The Tories will be obsessed with Reform. Given the Tory base is very right wing there's little doubt what their direction of travel will be.
I suspect their collective hatred for 'Liberal lefties' might see them in some sort of pact at the next election. Or even Farage joining the Tories and becoming their leader. Nightmare scenario.
The Tories will be obsessed with Reform. Given the Tory base is very right wing there's little doubt what their direction of travel will be.
I suspect their collective hatred for 'Liberal lefties' might see them in some sort of pact at the next election. Or even Farage joining the Tories and becoming their leader. Nightmare scenario.
Isn't that what we all want to get back to?
And why the fuck would any one want to stay silent, I'd of thought we should be screaming about it.
We've got the change (that 20% of the electorate voted for) so let's insist that the new government take us to a world of mass employment, decent pensions, free education and affordable housing!
Let's just see what happens under Labor
I never had you down as so socialist.My issue with it is it is basically an us and them approach. Many jobs it’s impossible and yet in the same company many have the luxury of planning their own diaries from home.
But a party voted for by 20% of the electorate have a massive majority,We are democratic. Just because a bunch of fringe parties with 20% of the vote want a national voice doesn’t mean we have to give them one.
But a party voted for by 20% of the electorate have a massive majority,
Obviously showing my age, growing up in an era of mutuals and building societies. Where does the money come from to pay the interest on my savings then?That's not how ot works Malc. That method of banking finished when Noah defaulted on his loan to build an Ark.
Banks operate under a system called "fractional reserve banking" They no longer need savers to deposit funds in order for them to operate. In fact most banks actually lose money, in the costs associated with handling the majority of their customers accounts, (ie the cost of staff wages. High street branches, security and technology etc etc)
Large banks can quite literally pull money out of thin air. It's a corrupt system and all banks are implicit in its misuse.
It's only when they get way too greedy that we have major global crashes, and even then hardly any bankers get prosecuted.
Some really interesting cabinet appointments
This will probably trigger a couple on here:
We do indeed. Which is why I support the causes, policies and parties more likely to make it happen. Right wing economics emphatically does not do that and we have at least a century of evidence to support it.Isn't that what we all want to get back to?
Couldn't you apply the same logic to other aspects of work? Some people are on their feet all day, some people are sat at a desk; some people commute to an office 5 minutes away, some people have to go from site to site hours away and so on and so on.My issue with it is it is basically an us and them approach. Many jobs it’s impossible and yet in the same company many have the luxury of planning their own diaries from home.
Tories won on 36% of the vote in 2010 and 2015 but I don’t remember this hand wringing about the democratic process.
It's a bit complicated, but under fractional reserve banking, a bank can borrow 10 million pounds (for example) from another bank at a ridiculously low rate called the LIBOR rate (London inter bank operating rate although this has just changed to the SOFR , secured overnight financial rate)Obviously showing my age, growing up in an era of mutuals and building societies. Where does the money come from to pay the interest on my savings then?
It's been highlighted because the turn out was much lower this time than predicted.Tories won on 36% of the vote in 2010 and 2015 but I don’t remember this hand wringing about the democratic process.
Thanks for trying to explain.It's a bit complicated, but under fractional reserve banking, a bank can borrow 10 million pounds (for example) from another bank at a ridiculously low rate called the LIBOR rate (London inter bank operating rate although this has just changed to the SOFR , secured overnight financial rate)
The borrowing bank can then lend (or invest) that money up to 8 times its value (the fraction from fractional reserve banking) and charge everyone its lending to a far higher rate than it originally borrowed at.
So they borrow £10 million and on the strength of that, they can lend £80million
And then charge interest on the £80 million even though £70million never even existed.
(It's all to do with the calculated risk of defaulting)
You have to understand that banks don't deal with money, they deal with RISK
That's why it's often so hard to qualify for high loans and mortgages.
The real crazy fucked up thing is that the original £10million that was borrowed never actually existed, it was part of the £80 million pounds that the lending bank was allowed to carry on its books when IT originally borrowed £10million from someone else previously!!!
So in banking, there is a theoretical unending supply of money. Banks are only kept in check by inflation rates and interest rates, which, if they get out of hand leads to lenders defaulting and the banks RISK getting too high.
That's very simplistic but I hope it helps.
The thing is ,it doesn't matter now how many people voted for them just that they won. If they are seen to be doing a good job they will be fine and if not they are in trouble.Same with the big majority, wasn't an issue when Johnson won with one.
It’s not just that, it’s that such a huge majority has been achieved whilst actually getting less votes than last time. A huge victory without persuading anyone that they are the most worthy recipient of their vote.It's been highlighted because the turn out was much lower this time than predicted.
Yea you've got it.Thanks for trying to explain.
So, my understanding of what you have said is,-
I am assuming that my savings are real money and that the interest I, and other savers, received does come from lending it. However, our savings aren’t enough to meet the lending requirements of those who need to borrow and so they are lent imaginary money. Is the interest the borrowers pay real or imaginary money? If it’s real, it sounds almost like imaginary money laundering.
And I thought bitcoin sounded bonkers
Thanks, this post makes it all make sense.Yea you've got it.
The only real money is the money that is earned through your hard labour. And that money depreciates through the effect of inflation, which is always higher that the banks interest rate, so the working classes are always required to keep working just to stand still.
The banks borrow imaginary money, and charge you real money in the form of interest! Which you then have to work in order to pay.
It's a piss poor system designed to reward the bankers, and keep the poor working.
And now, because we are living longer, they want us to work longer and have longer mortgages so we can pay more interest to them on the imaginary money that never even existed.
Get your head around that!
It’s not just that, it’s that such a huge majority has been achieved whilst actually getting less votes than last time. A huge victory without persuading anyone that they are the most worthy recipient of their vote.
Despite having an awful Tory government for 14 years, Labour could not convince people to vote for them. Wasn’t Starmers majority halved?
Surprised that Grendel hasn’t asked SBT for an exclusive on the Basildon one
The thing is ,it doesn't matter now how many people voted for them just that they won. If they are seen to be doing a good job they will be fine and if not they are in trouble.
And? That doesn't matter. In a FPTP system he did enough to win a big majority. All that matter now is if people perceive him to be a success or not and then they get to choose again in 5 years.It’s not just that, it’s that such a huge majority has been achieved whilst actually getting less votes than last time. A huge victory without persuading anyone that they are the most worthy recipient of their vote.
Despite having an awful Tory government for 14 years, Labour could not convince people to vote for them. Wasn’t Starmers majority halved?
Not really, it doesn't take into account wage growth vs inflation which is something people measure governments on.Thanks, this post makes it all make sense.
But it's irrelevant.
Statmer won within in the boundaries of our electoral system.
If people would prefer PR, vote for the Libs as its one of their policies, (though they didn't do too badly out of FPTP this time round).
I say this as one of the disenfranchised who normally votes Labour and didn't bother but they won and that's that and they've got an opportunity to improve the country now so let's see how they get on.
Are you taking about people in or approaching their 90s ?It’s more those that had those things because they lived in a country that until recently had ran half the planet, shouldn’t be whining about the next generations finding ways to live better that don’t rely on having an economy bigger than China.
No, because people may have differing opinions on the Labour party due to the performance over the next 5 years.Shouldn’t it be worrying for Labour supporters that,despite the Tories awful record in power for the past 14 years, their party was unable to win the hearts and minds of the electorate?
It makes little practical difference now, but the lack of a systemic shift in the electorates affinity with the Labour Party does not bode well for the next election. Consequently it may limit the scope of change which could disaffect current Labour voters
TBH I’m going to leave this now, it is what it is and we know which party will be in government for the next 5 years, barring disaster. There’s nowt anybody can do about it.
Shouldn’t it be worrying for Labour supporters that,despite the Tories awful record in power for the past 14 years, their party was unable to win the hearts and minds of the electorate?
It makes little practical difference now, but the lack of a systemic shift in the electorates affinity with the Labour Party does not bode well for the next election. Consequently it may limit the scope of change which could disaffect current Labour voters
TBH I’m going to leave this now, it is what it is and we know which party will be in government for the next 5 years, barring disaster. There’s nowt anybody can do about it.
please don’t confuse me even moreNot really, it doesn't take into account wage growth vs inflation which is something people measure governments on.
Exactly, that shows that the publics perception at one general election has very little to do with the outcome of the next.All that's relevant is how they perform.
The tories have blown a big majority from 2019.
If Labour screw up they'll do the same. That's it really. They've got an opportunity not to screw up though so it's over to them.
The compromise is you flip the HoL to PR, hold the elections two years after a parliamentary election, allow it to have delaying powers and suggest modifications to bills, but is unable to stop them ultimately.But it's irrelevant.
Statmer won within in the boundaries of our electoral system.
If people would prefer PR, vote for the Libs as its one of their policies, (though they didn't do too badly out of FPTP this time round).
I say this as one of the disenfranchised who normally votes Labour and didn't bother but they won and that's that and they've got an opportunity to improve the country now so let's see how they get on.
The compromise is you flip the HoL to PR, hold the elections two years after a parliamentary election, allow it to have delaying powers and suggest modifications to bills, but is unable to stop them ultimately.
Then all marginal (including the unsavoury) voices get heard, but people still get local representation (which is the benefit of our current system, it's easy to know who to contact to take up your cause).
tbf I think Labour knew that too. All he had to do was stand up and talk in sentences and he'd have won given the shitshow of the past five years, so why have him stick his plicies on a large stone or eat a bacon sandwich if he didn't have to?
Indeed. It’s the same complacency that led to the country sleepwalking towards Brexit.I think this attitude is extremely dangerous and it’s how you end up with increasingly disenfranchised parts of the electorate and it’s how you breed extremism
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?