|Corbyn - time to go?Page 21 of 22 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)|
|Your local council won't translate to all over the UK. I don't disagree that Labour caused a lot of the mess that the country is in but the tories have chosen to carry on with this austerity agenda even though they know it is not working. They are also punishing the poor with this austerity driven agenda. Their policies are killing people. Sanctions were brought in by Labour but they have spiked under the tories|
Tories are not for the poor. That is nonsense. They are hammering people on benefits such as universal credit. They are cutting free school meals for poor kids. There have been bedroom tax evictions in England because people in England don't get dhp for bedroom tax. They do in Scotland. There are people dying in tents. I was in Newcastle the other week and there were people rough sleeping all over the city centre. I walked past a man with an ambulance in attendence and police as well. He was clearly dead. Tory policies have been stated to cause 120 k deaths. Lower Council tax in your area does not mean the tories are for the poor. They are not.
Some people on universal credit have waited 8 months for their first payment. The dwp can overrule a fit note and make people work who are clearly not fit to. Terminally ill people have been found fit to work. People are in fuel poverty. Travel poverty. Food poverty. I'm currently in all 3. So tell me what the tories are doing for people like me.
They give huge tax breaks to the rich while people on benefits scrape along the bottom.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/9/2018 3:35:25 AM
|There are projects in my local area that are currently feeding kids who qualify for free school meals. Because it might be the only hot meal they get of the day. There is a Trussell trust food bank in airdrie in Lanarkshire that almost shut its doors the other month as it could not keep up with demand. Its usage has spiked by 103 per cent in the last 12 months|
There are schools in England who have washing machines to wash kids clothes because parents have been sanctioned and have no electricity.
There is a girl called Charlotte Hughes who helps people in Ashton under Lyme. She stands outside job centres and signposts people to food banks when the dwp will not. She hands out food parcels. She writes a blog called the poor side of life. Maybe people who think the Tories care about poverty should read it.
I'm single with no kids. I get no in work allowance on universal credit. That means every pound I earn the dwp take 63p. Everyone used to get an in work allowance but George Osborne scrapped it for single people.
I was working for 2.33 on a 7.50 an hour min wage. If I had kids. Because I own my own home and claim no rent element my in work allowance would double. I would keep almost 400 pounds of my wages before the taper applied.
I keep nothing. If the Tories are for the poor why are the Scottish government spending 400 million pounds buffering the Scottish people from the worst effects of Tory party policies.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/9/2018 3:52:16 AM
|Oh and as for the comment about the Tories thought of the NHS first and Labour voted against it|
In outlining his 25-year vision for the NHS, the secretary of state for health, Jeremy Hunt, has been at pains to highlight the important part played by Conservatives in the founding of the service and in its subsequent guardianship. The implication was clear, as prime minister David Cameron, has said for nearly a decade: “The NHS is, and always has been, safe in our hands.”
It’s easy to understand why Hunt might try to make this claim. Four years before the NHS officially came into being, the wartime Conservative-led coalition published a 1944 white paper that certainly set out the need for a “free” and “comprehensive” healthcare service. It was presented as a natural evolution from past provision. But how different was it from the later NHS blueprint?
Under the 1944 white paper, voluntary hospitals (financed by local fundraising and workers’ contributions) would remain independent, not be taken over by the state. They would instead contract services from newly established local joint authorities, comprising amalgams of city and county councils. These authorities would also run the existing municipal hospitals. The white paper placed local authorities at the centre of hospital governance.
It was planned, also, to establish local authority health centres, where GPs would provide primary care for the community. In short, the Conservative emphasis was decidedly more pluralistic than the state-centric nationalised service we got in 1948, similar in some way to the “internal market” in health set up after 1989.
Approaching the May general election, the NHS emerged above immigration and the economy as the most important voter issue. Popular concern had been rising steadily since the election of a Conservative-led coalition government, with Labour consistently polling 15-20% ahead on health issues. Distrust meant 85% of the public thought health spending should be protected (ahead of schools, 49%, and care for the elderly, 45%). A third of people thought the NHS was getting worse.
So if the political game for the Conservatives is about reassurance, for Labour it’s about generating a fear of creeping privatisation and underfunding. The past, in this rendition, is the anathema to which we must not return. Indeed, beyond an increasingly limited group of older people, most of us cannot imagine a positive pre-NHS past.
Speaking at the 2014 annual Labour conference one elderly supporter remembered: “Back then hospitals, doctors and medicine were for the privileged few because they were run for profit rather than as a vital state service.” It was “moving” and “heartbreaking”, shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said, “something everyone should hear.”
So how bad was healthcare before 1948? Despite what we might imagine, the public thought well of it. Gallup, polling in July 1944, found 85% of former hospital patients were satisfied with their treatment: roughly the same numbers as after 1948. The most frequent “grumbles” before and after focused on admission delays, outpatients waiting times, poor food, and so on. The national insurance-funded GP service – covering working people but not their dependents – was less popular.
All in all, three quarters of patients were content. Perhaps most surprising to our modern ears is that there was no great hunger for radical reform. Mass-Observation, surveying in 1943, found that “roughly half the population was opposed to any major change on the health front, a quarter disinterested and a quarter in favour of state intervention.”
Middle classes missed out
Contrary to what we might think, access to hospital care was restricted not to the rich but to ordinary working people. Voluntary hospitals were charitable foundations; not there to make profits. The standard method of payment was via a mutual contributory fund. These charged two or three pence a week to cover the contributor and family.
A decade before: 1932 model showcasing the work of modern hospitals to the public. Science Museum, London, Wellcome Images, CC BY
Local authority hospital provision was also expanding and improving. The largest single group excluded from hospitals was the middle classes: barred because they earned too much. Only recently had pay-bed wings been established to cater for this group. Otherwise the middle classes relied on private nursing homes, which were expensive. It was this group arguably that was the chief beneficiary of the founding of the NHS.
Many key accounts explain the formation of the NHS largely in terms of a growing reforming consensus driven by forces outside of party politics. Such an explanation, of course, suits neither political party, least of all Labour. But the past is politically malleable. Doctors, when opposing the 2012 Lansley health and social care reforms, were quick to raise the spectre of the Americanisation of health, and of a return to the bad old days of the 1930s.
You wonder if Hunt has learnt a lesson from this, but also how he will fare in his battle with the medical profession? Both Henry Willink, who introduced the 1944 white paper, and Nye Bevan, who introduced the NHS, ended up giving considerable ground to the medical lobby. Many in the Conservative Party strongly supported the British Medical Association’s objections on such key issues as the continuing independence of voluntary hospitals, resisting local authority control, a salaried medical service, and the retention of private practice.
Willink’s proposals were slowly whittled away. Bevan, too, was to face mighty battles with the BMA after 1945. Yet his is the service that we would most readily recognise today.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/9/2018 4:01:25 AM
|Thatcher also gave us the poll tax. In scotland we got it a year earlier than England and Wales. Regressive. As is council tax|
Apparently there are nursery kids who get their free milk first thing in the morning, because they've had nothing else to eat before they get to nursery
I am no fan of Labour as anyone who knows me will know. But to make a sweeping statement such as Labour are for the rich and Tories are for the poor when people are dying due to Tory austerity, what do the Tories do for your average poor person?
Yes Labour brought in sanctions but the Tories have chosen to carry them on. Chosen.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/9/2018 4:03:15 AM
|Sanctions also cost more to administer than they save|
Four years ago, I wrote about the death of David Clapson. Clapson – a former soldier and carer for his mum – had his benefits sanctioned after missing one meeting at the jobcentre. He was diabetic, and without the £71.70 a week from his jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) he couldn’t afford to eat or put credit on his electricity card to keep the fridge working where he stored his insulin. Three weeks later, after suffering a severe lack of insulin, Clapson was found dead with a pile of CVs next to his body.
The Tory blueprint: fund a cruel system, not the disabled people it punishes | Frances Ryan
I found myself thinking of Clapson this weekend when I read the findings of a groundbreaking study into the treatment of unemployed disabled claimants in Britain. The four-year study by academic Ben Baumberg Geiger in collaboration with the Demos thinktank shows that since 2010, disabled people receiving state benefits have been hit with a staggering 1m sanctions.
The vast majority – more than 900,000 claimants – were on the standard unemployment benefit, JSA; disabled people who have been (often incorrectly) found “fit for work” and forced to meet jobcentre requirements such as attending meetings despite being, say, in pain with severe arthritis or fatigued from multiple sclerosis. The other sanctions – 110,000 of them since 2010 – were on the disability benefit employment and support allowance (work-related activity group), people who by the government’s own definition are so ill or disabled they aren’t able to work.
These findings not only provide evidence of the scale of the sanctions scandal – or indeed, the cruelty of it – but of outright discrimination: disabled people are up to 53% more likely to be docked money than claimants who are not disabled. This is nothing less than the systematic punishment of the disabled and sick – where the state sees a wheelchair user struggling to find work and responds by stopping the money they need in order to eat.
The sanction regime is arguably the most pernicious aspect of this agenda
This punishment stretches far wider than the sanction system. Since the Tory-Lib Dem coalition took power in 2010, there has been an unprecedented assault on the support disabled people rely on. Premised on the idea that paraplegics and cancer patients were draining the “bloated benefit bill”, disabled people became a key target for cuts – ranging from removing their benefits entirely to cutting the social care they need to get to the toilet and leave the house. It was only last week that the work and pensions select committee released a report describing the “untenable human costs” of the disability benefit system.
But the sanction regime – first introduced by New Labour and vastly accelerated by the Conservatives in 2012 – is arguably the most pernicious aspect of this agenda. As ministers began to talk of disabled people “languishing on benefits”, sanctioning claimants battling illness and disability became normalised. In one year (between 2013 and 2014), sanctions against chronically ill and disabled people rose by 580%. The British public, buoyed by the rhetoric of politicians and the rightwing media, have broadly accepted this: while polling from the Demos report showed little support for sanctions for minor infractions, the majority supported removing disabled people’s benefits in some circumstances.
The ease with which these sanctions have developed in recent years speaks to longstanding myths and dehumanisation of disabled people: that this “othered” group are a burden on society and by extension, the taxpayer. And that with enough “tough love” – say removing their income for a month – people too ill to get out of bed can somehow hold down a job.
Is this truly Britain – a land that spies on sick and poor people?
The deaths of people such as David Clapson offer devastating insights into where this culture is taking us. Four years on, there appears no end in sight. The high number of sanctions being handed out to those transferred to the new universal credit system suggests that far from learning from its failings, the government is set on repeating them.
At this point, no one can claim ignorance. A report by the National Audit Office in 2016 found that there was no evidence that sanctions work or that the system is saving the taxpayer money. And in some ways, this makes it worse. When a sanction system has no tangible use, it’s simply hurting disabled claimants for the sake of it. This is Britain’s “safety net”: one that persecutes sick and disabled people.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/9/2018 4:07:03 AM
|Here's what Maggie did for my area. It has still not recovered from the steelworks closing. It put generations of families out of work and also put small businesses who relied on the trade the steelworkers brought out of business as well. |
Two weeks ago Stephen Moss returned to his home town of Newport on the eve of mass redundancies at its steelworks. Now he travels to Motherwell - hit by the closure of Ravenscraig in 1992 - to find out how the town coped, and whether call centres and hi-tech factories have filled the gap
Thursday 15 February 2001
Ravenscraig was once the pride of Scotland's steel industry, a huge plant employing 12,000 workers. Now it is a hole in the ground. When I visited the site last week, the only sound came from the birds circling overhead. Nature, with a bit of help from a £40m clean-up, has reasserted itself, and this monument to Scotland's industrial past has been buried. Literally, as 40 years of industrial waste now lies beneath the site in sealed containers.
"What next?" asked the headline above my recent article about Llanwern steelworks in Newport, the chief victim in the latest round of cutbacks and closures in the industry. I had come to Motherwell to try to answer that question, because in 1992 this town 12 miles east of Glasgow suffered the loss of the plant on which its fortunes depended. When the end finally came, after a 12-year battle for survival, the now secretary of state for Northern Ireland, John Reid, called the closure "an industrial obscenity". Motherwell, already an economically blighted area, had been given a final kick in the teeth.
Almost a decade later, the town remains bleak and forbidding. I had a couple of hours to kill late one afternoon and couldn't think of anything to do: this is not the place to look for a Starbucks or a Coffee Republic. I had hoped to visit the heritage centre, a futuristic-looking building with a blue light on top that may be a reference to a miner's lamp, but it is closed on Mondays and Tuesdays. I took refuge instead in a pub near the station: busy for 4.30 in the afternoon with snooker on three screens, old blokes in anoraks drinking at the bar, twentysomethings chatting in the lounge, and a small child captivated by the bright lights of the fruit machine.
There are two views of what has happened to Motherwell since Ravenscraig closed. One group sees it as a release from an industrial past that had become inhibiting: closure really was closure, the end of one era, the beginning of another founded on electronics, engineering and distribution. The other group believes it was a disaster and argues that the effects are still being felt, economically and psychologically. As inter-union arguments rage over telecommunications company EXi's offer to retrain redundant steelworkers in South Wales and north-east England, these areas will be looking to Motherwell - and the surrounding region of Lanarkshire - to see what their future holds and whether a new economy can, as the industrial Darwinists maintain, emerge from the ruins of the old.
The most forthright spokesman for the optimists is Tommy Brennan, a pugnacious 68-year-old who gave me a guided tour of the faceless new factories and call centres that have sprung up around Motherwell in the past 10 years. Brennan's view counts, because he worked at Ravenscraig for 31 years, and was works convener - the senior trade union figure - when it closed. Along with Reid and a dozen others, he once walked from Motherwell to London to plead with Margaret Thatcher to secure the future of the plant; unfortunately they arrived on the same day that the Westland storm broke and Michael Heseltine resigned, and she missed the appointment.
Brennan spent half a lifetime fighting for Ravenscraig; now he is glad to see it gone. "Lanarkshire is a healthier place now in every way," he says. "You can see the green in the parks; when the plant was going, the fields were all orange-coloured with dust. Our biggest problem in the late 80s and early 90s was that we had all our eggs in one basket. We were totally dependent on heavy industry. Now it's different: we have biotechnology, electronics, engineering, plastics; you name it, it's all here in Lanarkshire. The unemployment rate was 11.5% in Motherwell in 1991; today it is less than 6%."
Brennan's view is echoed by Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire, which has swish offices in Strathclyde Business Park a few miles outside Motherwell. "There is a range of opportunities now," says chief executive Liz Connolly. "It's easy to say that steel went and now we've got call centres, but that's an unfair reflection of what has actually happened in the past decade. What has replaced steel is economic diversity."
For Brennan, the cathartic moment was seeing the huge cooling towers blown up in 1996. "For two and a half years, nothing was done to the plant because British Steel was trying to sell it en bloc to south-east Asia. It was like a scar giving you a constant reminder of what had been. When it finally came to the day of demolition, we were all gathered in the car park and a reporter said to me: 'Tom, this must be a sad day for you,' and I said: 'No, it's not; I'm quite happy to see them come down because it means we can start doing something with the site. They're no longer any good to us.' "
It has taken four years to complete the demolition and decontaminate the site. What happens next depends on the signing of a deal between Corus, which still owns the land, property developers Wilson Bowden (the "preferred" developers for the 1,100-acre site) and Scottish Enterprise. "What is going to be created is a new town centre which will integrate business, social, residential and leisure facilities," says Nora Farrell, a director of PR company Shandwick and a consultant on the Ravenscraig project. "It's not going to be a business park based on one key employer; it will attract a number of employers." The development will cost an estimated £800m and take 20 years to complete; sadly, many of those who spent their working lives at Ravenscraig will not live to see what emerges from the ashes of the plant.
The optimists are persuasive, and I want to believe them. Brennan's last words to me as I leave him are: "Make sure you speak well of Lanarkshire." He and others grew tired of portrayals of "darkest Lanarkshire" in the wake of closure, and vowed to change that image. To suggest that all is not sweetness and light is seen as dissing the area, undermining the progress that has been made; but there have been victims, people whose lives never recovered from the closure of the plant, and their voices should be heard too.
Jim Maxwell, a crane driver at Ravenscraig, was 46 when the plant closed. He worked for a car dealership for a while, but found it hard to adjust and eventually moved back to heavy industry, operating a crane for a demolition contractor. "I found it difficult to settle down after Ravenscraig and flitted from job to job," he says. "I'd been there 20 years and I missed the camaraderie. Ravenscraig has never been far from my mind since. I'm one of the lads who wishes it had never shut down. I've tried other things, but when you've worked in a place for 20 years it's difficult." Nor did Maxwell manage to find work that paid as well as the steel industry. "Even now I'm not earning as much as I did at Ravenscraig," he says. "I got a pay-off, but I've been unemployed for periods since and because you try to keep up your standard of living it eats into your sav ings."
British Steel was a good employer which paid well and had high safety standards. The workforce was stable, long-serving and highly unionised; employees felt an involvement in the workplace that many have found impossible to rediscover in the lower-paid, non-unionised firms from south-east Asia and the US that have filled the vacuum. It is not a question of economics; it is one of cultural identity.
"The community would perceive that they had lost some of their strength and focus," says one local economist, who prefers not to be named. "Twenty years ago, entire families, entire streets were bonded through working within this proud industry. There has been a breakdown of what the Conservatives would call traditional values - the importance of work and a work ethic, pride in the local community. It is what happens to a community when you strip away its reason for existing."
She is also suspicious of the figures quoted on unemployment. "Ex-steelworkers have a status about themselves," she explains. "They did 'real men's' jobs and they weren't going to shift cardboard boxes around in an electronics factory for half the salary they were getting previously. There was also an issue around the benefits trap: many people came out and went on to disability; they never appeared anywhere in the unemployment register. These guys had all worked in furnaces and heavy engineering: they were all minus fingers or had back injuries; they could all find some reason to claim disability, and who's to blame them?"
In 1997, a study by a team at Sheffield Hallam University published in the North Lanarkshire Economic Bulletin calculated that "real" unemployment in Motherwell, which included all those on disability and thus not claiming unemployment pay, stood at 26.8%, against a claimant count of 9.2%. There were a lot of people, especially men, with nothing to do; and a lot of families in which women doing lower-paid work at call centres and electronics companies had become the family breadwinner. That was the reality of the new economy for many of those who had lost their jobs in 1992.
"I had no option but to take early retirement," says Jim Reddiex, who was 57 when Ravenscraig closed. "I would like to have got another job, and felt bitter for quite a while after. I missed the plant, and I missed the people. In plants like that, there are a lot of Billy Connollys, a lot of comedians, and you miss them."
One former steelworker who did find alternative employment was Frank Roy, who in 1997 became Labour MP for Motherwell and Wishaw. "I had been a steelworker for 14 years and suddenly I had no livelihood," he says. "I felt very bitter - we had lost a good, modern, productive plant - and I wanted to get as far away from steelworking as possible." He did a marketing degree and worked for Helen Liddell MP before winning the Labour candidature for the rock-solid Motherwell seat in 1997. Has Motherwell rebuilt itself after the closure of the plant? "It has been a long struggle," he says. "Only now are we beginning to see a recovery. We are trying to find a new identity for the area. The people of Motherwell can see improvements coming, and they will see it tangibly when the Ravenscraig site has buildings on it."
I asked several of the evangelists for the new economy what had replaced the old sense of community founded on steel. Either they looked at me blankly or they used one word: "diversity". But that is an economic definition; they had no notion of how the community now saw itself, what it believed in, how it cohered. A taxi-driver suggested a different defining word: "drugs".
The Reverend John Potter, chaplain at Ravenscraig from 1972-92, summed up the sense of loss that many people still feel. "It was the end of a chapter for the town," he says. "There was a sense of collective suffering, as well as personal suffering. The people at Ravenscraig had worked so hard to build up a modern bulk steel-making facility in the hope that they would have something to pass on to the next generation, and that hope was denied."
Ravenscraig was what Potter calls a "comprehensive employer of people". It needed managers, engineers and computer experts, but also drew on a large pool of semi-skilled workers, who were relatively well paid. "You wonder what has happened to the people who didn't have the cerebral skills," says Potter. "I think they may have been gently discarded by society." They have been the real victims of Lanarkshire's new industrial revolution.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/9/2018 5:33:04 AM
Thye want to have evry company and every house under govt ownership. same policies as the soviet union had. govt controlling and owning everything. torries and liberal r more for ppl owning everything not the govt.
The SNP have scrapped the right to buy in Scotland. That doesn't mean that people can't still purchase a home if they can afford it.
Why shouldn't bus and train companies be re nationalised for example. Here, you have to book 12 weeks in advance to get the lowest fares. Someone posted on Twitter the other week that a last minute ticket from Sussex before 8am to liverpool, where he was going for a meeting cost 385 pounds, which was more than his annual summer holiday. Who benefits from prices like that? Not the commuter.
First bus have the monopoly in my area. I pay 60 pounds every week for a bus ticket. That is a network one. A local bus ticket costs 17.50 for a weeks travel. A weekly network one costs 23 pounds. Try paying that when you are on JSA or UC like many people have to do. Or on a low wage.
That is cheap compared to the pay on the bus fares. It costs me two pounds to go less than 5 bus stops.
The liberal democrats negotiated the 5p levy on plastic bags. The Tories agreed to this as long as there were more benefit cuts for the poorer
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/9/2018 11:23:52 AM
|Some Tory councils might be well run.|
Heres one that has just doubles disabled people's bus fares and is spending the saving on iphones for its councillors
How well or badly councils are run (mine is Labour propped up by the Tories) will very much depend on the individual council.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/17/2018 2:15:09 PM
|Thatcher introduced what has become the failed ideology of market forces, thus from state monopolies to corporate monopolies. Greed was sanctified, and the ideology of the individual was worshiped. |
At the time the population was generally well informed and educated, understood issues, and demonstrated or striked where they saw injustices or unfairness. So the education system along with the mass media TV and newspapers started the drive to celebrity mindlessness. Now nearly 40 years later one can see what the game was all about….as poverty for 25% of the population is now acceptable, and the middle class are slowly becoming an endangered species.
Gutting the middle classes of their wealth was a long term plan, where education was not just dumbed down but became like the NHS a business. Paying 50K for each child’s degree is just the start, as the parents become old and care is another way to diminish savings, so in a generation or two there is nothing left to inherit, and everything will cost a fortune…so making running like today seem at worst a trot.
The bigger picture is seeing what happened since the ideology of greed was sanctified, and today just look around at the food banks, the increasing poor, the run down social services, which together give a stark indication of where we are heading.
Corbyn is against the free market, ever expanding corporate monopolies, the Neo-Liberal consensus, where corporate plundering runs amok, backed by military might, in global game of complete economic and social control of all populations, recourses, and social control. We don’t have enough nurses because we decided training them was cost and one could get them cheaper from abroad, thus cutting wages, a policy followed in all sectors. It’s a race to the bottom, and with individuals competing just trying to survive they will never see or understand the game they are trapped in, as they do not have the time.
During this 40 year period China has taken over 700 million out of poverty, and intends to complete the job in a few years, while we embrace a neo-Feudal ideological poverty trap, while blaming almost everything but the real cause. The blind ate being led by those that pretend to have some sight, and the idea that Corbyn might get into power terrifies the ruling class, so nothing to worry about as he will have an accident or unaccountable illness, tragic and crocodile tears all round. Corbyn was not someone who wanted to be a leader, he was unusual as he was chosen and he does his best to represent ordinary people, with the Thatcherites or Neo Liberals in his own party, the mass media constantly ridiculing and insulting him, trying to eradicate everything he stands for. The anti-Semitic smear is just the recent one, as he was traitor for now willing to push the button for pre-emptive strike, and who knows what nonsense the powerful and influential will come up with nest.
His ideas or fairness to all people, is a potential cancer if he was given a world stage, as other people just might get infected. Ideas are dangerous, and fairness is really socialism which as TIPP demonstrated, is the nemesis to unfettered corporate greed.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/18/2018 1:32:54 AM
|Sort of agree with most you say or a least the sentiment behind your words, but, Corbyn is not electable. I have plenty of middle class friends who are not as interested in politics and the games the rich and powerful play, they simply see him as taking us back to the 70s with strikes and no electricity and all that went on back then. Corbyn is not good at getting his message across and even in his own party is not that liked. it doesn't help that he has kept a few idiots in his shadow cabinet, I'm thinking particularly of Diane Abbott. |
The general populace sucks up what is given to them whether it is celebrity TV or zero hours contracts. They would rebel given the opportunity, witness Brexit, but they aren't hurting enough yet to head out to the streets.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/18/2018 5:42:30 AM
|I think the elite don't want us informed whatsoever. Austerity....Brexit....etc are places their politicians put us, safe in the knowledge that most of us will believe we are affecting change . I think there are some extraordinarily successful and well informed People sitting in these places being patted on the head.|
Maybe Corbyn isn't one of their politicians. Maybe he's electable. Brexit wasn't their policy. Or Trump their politician but both happened. The fun starts after. As the power centres carry on regardless while ignoring us, the great unwashed.
Have we forgotten 2008? You know they did not fix it. It's said by some that it was a once in a century flood. And the banks are far better capitalised now. Apart from those European one's.. whatever.
One or two things though, interest rates are at the lowest interest rate (negative) in 5,000 years of history. Needless to say asset prices are at their zenith. If you know how a couple have sex..it is usually...an in-out affair. Well take it from me the interest rate is an up-down affair. Not negative. Ten years ago there were no economic text books with negative interest rates in them. No one thought such a sillinesss was possible with creditors paying insolvents to take their cash and pay some of it back and certainly no interest. Also don't forget the raw debt that is not the half of it.
Ten years ago there was a $170 trillion dollars of outstanding debt in the world that we couldn't pay back. Today Just ten years later there is officially $247 trillion in dollar terms.
You know I can't tell you when or how, just that this is not sustainable. It's all illusion. Until it isn't. Don't Forget that global central banks, beloved by all inmates are still completely ignorant of global shadow bank's balance sheets.
It's the bond market. Four times bigger then the global stockmarket , the global bond market has been booming for nearly forty years. The us benchmark was 15% in 1981 at it's nadir, and went to 1.32% in 2016 at its peak. A historic bull market.
Today as America continues to raise interest rates, under the normalisation rhetoric, from the decade long and counting "emergency measures", you can see the American 2 year treasury is now paying 2.74% . They have to raise interest rates otherwise people like me will say I told you so. And they go very broke.
But look at the mighty 2year German bund at 0.55%. Or the Japanese 2 year old at....don't laugh ...0.12 % Now if you're tasked with looking after someone's pension what currency would you choose to sell and which one would you buy ? You really wouldn't have a job if you passed up on the 2.74 % return. Of course these are all nominal returns with inflation these returns are all negative. But we don't want to go there.
So the dollar is increasing in value over Jcb's and German sovereign debt. And as I said before the dollar is the world's reserve currency (62%) . 80% of global trade is in the dollar. And most famously Oil in dollars is close to 100 % , the famous petrodollar deal Nixon and Kissinger done with Saudi Arabia in1974. Almost half of all the dollars in existence are outside the United States. America's greatest export, paper. Emerging market, outstanding debt is about $15 trillion.
The last thing emerging markets want is a strengthening dollar. In short a higher dollar means higher economic costs, higher interest rate expenses , higher commodity prices in local currencies. Smaller economies, inflation, unemployment and riots.
America feel that they are immune to these squalls. They truly feel their domestic economy is in great shape. Unlike the pathetic Germans, and their botched empire, they can raise interest rates . Furthermore the world can't get enough of their debt . At this juncture. ...
So those dots, America has debts that it cannot pay.In fact it needs new debt just to keep the lights on.The federal reserve is tasked with keeping the broken system afloat. The world is sick of what the fiat dollar system does to their economies and are looking for a way out. Investors believe the dollar is a safe haven. They are ignorant of monetary history or simple. The debt will be monetized no one will buy this paper even at 20 % . America's dollar will no longer be the world's reserve currency. It won't be pretty for any one.
I have no idea of the geopolitical balance on the other side. It could be China...It could be America...Or something in between.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/18/2018 9:55:22 AM
|Allegedly, some woman on Fvckbook is trying to sell four 'Peter Rabbit' 50p coins for £1.,|
because 'two are the same' - sounds like a great example of Labour economics to me.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/19/2018 3:10:39 AM
|I don't get it Bunny, you're an intelligent chap yet you till believe the Tory bullshit. How could Labour economics be any worse than what the Tories have done over the past 10 years? Sure, they've given tax cuts to the already rich which you might support but they've done nowt about tackling tax avoidance at every level, increased the national debt by about 1000 billion, spent more on the Universal Credit system than it could ever possibly save, got NHS waiting lists longer than ever, sold off even more council housing and spent the proceeds on a few follies but certainly not housing. When the only government in the last 100 years to actually create a budget surplus was under Brown and Blair, how can you keep arguing that the economy is safe in Tory hands?|
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/19/2018 4:21:53 AM
|I do. And it is still a puzzle but this seems to be the accepted reason:|
By Thomas Pascoe
The Telegraph, London
Thursday, July 5, 2012
A great deal of Gordon Brown's economic strategy would strike a sane man as troubling. Not a great deal was mysterious. The orgy of consumption spending, frequent extensions of the cycle over which he would "borrow to invest," proclamations of the "end of boom and bust": These are part of the armoury of modern politicians of all political hues.
One decision stands out as downright bizarre, however: the sale of the majority of Britain's gold reserves for prices between $256 and $296 an ounce, only to watch it soar so far as $1,615 per ounce today.
When Brown decided to dispose of almost 400 tonnes of gold between 1999 and 2002, he did two distinctly odd things.
First, he broke with convention and announced the sale well in advance, giving the market notice that it was shortly to be flooded and forcing down the spot price. This was apparently done in the interests of "open government" but had the effect of sending the spot price of gold to a 20-year low, as implied by basic supply and demand theory.
Second, the Treasury elected to sell its gold via auction. Again, this broke with the standard model. The price of gold was usually determined at a morning and afternoon "fix" between representatives of big banks whose network of smaller bank clients and private orders allowed them to determine the exact price at which demand met with supply.
The auction system again frequently achieved a lower price than the equivalent fix price. The first auction saw an auction price of $10 less per ounce than was achieved at the morning fix. It also acted to depress the price of the afternoon fix which fell by nearly $4.
It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public's gold. It was.
One of the most popular trading plays of the late 1990s was the carry trade, particularly the gold carry trade.
In this a bank would borrow gold from another financial institution for a set period, and pay a token sum relative to the overall value of that gold for the privilege.
Once control of the gold had been passed over, the bank would then immediately sell it for its full market value. The proceeds would be invested in an alternative product which was predicted to generate a better return over the period than gold which was enduring a spell of relative price stability, even decline.
At the end of the allotted period, the bank would sell its investment and use the proceeds to buy back the amount of gold it had originally borrowed. This gold would be returned to the lender. The borrowing bank would trouser the difference between the two prices.
This plan worked brilliantly when gold fell and the other asset -- for the bank at the heart of this case, yen-backed securities -- rose. When the prices moved the other way, the banks were in trouble.
This is what had happened on an enormous scale by early 1999. One globally significant US bank in particular is understood to have been heavily short on two tonnes of gold, enough to call into question its solvency if redemption occurred at the prevailing price.
Goldman Sachs, which is not understood to have been significantly short on gold itself, is rumoured to have approached the Treasury to explain the situation through its then head of commodities Gavyn Davies, later chairman of the BBC and married to Sue Nye, who ran Brown's private office.
Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain's gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations.
I spoke with Peter Hambro, chairman of Petroplavosk and a leading figure in the London gold market, late last year and asked him about the rumours above.
"I think that Mr Brown found himself in a terrible position," Hambro said.
"He was facing a problem that was a world-scale problem where a number of financial institutions had become voluntarily short of gold to the extent that it was threatening the stability of the financial system and it was obvious that something had to be done."
While the market manipulation that occurred when the gold reserves were sold was not illegal as the abuse at Barclays may have been, the moral atmosphere in which it took place was identical.
The crash which began in 2007 and endures still was the result of an abdication of responsibility across the financial sector. This abdication ranged from the consumer whose thirst for goods pushed him beyond into grave debt to a government whose lust for popularity encouraged it to do the same.
Responsibility is evaded by all bar those on whose shoulders it ought to rest. The gold panic of 1999 was expensively paid for by the British public. The one thing politicians ought to have bought with that money was a lesson in the structural restraints that needed to be placed on banks now that the principle that they were ultimately public liabilities had been established.
It was a lesson that could have acted to restrain all players in the credit market boom of the 2000s. It was a lesson nobody learnt.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/19/2018 7:26:52 AM
|Illegal sherlegal. He took property that wasn't his and bailed out a private casino. Lovely. |
Who owns the u.s national debt ...The last twelve months saw it rise by $1.47 trillion ....yeah I know ...Or maybe you're a socialist and didn't see that deficit. Well in that case fluffy bunnys.
Russia has gone from $153 billion to 14.9 billion. Something they said Vlad. He bought gold. Wee Ireland has $300 billion dollars of American Sovereign debt. As well as their gulag status. Sitting ducks.
Well foreign holders of American Sovereign debt fell to $6.2 trillion dollars. Famously the federal reserve has $2.3 trillion dollars and are sellers (QT). U.S. government entities $5.7 trillion. And the buyers???? American institutions (pensions etc..) apparently they can't get enough every time the long term yields go up they rush into buy hence lowering the yield again. And that totals over $7 trillion now. making the National debt $21 trillion plus, it's a moving figure. Trillion plus deficits in the "strongest economy ever". It will be interesting to see the national debt recession brings when it comes, not.
Obviously the narrative that America is selling off the Fed's balance sheet and raising interest rates is still in place. Its bullmuck and I have said it for many years now. It just had to play out. But who will finance their debt but the fed when the fan hits the shit. Who would hold that debt now ? Only speculators who see a dollar bubble before implosion, inmates and people who believe they will see it coming and have grateful buyers for this trash when it finally all comes on top.
I'm not saying that when things implode people will not rush into American paper. Just saying that all roads eventually lead back to gold. The global insolvency is not in doubt. Only the road it takes to its default and its timing.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/19/2018 7:57:01 AM
|Billy quit being intelligent and get to the thread above/now below this one.|
Star gazer needs your wisdom
Add....my my didn’t see that coming :)
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 9/20/2018 4:13:30 AM
|Stop embarrassing me young lady :) I'm just recounting |
Statistics from the u.s. treasury. Great goal x
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 11/12/2018 4:08:13 AM
|I despair. Does Jeremy Corbyn no understand anything? He had previously been unfairly criticised for not singing the national anthem. 's At least year's Remembrance parade he turned up in a proper black coat but this year he chose to wear a grey anorak. What sort of message does he think he is sending? It isn't just that he isn't prepared to conform, it is that he is clearly out of touch with what most of the public expect of him. Pretty poor choice and if he can't cope with something so simple, how can we expect him to be a competent PM?|
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 11/12/2018 8:57:41 AM
|Grey anorak pretty much sums him up lol|
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 11/12/2018 11:20:43 AM
|Maybe he's wearing it so that his many enemies can attack him for that, rather than his policies, and then in turn his many fans can come to his aid because they might be thinking who cares about the grey coat, the country is falling apart as kids stab each other because of Donald Trump and ten years of Tory austerity. |
Of course there has been no Tory austerity. Just an escalating national debt. A policy even so call intelligent people call profligate and reckless , I mean austere and prudent.
The Dow is down over 400 points at the moment. But U.S. treasuries are not. The benchmark u.s. ten year is at 3.19. The German ten year bund is at 0.40%. West Texas intermediate which was $76 dollars early October is now at $60 dollars. Safe to say the global economy continues to slow.
The reason, well there's is a lot of debt. Basically we give our global government money. We shall call this transfer of wealth tax. I mean, direct or indirect, they are myraid. The number of ways they do this is far too large a subject for me.
The most egregious tax they levy on us all is a tax on our welfare called inflation. It's enacted without legislation of course, and no one heeds or cares. It's responsible for mass inequality , war and criminal and chronic mass hardship. It's a money trick. Along with over a quadrillion dollars worth of other money substitutes called derivatives.
Global government also has our collective credit card.Safe to say it's all tapped out. We really are a nuisance to them. Elections really are now future auctions of stolen property. Hope you're proud of yourselves. It's all about confidence once that goes then we will see the emperor naked.
Triffin's dilemma....The u.s.a.'s dollar is the world's reserve currency. And as such it MUST run persistent trade deficits with the rest of the world. That's why manufacturing disappeared. Can we all stop blaming Maggie now. Yes Donald Trump is aware of this, if not his base.
The world needs a weak dollar. It's not getting it. The dollar index is 97.46 at the moment and it could go higher. America is raising interest rates. And people are quite naturally buying the dollar. This is draining the global economy's oxygen by the day.
Italian bank, Banca Carige, received a €320 million euro bailout today. I guess the Germans must maintain the plumbing. Whether Italy will get any other money to say spend on its people is something to watch and note. China now has 65 million empty apartments and houses. 75% of Chinese retirement money is in real estate, in the u.s.a it's 28%. It gets messier by the day.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 11/12/2018 11:36:20 AM
|I’m getting spooked.....will I still be able to afford a root touch up in 5 years Billy?|
The odd holiday? Will I still be able to eat?
Has the world always been this close to financial ruin?
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 11/13/2018 2:02:37 AM
|Money has always been a figment of somebody's imagination. If you look back to the Roman era, they financed the colosseum and all those nasty games from expansion and taxing their new territories. That worked well for around 600 years then some **stards came along and spoiled the party. They too wanted their share, they wanted to rule Europe as the Romans did and eventually they did beat the Romans and took over their Empire. That was back in 410.|
And who were these people who beat the Italians - why none other than our good friends the Germans (or Huns and Visigoth as they were called then). How so. Well the Romans, debatably, brought civilization to us out in the west which included how to organise people and armies and industrialise making weapons etc. Or as wikipedia puts it "The Germanic tribes had undergone massive technological, social, and economic changes after four centuries of contact with the Roman Empire. From the first to fourth centuries, Germanic populations, economic production, and tribal confederations grew, and their ability to conduct warfare increased to the point of challenging Rome"
Back to money when back then it was based on silver coins. As the battle against the Germans was being lost the Romans made their coins smaller and then with less and less silver content. Effectively creating devaluation and inflation when people began to notice.
You can buy a silvered bronze coin on Ebay for 99p.
Not much has changed really.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 11/13/2018 11:54:47 AM
|I just had a lovely cod and chips washed down with an ice cool diet coke. Sometimes when you feel broken ( I'm having a cup of tea now) and very finished and you have yourself a very lovely and very satisfactory meal and beverage. You can feel whole again. Ready for the next round, gloves high and gumshield in and quite prepared to touch gloves with the evil financial glitterati of pugilism. What does it all mean. |
I like chaps post above and another one where he said interest rates can't go up or .......As for the Roman Empire there is a book on it (not gibbons) that I do intend to read perhaps before or soon after Christmas. Anyway for now I'd just like to mention the empire that collapsed in 410 . (source : chap) I think that was the western one. But there was an Eastern one and throughout their time they called themselves the Roman Empire too. We call them the eastern Roman empire or Byzantium. They Lasted another 1000 years, undone by unsound money practices like their western brethren and sistren.
Is it 410 today or 1410? Or whatever....I don't know. I'm glad Danny went. Ashley's so lovely . Today we have the holy Roman American empire. Were we the Greeks? I don't know. I've a book to read. But we are all Americans now even the easterners (china).
I'd say it really happened twenty years ago. Financial sanity departed the building and politician and voter have been in denial, Egypt ever since. . You can't print purchasing power. Even someone as unschooled as me in the dark arts of knowledge knows this, and I refuse to let go of this axiom. I will continue to purchase real money this side of the collapse in living standards.
Gordon Brown, Scottish behemoth and gold seller to the jp spivsachs element, has now said that we need a people's vote, because we only know what the question is now (2018) and it is; do you awful people want to leave the Angela visigoth empire or do you want to live?
This is great big G and while I am of no great standing I would like to say also before any vote from this great day that I am absolutely clueless and henceforth demand a people's vote within a year of any electoral undertaking.
On topic Jeremy Corbyn. commeth the moment commeth the Jeremy.
|Corbyn - time to go?|
Posted: 12/11/2018 7:06:46 PM
|Corbyn is ok but could do a lot better.|
The Conservatives think it is ok to spend billions on Cross rail and HS2 while the jobless and homeless (through no fault of their own) starve.
Surely people are more important than railways ?
22 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)