The Politics Thread 2020

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

I'm absolutely certain pretty much everyone would be prepared to invest more tax to fund the NHS. In fact probably the poorest in society would support it more than the well off. 

The rich should be funding it because, well, they can afford it. 

I don't make voluntary contributions of course. I'm not an economic martyr giving away my money - but I'd fully support being part of an organised push where we all support the NHS. Would you not?

Not sure if I think throwing good money after bad at the NHS is a good idea or not.

I think there are many underlying issues which need sorting first so we can get a true grip on how much funding the NHS actually requires.

As it is I think the NHS is used and abused and personally I dont want to be funding inefficiencies and providing a free service to people that have not contributed nor have any right to use it.

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

Thought this was interesting

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/18/politics-public-covid-19-tobacco-johnson

Nobody else did.. 

[Stive Pesley]

1 minute ago, Angry Ram said:

Nobody else did.. 

I thought it was thoroughly depressing.

[Angry Ram]

1 minute ago, SchtivePesley said:

I thought it was thoroughly depressing.

You would.

[Stive Pesley]

3 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

You would.

You have no thoughts on it? Isn't he right that our political culture of denial has been found out?

[Archied]

11 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

You have no thoughts on it? Isn't he right that our political culture of denial has been found out?

Go on angry ,,, deny it ?

[Anon]

23 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

You have no thoughts on it? Isn't he right that our political culture of denial has been found out?

A global pandemic is currently sweeping across the world that no nation regardless of political ideology has managed to effectively curtail.

The Grauniad - "REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! The right wing did this."

[G STAR RAM]

32 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Nobody else did.. 

Fair play to you for reading it, I stopped after the first sentence.

[Tamworthram]

57 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

It's easier in circumstances such as this, to give as many people as possible a cash injection. Simply because you don't want people slipping through the cracks. If you don't need it you can spend it or give it to someone else. Nothing stopping people doing this. There are millions of self employed people, for example, who would be quite happy to be paid for their services. The purpose of such a proposal isn't just to support people in financial trouble, but to stimulate a stalling economy. 

True but I wonder how many would actually do what you propose?

In my immediate family, there are six households. Three of us (me, my parents and my in laws) are all retired and whilst not wealthy we’re comfortable and therefore wouldn’t need the money. A fourth, my daughter and her husband are probably going to work from home and so will actually save money spent on commuting (situation would obviously be different if they were taken I’ll or laid off). You’re right, we’d probably end up helping the other two but even they’re not in any immediate need. If I didn’t give it away then I’d probably just save it rather than spend it thereby helping to stimulate the economy (unless there was a bulk delivery of toilet rolls at our local ASDA of course). 
 

I just think a more targeted approach, rather than a blanket handout, would be more effective and useful.

[ariotofmyown]

12 minutes ago, Anon said:

A global pandemic is currently sweeping across the world that no nation regardless of political ideology has managed to effectively curtail.

The Grauniad - "REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! The right wing did this."

I liked the line that the left has vested interests too....the majority if the population.

[Norman]

4 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I liked the line that the left has vested interests too....the majority if the population.

Which has shown to be baalocks throughout the world. 

[Uptherams]

45 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

You're sounding dangerously left wing, now. Come to the dark side, comrade!

Not at all. I've been in favour of a basic income for a very long time and also don't view economic stimulus by a government as socialism or communism, because it isn't. I believe people are better at spending money than governments and all these proposals are highlighting this. Government grants and loans have always had terms. What I'm not a fan of is corporatism and  corporate globalisation. 

I like to see the good and advantages in situations like this. I hope that the government does deliver on a cash injection to people and potentially another at a later date and for this to become an annual thing at the very least. 

[GboroRam]

Just now, Uptherams said:

Not at all. I've been in favour of a basic income for a very long time and also don't view economic stimulus by a government as socialism or communism, because it isn't. I believe people are better at spending money than governments and all these proposals are highlighting this. Government grants and loans have always had terms. What I'm not a fan of is corporatism and  corporate globalisation. 

I like to see the good and advantages in situations like this. I hope that the government does deliver on a cash injection to people and potentially another at a later date and for this to become an annual thing at the very least. 

I was talking about the limits on corporate greed, 4x average salary stuff.

We have nothing to lose but our chains, comrade.

[Uptherams]

15 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

True but I wonder how many would actually do what you propose?

In my immediate family, there are six households. Three of us (me, my parents and my in laws) are all retired and whilst not wealthy we’re comfortable and therefore wouldn’t need the money. A fourth, my daughter and her husband are probably going to work from home and so will actually save money spent on commuting (situation would obviously be different if they were taken I’ll or laid off). You’re right, we’d probably end up helping the other two but even they’re not in any immediate need. If I didn’t give it away then I’d probably just save it rather than spend it thereby helping to stimulate the economy (unless there was a bulk delivery of toilet rolls at our local ASDA of course). 
 

I just think a more targeted approach, rather than a blanket handout, would be more effective and useful.

Good points but we don't have time for a targeted approach. 

[Tamworthram]

3 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Good points but we don't have time for a targeted approach. 

I agree, time is against us but maybe we do to an extent. For example, increasing SSP.

[Uptherams]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

I was talking about the limits on corporate greed, 4x average salary stuff.

We have nothing to lose but our chains, comrade.

I don't think there should be legislation introduced. But I've never been a fan of overpaid board members and executives, particularly for listed companies. The idea that a company with shareholders, has it's share price decline, makes a loss of £500m as an example and the top 10 people pay themselves £100m combined is absolutely outrageous and frankly disgusting. It's the same in the charity sector too. Charities existing for the sole purpose of paying numpties ridiculous salaries. 

And in almost all of these cases, these people are the most hypocritical and woke moron's around that couldn't run a bath and poorly manage said business. Playing everyone for fools.

[ariotofmyown]

17 minutes ago, Norman said:

Which has shown to be baalocks throughout the world. 

Scandinavia seems to have done pretty well on most measures after usually left leaning governments over a number of years.

Depends on how you define looking after the majority of people. America seems to have loads of very serious social problems, but a high GDP so it's all good.

[Norman]

3 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Scandinavia seems to have done pretty well on most measures after usually left leaning governments over a number of years.

Depends on how you define looking after the majority of people. America seems to have loads of very serious social problems, but a high GDP so it's all good.

Scandinavia.....hmmmm?

[Comrade 86]

58 minutes ago, Norman said:

Which has shown to be baalocks throughout the world. 

Care to qualify that statement or is it the usual empty Norman soundbite?

[Van der MoodHoover]

6 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

So you think everyone is ok with tax rises?

Funny because most of the posts I see are saying it's the rich that should be funding everything.

I assume you make voluntary contributions to the NHS?

when I started work under the Thatcher revolution, income tax was 33% at the base rate. In 1986.

That was the norm. No rioting in the streets. No GE promising big tax cuts.