UK Politics

tomorton said:
The markets have a powerful place in our governance of course Tim, but they are clearly not dominant most of the time. Neither is any UK government all-powerful all of the time.
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,
Of course, you're right; there are many moving parts. However, the 'big beasts' who wield the most power and influence operate in different spheres and have friends and colleagues (think WEF) who share the same agenda. Their common goal is to retain their hegemony and make yet more money - even at the expense of the lives of innocent people - as we're seeing unfold in Ukraine.
tomorton said:
And although I'm happy we have a democratic political structure, the electorate, thanks to representative parliamentary democracy, are not able to exercise their dictatorship.
Click to expand...
I've read this several times and I'm afraid I don't understand your point? Sorry if I'm being dumb!
tomorton said:
A further powerful leg of the "constitution" is the judiciary, who from time to time have the ability to dictate to the government what they can, or more often cannot, do.
Click to expand...
True, but as we saw with the Supreme Court over Brexit, the judiciary can - and will - prostitute themselves if the government goes 'off-piste'.
tomorton said:
This is a multi-legged structure and no one leg has control all the time. I'm happy with that, although it means we sometimes trip ourselves up.
Click to expand...
A multi-legged structure yes, but one that's very much open to abuse by those with deep pockets and great influence. Brexit and the handling of the pandemic have proved to me beyond any doubt that there is no part of the establishment that deserves my trust. Indeed, most (all?) of the major pillars of society have shown themselves to be somewhere on a spectrum between incompetent at best and, at worst, downright criminal. Just in case you're wondering who I think falls into the latter category, top of my list is the JCVI. If I'm elected as PM next week, the first thing I'll do is to direct the CPS to prosecute everyone on that committee!
Tim.
 
timsk said:
Hi Tom,
Of course, you're right; there are many moving parts. However, the 'big beasts' who wield the most power and influence operate in different spheres and have friends and colleagues (think WEF) who share the same agenda. Their common goal is to retain their hegemony and make yet more money - even at the expense of the lives of innocent people - as we're seeing unfold in Ukraine.

I've read this several times and I'm afraid I don't understand your point? Sorry if I'm being dumb!

True, but as we saw with the Supreme Court over Brexit, the judiciary can - and will - prostitute themselves if the government goes 'off-piste'.

A multi-legged structure yes, but one that's very much open to abuse by those with deep pockets and great influence. Brexit and the handling of the pandemic have proved to me beyond any doubt that there is no part of the establishment that deserves my trust. Indeed, most (all?) of the major pillars of society have shown themselves to be somewhere on a spectrum between incompetent at best and, at worst, downright criminal. Just in case you're wondering who I think falls into the latter category, top of my list is the JCVI. If I'm elected as PM next week, the first thing I'll do is to direct the CPS to prosecute everyone on that committee!
Tim.
Click to expand...
The strength of the multi-legged messy structure we have is that each faction jealously guards its fiefdom and supreme position within its own domain. Each will fight but also try to enlist the support of others if one faction looks like getting too powerful or too arrogant.

They also fight to exclude or at least constrain the influence of new rival cabals - such as the EU, the military (not a significant political influence in the UK compared to other states but the UK's messy constitutional structure helps explain why), dynastic super-wealthy families, the Crown, the Church, land-owners etc. etc.

I should add the media to the established structure.

On the dangers of democratic dictatorship, I am committed to the ability of the voters of the UK to appoint and topple governments via the ballot box. But the danger is in regarding the popular vote as sacrosanct, unchallengeable and infallible, merely because it is democratic. Democratic decisions can be dumb and they can be immoral. These dangers are not excused by the fact that they were obtained democratically.
For example, every one of the numerous national referendums that led to accessions into the EU.
 
counter_violent said:
1666388526509.png
Come back and sort us out Oscar.
Click to expand...
Have found the man for the job.
 
J Livermore said:
If the government could incentivize poor people to use birth control you would have the money to pay policemen. Instead of paying child welfare, the government would have extra spending money.

Teachers / schools should be privatized. Long term, there’s not a government run school that can compete with a private school. If there are parents that have trouble paying, they can receive subsidies to supplement their payments.
Click to expand...

I think so too, government normally tends to get bigger and bigger, it never goes the other way around. And same story with schools. These days I'm amazed with how much technology is in the classrooms something that is totally different from what I experienced back then in high school, and yet I'm surprised to see that the cost of education every time goes up and up AND poor burnout teachers each day have to do more so the average classroom test scores doesn't trend down. During covid lockdowns for example I'd see my niece get instant free math help from this basic algebra tutor app or would watch from many education youtube channels, so my questions is why does the government cannot produce a low cost to taxpayers education system. I mean back then we would only have our books and that's it, I'd think the development of technologies would make education easier, cheaper and more effective.

But yeah, the main point I see is the high birth rate on poor people, unfortunately I don't see that happening anywhere in the future as I am yet to find a government that has had launched a successful campaign to reduced population birth rate focused on low income persons. I'm not saying is not possible but I haven't seen it so far. :unsure::(
 
Last edited:
BurrowK said:
I think so too, government normally tends to get bigger and bigger, it never goes the other way around. And same story with schools. These days I'm amazed with how much technology is in the classrooms something that is totally different from what I experienced back then in high school, and yet I'm surprised to see that the cost of education every time goes up and up AND poor burnout teachers each day have to do more so the average classroom test scores doesn't trend down. During covid lockdowns for example I'd see my niece get instant free math help from this basic algebra tutor app or would watch from many education youtube channels, so my questions is why does the government cannot produce a low cost to taxpayers education system. I mean back then we would only have our books and that's it, I'd think the development of technologies would make education easier, cheaper and more effective.

But yeah, the main point I see is the high birth rate on poor people, unfortunately I don't see that happening anywhere in the future as I am yet to find a government that has had launched a successful campaign to reduced population birth rate focused on low income persons. I'm not saying is not possible but I haven't seen it so far. :unsure::(
Click to expand...
Birth rate and management of doesn't lead anywhere in the UK unless divided by mother's ethnicity / culture / religion. Politicians and health service don't want to see and illuminate these factors so nothing is going to happen.
 
BurrowK said:
I think so too, government normally tends to get bigger and bigger, it never goes the other way around. And same story with schools. These days I'm amazed with how much technology is in the classrooms something that is totally different from what I experienced back then in high school, and yet I'm surprised to see that the cost of education every time goes up and up AND poor burnout teachers each day have to do more so the average classroom test scores doesn't trend down. During covid lockdowns for example I'd see my niece get instant free math help from this basic algebra tutor app or would watch from many education youtube channels, so my questions is why does the government cannot produce a low cost to taxpayers education system. I mean back then we would only have our books and that's it, I'd think the development of technologies would make education easier, cheaper and more effective.

But yeah, the main point I see is the high birth rate on poor people, unfortunately I don't see that happening anywhere in the future as I am yet to find a government that has had launched a successful campaign to reduced population birth rate focused on low income persons. I'm not saying is not possible but I haven't seen it so far. :unsure::(
Click to expand...
Hi BurrowK,

I agree with you. Personally, I believe that most so-called politicians are cowards.

If you have to have cash welfare for the poor, then it should pay higher amounts to those parents who have the fewest number of children. Poor people are not dumb. If you cut their money with each additional child, they will quickly learn to have responsible sex. The increased money (for having fewer children) could come right from the welfare office that won’t have to spend hundreds of thousands to raise each child to age18.

Please note: This does not mean children would have to starve. For the smaller number of parents that don’t go for the extra money, and decide to have more children instead, you could provide for the children by giving them their physical necessities (ie: food, clothing, ect.) directly.

I like the above ideas because it kills three proverbial birds with one stone:

#1 It saves the treasury a lot of money by avoiding spending on an increasing number of children born to poor parents; all the way up to age 18.

#2 It reduces (hopefully by a good amount) the number of children born to impoverished people which in turn will reduce poverty.

#3 The natural environment will get some relief because having fewer children would increase the human population at a slower rate, or better yet, stabilize the human population level altogether.
 
theloop.ecpr.eu

How second jobs change MPs’ behaviour in parliament

The UK government is embroiled in a sleaze scandal after a Conservative Member of Parliament was found to have lobbied for a company in which he held a second job. Simon Weschle argues that these jobs have systematic consequences for how legislators behave in parliament — some problematic, some not
theloop.ecpr.eu theloop.ecpr.eu
 
I'm a member of The Silver Forum which I recommend to anyone interested in precious metals, especially silver, obviously! On there, there's a sort of a trading related thread where members discuss silver and what might drive its price higher or lower. A comment posted there very eloquently sums up the state of British politics and how the political class treat plebs like us. 'CazLikesCoins' writes:

"I view our western governments as lovers of waterboarding the populous. They'll never quite let us drown, but love to keep us feeling like we are. I have every faith in politicians keeping their gravy trains running indefinitely. They're excellent train engineers and the rest of us are along for the ride. Perhaps in cattle class, but we're on the train nonetheless."

Sadly, I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of where we're at!
 
We have had sinking government since Cameron's decision to hold a Brexit referendum. Sadly we are at least 5 years away from anything better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wasp
Uk
2 3
Replies
41
Views
13K
JTrader
JTrader
Top