Carryfast:
Winseer:
Carryfast:
Good luck with going for that type of Machiavellian Tory agenda,of using the assets and capital of the working class,to subsidise the wage costs of the employer classes for others.Although Corbyn’s useful idiot Bolsheviks would probably be stupid enough to buy it.Until their parents and/or later themselves are taxed out of their houses and thieved out of their retirement funds etc to subsidise the lifestyles of the more deserving Party faithful. 
I’ve always believed that the best way to encourage a bit more than “trickle down” economics - one needs to encourage those WITH capital sums to “return as much to the economy as possible”. This, funnily enough - should never have been so easy as it is RIGHT NOW however, but as we’ve seen - low interest rates, even Negative ones - doesn’t put people off from simply burying their assets in a hole in the ground, rather than actually “putting their money to work” in the economy. “Putting something back”…
It’s clear that what you mean is ‘giving’ it to someone else or someone else thieving it.No one with any sense is going to put their hard earned cash into any scheme which says they might get back less than they put in because someone else has thieved it.Hence burying it in the ground being ripped off less badly in the form of negative interests rates.So your plan is obviously even more negative interest rates.To rip off working class savers as opposed to below inflation wage increases to rip them off before they’ve earned it.As for housing costs let me guess you also intend to go for selectively applied below inflation rent and house price limits.It’s all theft dressed up as either ‘wealth redistribution’,or profits for the wealthy however you look at it.While it’s then just a slippery slope into anarchy from that point.
Nope. You’ve got me wrong.
The reason I’m only socialist on finance, and right wing on other stuff - is because people with the cash should be encouraged to do good things WITH it - whilst it is still theres.
It defeats the object if one “robs the rich to pay for the poor” which ends up “making one extra poor person” and “no extra rich ones”.
I’ve always believed that the general population are rather avaricious when it comes to “financial ambition”.
Do poor people who get offered a golden opportunity to enrich themselves or “get on” as it might be called - turn such offers down because their peer group would not approve?
Imagine a scenario where a driver wants to work for one firm in the next town say, that pays £10ph for a 48 hour week - compared to another firm in YOUR town that pays £11ph for a 48 hour week, but you don’t want to work there because the “gaffer votes Conservative” say…
A lot of poor people in life CHOOSE to STAY poor because of so-called “principals” such as I’ve described there.
In a proper market - there should be a price at which ANYONE participating will trade at, should that price be met.
The actual “trading bit” of the market - the prices at which actual stuff changes hands, business is done, etc. - is better known as “price discovery” and I’ve long objected to Capitalism BECAUSE it has NEVER been allowed to work as it should on the Jobs Market of this country.
If there is a shortage of Blue Collar Labour - then the CORRECT thing for the capitalist to do - is offer more money straight out the gate, but specify that a “higher standard” is expected from would-be recruits. Instead, worker rates are encouraged to stagnate by flooding the market with extra people that’ll “take the lower rate” - thus denying that central pillar of Capitalism - “Price Discovery”. We have a distored jobs market because of this. In the HOUSING market - we have a distorted market because of a wrongly-overlapping benefit system that should not be extending to “accommodation” beyond Council Housing. Whoever came up with the idea of “housing benefits that end up going to private landlords” - needs to be taken out and shot!!
In internation trade - we have a distorted market, because we get manipulated into buying overpriced stuff from the EU as it stands, with lies being told to “put us off” getting that stuff from further afield. In a free market, everything has to come up to a minimum standard, or we wouldn’t countenence buying it. We have no problems buying Chinese Tat though, so how come people are so easily put-off buying American (SOUTH as well as North) stuff “because it is of questionable quality” we get told??
We shouldn’t have to buy Oranges from Seville instead of from Florida, or Coffee from Turkey rather than Brazil, nor Insurances from America instead of London, nor Natural Gas from Russia “via Germany” instead of “Via Russia”… This market distortion - is one of the major things that a No Deal (or WTO) Brexit would overturn, and set the balances straight on.
If people really “don’t want to buy North American” because of “Trump” - then f— 'em. This sounds too much like a Robespierre attitude, trying to shake off our biggest ally - to replace them with WHAT? Wannabe Superpower EU at our expense? F-- that!
If people really “don’t want to buy Brazillian Coffee” because of Bolsenaro - then f— 'em. Coffee is at historic low prices, and yet we’re opting to buy it from a more expense source “because we don’t want to buy it cheaper from the right winger’s country”. F— that! I want more money, lower costs of living, and more leisure time. THere is NOTHING on the left of politics that does anything but BLOCK access to the very same. THIS is why I’m only a Lefty on finance - and never ever on politics.
I won’t be “hating Boris Johnson” if he wins this election.
I won’t be “hating Corbyn” neither.
I judge people by what they do, and get done. NOT “intend” or “mention”.
I can’t see any upside from what Swinson is talking about, nor what Corbyn talks about, scrambling hard to keep Remainers on board.
It would have been so easy for ANY political leader to DROP the bulls hit about “Wanting to unite the country” - when what needs to happen is the 52% get their way 100%, and the Remainers have the choice of picking up the pieces, and living with it - OR shortening their lives by trying to overturn a fait accompli by that point.
Brexit - would have been so much easier had it been done like “taking a plaster off” from the very beginning.
“Short, Sharp Shock” for the Remainers - and then we ALL move on, with Remainers voting against Pro Brexit Incumbents for years to come, but not enough to beat them in an election.
THAT is where this coming election is heading:
Tories+Brexit Party - 52% of the vote.
Libdems+Labour+Greens+SNP+Plaid - 48% of the vote.
If that translates into actual SEATS this time around, where it didn’t in the past - then we’ve got the election result we NEED to move on.
Libdem - 0 seats.
SNP - 4 seats
Greens - 0 seats.
Plaid - 0 seats.
Labour - 260-270 seats.
Conservatives - 320-330 seats.
Brexit Party - 42 seats
Others - the rest.
Such a result would Stop Boris Johnson doing is crappy deal, Stop five different parties at Westminster “ganging up” on an incumbent government, when there should only ever be one party of opposition.
If Brexit Party instead, end up on “too few seats to form a coalition” - then the ERG will reluctantly let Boris Johnson’s crappy deal go through. There’s no other future for them.
On the other hand… should the Conservatives advance in seats - but fall short of a full majority with Brexit Party holding enough seats to get them over the line?
The ERG could vote AGAINST Boris’ deal in the upcoming “meaningful vote” - and then put No Deal well and truly back on the table, knowing that it would get total support from the new bloc of Brexit Party MPs Sans-Farage, along with the Brexit party MEPS - WITH Farage to fight the corner getting a No Deal done, complete with putting the closing stages of Yellowhammer under Gove into position to have everything done and dusted by January 31st.
The EU won’t like it. Remainers will utterly HATE it.
Brexiteers though?
As someone who wanted to vote Brexit Party but now cannot - I will be pressurizing the safe seat Remain-voting MP I have to “get behind the PM” which includes “supporting him on No Deal” if and when it comes down to that.
We cannot actually afford to do Boris Johnson’s deal, as it incorporates all the disruption and downsides - not to mention economic damage, upheaval, and expenses along the way - whilst waiting for this “deal that might never come” known as the Free Trade Arrangement" at the end of this “forever extendable transition period”.
Any Brexit that doesn’t turn off the cashflows to Brussels - never happens. It is just too lucrative for the EU to keep tricking us into “Booting it down the road” all the time.
Each day wasted = more contributions made. Rinse and repeat, ad nauseum.
I want to see a Parliament able to FORCE Boris Johnson into doing a WTO “no more cash to Brussels” Brexit then.
A deep recession awaits around the corner - that only the acquired Brexit Dividend can possibly mitigate.
Boris could spend a decent wedge of the Brexit Dividend on “propping up the home economy” for example.
It should NEVER have been about “give it all to the NHS”…
The whole economy needs that money.
