Polarisation of society

Revealed: royals took more than £1bn income from controversial estates
Investigation reveals King Charles and the late queen’s income from duchies grew sixteenfold during Elizabeth’s reign

Rob Evans, Felicity Lawrence and David Pegg
Wed 5 Apr 2023 13.00 BST
King Charles and the late Queen Elizabeth II have received payments equivalent to more than £1bn from two land and property estates that are at the centre of a centuries-old debate over whether their profits should be given to the public instead.

An investigation by the Guardian has established the full scale of income extracted by the royals from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which run giant portfolios of land and property across England.

The duchies operate as professionally run real estate empires that manage swathes of farmland, hotels, medieval castles, offices, shops and some of London’s prime luxury real estate. They also have substantial investment portfolios, but pay no corporation tax or capital gains tax.

The problem may be that electoral systems are hard to understand. We need some clever advertisements in the media

This thread was originally about the polarisation of our society by it has morphed into a thread about the polarisation of factions within the Labour Party.

If ever we needed a united Labour Party after the poisonous governments we have endured since 2015, it is now.

What is wrong with you people?.

Do you actually want our appallingly undemocratic FPTP electoral system to keep delivering Tory governments at every election ad nauseam?

Casdon
There are plenty of facts about Starmer and his deceitfulness. Martin Forde The Forde Report commissioned by Starmer. Forde completed the report with very many recommendations to deal with the hierarchy of racism in Starmers party. Starmer didn't reply Forde spoke on video saying this. There is conflating antizionism with antisemitism so if you support Palestine you are considered anti semitic And Jews have been expelled. The anti democracy with people of North Islington not allowed to choose Corbyn who is well liked and respected constituency MP. Young Labour and associates debating the erosion of democracy in Labour. Lots if videos with KS saying one thing and then saying the exact opposite He is a proven liar. It's importation to people that the many good polices like nationalisation NHS not privatisation, utilities public ownership, Taxing the richest starmer hasn't got the answers and people are disappointed.

Casdon

I haven’t made any jibes, as you put it, at Tony Blair. I’ve commented before on a thread asking who members believed was the worst PM. I believe Thatcher and Blair were pretty much equal so stop being so disingenuous. I don’t believe you were laughing at his disastrous invasion of Iraq just being your usual sarcastic self towards me. You have form in that regard.

You say you have a good memory; I have an excellent one.

Glorianny

Oreo

Fleurpepper and anyone else who says/thinks that Palestinian leaders shouldn't have to compromise are right but they will have to, as will Israel in the end for a lasting peace between them.Diplomacy not guns will win the day eventually just as it did in NI.

Diplomacy only worked in NI because you had outside influences pushing heavily at both sides of those involved in the conflict to compromise. No one is pushing Israel to compromise and in fact the country is becoming more aggressive and imposing more restrictions on Palestinians. NI was in any case just the tail end of British interference in Ireland. A lot of bloodshed was involved going back centuries. If Israel/Palestine takes the same time to develop a solution you might see peace in 500 years.

True.It may take hundreds of years or never happen.Israel being the more powerful country, surrounded as it sees it by enemies.
Even so, it could end through diplomatic means eventually.
Palestine won’t get what it wants through any other means.

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

Those who think there is some sort of orchestrated media attack on Starmer should look again. There is so much which could be used against him but isn't. His shifting alliances and his honesty for example. His treatment of left wing Jews. The people asking the questions and raising the issues are members or former members of the party. And anyone who really cares about democracy and government should be grateful to them. Because no matter how much you want a Labour government you have to question if an individual who lies, who acts undemocratically, who seems to have no moral compass, is the sort of person this country needs as PM.

Orchestrated media attacks are part of politics though Glorianny, they move from one target to another, build people up and knock them down in the blink of an eye. The attacks from the left of Labour, and the attacks from the right wing media are all with the same aim, to bring him down. If it wasn’t Starmer it would be the next Labour leader (or anybody who isn’t Boris in some media lenses). That’s just how it works. There isn’t one truth about him, or about anybody else, and people have to make up their own minds. Speaking for myself, the more dubious stories I hear the less I believe them, there’s a real danger of crap overload so that if there actually is a really serious concern about his probity it will be missed in all the Peter Crying Wolf stories.

So what "dubious" stories are you speaking of Casdon?
I can give you a list of facts about Starmer that show his duplicity. Here's some of them
1. He served under Corbyn's leadership and apparently endorsed the policies he stood for. (You never see that mentioned in the press)
2.When he became leader he promised to unite the party, he has since castigated and banned left wing organisation's within the party.
3. He has forced left wing Jews to leave the party. This letter details the worries some Jews have about his actions policymogul.com/key-updates/13485/-large-and-growing-number-of-jewish-members-of-labour-party-suspended-or-investigated-over-antisemitism-
4 He has banned Jeremy Corbyn from standing as a Labour candidate, something that should be the decision of the local party. (and yet he was once a supporter)
I can post more if you need them.
These are not dubious stories. But any such you have seen in the press I would be interested to know about.

I don’t see the issues you mentioned as anything other than a pragmatic leader taking control of the party Glorianny. Supporting somebody else’s policies is what all politicians do, in public at least although I’m sure they don’t necessarily do so in private. When they become leader they re-evaluate, and as they learn more, they keep on doing that. Look at the changes in the current government as just one example of that happening. You call it disloyalty, others call it pragmatism to get the party elected. Corbyn has to go, of that there is absolutely no doubt.
We’ll never agree on these issues, because we don’t see the route to achieving a fairer society through the same lens although the end result of the two ways of getting there may be similar.

Casdon

Glorianny

Those who think there is some sort of orchestrated media attack on Starmer should look again. There is so much which could be used against him but isn't. His shifting alliances and his honesty for example. His treatment of left wing Jews. The people asking the questions and raising the issues are members or former members of the party. And anyone who really cares about democracy and government should be grateful to them. Because no matter how much you want a Labour government you have to question if an individual who lies, who acts undemocratically, who seems to have no moral compass, is the sort of person this country needs as PM.

Orchestrated media attacks are part of politics though Glorianny, they move from one target to another, build people up and knock them down in the blink of an eye. The attacks from the left of Labour, and the attacks from the right wing media are all with the same aim, to bring him down. If it wasn’t Starmer it would be the next Labour leader (or anybody who isn’t Boris in some media lenses). That’s just how it works. There isn’t one truth about him, or about anybody else, and people have to make up their own minds. Speaking for myself, the more dubious stories I hear the less I believe them, there’s a real danger of crap overload so that if there actually is a really serious concern about his probity it will be missed in all the Peter Crying Wolf stories.

So what "dubious" stories are you speaking of Casdon?
I can give you a list of facts about Starmer that show his duplicity. Here's some of them
1. He served under Corbyn's leadership and apparently endorsed the policies he stood for. (You never see that mentioned in the press)
2.When he became leader he promised to unite the party, he has since castigated and banned left wing organisation's within the party.
3. He has forced left wing Jews to leave the party. This letter details the worries some Jews have about his actions policymogul.com/key-updates/13485/-large-and-growing-number-of-jewish-members-of-labour-party-suspended-or-investigated-over-antisemitism-
4 He has banned Jeremy Corbyn from standing as a Labour candidate, something that should be the decision of the local party. (and yet he was once a supporter)
I can post more if you need them.
These are not dubious stories. But any such you have seen in the press I would be interested to know about.

Oreo

Fleurpepper and anyone else who says/thinks that Palestinian leaders shouldn't have to compromise are right but they will have to, as will Israel in the end for a lasting peace between them.Diplomacy not guns will win the day eventually just as it did in NI.

Israel was given land- taken from another people. That was accepted, somehow. But since then Israelis have done nothing but take more, and more, and some more, and subjugate the natives to the most cruel and disgusting violations and humiliations.

Yes, Casdon, I agree. There is so much media out there that it is remarkably easy to find ways to make people look good or bad, and making anyone seem dishonest is easy too. Shifting things out of context and juxtaposing them with clips made in a different context can easily show people as inconsistent, and that's without allowing for the fact that people often are. We all change our minds and get things wrong, and think again, particularly when being questioned about things we hadn't really considered. So long as the main policies remain solid, and we aren't being lied to deliberately it just stops debate when people squabble over tiny points and try to catch their rivals out.

Also, slightly tangentially, defining the boundaries of acceptability for belonging to a group then suggesting that anyone who thinks outside of that box is a traitor is manipulative (eg 'if you are a good socialist/feminist/Methodist/botanist you will know/think/want/believe the same as I do, and if not, you are wrong/misguided/duplicitous/treacherous, and not really a socialist/feminist/Methodist/botanist at all'). It's rarely done well, and when done clumsily people see straight through it and react against the attempt at manipulation.

Glorianny

Those who think there is some sort of orchestrated media attack on Starmer should look again. There is so much which could be used against him but isn't. His shifting alliances and his honesty for example. His treatment of left wing Jews. The people asking the questions and raising the issues are members or former members of the party. And anyone who really cares about democracy and government should be grateful to them. Because no matter how much you want a Labour government you have to question if an individual who lies, who acts undemocratically, who seems to have no moral compass, is the sort of person this country needs as PM.

Orchestrated media attacks are part of politics though Glorianny, they move from one target to another, build people up and knock them down in the blink of an eye. The attacks from the left of Labour, and the attacks from the right wing media are all with the same aim, to bring him down. If it wasn’t Starmer it would be the next Labour leader (or anybody who isn’t Boris in some media lenses). That’s just how it works. There isn’t one truth about him, or about anybody else, and people have to make up their own minds. Speaking for myself, the more dubious stories I hear the less I believe them, there’s a real danger of crap overload so that if there actually is a really serious concern about his probity it will be missed in all the Peter Crying Wolf stories.

Those who think there is some sort of orchestrated media attack on Starmer should look again. There is so much which could be used against him but isn't. His shifting alliances and his honesty for example. His treatment of left wing Jews. The people asking the questions and raising the issues are members or former members of the party. And anyone who really cares about democracy and government should be grateful to them. Because no matter how much you want a Labour government you have to question if an individual who lies, who acts undemocratically, who seems to have no moral compass, is the sort of person this country needs as PM.

Oreo

Fleurpepper and anyone else who says/thinks that Palestinian leaders shouldn't have to compromise are right but they will have to, as will Israel in the end for a lasting peace between them.Diplomacy not guns will win the day eventually just as it did in NI.

Diplomacy only worked in NI because you had outside influences pushing heavily at both sides of those involved in the conflict to compromise. No one is pushing Israel to compromise and in fact the country is becoming more aggressive and imposing more restrictions on Palestinians. NI was in any case just the tail end of British interference in Ireland. A lot of bloodshed was involved going back centuries. If Israel/Palestine takes the same time to develop a solution you might see peace in 500 years.

tickingbird

Deflect not deflate. Although one could be forgiven for feeling rather let down by that nonsense.

I’m happy to spell it out if you want tickingbird. You are unable to accept that I was laughing at your entirely predictable jibe at Blair, because I remembered you had done exactly the same thing on a number of occasions before. You confirmed you had frequently said it, but were still unable to accept that was the reason for my comment. On the other hand, I have never previously, or on this occasion, said I condoned Blair’s actions in Iraq and I clarified that in my second post.
My last post wasn’t gobbledegook either, it was an explanation, which didn’t use any technical or meaningless language.

Grany and * Glorianny* Starmer is the best bet for Labour to win the next GE, can’t you see that?
You may both be far left but the majority in the country aren’t.If you really want Labour to win then get behind him as a leader.

Fleurpepper and anyone else who says/thinks that Palestinian leaders shouldn't have to compromise are right but they will have to, as will Israel in the end for a lasting peace between them.Diplomacy not guns will win the day eventually just as it did in NI.

Deflect not deflate. Although one could be forgiven for feeling rather let down by that nonsense.

In this case, no. When somebody doesn’t believe your reason for saying something, you explain why you did say it, provide them with the evidence that caused you to say it, and they admit they say it frequently but they still don’t believe your reason for saying what you did, I’m not sure what conclusion you think you should reach. Will let others draw their own conclusions in this very bizarre exchange.

What?!? Sorry but that’s incomprehensible Casdon. The only conclusion I can draw from that is you’re attempting to confuse and deflate with gobbledegook.

Grany

It's Starmer himself people don't like his attack on the left wing and Jews in his party. The young Jess Barnard is hosting a debate about erosion of democracy People can see him for what he is. The rich funding his party and going ahead with private investment in the NHS no clear polices

Grany you need to stop exaggerating. You mean ‘some people on the left of the party’ not ‘people’. This thread is not about Starmer, but it’s been hijacked into a rant fest. Why don’t you start a separate thread about that instead?

What do you think about Murdoch’s empire and Obama’s speech about it, that’s far more interesting, and relevant to the thread?

It's Starmer himself people don't like his attack on the left wing and Jews in his party. The young Jess Barnard is hosting a debate about erosion of democracy People can see him for what he is. The rich funding his party and going ahead with private investment in the NHS no clear polices

mumof2boys

Anyone else suspicious of the volume and ramp up in recent days of Anti Kier Starmer rhetoric that is appearing at the moment in the papers and across all social media.

Smells of a coordinated campaign.

I agree. This looks to me like a co-ordinated campaign from the dirty tricks brigade, presumably the Tories who know that they are at risk of humiliation in the nest GE. Anyone who thinks this is paranoia obviously hasn't heard to Cambridge Analytica and their involvement in the Brexit vote.

Lots of people saying can't vote Labour, after always voting Labour myself included. I wonder who people will vote for in a general election. I might vote Greens. Starmer saying public and private partnerships in NHS is not what people want to hear. He is not popular. There is an online debate this evening about the erosion of democracy in the Labour Party.

Anyone else suspicious of the volume and ramp up in recent days of Anti Kier Starmer rhetoric that is appearing at the moment in the papers and across all social media.

Smells of a coordinated campaign.

growstuff

I had one of those green Conservative flyers through the door a few days ago for the forthcoming local election. I was surprised because the candidate is a staunch and vocal Conservative. I thought that maybe he was standing as an independent, so I checked online and he's still standing for the Conservative Party.

Yes very clever eh?

Varol Vorderman is collating these 'green leaflets', any chance you could send me a pic please? (or tell me who the MP is so that I can add it to her list?)

The anti-Starmer Labour voters make a good case for electoral reform.

If we had PR it would be quite possible for both the Labour Party and the Tory Party to split into two.

The bonkers brexiters of the ERG have as little in common with the centre right as the Starmer supporters do with the far left.

We would almost certainly end up with coalition governments, but they would not be the unhealthy coalitions we have had for so long within the two large parties of people who seem to hate each other more than they hate the opposition.