Do you believe extreme elite groups must exist?

I don't think we need them but do think we can't stop like finding like.

If you are looking for 'justification' Daisy, that might take me a long, long time to find.

NotSpaghetti

I don't think we need them but do think we can't stop like finding like.

Rather than these groups "finding" one another, NotSpaghetti I'm more interested in the thought process that makes people vote for parties which offer growing inequality.

DaisyAnneReturns

NotSpaghetti

I don't think we need them but do think we can't stop like finding like.

Rather than these groups "finding" one another, NotSpaghetti I'm more interested in the thought process that makes people vote for parties which offer growing inequality.

Perhaps because the only other choice is not to vote at all!

DaisyAnneReturns

NotSpaghetti

I don't think we need them but do think we can't stop like finding like.

Rather than these groups "finding" one another, NotSpaghetti I'm more interested in the thought process that makes people vote for parties which offer growing inequality.

Yes, I am interested in knowing this too.

I read a study recently that said Trump supporters voted for him despite their many differences (they were not all MAGA) but because they were authoritarian in nature- ie they liked being told what to do, having someone in charge and trusting in them to do the right things- we saw this here with Thatcher and it has been repeated with Trump.

I guess this means some people like to be told what to do- unlike me who hates being bossed around!

Lathyrus3

DaisyAnneReturns

NotSpaghetti

I don't think we need them but do think we can't stop like finding like.

Rather than these groups "finding" one another, NotSpaghetti I'm more interested in the thought process that makes people vote for parties which offer growing inequality.

Perhaps because the only other choice is not to vote at all!

Is that how you feel Lathyrus3?

Yes honestly.

I can’t think of anyone, individual or political party that isn’t primarily concerned with gain for the few ie themselves.

I did vote for what I thought might be the best of a bad job, but even then Iwas mistaken 🙁

I think that has to be part of it keepingquiet. It's easier to see, and understand, in America with it's historical background. But it surprises me that that feeling may be high here too. Except, except ... I then remember some of the people I worked with who did exactly that at work. They were stuck and couldn't move forward without "permission" to do something they knew exactly how to do. Something, work presumably, had made them feel they didn't have agency in area but if I said I would take responsibility they would relax and do it. Hmm.

Lack of knowledge of a parties real intentions was my downfall on the only vote I cast that I regret. I wasn't that young either. I was busy and they sounded very convincing, but I should have checked!

Lathyrus3

Yes honestly.

I can’t think of anyone, individual or political party that isn’t primarily concerned with gain for the few ie themselves.

I did vote for what I thought might be the best of a bad job, but even then Iwas mistaken 🙁

I get that, but to me it applies to the extremes not the centre.

I see it via those who fund them getting the "gains", often individually and sometimes in their life after party political power.

Do you see it in the centre parties too Lathyrus?

Oh yes, all of them.

A party is made up of the people in it, most particularly those who seek and gain positions of power. And all of those n positions of power appear to put their own gain above any principles or precepts.

I speak as one who is perfectly prepared to pay higher taxes on my pension if it would be used to create a more equal society. Indeed that was what I hoped for when I voted.

I’ve always been able to take decisions that were personally detrimental if I could see that they brought about a higher good.

But it seems that those who seek power see it completely differently.

Lathyrus3

Yes honestly.

I can’t think of anyone, individual or political party that isn’t primarily concerned with gain for the few ie themselves.

I agree.
At the top, even the things that they post in their speeches are aimed at gaining votes to keep them in power or to try and get themselves elected to power.
Those who fund them are not philanthropists.

I guess it's the human condition that those who inherit riches or gain them- seek to conserve and pass on their riches to their own. In order do that they form alliances, feel comfortable among their own, build on their power and certain political parties form with those guiding principles. They seek party financial contributions from other rich people, to form a mutually beneficial, powerful, well financed, political alliance. They organise and congregate well, usually because their overarching goal is common- i.e. to always preserve and protect their riches, power and alliances. They do not seek equality as that would diminish their personal riches. They may electioneer that they're seeking to make their country great again (MAGA) but in reality it's always about conserving assets and building power and influence.

Yet they must win popular vote to win elections. Not many voters are rich That's why the choice of a charismatic populist leader becomes so important. A leader that appears strong will always appeal to those who feel left behind or let down financially or otherwise by incumbents. They may need to make manifesto promises to appeal to those whose votes they seek, who have very few riches, and will work out ways to do that, but when in office will always rule according to their mutual benefit and shared power and influence of course.

Those who have not inherited or gained riches, or even if they have, hold a set of values where they value equality, ie to distribute wealth for the benefit of all society, may seek to congregate differently to the historic political parties that are driven to conserve the stars quo/riches. But they are much more diverse, with many competing priorities, their overarching aims not so clear cut, have more differing views how to distribute wealth, don't organise so well and do not appear so strong.

They seek equality, they take more time to discuss to seek consensus, they change course, appear not so strong, are not so good at communicating their story. Shambolic on occasion- let's face it.

As individuals we will be attracted, unwittingly to strong leaders to feel safe, or we will consciously decide where we fit best, perhaps what serves us best, will consider what groups share our values and consider what will be the best, or good/fair enough outcome in a complex world.

Government in a turbulent world is complex and difficult. What we hoped for will not pan out easily or always as expected. We either manage our frustrations when our chosen party makes mistakes (and some mistakes or unforced errors will be huge, embarrassing, stupid, selfish or misguided) and stick with them, or we chop and change allegiance believing "no party/leader could be worse" than the current.

History tells us they can...and often will be.....

DaisyAnneReturns
If you agree that we need these groups of the ultra rich, could you explain to the rest of us your reasoning/justification for such inequality?

I don’t agree that we need these groups of ultra rich, but if I had the knowledge, the power and the money, I’d join them, especially if being in that position enabled me to be philanthropic.

Incredible inequality exists not just in your ita dictum group, but in society as a whole.

Whether it’s inequality between those who have paid off their mortgage and those can’t even afford to get on the housing ladder.

Or even the inequality between those of us who can afford devices to post on GN and those who have to find a library in order to access the www.

Presumably you dont agree that we need these groups of the ultra rich, but maybe you could explain to the rest of us your reasoning for such inequality?

A philosopher in the nineteenth century argued that more and more accumulation of wealth at the top of the capitalist system was inevitable.

He appears to have been correct in his prediction.

There have always been elites.

Elite athletes.

Elite educators.

Elite politicians.

Elite royalty.

Elite wealthy.

Whether or not we approve is not going to make an iota of difference.

I think elite is good.

Accumulation of wealth not so good.

Richard Murphy has a video series Do we actually need the wealthy? which is worth watching.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_7CJbeGCw&list=PLvRueM6wBgobQLeyZYAagFDMjEFTKbhRD&index=1

Do we need these groups of the ultra rich? One could argue that we need each other.

The Sunday Times Rich List contain names which may be unknown but have made their phenomenal wealth from the way ordinary people live.

www.thetimes.com/sunday-times-rich-list

Some examples:

Number 6. Guy, George, Alannah and Galen Weston and family worth almost £18 billion. Who are they? Owners of Primark.

Number 16 Denise, John and Peter Coates worth £9.4 billion. Who are they? Bet365.

Number 26 Tom Morris and family. £7 billion. Home Bargains.

Number 28 Stephen Rubin and family. £6.6 billion J D Sports.

Number 32. Zuber and Mohsin Issa. £6 bilion. Asda.

Number 57 Fred and Peter Done. A mere 3 billion. Bet Fred.

Cheap food, cheap clothes, cheap goods and gambling.

One can argue that they provide employment which contributes to growth but most of the employees are going to be on minimum wage while the directors get richer each year. All saw their wealth increase substantially over the preceding year, the Alannah family owners of Primark by £3.25 billion, the Coates family owners of Bet365 by £2 billion.

Have these people become wealthy through individual effort and talent? No doubt starting, growing and running a successful business requires that but the first thing they saw was a way to exploit the mass need/desire for cheap goods and gambling or to buy into a existing business that did.

Whitewavemark2

I think elite is good.

Accumulation of wealth not so good.

What is the definition of how much wealth is too much?

Homeowners aspire to pay off their mortgage, many make sure they use up all of their ISA allowance, many buy Premium Bonds, many have £’s in deposit accounts or stocks and shares.

Wealth is tied up in businesses, businesses employ many people who pay taxes and spend earnings into the economy.

Multi billionaires are philanthropic, not all publicise this like Bill Gates, often their generosity is only revealed on their death.

I feel the same as Lathyrus3.

I think it depends entirely on the values and motivation of the élite.

PaynesGrey I am not anti gambling, but I am against the amount of gambling establishments on our high street and the multiple casino/bingo sites advertised on television and SM sites.

As for the likes of Primark, JD Sports and Home Bargains, I don’t think they are exploiting the public, they have identified a gap in the market and filled it.

There are many folks who use these companies, the likes of Waitrose, John Lewis etc., are far above what they can afford to pay.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

I think elite is good.

Accumulation of wealth not so good.

What is the definition of how much wealth is too much?

Homeowners aspire to pay off their mortgage, many make sure they use up all of their ISA allowance, many buy Premium Bonds, many have £’s in deposit accounts or stocks and shares.

Wealth is tied up in businesses, businesses employ many people who pay taxes and spend earnings into the economy.

Multi billionaires are philanthropic, not all publicise this like Bill Gates, often their generosity is only revealed on their death.

To my mind when wealth has the ability to buy power, influence governments and sidestep normal democracy then it becomes malevolent regardless of how it is used.

I am a very strong supporter of the democratic process.

Tactical voting, holding your nose and putting your x in a box that will help keep a really offensive party out of power, works for me.

Really wealthy are the billionaires.