No, he needs a link or it’s unconfirmed you confrontational sod!
Ironically he followed it with with sone claims not backed up by a link 🤨🤷♂️😀
But it seems that we are all in favour of our own inherited privilege and inequality, it’s just other people who don’t deserve it.
if course we wouid all prefer to pay less tax. That’s hardly profound. But it’s not the same thing as asserting a moral right to pay no tax. The ones doing that are <checks notes> the royal family.
Biggest hurdle with a wealth tax imo is that somehow people think the rich would just leave the UK, as though they don’t have family, friends, heritage and language here just the same as anyone else who doesn’t leave for those reasons.
The ones doing that are <checks notes> the royal family.
You can add the Duke of Westminter with his multi-billion trust fund...
UK corporation tax 25%, Ireland 12.5%
Where would you locate your corporate HQ?
taxes need to go down, we've not had it this bad since Atlee
Rich people going to other countries because of taxes is a perennial favourite threat.
Less of an issue when you understand a private individual no matter how wealthy can't create money. So we don't actually *need* their money.
They exist in the first place because of distribution problems in the supply of government money to the wrong sectors.
However I'm still an advocate of a dynamic private sector for some things but it should follow a much more robust public sector fixing all the crap the private sector does badly.
The wealthy need taxing mostly to halt their crusade on our resources.
That Norway situation is easily solved the way the US does it. If you move abroad you pay the difference in tax between where you live and what the US tax would be to the US goverenment. The only way out is giving up US nationality. I'd like to see every country adopt the same pricipal.
UK corporation tax 25%, Ireland 12.5%
Where would you locate your corporate HQ?
taxes need to go down, we’ve not had it this bad since Atlee
If, as an individual citizen, you were easily allowed to designate your country of residence for tax purposes, would the worlds governments just reduce taxation or sort out the blatant **** up?
<p style="text-align: left;">the last few years have been increasingly hard on those at the bottom</p>
https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1700157291297743062?t=VaePEM_7mQKDOLrmEaJ1Tg&s=19
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
taxes need to go down
Which taxes specifically and can you explain the overall benefits of that to society as a whole, including those that don't pay much income tax and the issues with 'balancing the books' that the UK political parties are wed to?
if course we wouid all prefer to pay less tax. That’s hardly profound. But it’s not the same thing as asserting a moral right to pay no tax. The ones doing that are <checks notes> the royal family.
@DrJ,
I thought you were asserting a moral right for the family of granny to inherit her million-pound bungalow and savings without paying any tax. Happy to stand corrected on that.
I thought you were asserting a moral right for the family of granny to inherit her million-pound bungalow and savings without paying any tax. Happy to stand corrected on that.
No, my possibly gnomic posting was to say that tinkering at the edges with taxes in 2023 will not address a fundamental inequality resulting from centuries of privilege.
Interesting graph above, so Thatcher did raise living standards for most although it was rather skewed towards the wealthies, looks like the Blair years were the best for over all evenly distributed growth if im reading that right, that'll upset the lefties.
Projection for the current period is the lowest income households have seen real growth and the wealthiest have seen the most decline, good old socialist conservative politics or total cockup, you chose.
looks like the Blair years were the best for over all evenly distributed growth if im reading that right, that’ll upset the lefties.
Don’t worry about them, bless ‘em. They just shout IRAQ!!! and it’s like a ickle squishy comfort blanket for them and they can safely carry on pretending that nothing good happened for 13 years because he was just a Tory anyway
There you go again binners excusing the deaths of over a million people. 🙄
There you go again binners excusing the deaths of over a million people
No, he's saying that othet things happened. Blair and Bush should stand trial for their lies and crimes,but believe it or not, other, better, things also happened on his watch.
Blinkers are very restrictive.
No one mentioned Iraq, and if you read up the thread - as binners clearly didn’t - you’ll see me praising the Blair/brown govt for spending money on the NHS and schools. No one from the left is against the good stuff that happened during those 13 years. That doesn’t excuse the rest of the crap that went on though.
Although I would argue that Blair’s experiment at blunting the edges of neoliberalism ultimately resulted in the shitshow we see today.
Yes, it was clearly a very good 13 years compared to the 18 before it and the 13 after it - all of which I have lived through. The war was stupid but I am a bit meh to it as wars are pretty much happening all the time and all of them are stupid even though there may be good intentions on one side
The war was stupid but I am a bit meh to it
That's a luxury you and I can afford, I suppose. The families of 300,000 Iraqis dead as a result of the war are probably less sanguine about it.
As are the families in any country where a war has happened/is happening. Yes the war should not have happened, just like 95% of other wars but I can separate that from the other things that were done by the Blair government which were mostly better than the 18 years before or 13 years after but I realise others cannot do that.
Interesting graph above
Edit, too early, didnt read the tweet properly
The war was stupid but I am a bit meh to it as wars are pretty much happening all the time
Dear me, Kerley. Years of humanist posting down the pan.
The war wasn't stupid, it was criminal. Being a bit meh is callous, dehumanising. It wasn't just a war, it was a religious crusade with colonialist resource-grabbing objectives. Have another watch of Dominique de Villepin's prophetic speech at the UN and remind yourself of the pre-war context and debate. Then they named Blair Middle East Envoy. You're "a bit meh" about the most shameful event and period in Britain's post war history.
The numbers are much disputed, but they grow every year. That war lives alive in the hearts and minds of many, and I'm not talking about people posting for political points on the internet.
The justification for Iraq was a lie.
The long term plan was a shit show of incompetence and political interference for gain.
Although much more peaceful now, the end does not and will never justify the means.
But this goes beyond Blair, everyone who voted in favour and continued to support the war on both sides of the house should have been made to account for their choices.
Never have I seen a nation so utterly failed by it's entire political body.
They all saw the potential for profit and gain with the exception of a few.
My next reproach of Blair is Brexit. He was the one who first rolled over to the media and set a precendent:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/20/eu.politics6
From that point on the media and thus much of the public had the bit between their teeth and were running with a referendum.
From the point the idea of a European Constitution became an issue (contemporaneous with the Gulf war) Blair took the populist option. There never was a referendum on the treaty, other countires got there first and the constitution became a makeover of the European democratic system which had many of the elements of a contitution but was called the Lisbon treaty.
As someone with access to European media I was outraged by the BBCs reporting in the run up to war, their reporting of the war and ashamed to be British. I reckoned that if there were ever a vote on a constitution/membership Britain would be out leaving me up shit creek without a paddle. I'd long fulfilled the conditions for applying for French nationality so did so, in protest and self interest.
Blair singlehandedly set the scene for the following 13 years of Tory dominance. Spitting image nailed it when they showed Blair meeting Thatcher in the street and getting on great.
and I’m not talking about people posting for political points on the internet.
As only two of us have posted that's me and politecamera action. So why not just name us and be done with it. Great post from someone well placed to know about Iraq, pity to spoil it with petty insult.
The war wasn’t stupid, it was criminal.
I see pretty much every war as criminal which is why it is just yet another war.
I would still rather have had Blairs government in power for the last 13 years than the various tory party leaders as over the last 40 years or so that was the best of a bad lot for the UK and its frankly, ****ing stupid voters.
As only two of us have posted that’s me and politecamera action. So why not just name us and be done with it. Great post from someone well placed to know about Iraq, pity to spoil it with petty insult.
This forum is full of it, as is any other internet touch point where politics raises its head.
Iraq and all connected to it is simply weapon in an idealogical battle. People don't truly give a **** about the carnage that war caused and continues to cause, it's just a talking point.
The war was stupid but I am a bit meh to it as wars are pretty much happening all the time and all of them are stupid even though there may be good intentions on one side
Really don't know where to start with this? The Iraq war was 'a bit meh'? Wars involving the UK are not happening all the time. To our enormous good fortune they happen very rarely in fact, and in this country we have almost no exposure to the ones that do as they are fought in other countries. Is this where we're at now, where middle class centrists can dismiss the murder of hundreds of thousands as 'a bit meh' so that they can feel good about a political party and the supposed benefits they derive from it?
Anyway, to bring this back to the subject at hand, the fact that many in this country can have such a detached and merciless opinion of something committed in their name without any apparent empathy of sympathy for the victims surely demonstrates that we are not a 'third world country'. Thirld world countries don't invade other countries with overwhelming military resources so that they can make a land-grab for their natural resources.
Thirld world countries don’t invade other countries with overwhelming military resources so that they can make a land-grab for their natural resources.
????
i dunno about that statement being correct, plenty of examples of that across Africa, middle east atm
as for Iraq, certainly our involvement was a grave error, but America would have invaded regardless and we would have struggled not to be drawn in
i dunno about that statement being correct, plenty of examples of that across Africa, middle east atm
They also stay at home a launch murderous, vicious coups/civil wars and visit unspeakable horrors on their 'own' people.
Always a favourite stick to beat Blair's labour is Iraq, but people conveniently forgot that Saddam Hussein started a war with Iran that killed c. 1 million and invaded it's neighbour.
Always a favourite stick to beat Blair’s labour is Iraq, but people conveniently forgot that Saddam Hussein started a war with Iran that killed c. 1 million and invaded it’s neighbour.
A leader we supported, with a military we trained. He was very much supported to slap Iran back into their box.
And subsequently Iran became ****ing arseholes but we didn't make up a story to go and oust them did we?
Most of the arms and munitions supplied to the various insurgent groups in Iraq came from or flowed through Iran. It was blatant, it could be identified by the factory markings.
We were launching eagle VCP's onto cars with IRG smugglers all along the border. Catch and release cos geopolitics.
They picked an 'easy' win as they knew the military would fall apart.
Then KBR and all the other companies with senior western politicians as shareholders came for the 'rebuild".
As for sticks, I'll beat the **** out of him with it as his lies cost me one the most decent humans I've ever had the pleasure to know, a young (baby at the time) girl a father she can't remember and a wife a husband, a loss that still haunts them and their families to this day.
You want to go to war, don't ****ing lie to the warfighters, integrity of the mission and purpose is what aids success.
See also the collapse of Afghanistan and the veteran suicides that have been triggered as a result.
DrJ
No, my possibly gnomic posting was to say that tinkering at the edges with taxes in 2023 will not address a fundamental inequality resulting from centuries of privilege.
This is the total underlying cause and to an extent why France or Scandinavia have different support on taxation in its wider form.
There is a historical context goes back long before the Normans and 1066 and to the first empires that has never been broken in most specifically England) though the Normans make a good example.
At its core is how a elite hierarchy maintain their power over overwhelming masses and that can be traced back to the Akkadian empire we know mainly through later Sumerian texts.
It's a fairly consistent pattern where a tribe of warriors exert their dominance over larger numbers of farmers who then control the supply of food through taxation of the farmers whilst simultaneously using the food to feed an army to subvert the farmers and building religions that support their dominance of keeping everyone in their place whilst usually (if not always) creating a middle class to simultaneously give something to aspire to and collect their taxes.
The details of this model change over time and on occasion one ruling elite has been replaced by another but this is deeply rooted in our history and national psyche.
You can see the same in the Marian reforms of Rome or the Ptolemaic dynasty or Octavius/Augustus making Egypt a colony under direct control of the empire. More recently you'll see this in European Empires where existing class systems were made legally enforced such as India (itself a relict of a feudal system of invaders) or created such as Rwanda - This didn't supplant the feudal system, it just added extra layers of people with darker skin at the bottom.
In the case of Scandinavia they never really had this... everyone was a warrior and anyone could challenge a Jarl in single combat (at least theoretically)... yet when they arrived in Normandy they copied the Merovingian model of a feudal system that was already in place in England for them to supplant the Saxons feudal system.
The English love to con themselves the Magna Carta was anything but the Baron's re-exerting their feudal rights... or that Cromwell did anything different under the guise of Protestantism but this is fundamental to the unbroken continuation of the feudal system in England .. direct quote apparently that Cromwell realised "he was one of God’s Chosen" and Wat Tyler's Rebellion simply reinforced "the natural order" of the elites.
WW I and Spanish flu changed the details of the dynamic but not the big picture... and unsurprisingly after WW II the colonies started to realise they were able to throw off the yoke yet many of them (most) just (re)implemented their own feudal type system the British had supplanted.
We still have a King who is appointed by his god.... and we still have the Rees-Mogg's who see the threats of the populace they regard (IMHO as far as I can see) as semi-humans. (Too stupid/subservient to disobey a fire-crew telling them not to leave a burning tower for example) but now we lost a whole layer of the subservient the rest of us are down in the serf status with our elevated serf apologists and the money and power still has to flow upwards because that is the system we have had for millennia and because that is what children are told through the education system now so many of us have thrown off religion or at least put it into some context....
We see the media today mainly promogulating the "if you are subservient and know your place and non violent" agenda OR "the non violence agenda" depending if they want to see "no change" or "progressive change" and holding up Ghandi who was non violent but supported the caste system as some sort of hero.
He doubtless had deep beliefs in the caste system but equally I think he realised it was the only way to keep the masses subservient and its taken India a long 1/2C to even start to make real inroads.
To go back to the original question as to if the UK is becoming a 3rd world country then I feel the definition in 2023 has as much to do with the feudal system and shaking it free
Scotland seems far more out of this than England... but is that due to it's history or is it genetic? I'd argue strongly that it's historical...
but America would have invaded regardless
I disagree, had the UK published it's intelligence on WMD's (the real intelligence not the lies) Bush's basis for invading would have fallen flat on it's face. There were no WMDs, they knew it, they did everything possible to hamper Hans Blix and deny him the intelligance to prove it. Had Blair been anti-war the WMDs justification could not have been used. What we in France were being told at the time:
https://www.leparisien.fr/politique/bush-et-blair-preparent-la-guerre-22-12-2002-2003673734.php
Google translate before anyone moans about the French.
Scotland seems far more out of this than England… but is that due to it’s history or is it genetic? I’d argue strongly that it’s historical…
Jesus wept. Now we get the racial explanation for Scotch supremacy.
Always a favourite stick to beat Blair’s labour is Iraq, but people conveniently forgot that Saddam Hussein started a war with Iran that killed c. 1 million and invaded it’s neighbour.
That's a great point, and I'd like to make it clear that I am also opposed to any member of the Ba'athist regime acting as an advisor to Kier Starmer if he is elected in the general election.
Also, if Saddam Hussein were swanning around the world raking it in through speaking appointments and hanging out with Paul Kagame, then I would also support his arrest and trial on charges of crimes against humanity. But in fact he was barbarically executed some time ago.
Hope that clears things up.
Scotland seems far more out of this than England… but is that due to it’s history or is it genetic? I’d argue strongly that it’s historical…
don’t kid yourself. Scotland is built on a foundation of inequality and serving the land owning masters. free movement of people within the U.K. means there’s plenty of Scot’s south of the border (who aren’t exactly leading the charge in resetting the balance of power) and proportionally even more English north of the border (and consequently children who are not 100% scottish) - it’s certainly not genetic. Most people in Scotland, or indeed England couldn’t explain fuedalism to you, never mind rationalise it.
cross the pond to the leaders of the free world and every second person will tell you they are “Irish” or “Scottish” descent - yet whilst fuedalism isn’t the model, in most of the states the description in the OP would be valid - with a good site more inequality on top too.
any suggestion that that description is the definition of third world is ridiculous and frankly insulting to the other human beings living in genuine low income countries. Anyone who had ever been to one - even as a tourist would know that the U.K. is about as far removed from the third world as you can get.
I’m just back from a couple of weeks of work travel in Scandinavia, Switzerland and Germany. There’s a lot of good stuff in those countries, but also some stuff you wouldn’t necessarily choose to reproduce.
Worth remembering that real feudalism only ended in Scotland around 2004. Remember those stories of parasites buying up the rights and serving bills on unsuspecting home "owners".
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">That’s a great point, and I’d like to make it clear that I am also opposed to any member of the Ba’athist regime acting as an advisor to Kier Starmer if he is elected in the general election.</span>
Where TF did that come from?
I disagree, had the UK published it’s intelligence on WMD’s (the real intelligence not the lies) Bush’s basis for invading would have fallen flat on it’s face
Sorry for the tangent but Bush was set on that war from day 1 and crucially Rumsfeld & Cheney had been pushing to taking out sadam since before 9/11 , it had been considered as an immediate response after 9/11
And I dont believe that oil was the direct justification, it was more about America reasserting itself in the middle east
WMDs provided a handy justification but America wouldve gone to war without it ( I seriously doubt even many UK MPs bothered to read the dodgy dossier at the time) there was a republican majority in congress and in the end only a handful of dems opposed the vote to invade Iraq
Where TF did that come from?
The same place as "you can't blame Blair for the Iraq War because Saddam invaded Iran".
The same place as “you can’t blame Blair for the Iraq War because Saddam invaded Iran”.
why don't you re-read what i said as i never said that.
poly
Scotland seems far more out of this than England… but is that due to it’s history or is it genetic? I’d argue strongly that it’s historical…
don’t kid yourself. Scotland is built on a foundation of inequality and serving the land owning masters. free movement of people within the U.K. means there’s plenty of Scot’s south of the border (who aren’t exactly leading the charge in resetting the balance of power) and proportionally even more English north of the border (and consequently children who are not 100% scottish) – it’s certainly not genetic.
I don't really think it is genetic, just chucking that in as a alternative.
Nor am I saying Scotland is perfect 😉 just pointing out they seem to have a different (on average) approach to or acceptance of taxation.
Personally I think it is a mix of real and imagined "someone to blame in England" (some real some not but that doesn't matter) but also because they never had a dominant agrarian culture*** (I'll explain later why) They were also more than happy to selectively jump in on the "wider feudalism" in terms of for example "fighting for the empire"
Most people in Scotland, or indeed England couldn’t explain fuedalism to you, never mind rationalise it.
That is hardly surprising though as our entire culture is the product of normalisation of servitude in what is essentially a feudal system. Technically Feudal England began in 1066 and ended in 1660 (after a long period of adaption) but that's ignoring what feudal is vs legal definitions.
Call it a feudal system or come up with another name but the mechanics changed but not the system.
It was popular for a while (late 19C) to describe late middle age England as "bastard feudalism" but the model goes back as far as agriculture and has evolved independently in multiple forms that all amount to the same thing, that being how do a small number of people dominate another and get them to accept a lesser status and be thankful for it.
any suggestion that that description is the definition of third world is ridiculous and frankly insulting to the other human beings living in genuine low income countries. Anyone who had ever been to one – even as a tourist would know that the U.K. is about as far removed from the third world as you can get.
That is because you have been bred for generations as livestock to be thankful for the crumbs thrown from the masters table. You have been educated to know your place and be thankful for it.
I think to a large extent we have forgotten what we have given up.
It's whichever bullet point I posted earlier basically says ... access to food is controlled by your betters by doing what they tell you. It's how that wealth is distributed and what it is measured in that matters isn't it?
I've lived and worked in a lot of countries and wealth is measured very differently. Even in one country like Malaysia (not that poor but a good illustration) the ethnic Malays, Chinese and Indians all define "wealth" differently..
When I lived in Libya many "poor" people were wealthier to them living in tents and thought they would be poorer living in the free housing the government built for them with running clean water.
All the "poorest" countries I lived and worked in were poor because of the distribution of wealth and or forced changes to their traditional way of life (including war which is a product of the wider feudalism)
So the agriculture bit ... **
Every culture that has ever depended on agriculture develops a system similar to or the wider feudalism...
They are forced to become static, they need storage of grains/seeds and sooner or later ploughs .. meat becomes something the elite can eat and the peasants/lower castes (to use the Hindu equivalent of feudal) either get on special occasions or not at all.
sooner or later they get taken over by a numerically inferior force of physically fitter and healthier people who then need to keep them in their place and stop them banding together and control them through the famines (which are a part of settling down) - and if you don't mind the odd famine and the lower classes dying back then you can support a larger population and a standing army then you can invade the neighbours and so on, subjugate them and get them producing more grain for you and just keep expanding, take more land and have more people farm it.
The serfs are accustomed to paying tax that is filtered so the majority finds its way to the elite be that directly or because "Covid PPE contracts". (expand that yourself - but mates given contracts etc. or the percentage of money goes into the NHS vs gets paid to the workers etc)
Why that bit matters in 2023 ....
No hunter gatherer tribe on earth has ever messed up their environment and food / water ... it's always the farmers.
We are where we are... and whatever the conclusions of the UK feeding itself (using chemicals or whatever) was we certainly can't do that today.
Some claim ^^ we can adapt to it (I'm not saying we can't but I think that's fanciful) but what we can't do is adapt to it (using whatever) and still make sure the elites get most of it.
Do you for a minute think that people like Rees-Mogg or the good King Chuckie are any different to Marie Antionette?
In your heart do you think he really thinks you are human as he is or some dirt he'd wipe off his shoe or that he wouldn't sit sipping a nice wine and feeding his dog steak whilst watching a lower class human actually die of starvation?
@caher: I reread your post as suggested. It remains a glib non-sequitur. If you think there's a great point within, feel free to expand upon it.
+1 stevextc
Brexit is being used to help remove the last vestiges of the post-war consensus - as I've said previously, it's the vehicle not the destination and pretty sure if we go back in history we'll find similar strategies were used when they succeeded in getting ordinary folk to shaft themselves & their children.
No hunter gatherer tribe on earth has ever messed up their environment and food / water … it’s always the farmers.
Well, hunting and gathering can't support that many people per square km, which is why it became popular. It's not some global conspiracy.
Your posts sound like you've read one book with an anti-capitalist agenda and have memorised it.
Do you for a minute think that people like Rees-Mogg or the good King Chuckie are any different to Marie Antionette?
The thing is, Marie Antoinette wasn't actually evil, she was just naive and uninformed. Just like most Tories, I'd say. Wilfully so in some cases, but still.
Well, hunting and gathering can’t support that many people per square km, which is why it became popular. It’s not some global conspiracy.
Quite why you view every hint of anything that may suggest the wealthy don't wish to give up their wealth as a conspiracy is ironic.
I'm not claiming hunter gathering can support the same population density... as I say, we are where we are.
I'm pointing out a possible mechanism for the class structure/caste system and why some cultures it is ingrained so deeply.
Your posts sound like you’ve read one book with an anti-capitalist agenda and have memorised it.
Nothing of the sort .. just lots of history.
I have nothing specifically against capitalism per-se... I was starting postulating why some countries/cultures redistribute wealth better or worse than others.
The thing is, Marie Antoinette wasn’t actually evil, she was just naive and uninformed. Just like most Tories, I’d say. Wilfully so in some cases, but still.
Evil is religious concept... something both Marie Antoinette and Rees-Mogg subscribe(ed) to.
A religion that has adapted but ultimately I believe that Rees-Mogg believes with his entire being that King Chuck is put in place by god... just as he believes the people that died in Grenfell died because they are inferior and can't think for themselves.
When Rees-Mogg say's
“I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building."
I really believe he truly believes those people are simply sub-human to him... He's not saying it to be nasty/evil...
Public apology aside... what do you think he tells Rees-Sprog (his son)? I'm betting its something like "its a tragedy but these people aren't like you and me... "... and that he truly believes this just as his father and grandfather that they are born to rule and the dirty unwashed masses need people like them.
That's not the tragedy really, its the number of little people that think he's correct and his ilk are meant to rule us.
Do you for a minute think that people like Rees-Mogg or the good King Chuckie are any different to Marie Antionette?
In your heart do you think he really thinks you are human as he is or some dirt he’d wipe off his shoe or that he wouldn’t sit sipping a nice wine and feeding his dog steak whilst watching a lower class human actually die of starvation?
I've never met Sir Jacob nor King Charles, but they strike me as being rather difficult to lump together for comparison. I appreciate that this is only their public personas but Kind Charles doesn't strike me as fitting the description you have made of him, albeit I think through quirks of birth he's found himself the incumbent of an office which is rather difficult not to be self-serving and protective of. I can't honestly say that had I been the eldest child of a Monarch that I would have any different outlook on life; I tell myself I'd see the ridiculousness of it and bring about constitutional reform but I know I'd probably not. Rees-Mogg on the other hand would seem to revel in such a description and genuinely believe that his fortune (figuratively and financially) is because he is better than everyone else; I'm quite certain that had I been born into his life I would not be following his path. I'm not an expert on French History - are you suggesting that 18th Century France was third world? or that had there not been a revolution it would have become 3rd world?