LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's stating the obvious to say that wealthier people contribute more (in absolute terms) in taxes than those on lower incomes. But paying what you are legally obliged to - even if that is a really big number - does not make you a philanthropist; it is the minimum expected of citizens.

Clearly there is a question over what is a reasonable level - I've demonstrated before on here that simply jacking up the rates to 'make things fairer' is often counter productive in terms of tax revenues. The behavioral aspect of taking large slices of peoples income cannot be discounted, something that Labour never seem to learn.

However I have also covered examples of going beyond the 'minimum' further up the thread.

Agreed. I think it is what you do voluntarily and in proportion to your means that counts. I think it was you who originally labelled lefties/poorer people as more selfish than right wingers/wealthier people. If the 'selfish Tory' label is a lazy stereotype, I'd suggest it's just as lazy as the 'envious leftie', albeit there are some examples of both.

Ben6899

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But if this 'bank account envy' isn't a big thing then why all the debate about unfairness in parts of the system, the need for redistribution of wealth and the occasional bit of attitude directed towards those who do have the stuff? There's enough evidence of these things here in Cake Stop.

I'll pick you up on one point, Stevo. Most people who feel the unfairness in the system are not envious of peoples bank accounts; they're usually clawing desperately to enjoy maybe a small fraction of the comforts that those more fortunate take for granted.

Given the bile I see and here directed at 'the rich' from quite a few corners - especially New Old Labour/Momentum etc - I do find that hard to believe sometimes.

Most people here have bought a bike for leisure purposes, and in most cases spent a fair wedge on it. Someone correct me if I'm being naïve, but I don't think anyone doing that can be described as clawing desperately for some measure of fairness or respite from the system.

timothyw

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's stating the obvious to say that wealthier people contribute more (in absolute terms) in taxes than those on lower incomes. But paying what you are legally obliged to - even if that is a really big number - does not make you a philanthropist; it is the minimum expected of citizens.

Clearly there is a question over what is a reasonable level - I've demonstrated before on here that simply jacking up the rates to 'make things fairer' is often counter productive in terms of tax revenues. The behavioral aspect of taking large slices of peoples income cannot be discounted, something that Labour never seem to learn.

However I have also covered examples of going beyond the 'minimum' further up the thread.

Agreed. I think it is what you do voluntarily and in proportion to your means that counts. I think it was you who originally labelled lefties/poorer people as more selfish than right wingers/wealthier people. If the 'selfish Tory' label is a lazy stereotype, I'd suggest it's just as lazy as the 'envious leftie', albeit there are some examples of both.

On this topic, there seem to be at least a couple of studies showing that proportionally the poor are more generous than the rich:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/poor ... lxgg58kjfn
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ve/309254/

So yeah, stereotyping the poor as selfish not really fair or entirely backed up by the evidence.

It does seem fair to suggest that on the whole people vote out of selfishness however - specifically that rich people mostly vote Tory because they are better off under tory government, and poor people vote Labour because they are better off under Labour government - not really a question of either group being any more greedy than the other IMO.

surrey_commuter

TimothyW wrote:

People should be able to expect to be 'better off' than their parents (assuming of course that they are willing to 'work' at a reasonable approximation of how hard their parents did), much as their parents should have been better off than their grandparents.

There are numerous reasons for this, firstly the general trend for increased productivity and availability of the fruits of people labour.

Which is to say, a worker in a modern car plant is producing more/better cars per hour than were being produced by their predecessors a generation ago.

And the cars produced are more efficient, so can go further on less petrol, are faster, carry more luggage, whatever.

Then there is the accumulated wealth of a country/generations. Once a town has sewers, roads, telephones etc it take less to maintain that provision than it did in the first place to install it - so later generations benefit from things that were paid for before they came into the picture.

Similarly within our own families, items are accumulated that outlive their purchasers - furniture, houses, jewellery, books, whatever - at some point good money was paid for these items, and the younger generations can benefit from them for a fraction of their original cost (and more often free)


In the absence of a war or natural disaster or other major calamity to destroy this wealth, it seems reasonable to expect that people will be better off than their parents were.


When they aren't, that to me suggests a broken system in one way or another. The most obvious way that the current system is broken is the ability of the rich to monopolise land and property ownership - locking out the young/poor from such stability, and allowing them to extract usurious rent from these people.


I've not owned a house for very long, but the amount of unearned 'wealth' it has already generated for us, looking at local sale prices, is mind boggling. And it doesn't benefit us much given that we still need somewhere to live.... someone rich enough to have bought a place next to us as an 'investment' would be doing very well, and wouldn't have had to work hard by any definition.

A good in depth reply and productivity is a fair point but only applicable if the next generation goes into a similar role. Say the car-workers offspring become a social worker or to work in a bookshop, should they expect to earn more than their father.

The fact that I am better off than my father is that I moved to London and got a job in a lucrative industry. The passing down of accumulated wealth in my case is the grand sum of £50 (yes fifty)

There is still a lot of money being poured into infrastructure. In your example of telecoms they are spending billions on new cable and masts.

If tomorrow somebody bought the house next door to you as an investment they could well lose money over the next several years. They are effectively borrowing money to gamble and they are replacing hard work with risk in their pursuit of gains.

timothyw

Surrey Commuter wrote:

The fact that I am better off than my father is that I moved to London and got a job in a lucrative industry. The passing down of accumulated wealth in my case is the grand sum of £50 (yes fifty)

If tomorrow somebody bought the house next door to you as an investment they could well lose money over the next several years. They are effectively borrowing money to gamble and they are replacing hard work with risk in their pursuit of gains.

The fact that you had to move to London to get a job in a lucrative industry shows why property in London and surrounding area is of such value and why it is so obviously unfair that people have been able to monopolise it, often over several generations (eg the Duke(s) of Westminster)

Admittedly there is potential for the value of a house/land to drop in cash terms, or for its value to be destroyed by some kind of calamity (eg chemical spill, volcano, Brexit...), but as things stand there is only so much land in London and much of it is owned by the very rich and will continue to be for generations, because there is a legal mechanism for them to maintain the benefit of land ownership in perpetuity - inheritance tax is easily dodged.

Then you look at strict planning and green belt laws, ground rents on leaseholds and it becomes clear that the system is gamed to benefit those who hold property, not those who lack the benefit of inherited wealth and have to make their own way in life.



On social workers, The point is that these people serve a need and that their work should pay for itself in reducing the wider costs on society that those who need their help would otherwise incur - frankly to me it seems questionable whether someone who works in a car plant (producing vehicles that are polluting, dangerous to others, and often serve little purpose beyond satisfying the drivers vanity) actually is doing something that benefits society, certainly not to a greater degree than the average social worker, who are hopefully reducing crime and helping reduce burden on the NHS, Schools and other tax funded services.

Admittedly it's hard to put much value on someone working in a bookshop nowadays, but then I'm not someone who reads many books, and not someone who would often consult a bookseller in pursuit of a book to read - if you are someone who does then perhaps a good bookseller is worth a lot to you.

On the point of telecoms infrastructure, yes, a lot is being spent now, but that will only serve to increase what is available to the next generation - I could take it for granted as a child that everywhere had a phone line. My son can take it for granted that everywhere has broadband, 4g access, etc - better stuff in short that they have not had to pay for (although they will be paying for the next generations hologramatic super VR broadband I'm sure....)


To be clear though, I salute your success in making your way in a lucrative career in London, and congratulate you that you have done so without the benefit of much in the way of support from your parents. I've done OK in life but have undeniably had much support from the fact that my middle class parents have always been able to support me financially when it has been required, and instilled in me the value of a good education.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The implication of this is that the better off don't do these non-monetary good things. I'm not sure where you get that from, other than leftiebollox anti-tory propaganda.

Very few top flying professionals have an abundance of spare time, tbf.

Stay at home mums have the time, inclination and often valuable skills to do voluntary work

It’s fairly narrow to define value-add as anything you get paid for.

After all, no one pays you to bring up your children and if you marry your cleaner and s/he continues to clean that labour doesn’t suddenly disappear.

have you responded to the wrong post?

No - the stay at home mum comment made me think of it. Don’t need to look as far as voluntary work. Bringing a child up is often unpaid.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The implication of this is that the better off don't do these non-monetary good things. I'm not sure where you get that from, other than leftiebollox anti-tory propaganda.

Very few top flying professionals have an abundance of spare time, tbf.

Stay at home mums have the time, inclination and often valuable skills to do voluntary work

It’s fairly narrow to define value-add as anything you get paid for.

After all, no one pays you to bring up your children and if you marry your cleaner and s/he continues to clean that labour doesn’t suddenly disappear.

have you responded to the wrong post?

No - the stay at home mum comment made me think of it. Don’t need to look as far as voluntary work. Bringing a child up is often unpaid.

But I was not denigrating stay at home mums and did not mention value add so not sure how you came to that conclusion.

rick_chasey

No, agreed. It just reminded me of the point.

surrey_commuter

TimothyW wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

The fact that I am better off than my father is that I moved to London and got a job in a lucrative industry. The passing down of accumulated wealth in my case is the grand sum of £50 (yes fifty)

If tomorrow somebody bought the house next door to you as an investment they could well lose money over the next several years. They are effectively borrowing money to gamble and they are replacing hard work with risk in their pursuit of gains.

The fact that you had to move to London to get a job in a lucrative industry shows why property in London and surrounding area is of such value and why it is so obviously unfair that people have been able to monopolise it, often over several generations (eg the Duke(s) of Westminster)

Admittedly there is potential for the value of a house/land to drop in cash terms, or for its value to be destroyed by some kind of calamity (eg chemical spill, volcano, Brexit...), but as things stand there is only so much land in London and much of it is owned by the very rich and will continue to be for generations, because there is a legal mechanism for them to maintain the benefit of land ownership in perpetuity - inheritance tax is easily dodged.

Then you look at strict planning and green belt laws, ground rents on leaseholds and it becomes clear that the system is gamed to benefit those who hold property, not those who lack the benefit of inherited wealth and have to make their own way in life.



On social workers, The point is that these people serve a need and that their work should pay for itself in reducing the wider costs on society that those who need their help would otherwise incur - frankly to me it seems questionable whether someone who works in a car plant (producing vehicles that are polluting, dangerous to others, and often serve little purpose beyond satisfying the drivers vanity) actually is doing something that benefits society, certainly not to a greater degree than the average social worker, who are hopefully reducing crime and helping reduce burden on the NHS, Schools and other tax funded services.

Admittedly it's hard to put much value on someone working in a bookshop nowadays, but then I'm not someone who reads many books, and not someone who would often consult a bookseller in pursuit of a book to read - if you are someone who does then perhaps a good bookseller is worth a lot to you.

On the point of telecoms infrastructure, yes, a lot is being spent now, but that will only serve to increase what is available to the next generation - I could take it for granted as a child that everywhere had a phone line. My son can take it for granted that everywhere has broadband, 4g access, etc - better stuff in short that they have not had to pay for (although they will be paying for the next generations hologramatic super VR broadband I'm sure....)


To be clear though, I salute your success in making your way in a lucrative career in London, and congratulate you that you have done so without the benefit of much in the way of support from your parents. I've done OK in life but have undeniably had much support from the fact that my middle class parents have always been able to support me financially when it has been required, and instilled in me the value of a good education.

As somebody who can remember the last property crash I would not be so certain that values can not go down due to a lack of confidence. I have never invested in property (as opposed to somewhere to live) because I think in a worse case scenario they could be overvalued by 50% as measured against affordability. I fully acknowledge this is not mainstream thinking.

My job examples were to demonstrate that people can take careers different from their parents and earn less money rather than any comment on their value to society.

My old man had used education to dig himself out of relative poverty (he moved into a house with electricity at the age of 10) so I too had the value of education drummed into me throughout my childhood, without that I would probably have screwed my A' levels and not been bothered to do a degree.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I have never invested in property (as opposed to somewhere to live) because I think in a worse case scenario they could be overvalued by 50% as measured against affordability. I fully acknowledge this is not mainstream thinking

At the risk of going even further OT, If property is too risky for you, do you just put it all in a cash savings account?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I have never invested in property (as opposed to somewhere to live) because I think in a worse case scenario they could be overvalued by 50% as measured against affordability. I fully acknowledge this is not mainstream thinking

At the risk of going even further OT, If property is too risky for you, do you just put it all in a cash savings account?

Far from balanced portfolio as have 90% in shares.

Far too much of my net worth is tied up in my home so would not borrow more to invest in property. Many did and made very good money but I would not sleep at night. To me it is strange that the same people don’t borrow money to buy shares.

For clarity I am not predicting a property crash, I am saying that investing in property is not risk free and those that do deserve credit for having the balls rather than dismissed as some sort of undeserving freeloader.

tangled_metal

I believe there's a very good post on the Labour thread about the "better off than your parents" topic. This post had a link to a study related to this. IIRC it basically said that the more baby boomers kind of skewed the figures towards this view but longer term generations stay pretty flat in real terms. I think the research goes back centuries to include more data. I also believe there was more discussion about the current, younger generation is expected to be less well off than their parents.

This post read just one in such a big thread that I'm not interested enough to waste time looking for it sorry!

rjsterry

Not my area of expertise by any means, SC, but there seem to be a lot of graphs showing London property out-performing the FTSE100 over the last 30 years and with a lot less volatility.

Obviously you can buy a large and varied portfolio of shares for the price of one single property, so that's one strong argument for going for shares instead of property.

timothyw

Surrey Commuter wrote:

For clarity I am not predicting a property crash, I am saying that investing in property is not risk free and those that do deserve credit for having the balls rather than dismissed as some sort of undeserving freeloader.

Well, of course it isn't risk free, but if you are investing in a place for you to live, then what actually is the risk? The cash value of your house means very little, as you always need somewhere to live anyway - and talking about intergenerational value, a home will always be worth the amount of shelter it provides regardless of it's cash value. I can't agree that buying up more houses than you need, in a country where many people can't afford their own homes, is ballsy - it just feels greedy to me, a way to make a buck on the back of someone else's struggle to make rent.

And that doesn't even do justice to how bonkers the housing and rental market is right now. The house next door to ours is being let out to Barnet council (we don't live in Barnet...) because Barnet are obliged to house people but aren't allowed to build any new council houses.

The best part is that the house is an ex-council house, and an above market value rent is being paid for it, to a private landlord. It was advertised for private rental for a while, at what I thought was an absurdly high price, but, it transpired, one that Barnet was willing to pay.

Then to add to the fun the tenants that required housing never actually moved in, because they didn't actually need housing, they were using it as some kind of other scam whereby they sublet it/took out loans/claimed some kind of benefit - the detail escapes me, but either way, we've only had neighbours for a fraction of the time we've been living here, which all seemed very odd (as surely no private landlord could stomach such long voids) until we discovered Barnet were footing the bill...

I've been predicting, and hoping for, a property crash for pretty much as long as I can remember, but there are just too many vested interests in positions of power. It was the expenses scandal that really brought it home to me - MPs were feathering their nests by using second home allowances to start up buy to let empires, using their expenses to do up the homes, flipping them at a profit or just buying another one and repeating the scam - what possible motivation can they have to reduce the price of houses when they are doing so well from them going up?

rjsterry

TimothyW wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

For clarity I am not predicting a property crash, I am saying that investing in property is not risk free and those that do deserve credit for having the balls rather than dismissed as some sort of undeserving freeloader.

Well, of course it isn't risk free, but if you are investing in a place for you to live, then what actually is the risk? The cash value of your house means very little, as you always need somewhere to live anyway - and talking about intergenerational value, a home will always be worth the amount of shelter it provides regardless of it's cash value. I can't agree that buying up more houses than you need, in a country where many people can't afford their own homes, is ballsy - it just feels greedy to me, a way to make a buck on the back of someone else's struggle to make rent.

And that doesn't even do justice to how bonkers the housing and rental market is right now. The house next door to ours is being let out to Barnet council (we don't live in Barnet...) because Barnet are obliged to house people but aren't allowed to build any new council houses.

The best part is that the house is an ex-council house, and an above market value rent is being paid for it, to a private landlord. It was advertised for private rental for a while, at what I thought was an absurdly high price, but, it transpired, one that Barnet was willing to pay.

Then to add to the fun the tenants that required housing never actually moved in, because they didn't actually need housing, they were using it as some kind of other scam whereby they sublet it/took out loans/claimed some kind of benefit - the detail escapes me, but either way, we've only had neighbours for a fraction of the time we've been living here, which all seemed very odd (as surely no private landlord could stomach such long voids) until we discovered Barnet were footing the bill...

I've been predicting, and hoping for, a property crash for pretty much as long as I can remember, but there are just too many vested interests in positions of power. It was the expenses scandal that really brought it home to me - MPs were feathering their nests by using second home allowances to start up buy to let empires, using their expenses to do up the homes, flipping them at a profit or just buying another one and repeating the scam - what possible motivation can they have to reduce the price of houses when they are doing so well from them going up?

While acknowledging that the current social housing situation is a disgrace, it's not correct to say that councils are not allowed to build new council homes. It was the case until very recently that councils had strict limits on borrowing for capital projects, which effectively prevented them from doing so. That restriction has now finally been lifted but they are now so cash-strapped that a sudden council house building boom seems unlikely.

I think it's a bit much to suggest that there is a fundamental issue with buying to let as it provides a useful option for people not in a position to take on a mortgage or moving frequently. The tax rules on BTL mortgage payments have been tightened up relatively recently and it is no longer the easy win that it used to be. Even if letting/renting were banned, the restriction of supply would still mean silly prices.

rjsterry

Probably a good opportunity to reference the cross-party report on housing that has just been published. A key finding was that government investment in housing would start to pay for itself by reducing the spending on housing benefit.

rjsterry

Following Johnson's end of the pier Trump impersonation, complete with recent references to the 'deep state', maybe this thread needs a bump.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Following Johnson's end of the pier Trump impersonation, complete with recent references to the 'deep state', maybe this thread needs a bump.

His usual MO is to keep lying so will be interesting to see if he keeps insisting black is white.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Following Johnson's end of the pier Trump impersonation, complete with recent references to the 'deep state', maybe this thread needs a bump.

His usual MO is to keep lying so will be interesting to see if he keeps insisting black is white.

True, but he's previously made some vague attempt at plausibility.

orraloon

Do you reckon de Pfeffel is going full on Drumpf with the blatant lies and the latest generation younger shagbunny?



Ps apologies for copying the image from the Daily Heil

morstar

orraloon wrote:

Do you reckon de Pfeffel is going full on Drumpf with the blatant lies and the latest generation younger shagbunny?

Absolutely. You'd hope that the Tory party are wise enough to not go down that route having seen the mess in the US. (Not that we are in any position to judge)
I am sure he could win an election but at what cost.

rjsterry

morstar wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Do you reckon de Pfeffel is going full on Drumpf with the blatant lies and the latest generation younger shagbunny?

Absolutely. You'd hope that the Tory party are wise enough to not go down that route having seen the mess in the US. (Not that we are in any position to judge)
I am sure he could win an election but at what cost.

Don't kid yourself. The rank and file love him.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Do you reckon de Pfeffel is going full on Drumpf with the blatant lies and the latest generation younger shagbunny?

Absolutely. You'd hope that the Tory party are wise enough to not go down that route having seen the mess in the US. (Not that we are in any position to judge)
I am sure he could win an election but at what cost.

Don't kid yourself. The rank and file love him.

And the ladies of a certain age who make up the membership will think there but for the grace of god go I. It did Paddy Ashdown no harm.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Do you reckon de Pfeffel is going full on Drumpf with the blatant lies and the latest generation younger shagbunny?

Absolutely. You'd hope that the Tory party are wise enough to not go down that route having seen the mess in the US. (Not that we are in any position to judge)
I am sure he could win an election but at what cost.

Don't kid yourself. The rank and file love him.

And the ladies of a certain age who make up the membership will think there but for the grace of god go I. It did Paddy Ashdown no harm.

In some countries in Europe, a bit of hanky panky is practically expected of senior politicians. Boris is just trying to subtly say that he's a good European after all.

robert88

Independent Group: Three MPs quit Tory party to join

Three Tory MPs have resigned from the party to join an independent group, set up by former Labour MPs.

Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen wrote a joint letter to Theresa May to confirm their departure.

The three held a press conference, criticising the government for letting the "hard-line anti-EU awkward squad" take over the party.

I would suggest that they do not leave the country lest their passports be revoked and they end up heading for Bangladesh.

It seems to be a Tory thing.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Independent Group: Three MPs quit Tory party to join

Three Tory MPs have resigned from the party to join an independent group, set up by former Labour MPs.

Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen wrote a joint letter to Theresa May to confirm their departure.

The three held a press conference, criticising the government for letting the "hard-line anti-EU awkward squad" take over the party.

I would suggest that they do not leave the country lest their passports be revoked and they end up heading for Bangladesh.

It seems to be a Tory thing.

If the criteria for not being let back in is supporting terrorist organisations then Corbyn had better stay put

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Independent Group: Three MPs quit Tory party to join

Three Tory MPs have resigned from the party to join an independent group, set up by former Labour MPs.

Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen wrote a joint letter to Theresa May to confirm their departure.

The three held a press conference, criticising the government for letting the "hard-line anti-EU awkward squad" take over the party.

I would suggest that they do not leave the country lest their passports be revoked and they end up heading for Bangladesh.

It seems to be a Tory thing.

If the criteria for not being let back in is supporting terrorist organisations then Corbyn had better stay put

You are skating on very thin ice there. The Tory government supports some of the biggest arms dealers in the world.

Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East.

Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.

A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.

..

he Government has also ignored calls to stop selling weapons to repressive regimes, including Saudi Arabia, which has been accused by UN bodies of potentially committing war crimes in its military operation in Yemen against Houthi rebels.

Both the European Parliament and the House of Commons International Development Committee have called for exports to the autocracy to stop, but the Government says it has not seen evidence of Saudi war crimes.

And instruments of torture:

UK: a serial offender
It isn’t just China that has a hand in equipping torturers all over the world. The UK has repeatedly hosted international arms fairs where illegal equipment is advertised.

Despite numerous promises to clamp down on this practice, the government has never prosecuted any company for illegally peddling torture equipment at UK arms fairs.

‘We want assurances that this is the end of the UK playing the dirty role of matchmaker between trader and torturer.’
Olly Sprague, Amnesty’s Arms Programme Director

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Independent Group: Three MPs quit Tory party to join

Three Tory MPs have resigned from the party to join an independent group, set up by former Labour MPs.

Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen wrote a joint letter to Theresa May to confirm their departure.

The three held a press conference, criticising the government for letting the "hard-line anti-EU awkward squad" take over the party.

I would suggest that they do not leave the country lest their passports be revoked and they end up heading for Bangladesh.

It seems to be a Tory thing.

If the criteria for not being let back in is supporting terrorist organisations then Corbyn had better stay put

You are skating on very thin ice there. The Tory government supports some of the biggest arms dealers in the world.

Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East.

Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.

A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.

..

he Government has also ignored calls to stop selling weapons to repressive regimes, including Saudi Arabia, which has been accused by UN bodies of potentially committing war crimes in its military operation in Yemen against Houthi rebels.

Both the European Parliament and the House of Commons International Development Committee have called for exports to the autocracy to stop, but the Government says it has not seen evidence of Saudi war crimes.

And instruments of torture:

UK: a serial offender
It isn’t just China that has a hand in equipping torturers all over the world. The UK has repeatedly hosted international arms fairs where illegal equipment is advertised.

Despite numerous promises to clamp down on this practice, the government has never prosecuted any company for illegally peddling torture equipment at UK arms fairs.

‘We want assurances that this is the end of the UK playing the dirty role of matchmaker between trader and torturer.’
Olly Sprague, Amnesty’s Arms Programme Director

What, you mean I can't go on holiday Robert? Aw shucks.

ballysmate

Glad to see Robert trumpeting a British industrial success.

robert88

Ballysmate wrote:

]

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Independent Group: Three MPs quit Tory party to join

Three Tory MPs have resigned from the party to join an independent group, set up by former Labour MPs.

Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen wrote a joint letter to Theresa May to confirm their departure.

The three held a press conference, criticising the government for letting the "hard-line anti-EU awkward squad" take over the party.

I would suggest that they do not leave the country lest their passports be revoked and they end up heading for Bangladesh.

It seems to be a Tory thing.

If the criteria for not being let back in is supporting terrorist organisations then Corbyn had better stay put

You are skating on very thin ice there. The Tory government supports some of the biggest arms dealers in the world.

Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East.

Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.

A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.

..

he Government has also ignored calls to stop selling weapons to repressive regimes, including Saudi Arabia, which has been accused by UN bodies of potentially committing war crimes in its military operation in Yemen against Houthi rebels.

Both the European Parliament and the House of Commons International Development Committee have called for exports to the autocracy to stop, but the Government says it has not seen evidence of Saudi war crimes.

And instruments of torture:

UK: a serial offender
It isn’t just China that has a hand in equipping torturers all over the world. The UK has repeatedly hosted international arms fairs where illegal equipment is advertised.

Despite numerous promises to clamp down on this practice, the government has never prosecuted any company for illegally peddling torture equipment at UK arms fairs.

‘We want assurances that this is the end of the UK playing the dirty role of matchmaker between trader and torturer.’
Olly Sprague, Amnesty’s Arms Programme Director

Glad to see Robert trumpeting a British industrial success.

I wouldn't call the support of criminals a success. Getting away with it might be regarded as success if you are morally bankrupt and it's all you've got to avoid being financially bankrupt.

Britain increases arms exports to world’s most repressive regimes by nearly a third since Brexit vote

Among the countries to which ministers have given the green light for military equipment sales are Equatorial Guinea, considered to be one of the most corrupt and repressive countries in the world. Licences worth £1m were also granted for Azerbaijan, accused by human rights campaigners of conducting a vicious campaign against freedom of expression, while Uzbekistan, which is rated by Freedom House as one of the least free countries in the world, was granted a licence to import military vehicle components worth nearly £200,000. The Government has singled out arms sales as a priority area for Britain’s post-Brexit trade push.

When you are heading down sh1t creek you can't be picky about your friends.