If anyone was wondering why the UK is currently a raging bin fire

[99call]

This video brilliantly outlines how the current government is now the completely the puppet of dark money think tanks

 

[cnov]

Sorry state of affairs.

[99call]

35 minutes ago, cnov said:

Sorry state of affairs.

Yup,    one day disaster capitalists will realise that once they've ruined everyones jobs, businesses, towns etc there will be nobodies pocket left to pick.  and their positions as entrepreneurial thieves will be null and void.      You cant have a street full of pickpockets,  you need people that create, and not just destroy/steal

[cnov]

The thing that gets me is that the rob the coffers at the top through tax cuts and tax avoidance, then point the finger at those who don't have a pot to piss in. They're the laziest capitalists going.

I'd rather see some poor people on benefits given money than tax cuts to the very wealthiest, at least the poor will go out and spend every penny and take part in the normal economy. People at the top still get the money, it just has to go through a few hands first. 

[99call]

3 minutes ago, cnov said:

at least the poor will go out and spend every penny and take part in the normal economy

Yep, this everytime.   Every serious economist worth a damn in the UK, as said, that if you want growth, make things easier for poor people, not just to exist in decline, but to begin to have aspiration beyond basic survival, to spend, to work, to contribute. 

The culture of 'handouts' that the upper classes try to demonise the poor with, actually only exist in their world.   Like everything in the last 100 years,  "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty"

[ha_banos]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/neoliberalism-is-dying-now-we-must-replace-it/

cracks? desparation?

Had a nice little talk from Ricardo (COO Tor imports, ex deputy abmassador) was telling us how Nicaragua is a positive story. I've not looked into its history. But yes all those things seem to have happened there? Or are happening?

 

[cnov]

24 minutes ago, 99call said:

Yep, this everytime.   Every serious economist worth a damn in the UK, as said, that if you want growth, make things easier for poor people, not just to exist in decline, but to begin to have aspiration beyond basic survival, to spend, to work, to contribute. 

The culture of 'handouts' that the upper classes try to demonise the poor with, actually only exist in their world.   Like everything in the last 100 years,  "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty"

Socialism is alive and kicking for the rich, we just can't have it for the proles. Rees Mogg's tax payer funded home renovation springs to mind.

[Fuzz]

Don't worry. Boris is waiting in the wings to pop back on centre stage to save the day!

[99call]

5 hours ago, cnov said:

Socialism is alive and kicking for the rich, we just can't have it for the proles. Rees Mogg's tax payer funded home renovation springs to mind.

Yep, he was trolling us plebs the other day, saying he would happily let the frackers drill in his back garden....total bullshit.    Fracking is for the North, Northerners to have their environments destroyed, houses damaged etc .     Can't believe he thought it ok to suggest we could just be paid off,  Sorry mate, theres other things in life than just being motivated by money. 

He's as thick as mince too.     He called those opposed to fracking as luddites.  The luddites were an outdated workforce attacking technologies of the future.    What we have with fracking is people of the future rejecting technologies of the past.      The fact that he dresses like a Victorian mill owner, just makes it more infuriating. 

 

5 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Don't worry. Boris is waiting in the wings to pop back on centre stage to save the day!

Yep, the turd that wont flush. 

That said, he always wanted to be PM in a term of easy boom,  I think even he is not desperate enough to want to crawl into the grave that Truss has dug

 

5 hours ago, ha_banos said:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/neoliberalism-is-dying-now-we-must-replace-it/

cracks? desparation?

Had a nice little talk from Ricardo (COO Tor imports, ex deputy abmassador) was telling us how Nicaragua is a positive story. I've not looked into its history. But yes all those things seem to have happened there? Or are happening?

 

I don't think anything was particularly broken in the UK,  i.e. successful aspects of socialism, blended with successful aspects of capitalism. 

Privatisation of the Railways, NHS, Power, Water have all failed. Private business has effectively just hulled it out, whilst calling it 'efficiencies'.   Even though the Tory party is desperate to kill the NHS, they seem completely oblivious to the fact that a majority of their voters, are actually in favour of it?  just bonkers. 

I think like the motion MP's have suggested with Kwasi Kwarteng,  it's not just a case of voting them out,  they may actually be guilty of crimes, insider trading, treason etc. 

[cnov]

You're not wrong but you've reeled us in on a Friday night!

I'm going to order my curry, drink my beers and pretend everything is great.

[ha_banos]

5 hours ago, cnov said:

You're not wrong but you've reeled us in on a Friday night!

I'm going to order my curry, drink my beers and pretend everything is great.

That's basically what I'm doing. And escape into a dreamy existence of rebellion...

[Fugu]

The self-proclaiming of certain lobby groups as “think tanks“ has been one of the more clever moves in recent years. Still, done on all sides of the spectrum.

 

As for BBC (and even though it’s Friday  😉) - 2022 James MacTaggart lecture given by Emily Maitlis (formerly BBC). Just skip forward to minute 10:

 

[99call]

18 minutes ago, Fugu said:

Still, done on all sides of the spectrum

Maybe in America, but not in the UK, not in the last couple of years 

- Historically the Tories have always been in hock to Murdoch 

- Blair and Labour of the 1990 - 2000s' saw the only way of getting in to power as getting in to bed with Murdochs

- Truss is no longer massively focused on the Murdochs or their Tory electorate,  she is catering for a tiny number billionaires in the US & UK

- Starmer has neither sold himself out to the labour Unions nor leftwing think tanks, nor Murdock.     If he wins he will be the first PM in 50yrs without someone else's hand up his arse playing him like a puppet.   Which is MASSIVE

 

[99call]

6 minutes ago, Fugu said:

Emily Maitlis

She deserves limited kudos for coming clean,   thats where it ends,  she regurgitated scripted Tory crap for years.    I imagine she hated herself for doing it......but she still did it. 

[Fugu]

9 minutes ago, 99call said:

Maybe in America, but not in the UK, not in the last couple of years 

I am talking about the self proclaimed “think tanks” (and am talking bout Europe...)

8 minutes ago, 99call said:

I imagine she hated herself for doing it...

That’s what she sais, obviously. Just check her talk.

[99call]

9 minutes ago, Fugu said:

I am talking about the self proclaimed “think tanks” (and am talking bout Europe...)

That’s what she sais, obviously. Just check her talk.

I did watch it about a month ago when it was big news here. But maybe need to have another look if there is something in particular.

Labour seem to be trying to remove themselves from any sense that they are not author's and owners of their own policy, the only reason I mentioned it is that it's incredibly rare and difficult.  And that you said that it was reflective of all sides. Normally I would agree but Starmer seems to be trying to change things

[Fugu]

You still misread what I just wanted to transmit, that those so-called “think tanks” of the alleged intelligentsia are instated (or one may call it infested) by all political parties. You can likewise find “red” or “green” think-tanks.

Was not meant as commenting on the particular situation in the UK or specifically Labour, whatsoever.

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, 99call said:

Maybe in America, but not in the UK, not in the last couple of years 

- Historically the Tories have always been in hock to Murdoch 

- Blair and Labour of the 1990 - 2000s' saw the only way of getting in to power as getting in to bed with Murdochs

- Truss is no longer massively focused on the Murdochs or their Tory electorate,  she is catering for a tiny number billionaires in the US & UK

- Starmer has neither sold himself out to the labour Unions nor leftwing think tanks, nor Murdock.     If he wins he will be the first PM in 50yrs without someone else's hand up his arse playing him like a puppet.   Which is MASSIVE

 

from the historical perspective, not strictly true. murdoch will simply support whoever/whatever is best for him. convince him that is you and he'll back you. blair based getting support from murdoch on advice from keating. prove you are just as big a bastard as he is and he'll respect/support you (or something along those lines). plus murdoch is not stupid. saw the way the tide had turned in the UK towards blair and got on board. lot easier to sell papers (and hence advertising) if people like what they read. murdoch has along history around the world of supporting whichever side suits him. in the UK, it has really only blair who fully understood that in respect of labor. but i am not certain that blair and his team would have seen it as the only way. but it certainly helped. in the 80s, thatcher was probably far more important to murdoch than the reverse. 

today, the death of newspapers has dimmed the influence but that has switched to tv and it is a little harder to control what talking heads say as opposed to journos. so they now have a heap of the power. also, murdoch is a million years old. truss might just be gambling that he won't be around or perhaps won't be compos come the next election. why waste the time and energy. 

as for that last assertion, we might not know what goes on behind the scenes (yet) but the day we have a politician - any side anywhere - who is as much of a cleanskin as you suggest, you'll find me in church the next week. this guy has already been found to break UK code of conduct guidelines half a dozen times or more. he says for minor things. which sounds very much like being a little bit pregnant (the guy is a KC and was head of UK prosecutions so spare me if anyone is going to swallow, minor infringements that i didn't know about - that is completely without credibility and suggests he'll lie along with the best of them - still might be the best option at the moment, just not a particularly honorable one). for me, all this says that he is just one more politician. and in no way relates to what i might think of truss, who might be the early sign of the coming of the four horsemen. she was the best the conservatives could dig up? things must be dire over there (no better here or many places) - and this is, i suspect, partly why starmer might look like he is draped in a halo. 

[Chas.Alpha]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

from the historical perspective, not strictly true. murdoch will simply support whoever/whatever is best for him. 

We have certainly seen his influence here in the US...

[99call]

7 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

am not certain that blair and his team would have seen it as the only way

Ken to win for Labour in the UK, you need to be 30 times better than the opposition.  I remember how they went after Ed Milliband for eating a bacon sandwich in a slightly odd way,   and that was his political career as a potential leader over,  he was finished.     Thats the level of focus on Labour,  and then when you consider the free for all of debauchery and corruption that Boris Johnson got up to.  just bonkers                 Is not necessarily his support labour wants,  it just and end to the toxic endless attacks. 

The whole death of the papers business is a bit of a red herring. In terms of message the hardcopy readership of the tabloids in the UK is made up (largely) of 'White Van Man'. and elderly tories that have get to get to grips with modern technology.    That said, the echo of the message is massive,  obviously there is always a web based/available version, then you have regurgitating it in interviews as reference material on TV,  political grass roots 'outriders' funnelling all over twitter.................so yes paper readership may be down and dying, but they make sure that message hits a huge audience and echos around TV and the internet. 

Also with regards to influence, the previous incarnation of government was hugely incestuous when it came to the Tories and media, for example:

Dominic Cummings wife Mary Wakefield is the commissioning editor for the Spectator

Micheal Gove's wife (at the time) Sarah VIne works for the Daily Mail

Allegra Straton's husband is James Forsyth of the Spectator and also best man at Rishi Sunaks wedding

Evgeny Lebedev son of the 'EX' KGB agent, owner of The Independent and Evening Standard............(and Boris Johnson)

Boris Johnson himself said (during his) 'premiership' that his real boss was The Telegraph. 

The level of influence of the right wing press in the UK is so suffocating, that even if Blair made a deal with the devil in the past, it wasn't exactly support, more an amnesty on the level of attack. Largely in the UK now the Mirror and the Guardian are the only vestiges of Left wind support, and they themselves have become pretty centrist.    The future is true independence.   News outlets that are 100% funded by viewers donations line 'Byline Times' are the only source of news worth a damn, they often break huge stories, then 2yrs later you see it unwillingly dribbled out of Laura Kuenssberg's lying mouth on the BBC, when it's no longer viable to suppress it. 

Ken I agree to a point, that anyone in politics has to be tarnished by the mechanism of power to some degree, but his career as a defence lawyer specialised specifically in human rights issues,  His dad was a tool maker, his mother was a nurse, his sister is a nurse.     If he's some nasty bastard playing the covert long game....he's doing a bloody good job of it.     I don't know whats down the track, but many are speculating it could be a government more reflective of Clement Attlee as opposed to Blair,   one not of spin and populism, but of steady policy to restore aspects of community, housing, and business that have been so shamefully run down over the last 12yrs.      The mood of the nation has become a lot less concerned with character or personality, they just want a serious person to fix the country.........I think Starmer is excellent, whether he has the quality required in his cabinet, is what I'm really concerned about. 

[BoliDan]

Ah. Glad you caught up to the rest of us. We can complain better with the Brits on our side.  

[Cairo]

22 hours ago, 99call said:

He called those opposed to fracking as luddites. 

Lol.

I wear my Luddite badge with pride.

😀

[99call]

57 minutes ago, Cairo said:

Lol.

I wear my Luddite badge with pride.

😀

Haha, puts a whole new spin on "fight the power!"

[Ken Gargett]

17 hours ago, 99call said:

Ken to win for Labour in the UK, you need to be 30 times better than the opposition.  I remember how they went after Ed Milliband for eating a bacon sandwich in a slightly odd way,   and that was his political career as a potential leader over,  he was finished.     Thats the level of focus on Labour,  and then when you consider the free for all of debauchery and corruption that Boris Johnson got up to.  just bonkers                 Is not necessarily his support labour wants,  it just and end to the toxic endless attacks. 

The whole death of the papers business is a bit of a red herring. In terms of message the hardcopy readership of the tabloids in the UK is made up (largely) of 'White Van Man'. and elderly tories that have get to get to grips with modern technology.    That said, the echo of the message is massive,  obviously there is always a web based/available version, then you have regurgitating it in interviews as reference material on TV,  political grass roots 'outriders' funnelling all over twitter.................so yes paper readership may be down and dying, but they make sure that message hits a huge audience and echos around TV and the internet. 

Also with regards to influence, the previous incarnation of government was hugely incestuous when it came to the Tories and media, for example:

Dominic Cummings wife Mary Wakefield is the commissioning editor for the Spectator

Micheal Gove's wife (at the time) Sarah VIne works for the Daily Mail

Allegra Straton's husband is James Forsyth of the Spectator and also best man at Rishi Sunaks wedding

Evgeny Lebedev son of the 'EX' KGB agent, owner of The Independent and Evening Standard............(and Boris Johnson)

Boris Johnson himself said (during his) 'premiership' that his real boss was The Telegraph. 

The level of influence of the right wing press in the UK is so suffocating, that even if Blair made a deal with the devil in the past, it wasn't exactly support, more an amnesty on the level of attack. Largely in the UK now the Mirror and the Guardian are the only vestiges of Left wind support, and they themselves have become pretty centrist.    The future is true independence.   News outlets that are 100% funded by viewers donations line 'Byline Times' are the only source of news worth a damn, they often break huge stories, then 2yrs later you see it unwillingly dribbled out of Laura Kuenssberg's lying mouth on the BBC, when it's no longer viable to suppress it. 

Ken I agree to a point, that anyone in politics has to be tarnished by the mechanism of power to some degree, but his career as a defence lawyer specialised specifically in human rights issues,  His dad was a tool maker, his mother was a nurse, his sister is a nurse.     If he's some nasty bastard playing the covert long game....he's doing a bloody good job of it.     I don't know whats down the track, but many are speculating it could be a government more reflective of Clement Attlee as opposed to Blair,   one not of spin and populism, but of steady policy to restore aspects of community, housing, and business that have been so shamefully run down over the last 12yrs.      The mood of the nation has become a lot less concerned with character or personality, they just want a serious person to fix the country.........I think Starmer is excellent, whether he has the quality required in his cabinet, is what I'm really concerned about.

first thing i'd say is that lord help any nation that makes voting decisions on tabloid rubbish. seriously, if that is what did for this bloke then the UK has way bigger problems than media influence. surely anyone over four years of age in the UK is well aware of various tabloid biases. if that swayed a single vote then it is a very strong argument that universal franchise needs to be reconsidered. these things have swings and roundabouts and, providing that people understand that murdoch does what murdoch believes best for him - as do pretty much all the mega-wealthy (although the various sides of politics tend to see these things as altruism when it supports their side and excessive influence and interference when it does not), then it must have far less influence than those who oppose it believe. that goes both ways. you can bet the house that when Labour is in power, tory supporters will be equally convinced on the unfairness of it and how much better they need to be. 

as for contacts and support within the press, if labour have not cultivated them as best they can then they are gibbering idiots and too stupid to govern. why wouldn't any political party anywhere seek the best possible relations with the media or attempt their own manipulation. as you say, starmer is a former human rights lawyer. he knows the value of the media, far better than most. you seriously think he has turned his back on all that? i'll put the house on bitcoin before i believe that. and while there is money in media, zero chance it becomes run by donations only. something i would think you would want anyway. you think that the rich wouldn't start 'donating' as fast as they could? 

as for following attlee, this is such a different time and such different circumstances, especially in relation to the media and the news cycles, that it is impossible for anyone to replicate those previous governments in any relevant way. how many conservative PMs would love to echo churchill. hell, they can't even do that with thatcher (i know your views on thatcher - and these days, about the only way a leader escapes the position with any regard remaining as to their performance is if they do so by dying - but i spent around three months in the UK, travelling widely, in 78/79, and aside from a little time in east germany before the Wall came down, i have never been in a less happy, more miserable, depressed place, a place under wilson/callaghan, which seemed to have absolutely no hope in the future, than the UK at that time. it was dire. i came back for a couple of years around 1985 on. whatever one thinks of thatcher, and i am fully aware that there were many problems and she was very far from perfect, what she did for the country was extraordinary. it was transformed. definitely for the better - i will never be convinced otherwise - and i suspect she was infinitely more influential internationally than kinnock et al, could have ever managed). 

my thoughts were not to suggest starmer is an evil bastard or playing some long covert game. just that he is another politician. as i mentioned, apparently he has been hauled up before the ethics committee or whatever they are called more than half a dozen times. i gather nothing major - to be honest, i really don't have the interest to track down what he did - but it speaks of yet one more politician. he may turn out to be a good one but a very long way to go before i'm convinced (at least he seems to have an advantage in that i can't imagine ever thinking highly of truss). 

i only have one strong issue of disagreement with what you say - when you talk of his family with nurses and tool makers etc - as though this conveys some extra integrity on him. it is not only totally irrelevant (or at least no more relevant than if they were unemployed or lawyers or astronauts or Lord Randolph), the underlying suggestion is that this is the sort of background one needs to succeed. that is, of course, utter rubbish. otherwise, provided he does not stuff up, he should get at least one term. then we can see. 

[Blakes]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

what she did for the country was extraordinary. it was transformed. definitely for the better 

Oh you've done it now!  🍿🙃