A supposedly Labour PM using words that can be seen as legitimising what Farage stands for, while the Reform party leader is in a position where he can say and do anything without having to worry about delivering anything, is likely to prove to be dangerous, naive, and foolhardy.
Just added a wee bit, but yep, that nails it.
As I keep saying - if nothing else, the political stupidity of Starmer doing this punctures the myth of the competent lawyer type gradually making things better through structural reforms whilst not giving his enemies anything to latch on to.
What a tosser.
🤦♂️
I had a couple of barristers (one now a Labour lord) come in and give a lecture to my students. They were ferociously bright and witty and I'd never heard such precise and incisive use of language. Nice blokes too. Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things. Despite his cv he comes across as slow on his feet and puts his foot in his mouth. I can only imagine he got those jobs for being well known as a jobsworth and a lickspittle.
Yes BillMC - he strikes me as clumsy and totally inconsistent.
I've never gone along with the career politician thing but he's the absolute archetype.
Yes BillMC - he strikes me as clumsy and totally inconsistent.
I've never gone along with the career politician thing but he's the absolute archetype.
And nice to see 'lickspittle' getting a run out - not heard that in ages.
👍
Starmer isn't even a career politician.
Politics is simply the current stage in his life of personal self-fulfilment.
The next post-politics stage is likely to be highly lucrative, they usually are for former Prime Ministers. And I am sure that Starmer won't give a **** about the mess that he leaves behind. Former PMs generally don't.
Maybe he got spooked by the headlights, like when Cameron got spooked into calling the brexit referendum by Farrage & the extreme right.
Oh come on, this thread isn't the place to discuss the issue in detail but both Labour and the LibDems strongly supported calling a referendum on EU membership.
In fact the party which you back, the LibDems, were the first in parliament to call for an EU referendum, not the Tories. Only the SNP were consistently opposed to an EU referendum.
Of course it is, its a thread about the UK government.
"In fact the party which you back, the LibDems, were the first in parliament to call for an EU referendum"
You're so disingenuous - If a fair, legally binding referendum was proposed with all the checks and balances that come with that, I wouldn't have a problem with it - I'd still have voted remain but I would have been more accepting of any result.
That's not what we got, and what we got is not what the lib-dems proposed, they may have mentioned it in 2007, but they campaigned to remain in 2016, and you know it. 🙄
You're so disingenuous
There is nothing disingenuous about it at all, the LibDems were the first party in parliament to call for a referendum on EU membership.
What is actually disingenuous is to blame it all on David Cameron. Both Labour and the LibDems strongly supported a referendum on EU membership. And obviously for exactly the same reason as Cameron, ie they assumed that Remain winning was a given.
not the consequences of Starmer publicly accusing immigrants of causing incalculable damage to Britain, and how that feeds into Nigel Farage's racist narrative.
The speech was an absolute disgrace
He didn't actually say that in his speech. He said it in the white paper and the context - if anyone can be bothered to educate themselves by reading it - is quite clearly the Tory open borders experiment, not immigration generally.
Your whole argument is in bad faith and I don't think you really care about immigrants at all, it's just about political point scoring. Frankly the way you just repeat the same lie over and over is reminiscent of the post-truth dystopian stuff we get from fringe lunatics on the American far right. Say it enough times and hopefully it will stick, is that the strategy?
Perhaps the impact won't be felt by those in the leafy suburbs celebrating as the income from their rental properties continues to increase
Again, a little bit louder this time - this not an immigration problem, it's a wealth inequality problem.
Yeah maybe, but with no prospect of wealth inequality ceasing to exist, I'd say that's a fairly academic distinction. Certainly, it doesn't help those struggling to pay their rent this week.
is quite clearly the Tory open borders experiment, not immigration generally.
Maybe you should read what I wrote. I didn't claim that Starmer had made it in reference to "immigration generally". I am fully aware that Starmer is suggesting that under the Tories immigration was out of control (the very thing that the Tories traditionally accuse Labour governments of doing) and it was this so-called uncontrolled immigration that had "incalculable" damage to the UK.
Scroll back and you will see that I am specifically pointing out that Starmer is accusing recent immigrants into the UK of causing incalculable damage.
It is vile and dangerous rhetoric which can only inflame an already highly toxic environment for immigrants and refugees. The people causing incalculable damage are arse-holes like Sir Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage.
Frankly the way you just repeat the same lie over and over is reminiscent of the post-truth dystopian stuff we get from fringe lunatics on the American far right. Say it enough times and hopefully it will stick, is that the strategy?
Would you expand that accusation to include the multitude of Labour MPs and political pundits who have likewise expressed their disgust at Starmer's desperate attempt to ape Nigel Farage/Enoch Powell?
I'll repeat it.
The policy area will be what it will be. It can be assessed as effective/ineffective and humane/inhumane when it is in place.
But Starmer did not have to be a **** about it with comments that Farage or Jenrick or Badenoch would use. "Island of Strangers" and "incalculable" damage done by recent immigrants were phrasing that he chose to use to appeal to a certain demographic that we all know.
Sometimes people outside a society see where the problems lie better than those within it. I was watching German TV this afternoon trying to take my mind off a heavy cold. They quoted what the richest x percent of British households were saving per month (a lot) compared with what the Y poorest percent were saving (naff all). They pointed out the high levels of household debt compared to GDP in the UK and how it disproportionately affected the poorest sections of society - I was sceptical enough to Google/fact check:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_debt
The programme went on to the number of bankrupt households, unaffordable rents... and the number of people worried by their financial situation. The proportion quoted, over half, seemed improbable so I fact checked again and found polls that back up the programme, and even the ONS:
It was all pretty damning, however they forgot to mention that the NHS still functions and that Brits are to some extent protected from a significant cause of going under financially in Europe, paying for essential drugs, though I've noticed the NHS not prepared to pay for some treatments now in news reports.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats when there are hundreds of thousands of households that struggle to make ends meet, even when both partners work and they live modestly in the cheapest accomodation they can find.
Which brings us to housing:
family houses occupied by single people, mainly elderly and with nowhere else pleasant/affordable to go. There's a huge potential for downsizing but people of my mother's generation have too many friends/relatives who've been ripped off when doing so, so they stay put. Unless... .
Very little social housing
airbnb
housing starts too low to meet projected rises in population even if Starmer's targets are met which seems unlikely
Sprawling estates of ageing energy sieves in lousy condition on traffic choked roads
With the population projected to rise to 73 million in 2036 there are some bullets to be bitten and houses/flats to be built.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats when there are hundreds of thousands of households that struggle to make ends meet, even when both partners work and they live modestly in the cheapest accomodation they can find.
This.
Starmer could have got up that day and talked a good talk about this 'squalid' chapter of Neolibralism and years of self-imposed fiscal rules creating the all the main problems of society relating to government investment of any kind.
But he didn't, instead he focused on the thing that inflames the most.
We had all this embarrassing talk previously about ideological purity - which sickens me to my core with the ignorance of that particular statement (playing into the hands of continuity capitalism). This government has literally carried out ideological purity be putting fiscal rules in place that service no societal pragmatic purposes other than to create a restrictive headroom space for government intervention. (Not a real limitation by the way.)
The reality is we need a change of ideology to push-back against the worst effects we have suffered from Neolibralism.
Starmer has at least unveiled for sure the falsehood of his pragmatism and his drive to use hate to get what he wants rather than being bold and actually begin fix the foundations of the UK.
The good news is most people have at least recognised this Scooby-Doo moment and if you haven't you probably will going forward.
Also was thinking this morning (using household analogy which is incorrect but to make a point) - you have to question the acumen of a goverment that chose to *'save' 1.4bn of money with the WFA cut for all the bad will it generated. 25/26 budget is around 1.3 trillion. Also the Treasury is paying out circa 50bn a year in interest on reserves (that's a choice BTW.)
All that shit for 1.4bn. That's total incompetence at any level.
* A government with a central bank and Fiat currency never saves in its spending process. There is no savings account. As all money spent is new money not plucked from an account where money has built up.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats
Any political party that hopes to form a govt in the near future will have to rely on the votes of a hand full of constituencies across the midlands and the M62 corridor. 40% of those people cited immigration as the number one issue that the UK faces. 3 out of every 10 voters are possibly going to the polls with that in mind, and all you can do is hope that some of the things you've said cut through to them. That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats. Elections are a beauty contest, not a ideological purity test.
That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats. Elections are a beauty contest, not a ideological purity test.
We know why Farage uses racist rhetoric the issue is why the leader of the Labour Party now also does.
And it's hardly a beauty contest, it's in fact quite ugly
That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats
He also has to retain other seats which his current approach of blaming immigrants and ignoring the actual issues is unlikely to appeal to.
It isnt even going to work for those seats since he is engaging in an unwinnable battle. Since immigration isnt close to being the primary factor "solving" it simply cant work. People will still see the same problems and since they have been told its immigrants to blame will conclude any statistics showing that the numbers have dropped will be wrong.
not a ideological purity test.
And "oven ready deal", "get brexit done". Whoops sorry forgot which groups three word slogans I was supposed to repeat religiously.
Ironically the problem is Starmer and co are extremely ideological pure which leaves them floundering around searching for solutions and buying into the hard right populism.
Whoops sorry forgot which groups three word slogans
I'm not racist but... seems to be the slogan the starmerbots now think is a winning argument.
And actually racism should be an ideological purity test, on some issues there are no grey areas.
We know why Farage uses racist rhetoric the issue is why the leader of the Labour Party now also does.
Absolutely this. All it does is reinforce the wrong idea within the population.
"Smash the Gangs" was never going to achieve anything because it was aimed unfairly at a small proportion of immigration numbers.
It isn't as though he'll be struggling to push a fair policy through Parliament
40% of those people cited immigration as the number one issue that the UK faces
Are those the places where 50% of the population is either an immigrant or has an immigration background ? Black humour apart, I think I'd rather appeal to the 60% and work on convincing the 40% that their immigrant neighbours haven't caused "chaos" and that immigration during the last Conservative government wasn't a "squalid chapter".
And actually racism should be an ideological purity test, on some issues there are no grey areas.
Exactly, which is why being a moderate politically is not the clever-ass move some believe it is.
Moderate beliefs exist to remove the left and give the right the space it needs. Hence 3 right-wing options.
That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats.
His problem will always be that he'll never out-Farage Farage - he needed to seize the narrative and talk about how we benefit from migration, but he chose not to. Smash the gangs, by all means, but don't also demonise the people they exploit.
I had a couple of barristers (one now a Labour lord) come in and give a lecture to my students. They were ferociously bright and witty and I'd never heard such precise and incisive use of language. Nice blokes too. Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things. Despite his cv he comes across as slow on his feet and puts his foot in his mouth. I can only imagine he got those jobs for being well known as a jobsworth and a lickspittle.
I don't think you get to be KC unless you're a pretty good barrister.
Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things.
Giving a lecture is pretty different to talking or giving a speech as a politician. Just listen to politicians after they've retired or moved on - they say quite different things.
Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things.
Giving a lecture is pretty different to talking or giving a speech as a politician. Just listen to politicians after they've retired or moved on - they say quite different things.
If immigration was controlled and at a moderate level it would be fine - you could realistically plan in advance so you had enough skills to build the houses, the infrastructure and provide the additional services. Immigrants themselves would be part of the solution and most people would be fine with it
I just noticed this: It is controlled immigration - when people are here on visas, that's controlled.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats
This is a major problem that needs dealing with - because gangs are exploiting extremely vulnerable people for profit. That is a bad thing. How we treat the refugees is also bad.
I don't think you get to be KC unless you're a pretty good barrister
Suella Braverman. I rest my case.
This is a major problem that needs dealing with - because gangs are exploiting extremely vulnerable people for profit. That is a bad thing. How we treat the refugees is also bad.
Most of it is optics, the perception that they are being put up in 5* hotels indefinitely and all the perceived hand outs and of course the biggy that you not getting hospital or doctor appointments as these people are taking them all.
The handling of refugees is almost engineered to produce a bogey man (and a lot of money for some property owners).
This is a major problem that needs dealing with - because gangs are exploiting extremely vulnerable people for profit. That is a bad thing. How we treat the refugees is also bad.
Most of it is optics, the perception that they are being put up in 5* hotels indefinitely and all the perceived hand outs and of course the biggy that you not getting hospital or doctor appointments as these people are taking them all.
The handling of refugees is almost engineered to produce a bogey man (and a lot of money for some property owners).
Molgrips, 36 800 refugees arrived on boats last year, a tiny fraction of immigration, and 0.005% of the British population. That really isn't a "major problem", the country can live with it, a tiny part of the misery in the world it can absorb. What is a major problem is 40% of the British population depressed about their financial situation. Mimicking Farage's blaming of the woes of the 40% on the 0.005% will see Starmer out of office and the first opportunity to improve things for the many in 14 years wasted.
FFS do something Starmer you idiot, because barrister or not you're an idiot giving us abundant proof every time you speak. When he was elected I was mildly hopeful, not hopeful enough to vote for him but hopeful. I now despair of him.
(and a lot of money for some property owners).
Not just property holders. Some of the biggest profiteers are those sitting between the government and the hotels etc.
In theory they are capped to 5% profit but that, of course, allows for rather substantial salaries to be paid out.
It also doesnt seem to be ideal for incentivising those companies to get the country a good deal.
Molgrips, 36 800 refugees arrived on boats last year, a tiny fraction of immigration, and 0.005% of the British population. That really isn't a "major problem"
It's a major problem for the people involved. They are being fleeced for money by criminals and given false promises, and being put in danger on unsuitable boats. I have no problem with accepting refugees in the UK, indeed I am happy for the UK to do this.
So it looks like another Brexit win as we get a new deal with the EU - only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Given the state of the countires they've left and the journey's they've endured the 'gangs' Starmer can do anything about are tiny part of the problem. The 'gangs' operate well out of reach of Starmer. The man is dreaming again; consider the jouneys the people from south of the Sahara have endured, objectively the final Channel crossing is one of the least risky parts, and where there's a will there's a way. The obvious answer isn't "smash the gangs" it's an agreement with the EU on a quota of refugees and a system that is sufficiently attractive that refugees use it rather than taking a chance on an illegal crossing.
Suella Braverman. I rest my case.
Appointed KC automatically when she was made Attorney General, she didn't get it on merit.
So, do we think last week's Farage-esque xenophobia was some red meat thrown to the Brexity types in advance of this week's announcements?
Pitch rolling was the in vogue phrase during Johnson's so-called leadership, I believe.
So it looks like another Brexit win as we get a new deal with the EU - only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Give me some details of this alleged deal, or will it be another memorandum of understanding like our non-enforceable trade agreement with the US?
Things that make me mad- the BBC's decision to lead every story on this with " making it easier to get through airport queues". No mention of the loss of hundreds of billions of pounds in trade and subsequent loss in taxes to the treasury. Is that how you sell it to the Brexit eff-wits? No queues at the airpot in Benidorm? Jeez.
only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Very confusing post. It stands to reason that any trade deal we do with the EU will not be as good as being a member, otherwise there's no advantage to being a member. I don't remember anyone claiming we'd have a better trade deal with the EU after leaving.
only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Very confusing post. It stands to reason that any trade deal we do with the EU will not be as good as being a member, otherwise there's no advantage to being a member. I don't remember anyone claiming we'd have a better trade deal with the EU after leaving.
Ah, but they need us more than we need them. Allegedly.
A worthwhile step in re-integrating into the EU is a customs union, everything proposed is just a veneer for political show, it is Trumpesque politics, selling a deal that isn't really the sum of sweet FA.
Everything Starmer does is on the wrong side of the line, trying to sneak up on the line to the minimal change that can be sold as acceptable. He is an absolute political coward offering zero leadership and even less credibility.
He is an absolute political coward offering zero leadership and even less credibility.
Think he's probably the opposite to a coward. In the current climate it would be easier for him to be a radical, but that's not his job. He's an establishment politician and his primary job is to keep everything the same no matter how much it damages him politically.
Nice (from where I'm sitting) - plenty of fish, less hassle at customs (believe that when I experience it), cheap labour in European holiday resorts that are suffereing a labour shortage and the Daily Mail is apoplectic. What's not to like?
MSP - what you want and what is going to happen are mutually exclusive. This is a great step towards improving what has been a shitshow for years. It's it where we want it to end up? No, but that isn't reality right now
the minimal change that can be sold as acceptable
Don't reject the offer of a walking stick because no one is offering to stitch your leg back on (which you cut off yourself while in K-hole).
Don't reject the offer of a walking stick because no one is offering to stitch your leg back on (which you cut off yourself while in K-hole).
This.
bollocks
If you want an analogy, he is the surgeon who's job is to stitch your leg back on, but he wants to play golf and have his photo taken so he is offering a walking stick instead.
He is choosing this path, he has a massive majority (oh how the stamerbots crowed about that) but he is too cowardly and too beholden to the oligarchs to use it for the public good.
You seem angry, are you ok?
You seem angry, are you ok?
Ah thought so, your just trying to wind people up, well done you must be very pleased with yourself.
Nah only in that last comment. My previous one was 100% truthful and actually what I think. The comment was only partly cheeky though.
People are getting far too worked up over this in general to an unhealthy degree in some cases
I don't remember anyone claiming we'd have a better trade deal with the EU after leaving.
“Everything will get much cheaper – absolutely."
Nigel Farage
Note he didn't say 'everything apart from trade with the EU' he said "everything...absolutley".
“Everything will get much cheaper – absolutely."
Well obviously he was lying. But even if he believed it, we can assume he did so because he (wrongly, obvs) assumed that goods from outside the EU would replace EU goods and drive prices down. Obviously though leaving the EU meant that prices on EU goods would go up, I don't think anyone thought otherwise.
In any case, I don't think the price of goods was a major driver in the vote to leave. As discussed a million times before, leaving the EU was a result of a combination of misplaced patriotism/jingoism and growing resentment of the neo-liberal establishment and economic status quo of which the EU was a major driver.
I would see this as what it is - real progress in a relationship ruined by people who can only see their own interests and are unable to operate in the reality of having to work at compromise and solution.
It will take a long time and there are big risks from bad actors but nothing will make them go away , can only smother them in reality.
The EU deal is symbolic as much as anything - it signals a change of mood and (hopefully) a direction for further closer cooperation
Politically it flushes out the Tories/Badenoch who have to match Reform on rhetoric but which is speaking to a minority. This gives the Govt a lot of room to manoeuvre going forward
It's certainly a step in the right direction.
It will be a long and grueling process to Undo the damage caused by the people who voted for brexit.
I suppose it's inevitable to at least end up back in the CU and SM, purely because it's just not financially viable not to.
The economics of the current situation simply don't make sense - they never did, but people are gullible.
The economics of the current situation simply don't make sense - they never did, but people are gullible.
The economics of the previous situation didn't make sense*, which is why people voted to leave.
People aren't gullible, they know when they're suffering financially better than politicians do because they can feel it in their pockets. What they might not fully understand is why but that's the politicians job to analyse and resolve.
*the current situation isn't any better obvs
Not going down well with the fishing community in Scotland. I dare say many of them were brexiteers but I have a certain amount of sympathy for some of them.
The provisions for relaxing animal product exports are very welcome, UK exports of poultry and other meat has halved since Brexit, and my job touches on animal products (for science) and the increase in red tape has been nuts.
In the last month Starmer has managed some sort of trade deals with >1/4 of the worlds population; EU, USA, India, economy is looking more resilient than predicted- employer NI rise has seen mass layoffs, inflation still low, energy bills set to fall, fingers crossed economy is going to keep growing.
meanwhile brexiteers in a pickle
these kind of deals are exactly what brexit was supposed to be about, but because its starmer/ EU they have to hate on it
on every aspect Brexit failed to deliver- less immigration, better NHS, better economy, less inequality etc etc
Making this an annual summit was quite canny too
Starmer fixing the Brexit mess could help neutralise Farage more than pointlessly trying to outflank him on immigration ever could
The economics of the current situation simply don't make sense - they never did, but people are gullible.
The economics of the previous situation didn't make sense*, which is why people voted to leave.
People aren't gullible, they know when they're suffering financially better than politicians do because they can feel it in their pockets. What they might not fully understand is why but that's the politicians job to analyse and resolve.
*the current situation isn't any better obvs
Gullible or just plain nasty.
You'd have to be one of the two... Often a bit of both, to arrive at the conclusion the 52% did.
Making this an annual summit was quite canny too
Interesting detail I’d missed. Thanks.
Building a new relationship is a long slow iterative process. One that will be soundtracked by the sellers of imaginary quick fixes shouting negative soundbites all along the way.
It was the deep sea fisherman that wanted Brexit - ironically this 'new' deal is pretty-well a roll-over of the one negotiated by the Tories but you want read/hear that in most of the media. The vast majority of the fish consumed in the UK is imported from Iceland and Russia as it doesn't exist in UK waters.
The ones that have been suffering are the inshore fisherman who predominantly catch shellfish which has seen a significant reduction in exports. That said, the local ones here are quite happy for non-local trawlers to fish in a Marine Protected Area thus devastating the stocks, so F***-em I say.
The whole thing shrinks into insignificance when you consider that Games Workshop contribution to the UK economy is bigger than the whole seafood sector.
People aren't gullible
So how did 52% of us vote to make ourselves worse off - financially, politically and culturally?
The Remain campaign went to a lot of trouble enunciating the benefits of EU membership in a fairly detailed pamphlet, I remember.
But they were defeated by three word slogans, bullshit promises that never stood up to scrutiny and some racist/xenophobic scaremongering.
I suppose it's inevitable to at least end up back in the CU and SM
Not if we let Faragism take over.
@Dovebiker I agree with you about the inshore fishermen it's a pity that their voice was always drowned out (no pun intended) during the Brexit referendum. I have not much sympathy for Sir Ian Wood and the other deep sea fishing corporation owners.
I don't agree that loss of jobs along the Moray /Fraserburgh coast on deep sea boats is insignificant though
My last long post on this thread ended with the idea that what Starmer should be concentrating on is increasing and improving the housing stock. In Strasbourg we had a walk around this place:
https://sers.eu/realisations/zac-danube-strasbourg/
And in the Guardian today there's this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2025/may/19/paris-eco-district-pictures
In Brum I had a look at some of the new projects and shook my head in dismay, has nothing been learned from the brutalist period?
So how can Mr Starmer be persuaded to provide incentives and a legislative framework for new districts with trams, services, parcs, energy efficient buildings, greenery and a reasonable quality of life?
Ll accidentally reposted
So how can Mr Starmer be persuaded to provide incentives and a legislative framework for new districts with trams, services, parcs, energy efficient buildings, greenery and a reasonable quality of life?
That sounds like socialism to me, and we're not very good at that in the UK.
It's our god-given right to be ripped off from all angles by the private sector because...
Socialism is bad. Apparently.
I suppose it's inevitable to at least end up back in the CU and SM
Not if we let Faragism take over.
True, it would have to defy all logic... but then people seem to be happy to vote to hurt themselves as long as they get the correct amount of smoke blown up their bottoms, egos stroked the right way, etc...
I mean just look at trump in the USA... the guy is a convicted sex offender and financial fraudster... has somehow avoided jail through pure corruption, yet people vote for him because occasionally he says something they agree with, like the price of eggs should be cheaper or whatever...
And then they will wonder why... and then blame small boats or something...I mean that's absolutley the definition of stupidity...but there are still people on here who insist the hatchet job that was brexit is now irreversible, it's done, get over it, etc.
We have a general election to replace the government every 4 years... why can't we have another election to decide whether brexit was a good idea or not? *a legal one this time...
That's going to have far more impact on our society than whether we have a center left or center right government.
Are we back to politics started in 2016?
Sigh.
Socialism is bad. Apparently.
Wait until most people realise they've barely had a hint of socialism in their lifetime and the majority of the shit being dumped on the economy now is a consequence of Labour and Conservative running disastrous Neoliberal policies. Often with zero framework or analysis. Read - interest rates a policy to control inflation.
Everyone's a capitalist until they can't afford it.
I can't even find a private dentist I trust in the UK, never mind an NHS one 🤣
This is the real problem, and that won't be solved trivial solutions, and it isn't just the UK it is the whole of the western world, we have been living under an oligarchy for at least a couple of decades, and are rapidly moving towards kleptocracy. US billionaires are leading the way, and the rest of the world is following.
And yet they get away with non-dom status despite sitting in the House of Lords and owning an estate in the UK. And have most of their money stashed away in trusts and complex financial structures that the City specialises in so they pay **** all tax.
snip....
Watch this.. the entire global finance system is rigged.... US billionaires are not leading the way, they are just the ones in the spotlight at the moment.
And no, I don't know how it can ever be fixed without a global government to controll such hings, which brings its own obvious risks to make tings even worse.
The problem is humans are inherently selfish, so good luck trying to get global consensus.
Give this a watch:
stupid forum double/triple post... the last one was only edtited for typos.
snip....
Watch this.. the entire global finance system is rigged.... US billionaires are not leading the way, they are just the ones in the spotlight at the moment.
And no, I don't know how it can ever be fixed without a global government to controll such things, which brings its own obvious risks to make tings even worse.
The problem is humans are inherently selfish, so good luck trying to get global consensus.
Give this a watch:
Humans are generally generous to people in their 'in' group and hostile to those in their 'out' group. The difference is how big your groups are and who's in them and why.
Starmer’s EU reset triggers outbreak of Brexit derangement syndrome | John Crace https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/19/starmers-eu-reset-triggers-outbreak-of-brexit-derangement-syndrome?CMP=share_btn_url
Don't know that will work. Fairly standard John Crace fare, but on point as usual.
And to think Hannan and Frost were both made peers for their heroic deeds.
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
🤣🤣🤣
Brexit derangement syndrome.. thats brilliant 🤣 👍
if you want to see brext derranegment syndrome you only have to look at the front pages of the rw press today!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr88myp570o
Id genuinely forgotten how much they were willing to lie about the EU & Brexit, whats remarkable is that millions believe them!