The Five Demands

(nanna8 - 'bulltitting', I like it! I was struggling for a description of what they do!)

Jane71:

'How do we convince people in middle England (is there such a place?) to vote for the general good rather than their own interest?'

It's far worse than that. I've met many people who regularly do vote against their own interests - by mistakenly believing that the government supports small business and the middle classes (that the also mistakenly believe they are part of). Their level of ignorance is astounding.

I have a horrible feeling the Conservatives might be re-elected. You need a really, really strong opposition leader. I hope it isn’t the case but they are very,very good at bulltitting, better at it than the others.

DaisyAnne

Why would I "see" Dickens. Again, you say that whichever government is in power will certainly be forced to face up to the reality of a discontented electorate. That isn't true, either. Many are not discontented in the way that you or I might be. Many vote because they dislike one lot less than the other. Many don't have the time, energy or perhaps just the inclination to be interested in politics. They are getting on with life. Many believe what they are fed by the media.

I'm not trying to be unkind. I can see what you are saying, but I don't agree with your assumptions. To change anything we would need to be realistic. Thinking that things will have to be addressed or that governments will have to face up to anything they don't choose is simply unrealistic. Governments will do what they believe in. Let's hope the majority vote for one we can believe in too.

What I meant when I said "do you see" was - do you understand my explanation. I wasn't asking you to agree with my POV.

Do you remember the poll-tax riots? They forced The Conservative party to question Margaret Thatcher's Leadership; and John Major to examine the poll-tax and replace it with Council Tax - which took into consideration (to some extent) people's ability to pay, which the poll-tax didn't.

So I don't think it's unrealistic to believe that a disgruntled and angry public can force a government to address the issue(s) it doesn't want to bother about. What they decide to do is a different matter - but they (governments) do watch which way the wind is blowing - hence the u-turns we've already seen with this current one.

Why would I "see" Dickens. Again, you say that whichever government is in power will certainly be forced to face up to the reality of a discontented electorate. That isn't true, either. Many are not discontented in the way that you or I might be. Many vote because they dislike one lot less than the other. Many don't have the time, energy or perhaps just the inclination to be interested in politics. They are getting on with life. Many believe what they are fed by the media.

I'm not trying to be unkind. I can see what you are saying, but I don't agree with your assumptions. To change anything we would need to be realistic. Thinking that things will have to be addressed or that governments will have to face up to anything they don't choose is simply unrealistic. Governments will do what they believe in. Let's hope the majority vote for one we can believe in too.

Mollygo

Spending comes before taxation-true.

Paying after the spending is done . . .

As the spending, so long as it doesn't end up in the hands of those who'll squirrel it away overseas, creates economic activity and a wider tax base the government will get much of it back via taxation.

DaisyAnne

^At some point a government - whichever one it is - will have to address the ever-increasing gap between the exceptionally-rich and those at the bottom of the heap who live from hand-to-mouth.^ Dickens Mon 27-Mar-23 12:39:39

What you say in this comment isn't true. Governments don't have to address this if they choose not to - and the Conservatives don't want to. They see the "rich getting richer" and everyone in a free for all, as the best way of running the country.

Richie Sunak releases his tax and there is a murmur of appreciation for that. How many comments have you seen on this gossip shop about the fact that it shows he only pays 22%?

Many Tories will think him foolish for paying so much. The Conservatives don't want to govern; they want to reduce government. To do this, their greatest need is to keep voters onside in any way they can, to stop other parties from ever governing.

They will do something if it makes others wealthy. They will bring in childcare to get more workers. More workers mean cheaper labour. They will repeat the 1970 attacks on the unions, with all the underhand and undemocratic use of government that went on then, to reduce the money they have to pay in taxes to make the country work and reduce what workers earn.

They only have to make a show of making things being fairer for as long as it takes to get back into power. So no, unless it's simply for the time it takes to retain power, they do not "have" to do anything, even if we all want to rant about it.

What you say in this comment isn't true. Governments don't have to address this if they choose not to - and the Conservatives don't want to. They see the "rich getting richer" and everyone in a free for all, as the best way of running the country.

Well of course DaisyAnne they don't have to do anything of the kind - and I know this current government has no intention of doing anything constructive about the wealth-gap - except possibly widen it! They're not going to upset their backers and donors, or the party-faithful. I'm sure they see the haves and have-nots as a necessary evil.

My observation was really to indicate what I believe should be done... which I thought might be obvious!

But if the nation continues along the trajectory of strikes and rebellion, and the brewing anger erupts... then the government - whichever one it is - will certainly be forced to face up to the reality of a discontented electorate, and will have to address the issues, one way or another.

Do you see?

Anything that Corbyn has his fingers in to be avoided at all cost. You can’t be serious.

choughdancer

Yammy

choughdancer

Yammy perhaps I am being dense, but I still don't understand your point. Every day lots of Grans post lots of opinions, many of them political; why is my post so dangerous to me? I can't see that I've mentioned anything to give away my real name or details.

I didn't say the danger was particular to you .I said that anyone's post can easily be found on Google and people are not being careful about what they give away.
Take that as my last answer.

Thank you Yammy.

My pleasure.

Grantanow

Yammy

I hope anyone who gives their opinion on this or anything else on Grans net, knows they can easily be found by simply anyone Googling their name and putting grans net.
A list of all your postings will appear. If you wish to remain anonymous be careful what you say.

Not true. Only the username not the real name.

Please read further up post.

At some point a government - whichever one it is - will have to address the ever-increasing gap between the exceptionally-rich and those at the bottom of the heap who live from hand-to-mouth. Dickens Mon 27-Mar-23 12:39:39

What you say in this comment isn't true. Governments don't have to address this if they choose not to - and the Conservatives don't want to. They see the "rich getting richer" and everyone in a free for all, as the best way of running the country.

Richie Sunak releases his tax and there is a murmur of appreciation for that. How many comments have you seen on this gossip shop about the fact that it shows he only pays 22%?

Many Tories will think him foolish for paying so much. The Conservatives don't want to govern; they want to reduce government. To do this, their greatest need is to keep voters onside in any way they can, to stop other parties from ever governing.

They will do something if it makes others wealthy. They will bring in childcare to get more workers. More workers mean cheaper labour. They will repeat the 1970 attacks on the unions, with all the underhand and undemocratic use of government that went on then, to reduce the money they have to pay in taxes to make the country work and reduce what workers earn.

They only have to make a show of making things being fairer for as long as it takes to get back into power. So no, unless it's simply for the time it takes to retain power, they do not "have" to do anything, even if we all want to rant about it.

I think Labour is far more of a threat to the comfortably off and high earners than the real rich.

The exceptionally rich are a very difficult group to tax for several reasons. They often are company owners and family members have shares, quite often much of the wealth is overseas.
You might think business owners are mega rich but the wealth is passed to family members or fellow directors over the years quite legitimately.

Starmer is no more likely to upset the rich than the Conservatives.

Katie59

Dickens, if you think when Starmer gets in he will tax the rich to solve all our problems you are going to be disappointed, the only way to raise enough to begin to pay for the mess we are in now is to raise taxes across the board.
We've seen with Truss what happens when politians propose unfair, unbalanced or unreasonable changes, he’s not going to fall into that trap

Dickens, if you think when Starmer gets in he will tax the rich to solve all our problems you are going to be disappointed

I think you may have completely misunderstood my point...

... which is that it's the line the Tories will take in their negative campaign against Starmer. They will suggest that he's going to tax the rich and therefore all the rich talent will up sticks and leave. It's an age-old tactic, and one people believe.

I'm pretty sure he won't be doing anything of the kind.

Yammy

I hope anyone who gives their opinion on this or anything else on Grans net, knows they can easily be found by simply anyone Googling their name and putting grans net.
A list of all your postings will appear. If you wish to remain anonymous be careful what you say.

Not true. Only the username not the real name.

Spending comes before taxation-true.

Paying after the spending is done . . .

^ the only way to raise enough to begin to pay for the mess we are in now is to raise taxes across the board.^

I'll say it again. This is not true. Spending comes before taxation. Analysis of government accounts and accounting shows this to be true. There was no taxation before the government spent £billions on Covid. It was purely money created by the Bank of England.

Dickens, if you think when Starmer gets in he will tax the rich to solve all our problems you are going to be disappointed, the only way to raise enough to begin to pay for the mess we are in now is to raise taxes across the board.
We've seen with Truss what happens when politians propose unfair, unbalanced or unreasonable changes, he’s not going to fall into that trap

As a general set of aspirations, I agree with the OP, but you'll never gain power if you don't take the electorate with you as Corbyn demonstrated. How do we convince people in middle England (is there such a place?) to vote for the general good rather than their own interest?

At some point a government - whichever one it is - will have to address the ever-increasing gap between the exceptionally-rich and those at the bottom of the heap who live from hand-to-mouth.

Not quite the scenario you describe here, but I was interested to see that Rishi Sunak actually pays less tax on his income than does Keir Starmer Sunak 23% as opposed to Starmer (who is nothing like as wealthy as Sunak) who pays 40%.

That's how gaps widen...

Good rant, Dickens

Well said Dickens!

If this is toooo-long, don't read it, I'm having a rant .

At some point a government - whichever one it is - will have to address the ever-increasing gap between the exceptionally-rich and those at the bottom of the heap who live from hand-to-mouth.

We're not like the French - we don't take to the streets the moment an unpopular government policy is launched, but I believe there is a point at which people will revolt - and I think the 'movement' has already started. Austerity has been imposed for too many years and now we're being warned of even more of the same for the foreseeable future. There is only so much belt-tightening that one can do, and people are sick and tired of watching the rich get even richer whilst they, on a daily basis, struggle to make ends meet - aware that this is their future for God knows how many more years.
I'm not anti-Capitalist, nor do I begrudge those who work hard and create businesses/ jobs being amply rewarded for their effort and entrepreneurship. But the sheer greed, profiteering and corruption has got to stop.
Realistically, our fortunes are not going to change overnight, but we cannot go on like this indefinitely. People are not only being priced out of rental accommodation, unable to afford their ever-increasing utility bills, or half-decent food for the table - some are being almost priced out of life itself, in any meaningful sense.
I have no personal axe to grind - I can afford to buy the food we need and heat my home, but I'm seriously worried about the state this country is in now. We have a government that appears to be focused solely on its own survival and its members only interested in achieving their personal ambitions - and increasing their wealth. One that has encouraged division by manipulating the electorate and exploiting their insecurities, in order to keep their foothold. An ex-PM determined - for his own ends - to wreck the delicate re-adjustment with the EU and our European neighbours, an idiotic woman who thinks you can make spag-bol with turnips, a deputy chairman who doesn't understand that you can only feed people for 30p on a large scale, a home secretary who dreams of watching planes take off to Rwanda and continually agitates for us all to regard every asylum seeker as an illegal chancer... I mean, where do they find these people?
... and even now, the anti-Sunak brigade within the party are attempting to destabilise his premiership (he's not "Brexity" enough for their taste). Will we endure yet another leadership challenge prior to the GE?
It's all such a bloody mess. And the worst part of this is that the government will not acknowledge it, choosing instead to find convenient scapegoats. I believe these scapegoats are already forming part of their election 'campaign'. It will be to some extent a negative campaign - vote for Starmer and you are voting for woke-lefties who simply want to tax the rich which will, of course, mean the exodus of the top talent (a myth that has been shown to be largely untrue - though of course, there are always exceptions). And, 'talent' is not static, nor is it the preserve of the rich. I bet there's plenty of it up and down the country, untapped. I'm waiting for the next 3-word 'positive' slogan. We've "done Brexit" (ha!), "Global Britain", "Build Back Better" and "Levelling Up" (bit of a dud that one)... ???

Yammy

choughdancer

Yammy perhaps I am being dense, but I still don't understand your point. Every day lots of Grans post lots of opinions, many of them political; why is my post so dangerous to me? I can't see that I've mentioned anything to give away my real name or details.

I didn't say the danger was particular to you .I said that anyone's post can easily be found on Google and people are not being careful about what they give away.
Take that as my last answer.

Thank you Yammy.