LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
rjsterry said:
I see the Culture Secretary is looking to require charities and cultural organisations to promote a state approved version of of history. As if it is in some way under threat
Must say I'm slightly embarrassed for Chris Hope having to 'report' this confected drivel.
Maybe ironic that that is part of the same line of thinking from the government that wants to appoint a 'free speech tsar'.0 -
During a time when most cultural venues and artists are dying on their harris's due to covid restrictions, the culture secretary thinks what is needed is a state approved version of history.rjsterry said:I see the Culture Secretary is looking to require charities and cultural organisations to promote a state approved version of of history. As if it is in some way under threat
Must say I'm slightly embarrassed for Chris Hope having to 'report' this confected drivel.
FFS.1 -
Jezyboy said:
During a time when most cultural venues and artists are dying on their harris's due to covid restrictions, the culture secretary thinks what is needed is a state approved version of history.rjsterry said:I see the Culture Secretary is looking to require charities and cultural organisations to promote a state approved version of of history. As if it is in some way under threat
Must say I'm slightly embarrassed for Chris Hope having to 'report' this confected drivel.
FFS.
They've worked out that this sort of 'war on woke' plays well with the blue rinse & Telegraph brigade. They still think that 'woke' is an insult, in the same way that they think that 'Health and Safety' (aka not maiming and killing people) is not something to aspire to.0 -
Quite.Jezyboy said:
During a time when most cultural venues and artists are dying on their harris's due to covid restrictions, the culture secretary thinks what is needed is a state approved version of history.rjsterry said:I see the Culture Secretary is looking to require charities and cultural organisations to promote a state approved version of of history. As if it is in some way under threat
Must say I'm slightly embarrassed for Chris Hope having to 'report' this confected drivel.
FFS.0 -
They've redefined "woke" to mean "things they don't like", so it's an easy thing to argue against.0
-
This is one of Williamson’s ‘grand schemes’ as well - I’d bet his performance is assessed on this. Rather than his woeful record in providing anything resembling common sense re. education.
If taken to an extreme this should roll all the way through to refusing state funding for faith schools (including CofE, etc). I’d be all for that - I don’t trust a word those historians wrote in the bible.0 -
Woke - being for equality and diversity. It's not being fadish or lefty, it's being in compliance with the law of the land FFS.0
-
Keep promoting division, factionalism, difference, them vs them vs whoever. It's the #toryscum way.0
-
Isn't it the same for Labour?orraloon said:Keep promoting division, factionalism, difference, them vs them vs whoever. It's the #toryscum way.
Tax the rich, tax the middle class until the pips squeak, tax the successful, etc, etc.1 -
elbowloh said:
Woke - being for equality and diversity. It's not being fadish or lefty, it's being in compliance with the law of the land FFS.
It's another excuse to try to retain the status quo - there's a long history of weaponising movements that signal change/progress... 'political correctness', 'elfin safety gawn mad' and now 'woke': if people feel threatened by them, it's probably because they feel threatened by progress.0 -
Dorset_Boy said:
Isn't it the same for Labour?orraloon said:Keep promoting division, factionalism, difference, them vs them vs whoever. It's the #toryscum way.
Tax the rich, tax the middle class until the pips squeak, tax the successful, etc, etc.
The pips never squeaked. The rich have stayed rich. Actually, they've got even richer.0 -
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
"Wealth in Great Britain is even more unequally divided than income. In 2016, the ONS calculated that the richest 10% of households hold 44% of all wealth. The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 9%.[6] More than that, for the UK as a whole, the WID found that the top 0.1% had share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%."
0 -
The aim of the Labour party (to squeeze the middle class until the pips squeaked) never came to fruitition because they didn't gain power.briantrumpet said:https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
"Wealth in Great Britain is even more unequally divided than income. In 2016, the ONS calculated that the richest 10% of households hold 44% of all wealth. The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 9%.[6] More than that, for the UK as a whole, the WID found that the top 0.1% had share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%."
I may be wrong, but under the Blair / Brown Governments the wealth divide grew rapidly, and I totally agree it is a bad thing, especially when the untra rich would rather buy a soccer club than do some real public good with their excess wealth.
All I was doing is pointing out is that it is not only the nasty Tories that want to cause division.1 -
How much of this could be down to equality at work? Very rare a woman marries a bloke who does not earn the same or more than her so as women climb the greasy pole the top household incomes will rise.briantrumpet said:https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
"Wealth in Great Britain is even more unequally divided than income. In 2016, the ONS calculated that the richest 10% of households hold 44% of all wealth. The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 9%.[6] More than that, for the UK as a whole, the WID found that the top 0.1% had share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%."0 -
It’s almost like it’s the politics that get you elected in the UK worsen equality.Dorset_Boy said:
The aim of the Labour party (to squeeze the middle class until the pips squeaked) never came to fruitition because they didn't gain power.briantrumpet said:https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
"Wealth in Great Britain is even more unequally divided than income. In 2016, the ONS calculated that the richest 10% of households hold 44% of all wealth. The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 9%.[6] More than that, for the UK as a whole, the WID found that the top 0.1% had share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%."
I may be wrong, but under the Blair / Brown Governments the wealth divide grew rapidly, and I totally agree it is a bad thing, especially when the untra rich would rather buy a soccer club than do some real public good with their excess wealth.
All I was doing is pointing out is that it is not only the nasty Tories that want to cause division.0 -
https://leftfootforward.org/2021/02/revealed-the-strange-forces-behind-the-governments-free-speech-push/
Not my usual read but pointed towards it by some well read people (and for you right wingers - it was linked by a *heavy lockdown sceptic*).
Turns out the centre of the gov't free speech push is a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party turned right-wing populist who has very close links to the publication Living Marxism (who got shut down for faking war crime images in Bosnia), whose ashes Spiked rose from.0 -
-
I'm not even going to pretend I understand Government finance, I barely understand my household finance and the arguments you and SC have on the issue make my eyes glaze over. However, do you know how that graph would change if the interest rates increased by, say, 2% from the current unprecedented low levels?rick_chasey said:bUt ThE nAtIoN iS bAnKrUpT
0 -
Well the rates for gilts at different durations are also well known.Pross said:
I'm not even going to pretend I understand Government finance, I barely understand my household finance and the arguments you and SC have on the issue make my eyes glaze over. However, do you know how that graph would change if the interest rates increased by, say, 2% from the current unprecedented low levels?rick_chasey said:bUt ThE nAtIoN iS bAnKrUpT
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/uk
So the gov't mixes up gilt durations to make sure that stuff is evened out and is not as big a shock as it can be.
Plus, as I keep failing to explain well, if UK growth is lower than expected, the rates will rise anyway as the market will be more concerned about the ability to pay the debt off.
So if the gov't keeps spending up and keeps the recovery strong when borrowing costs are cheap, it will be easy to service plus you'll have decent growth which will make the cost seem even cheaper and you end up in a virtuous circle.
The problem in the crash was, especially in Europe and the UK included, just when they got back on their feet the hit the austerity button hard which choked off the growth and you end up with a stagnant decade.0 -
My argument is that it is all incredibly simple and that Rick’s (majority) view is a load of boll0x wrapped up is pseudo science to give it a veneer of believability.Pross said:
I'm not even going to pretend I understand Government finance, I barely understand my household finance and the arguments you and SC have on the issue make my eyes glaze over. However, do you know how that graph would change if the interest rates increased by, say, 2% from the current unprecedented low levels?rick_chasey said:bUt ThE nAtIoN iS bAnKrUpT
You just shouted “but the emperor has no clothes”
You understand it just perfectly.0 -
Why not answer his question- what happens if rates go up by 2%? More specifically how many years before we went spectacularly bust.rick_chasey said:
Well the rates for gilts at different durations are also well known.Pross said:
I'm not even going to pretend I understand Government finance, I barely understand my household finance and the arguments you and SC have on the issue make my eyes glaze over. However, do you know how that graph would change if the interest rates increased by, say, 2% from the current unprecedented low levels?rick_chasey said:bUt ThE nAtIoN iS bAnKrUpT
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/uk
So the gov't mixes up gilt durations to make sure that stuff is evened out and is not as big a shock as it can be.
Plus, as I keep failing to explain well, if UK growth is lower than expected, the rates will rise anyway as the market will be more concerned about the ability to pay the debt off.
So if the gov't keeps spending up and keeps the recovery strong when borrowing costs are cheap, it will be easy to service plus you'll have decent growth which will make the cost seem even cheaper and you end up in a virtuous circle.
The problem in the crash was, especially in Europe and the UK included, just when they got back on their feet the hit the austerity button hard which choked off the growth and you end up with a stagnant decade.
The other problem with your virtuous circle is that the debt is not magically turned into growth. I know you will argue for the accelerator but when was the last time UK borrowing % was below growth rates?
0 -
-
Why? The only net buyer is the BofErick_chasey said:I'm saying rates will go up if they don't spend it.
(to take out the nuance).
This is what I don’t get, if you believe in the magic money tree why not go all in? Why on Earth is Rishi talking about raising taxes to balance the books?
And you did not answer Pross’s question of what happens if interest rates go up 2%?
The speed at which servicing costs have fallen suggest they could go the other way just as fast.0 -
Better keep the housing market plates spinning!0
-
I guess my point is the rates don't go up to 2% for no reason, so before you get to that point, you need to know why they have gone up to 2%.surrey_commuter said:
Why? The only net buyer is the BofErick_chasey said:I'm saying rates will go up if they don't spend it.
(to take out the nuance).
This is what I don’t get, if you believe in the magic money tree why not go all in? Why on Earth is Rishi talking about raising taxes to balance the books?
And you did not answer Pross’s question of what happens if interest rates go up 2%?
The speed at which servicing costs have fallen suggest they could go the other way just as fast.
Realistically either it's going to go up to 2% because the economy is running seriously hot and inflation is a big issue (which is good for debt servicing anyway) or because the recovery has absolutely stalled because the gov't is on some gigantic austerity drive in order to keep the debt 'under control'.
0 -
You're both worrying about a hypothetical that might not happen.
What happens if the cost of servicing debt goes up a lot? You'll have to do some austerity.
So what's your solution? Austerity?
The issue at hand right now is a absolutely monstrous gigantic problem in demand. The gov't us uniquely positioned to be able to help solve that better than any other actor in the economy - by using it's unique position to borrow more cheaply than the rest of the economy to bolster demand.
You are being eaten by a wolf but you're saving your bullets as you are worried about the possibility of a bear in the next woods.0 -
Did you worry about the financial crisis happening?rick_chasey said:You're both worrying about a hypothetical that might not happen.
What happens if the cost of servicing debt goes up a lot? You'll have to do some austerity.
So what's your solution? Austerity?
The issue at hand right now is a absolutely monstrous gigantic problem in demand. The gov't us uniquely positioned to be able to help solve that better than any other actor in the economy - by using it's unique position to borrow more cheaply than the rest of the economy to bolster demand.
You are being eaten by a wolf but you're saving your bullets as you are worried about the possibility of a bear in the next woods.
No, that's right, because you didn't know it was going to happen. Where is the manoeuvre at 0%!?0 -
-
0 -
Loosely speaking, would it not be correct to say that the economy did not recover well from 2008. So you could conclude that whatever medicine was used post 2008 was not tremendously successful.
We are now in a far bigger hole than 2008, and think the same medicine is somehow an answer.1
