The purpose of the Labour Party

[Roger Hayter]

I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to allow our
capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners without the
cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.

Was I wrong?

(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his infuriating habit
of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice' from the rich and powerful.)

[The Todal]

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to allow our
capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners without the
cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his infuriating habit
of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice' from the rich and powerful.)

You may be right but we'll know better after the Budget.

Rich people have to be given plentiful rewards otherwise they will
withdraw their labour and their money. The nation will then be all the
poorer.

Poor people have to be given an incentive to work hard by being paid the
lowest possible pay or benefits, otherwise they'll become unproductive.
The nation will then be all the poorer.

Middle income people will be satisfied if they see that the poor people
are still in poverty and the rich people are offering the illusion that
everyone might be able to climb the ladder.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to allow our
capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners without the
cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit
of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice' from the rich and powerful.)

You may be right but we'll know better after the Budget.
Rich people have to be given plentiful rewards otherwise they will
withdraw their labour and their money. The nation will then be all the
poorer.
Poor people have to be given an incentive to work hard by being paid the
lowest possible pay or benefits, otherwise they'll become unproductive.
The nation will then be all the poorer.
Middle income people will be satisfied if they see that the poor people
are still in poverty and the rich people are offering the illusion that
everyone might be able to climb the ladder.

To which tenets (laws) of the dismal science of Economics do / does the
above adhere (if any)?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?

It's too early to say. Very little time has as yet passed, and any that
has has been basically summer holidays, so nothing much has happened yet.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?

It's too early to say. Very little time has as yet passed, and any that
has has been basically summer holidays, so nothing much has happened yet.

I am talking about the doom-filled prime ministerial austerity statement. And
trying not to compare it with the Tory one in 2010.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?

It's too early to say. Very little time has as yet passed, and any that
has has been basically summer holidays, so nothing much has happened yet.

I am talking about the doom-filled prime ministerial austerity
statement. And trying not to compare it with the Tory one in 2010.

I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from that.
It's expectation management, and party-politicking.

The Tories were destroying the country at an extremely rapid rate.
My expectations for Starmer are basically that he'll destroy the
country at a somewhat slower rate, and if he does anything to make
things actually better then I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[The Todal]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?

It's too early to say. Very little time has as yet passed, and any that
has has been basically summer holidays, so nothing much has happened yet.

I am talking about the doom-filled prime ministerial austerity
statement. And trying not to compare it with the Tory one in 2010.

I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from that.
It's expectation management, and party-politicking.
The Tories were destroying the country at an extremely rapid rate.
My expectations for Starmer are basically that he'll destroy the
country at a somewhat slower rate, and if he does anything to make
things actually better then I'll be pleasantly surprised.

When Starmer was asked, by the Mirror journalist I think, whether he was
going to extend and improve the lawful methods of applying for asylum he
ignored that question and instead trotted out the usual "stop the
criminal gangs by tracing them and prosecuting them" line that he kept
saying before the election.

One never knows whether a politician is choosing to swerve a question or
whether he has the attention span of a gnat.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by The Todal

Post by Jon Ribbens

On 27 Aug 2024 at 14:31:14 BST, "Jon Ribbens"

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?

It's too early to say. Very little time has as yet passed, and any
that has has been basically summer holidays, so nothing much has
happened yet.

I am talking about the doom-filled prime ministerial austerity
statement. And trying not to compare it with the Tory one in 2010.

I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from that.
It's expectation management, and party-politicking.
The Tories were destroying the country at an extremely rapid rate.
My expectations for Starmer are basically that he'll destroy the
country at a somewhat slower rate, and if he does anything to make
things actually better then I'll be pleasantly surprised.

When Starmer was asked, by the Mirror journalist I think, whether he was
going to extend and improve the lawful methods of applying for asylum he
ignored that question and instead trotted out the usual "stop the
criminal gangs by tracing them and prosecuting them" line that he kept
saying before the election.
One never knows whether a politician is choosing to swerve a question or
whether he has the attention span of a gnat.

Was he wearing his politicians or barristers hat at the time ?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal

Post by Jon Ribbens

On 27 Aug 2024 at 14:31:14 BST, "Jon Ribbens"

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?

It's too early to say. Very little time has as yet passed, and any
that has has been basically summer holidays, so nothing much has
happened yet.

I am talking about the doom-filled prime ministerial austerity
statement. And trying not to compare it with the Tory one in 2010.

I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from that.
It's expectation management, and party-politicking.
The Tories were destroying the country at an extremely rapid rate.
My expectations for Starmer are basically that he'll destroy the
country at a somewhat slower rate, and if he does anything to make
things actually better then I'll be pleasantly surprised.

When Starmer was asked, by the Mirror journalist I think, whether he was
going to extend and improve the lawful methods of applying for asylum he
ignored that question and instead trotted out the usual "stop the
criminal gangs by tracing them and prosecuting them" line that he kept
saying before the election.
One never knows whether a politician is choosing to swerve a question or
whether he has the attention span of a gnat.

Was he wearing his politicians or barristers hat at the time ?

When avoiding a straight questions, I think both hats would fit. Not for
nothing have many politicians started as barristers.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by The Todal

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?

It's too early to say. Very little time has as yet passed, and any that
has has been basically summer holidays, so nothing much has happened yet.

I am talking about the doom-filled prime ministerial austerity
statement. And trying not to compare it with the Tory one in 2010.

I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from that.
It's expectation management, and party-politicking.
The Tories were destroying the country at an extremely rapid rate.
My expectations for Starmer are basically that he'll destroy the
country at a somewhat slower rate, and if he does anything to make
things actually better then I'll be pleasantly surprised.

When Starmer was asked, by the Mirror journalist I think, whether he was
going to extend and improve the lawful methods of applying for asylum he
ignored that question and instead trotted out the usual "stop the
criminal gangs by tracing them and prosecuting them" line that he kept
saying before the election.
One never knows whether a politician is choosing to swerve a question or
whether he has the attention span of a gnat.

I don't think you can tell much from this except that he didn't want to
answer the question. *Why* he didn't want to ask the question and what
he will actually do remains to be seen...

[Vir Campestris]

Post by Jon Ribbens
The Tories were destroying the country at an extremely rapid rate.

Agreed.

Post by Jon Ribbens
My expectations for Starmer are basically that he'll destroy the
country at a somewhat slower rate,

I'm not convinced he'll be slower, and may be faster. We'll find out!

Post by Jon Ribbens
and if he does anything to make
things actually better then I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Agreed there too.

Andy

[Davey]

On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.

Your View May differ...or not.

[Spike]

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.

Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

[The Todal]

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers

King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.

Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

Be interesting to compare this with the cost of running a president if
there's a suitable country to compare with. There is a benefit in tourist
income here but whether or not it can be measured I don't know.

[The Todal]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so.  Things could only get better.
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe
there would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince
Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy
by 45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published
by the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is
due to increase from £86m to £125m.

Be interesting to compare this with the cost of running a president if
there's a suitable country to compare with. There is a benefit in
tourist income here but whether or not it can be measured I don't know.

I've often heard it said that our Royal Family attract tourism, but I
don't really see how that works. Do people travel across the world to
see the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace and if so, could that
little tradition continue anyway?

Is it mainly the splendid weddings that interest the ordinary people?

The palaces could remain a tourist attraction long after they become
owned by the National Trust.

I do wonder whether the real value of the Royals is to provide an
incessant stream of copy for our national newspapers. Latest scoop:
Prince Harry and Prince William attended a funeral service but didn't
talk to each other!! Latest survey, William and Katherine are Britain's
favourite royals, a poll has found. Don't you just want William to give
a speech to the nation from the balcony of Buckingham Palace and to yell
"Yes we can! Yes, we fucking can!"

[Davey]

On 31 Aug 2024 08:51:34 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party -
to allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income
earners without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories
doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour
Party is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can
profit from his own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the
whole country is at a standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is
only Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best
Marxist-Leninist standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them
to oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds,
maybe there would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down
Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the
monarchy by 45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost
of living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding
published by the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal
family’s grant is due to increase from £86m to £125m.

Be interesting to compare this with the cost of running a president
if there's a suitable country to compare with. There is a benefit in
tourist income here but whether or not it can be measured I don't
know.

The cost of the Royal Family's stipend is probably enough to cover a US
President's motorcade fuel bill for a year. Not to mention the
accompanying aircraft flights to take the motorcade to the next city,
to fly the 'plane to somewhere else for safety, then to return it in
order to collect the motorcade. I have seen it in action. It beggars
belief that fuel can be wasted this way.

[Spike]

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of Marxism-Leninism
is well over a century of failure.

Post by The Todal
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to that amount of taxpayer money
paid out in benefits.

[The Todal]

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of Marxism-Leninism
is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a century
of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks. Success for the
hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum wage and their
children.

Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with virtually
full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury items.

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to that amount of taxpayer money
paid out in benefits.

I think people generally find it easier to tighten their belts if they
don't see blatant exceptions to the rule. As witness the Downing Street
parties.

[Davey]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 10:59:44 +0100

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party
- to allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle
income earners without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the
Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept
'advice' from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the
Labour Party is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When
nobody can profit from his own endeavours, thrift or investment,
and the whole country is at a standstill, it will declare 'Job
Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is
only Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best
Marxist-Leninist standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of
Marxism-Leninism is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a
century of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks.
Success for the hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum
wage and their children.
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with
virtually full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury
items.

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign
them to oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the
Cotswolds, maybe there would be more money for the UK pensioners.
Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK
taxpayer, according to government plans to boost public funding of
the monarchy by 45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a
cost of living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding
published by the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal
family’s grant is due to increase from £86m to £125m.

That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to that amount of
taxpayer money paid out in benefits.

I think people generally find it easier to tighten their belts if
they don't see blatant exceptions to the rule. As witness the Downing
Street parties.

It's good to see that Angela Raynor has no problems enjoying herself
while away from Westminster. Not illegal, but rather showing how the
other half live if they can afford it.

[The Todal]

Post by Davey
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 10:59:44 +0100

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party
- to allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle
income earners without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the
Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept
'advice' from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the
Labour Party is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When
nobody can profit from his own endeavours, thrift or investment,
and the whole country is at a standstill, it will declare 'Job
Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is
only Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best
Marxist-Leninist standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of
Marxism-Leninism is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a
century of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks.
Success for the hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum
wage and their children.
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with
virtually full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury
items.

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign
them to oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the
Cotswolds, maybe there would be more money for the UK pensioners.
Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK
taxpayer, according to government plans to boost public funding of
the monarchy by 45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a
cost of living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding
published by the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal
family’s grant is due to increase from £86m to £125m.

That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to that amount of
taxpayer money paid out in benefits.

I think people generally find it easier to tighten their belts if
they don't see blatant exceptions to the rule. As witness the Downing
Street parties.

It's good to see that Angela Raynor has no problems enjoying herself
while away from Westminster. Not illegal, but rather showing how the
other half live if they can afford it.

Oh, I know! She was photographed bopping away in an "upmarket night
club" in Ibiza, wherever that is. Sounds like the sort of place rich
people go, like Klosters or Aspen or Gstaad. She should feel rightly
ashamed of herself. In today's Mail, Nadine Dorries says it proves that
our Deputy Prime Minister is unworthy.

Good old Nadine. Still grieving over the defenestration of Boris Johnson
and the way sinister forces blocked her appointment to the House of Lords.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal

Post by Davey
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 10:59:44 +0100

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party
- to allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle
income earners without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the
Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept
'advice' from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the
Labour Party is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When
nobody can profit from his own endeavours, thrift or investment,
and the whole country is at a standstill, it will declare 'Job
Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is
only Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best
Marxist-Leninist standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of
Marxism-Leninism is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a
century of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks.
Success for the hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum
wage and their children.
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with
virtually full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury
items.

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign
them to oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the
Cotswolds, maybe there would be more money for the UK pensioners.
Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK
taxpayer, according to government plans to boost public funding of
the monarchy by 45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a
cost of living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding
published by the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal
family’s grant is due to increase from £86m to £125m.

That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to that amount of
taxpayer money paid out in benefits.

I think people generally find it easier to tighten their belts if
they don't see blatant exceptions to the rule. As witness the Downing
Street parties.

It's good to see that Angela Raynor has no problems enjoying herself
while away from Westminster. Not illegal, but rather showing how the
other half live if they can afford it.

Oh, I know! She was photographed bopping away in an "upmarket night
club" in Ibiza, wherever that is. Sounds like the sort of place rich
people go, like Klosters or Aspen or Gstaad. She should feel rightly
ashamed of herself. In today's Mail, Nadine Dorries says it proves that
our Deputy Prime Minister is unworthy.
Good old Nadine. Still grieving over the defenestration of Boris Johnson
and the way sinister forces blocked her appointment to the House of Lords.

Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

[JNugent]

On 31/08/2024 12:12 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?  How
on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on her
holidays. I wonder how many of us pensioners would actually envy those
who go to nightclubs and are assailed by deafening music and are
expected to keep dancing all night instead of having a nice lie-down.

But I'm sure it's easily affordable for the masses, anyway.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?  How
on earth do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something
I'd do, but then I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on her
holidays.

But (some) people DO.

Remember all the fuss - some of it verging on visceral hatred - arising
out of a Prime Minister eating birthday cake?

Post by The Todal
I wonder how many of us pensioners would actually envy those
who go to nightclubs and are assailed by deafening music and are
expected to keep dancing all night instead of having a nice lie-down.

Oh, it's absolutely not for me either.

I can quite understand that it is the natural habitat of people like
Chardonnay Rayner, though.

But really, after years of petty sniping by the Labour opposition at
Conservative ministers and MPs for similar things, you'd have thought
they themselves would have drawn a few lessons from it, wouldn't you?

Post by The Todal
But I'm sure it's easily affordable for the masses, anyway.

So was birthday cake.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?  How
on earth do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something
I'd do, but then I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on
her holidays.

But (some) people DO.
Remember all the fuss - some of it verging on visceral hatred - arising
out of a Prime Minister eating birthday cake?

You may have noticed that nobody envied him his birthday cake. It wasn't
seen as a luxury item, an unnecessary indulgence when it would have been
more seemly to eat bread and margarine.

It was all about making Covid rules for the rest of us, and flouting
those rules within Downing Street. Social distancing. Unnecessary
gatherings of people. All that. His excuse was that his staff work hard
and therefore deserve their little parties. As if the rest of the UK
don't work hard.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?
How on earth do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not
something
I'd do, but then I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on
her holidays.

But (some) people DO.
Remember all the fuss - some of it verging on visceral hatred -
arising out of a Prime Minister eating birthday cake?

You may have noticed that nobody envied him his birthday cake. It wasn't
seen as a luxury item, an unnecessary indulgence when it would have been
more seemly to eat bread and margarine.
It was all about making Covid rules for the rest of us, and flouting
those rules within Downing Street. Social distancing. Unnecessary
gatherings of people. All that. His excuse was that his staff work hard
and therefore deserve their little parties. As if the rest of the UK
don't work hard.

But... it was perfectly OK for Starman and Rayner to enjoy beer and
curry at a gathering elsewhere.

Of course, both events were "judged" by Labour.

Starman and Rayner were found not guilty by a police force run by a
Labour PCC.

Boris was found guilty by a then-undeclared Labour activist who is now
high in the party's upper echelons.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?
How on earth do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not
something
I'd do, but then I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on
her holidays.

But (some) people DO.
Remember all the fuss - some of it verging on visceral hatred -
arising out of a Prime Minister eating birthday cake?

You may have noticed that nobody envied him his birthday cake. It
wasn't seen as a luxury item, an unnecessary indulgence when it would
have been more seemly to eat bread and margarine.
It was all about making Covid rules for the rest of us, and flouting
those rules within Downing Street. Social distancing. Unnecessary
gatherings of people. All that. His excuse was that his staff work
hard and therefore deserve their little parties. As if the rest of the
UK don't work hard.

But... it was perfectly OK for Starman and Rayner to enjoy beer and
curry at a gathering elsewhere.
Of course, both events were "judged" by Labour.
Starman and Rayner were found not guilty by a police force run by a
Labour PCC.
Boris was found guilty by a then-undeclared Labour activist who is now
high in the party's upper echelons.

Yes, there really is two-tier policing in this godforsaken country of
ours. People who eat curry are treated leniently. People who eat good
old fish and chips and toad in the hole and birthday cakes, get
humiliated and prosecuted and lose their jobs.

Before long, all the churches and chapels will be converted into
mosques. Carpets will be provided and everyone will have to kneel and
face Mecca and pray. You may as well get used to it. Say, ‘I intend to
pray the (four) Rak‘at of Salatul (Dhuhr) for Allah facing the Ka‘bah’,
replacing the parts in brackets with the correct number of Rak‘ats
(units of prayer) and the Salah you are about to perform. Or they'll cut
your balls off.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?
How on earth do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not
something
I'd do, but then I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes
on her holidays.

But (some) people DO.
Remember all the fuss - some of it verging on visceral hatred -
arising out of a Prime Minister eating birthday cake?

You may have noticed that nobody envied him his birthday cake. It
wasn't seen as a luxury item, an unnecessary indulgence when it would
have been more seemly to eat bread and margarine.
It was all about making Covid rules for the rest of us, and flouting
those rules within Downing Street. Social distancing. Unnecessary
gatherings of people. All that. His excuse was that his staff work
hard and therefore deserve their little parties. As if the rest of
the UK don't work hard.

But... it was perfectly OK for Starman and Rayner to enjoy beer and
curry at a gathering elsewhere.
Of course, both events were "judged" by Labour.
Starman and Rayner were found not guilty by a police force run by a
Labour PCC.
Boris was found guilty by a then-undeclared Labour activist who is now
high in the party's upper echelons.

Yes, there really is two-tier policing in this godforsaken country of
ours. [ ... ]

That's what I said.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?
How on earth do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not
something
I'd do, but then I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on
her holidays.

But (some) people DO.
Remember all the fuss - some of it verging on visceral hatred -
arising out of a Prime Minister eating birthday cake?

You may have noticed that nobody envied him his birthday cake. It wasn't
seen as a luxury item, an unnecessary indulgence when it would have been
more seemly to eat bread and margarine.
It was all about making Covid rules for the rest of us, and flouting
those rules within Downing Street. Social distancing. Unnecessary
gatherings of people. All that. His excuse was that his staff work hard
and therefore deserve their little parties. As if the rest of the UK
don't work hard.

But... it was perfectly OK for Starman and Rayner to enjoy beer and
curry at a gathering elsewhere.
Of course, both events were "judged" by Labour.
Starman and Rayner were found not guilty by a police force run by a
Labour PCC.

PCCs don't run police forces; indeed any interference in decision making in a
particular case would tend to result in a loud protest from the Chief
Constable. I do agree with you about the whitewash of the Labour meal, but
blaming the party of the PCC is contrived and unlikely.

Post by JNugent
Boris was found guilty by a then-undeclared Labour activist who is now
high in the party's upper echelons.

[JNugent]

[ ... ]

How about the deceit perpetrated by the undeclared civil servant?

There was no deceit. That's just a lie peddled by Boris and his closest
supporters, no doubt including Nadine. Boris was guilty as hell, and
senior Tories accepted the decision of Sue Gray and in fact the
Privileges Committee also found him guilty as hell.

Do you mean that they KNEW she was not only a dyed-in-the-wool Labour
voter and supporter but was about to accept a job at the upper end of
that party's staff and STILL trusted her to make an impartial
investigation of allegations against the Prime Minister?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

How about the deceit perpetrated by the undeclared civil servant?

There was no deceit. That's just a lie peddled by Boris and his closest
supporters, no doubt including Nadine. Boris was guilty as hell, and
senior Tories accepted the decision of Sue Gray and in fact the
Privileges Committee also found him guilty as hell.

Do you mean that they KNEW she was not only a dyed-in-the-wool Labour
voter and supporter but was about to accept a job at the upper end of
that party's staff and STILL trusted her to make an impartial
investigation of allegations against the Prime Minister?

Of course. For some of us our professional integrity is much more important
than party politic.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

How about the deceit perpetrated by the undeclared civil servant?

There was no deceit. That's just a lie peddled by Boris and his closest
supporters, no doubt including Nadine. Boris was guilty as hell, and
senior Tories accepted the decision of Sue Gray and in fact the
Privileges Committee also found him guilty as hell.

Do you mean that they KNEW she was not only a dyed-in-the-wool Labour
voter and supporter but was about to accept a job at the upper end of
that party's staff and STILL trusted her to make an impartial
investigation of allegations against the Prime Minister?

Of course. For some of us our professional integrity is much more important
than party politic.

If that *is* how it happened, it was a naively bad political decision by
Boris.

OTOH, if Boris is saying - as reported by a poster above - that he was
not aware of the woman's political bias (with the implication that he
would not have trusted her had he known), that tells a different story.

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

How about the deceit perpetrated by the undeclared civil servant?

There was no deceit. That's just a lie peddled by Boris and his closest
supporters, no doubt including Nadine. Boris was guilty as hell, and
senior Tories accepted the decision of Sue Gray and in fact the
Privileges Committee also found him guilty as hell.

Do you mean that they KNEW she was not only a dyed-in-the-wool Labour
voter and supporter but was about to accept a job at the upper end of
that party's staff and STILL trusted her to make an impartial
investigation of allegations against the Prime Minister?

Of course. For some of us our professional integrity is much more important
than party politic.

Professional integrity, is that ethical duty of a member of a profession
to protect and promote the interests of the profession? As opposed to an
ethical duty to protect clients from members of the profession.
That is the way it seemed to work in my experience.

Profession Integrity isn’t that all-encompassing. Apparently, an eminent
senior consultant on baby brains gave evidence in a successful appeal case
regarding what was known as ‘shaken baby syndrome’. The sky fell in on her
and she was hounded out of the medical profession. Apparently, doctors
shouldn’t contradict other doctors, the message being that doing so was to
commit career suicide. A strange case of ‘professional integrity’
perhaps, although it sounds more like ‘honour among thieves’.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

How about the deceit perpetrated by the undeclared civil servant?

There was no deceit. That's just a lie peddled by Boris and his closest
supporters, no doubt including Nadine. Boris was guilty as hell, and
senior Tories accepted the decision of Sue Gray and in fact the
Privileges Committee also found him guilty as hell.

Do you mean that they KNEW she was not only a dyed-in-the-wool Labour
voter and supporter but was about to accept a job at the upper end of
that party's staff and STILL trusted her to make an impartial
investigation of allegations against the Prime Minister?

Of course. For some of us our professional integrity is much more important
than party politic.

Professional integrity, is that ethical duty of a member of a profession
to protect and promote the interests of the profession? As opposed to an
ethical duty to protect clients from members of the profession.
That is the way it seemed to work in my experience.

Profession Integrity isn’t that all-encompassing. Apparently, an eminent
senior consultant on baby brains gave evidence in a successful appeal case
regarding what was known as ‘shaken baby syndrome’. The sky fell in on her
and she was hounded out of the medical profession. Apparently, doctors
shouldn’t contradict other doctors, the message being that doing so was to
commit career suicide. A strange case of ‘professional integrity’
perhaps, although it sounds more like ‘honour among thieves’.

I think it is more about zeolatry among zealots. It is more about an ardent
faith that there must be a way to avenge murdered babies than professional
solidarity. If you can see parallels with the climate situation then you are
on your own, I haven't suggested any.

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

How about the deceit perpetrated by the undeclared civil servant?

There was no deceit. That's just a lie peddled by Boris and his closest
supporters, no doubt including Nadine. Boris was guilty as hell, and
senior Tories accepted the decision of Sue Gray and in fact the
Privileges Committee also found him guilty as hell.

Do you mean that they KNEW she was not only a dyed-in-the-wool Labour
voter and supporter but was about to accept a job at the upper end of
that party's staff and STILL trusted her to make an impartial
investigation of allegations against the Prime Minister?

Of course. For some of us our professional integrity is much more important
than party politic.

Professional integrity, is that ethical duty of a member of a profession
to protect and promote the interests of the profession? As opposed to an
ethical duty to protect clients from members of the profession.
That is the way it seemed to work in my experience.

Profession Integrity isn’t that all-encompassing. Apparently, an eminent
senior consultant on baby brains gave evidence in a successful appeal case
regarding what was known as ‘shaken baby syndrome’. The sky fell in on her
and she was hounded out of the medical profession. Apparently, doctors
shouldn’t contradict other doctors, the message being that doing so was to
commit career suicide. A strange case of ‘professional integrity’
perhaps, although it sounds more like ‘honour among thieves’.

I think it is more about zeolatry among zealots. It is more about an ardent
faith that there must be a way to avenge murdered babies than professional
solidarity. If you can see parallels with the climate situation then you are
on your own, I haven't suggested any.

I was thinking the case I referred to was less about professional
solidarity than one of the professionals involved in the appeal taking a
scientific view of the evidence (which is what I recall her mentioning)
rather than merely falling in line with the trade unionist view of
solidarity at all costs, including that paid by an innocent defendant.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

How about the deceit perpetrated by the undeclared civil servant?

There was no deceit. That's just a lie peddled by Boris and his closest
supporters, no doubt including Nadine. Boris was guilty as hell, and
senior Tories accepted the decision of Sue Gray and in fact the
Privileges Committee also found him guilty as hell.

Do you mean that they KNEW she was not only a dyed-in-the-wool Labour
voter and supporter but was about to accept a job at the upper end of
that party's staff and STILL trusted her to make an impartial
investigation of allegations against the Prime Minister?

Of course. For some of us our professional integrity is much more important
than party politic.

Professional integrity, is that ethical duty of a member of a profession
to protect and promote the interests of the profession? As opposed to an
ethical duty to protect clients from members of the profession.
That is the way it seemed to work in my experience.

Profession Integrity isn’t that all-encompassing. Apparently, an eminent
senior consultant on baby brains gave evidence in a successful appeal case
regarding what was known as ‘shaken baby syndrome’. The sky fell in on her
and she was hounded out of the medical profession. Apparently, doctors
shouldn’t contradict other doctors, the message being that doing so was to
commit career suicide. A strange case of ‘professional integrity’
perhaps, although it sounds more like ‘honour among thieves’.

I think it is more about zeolatry among zealots. It is more about an ardent
faith that there must be a way to avenge murdered babies than professional
solidarity. If you can see parallels with the climate situation then you are
on your own, I haven't suggested any.

I was thinking the case I referred to was less about professional
solidarity than one of the professionals involved in the appeal taking a
scientific view of the evidence (which is what I recall her mentioning)
rather than merely falling in line with the trade unionist view of
solidarity at all costs, including that paid by an innocent defendant.

Possibly. Possibly you have an irrational dislike of Trade Unions. But I see
it more as the small number of prosecution experts all really wishing that
minor non-specific signs were sufficient to convict nasty child murderers and
deciding to make it so. And being somewhat annoyed that someone from outside
their little group was spoiling it. Nothing to do with supporting each other,
everything to do with supporting police/CPS cases as a sort of moral crusade.


My impression is encouraged by being told in a lecture to students in the late
'60s by a very famous Home Office pathologist that he considered it his duty
to minimise evidence of violence and diagnose natural causes in the case of
deaths in custody, in order to support the police in their very difficult task
of keeping people like us safe.

[Pancho]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

How about the deceit perpetrated by the undeclared civil servant?

There was no deceit. That's just a lie peddled by Boris and his closest
supporters, no doubt including Nadine. Boris was guilty as hell, and
senior Tories accepted the decision of Sue Gray and in fact the
Privileges Committee also found him guilty as hell.

Do you mean that they KNEW she was not only a dyed-in-the-wool Labour
voter and supporter but was about to accept a job at the upper end of
that party's staff and STILL trusted her to make an impartial
investigation of allegations against the Prime Minister?

Of course. For some of us our professional integrity is much more important
than party politic.

Professional integrity, is that ethical duty of a member of a profession
to protect and promote the interests of the profession? As opposed to an
ethical duty to protect clients from members of the profession.
That is the way it seemed to work in my experience.

Profession Integrity isn’t that all-encompassing. Apparently, an eminent
senior consultant on baby brains gave evidence in a successful appeal case
regarding what was known as ‘shaken baby syndrome’. The sky fell in on her
and she was hounded out of the medical profession. Apparently, doctors
shouldn’t contradict other doctors, the message being that doing so was to
commit career suicide. A strange case of ‘professional integrity’
perhaps, although it sounds more like ‘honour among thieves’.

I think it is more about zeolatry among zealots. It is more about an ardent
faith that there must be a way to avenge murdered babies than professional
solidarity. If you can see parallels with the climate situation then you are
on your own, I haven't suggested any.

I was thinking the case I referred to was less about professional
solidarity than one of the professionals involved in the appeal taking a
scientific view of the evidence (which is what I recall her mentioning)
rather than merely falling in line with the trade unionist view of
solidarity at all costs, including that paid by an innocent defendant.

Possibly. Possibly you have an irrational dislike of Trade Unions. But I see
it more as the small number of prosecution experts all really wishing that
minor non-specific signs were sufficient to convict nasty child murderers and
deciding to make it so. And being somewhat annoyed that someone from outside
their little group was spoiling it. Nothing to do with supporting each other,
everything to do with supporting police/CPS cases as a sort of moral crusade.

The point is these were the people selected to do the work, to give
evidence. The were selected because they did what was wanted. They were
a public face of the profession, and the profession as a whole enabled this.

Post by Roger Hayter
My impression is encouraged by being told in a lecture to students in the late
'60s by a very famous Home Office pathologist that he considered it his duty
to minimise evidence of violence and diagnose natural causes in the case of
deaths in custody, in order to support the police in their very difficult task
of keeping people like us safe.

The pathologist was explaining what was expected of a professional. He
was famous because he could be trusted to "do the right thing". The
people who can be trusted rise to the top, the people who don't are
excluded from top jobs, and possibly the profession itself.

Integrity has two meanings "honest, strong moral principles" is a
derivative meaning of "being whole and undivided". I see professional
integrity in practice commonly used to mean solidarity with the
profession. This is spin, used to present solidarity as honesty. If you
tell a lie enough times...

You can argue professional integrity does mean honest, but you are just
helping the propagandists. Just as you can argue antisemitism means
someone who irrationally and oppressively discriminates against Jews, as
opposed to someone who thinks, reasonably, that Israel is a racist
endeavour, etc.

[Pancho]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

How about the deceit perpetrated by the undeclared civil servant?

There was no deceit. That's just a lie peddled by Boris and his closest
supporters, no doubt including Nadine. Boris was guilty as hell, and
senior Tories accepted the decision of Sue Gray and in fact the
Privileges Committee also found him guilty as hell.

Do you mean that they KNEW she was not only a dyed-in-the-wool Labour
voter and supporter but was about to accept a job at the upper end of
that party's staff and STILL trusted her to make an impartial
investigation of allegations against the Prime Minister?

Of course. For some of us our professional integrity is much more important
than party politic.

Professional integrity, is that ethical duty of a member of a profession
to protect and promote the interests of the profession?

No

As opposed to an
ethical duty to protect clients from members of the profession.
That is the way it seemed to work in my experience.

I am sorry you came across such dishonest people.

They weren't dishonest. They openly stated policies of being unwilling
to involve themselves in actions critical of the work done by fellow
members of the profession. They had some pompous term for it, but I
forgotten what it is. My main experience was with accountants, so no
need for ulm members to see it as a direct attack.

However my feeling is that is a strong tendency in many professions to
stick together in order to avoid criticism and preserve "rent seeking"
behaviours. There is just such a strong vested interest in doing so.

Professions are cartels.

Though I suppose it is
possible some of the actually thought they were right.

Saw themselves as entitled, yes.

[kat]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?  How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the abolition of
the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on her
holidays. I wonder how many of us pensioners would actually envy those who go to
nightclubs and are assailed by deafening music and are expected to keep dancing
all night instead of having a nice lie-down.
But I'm sure it's easily affordable for the masses, anyway.

I read somewhere that club charges £11 for a bottle of water. If the masses
can easily afford that we have no cost of living crisis.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by kat

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the abolition of
the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on her
holidays. I wonder how many of us pensioners would actually envy those who go to
nightclubs and are assailed by deafening music and are expected to keep dancing
all night instead of having a nice lie-down.
But I'm sure it's easily affordable for the masses, anyway.

I read somewhere that club charges £11 for a bottle of water. If the masses
can easily afford that we have no cost of living crisis.

If you think exploitative drink pricing in nightclubs is the preserve of
bloated plutocrats you are probably out of touch. But possibly part of the
Daily Mail demographic.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by kat

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the abolition of
the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on her
holidays. I wonder how many of us pensioners would actually envy those who go to
nightclubs and are assailed by deafening music and are expected to keep dancing
all night instead of having a nice lie-down.
But I'm sure it's easily affordable for the masses, anyway.

I read somewhere that club charges £11 for a bottle of water. If the masses
can easily afford that we have no cost of living crisis.

If you think exploitative drink pricing in nightclubs is the preserve of
bloated plutocrats you are probably out of touch. But possibly part of the
Daily Mail demographic.

Oh, I don't,I am aware that plenty of people are daft enough to fork out silly
sims for water, and not just in nightclubs in Ibiza.
But it doesn't make good reading for anyone who neeeds a food bank, does it.

I think it makes totally irrelevant reading for anyone who needs a food bank,
unless they are a doctrinaire Tory supporter. After all, more than half the
population goes on package holidays, and people who use food banks probably
know that half the population not being allowed to go anywhere would not
significantly help them; because, guess what, the money taken away from
holidaymakers would end up in the pockets of big business.

So, sorry, no; much as I dislike New New Labour, an attempt to depict
ministers as thoughtless rich people because they go to an Ibiza nightclub
seems the cheapest of cheap lying propaganda to me.

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter
So, sorry, no; much as I dislike New New Labour, an attempt to depict
ministers as thoughtless rich people because they go to an Ibiza nightclub
seems the cheapest of cheap lying propaganda to me.

The latest Labour incarnation seems to be totally unaware of what these
days are called ‘the optics’, but doubtless the lesson is beginning to sink
in that highly-visible first-class travel to expensive venues, complete
with the finest food and wines, sends the wrong message from this
pensioner-robbing, ‘dig deep, it’s doom and gloom time for the hoi polloi’
government.

"first-class travel to expensive venues, complete with the finest food
and wines" - what are you referring to?

All the junkets to come…

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Roger Hayter
So, sorry, no; much as I dislike New New Labour, an attempt to depict
ministers as thoughtless rich people because they go to an Ibiza
nightclub seems the cheapest of cheap lying propaganda to me.

The latest Labour incarnation seems to be totally unaware of what these
days are called ‘the optics’, but doubtless the lesson is beginning
to sink in that highly-visible first-class travel to expensive
venues, complete with the finest food and wines, sends the wrong
message from this pensioner-robbing, ‘dig deep, it’s doom and gloom
time for the hoi polloi’ government.

"first-class travel to expensive venues, complete with the finest food
and wines" - what are you referring to?

That's gotta be King Charles and his toothpaste-carrier, surely.

Now if Starmer appointed Charles as a government minister,
that really would put the cat among the pigeons.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by kat

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the abolition of
the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension Snatcher Party?

I don't see why anyone should give a damn about where Rayner goes on her
holidays. I wonder how many of us pensioners would actually envy those who go
to nightclubs and are assailed by deafening music and are expected to keep
dancing all night instead of having a nice lie-down.
But I'm sure it's easily affordable for the masses, anyway.

I read somewhere that club charges £11 for a bottle of water. If the masses
can easily afford that we have no cost of living crisis.

If you think exploitative drink pricing in nightclubs is the preserve of
bloated plutocrats you are probably out of touch. But possibly part of the
Daily Mail demographic.

Back in the later 1960s, Liverpool pub prices (at least in the sort of
pubs I frequented) were around 1/11d a pint or 1/1d for a half-pint
bottle (pale or brown ale, both used more for mixing with a half-pint of
draught than for drinking on their own).

Nightclubs used to charge 2/- for the bottle and about 4/- for a pint.
That latter should be read as "where available", because some
"nightclubs" were operating without benefit of the licensing laws and
were on permanent tolerance by the constabulary. They obviously couldn't
risk installing a cellar, barrels and pump gear.

The point is, patrons had to swallow the doubling of the post-tax price
after 22:30 because there was nowhere else to get a drink in convivial
surroundings.

But £11 for a bottle of untaxed water (other than for VAT, perhaps)?

Someone is extracting a bodily fluid, especially in Spain, where proper
drinks are renowned for being cheap.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?  How
on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

My second answer to that: forget about Angela Rayner, who was probably
partying on a budget.

Instead, consider Sir Keir Starmer who apparently doesn't take holidays
(well, I don't either) but avails himself of lavish hospitality gifts
from people trying to buy favours from him. That's probably rather shameful.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/31/keir-starmer-perks-disconcerting-cash-strapped-britain

quote

Here is a man who has clearly long had a taste for comfort: when he was
director of prosecutions, taxpayers reportedly coughed up nearly
£250,000 for his travel costs, including first-class flights and a
chauffeur-driven car. Apparently he deemed the latter a requirement,
even though he lived just five or so miles from the Crown Prosecution
Service offices, which were easily accessible through a direct tube
journey. Notably, he claimed nearly three times more expenses than his
successor, who had the job for the same amount of time.

Look at this behaviour as Labour leader, and something of a pattern
emerges. By last summer, Starmer had accepted more freebies than all
Labour leaders since 1997 combined. As analysis by openDemocracy
uncovered, that included multiple gifts from wealthy donors and
companies, days at the races, an Adele gig, two Coldplay concerts and
hospitality at Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur matches.

In total, he received £76,000 worth of freebies in the last parliament.
These ranged from hotel stays to more than 20 football tickets (bear in
mind that, as leader of the opposition, his £128,291 annual salary
hardly left him wanting). Throw in VIP tickets courtesy of the Premier
League to see Taylor Swift, worth £4,000, during the general election
campaign and, well, you get the gist.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

My second answer to that: forget about Angela Rayner, who was probably
partying on a budget.
Instead, consider Sir Keir Starmer who apparently doesn't take holidays
(well, I don't either) but avails himself of lavish hospitality gifts
from people trying to buy favours from him. That's probably rather shameful.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/31/keir-starmer-perks-disconcerting-cash-strapped-britain
quote
Here is a man who has clearly long had a taste for comfort: when he was
director of prosecutions, taxpayers reportedly coughed up nearly
£250,000 for his travel costs, including first-class flights and a
chauffeur-driven car. Apparently he deemed the latter a requirement,
even though he lived just five or so miles from the Crown Prosecution
Service offices, which were easily accessible through a direct tube
journey. Notably, he claimed nearly three times more expenses than his
successor, who had the job for the same amount of time.
Look at this behaviour as Labour leader, and something of a pattern
emerges. By last summer, Starmer had accepted more freebies than all
Labour leaders since 1997 combined. As analysis by openDemocracy
uncovered, that included multiple gifts from wealthy donors and
companies, days at the races, an Adele gig, two Coldplay concerts and
hospitality at Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur matches.
In total, he received £76,000 worth of freebies in the last parliament.
These ranged from hotel stays to more than 20 football tickets (bear in
mind that, as leader of the opposition, his £128,291 annual salary
hardly left him wanting). Throw in VIP tickets courtesy of the Premier
League to see Taylor Swift, worth £4,000, during the general election
campaign and, well, you get the gist.

Yes it is very telling how the tabloids and the right wing press go after
Rayner and not Starmer. Clearly their proprietors know who their friends are.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

That is so absurd. Can you seriously imagine anyone complaining about any
official (or any Tory Minister for that matter) going on an ordinary package
holiday, in their holidays? It is cheap hypocritical nonsense for the papers
to complain about it.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

That is so absurd.

What you MUST mean there is that you think it is absurd to criticise a
socialist. But I don't remember you leaping to any analogous defence of
a Conservative under fire.

Did I miss that bit?

Post by Roger Hayter
Can you seriously imagine anyone complaining about any
official (or any Tory Minister for that matter) going on an ordinary package
holiday, in their holidays?

Yes. The Grauniad frequently criticised ministers for being on their
summer holiday with their families when "events" er... eventuated...
during the same time period.

Post by Roger Hayter
It is cheap hypocritical nonsense for the papers
to complain about it.

Either it is "cheap hypocritical nonsense" only when Labourites are
being criticised or it was equally "cheap hypocritical nonsense" when
Conservative ministers were criticised in similar circumstances.

Which one is it?

For shame, just cast your mind back over recent years.

Then have a think about biters being bit and the subject of what sauce
is best with roast gander.

[Sir Tim]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

Let’s be clear about this: the Winter Fuel Allowance is *not* to be
abolished, it is to be restricted to those receiving one of the following
benefits: Income Support; Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance;
Income-related Employment and Support Allowance; Pension Credit or
Universal Credit (for example, through a joint claim with your partner).

I am 85 years old, and reliant on the State Pension and a small personal
pension, but I feel that, with the Triple Lock etc., we pensioners have
been very well treated in recent years. Whilst always grateful for extra
income, I have long felt guilty about accepting the WFA, which is paid
without regard to my personal circumstances.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

Let’s be clear about this: the Winter Fuel Allowance is *not* to be
abolished, it is to be restricted to those receiving one of the following
benefits: Income Support; Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance;
Income-related Employment and Support Allowance; Pension Credit or
Universal Credit (for example, through a joint claim with your partner).
I am 85 years old, and reliant on the State Pension and a small personal
pension, but I feel that, with the Triple Lock etc., we pensioners have
been very well treated in recent years. Whilst always grateful for extra
income, I have long felt guilty about accepting the WFA, which is paid
without regard to my personal circumstances.

Taking 300GBP off you in a year certainly makes nonsense of the triple lock
for the next few years though.

[Davey]

On 2 Sep 2024 14:17:18 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron?
How on earth do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not
something I'd do, but then I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

Let’s be clear about this: the Winter Fuel Allowance is *not* to be
abolished, it is to be restricted to those receiving one of the
following benefits: Income Support; Income-based Jobseeker's
Allowance; Income-related Employment and Support Allowance; Pension
Credit or Universal Credit (for example, through a joint claim with
your partner).
I am 85 years old, and reliant on the State Pension and a small
personal pension, but I feel that, with the Triple Lock etc., we
pensioners have been very well treated in recent years. Whilst
always grateful for extra income, I have long felt guilty about
accepting the WFA, which is paid without regard to my personal
circumstances.

Taking 300GBP off you in a year certainly makes nonsense of the
triple lock for the next few years though.

Especially as the energy price 'cap' is being raised at the same time.
A comparison with payments involving Peter and Paul springs to mind.

[Mike Scott]

Post by Roger Hayter
Taking 300GBP off you in a year certainly makes nonsense of the triple lock
for the next few years though.

But pensioners can be comforted that "Cutting winter fuel payments will
stabilise the economy"
(https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-cutting-winter-fuel-payments-will-stabilise-the-economy-13208429)

I'd not realised the problem was so easily solved.

:-|

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mike Scott

Post by Roger Hayter
Taking 300GBP off you in a year certainly makes nonsense of the triple lock
for the next few years though.

But pensioners can be comforted that "Cutting winter fuel payments will
stabilise the economy"
(https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-cutting-winter-fuel-payments-will-stabilise-the-economy-13208429)
I'd not realised the problem was so easily solved.
:-|

My guess as to what they're alluding to is that they felt they had to
send a signal to "the markets" that the new government is willing to do
dubious and unpopular things in the name of the economy, in order for
"the markets" not to bet against it. It doesn't solve a problem, it
prevents a new one emerging. At least I assume that's the idea.

[Mike Scott]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mike Scott

Post by Roger Hayter
Taking 300GBP off you in a year certainly makes nonsense of the triple lock
for the next few years though.

But pensioners can be comforted that "Cutting winter fuel payments will
stabilise the economy"
(https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-cutting-winter-fuel-payments-will-stabilise-the-economy-13208429)
I'd not realised the problem was so easily solved.
:-|

My guess as to what they're alluding to is that they felt they had to
send a signal to "the markets" that the new government is willing to do
dubious and unpopular things in the name of the economy, in order for
"the markets" not to bet against it. It doesn't solve a problem, it
prevents a new one emerging. At least I assume that's the idea.

Actually, reading <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0492rwnevgo> I
wonder just how much cutting the blanket WFA will actually save. Nothing
like changing a simple system into an expensive palaver.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mike Scott

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mike Scott

Post by Roger Hayter
Taking 300GBP off you in a year certainly makes nonsense of the
triple lock for the next few years though.

But pensioners can be comforted that "Cutting winter fuel payments will
stabilise the economy"
(https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-cutting-winter-fuel-payments-will-stabilise-the-economy-13208429)
I'd not realised the problem was so easily solved.
:-|

My guess as to what they're alluding to is that they felt they had to
send a signal to "the markets" that the new government is willing to do
dubious and unpopular things in the name of the economy, in order for
"the markets" not to bet against it. It doesn't solve a problem, it
prevents a new one emerging. At least I assume that's the idea.

Actually, reading <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0492rwnevgo> I
wonder just how much cutting the blanket WFA will actually save. Nothing
like changing a simple system into an expensive palaver.

Well, that's my point. It's not about the money. It's about sending
a message.

[JNugent]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

Let’s be clear about this: the Winter Fuel Allowance is *not* to be
abolished, it is to be restricted to those receiving one of the following
benefits: Income Support; Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance;
Income-related Employment and Support Allowance; Pension Credit or
Universal Credit (for example, through a joint claim with your partner).

What a HUGE difference!

OK, so only about ten million pensioners will be adversely affected.

Source:
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/winter-fuel-payments-pensioners-b2605455.html>

Post by Sir Tim
I am 85 years old, and reliant on the State Pension and a small personal
pension, but I feel that, with the Triple Lock etc., we pensioners have
been very well treated in recent years. Whilst always grateful for extra
income, I have long felt guilty about accepting the WFA, which is paid
without regard to my personal circumstances.

If you didn't want it, you and others of a similar mind were free to
return it to the Exchequer. You always were.

Why would you say that Labour were so solicitous about the WFA during
the election campaign. asking the government of the day to guarantee to
retain it?

They obviously cannot have seen it as an important payment or
entitlement, since it was the first thing they scrapped (OK, "only" for
ten million pensioners) and it is not credible that this was not their
intention all along.

This was Gordon Brown and the Married Couples' and housebuyers' MIRAS
Allowances all over again.

[Owen Rees]

Post by Sir Tim

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't "an "upmarket night club" in Ibiza" a bit of an oxymoron? How on earth
do the Tory papers make this into a criticism? Not something I'd do, but then
I'm not a politician.

Did it look good (or even acceptable) within a week or two of the
abolition of the pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance by the Pension
Snatcher Party?

Let’s be clear about this: the Winter Fuel Allowance is *not* to be
abolished, it is to be restricted to those receiving one of the following
benefits: Income Support; Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance;
Income-related Employment and Support Allowance; Pension Credit or
Universal Credit (for example, through a joint claim with your partner).
I am 85 years old, and reliant on the State Pension and a small personal
pension, but I feel that, with the Triple Lock etc., we pensioners have
been very well treated in recent years. Whilst always grateful for extra
income, I have long felt guilty about accepting the WFA, which is paid
without regard to my personal circumstances.

Except for the year when the Conservative government did not honour the
triple lock.

And the women who were subjected to the accelerated introduction of the
increase in pension age with insufficient notice.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Davey
It's good to see that Angela Raynor has no problems enjoying herself
while away from Westminster. Not illegal, but rather showing how the
other half live if they can afford it.

It's good of you to concede that it's not a crime. But I'm pretty sure
that dancing in nightclubs, even those in Ibiza, is not an activity
restricted to the rich.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of Marxism-Leninism
is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a century
of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks. Success for the
hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum wage and their
children.
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with virtually
full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury items.

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to that amount of taxpayer money
paid out in benefits.

I think people generally find it easier to tighten their belts if they
don't see blatant exceptions to the rule. As witness the Downing Street
parties.

I don't think my objections to the Royal family are so much that they are
expensive as that their wealth is familial. Though most of their vast wealth
is under government control. But object far more to the great landed families
that still own a huge proportion of our national wealth, a thousand years
after the Norman conquest that gave it to them - or to the kings who later
gave it to them. Nowadays I expect much of it is technically owned by trusts
and off-shore companies to avoid most taxes. But the fact remains that these
families own or control a vast proportion of our land, especially valuable
urban land. (Do you remember so cheeky aristocrat trying to claim back the
site of St Georges hospital near Victoria, on the grounds that his ancestor
had lent it? If it had been France his family would have been dispossessed in
the 18th century. If it had been an ordinary citizen suffering commpulsory
purchase he would have had no case at all. These vast land holdings draw a
parasitic profit from every productive enterprise in this country, dragging
down the economy for family profit. If they were dispossessed of their land
and given compensation at least they would have to invest their new-found cash
in productive enterprise which might help our productivity.

My objection to the Royal family is largely as a figurehead normalising the
vast aristocratic wealth that *isn't* under government control. I think many
people do not realise the scale of this mafia-like tax on everything we do by
the families who still own most of the country.

[The Todal]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of Marxism-Leninism
is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a century
of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks. Success for the
hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum wage and their
children.
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with virtually
full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury items.

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to that amount of taxpayer money
paid out in benefits.

I think people generally find it easier to tighten their belts if they
don't see blatant exceptions to the rule. As witness the Downing Street
parties.

I don't think my objections to the Royal family are so much that they are
expensive as that their wealth is familial. Though most of their vast wealth
is under government control. But object far more to the great landed families
that still own a huge proportion of our national wealth, a thousand years
after the Norman conquest that gave it to them - or to the kings who later
gave it to them. Nowadays I expect much of it is technically owned by trusts
and off-shore companies to avoid most taxes. But the fact remains that these
families own or control a vast proportion of our land, especially valuable
urban land. (Do you remember so cheeky aristocrat trying to claim back the
site of St Georges hospital near Victoria, on the grounds that his ancestor
had lent it? If it had been France his family would have been dispossessed in
the 18th century. If it had been an ordinary citizen suffering commpulsory
purchase he would have had no case at all. These vast land holdings draw a
parasitic profit from every productive enterprise in this country, dragging
down the economy for family profit. If they were dispossessed of their land
and given compensation at least they would have to invest their new-found cash
in productive enterprise which might help our productivity.
My objection to the Royal family is largely as a figurehead normalising the
vast aristocratic wealth that *isn't* under government control. I think many
people do not realise the scale of this mafia-like tax on everything we do by
the families who still own most of the country.

Valid points. In fact my objection to the Royal Family is less about
their undeserved wealth and much more about the anachronism of a
constitutional monarchy. Our head of state, in the modern world, should
not be an inherited position where the incumbent does not have to prove
his skill or popularity but is automatically appointed to the role. And
although the role is largely ceremonial, effectively doing whatever the
government tells him to do, he does have some nebulous residual power
that isn't widely publicised. And, of course, he has huge influence when
writing his "black spider memos" and bemoaning modern architecture.
People don't want to defy him, but rather to humour him in the way
people humour a powerful Mafia boss. He's largely immune from Press
criticism. Newspapers won't publish stories saying that he is stupid or
bigoted the way they do about our senior politicians. The closest they
get to that is if a Princess Diana dies and "your people" want to see
evidence of "your grief" if you are not to be out of touch with what the
Press expects of you. And the King does not submit to press interviews,
to interrogations on TV by political journalists. Instead, we have to
put up with "anonymous Palace sources" who offer bits of gossip.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of Marxism-Leninism
is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a century
of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks. Success for the
hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum wage and their
children.
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with virtually
full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury items.

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to that amount of taxpayer money
paid out in benefits.

I think people generally find it easier to tighten their belts if they
don't see blatant exceptions to the rule. As witness the Downing Street
parties.

I don't think my objections to the Royal family are so much that they are
expensive as that their wealth is familial. Though most of their vast wealth
is under government control. But object far more to the great landed families
that still own a huge proportion of our national wealth, a thousand years
after the Norman conquest that gave it to them - or to the kings who later
gave it to them. Nowadays I expect much of it is technically owned by trusts
and off-shore companies to avoid most taxes. But the fact remains that these
families own or control a vast proportion of our land, especially valuable
urban land. (Do you remember so cheeky aristocrat trying to claim back the
site of St Georges hospital near Victoria, on the grounds that his ancestor
had lent it? If it had been France his family would have been dispossessed in
the 18th century. If it had been an ordinary citizen suffering commpulsory
purchase he would have had no case at all. These vast land holdings draw a
parasitic profit from every productive enterprise in this country, dragging
down the economy for family profit. If they were dispossessed of their land
and given compensation at least they would have to invest their new-found cash
in productive enterprise which might help our productivity.
My objection to the Royal family is largely as a figurehead normalising the
vast aristocratic wealth that *isn't* under government control. I think many
people do not realise the scale of this mafia-like tax on everything we do by
the families who still own most of the country.

Valid points. In fact my objection to the Royal Family is less about
their undeserved wealth and much more about the anachronism of a
constitutional monarchy. Our head of state, in the modern world, should
not be an inherited position where the incumbent does not have to prove
his skill or popularity but is automatically appointed to the role. And
although the role is largely ceremonial, effectively doing whatever the
government tells him to do, he does have some nebulous residual power
that isn't widely publicised. And, of course, he has huge influence when
writing his "black spider memos" and bemoaning modern architecture.
People don't want to defy him, but rather to humour him in the way
people humour a powerful Mafia boss. He's largely immune from Press
criticism. Newspapers won't publish stories saying that he is stupid or
bigoted the way they do about our senior politicians. The closest they
get to that is if a Princess Diana dies and "your people" want to see
evidence of "your grief" if you are not to be out of touch with what the
Press expects of you. And the King does not submit to press interviews,
to interrogations on TV by political journalists. Instead, we have to
put up with "anonymous Palace sources" who offer bits of gossip.

To some extent your last point does beg the question of whether journalists
would actually want to bother to interview an appointed head of state, without
the added titillation of family gossip (just like our uncle Fred - they're
ordinary people like us!). It's a bit like football and TV, diverts people's
attention from real life.

[billy bookcase]

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited position
where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or popularity but is
automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Please name even just five heads of state who having proved their skill or
popularity, did outstandingly better than would a hereditary head of state
chosen purely at random.

Political skill lies solely in being able to manipulate people; both colleagues
and then voters and persuading them to trust you. Starting by getting elected
to your local council, and possibly ending up as Supreme Dictator. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with being able to actually run either your local council or
subsequently the entire country. All of which are actually run by civil servants
who will always know more about the business of government than will any
transient interfering politician. Or hereditary monarch for that matter; except
they will already know that, having been around for longer.

As to popularity you're obviously spoiled for choice in terms of outstanding
failures; but for starters why not just settle for Tony Blair ?



bb

[The Todal]

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited position
where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or popularity but is
automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Post by billy bookcase
Please name even just five heads of state who having proved their skill or
popularity, did outstandingly better than would a hereditary head of state
chosen purely at random.

What does "did outstandingly better" mean? If they were incompetent
heads of state would that mean that in future their nation should not
elect a head of state but should choose a rich aristocrat and let him
and his descendants rule?

Liz Truss was an incompetent Prime Minister - does that mean that in
future we should choose members of the Royal Family to be our Prime
Ministers?

Post by billy bookcase
Political skill lies solely in being able to manipulate people; both colleagues
and then voters and persuading them to trust you. Starting by getting elected
to your local council, and possibly ending up as Supreme Dictator. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with being able to actually run either your local council or
subsequently the entire country. All of which are actually run by civil servants
who will always know more about the business of government than will any
transient interfering politician. Or hereditary monarch for that matter; except
they will already know that, having been around for longer.
As to popularity you're obviously spoiled for choice in terms of outstanding
failures; but for starters why not just settle for Tony Blair ?

It's a rather facile argument to say "if not King Charles, then who
should be our Head of State, given that there's nobody in the entire UK
with the required skill and the ability to win elections?"

The Head of State does not need to wear a crown and ermine and jewels
and ride in a golden coach. And yes, I'd rather have an elected
President than another King or Queen.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

You said: "...should not be...".

Some might ask: "Why (not)?" (other than the fact that it is probably
your personal preference)?

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?

(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

Post by JNugent
You said: "...should not be...".
Some might ask: "Why (not)?" (other than the fact that it is probably
your personal preference)?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?
(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head of state
is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value, absurd and
demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain it to them.

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
You said: "...should not be...".
Some might ask: "Why (not)?" (other than the fact that it is probably
your personal preference)?

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?
(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head of state
is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value, absurd and
demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain it to them.

That comes across as a variant of "I'm definitely right and anyone who
disagrees with me is definitely wrong" and I'm fairly sure that you
cannot have meant it that way.

Any of us can be wrong.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?
(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head of state
is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value, absurd and
demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain it to them.

That comes across as a variant of "I'm definitely right and anyone who
disagrees with me is definitely wrong" and I'm fairly sure that you
cannot have meant it that way.
Any of us can be wrong.

No, it comes across as "If you disagree with me, there's not much point
in arguing with you on this particular issue" which is quite different
from your paraphrase.

What is your evidence for whatever you believe in? And don't tell me
it's the Holy Bible.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?
(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head
of state is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value,
absurd and demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain
it to them.

That comes across as a variant of "I'm definitely right and anyone who
disagrees with me is definitely wrong" and I'm fairly sure that you
cannot have meant it that way.
Any of us can be wrong.

No, it comes across as "If you disagree with me, there's not much point
in arguing with you on this particular issue" which is quite different
from your paraphrase.
What is your evidence for whatever you believe in? And don't tell me
it's the Holy Bible.

Why do I or anyone else need such evidence?

The constitution of the UK (and England before that) was in place a long
time before I was here.

Is there any evidence that elected presidents (or whatever) do a better
job than monarchs?

Is there any evidence that countries with hereditary monarchs perform
less well than comparable countries which are republics and have an
elected head of state?

If there is, it would be interesting to hear it.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?
(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head
of state is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value,
absurd and demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain
it to them.

That comes across as a variant of "I'm definitely right and anyone who
disagrees with me is definitely wrong" and I'm fairly sure that you
cannot have meant it that way.
Any of us can be wrong.

No, it comes across as "If you disagree with me, there's not much point
in arguing with you on this particular issue" which is quite different
from your paraphrase.
What is your evidence for whatever you believe in? And don't tell me
it's the Holy Bible.

Why do I or anyone else need such evidence?
The constitution of the UK (and England before that) was in place a long
time before I was here.
Is there any evidence that elected presidents (or whatever) do a better
job than monarchs?
Is there any evidence that countries with hereditary monarchs perform
less well than comparable countries which are republics and have an
elected head of state?
If there is, it would be interesting to hear it.

That's all irrelevant. The idea of a hereditary head of state is just
objectionable. I share your doubt that an alternative would be better in any
respect; except in the vital one of *not* being a hereditary monarch.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?
(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head
of state is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value,
absurd and demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain
it to them.

That comes across as a variant of "I'm definitely right and anyone who
disagrees with me is definitely wrong" and I'm fairly sure that you
cannot have meant it that way.
Any of us can be wrong.

No, it comes across as "If you disagree with me, there's not much point
in arguing with you on this particular issue" which is quite different
from your paraphrase.
What is your evidence for whatever you believe in? And don't tell me
it's the Holy Bible.

Why do I or anyone else need such evidence?
The constitution of the UK (and England before that) was in place a long
time before I was here.
Is there any evidence that elected presidents (or whatever) do a better
job than monarchs?
Is there any evidence that countries with hereditary monarchs perform
less well than comparable countries which are republics and have an
elected head of state?
If there is, it would be interesting to hear it.

That's all irrelevant. The idea of a hereditary head of state is just
objectionable. I share your doubt that an alternative would be better in any
respect; except in the vital one of *not* being a hereditary monarch.

I see. It's just a gut feeling, is it?

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?
(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head
of state is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value,
absurd and demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain
it to them.

That comes across as a variant of "I'm definitely right and anyone who
disagrees with me is definitely wrong" and I'm fairly sure that you
cannot have meant it that way.
Any of us can be wrong.

No, it comes across as "If you disagree with me, there's not much point
in arguing with you on this particular issue" which is quite different
from your paraphrase.
What is your evidence for whatever you believe in? And don't tell me
it's the Holy Bible.

Why do I or anyone else need such evidence?
The constitution of the UK (and England before that) was in place a long
time before I was here.
Is there any evidence that elected presidents (or whatever) do a better
job than monarchs?
Is there any evidence that countries with hereditary monarchs perform
less well than comparable countries which are republics and have an
elected head of state?
If there is, it would be interesting to hear it.

That's all irrelevant. The idea of a hereditary head of state is just
objectionable. I share your doubt that an alternative would be better in any
respect; except in the vital one of *not* being a hereditary monarch.

I see. It's just a gut feeling, is it?

It's a gut feeling held by most people in modern democracies. It's the
gut feeling held by Americans when they decided to fight for
independence from England, and the gut feeling of all our former
colonies when they chose independence.

England had a glorious experiment with republicanism after the execution
of Charles I. But our republic was too fragile and after the death of
Cromwell, the vested interests of the monarchy and aristocracy reclaimed
the power and inflicted savage revenge on the Parliamentarians and on
the lawyers who had condemned Charles I. Ever since then, we've been
lumbered with the Royals while most civilised countries (including
Russia, France, Germany) discarded their monarchs and created proper
democracies. And you'll probably still ask me whether President Tony
Blair would "do a better job" than talentless, peevish King Charles.
Yes, of course he would do a better job. So would President David
Cameron. The very minimum that should be required from the job is
transparency, for the electorate to know what your head of state is
doing and thinking and to be able to debate with him. Eating luxurious
banquets and shaking hands and having secret conversations are not the
key performance indicators.

[Spike]

[…]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
That's all irrelevant. The idea of a hereditary head of state is just
objectionable. I share your doubt that an alternative would be better in any
respect; except in the vital one of *not* being a hereditary monarch.

I see. It's just a gut feeling, is it?

It's a gut feeling held by most people in modern democracies. It's the
gut feeling held by Americans when they decided to fight for
independence from England, and the gut feeling of all our former
colonies when they chose independence.
England had a glorious experiment with republicanism after the execution
of Charles I. But our republic was too fragile and after the death of
Cromwell, the vested interests of the monarchy and aristocracy reclaimed
the power and inflicted savage revenge on the Parliamentarians and on
the lawyers who had condemned Charles I. Ever since then, we've been
lumbered with the Royals while most civilised countries (including
Russia, France, Germany) discarded their monarchs and created proper
democracies. And you'll probably still ask me whether President Tony
Blair would "do a better job" than talentless, peevish King Charles.
Yes, of course he would do a better job. So would President David
Cameron. The very minimum that should be required from the job is
transparency, for the electorate to know what your head of state is
doing and thinking and to be able to debate with him. Eating luxurious
banquets and shaking hands and having secret conversations are not the
key performance indicators.

A couple of observations:

There are some 56 countries in the Commonwealth, so that many at least
don’t object to a hereditary Head of State.

We have just seen the unedifying spectacle of two geriatric and
feeble-minded candidates vying for a presidency, saved only at the last
possible moment by one of the candidates finally throwing in the towel in
favour of a last-minute Hobson’s choice of the only viable substitute. But
it was a transparent process, apparently.

[Spike]

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
It's a gut feeling held by most people in modern democracies. It's the
gut feeling held by Americans when they decided to fight for
independence from England, and the gut feeling of all our former
colonies when they chose independence.
England had a glorious experiment with republicanism after the execution
of Charles I. But our republic was too fragile and after the death of
Cromwell, the vested interests of the monarchy and aristocracy reclaimed
the power and inflicted savage revenge on the Parliamentarians and on
the lawyers who had condemned Charles I. Ever since then, we've been
lumbered with the Royals while most civilised countries (including
Russia, France, Germany) discarded their monarchs and created proper
democracies. And you'll probably still ask me whether President Tony
Blair would "do a better job" than talentless, peevish King Charles.
Yes, of course he would do a better job. So would President David
Cameron. The very minimum that should be required from the job is
transparency, for the electorate to know what your head of state is
doing and thinking and to be able to debate with him. Eating luxurious
banquets and shaking hands and having secret conversations are not the
key performance indicators.

There are some 56 countries in the Commonwealth, so that many at least
don’t object to a hereditary Head of State.

No. You're confusing "Commonwealth members" (which don't necessarily
have Charles as their head of state) with "Commonwealth realms"
(which do). There are 56 of the former but only 15 of the latter.
Most of them (but not all) are small islands.

I’m not confusing anything. None of the Commonwealth countries are
concerned about it being led by a hereditary monarch, whether or not they
have one themselves.

[Spike]

Post by Spike

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
It's a gut feeling held by most people in modern democracies. It's the
gut feeling held by Americans when they decided to fight for
independence from England, and the gut feeling of all our former
colonies when they chose independence.
England had a glorious experiment with republicanism after the execution
of Charles I. But our republic was too fragile and after the death of
Cromwell, the vested interests of the monarchy and aristocracy reclaimed
the power and inflicted savage revenge on the Parliamentarians and on
the lawyers who had condemned Charles I. Ever since then, we've been
lumbered with the Royals while most civilised countries (including
Russia, France, Germany) discarded their monarchs and created proper
democracies. And you'll probably still ask me whether President Tony
Blair would "do a better job" than talentless, peevish King Charles.
Yes, of course he would do a better job. So would President David
Cameron. The very minimum that should be required from the job is
transparency, for the electorate to know what your head of state is
doing and thinking and to be able to debate with him. Eating luxurious
banquets and shaking hands and having secret conversations are not the
key performance indicators.

There are some 56 countries in the Commonwealth, so that many at least
don’t object to a hereditary Head of State.

No. You're confusing "Commonwealth members" (which don't necessarily
have Charles as their head of state) with "Commonwealth realms"
(which do). There are 56 of the former but only 15 of the latter.
Most of them (but not all) are small islands.

I’m not confusing anything. None of the Commonwealth countries are
concerned about it being led by a hereditary monarch, whether or not they
have one themselves.

You're certainly confused about your claim, because it just changed.
The position of Head of the Commonwealth is not the Head of a State,
is not a monarch, is not a hereditary position, and is even more of
a ceremonial position than monarch of the UK and other countries.

I give up.
QUOTE
The Head of the Commonwealth is the ceremonial leader who symbolises "the
free association of independent member nations" of the Commonwealth of
Nations, an intergovernmental organisation that currently comprises 56
sovereign states. There is no set term of office or term limit and the role
itself has no constitutional relevance to any of the member states within
the Commonwealth. The position is currently held by King Charles III.
UNQUOTE
Which Commonwealth were you thinking of?

That one? Do you think something in your quote contradicts something
I said? If you read more of that Wikipedia page you'll find in fact
it confirms everything I said.

And I quoted the part that confirmed everything I said, which just happened
to contradict what you said.

[The Todal]

Post by Spike

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
It's a gut feeling held by most people in modern democracies. It's the
gut feeling held by Americans when they decided to fight for
independence from England, and the gut feeling of all our former
colonies when they chose independence.
England had a glorious experiment with republicanism after the execution
of Charles I. But our republic was too fragile and after the death of
Cromwell, the vested interests of the monarchy and aristocracy reclaimed
the power and inflicted savage revenge on the Parliamentarians and on
the lawyers who had condemned Charles I. Ever since then, we've been
lumbered with the Royals while most civilised countries (including
Russia, France, Germany) discarded their monarchs and created proper
democracies. And you'll probably still ask me whether President Tony
Blair would "do a better job" than talentless, peevish King Charles.
Yes, of course he would do a better job. So would President David
Cameron. The very minimum that should be required from the job is
transparency, for the electorate to know what your head of state is
doing and thinking and to be able to debate with him. Eating luxurious
banquets and shaking hands and having secret conversations are not the
key performance indicators.

There are some 56 countries in the Commonwealth, so that many at least
don’t object to a hereditary Head of State.

No. You're confusing "Commonwealth members" (which don't necessarily
have Charles as their head of state) with "Commonwealth realms"
(which do). There are 56 of the former but only 15 of the latter.
Most of them (but not all) are small islands.

I’m not confusing anything. None of the Commonwealth countries are
concerned about it being led by a hereditary monarch, whether or not they
have one themselves.

How can you tell? Many Australians would like King Charles to fuck off
and be replaced with an Australian president.

https://republic.org.au/

They had a referendum in 1999 and 55% were then in favour of the status
quo, rejecting a republic. But now that the Queen has died and has been
succeeded by Charles, many think that a new referendum would produce a
majority in favour of a republic.

[billy bookcase]

England had a glorious experiment with republicanism after the execution of Charles I.

Starting off by closing down all the theatres, inns, and other places of recreation;
banning most
sports, dancing and any other way for people to actually enjoy themelves, Even to the
extent of
banning Chrisrmas except for all-day prayer. In effect banning fun !

But our republic was too fragile and after the death of Cromwell, the vested interests
of the monarchy and aristocracy reclaimed the power and inflicted savage revenge on the
Parliamentarians and on the lawyers who had condemned Charles I.

And you just can't wait to bring it all back, can you ?


bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

England had a glorious experiment with republicanism after the execution of Charles I.

Starting off by closing down all the theatres, inns, and other places of recreation;
banning most
sports, dancing and any other way for people to actually enjoy themelves, Even to the
extent of
banning Chrisrmas except for all-day prayer. In effect banning fun !

But our republic was too fragile and after the death of Cromwell, the vested interests
of the monarchy and aristocracy reclaimed the power and inflicted savage revenge on the
Parliamentarians and on the lawyers who had condemned Charles I.

And you just can't wait to bring it all back, can you ?
bb

Indeed. This was no doubt the 17c version of austerity.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?
(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head of state
is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value, absurd and
demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain it to them.

That comes across as a variant of "I'm definitely right and anyone who
disagrees with me is definitely wrong" and I'm fairly sure that you
cannot have meant it that way.
Any of us can be wrong.

I am honestly not sure I can be.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter
Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head of state
is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value, absurd and
demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain it to them.

If its assumed that having a head of state is in some sense necessary, then the
concept of having a hereditary head of state could only ever be "absurd and
demeaning" to those who can confidently point to a more effective means of
producing a head of state.

Perhaps with some contemporary candidates, besides Sir David Attenborough
that is, who we can all agree on ?


bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Not really, is it? If anyone can't see that having a hereditary head of state
is, while probably harmless apart from its psychological value, absurd and
demeaning then there is not much point in trying to explain it to them.

If its assumed that having a head of state is in some sense necessary, then the
concept of having a hereditary head of state could only ever be "absurd and
demeaning" to those who can confidently point to a more effective means of
producing a head of state.

Sorry, that's a total non-sequitur. Even if the new President is doomed to be
a total deadbeat, owing to our inferior method of appointing them I still
don't want a hereditary king.

Post by billy bookcase
Perhaps with some contemporary candidates, besides Sir David Attenborough
that is, who we can all agree on ?
bb

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase
If its assumed that having a head of state is in some sense
necessary, then the concept of having a hereditary head of state
could only ever be "absurd and demeaning" to those who can
confidently point to a more effective means of producing a head of
state.

Sorry, that's a total non-sequitur. Even if the new President is
doomed to be a total deadbeat, owing to our inferior method of
appointing them I still don't want a hereditary king.

A total deadbeat leading to a power vacuum; total anarchy, raging mobs,
rape, pillage, and murder, and the wholesale destruction of property
resulting in the total breakdown of civilisation

Boy, that escalated quickly.

But a price worth paying nevertheless.
I see.

No, you don't "see", given that you just made all that up.
Under our system, if we had a president they would probably be mostly
symbolic, like the monarch currently is, given that all the real power
rests with the Prime Minister. If they were a bit workshy and didn't
pull their weight then it seems likely the consequences would be minimal.

Try reading it again

"Even if the new President is doomed to be a total deadbeat"

it was the OP, not me, who was placing undue significance on the
possibility of the new President bring a deadbeat.


bb

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited
position where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or
popularity but is automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically
appointed to the role of our Head of State, and that King Charles
replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have a different theory?

Surely he was asking you to justify the normative side of your
unevidenced assertion?

Oh. What is your evidence for that claim?
(it's not a sensible question, is it?)

I am interpreting on the basis of what is feasible and what is not.

BB could not have been denying the hereditary principle, though it would
work better for you, I dare say, if that was what he was doing.

He can only have been asking you to justify your "should not be". It was
the only part of what you had said that was questionable.

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent
You said: "...should not be...".
Some might ask: "Why (not)?" (other than the fact that it is probably
your personal preference)?

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited position
where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or popularity but is
automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically appointed to the
role of our Head of State, and that King Charles replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have
a different theory?

No. I'm asking you what evidence you have that heads of state who've
proved their skill or popularity (whatever that means) necessarily do
any better at the job, than those in an inherited position who are
automatically appointed to the role.

Post by billy bookcase
Please name even just five heads of state who having proved their skill or
popularity, did outstandingly better than would a hereditary head of state
chosen purely at random.

What does "did outstandingly better" mean? If they were incompetent heads of state
would that mean that in future their nation should not elect a head of state but should
choose a rich aristocrat and let him and his descendants rule?

Just name some ! I'll give you FDR and maybe Abraham Lincoln although he was
shot before he could make any big mistakes, So you need at least 3 more.

Liz Truss was an incompetent Prime Minister - does that mean that in future we should
choose members of the Royal Family to be our Prime Ministers?

Liss Truss wasn't our Head of State.

In fact that brings up another point. It doesn't matter if the Head of State is
King Charles III or President Blair, the money markets, Harold Wilson's Gnomes
of Zurich, still dictate British policy in the end.

The Monarch is someone people can identify with; they embody tradition even if most
of it is only a few hundred years old. Unlike presidents who are here today and
gone tomorrow and who actually "wanted the job"; possibly motivated by ruthless
ambition, as much as anything else.

Post by billy bookcase
Political skill lies solely in being able to manipulate people; both colleagues
and then voters and persuading them to trust you. Starting by getting elected
to your local council, and possibly ending up as Supreme Dictator. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with being able to actually run either your local council or
subsequently the entire country. All of which are actually run by civil servants
who will always know more about the business of government than will any
transient interfering politician. Or hereditary monarch for that matter; except
they will already know that, having been around for longer.
As to popularity you're obviously spoiled for choice in terms of outstanding
failures; but for starters why not just settle for Tony Blair ?

It's a rather facile argument to say "if not King Charles, then who should be our Head
of State, given that there's nobody in the entire UK with the required skill and the
ability to win elections?"
The Head of State does not need to wear a crown and ermine and jewels and ride in a
golden coach.

According to Walter Bagehot "Mystique" and "Pageantry" are essential to the role
of the monarchy; although obviously we've lost a lot of the mystique,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Constitution

But the pageantry is still essential to maintain the bogus air of tradition, which holds
the whole thing together,

And yes, I'd rather have an elected President than another King or Queen.

Which is simply rubber stamping finally and unequivocally the UK's 3rd World Status.

The monarchy along with the BBC (just about) is about the only British Corporation
or Institution that we haven't yet managed to sell off to foreigners, Royal Mail
nonwithstanding


bb

[The Todal]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Our head of state, in the modern world, should not be an inherited position
where the incumbent does not have to prove his skill or popularity but is
automatically appointed to the role.

And your evidence for that claim is ?

Are you asking me to prove that a hereditary monarch is automatically appointed to the
role of our Head of State, and that King Charles replaced Queen Elizabeth? Did you have
a different theory?

No. I'm asking you what evidence you have that heads of state who've
proved their skill or popularity (whatever that means) necessarily do
any better at the job, than those in an inherited position who are
automatically appointed to the role.

But I never said that. So I won't be producing any such evidence.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
Please name even just five heads of state who having proved their skill or
popularity, did outstandingly better than would a hereditary head of state
chosen purely at random.

What does "did outstandingly better" mean? If they were incompetent heads of state
would that mean that in future their nation should not elect a head of state but should
choose a rich aristocrat and let him and his descendants rule?

Just name some ! I'll give you FDR and maybe Abraham Lincoln although he was
shot before he could make any big mistakes, So you need at least 3 more.

Name any good and wise monarchs in English history. Elizabeth Windsor
doesn't count, because we aren't told what her advice to the government
has been, from time to time.

Post by billy bookcase

Liz Truss was an incompetent Prime Minister - does that mean that in future we should
choose members of the Royal Family to be our Prime Ministers?

Liss Truss wasn't our Head of State.

You spotted that. Good.

Incompetence doesn't mean you abandon democracy and opt for inherited
power.

Post by billy bookcase
In fact that brings up another point. It doesn't matter if the Head of State is
King Charles III or President Blair, the money markets, Harold Wilson's Gnomes
of Zurich, still dictate British policy in the end.

Oh, surely not. Everyone knows it's Rupert Murdoch who does that.

Post by billy bookcase
The Monarch is someone people can identify with; they embody tradition even if most
of it is only a few hundred years old. Unlike presidents who are here today and
gone tomorrow and who actually "wanted the job"; possibly motivated by ruthless
ambition, as much as anything else.

If you identify with members of the Royal Family then you might perhaps
have delusions of grandeur. Or maybe, like Prince Andrew, you like to be
massaged by comely wenches as his distant ancestors did. Or maybe you
yearn to be part of the Royal Household, keeper of the Royal tupperware
or even rise to the dizzy rank of Groom Of The Stool.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
Political skill lies solely in being able to manipulate people; both colleagues
and then voters and persuading them to trust you. Starting by getting elected
to your local council, and possibly ending up as Supreme Dictator. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with being able to actually run either your local council or
subsequently the entire country. All of which are actually run by civil servants
who will always know more about the business of government than will any
transient interfering politician. Or hereditary monarch for that matter; except
they will already know that, having been around for longer.
As to popularity you're obviously spoiled for choice in terms of outstanding
failures; but for starters why not just settle for Tony Blair ?

It's a rather facile argument to say "if not King Charles, then who should be our Head
of State, given that there's nobody in the entire UK with the required skill and the
ability to win elections?"
The Head of State does not need to wear a crown and ermine and jewels and ride in a
golden coach.

According to Walter Bagehot "Mystique" and "Pageantry" are essential to the role
of the monarchy; although obviously we've lost a lot of the mystique,

I don't think he had much respect for the ordinary plebs of Britain.
Dazzle them with diamonds, crowns and sceptres.

Post by billy bookcase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Constitution
But the pageantry is still essential to maintain the bogus air of tradition, which holds
the whole thing together,

And yes, I'd rather have an elected President than another King or Queen.

Which is simply rubber stamping finally and unequivocally the UK's 3rd World Status.

Interesting. So we get a place at the big table not by having an arsenal
of nuclear weapons but by having a King who is a petulant tree-loving
eccentric. That'll scare the Russians.

Post by billy bookcase
The monarchy along with the BBC (just about) is about the only British Corporation
or Institution that we haven't yet managed to sell off to foreigners, Royal Mail
nonwithstanding

I think we should invite bids, before making up our minds.

[billy bookcase]

snip

Name any good and wise monarchs in English history. Elizabeth Windsor doesn't count,
because we aren't told what her advice to the government has been, from time to time.

no 1. George VI

Your tuirn

Post by billy bookcase
In fact that brings up another point. It doesn't matter if the Head of State is
King Charles III or President Blair, the money markets, Harold Wilson's Gnomes
of Zurich, still dictate British policy in the end.

Oh, surely not. Everyone knows it's Rupert Murdoch who does that.

That's what he'd like people to think. In fact Murdoch simply encapsulates popular
sentiment in a pithy way.

Post by billy bookcase
The Monarch is someone people can identify with; they embody tradition even if most
of it is only a few hundred years old. Unlike presidents who are here today and
gone tomorrow and who actually "wanted the job"; possibly motivated by ruthless
ambition, as much as anything else.

If you identify with members of the Royal Family then you might perhaps have delusions
of grandeur. Or maybe, like Prince Andrew, you like to be massaged by comely wenches as
his distant ancestors did. Or maybe you yearn to be part of the Royal Household, keeper
of the Royal tupperware or even rise to the dizzy rank of Groom Of The Stool.

Its all very simple. If tbe monarch is stoney broke, on the dole, wears a vest
and lives in a council housed this ctreates a very poor impression with the
world at large, and with visiting dignitaries in particular.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
Political skill lies solely in being able to manipulate people; both colleagues
and then voters and persuading them to trust you. Starting by getting elected
to your local council, and possibly ending up as Supreme Dictator. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with being able to actually run either your local council or
subsequently the entire country. All of which are actually run by civil servants
who will always know more about the business of government than will any
transient interfering politician. Or hereditary monarch for that matter; except
they will already know that, having been around for longer.
As to popularity you're obviously spoiled for choice in terms of outstanding
failures; but for starters why not just settle for Tony Blair ?

It's a rather facile argument to say "if not King Charles, then who should be our Head
of State, given that there's nobody in the entire UK with the required skill and the
ability to win elections?"
The Head of State does not need to wear a crown and ermine and jewels and ride in a
golden coach.

According to Walter Bagehot "Mystique" and "Pageantry" are essential to the role
of the monarchy; although obviously we've lost a lot of the mystique,

I don't think he had much respect for the ordinary plebs of Britain. Dazzle them with
diamonds, crowns and sceptres.

Post by billy bookcase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Constitution
But the pageantry is still essential to maintain the bogus air of tradition, which holds
the whole thing together,

And yes, I'd rather have an elected President than another King or Queen.

Which is simply rubber stamping finally and unequivocally the UK's 3rd World Status.

Interesting. So we get a place at the big table not by having an arsenal of nuclear
weapons

Which we hire from the US and need to ask their permission to use,

but by having a King who is a petulant tree-loving eccentric. That'll scare the
Russians.

As far as the Russians are concerned, now we've kicked out all their oligarchs and banned
then from Harrods the only reamining significance of the UK is as tbe site of ASAAF
bomber
bases and Nato HQ,

Post by billy bookcase
The monarchy along with the BBC (just about) is about the only British Corporation
or Institution that we haven't yet managed to sell off to foreigners, Royal Mail
nonwithstanding

I think we should invite bids, before making up our minds.

We'd sell them off cheap same as everything else. And then have to hire them back from
the China for state occasiuons.

"Hello Peking ?

"Yes we need then for next Tuesday for the State Opening of Parliament"

"Oh right they're opening a supermarket on Tuesday.

"How about Wednesday ?"

"Yes Wednesday will be fine, And that will be at the midweek discount rate ?
"That's £15 million per day or the four of them ?

"Yes that's fine you;'ll be flying them in Tuesday evening handover at the Heathrow
Hilton as usual".


bb

[Spike]

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of Marxism-Leninism
is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a century
of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks. Success for the
hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum wage and their
children.
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with virtually
full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury items.

“Production figures look good on paper,
But why can’t we have shoes that taper?”

- a sarcastic reflection of the command economy by Russian teenagers during
the 1960s.

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to that amount of taxpayer money
paid out in benefits.

I think people generally find it easier to tighten their belts if they
don't see blatant exceptions to the rule. As witness the Downing Street
parties.

[JNugent]

[ ... ]

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with virtually
full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury items.

“Production figures look good on paper,
But why can’t we have shoes that taper?”
- a sarcastic reflection of the command economy by Russian teenagers during
the 1960s.

Another from the same era:

"They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work".

One from the GDR in particular: "When are those damned Nazis going to
come back and repair their autobahns?".

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best
Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so.  Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of
Marxism-Leninism
is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a century
of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks. Success for the
hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum wage and their
children.
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with virtually
full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury items.

I remember a visit to Berlin in the mid 1990s, with my son, then aged
about 10 or 11.

At the massive Soviet War memorial in Treptower Park, we got talking (in
English...) to a group of German students who had all been born in the
GDR. There seemed to be a definite general feeling among them that fings
were not wot they had used to be*.

I had visited Berlin before, in 1987. A coach tour of East berlin (the
GDR just called it "Berlin" and reserved "Westberlin" (all one word) for
the decadent world on the other side of the anti-fascist wall. Not that
they minded letting us capitalist fascists through it as long as we
spent plenty of Deutchmarks.

An enforced visit to the same war memorial brought us passengers into
contact with hordes (hundreds if not thousands) of the blue-shirted
socialist pioneers (a bit like the cubs or scouts), there on a trip to
worship at the shrine. When I saw how the state was inculcating its
philosophies, I couldn't see how that "Democratic" Republic could ever
fail due to internal dissent. But it did.

[ ... ]

[* Ever seen the film "Goodbye, Lenin!"?]

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best
Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so.  Things could only get better.

Things will certainly get different. Sadly, the history of
Marxism-Leninism
is well over a century of failure.

Well, sadly the history of British politics is also well over a
century of failure. If you measure it in poverty and food banks.
Success for the hedge fund millionaires, poverty for those on minimum
wage and their children.
Many Russians look back with nostalgia to the Soviet era, with
virtually full employment and maybe some queues in shops for luxury
items.

I remember a visit to Berlin in the mid 1990s, with my son, then aged
about 10 or 11.
At the massive Soviet War memorial in Treptower Park, we got talking (in
English...) to a group of German students who had all been born in the
GDR. There seemed to be a definite general feeling among them that fings
were not wot they had used to be*.
I had visited Berlin before, in 1987. A coach tour of East berlin (the
GDR just called it "Berlin" and reserved "Westberlin" (all one word) for
the decadent world on the other side of the anti-fascist wall. Not that
they minded letting us capitalist fascists through it as long as we
spent plenty of Deutchmarks.
An enforced visit to the same war memorial brought us passengers into
contact with hordes (hundreds if not thousands) of the blue-shirted
socialist pioneers (a bit like the cubs or scouts), there on a trip to
worship at the shrine. When I saw how the state was inculcating its
philosophies, I couldn't see how that "Democratic" Republic could ever
fail due to internal dissent. But it did.
[ ... ]
[* Ever seen the film "Goodbye, Lenin!"?]

Some people are just never satisfied.

Same thing in the USA, really. Obama is elected in an atmosphere of
almost hysterical glee and self-congratulation, with most of the
electorate saying now, at last, things will get better.

When I visited the USA at that time I was rather surprised to find that
typical people running guest houses or in local bars had contempt for
Obama. One said to me that Obama had brought shame on "our nation". They
felt badly let down. They felt that their standard of living was
deteriorating.

Then Trump gets elected in an atmosphere of almost hysterical glee and
self-congratulation. At last, the swamp would be drained and things
would get better.

And it seems to me that typical people continued to have faith in his
ability to improve their standard of living, eventually if not now. His
core supporters would approve of his desire to abolish the 22nd
Amendment and then to abolish future elections. Democracy is a low
priority for many people. Even if their standard of living is getting
worse, it is sufficient that migrants and the unemployed should be
punished as never before. They don't mind that Trump is rich. They would
probably adapt well to life in the Soviet Union.

[miked]

Post by The Todal

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so. Things could only get better.
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

That doesnt sound very Marxist Leninist to me! But then the labour party
hasnt been socialist since Blair. However £125 million is peanuts to the
billions wasted on HS2.

I thought the purpose of all political parties was to win elections and
form a government. Its then payback time for all those who bankrolled
you. With labour, its the unions, with Tories its the bosses, but the
Tories usually stay in power longer as they had until recently deeper
pockets and more friends running the media.

mike

[The Todal]

Post by miked

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so.  Things could only get better.
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

That doesnt sound very Marxist Leninist to me! But then the labour party
hasnt been socialist since Blair. However £125 million is peanuts to the
billions wasted on HS2.
I thought the purpose of all political parties was to win elections and
form a government. Its then payback time for all those who bankrolled
you. With labour, its the unions, with Tories its the bosses, but the
Tories usually stay in power longer as they had until recently deeper
pockets and more friends running the media.

Starmer boasts that he has turned the Labour Party around, that he has
purged the extremists and the antisemites and that his brilliant
leadership is what has won him the last election.

Everyone else knows that what won him the election was a totally
shambolic Conservative Party that seemed to be struggling to run the
country or to achieve any of the goals it had set itself.

I am sure that if Corbyn had remained in charge of the Labour Party, the
recent General Election would have been won by Labour.

But I don't suppose many would agree with me.

This film is worth a look, if you have an hour to spare.

[Pancho]

Post by The Todal

Post by miked

Post by Spike

Post by Davey
On 27 Aug 2024 11:49:27 GMT

Post by Roger Hayter
I mentioned before the election the purpose of the Labour Party - to
allow our capitalist masters to raise taxes on middle income earners
without the cognitive dissonance entailed by the Tories doing it.
Was I wrong?
(That of course was why they had to get rid of Corbyn - his
infuriating habit of being honest, and failing to accept 'advice'
from the rich and powerful.)

An alternative wider view would be that the Purpose of the Labour Party
is the act of Levelling-Down the nation. When nobody can profit from his
own endeavours, thrift or investment, and the whole country is at a
standstill, it will declare 'Job Done'.
Your View May differ...or not.

That (the Levelling-Down to bring the country to a standstill) is only
Phase One of The Plan.
Phase Two, of course, is to rebuild the country to best
Marxist-Leninist
standards.

I do hope so.  Things could only get better.
If they can get rid of the parasitical Royal Family or consign them to
oblivion in a modest size palace somewhere in the Cotswolds, maybe there
would be more money for the UK pensioners. Level down Prince Charles!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers
King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer,
according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by
45% from 2025.
Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of
living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by
the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to
increase from £86m to £125m.

That doesnt sound very Marxist Leninist to me! But then the labour party
hasnt been socialist since Blair. However £125 million is peanuts to the
billions wasted on HS2.
I thought the purpose of all political parties was to win elections and
form a government. Its then payback time for all those who bankrolled
you. With labour, its the unions, with Tories its the bosses, but the
Tories usually stay in power longer as they had until recently deeper
pockets and more friends running the media.

Starmer boasts that he has turned the Labour Party around, that he has
purged the extremists and the antisemites and that his brilliant
leadership is what has won him the last election.
Everyone else knows that what won him the election was a totally
shambolic Conservative Party that seemed to be struggling to run the
country or to achieve any of the goals it had set itself.
I am sure that if Corbyn had remained in charge of the Labour Party, the
recent General Election would have been won by Labour.

I think it would have been easier to mobalise Reform supporters to vote
tactically against a Corbyn victory. The MSM would have been more active
campainging against Corbyn. The pre-election Starmer strategy of fence
sitting was probably adventageous in electoral terms. There was little
for Conservative leaning voters to vote against.

So I'm not sure a Corbyn would have been certain.

Post by The Todal
But I don't suppose many would agree with me.
This film is worth a look, if you have an hour to spare.
http://youtu.be/u10qBxsb6fk

This is blocked by youtube. You need an account to log in:

"This video may be inappropriate for some users.
Sign in"
As an aside if you want an insight to the political pressure on social
media companies. Here os a url to Tech CEOs appearing at a US Senate
hearing.

This is almost worth it's own thread, but is off topic. It shows
democracy at its worst. It explains why tech companies are willing to
support an establishment bias, the threats they face if they don't. It
shows why Trump is far from the worst of US politics.

[Roger Hayter]

Well it's very fortunate Rayner did not travel first class to an
expensive venue then. Because I agree with you that would be bad for
her image.

That leads one to wonder what so far into this Labour government Ms
Raynor has done that was actually good for her image.

I heard that she was filmed dancing in the DJ booth at an Ibiza
nightclub. That was excellent for her image, and that of the country.

I must admit that would be my immediate reaction. To turn it round to suggest
that she was indulging in luxury beyond the reach of any ordinary citizen is
just bizarre dishonesty. Reminds me of Michael Foot's coat. His conduct was so
exemplary they had to pick up on an absurdity to criticise him. (Wrong sort of
buttons for the Cenotaph, or something.)