The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Genie]

22 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Apparently The UK have signed a joint energy sharing agreement with France relating to Nuclear and Green energy. 

Sunak must be waking on eggshells.. The nutters didn't want him in the first place, he's messing about improving relationships with The EU, France and messing with Brexit agreements and Northern Ireland. 

They must be seething

Someone will remind him he’s not supposed to be fixing problems and improving things, that’s not the Tory way.

[Xann]

23 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Yeah but... going to London?

@GarethRDR is bringing us mushrooms, then we're off to Cyberdog.

[fruitvilla]

Could have posted on the BBC thread ...

He loves the BBC as do I

 

 

[GarethRDR]

God I do love Cyberdog.

[CVByrne]

12 hours ago, bobzy said:

Yeah but... going to London?

**** that @blandy.  **** that.

I'm an impartial Irishman. I've been to Birmingham literally countless times. I don't want to break it to you. London is not just the best place to live in the British and Irish islands. It's one of the best cities in the entire world to live. 

[CVByrne]

On 10/03/2023 at 19:40, StefanAVFC said:

 

he says… whilst sharing a screenshot from the mainstream media 

Mark my words we're on the edge of a global recession. The damage the rapid rise in interest rates does takes around 18 months to hot the real economy. The US stock market has gone down as interest rates have gone up as they're negatively correlated. When you see stock market and interest rates (via government bond yields) drop in tandem get worried. It happened back to back on Thu/Fri in US due to the biggest bank failure since 2008. The time to save for a raining day and not spend you spare cash is right now. 

[CVByrne]

20 hours ago, blandy said:

The caller is absolutely right, of course. As was Lineker.

The "problem" is the way that it's been kind of twisted. So here's the thing, while he's right about the language, that reference back to the 1930s invokes collective inagery of 1940s Germany and Nazis and the holocaust. And that's then used (wrongly) to take offence about being compared to Nazis who murdered 6- 8 million jews an it all escalates. I despise the Tories, but they're not mass murderers. It's all just mad.

I agree with you. The language is similar to that of 1930s Germany. The intent behind the language couldn't be more different. Also one is about boats of illegal migrants coming to UK (with the undertone about the number of Albanians) while the other was about an ethnic minority of citizens in a country by its own dictatorship government. 

As for swapping "migrant" for "jew". There's lot of similar things where people change "white" to "black" in US for example, the statements suddenly read like white supremist. That's because changing words without any context does in fact completely change the entire meaning. 

[Lichfield Dean]

20 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I'm an impartial Irishman. I've been to Birmingham literally countless times. I don't want to break it to you. London is not just the best place to live in the British and Irish islands. It's one of the best cities in the entire world to live. 

Well I've been to London countless times and I absolutely hate it. I can tolerate maybe a couple of days but then I just can't wait to get away 

[bobzy]

29 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I'm an impartial Irishman. I've been to Birmingham literally countless times. I don't want to break it to you. London is not just the best place to live in the British and Irish islands. It's one of the best cities in the entire world to live. 

Oh Birmingham is pretty shit to be honest, but so is London. WAY too intense. 

[CVByrne]

I'm a pragmatist and a centrist. I have political views that would be deemed leftist and views that would be considered right wing. At the core I feel liberal western democracy and capitalism is the most effective political system we've got, that changing of a political system has and will always lead to violent civil war and a plethora of unintended consequences. So I think we look to fix as best we can the within the system we've got.

To me society should be equality of opportunity. By that I mean for every child born in this country we should have a system that as best as possible gives that child as equal a chance as a child born into extreme wealth. For this I've a cross section of things that would be considered extreme socialism. All schools and 3rd level education be completely free and no existence of any privatised systems. All progress should be meritocracy, so the brightest people with as best we can in terms of equality of education get to achieve as full education as the state can provide. I also don't believe in inheritance, I don't believe we should allow amassing of wealth by one generation be handed to the next. So taxing wealth not income and significantly higher capacity to enforce a higher inheritance tax. Wile of course I believe we should have a state funded health system of a high standard and efficient. 

The flip to that is. People who become wealthy by their hard work and skills should be happy to enjoy all the riches they have earned. If someone creates a successful company that employs countless people all of this created wealth is a benefit to our society as the taxes for this run our health services and education system. All the wealth accumulation is taxed as we tax wealth. Handing large wealth to the persons children is also taxed. The core of capitalism is the freedom for anyone to succeed. 

 

So now we come to illegal immigration topic. Before anyone can engage with this they have to state where they are in terms of immigration as a whole. What do you think about people coming to the UK from a plethora of other countries. My stance on this is that all forms of immigration is a massive positive to both the economy and to our society as a whole. 

For me I'd set up a system for people from clearly defined war torn countries coming here seeking asylum. So Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine. If they present themselves to places set up in Northern France we automatically give them asylum and process them when settled in UK. Former colonies like Hong Kong and from EU countries are easier to work a system with. 

So this would reduce the total burden on the system to focus on simple illegal immigration from countries. We focus our resources on those. We then should look at the statistics on total number of people from a country arriving illegally and what % of those are required to be returned to their home country. We then tackle those problems bilaterally with those countries. Without thinking too much into it. Lets take Albania as an example, we could set up places in the home countries where we can house people who have come to UK illegally while they're processed if the numbers and %'s stated earlier make a case for that.

[Rolta]

16 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I agree with you. The language is similar to that of 1930s Germany. The intent behind the language couldn't be more different. Also one is about boats of illegal migrants coming to UK (with the undertone about the number of Albanians) while the other was about an ethnic minority of citizens in a country by its own dictatorship government. 

As for swapping "migrant" for "jew". There's lot of similar things where people change "white" to "black" in US for example, the statements suddenly read like white supremist. That's because changing words without any context does in fact completely change the entire meaning. 

First of all imagine if the BBC hadn't cracked down on Lineker, which is what this whole topic is about first and foremost—forget the semantics. The BBC shouldn't be influenced by the government nor from partisan stooges placed within its power structure to do exactly this kind of thing. Also notice how the BBC never uses the 'B' word. It's been cowed into submission. The examples are numerous.

Going into semantics of the rhetoric used by the government, there's plenty to unpack. Did you see when Suella Braverman said that 100 million people could want to come to the UK? It's clearly hyped up, exaggerated demagogery. Same with all the talk about lefty lawyers and lefty civil servants and patriotism and traitors (more the newspapers) and the like. Specifically speaking the exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric about asylum seekers (75% of people crossing on small boats are granted Asylum and half of what's remaining on appeal) is very much like 1930s Germany. Again, it's demagogery at its most blatant—manipulating the issue to gain favour. That alone is atrocious. The evidence is in front of you.

If you take issue with 1930s Germany, you could extend the whole thing and look at the language in Italy and Spain in their moments before facism too, and the monologuing coming from the Government and its most egregious supporters in the press (Mail, Telegraph, Sun) is nigh on identical. The angle taken by these influential right wing rags and their terminology, the dehumanisation of not just the foreign people, but anyone left of Amber Rudd is exactly the same. I'm not suggesting we're going to end up with Nazi solutes, but this kind of language and use of language is used by governments and people who ultimately do go on to embrace authoritarian ideas—at the very least it makes a mockery that they're interested in democracy.

You're missing more points too—this is all about the state broadcaster, which has been evidently and obviously in the light of day filled with stooges for the government, selectively choosing one voice who opposes them to crack down on while letting their supporters in similar positions do as they wish, and in many cases, actually defending and obfuscating and pandering to them.

[CVByrne]

21 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Oh Birmingham is pretty shit to be honest, but so is London. WAY too intense. 

London is huge. There is no one "London" there's lots of London's. I dislike about 70% of London. But the 30% (which is still millions of people) is just too good. I can't think of anywhere in the world as good as Camden, Islington, Hackney. Incredible pubs, parks, restaurants, amazing vibe to the area. 

Anyway, that part of London is a million times better than Dublin or Birmingham for me. 

[Rolta]

12 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I'm a pragmatist and a centrist. I have political views that would be deemed leftist and views that would be considered right wing. At the core I feel liberal western democracy and capitalism is the most effective political system we've got, that changing of a political system has and will always lead to violent civil war and a plethora of unintended consequences. So I think we look to fix as best we can the within the system we've got.

To me society should be equality of opportunity. By that I mean for every child born in this country we should have a system that as best as possible gives that child as equal a chance as a child born into extreme wealth. For this I've a cross section of things that would be considered extreme socialism. All schools and 3rd level education be completely free and no existence of any privatised systems. All progress should be meritocracy, so the brightest people with as best we can in terms of equality of education get to achieve as full education as the state can provide. I also don't believe in inheritance, I don't believe we should allow amassing of wealth by one generation be handed to the next. So taxing wealth not income and significantly higher capacity to enforce a higher inheritance tax. Wile of course I believe we should have a state funded health system of a high standard and efficient. 

The flip to that is. People who become wealthy by their hard work and skills should be happy to enjoy all the riches they have earned. If someone creates a successful company that employs countless people all of this created wealth is a benefit to our society as the taxes for this run our health services and education system. All the wealth accumulation is taxed as we tax wealth. Handing large wealth to the persons children is also taxed. The core of capitalism is the freedom for anyone to succeed.

For the record, I also pretty much agree with this. But it's probably the point of view of most of the average western world really (maybe not the US). But just like the 1930s in every country that succombed to fascistic revolution, there are very influential voices in government and the media who seem to have had enough of paying taxes. Neolliberalism has a lot to answer for. Just like then, the language from the right is becoming hyped up and exaggerated—as Braverman showed this week (and every week). Lineker had a fair comment and shouldn't be getting shut down by the state broadcaster in his own personal social media. Bar social media's existence, and the actual possibility of a revolutionary left (which couldn't be further from having influence) this is the exact creep that began in 1930s in multiple countries—it's identical. The obfuscation of truth, the exaggeration of language.

In fact, it's almost comical—there is no risk of a socialist or communist revolution these days like there was back in the 30s, but the government and its media enablers still concoct a villain to justify their undemocratic language—left blobs, illegal immigrants, lefty-lawyers, woke mind worms, trans people. It's hysteria.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Rolta

[CVByrne]

2 minutes ago, Rolta said:

First of all imagine if the BBC hadn't cracked down on Lineker, which is what this whole topic is about first and foremost—forget the semantics. The BBC shouldn't be influenced by the government nor from partisan stooges placed within its power structure to do exactly this kind of thing. Also notice how the BBC never uses the 'B' word. It's been cowed into submission. The examples are numerous.

Going into semantics of the rhetoric used by the government, there's plenty to unpack. Did you see when Suella Braverman said that 100 million people could want to come to the UK? It's clearly hyped up, exaggerated demagogery. Same with all the talk about lefty lawyers and lefty civil servants and patriotism and traitors (more the newspapers) and the like. Specifically speaking the exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric about asylum seekers (75% of people crossing on small boats are granted Asylum and half of what's remaining on appeal) is very much like 1930s Germany. Again, it's demagogery at its most blatant—manipulating the issue to gain favour. That alone is atrocious. The evidence is in front of you.

If you take issue with 1930s Germany, you could extend the whole thing and look at the language in Italy and Spain in their moments before facism too, and the monologuing coming from the Government and its most egregious supporters in the press (Mail, Telegraph, Sun) is nigh on identical. The angle taken by these influential right wing rags and their terminology, the dehumanisation of not just the foreign people, but anyone left of Amber Rudd is exactly the same. I'm not suggesting we're going to end up with Nazi solutes, but this kind of language and use of language is used by governments and people who ultimately do go on to embrace authoritarian ideas—at the very least it makes a mockery that they're interested in democracy.

You're missing more points too—this is all about the state broadcaster, which has been evidently and obviously in the light of day filled with stooges for the government, selectively choosing one voice who opposes them to crack down on while letting their supporters in similar positions do as they wish, and in many cases, actually defending and obfuscating and pandering to them.

I think the main point for all of us who want to apply context to this. 1) I don't really pay much attention to the statements from a politically bankrupt lame duck government who's remaining time in power we count now in number of months. Why? that's because we live in the longest running democratic country in the entire world. I know we will have a peaceful transition of power when we elect the next government. Now compare that to your examples of facism in the 1930s. The context couldn't be more different. 

[mjmooney]

14 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I'm a pragmatist and a centrist. I have political views that would be deemed leftist and views that would be considered right wing. At the core I feel liberal western democracy and capitalism is the most effective political system we've got, that changing of a political system has and will always lead to violent civil war and a plethora of unintended consequences. So I think we look to fix as best we can the within the system we've got.

To me society should be equality of opportunity. By that I mean for every child born in this country we should have a system that as best as possible gives that child as equal a chance as a child born into extreme wealth. For this I've a cross section of things that would be considered extreme socialism. All schools and 3rd level education be completely free and no existence of any privatised systems. All progress should be meritocracy, so the brightest people with as best we can in terms of equality of education get to achieve as full education as the state can provide. I also don't believe in inheritance, I don't believe we should allow amassing of wealth by one generation be handed to the next. So taxing wealth not income and significantly higher capacity to enforce a higher inheritance tax. Wile of course I believe we should have a state funded health system of a high standard and efficient. 

The flip to that is. People who become wealthy by their hard work and skills should be happy to enjoy all the riches they have earned. If someone creates a successful company that employs countless people all of this created wealth is a benefit to our society as the taxes for this run our health services and education system. All the wealth accumulation is taxed as we tax wealth. Handing large wealth to the persons children is also taxed. The core of capitalism is the freedom for anyone to succeed. 

 

So now we come to illegal immigration topic. Before anyone can engage with this they have to state where they are in terms of immigration as a whole. What do you think about people coming to the UK from a plethora of other countries. My stance on this is that all forms of immigration is a massive positive to both the economy and to our society as a whole. 

For me I'd set up a system for people from clearly defined war torn countries coming here seeking asylum. So Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine. If they present themselves to places set up in Northern France we automatically give them asylum and process them when settled in UK. Former colonies like Hong Kong and from EU countries are easier to work a system with. 

So this would reduce the total burden on the system to focus on simple illegal immigration from countries. We focus our resources on those. We then should look at the statistics on total number of people from a country arriving illegally and what % of those are required to be returned to their home country. We then tackle those problems bilaterally with those countries. Without thinking too much into it. Lets take Albania as an example, we could set up places in the home countries where we can house people who have come to UK illegally while they're processed if the numbers and %'s stated earlier make a case for that.

I can find very little to disagree with there, CV. 

[bobzy]

10 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

London is huge. There is no one "London" there's lots of London's. I dislike about 70% of London. But the 30% (which is still millions of people) is just too good. I can't think of anywhere in the world as good as Camden, Islington, Hackney. Incredible pubs, parks, restaurants, amazing vibe to the area. 

Anyway, that part of London is a million times better than Dublin or Birmingham for me. 

They're fine, but not really better than anywhere else in the country.  The appeal (for me) of London is the fact that you can do basically anything at basically any time.  There's a vast array of fantastic restaurants/pubs so you don't get bored of food choices.  Lots to see and do all over the city.  All of this is fantastic.

 

But it's way too busy, way too pricey, way too spread out.  Fantastic place for a weekend but you genuinely couldn't pay me to live there - even in that 30% cool bit  

[Rolta]

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

I think the main point for all of us who want to apply context to this. 1) I don't really pay much attention to the statements from a politically bankrupt lame duck government who's remaining time in power we count now in number of months. Why? that's because we live in the longest running democratic country in the entire world. I know we will have a peaceful transition of power when we elect the next government. Now compare that to your examples of facism in the 1930s. The context couldn't be more different. 

You can probably take that comfortable position in the UK for now—but then look at the USA. Then zoom out and look at Putin's influence on even the most basic of discourses, and then look at China. Imagine some of the rhetoric coming out of the GOP becoming a part of life in the white house. Look at Fox News pandering to their base, telling them what they want to hear. Look at people like Steve Bannon jetting around the globe networking with other hard-right, nigh on fascists. Then look at how easy it is to manipulate people on social media. Read reports from the Young Republican events where they openly talk down (ok paraphrase) democracy.

We're not in as good a position as you think. It's the same here in Spain. Democracy is on a knife's edge—maybe it always will be.

Remember, they say history repeats.

[DCJonah]

4 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I think the main point for all of us who want to apply context to this. 1) I don't really pay much attention to the statements from a politically bankrupt lame duck government who's remaining time in power we count now in number of months. Why? that's because we live in the longest running democratic country in the entire world. I know we will have a peaceful transition of power when we elect the next government. Now compare that to your examples of facism in the 1930s. The context couldn't be more different. 

But this is incredibly important. I think it'd dangerous to just always take this for granted. 

January 6th in America shows what happens when language and certain media outlets manipulate people. 

[Rolta]

5 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I think the main point for all of us who want to apply context to this. 1) I don't really pay much attention to the statements from a politically bankrupt lame duck government who's remaining time in power we count now in number of months. Why? that's because we live in the longest running democratic country in the entire world. I know we will have a peaceful transition of power when we elect the next government. Now compare that to your examples of facism in the 1930s. The context couldn't be more different. 

Anyway, the main main point is that the state broadcaster, with its compromised grouping of Tory stooges managing the organisation, shouldn't be shutting down dissent in private social media, particularly when its position is so clearly in thrall to the government and so clearly selectively done in the government's favour. That's stage 1, forgetting any possible bleakness in the future.

It's bullshit.

[bickster]

51 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

As for swapping "migrant" for "jew". There's lot of similar things where people change "white" to "black" in US for example, the statements suddenly read like white supremist. That's because changing words without any context does in fact completely change the entire meaning. 

This bit isn't a fair comparison. If you change black to white in your US statements, you're swapping two sets of people with an entirely different access to power and democracy, they aren't compatible with being swapped around. I very much agree with that. But here we're talking about two sets of people that are on the same side of that power imbalance albeit in different eras. It is acceptable to swap those to prove the point. It matters not what the ultimate intent is, it's the rhetoric that is being talked about not the current ultimate intent.