard Sharp: BBC chair was shareholder in firm awarded £600k while he was a No 10 adviser

Sharp alleged to have helped facilitate loan for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has multimillion pound stake in healthcare company

Richard Sharp owns a multimillion pound stake in a healthcare company which was granted nearly £600,000 for Covid research while Sharp worked in Number 10, it has emerged.

Sharp, the chair of the BBC, is the second largest shareholder in Oncimmune, a cancer detection company which received funds in 2020 to help research Covid-19 vaccines and treatments. He was previously a director at the company.

Sharp, who has come under fire in recent days over allegations he helped facilitate an £800,000 loan for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, was working as an economic adviser in Downing Street at the time Oncimmune’s grant was approved by UK Research and Innovation, which is part of the business department.

Nicholas Wilson, the anti-corruption campaigner who uncovered the shareholding, said: “It is no surprise that a medical diagnostics company should have received a contract, but for Sharp to be a major shareholder just stinks.”

A spokesperson for Sharp said: “Richard Sharp has been a keen supporter of innovative approaches to tackling cancer and invested in Oncimmune, a leading cancer diagnostics company, when it spun out of Nottingham University.

The spokesperson added: “He was not involved in any way in the company’s response to the UKRI’s Medicines Catapult Covid awards tender [the scheme through which the company was granted the money], and his work at the Treasury did not have anything to do with UKRI or their medical and scientific research grants.”

A spokesperson for UKRI said: “UKRI has rigorous decision-making processes in place, and the funding decision on this was made on a competitive basis, by expert assessors against an openly published agreed criteria.”

Ron Kirschner, Oncimmune’s general counsel, said: “Richard was not on the board when the application for the grant was made, which was subject to scientific evaluation. We did not discuss our decision to apply with Richard Sharp, nor seek his assistance at any point in the process.”

The BBC chair insisted this week he was given the job on merit, though the circumstances of that appointment are now under investigation by William Shawcross, the commissioner for public appointments.

Sharp previously advised Johnson while he was London mayor, and was prime minister Rishi Sunak’s boss at the investment bank Goldman Sachs.

In May 2020, he left his job as a non-executive director at Oncimmune, a Nottingham-based cancer detection company, to take up a role in Downing Street advising Sunak, who was chancellor at the time. While working for the government, he oversaw a programme helping to arrange financing for strategically important companies which needed help through the pandemic but were too big for other pandemic support schemes.

He kept his shareholding in Oncimmune, which currently stands at 6.6% according to the company’s website – though he transferred his shares into a blind trust. The stake would have been worth about £3.8m at the time he left the company, and is now worth about £3.4m.

Just three months after Sharp left the company for government, Oncimmune announced it had won government funding to help adapt its technology to predict how people’s immune systems might respond to Covid-19 vaccines and treatments. UKRI said on Wednesday the company’s share of the contract was worth £598,984, and was not connected to the Treasury or the scheme Sharp oversaw.

Alok Sharma, who was business secretary at the time, said of the contract: “By backing this pioneering project, we are ensuring that the best therapeutic approaches can be offered to the right patients at the right time.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jan/25/richard-sharp-shareholder-in-firm-awarded-600k-while-he-was-no-10-adviser

[spen71]

Raab now has 24 complaints of bullying.

[TepidT2O]

Raab now has 24 complaints of bullying.

Makes you proud to be British eh?

[Dr. Beaker]

Sometimes I wish there was just one or two scandals rather than this blizzard.

[Nobby Reserve]

Richard Sharp: BBC chair was shareholder in firm awarded £600k while he was a No 10 adviser

Sharp alleged to have helped facilitate loan for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has multimillion pound stake in healthcare company

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jan/25/richard-sharp-shareholder-in-firm-awarded-600k-while-he-was-no-10-adviser

Remember also that Sharp has donated over £400k to the Tory Party over the years.

One thing I'd like to see the next government introduce, in the name of countering corruption, is a ban on any company that has made a donation [of say more than £25k in the last 5 or 10 years] to a political party, or has a shareholder with a holding of 10% or more who has done so, receiving any government/local authority/public sector contract

Legislation would obviously have to be more complex than that, but as a principle it's bang on.

[west_london_red]

I see your point to an extent. Ensuring better living for those at the bottom is of course the priority.

But history has shown time and time again that increased inequality leads to unhappy and unstable societies. I don't know what I'd consider the upper limit of acceptable wealth, but individuals having the many tens of billions of pounds and roaming the planet in private jets and huge yachts definitely breaches it. It's simply obscene.

More than that,  the wealth of those at the top is directly siphoned off from those at the bottom. Reducing inequality goes hand-in-hand with improving the living standards of those at the bottom.

Like I said the key for me is taxation. When the guy at the bottom is paying more in tax as percentage of their income then the guy at the top then something is fundamentally broken. There are those like footballers who pay tax via PAYE on their salaries for example, that’s millions in tax and I’m happy with that, they get loads of money and so does the taxman. Where my comfort with the existence of millionaires runs out is where they are allowed to use all kinds of perfectly legal loopholes and different tax rates based on how they receive their money to not pay their fair share.

[TSC]

Richard Sharp: BBC chair was shareholder in firm awarded £600k while he was a No 10 adviser

Sharp alleged to have helped facilitate loan for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has multimillion pound stake in healthcare company

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jan/25/richard-sharp-shareholder-in-firm-awarded-600k-while-he-was-no-10-adviser

I’m surprised a company apparently focused on cancer detection was given a contract to conduct research into the (then) novel Covid.  Not quite in same ballpark as Hancocks barman getting handed PPE contracts, but still.

[Serano]

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/double-killer-lawangeen-abdulrahimzai-jailed-for-life-for-murder-of-thomas-roberts-in-e-scooter-argument-12794900

Pretty shocking failure.

[Red-Soldier]

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/double-killer-lawangeen-abdulrahimzai-jailed-for-life-for-murder-of-thomas-roberts-in-e-scooter-argument-12794900

Pretty shocking failure.

Yeah.  It's a terrible story.

[Wabaloolah]

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/double-killer-lawangeen-abdulrahimzai-jailed-for-life-for-murder-of-thomas-roberts-in-e-scooter-argument-12794900

Pretty shocking failure.

it'll be used no doubt as a stick to beat Asylum Seekers with, one bad egg must mean that all the eggs in all the boxes must be rotten

[Circa1892]

Raab now has 24 complaints of bullying.

If they’re actually going to take bullying seriously it’s the special advisors they need to look at. I know a fair few people who’ve been bullied out of jobs by useless, moronic Tory attack dogs. If anything Raab sounds like he does his own dirty work. They’re all at it. Nasty set of people.

[liverbloke]

Like I said the key for me is taxation. When the guy at the bottom is paying more in tax as percentage of their income then the guy at the top then something is fundamentally broken. There are those like footballers who pay tax via PAYE on their salaries for example, that’s millions in tax and I’m happy with that, they get loads of money and so does the taxman. Where my comfort with the existence of millionaires runs out is where they are allowed to use all kinds of perfectly legal loopholes and different tax rates based on how they receive their money to not pay their fair share.

it's just a vulgar way for those with to keep as much of it as possible - morally reprehensible

i understand that for companies - and individuals - to make money then they need to be attracted to do so but if every country adopted similar tax rules then they would have nowhere to run to and therefore they would have to adhere to laws without 'loopholes'

but like that is ever gonna happen

[Wabaloolah]

A representative of HMRC said to a Committee of MPs this morning that whilst he couldn't comment on individual cases (Zahawi) people don't have to pay hefty penalties for innocent errors.

Damning that, one rule for us, one for them

[Serano]

it'll be used no doubt as a stick to beat Asylum Seekers with, one bad egg must mean that all the eggs in all the boxes must be rotten

I’m not sure that’s the context it should be looked at. A government’s primary responsibility is to surely protect its citizens? I think it’s a legitimate concern that the majority of irregular arrivals (who also happen to be young men), arrive undocumented - either because they don’t have access to documents or because they’ve deliberately disposed of them. Therefore, it’s incredibly challenging to run any meaningful checks on them. Do you not think that is a concern?

[Machae]

A representative of HMRC said to a Committee of MPs this morning that whilst he couldn't comment on individual cases (Zahawi) people don't have to pay hefty penalties for innocent errors.

Damning that, one rule for us, one for them

Tories have made top civil servants stooges for their own end game, they're no longer impartial and cherry picked for certain roles and if they don't conform, out of a job