Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are probably going to have to get used to living with fascism." Strong start ! Thank you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are probably going to have to get used to living with fascism." Yes,it's called having a so called socialist government.One definition of fascism is"government by the State,for the State".The present mob are clearly not working for the British people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our best days may be behind us " Second this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Nadolig Llawen Pawb 🎅 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It depends who I'm talking to. " You're among friends here, let rip! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"that I don't have any controversial political opinions
Nadolig Llawen Pawb 🎅"Feliz Navidad to You ! 🎄 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"that I don't have any controversial political opinions
Nadolig Llawen Pawb 🎅
Feliz Navidad to You ! 🎄"y un feliz y prospero año nuevo para ti hermano 🕊️  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Those holding political power in 10 years time will be more disconnected from history and traditional influence than any other generation preceding (left, right or other). Those in their 50’s and upwards today will have little if any association with the views and opinions being expressed." spot on there couldn’t agree more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do we spend too much time and effort on those from the shallow end of the gene pool?" Believe this is now all part of levelling up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Those to the right of the political spectrum are much easier going and generally nicer people than those to the left. I’ll get my coat now! " No stay put, hang your coat next to mine. It seems that any view that isn't hard left is controversial these days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People that don't have college education or work full time shouldn't be able to vote. I'm serious about that too." So full time housewives, carers, disabled, retired can’t vote? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People that don't have college education or work full time shouldn't be able to vote. I'm serious about that too. So full time housewives, carers, disabled, retired can’t vote?" It said controversial, and I have my reasons for why I think this, they're way too extensive to explain fully. But yes, if I had it my way not many of them would get a vote.🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People that don't have college education or work full time shouldn't be able to vote. I'm serious about that too." I would change that to People who have a college education should not be able to vote. Most of the college educated people I’ve had dealings with have poor ability to think for themselves and adapt to the problems they face at work. They seem to get lost if it’s not in the manual or written on the list that they’ve learnt. In terms of voting I imagine they are gullible and easily led.
The thread did say controversial didn’t it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People that don't have college education or work full time shouldn't be able to vote. I'm serious about that too. So full time housewives, carers, disabled, retired can’t vote? It said controversial, and I have my reasons for why I think this, they're way too extensive to explain fully. But yes, if I had it my way not many of them would get a vote.🤷♂️" They had a similar system in Northern Ireland. That went well. Don’t try taking on mumsnet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Less people should go to prison but those who do should get much longer sentences, especially young men who commit a huge proportion of serious offences." I think quite a lot of people would go with that, more sentences that require contribution to the community, offenders could still maintain a job and carry on paying into society with the added bonus of having all their spare time taken away doing community service. It would be far cheaper and we wouldn’t be sending minor criminals to a big criminal education centre where they just end up falling deeper into criminality. Obviously the big crimes and repeat offenders go inside. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Less people should go to prison but those who do should get much longer sentences, especially young men who commit a huge proportion of serious offences. I think quite a lot of people would go with that, more sentences that require contribution to the community, offenders could still maintain a job and carry on paying into society with the added bonus of having all their spare time taken away doing community service. It would be far cheaper and we wouldn’t be sending minor criminals to a big criminal education centre where they just end up falling deeper into criminality. Obviously the big crimes and repeat offenders go inside. " The % of crime committed by (some) young men is mind blowing and the main reason they stop is getting older. If some of the worst 18/19/20 year olds got fixed 10 year sentences, crime would fall massively. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No politician could solve UK's problems. They could make the problems worse though. People think changing governments would help. It won't. People need to change." Indeed, and foremost amongst the changes a break with 'benefits' dependency and a move towards more self-responsibility. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No politician could solve UK's problems. They could make the problems worse though. People think changing governments would help. It won't. People need to change. Indeed, and foremost amongst the changes a break with 'benefits' dependency and a move towards more self-responsibility." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No politician could solve UK's problems. They could make the problems worse though. People think changing governments would help. It won't. People need to change. Indeed, and foremost amongst the changes a break with 'benefits' dependency and a move towards more self-responsibility." How would the large corporations survive without the taxpayer topping up the incomes of the great unwashed. They need them to be able to afford their overpriced goods and services to fuel their relentless drive for ever increasing profits. Capitalism needs socialism to survive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No politician could solve UK's problems. They could make the problems worse though. People think changing governments would help. It won't. People need to change. Indeed, and foremost amongst the changes a break with 'benefits' dependency and a move towards more self-responsibility. How would the large corporations survive without the taxpayer topping up the incomes of the great unwashed. They need them to be able to afford their overpriced goods and services to fuel their relentless drive for ever increasing profits. Capitalism needs socialism to survive." Or possibly reduce social payments to reduce taxes, leaving more wealth to be spent by those not at the bottom of the scale. It's not an aspiration but your premise could be seen from another perspective. Neither your or this approach have any scientific basis, merely ideological thoughts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No politician could solve UK's problems. They could make the problems worse though. People think changing governments would help. It won't. People need to change. Indeed, and foremost amongst the changes a break with 'benefits' dependency and a move towards more self-responsibility. How would the large corporations survive without the taxpayer topping up the incomes of the great unwashed. They need them to be able to afford their overpriced goods and services to fuel their relentless drive for ever increasing profits. Capitalism needs socialism to survive." From a UK perspective, companies could do worse than invest in automation and rely less on low-cost labour. That does however bring the conundrum of what to do with the uneducated, lazy and feckless in our society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No politician could solve UK's problems. They could make the problems worse though. People think changing governments would help. It won't. People need to change. Indeed, and foremost amongst the changes a break with 'benefits' dependency and a move towards more self-responsibility. How would the large corporations survive without the taxpayer topping up the incomes of the great unwashed. They need them to be able to afford their overpriced goods and services to fuel their relentless drive for ever increasing profits. Capitalism needs socialism to survive." What's happening in Argentina right now is evidence against everything you said. Both in UK and many other European countries, a social welfare system that should have just been a temporary safety net to fall back on, until people get on their feet, has become this massive state monopoly that people can't survive without. The government killed off entrepreneurship, innovation and self-reliance of people by making promises they can't keep. If people don't realise this and keep voting for politicians who make fake promises that the welfare system can be sustained, UK will reach a point that Argentina reached a few years back - Default on loans. After that, the social welfare system cannot run even if the government wanted to. People need to stop relying on government to solve their problems. But yeah, according to socialists, the solution for problems created by socialism is always even more socialism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My comments. How the complete lack of critical thinking is leading to people shouting and voting against their own interests. The culture wars driven by a bias media is conning people into believing who they should blame for this country’s woes. For decades hundreds of billions has been given away to the rich and corporations through legal tax loopholes. Offshore trusts, land ownership, no tax for offshore online sales. tax residency manipulation of Starbucks, Amazon etc. Hundreds of billions have been wasted by government on stupid and overpriced cost plus projects with no accountability for those who failed to the tune of billions. In addition look at the costs of the Iraq War, Covid, mismanaged NHS spending, Rwanda, Liz fucking Truss’ mortgage bonfires, etc. etc. Hundreds of billions have been given away to foreign interests through privatisation of our infrastructure. This has all resulted in workers in this country being no better off than 30 years ago. Many families now need two working parents through lack of wage growth coupled with ever rising house prices. Look at the state of our roads or schools or emergency services. Whose fault is this ? Greedy doctors? Belligerent nurses? Lazy train drivers? Station cleaners ? Immigrants ? The EU? No of course it’s not! When will people wake up to the fact they are being led by the nose to believe the reason they are hard up is always the fault those who can’t fight back or those who don’t have a media empire to defend themselves. It’s never the fault of those in charge is it. Look harder at where this country’s money has gone over the last 40 years. Our economy has doubled in size in 40 years. Where’s the money gone? A clue., it’s not in the pockets of the poor or middle class and it’s definitely not gone on our infrastructure. Look further up the food chain to find your answer. " It's absolutely spot on this. Divide and conquer. Whomever is in the hot seat, red or blue, are dictated to by how much they had to grovel to the people that put them there, the media... Who owns the media? The money men 
Until the media are owned by the people, this will continue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My comments. How the complete lack of critical thinking is leading to people shouting and voting against their own interests. The culture wars driven by a bias media is conning people into believing who they should blame for this country’s woes. For decades hundreds of billions has been given away to the rich and corporations through legal tax loopholes. Offshore trusts, land ownership, no tax for offshore online sales. tax residency manipulation of Starbucks, Amazon etc. Hundreds of billions have been wasted by government on stupid and overpriced cost plus projects with no accountability for those who failed to the tune of billions. In addition look at the costs of the Iraq War, Covid, mismanaged NHS spending, Rwanda, Liz fucking Truss’ mortgage bonfires, etc. etc. Hundreds of billions have been given away to foreign interests through privatisation of our infrastructure. This has all resulted in workers in this country being no better off than 30 years ago. Many families now need two working parents through lack of wage growth coupled with ever rising house prices. Look at the state of our roads or schools or emergency services. Whose fault is this ? Greedy doctors? Belligerent nurses? Lazy train drivers? Station cleaners ? Immigrants ? The EU? No of course it’s not! When will people wake up to the fact they are being led by the nose to believe the reason they are hard up is always the fault those who can’t fight back or those who don’t have a media empire to defend themselves. It’s never the fault of those in charge is it. Look harder at where this country’s money has gone over the last 40 years. Our economy has doubled in size in 40 years. Where’s the money gone? A clue., it’s not in the pockets of the poor or middle class and it’s definitely not gone on our infrastructure. Look further up the food chain to find your answer. It's absolutely spot on this. Divide and conquer. Whomever is in the hot seat, red or blue, are dictated to by how much they had to grovel to the people that put them there, the media... Who owns the media? The money men
Until the media are owned by the people, this will continue. "Well in a sense all public companies are 'owned by the people' - through share holdings. Even private companies often have a broad base of equity holders. But if by 'owned by the people' you mean communism - where has that ever worked well? Surely that tells us it's a doomed doctrine that doesn't work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No politician could solve UK's problems. They could make the problems worse though. People think changing governments would help. It won't. People need to change. Indeed, and foremost amongst the changes a break with 'benefits' dependency and a move towards more self-responsibility. How would the large corporations survive without the taxpayer topping up the incomes of the great unwashed. They need them to be able to afford their overpriced goods and services to fuel their relentless drive for ever increasing profits. Capitalism needs socialism to survive. From a UK perspective, companies could do worse than invest in automation and rely less on low-cost labour. That does however bring the conundrum of what to do with the uneducated, lazy and feckless in our society." Stop supporting and enabling. Bit of Darwin logic will sort it out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More than half of Argentina's 46 million people are now living in poverty, new figures indicate, in a blow to right-wing President Javier Milei's efforts to turn around the country's beleaguered economy. The poverty figure for the first six months of this year was 52.9%, up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023, said the country's Indec statistics agency. Argentina's annual inflation rate in August remained one of the highest in the world at more than 230%. When Milei assumed the presidency, he promised shock therapy, devaluing the peso by 50%. So with half our population in poverty who is going to fund the corporations need for ever increasing profits. Why won’t anyone think about the poor CEOs especially at this time of year." Inflation rate has reduced. It's easy to pretend like poverty is reduced by printing out money on daily basis and giving it out, the way the socialists were doing all the time. Now Milei got government spending under control. And his support from people is still high. If his policies were so bad that put people into poverty, why are people still supporting him? People who have been through the socialist regime now how terrible the ideology is in the long term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More than half of Argentina's 46 million people are now living in poverty, new figures indicate, in a blow to right-wing President Javier Milei's efforts to turn around the country's beleaguered economy. The poverty figure for the first six months of this year was 52.9%, up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023, said the country's Indec statistics agency. Argentina's annual inflation rate in August remained one of the highest in the world at more than 230%. When Milei assumed the presidency, he promised shock therapy, devaluing the peso by 50%. So with half our population in poverty who is going to fund the corporations need for ever increasing profits. Why won’t anyone think about the poor CEOs especially at this time of year. Inflation rate has reduced. It's easy to pretend like poverty is reduced by printing out money on daily basis and giving it out, the way the socialists were doing all the time. Now Milei got government spending under control. And his support from people is still high. If his policies were so bad that put people into poverty, why are people still supporting him? People who have been through the socialist regime now how terrible the ideology is in the long term. " Some real stats to show how much improvements Milei brought about in one year - Monthly inflation rates at 4-year low - First time budget surpluses - First time external investments in energy and raw material sector - Rental homes supply increasing by 170% thereby bringing down rents by 40% All this just in one year. You think poverty is a problem? Yes it is. But the new investments mean better jobs and reduction in poverty over a period of time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump is the second coming. Of course I edge that, with as much sarcasm, as is inhumanely possible. Jan 6th...sorry I meant Jan 21st. Will be a riot. (Before the fucker has got in. He's talking about taking the Panama Canal back and Greenland. Melania should of neutered him, at least.) "Perfect example of media manipulating peoples thoughts process. Nothing but hate here on this comment and no logic or facts behind the strong opinion. So Greenland, here is a lopsided article that is pretty short and concise. Let's break it down inflammatory headline, tha reader here in FAB has taken to heart and is perpetuating the story line. Article says President Elect Trump states that ownership of Greenland would be of strategic benefit to the US. Proposed Ambassador to Greenland then is recorded on article as saying he is looking forward to working with the Sovereign Government of Greenland. Yep do not see anything in here saying President Elect Trump is off to the shops to buy Greenland! People get over the negativity, think for yourselves, stop letting media sway your opinions and look at where our countries are at following leadership decisions. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c791xy4pllqo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More than half of Argentina's 46 million people are now living in poverty, new figures indicate, in a blow to right-wing President Javier Milei's efforts to turn around the country's beleaguered economy. The poverty figure for the first six months of this year was 52.9%, up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023, said the country's Indec statistics agency. Argentina's annual inflation rate in August remained one of the highest in the world at more than 230%. When Milei assumed the presidency, he promised shock therapy, devaluing the peso by 50%. So with half our population in poverty who is going to fund the corporations need for ever increasing profits. Why won’t anyone think about the poor CEOs especially at this time of year. Inflation rate has reduced. It's easy to pretend like poverty is reduced by printing out money on daily basis and giving it out, the way the socialists were doing all the time. Now Milei got government spending under control. And his support from people is still high. If his policies were so bad that put people into poverty, why are people still supporting him? People who have been through the socialist regime now how terrible the ideology is in the long term. Some real stats to show how much improvements Milei brought about in one year - Monthly inflation rates at 4-year low - First time budget surpluses - First time external investments in energy and raw material sector - Rental homes supply increasing by 170% thereby bringing down rents by 40% All this just in one year. You think poverty is a problem? Yes it is. But the new investments mean better jobs and reduction in poverty over a period of time. " Both can be real stats. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More than half of Argentina's 46 million people are now living in poverty, new figures indicate, in a blow to right-wing President Javier Milei's efforts to turn around the country's beleaguered economy. The poverty figure for the first six months of this year was 52.9%, up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023, said the country's Indec statistics agency. Argentina's annual inflation rate in August remained one of the highest in the world at more than 230%. When Milei assumed the presidency, he promised shock therapy, devaluing the peso by 50%. So with half our population in poverty who is going to fund the corporations need for ever increasing profits. Why won’t anyone think about the poor CEOs especially at this time of year. Inflation rate has reduced. It's easy to pretend like poverty is reduced by printing out money on daily basis and giving it out, the way the socialists were doing all the time. Now Milei got government spending under control. And his support from people is still high. If his policies were so bad that put people into poverty, why are people still supporting him? People who have been through the socialist regime now how terrible the ideology is in the long term. Some real stats to show how much improvements Milei brought about in one year - Monthly inflation rates at 4-year low - First time budget surpluses - First time external investments in energy and raw material sector - Rental homes supply increasing by 170% thereby bringing down rents by 40% All this just in one year. You think poverty is a problem? Yes it is. But the new investments mean better jobs and reduction in poverty over a period of time. Both can be real stats." Poverty going up temporarily because of his policies is expected. People aren't given free stuff anymore. They were never free to begin with. Now that investments are increasing, these people will find jobs for themselves and stop relying on the government. All the other statistics like inflation and foreign investments prove that his methods are working. It's only a matter of time before poverty also went down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The poverty figure for the first six months of this year was 52.9%, up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023, said the country's Indec statistics agency." "- Monthly inflation rates at 4-year low - First time budget surpluses - First time external investments in energy and raw material sector - Rental homes supply increasing by 170% thereby bringing down rents by 40%" "Both can be real stats." Both are real stats. But it's interesting that you believe that a 25% increase in poverty is more important than a 50% reduction in inflation and a 40% drop in the cost of living. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More than half of Argentina's 46 million people are now living in poverty, new figures indicate, in a blow to right-wing President Javier Milei's efforts to turn around the country's beleaguered economy. The poverty figure for the first six months of this year was 52.9%, up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023, said the country's Indec statistics agency. Argentina's annual inflation rate in August remained one of the highest in the world at more than 230%. When Milei assumed the presidency, he promised shock therapy, devaluing the peso by 50%. So with half our population in poverty who is going to fund the corporations need for ever increasing profits. Why won’t anyone think about the poor CEOs especially at this time of year. Inflation rate has reduced. It's easy to pretend like poverty is reduced by printing out money on daily basis and giving it out, the way the socialists were doing all the time. Now Milei got government spending under control. And his support from people is still high. If his policies were so bad that put people into poverty, why are people still supporting him? People who have been through the socialist regime now how terrible the ideology is in the long term. Some real stats to show how much improvements Milei brought about in one year - Monthly inflation rates at 4-year low - First time budget surpluses - First time external investments in energy and raw material sector - Rental homes supply increasing by 170% thereby bringing down rents by 40% All this just in one year. You think poverty is a problem? Yes it is. But the new investments mean better jobs and reduction in poverty over a period of time. Both can be real stats. Poverty going up temporarily because of his policies is expected. People aren't given free stuff anymore. They were never free to begin with. Now that investments are increasing, these people will find jobs for themselves and stop relying on the government. All the other statistics like inflation and foreign investments prove that his methods are working. It's only a matter of time before poverty also went down. " Spot on, no magic answer with the wave of a wand. Little pain first for economy to position for growth. Then the help for hire signs, and a relief in poverty! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... How would the large corporations survive without the taxpayer topping up the incomes of the great unwashed. They need them to be able to afford their overpriced goods and services to fuel their relentless drive for ever increasing profits. Capitalism needs socialism to survive. From a UK perspective, companies could do worse than invest in automation and rely less on low-cost labour. That does however bring the conundrum of what to do with the uneducated, lazy and feckless in our society." The last mentioned have got you tube and netflix (not forgetting strictly go prancing) to keep their minds engaged. They also have "Ink'em support" to keep the money rolling in! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour will destroy England and everything English." The Tories beat them to it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour will destroy England and everything English. The Tories beat them to it" .. and the Tory biased establishment who will alway really be running business and opinion in this country will remain hell bent on destroying Labour. Fortuitously aided and abetted by Labour having an outdated and unappealing name which should have been dropped years ago if they were ever going to stay in power for any reason other than brief dissatisfaction with the tories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the biggest political issue that we are all ignoring is defence. We are repeating the mistakes of the 1930s : complacent and woefully under-armed to defend ourselves. Our military is pitifully weak in the face of dangerous despots striding the world. Ukraine's brave defiance has bought us time, and the nation needs now to re-arm substantially over the next decade. However I doubt very much the Socialists will agree." Was it socialists that reduced the armed forces from just under 180,000 in 2012 to the current level of just over 138,000. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Capitalism is a positive as long as it’s regulated . Total extreme capitalism is bad for everyone bar the richest and leads to your vote being worthless. The US is a prime example of this where both parties are funded by billionaires. Statistics show the legislation wanted/ needed by the mass of the population in the US is 50% less likely to be passed than the legislation argued for by billionaires to benefit themselves. So unless you are part of the oligarchy you have no real say. And not all of those billionaires are smart as they have inherited their wealth not earned it so the argument they are the cleverest and should be listened to is a crock of rubbish. Also for reference Sweden is heavily regulated and yet has more billionaires per head than the US. Deregulation is a myth. Regulation protects the population. It does not stifle growth. Incompetent government does that. No one advocates policies to make themselves poorer certainly not billionaires. So your needs are less and less important. Just keep paying your full tax from you crap wage and you’ll be fine., Feel free to read how the US political system affects their poverty rates compared to other regulated capitalist countries in the chart below. Biggest economy in the world with the highest number of billionaires. Italy I feel is a basket case, with I believe a thriving second black economy. Poverty is relative but even allowing for this the poor in America who work, are getting poorer. As I said people voting against their own interests. https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/#:~:text=What%20we%20find%20is%20that,country%20average%20of%2010.7%20percent. " The way they measure poverty is ridiculous - "In this table, poverty is being measured as the percent of the population falling below one half of a particular country’s median household income" It doesn't take differences in cost of living into account, which is a major factor. Also, "people voting against their own interests" is a patronising remark, that reeks of arrogance. It's based on the wrong assumption that all humans prioritise materialistic interests over everything else and that makes you pretend like you know what other people's interests are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the biggest political issue that we are all ignoring is defence. We are repeating the mistakes of the 1930s : complacent and woefully under-armed to defend ourselves. Our military is pitifully weak in the face of dangerous despots striding the world. Ukraine's brave defiance has bought us time, and the nation needs now to re-arm substantially over the next decade. However I doubt very much the Socialists will agree. Was it socialists that reduced the armed forces from just under 180,000 in 2012 to the current level of just over 138,000." No, it was under Tory misrule, but now we have the Socialists in charge, and barely mentioning defence in their financial plans. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would like to legalise all ‘recreational’ drugs. Take them out of the hands of the criminal drug dealers, have them manufactured in pharmaceutical factories, and sold as a ‘P medicine’ in chemists and pharmacies. Most of these drugs could be made cheaply, so there would be plenty of opportunities to raise money via duty and vat. They could also be prescribed by doctors, so that addicts could get it on the nhs. The drugs would be as safe as they could possibly be, and those using them would be sure to get exactly what they have ordered, thus not having to take a chance they did with the criminal dealers. I think it would solve a multitude of problems, that are currently being caused be street dealers (criminals.)" I get this for sum drugs but you start with "all recreational" so crac cocane, fontana, diasipan, ketamine, and lot I have not listed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would like to legalise all ‘recreational’ drugs. Take them out of the hands of the criminal drug dealers, have them manufactured in pharmaceutical factories, and sold as a ‘P medicine’ in chemists and pharmacies. Most of these drugs could be made cheaply, so there would be plenty of opportunities to raise money via duty and vat. They could also be prescribed by doctors, so that addicts could get it on the nhs. The drugs would be as safe as they could possibly be, and those using them would be sure to get exactly what they have ordered, thus not having to take a chance they did with the criminal dealers. I think it would solve a multitude of problems, that are currently being caused be street dealers (criminals.) I get this for sum drugs but you start with "all recreational" so crac cocane, fontana, diasipan, ketamine, and lot I have not listed. " Indeed, I started with “all recreational” because that is exactly what I meant. If not all, then those that are left will be pushed, and pushed hard by the dealers. Obviously everything would have to be in tablet form, no smoking snorting or injecting. Those that are actually poisonous would need to be replicated using safe ingredients, those that could kill would have to be made in smaller, safer doses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Capitalism is a positive as long as it’s regulated . Total extreme capitalism is bad for everyone bar the richest and leads to your vote being worthless. The US is a prime example of this where both parties are funded by billionaires. Statistics show the legislation wanted/ needed by the mass of the population in the US is 50% less likely to be passed than the legislation argued for by billionaires to benefit themselves. So unless you are part of the oligarchy you have no real say. And not all of those billionaires are smart as they have inherited their wealth not earned it so the argument they are the cleverest and should be listened to is a crock of rubbish. Also for reference Sweden is heavily regulated and yet has more billionaires per head than the US. Deregulation is a myth. Regulation protects the population. It does not stifle growth. Incompetent government does that. No one advocates policies to make themselves poorer certainly not billionaires. So your needs are less and less important. Just keep paying your full tax from you crap wage and you’ll be fine., Feel free to read how the US political system affects their poverty rates compared to other regulated capitalist countries in the chart below. Biggest economy in the world with the highest number of billionaires. Italy I feel is a basket case, with I believe a thriving second black economy. Poverty is relative but even allowing for this the poor in America who work, are getting poorer. As I said people voting against their own interests. https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/#:~:text=What%20we%20find%20is%20that,country%20average%20of%2010.7%20percent. The way they measure poverty is ridiculous - "In this table, poverty is being measured as the percent of the population falling below one half of a particular country’s median household income" It doesn't take differences in cost of living into account, which is a major factor. Also, "people voting against their own interests" is a patronising remark, that reeks of arrogance. It's based on the wrong assumption that all humans prioritise materialistic interests over everything else and that makes you pretend like you know what other people's interests are." It explains how the chart is calculated so feel free to argue with yourself . I’m arrogant because I point out people vote for regulations that give more money to the very rich whilst removing protections for the employed. . Your personal insults are uncalled for so please don’t point them at me . Feel free to point out any evidence of people freely and with full knowledge putting their own financial interests behind those of Billionaires. Reform is backed by a very wealthy individual. His views are de regulation is key. Key for who exactly? The daily mail The telegraph etc have long championed the misleading statistics of culture wars leading people to believe their long term financial problems are down to nurses earning too much or the 2% of of total immigrants arriving on boats. Feel free to argue the facts I posted around Swedish billionaire ratios or deregulation of workers rights. I’d like to read a good reason for any point around deregulation on employee rights. Turning your post to personal attacks just undermines your argument . People don’t knowingly vote against their own interests that is very true. You are correct to point that out. Reasons for voting against yourself are varied this is true also but knowing you’re voting against yourself is a very different point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the media are owned by the people, this will continue. Well in a sense all public companies are 'owned by the people' - through share holdings. Even private companies often have a broad base of equity holders. But if by 'owned by the people' you mean communism - where has that ever worked well? Surely that tells us it's a doomed doctrine that doesn't work." I'm not sure if you mean public or meant to say private Either way, when I say owned, it's only for the interests of a minority who hold those assets. I don't see how communism comes into it or did I mention. In honesty, it gets banded around too freely, similarly to capitalism, both fail miserably not because of their concept but the implementation are subject to corruption and greed! That's digressing from the point I made though. When something is truly owned by the people it is not subject to individuals agendas and benefits anyone and everyone indiscriminately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Putin has used Elon musk and Trump to take control of the US He now has Musk using Farage to take control of the UK Time to wake up people " Controversial, not fantastical and insane lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the media are owned by the people, this will continue. Well in a sense all public companies are 'owned by the people' - through share holdings. Even private companies often have a broad base of equity holders. But if by 'owned by the people' you mean communism - where has that ever worked well? Surely that tells us it's a doomed doctrine that doesn't work. I'm not sure if you mean public or meant to say private Either way, when I say owned, it's only for the interests of a minority who hold those assets. I don't see how communism comes into it or did I mention. In honesty, it gets banded around too freely, similarly to capitalism, both fail miserably not because of their concept but the implementation are subject to corruption and greed! That's digressing from the point I made though. When something is truly owned by the people it is not subject to individuals agendas and benefits anyone and everyone indiscriminately." No mistake. public companies (PLCs) sell shares to the public on a stock exchange, while private companies do not. Share ownership of public companies is vast - through ISAs, Pension Funds and individual holdings. Every shareholder has a vote and direct access to executive management. The system works extremely well. Collectivisation in the form of communism does not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the media are owned by the people, this will continue. Well in a sense all public companies are 'owned by the people' - through share holdings. Even private companies often have a broad base of equity holders. But if by 'owned by the people' you mean communism - where has that ever worked well? Surely that tells us it's a doomed doctrine that doesn't work. I'm not sure if you mean public or meant to say private Either way, when I say owned, it's only for the interests of a minority who hold those assets. I don't see how communism comes into it or did I mention. In honesty, it gets banded around too freely, similarly to capitalism, both fail miserably not because of their concept but the implementation are subject to corruption and greed! That's digressing from the point I made though. When something is truly owned by the people it is not subject to individuals agendas and benefits anyone and everyone indiscriminately. No mistake. public companies (PLCs) sell shares to the public on a stock exchange, while private companies do not. Share ownership of public companies is vast - through ISAs, Pension Funds and individual holdings. Every shareholder has a vote and direct access to executive management. The system works extremely well. Collectivisation in the form of communism does not. " The system is still biased towards the wealthy, Analysis of pension fund performance showed that leading pension funds had delivered an average annual return of 7.72 per cent over the past five years for people 30 years to retirement. However, for savers closer to retirement, the average annual return over the same period was 5.27 per cent. All without dividends paid to the pension holder. Remember these are averages so some company compulsory pension funds will be well below these averages. Average low risk “private” larger fund investment returns are typically 10-12% plus dividends. Which could equate to up to 3% extra on top per year. Risk investment expected return ie business venture capitol is between 18-30% This is higher risk so should pay better returns but if you can’t afford to lose in this league you don’t play. You’re average earner has no chance of seeing these returns. So the more you have the more your returns. Year after year. The richer you are the better the benefits. Just like tax . The system never benefits the poorer over the richest in its structure. It’s not even a level playing field. So yes it works extremely well the more money you start with. If you’re in the middle or bottom it doesn’t work quite so well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Average low risk “private” larger fund investment returns are typically 10-12% plus dividends. Which could equate to up to 3% extra on top per year. Risk investment expected return ie business venture capitol is between 18-30% This is higher risk so should pay better returns but if you can’t afford to lose in this league you don’t play. You’re average earner has no chance of seeing these returns. " Where did you get these numbers from? Also high risk investments are high risk for a reason. The average earner has no chance of seeing the losses either. " So the more you have the more your returns. Year after year. " Not always. There are years the stock market has taken quite a beating. But the longer one stays invested, the better one's returns are. " The richer you are the better the benefits. Just like tax . " In what way do richer gets more tax benefits? " The system never benefits the poorer over the richest in its structure. It’s not even a level playing field. So yes it works extremely well the more money you start with. If you’re in the middle or bottom it doesn’t work quite so well. " Isn't that by design? If you provide something to the society that's in high demand, you get more leverage from society in the form of more money. That's how we incentivise people to do something the society wants them to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the media are owned by the people, this will continue. Well in a sense all public companies are 'owned by the people' - through share holdings. Even private companies often have a broad base of equity holders. But if by 'owned by the people' you mean communism - where has that ever worked well? Surely that tells us it's a doomed doctrine that doesn't work. I'm not sure if you mean public or meant to say private Either way, when I say owned, it's only for the interests of a minority who hold those assets. I don't see how communism comes into it or did I mention. In honesty, it gets banded around too freely, similarly to capitalism, both fail miserably not because of their concept but the implementation are subject to corruption and greed! That's digressing from the point I made though. When something is truly owned by the people it is not subject to individuals agendas and benefits anyone and everyone indiscriminately. No mistake. public companies (PLCs) sell shares to the public on a stock exchange, while private companies do not. Share ownership of public companies is vast - through ISAs, Pension Funds and individual holdings. Every shareholder has a vote and direct access to executive management. The system works extremely well. Collectivisation in the form of communism does not. The system is still biased towards the wealthy, Analysis of pension fund performance showed that leading pension funds had delivered an average annual return of 7.72 per cent over the past five years for people 30 years to retirement. However, for savers closer to retirement, the average annual return over the same period was 5.27 per cent. All without dividends paid to the pension holder. Remember these are averages so some company compulsory pension funds will be well below these averages. Average low risk “private” larger fund investment returns are typically 10-12% plus dividends. Which could equate to up to 3% extra on top per year. Risk investment expected return ie business venture capitol is between 18-30% This is higher risk so should pay better returns but if you can’t afford to lose in this league you don’t play. You’re average earner has no chance of seeing these returns. So the more you have the more your returns. Year after year. The richer you are the better the benefits. Just like tax . The system never benefits the poorer over the richest in its structure. It’s not even a level playing field. So yes it works extremely well the more money you start with. If you’re in the middle or bottom it doesn’t work quite so well. " Well clearly, if people are thrifty and responsible with their money, investing in their retirement, they will be relatively better off. What's wrong with that? We should be encouraging it not knocking it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel Farage will be the next Prime Minister "I sincerely hope so! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 27/12/24 21:55:50]" Controversial indeed !  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'Right to Buy' scheme should be scrapped - at least until everyone has adequate housing. " Lloyd’s TSB did some research on RTB, the results showed that 45 years of the scheme over 45 years of significant property price increases, the state has given away hundreds of billions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nadine Dorres gives me the horn" A guilty pleasure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the media are owned by the people, this will continue. Well in a sense all public companies are 'owned by the people' - through share holdings. Even private companies often have a broad base of equity holders. But if by 'owned by the people' you mean communism - where has that ever worked well? Surely that tells us it's a doomed doctrine that doesn't work. I'm not sure if you mean public or meant to say private Either way, when I say owned, it's only for the interests of a minority who hold those assets. I don't see how communism comes into it or did I mention. In honesty, it gets banded around too freely, similarly to capitalism, both fail miserably not because of their concept but the implementation are subject to corruption and greed! That's digressing from the point I made though. When something is truly owned by the people it is not subject to individuals agendas and benefits anyone and everyone indiscriminately. No mistake. public companies (PLCs) sell shares to the public on a stock exchange, while private companies do not. Share ownership of public companies is vast - through ISAs, Pension Funds and individual holdings. Every shareholder has a vote and direct access to executive management. The system works extremely well. Collectivisation in the form of communism does not. " It’s been a long time since I had any involvement in shares but I thought it was only ‘Ordinary’ shares that got a vote, and not ‘Preference’ shares, where as Preference share got a dividend but Ordinary shares only got a dividend at the discretion of the company. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'Right to Buy' scheme should be scrapped - at least until everyone has adequate housing. " No it should just be scraped. If you work in social housing there are people still waiting to be in property with enough years so they can then buy. There are also lots of older tenants that are now buying just so they can leave the property to siblings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Elon Musk is the most dangerous person in the world today. Trump is nothing more than his puppet." Who do you think was puppeting Trump during his first term? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Average low risk “private” larger fund investment returns are typically 10-12% plus dividends. Which could equate to up to 3% extra on top per year. Risk investment expected return ie business venture capitol is between 18-30% This is higher risk so should pay better returns but if you can’t afford to lose in this league you don’t play. You’re average earner has no chance of seeing these returns. Where did you get these numbers from? Also high risk investments are high risk for a reason. The average earner has no chance of seeing the losses either. So the more you have the more your returns. Year after year. Not always. There are years the stock market has taken quite a beating. But the longer one stays invested, the better one's returns are. The richer you are the better the benefits. Just like tax . In what way do richer gets more tax benefits? The system never benefits the poorer over the richest in its structure. It’s not even a level playing field. So yes it works extremely well the more money you start with. If you’re in the middle or bottom it doesn’t work quite so well. Isn't that by design? If you provide something to the society that's in high demand, you get more leverage from society in the form of more money. That's how we incentivise people to do something the society wants them to." Re figures The first paragraph was a quote from a pension industry review. https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Pension-fund-returns-surpassing-saver-expectations.php The 8-10% was drawn from web sites of the industry such as S&P, Vanguard, Hargreaves Lansdown or JP Morgan private clients. The U.K. FTSE return this year has been the best for a number of years at around 16% but the average is still well below. Interesting considering how people are struggling this year. Some funds obviously fly way above the average but that’s why I’ve said average as some crash and burn. I agree with your comment about sitting tight long term if you’re only investing in the FTSE 100 but the average for twenty years is just over 6% so not the best. . The high risk early stage investment expectation is through personal first hand knowledge. Very high risk seed money and you could be looking at double your cash back plus a percentage of the equity in a short space of time. Obviously this is all risk dependant and VCs along with investment vehicles will negotiate depending on individual projects. For risk investors, too low a return and you may as well put your cash in a bank or fund. I did point out this is not a game everyone can play and many professionals can get it wrong It’s always been a better return for privately managed funds as they are more dynamic and quicker to respond. JP Morgan set a £2m minimum to join. Not for the poor thank you. As for tax benefits if you can afford land you can pass on without inheritance tax or now as we see certainly at a lower rate. But wait, if you have wealth you can afford a managed trust which avoids even the lower rate. Trusts can be set up to fund a lifestyle in a country where your income is not taxed. Can your average uk factory / office worker avoid tax like this? Some further benefits for the wealthier. If you structure the sale of a new company you can pay at worse 10% tax on the sale. You have to use a multi country set up. You can avoid all the tax if you offshore it. If you move profits from a business in the U.K. to a lower tax regime through say a management fee invoice you will pay the tax rate of the lower income country. Look at the GDP growth of The Republic of Ireland. You can invoice your own company from foreign tax free locations for your own consultancy services so showing a break even or loss in the U.K . ( see a certain digger manufacturer) All the above are legal ( to relaxed limits ) and the list goes on and on. There are small scale benefits for lower income workers such as ISA’s or EMI type share holdings but with the latter you have to be fortunate to be offered such a scheme or own the investment in the first place when starting a business. I’m sure there are more such as the 7 year rule and others but I’m not aware of details. The difference is average earners mostly benefit in a limited way on retirement or death whereas with the wealthy the benefits are ongoing year after year. I have no issue with anyone making lots of money. I just want all who earn above low wages to contribute the same percentage tax wise. Aiming high by design. Scandinavian countries tend to have very well paid well motivated workers so it’s not strictly true that very high wealth is the driver. It can be I agree. The economic situation we have now in the UK is making people give up on ambition because no matter how hard they work they can’t afford a reasonable lifestyle. (not everyone) The UK’s younger generation has now statistically the most negative emotional outlook on their future of most western economies. House prices, job insecurity poor public services and infrastructure. The gross mismanagement of this country’s wealth by all the political parties is having a long term detrimental effect on this country’s future. But remember it’s those greedy fucking doctors wanting a catch up pay rise that’s caused all this according to our media. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the media are owned by the people, this will continue. Well in a sense all public companies are 'owned by the people' - through share holdings. Even private companies often have a broad base of equity holders. But if by 'owned by the people' you mean communism - where has that ever worked well? Surely that tells us it's a doomed doctrine that doesn't work. I'm not sure if you mean public or meant to say private Either way, when I say owned, it's only for the interests of a minority who hold those assets. I don't see how communism comes into it or did I mention. In honesty, it gets banded around too freely, similarly to capitalism, both fail miserably not because of their concept but the implementation are subject to corruption and greed! That's digressing from the point I made though. When something is truly owned by the people it is not subject to individuals agendas and benefits anyone and everyone indiscriminately. No mistake. public companies (PLCs) sell shares to the public on a stock exchange, while private companies do not. Share ownership of public companies is vast - through ISAs, Pension Funds and individual holdings. Every shareholder has a vote and direct access to executive management. The system works extremely well. Collectivisation in the form of communism does not. The system is still biased towards the wealthy, Analysis of pension fund performance showed that leading pension funds had delivered an average annual return of 7.72 per cent over the past five years for people 30 years to retirement. However, for savers closer to retirement, the average annual return over the same period was 5.27 per cent. All without dividends paid to the pension holder. Remember these are averages so some company compulsory pension funds will be well below these averages. Average low risk “private” larger fund investment returns are typically 10-12% plus dividends. Which could equate to up to 3% extra on top per year. Risk investment expected return ie business venture capitol is between 18-30% This is higher risk so should pay better returns but if you can’t afford to lose in this league you don’t play. You’re average earner has no chance of seeing these returns. So the more you have the more your returns. Year after year. The richer you are the better the benefits. Just like tax . The system never benefits the poorer over the richest in its structure. It’s not even a level playing field. So yes it works extremely well the more money you start with. If you’re in the middle or bottom it doesn’t work quite so well. Well clearly, if people are thrifty and responsible with their money, investing in their retirement, they will be relatively better off. What's wrong with that? We should be encouraging it not knocking it." Feel free to show me where I said people shouldn’t save? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel Farage will be the next Prime Minister
I sincerely hope so!"What’s your favourite promise of Reform? They don’t have a _anifesto yet just a list of promises. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel Farage will be the next Prime Minister
I sincerely hope so!
What’s your favourite promise of Reform?
They don’t have a _anifesto yet just a list of promises. "I would suggest both Reform and labour have just a list of promises. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nigel Farage will be the next Prime Minister
I sincerely hope so!
What’s your favourite promise of Reform?
They don’t have a _anifesto yet just a list of promises.
I would suggest both Reform and labour have just a list of promises."lol and the Conservative Party had run out of promises . They spent hundreds of millions on the Rwanda scheme and kept it on the front pages of the media to distract from their total lack of any ideas on what to do . The boats account for around 2% of gross immigration . How often were Sunak or Farage the airports shouting at the over a million immigrants arriving by plane? The boat people are likely to be economic migrants whereas the dependants of students etc are not looking to work anytime soon. If you’re a student you’re a student. If after studies you stay and work then you can bring your husband / wife and kids but not granny unless you pay for her including her medical needs. It’s not rocket science . We need bar workers we need doctors plus thousands of other roles in between. Make immigration work not a culture war issue. I think Labour have had a really bad self inflicted start . The winter fuel payment was a stupid own goal. Any pensioner getting over £20k doesn’t get it would have been a better starting point . Farmers I have sympathy for but why should they get treated differently to other family businesses? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'Right to Buy' scheme should be scrapped - at least until everyone has adequate housing. Lloyd’s TSB did some research on RTB, the results showed that 45 years of the scheme over 45 years of significant property price increases, the state has given away hundreds of billions. " At the very least I'd propose dropping or significantly reducing the discount, and insist that new properties are built in an equal number to those being lost. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Complex hierarchal civilisation only came about due to climate conditions that were suitable for agriculture and resource centralisation, and it quite possibly could be a thing of the past within this century. It also tends to be unstable at the best of times often growing to a point where it plateaus and takes increasing amounts of energy, resources and manpower simply to maintain as is, nevermind improve. Eventually, the strain becomes too much and it crumbles inwards, too heavy and complex to sustain itself. Don't mind me." Very interesting, thanks you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very rarely dare speak about my political leanings. I've actually lost long term friends when I have. I stick to my own core values. Hard work. Empowerment to the individual. I want government to give me the tools to succeed and I am happy to pay fair taxes to fund efficient well run public services and provide a welfare state for the most genuine vulnerable in society. I believe in low state intervention. Empowerment of people. Fair taxes. A strategy forward welfare system to help and provide those who do need it. Immigration? Have a fair system with sensible limits to keep the population at manageable levels. Have skilled people who bring something but also understand our moral and values always come first. Illegal Immigration. Stop it immediately and have heavy penaltys for those assisting it. Send any illegals back to where they came from. Am I Adolf Hitler because I've had people ostracise me, scream at me and treat me like shit for what I feel are perfectly reasonable political opinions? You don't have to agree with me but at least don't be awful. " Very reasonable political opinions imho. We've allowed ourselves to become far too dependent on the state, then moan when (inevitably) government largesse becomes unaffordable. Ongoing illegal immigration is just gormless and a dereliction of responsibility by successive governments. But I think attitudes are changing - witness the growing ranks of Reform - that tells you a lot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very rarely dare speak about my political leanings. I've actually lost long term friends when I have. I stick to my own core values. Hard work. Empowerment to the individual. I want government to give me the tools to succeed and I am happy to pay fair taxes to fund efficient well run public services and provide a welfare state for the most genuine vulnerable in society. I believe in low state intervention. Empowerment of people. Fair taxes. A strategy forward welfare system to help and provide those who do need it. Immigration? Have a fair system with sensible limits to keep the population at manageable levels. Have skilled people who bring something but also understand our moral and values always come first. Illegal Immigration. Stop it immediately and have heavy penaltys for those assisting it. Send any illegals back to where they came from. Am I Adolf Hitler because I've had people ostracise me, scream at me and treat me like shit for what I feel are perfectly reasonable political opinions? You don't have to agree with me but at least don't be awful. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very rarely dare speak about my political leanings. I've actually lost long term friends when I have. I stick to my own core values. Hard work. Empowerment to the individual. I want government to give me the tools to succeed and I am happy to pay fair taxes to fund efficient well run public services and provide a welfare state for the most genuine vulnerable in society. I believe in low state intervention. Empowerment of people. Fair taxes. A strategy forward welfare system to help and provide those who do need it. Immigration? Have a fair system with sensible limits to keep the population at manageable levels. Have skilled people who bring something but also understand our moral and values always come first. Illegal Immigration. Stop it immediately and have heavy penaltys for those assisting it. Send any illegals back to where they came from. Am I Adolf Hitler because I've had people ostracise me, scream at me and treat me like shit for what I feel are perfectly reasonable political opinions? You don't have to agree with me but at least don't be awful. " Top post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very rarely dare speak about my political leanings. I've actually lost long term friends when I have. I stick to my own core values. Hard work. Empowerment to the individual. I want government to give me the tools to succeed and I am happy to pay fair taxes to fund efficient well run public services and provide a welfare state for the most genuine vulnerable in society. I believe in low state intervention. Empowerment of people. Fair taxes. A strategy forward welfare system to help and provide those who do need it. Immigration? Have a fair system with sensible limits to keep the population at manageable levels. Have skilled people who bring something but also understand our moral and values always come first. Illegal Immigration. Stop it immediately and have heavy penaltys for those assisting it. Send any illegals back to where they came from. Am I Adolf Hitler because I've had people ostracise me, scream at me and treat me like shit for what I feel are perfectly reasonable political opinions? You don't have to agree with me but at least don't be awful. " All good points and the basics are sensible. To stop the “illegal” immigration would you advocate safe points abroad to apply for access as an economic migrant or asylum seekers? Those are the reason most come. They pay a lot of money because we don’t offer any access points other than on the beach. The law changed here to call them illegal but before they could arrive and request asylum without being illegal. It’s semantics but a targeted name change to criminalise even the genuine. Remember all this noise with farage at Dover was over 2% of our gross immigration. Yes just 2% Stand at any major airport and see the thousands of arrivals daily with mountains of suitcases arriving as dependants or health tourists because we have relaxed visa access from certain old colonial countries. The system is fucked and that’s on our governments of every colour rosette. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very rarely dare speak about my political leanings. I've actually lost long term friends when I have. I stick to my own core values. Hard work. Empowerment to the individual. I want government to give me the tools to succeed and I am happy to pay fair taxes to fund efficient well run public services and provide a welfare state for the most genuine vulnerable in society. I believe in low state intervention. Empowerment of people. Fair taxes. A strategy forward welfare system to help and provide those who do need it. Immigration? Have a fair system with sensible limits to keep the population at manageable levels. Have skilled people who bring something but also understand our moral and values always come first. Illegal Immigration. Stop it immediately and have heavy penaltys for those assisting it. Send any illegals back to where they came from. Am I Adolf Hitler because I've had people ostracise me, scream at me and treat me like shit for what I feel are perfectly reasonable political opinions? You don't have to agree with me but at least don't be awful. Top post. "The world is changing (as it inevitably does) and certain concepts that served in the past which underpinned labour and production are morphing in to new things, both in the short term and also the long term. . Authoritative societies tend to be less flexible in adopting social and economic change and upheaval, by virtue of their entrenchment to known practices which have historically worked. This reluctance to change places them at loggerheads with progressive societies which are undergoing immense societal and economic change and upheaval. . The irony of course is that much of the economic change is driven by companies (many who are quite authoritative in their own way), seeking to disrupt existing labour production. . (I am thinking in particular of the age before the woollen mills, and how wool was "farmed"), and then the emergence of woollen mills with the Industrial Revolution. . What I am trying to say is that whilst I do appreciate "I stick to my own core values. Hard work. Empowerment to the individual.", those very core values are transitory and fleeting (in the same way they were to wool farmers pre I.R. No doubt they felt the same too). . As a poster below you said, "We're all doomed". Well no, not really. The rocks we all cling to are crumbling. We can continue to try to cling to those crumbling rocks, or try and swim to new ones and seek whatever fleeting solace we can gain there, if only for a little while. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
