Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "PoliticsJOE"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@m0o0n0i0r Not quite true. QE pumped billions of pounds into the economy. And guess where most of it ended up? In the hands of corporations and banks, who were run by people already asset wealthy. Not only do the rich minority not spend enough to drive the economy, they actually hoard their money by buying assets and living off the economic rent. Inflation hits the poorest hardest, but the little they got of QE was spent paying bills to - again the asset wealthy. The banks gratefully took that money and financed asset bubbles and speculation. Accordingly, very little was put into productive investment such as infrastructure or production. Real wage growth was stymied quite deliberately by a combination of factors, and contributed to the inability of the UK Economy to grow, because it relies on consumption for growth. Post-covid because of QE, created another massive wealth transfer to the usual suspects, whose spending Post-pandemic exacerbated the reopening supply shock, driving up inflation. The recovery was a K-shaped recovery where QE was used, and the weakness across the highly integrated global economy is appearing in economies that barely recovered after Covid. The rush to return to normal actually set us up for the abnormal. Pandemics don't just stop; they slowly recede in their effects on economies over years. The loss of workers due to death or disability, the fragility of businesses unable to recover from the disruption, and Nature's gift of viruses that migrate between animals and humans, causing food to increase in price - all that would have happened without Brexit, but Brexit made us even more vulnerable to such a pandemic. And it's the same thing everywhere. Neoliberal economic thought was found wanting, and it's in its death throes. It won't be quick or kind in it's passing. But it's a busted flush.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you are British, you are exceedingly poorly educated in your own English language. Language is a dynamic and living thing that is a consequence of history. The Norman Conquest established French and well as Latin as part of the languages spoken in England. Education was not available to all, but to be educated one had to know French, Latin, and Greek, and the influence of these languages is part of the English language. The Oxford English dictionary has traced its entrance into published English language sources from the 18th Century. To say that nuance is a foreign word when it has been part of our language for almost 3 centuries is clearly absurd. It has stayed because it has proven it's usefulness in transmitting meaning. Indeed, French has words accepted by it's Academie Francaise that are not French in origin. French became important to know within Europe because it was one of the largest trading and colonial nations. That's why there are two diplomatic languages in global organisations, and they are English and French.
More worryingly is that you don't seem to know the relationship between nuance and truth. Truth without nuance is not truth; it is a semblance of truth. It's impartial, incomplete, and limited in its usefulness for negotiating reality. And reality is complex, and intractable. It is what it is. However, the Evolution of cognition in humans, and their ability to reason is only recent in our development. The frontal lobes are the latest evolution in humans, and the older defence and desire mechanisms that operate on emotions like fear, anxiety, and desire can override reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very briefly Steve Baker did have a point. A lot of ultra cheap US dollar-denominated credit was provided by the Offshore capital market, which then funded the creation of multiple housing bubbles across the developed world. it evolved in the City of London to deal with US capital controls Post-World War II and the US dollar shortage those created. It's totally owned by the bank association that runs it. And it's unregulated, and based in offshore jurisdictions, beyond government control. It survived so long, because being unregulated other banks, nations, multinational corporations, and other financial institutions could borrow US Dollars needed for international trade at a far lower cost than in their home countries. So Steve Baker has a problem with something our financial sector created in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and which has been implicated in global financial crises throughout its history. 2008 broke that system. The trust went out of it, as the American domestic mortgage sector got greedy and corrupt. And QE has been governments desperately throwing taxpayers' money at the global banking system to repair it, as every country is dependent on a source of US Dollars to trade. But unfortunately for us, the City of London was up to its neck in that market. And it, amongst others were the largest donors to the Tories. It is highly probable that it was the City of London who in pushed for and financed Brexit. As they couldn't stop the EU creating their Anti-Tax Evasion Directive, which would have hurt the City of London's Tax Haven business, which is more than 50% of the global trade, and is the backbone of the global Offshore Capital Market. Brexit for them was supposed to be their Get Out of Jail Card, and they had their support in Parliament. It was the Squareile taking back control, not ordinary working people. Londongrad didn't want it's gravy train to hit the buffers. So they pushed for Brexit, ably encouraged by people who feared the EU's increasing Assertiveness. Also, the Offshore Capital Market was led by British and American banks, but it must be said Uncle Sam tolerated this market as long as it helped their agenda, but when they found out that Interest rate in the Offshore Market - the LIBOR rate - was secretly being influenced by British politicians, it is highly probable the US encouraged Brexit too, knowing the EU would as a consequence take the Euro Derivative and Euro transaction clearing business away from London, worth billions. Arguably, our financial establishment had got themselves into a lot of trouble, and upset people, and saw Brexit as a get out of jail card. But it was a trap, a nasty painful trap, that hurt not only the City, but the UK as well. Now the Offshore Capital Base rate is now set by the US Federal Reserve, and the City has had to renegotiate it's access to the EU, and the UK financial sector is making a lot less money than before, and that hurts everyone else in the UK because our Financial Sector was over 80% of the UK Economy. And it seems it has permanently lost ground. No more commissions from Russian oligarchs throwing money around, buying British assets, and suing each other in British courts. No more commissions from Euro trading, and now Subsidiaries in the EU have to be funded, with erodes their profits further. That's why Canary Wharf is slowly shrinking. That's why major firms from the financial sector have moved out of London to cut costs, and why Brexit needs to addressed. The folly and complacency that to this breach wasn't that of the ordinary people. That was the folly of our establishment, who would not acknowledge the risks they were taking. And they did it for themselves. The Financial establishment whilst getting very wealthy, let the working and middle classes be their lab rats for some really stupid economic experiments, all which have failed.
I think Steve Baker likely meant well, but he was out of his depth in trying to slay that particular dragon. If he knew British Financial and Economic History better, he wouldn't have gone near Brexit with a bargepole. But he's an idealist, who likely now realises he had the wrong ideals. The acquisition of wealth and power has shaped British History, in many ways that we don't acknowledge. One particular perspective would see that many of the good things for the British working and middle classes only happened because they were instrumental to the goals of the asset wealthy. And once those goals were less reliant on them, first the Working class, then the middle classes got thrown under the bus. This is just another episode of that. And nothing happened until the middle classes became grist to the mill. Nobody knows for sure what will happen in the future, but I hope we find a way back to being one nation again someday. We're at a turning point, and I hope we find a way back to being united, fair, and caring once again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They're not cutting the Winter Fuel Allowance from all pensioners. Just those not on Pension Credit. Facts matter, especially the fact that the Tories left a £20bn hole on the books, which gave her no choice. And if you think that's bad, you'll probably find out between now and the Mini Budget day in October more fiscal dead bodies buried in No 11 Downing Street. The only problem with Reeve's decision is that she did not place as much emphasis on getting eligible pensioners to claim Pension Credit. Not all do. That will take sone of the sting away. But, if Cameron hadn't told so many seemingly credible lies about Labour's alledged fiscal incompetence, perhaps Reeves would have to play tough. Labour paid off the final debt after World War II, and if it wasn't 2008,which wasn't caused by Labour, or anyone in the UK, there record would have been as good as any One Nation Tory government. But then again, if the public knew the ins and out about how 2008 affected almost every country in the world, they might have been M more understanding. But we have a tradition of scapegoating first and asking questions later, and we are ill-served by it. The only things Labour got wrong were that New Labour did not critique globalisation, and they were happy to embrace neoliberal economics. They only tried to put a smiling face on the vampirisation of our economy. The truth is all the wealth was being transferred away from workers to capital, and Blair made sure he got his share. Brown? Only 1 questionable move, and 1 unforced error. Selling the UK's gold reserves, and talking into a live Mike. But, oupoliticaclazs as a whole is not inspiring confidence TBH. It's the realisation that the people that are supposed to be our betters, are sadly lacking the qualifications to back that up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, right... And Poundland MP NF isn't establishment? Stockbroker, public school, worked in the City, wealthy, but not wealthy enough for Coutts - you know, there's a branch on every high street-not. Has three homes. When he has a problem, he just snaps his fingers and the Prime Minister has a problem. Is that really anti-establishment?
Get real. If you thought that the establishment is split between One Nation and New Money Spivs, you'd be closer to the truth.
Never in a month of Sunday's is NF anti-establishment. He's wannabee with a chip on his shoulder. He wants to be establishment, and he's using people you to get there. And as soon as he does, he'll open up shop to the highest bidder, as you struggle on to pay your bills.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You didn't listen did you? Speaking out of turn, without all the facts to hand is as she clearly said is "shit". Shit for those involved, and the those investigating the incidents to find out what happened and why. We don't need grandstanding morons shit-stirring for attention and clicks, thank you very much. Let people do their job, and if they don't find out the truth, that's the time to probe directed and specific questions. Not before, as it can prevent successful prosecutions. Now do you understand? It's the Magna Carta right to a Fair Trial, and prejudicing the jury, who might be locals, can get a case thrown out. So no, you let the police do their job, and then question. If you are British, you should know that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think your bias is showing. If you examine all the split of the popular vote when the Tories were elected, they hardly ever won the popular vote. Time and time again, they won the majority of seats, but not votes. Context matters, and looking at the facts as they are reveals that really, under FPTP the popular vote is a side issue. Moreover, FPTP is a relic now. The franchise has expanded so much since FPTP was introduced, that we should be seriously considering going over to some form of PR. Under PR, the votes would count, in deciding who took the seat. But whilst we gave Germany PR after World War II, we thought we would never need to consider it. Well, the last 30 years have proved that assumption complacent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's always been that way, and in the most ironic way possible. Did you know a big idea in the postwar period was for the Commonwealth to become a trade bloc? If it had happened, then the Commonwealth would have been the biggest trade bloc on the planet, and Britain would have been even richer. Why? The African states were sitting on reserves of rare earths needed for the Electronic Revolution. Do you know what killed that idea?
Britain made a promise to the former African Colonies that once they got independence Black majority rule would be introduced. But Rhodesia majority White government supported by South Africa, didn't want that. NIMBY or what? And Harold Wilson was in a quandary, as the British Economy wasn't revving in all cylinders, as its rivals had caught up with it, and the Americans insisted on Britain relinquishing it's protectionist Imperial Markets system aka The Sterling Area. Sadly Churchill had to agree because it was necessary to get the Americans into WWII. Britain therefore had to relinquish much of its empire, which with the war debt owed to the Americans, put pressure on the economy. Global inflation was rising, and Sterling having lost global reserve currency status turned the screw even tighter.
Wilson wanted not only to keep the Africans onside, but also wanted to develop and strengthen trade links with them. But Wilson also did not not want to send British troops to quell the rebellion, because he feared they would not want to fight white Rhodesias. The Commonwealth was divided on the matter, arguably on racial lines, because the White-ruled dominions didn't want to force Rhodesia to comply. But the African States were insistent and everyone else was sympathetic to their perspective. The dominions managed to convince Wilson to break the promise. He was only prepared to apply political pressure. The Lagos conference broke up in conflict. The African States were upset with Wilson's decision, and left in a huff. Relationships between Britain and the black African ruled states went downhill fast, and the dream of a Commonwealth trade bloc died at that time.
Wilson had no choice but to pursue the alternative: joining the European Coal and Steel Community, which would become the European Economic Community (EEC). Like Macmillan before him, Wilson knew it would not be easy. DeGualle had rebuffed the entreaties of Supermac, and Wilson felt the pressure, because Britain would be in a worse state if it didn't join.
Why? At that time the Americans were anxious to secure a secure peace in Europe, to the extent of the CIA secretly funding Jean Monnet's campaign to create a political and economic union in Europe. And, TBH the Americans applied subtle pressure on Britain to join. Once, the Commonwealth idea had been stillborn, Wilson has no choice but to keep trying, even though I think he knew that doing so would weaken Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth further. After all, the GATT rules were evolving to promoting free trade, and the EEC's rules would be based on GATT, so Britain would be forced to turn aside, at a time where it's economy needed global rather than just continental trade links.
An even greater irony was that British special forces went secretly went to Rhodesia to fight the Africa nationalist forces, and Britain would not be able to join the EEC until DeGaulle left power in France. His successor, President Mitterand would agree to Britain's application. And after a decade long bloody civil war, Rhodesia'S white majority government would agree to Black majority rule.
So, even the Commonwealth cannot trump national interest and the beliefs of the leaders involved. Arguably, it is a co-dependent relationship that is maintained to serve geopolitical and economic needs, rather than some lovey-dovey relationship. Britain historically through its offshore tax haven trade, which is the largest stake in that industry, has used its influence with the Commonwealth to promote its own political and economic agendas. And it's the economic which is the most problematic. GATT (now the WTO) endured that the developed nations of the north maintained control of the global economy, and international trade, along with globalisation and financialisation driven by the Anglosphere school of thought subsequently maintained that economic control by creating rules that favoured countries that made trade agreements with the, but punished those who did not. And the global South had good reason to attempt to loosen the chokehold held by the IMF, the World Bank, and the Eurocurrency International Offshore Financial Markets around their necks. Moreover, with Climate Chabge, the affected nations must strive to find exoertise, money, and resources not to face a dire future. I think it's this latter issue that has bought Reparations back on the table. They need funding to survive what's coming down the line, and not much help is forthcoming, even though it's needed. So, at the very least they may be looking for debt relief, if not handouts. I wish them well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you have never been a Civil Servant. You sound like someone who goes to their supermarket to buy their favourite loaf. It's out of stock and you take it out on the shop assistants. Government is not a supermarket, but civil servants are very much like shop assistants who have to deal with people who have no idea how things work in their business. Who have to deal with people venting their frustrations and not actually willing to listen or investigate. Please become a civil servant. You will quickly realise that they are real people. All types of people trying to do two things: do their job and serve their country. Like real life they will be good ones, mediocre ones, and poor ones, and the poor ones don't last. Why? Everything they do is scrutinised and subject to public oversight. You can write to your MP, and if they're organised, will contact a public department dealing with your issue, and every time they will have to have the circumstances reviewed, and will have to draft a written response to your MP. As civil servants are humans, and Government is a human designed institution, things can go wrong. Why? because nobody's perfect. And things can go wrong. To stop that happening there has to be responsible people in place to ensure the rule of law is adhered to and that the rules are followed in the public interest. That is a thankless job, because there are always people who don't know how complicated or demanding the reality of governing is. And nobody like being told "No." But that's necessary too. Civil Servants in the top echelons even have it worse, when you can get people who do not even have a scooby about how things work, come into government and think they know it all. They don't. Even worse, they're not going to be around long enough to get a working knowledge of their brief. Someone has to be the safety net to stop things going wrong. There has to be someone who keeps the process going despite the politics. The Civil Servants are like nurses and first responders. They see the messiness caused by human folly, and still have to serve, protect, and maintain the structures that keep the show on the road. They are not responsible for policy they are responsible for execution in the real world. If policies fail, you need to ask the ministers what they could have done to prevent their policies failing. And listening to stellar examples like Priti Patel and Suella Braverman, the turnover of staff in the Home Office, and their promotion of illegal and immoral polices might have contributed to their failure. By law, Civil Servants cannot break the law. And both Patel and Braverman would have known that, but didn't care. The Civil Servants cannot publicly criticise, but if they have expertise they should be consulted, and their opinion heard. So please, please, please, if you can, become a civil servant. Or at least read magazines like Civil Service World, so you can at least be better informed how the Civil Service works, what can be done, and what cannot be done. Or actually talk to Civil Servants in your community. Then you'll know that the least of our problems are the Civil Service.
1