Comments by "robs2020" (@sbor2020) on "David Starkey Talks"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Is Reform UK really the future? According to their "Contract with the People," there are concerns about the impact of their policies on certain groups. For example, their approach to welfare reform could lead to stricter conditions for benefit claimants, which some fear might disadvantage vulnerable individuals. Their pledge to cut taxes for the middle class could be seen as beneficial for economic growth, but there are worries that it might reduce funding for essential public services.
While the party aims to cut NHS waiting lists, some are concerned this could open the door to more private sector involvement in healthcare, potentially affecting the public NHS system. In addition, Reform UK's stance on labour rights and their commitment to leave the ECHR has raised questions about the future of worker protections and human rights in the UK.
Finally, the party's funding, including from individuals like Jeremy Hosking, who has connections to the fossil fuel industry, raises concerns for some about potential conflicts of interest. Hosking, who has donated £2.2 million to the party. It's worth considering how this financial backing might influence their stance on climate issues.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@golfbulldog It's important to consider the bigger picture. While differences in crime rates are complex, factors such as socio-economic inequality, educational disparities, and a lack of opportunities play a major role in shaping crime, including both victims and perpetrators. Policing practices and systemic biases contribute to higher imprisonment rates for some groups, but that’s only part of the issue.
When it comes to serious crimes like stabbings, we need to examine how poverty, social exclusion, and community breakdown drive people towards crime, regardless of ethnicity. Claims of a two-tier justice system are unfounded and misleading. The courts assess the specific actions, intent, and legal context for each case, whether it's manslaughter or inciting riots. Spreading misinformation like this only serves to divide us further.
Rather than blaming entire groups, we should focus on addressing the root causes - such as inequality and underfunded communities - that fuel these issues. It’s not just about race; it’s about the environment people are growing up in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymondwoods2304
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law !
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil ?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that !
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake !
Robert Bolt - A Man for All Seasons
For someone who believes leaving the ECHR is a step forward, the quote from Sir Thomas More serves as a warning about the risks of dismantling legal protections to achieve a short-term goal. More argues that laws are there to protect everyone, and if we start removing them to deal with specific challenges, like deporting asylum seekers, we could weaken the legal framework that keeps society safe and orderly.
Even though leaving the ECHR might seem like a solution for managing immigration, it sets a precedent for eroding legal protections that could affect everyone in the future, not just asylum seekers. More’s message is that upholding legal principles is essential, even when it's difficult, because abandoning them could lead to chaos and a loss of rights for all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Before "whitewashing" the Tories reputation, just a reminder of the Top 10 scandals from the last 2019-2024 Tory government.
Proroguing Parliament (2019): Boris Johnson unlawfully suspended Parliament for five weeks during the Brexit crisis, an act deemed illegal by the UK Supreme Court.
Partygate (2020-2022): Boris Johnson and senior officials were found to have attended multiple parties at 10 Downing Street during COVID-19 lockdowns, violating the government's own pandemic restrictions. This led to fines and Johnson's eventual resignation.
PPE Contracts Scandal (2020): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government was criticized for awarding billions of pounds in contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) without proper oversight, often to companies with little relevant experience but with political connections.
Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick and Richard Desmond (2020): Jenrick was accused of intervening in a property development project to benefit billionaire Richard Desmond after receiving donations. This raised concerns over potential corruption.
Greensill Scandal (2021): Former Prime Minister David Cameron lobbied on behalf of Greensill Capital, a financial services firm, using private access to senior ministers. The collapse of Greensill left questions about the blurring of lines between public service and private gain.
Owen Paterson Lobbying Scandal (2021): Conservative MP Owen Paterson was found guilty of lobbying on behalf of companies that paid him, leading to his suspension from Parliament. The government's attempt to protect him caused public outrage.
VIP Lane for COVID Contracts (2021): The National Audit Office revealed a "VIP lane" for COVID-related contracts, where companies with government connections were fast-tracked, raising concerns over cronyism and transparency.
Northern Ireland Protocol Issues (2021): The implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol caused significant political tension and economic disruption, with accusations that the government misled the public about the impacts of Brexit.
Liz Truss Economic Crisis (2022): Liz Truss's short tenure as Prime Minister ended in disaster after her economic policies, including large tax cuts without funding, caused financial turmoil, crashing the pound and increasing mortgage rates.
Rishi Sunak's Tax and Residency Issues (2022): Sunak's wife was found to have non-domiciled tax status, allowing her to avoid paying UK taxes on overseas income. Sunak himself faced scrutiny over his US green card while serving as Chancellor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chamberpot969 While I understand the concern that perceived repression of ordinary people could lead to a rise in fascism, I think it's crucial to look at the broader context. The rise of populist and far-right movements in the UK isn't just a reaction to left-wing politics or any single political figure. Instead, it's a response to long-standing socio-economic issues, especially after the 2008 financial crisis, the austerity measures that followed, and the disillusionment surrounding Brexit.
For the last 14 years, the Tory government has failed to address the needs and concerns of many in the population, particularly those who feel left behind by globalisation and economic changes. This failure has led to widespread frustration and disillusionment with the political establishment, creating fertile ground for more extreme ideologies to take root.
These conditions created a breeding ground for extreme ideologies, not because people are repressed, but because they are frustrated and feel voiceless. The answer isn't to embrace more authoritarian responses but to push for a society that truly represents the needs of everyone - something that traditional parties have failed to do. By focusing on grassroots, democratic change, we can address these issues without falling into the trap of far-right extremism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ If you find the term assets unsatisfactory, Marx offered a clearer distinction through the concepts of productive and unproductive capital . These terms help differentiate between types of capital based on their ability to generate surplus value and profit.
Productive capital refers to capital that can extract surplus labour, leading directly to the creation of additional value and profit. For example, a field equipped with farming tools and machinery allows workers to produce more crops efficiently, thereby generating surplus value that can be realised as profit. Similarly, a factory filled with machines and staffed by workers combines labour and technology to produce goods that can be sold for profit, directly creating surplus value. Even a small workshop with tools and raw materials qualifies as productive capital, as these tools enable workers to transform raw materials into finished products that hold a higher exchange value.
In contrast, unproductive capital consists of forms of capital that cannot directly generate surplus value, even if they play a role in circulating or maintaining the broader economic system. For instance, a field without farming equipment has potential value but cannot generate surplus labour or profit without the necessary tools or labour to cultivate it. Likewise, a painting displayed in a private collection may hold significant value, but it does not produce surplus value unless sold; even then, it functions more as a store of value rather than a source of profit through production. Luxury real estate used as a personal residence falls into the same category. While it might appreciate in value over time, it does not directly produce surplus value since it is not involved in the production process.
In essence, productive capital is directly engaged in the production of goods or services that create surplus value, while unproductive capital may represent or preserve value but does not generate new value through production.
1
-
@ If you find the term assets unsatisfactory, Marx offered a clearer distinction through the concepts of productive and unproductive capital . These terms help differentiate between types of capital based on their ability to generate surplus value and profit.
Productive capital refers to capital that can extract surplus labour, leading directly to the creation of additional value and profit. For example, a field equipped with farming tools and machinery allows workers to produce more crops efficiently, thereby generating surplus value that can be realised as profit. Similarly, a factory filled with machines and staffed by workers combines labour and technology to produce goods that can be sold for profit, directly creating surplus value. Even a small workshop with tools and raw materials qualifies as productive capital, as these tools enable workers to transform raw materials into finished products that hold a higher exchange value.
In contrast, unproductive capital consists of forms of capital that cannot directly generate surplus value, even if they play a role in circulating or maintaining the broader economic system. For instance, a field without farming equipment has potential value but cannot generate surplus labour or profit without the necessary tools or labour to cultivate it. Likewise, a painting displayed in a private collection may hold significant value, but it does not produce surplus value unless sold; even then, it functions more as a store of value rather than a source of profit through production. Luxury real estate used as a personal residence falls into the same category. While it might appreciate in value over time, it does not directly produce surplus value since it is not involved in the production process.
In essence, productive capital is directly engaged in the production of goods or services that create surplus value, while unproductive capital may represent or preserve value but does not generate new value through production.
1
-
If you find the term assets unsatisfactory, Marx offered a clearer distinction through the concepts of productive and unproductive capital . These terms help differentiate between types of capital based on their ability to generate surplus value and profit.
Productive capital refers to capital that can extract surplus labour, leading directly to the creation of additional value and profit. For example, a field equipped with farming tools and machinery allows workers to produce more crops efficiently, thereby generating surplus value that can be realised as profit. Similarly, a factory filled with machines and staffed by workers combines labour and technology to produce goods that can be sold for profit, directly creating surplus value. Even a small workshop with tools and raw materials qualifies as productive capital, as these tools enable workers to transform raw materials into finished products that hold a higher exchange value.
In contrast, unproductive capital consists of forms of capital that cannot directly generate surplus value, even if they play a role in circulating or maintaining the broader economic system. For instance, a field without farming equipment has potential value but cannot generate surplus labour or profit without the necessary tools or labour to cultivate it. Likewise, a painting displayed in a private collection may hold significant value, but it does not produce surplus value unless sold; even then, it functions more as a store of value rather than a source of profit through production. Luxury real estate used as a personal residence falls into the same category. While it might appreciate in value over time, it does not directly produce surplus value since it is not involved in the production process.
In essence, productive capital is directly engaged in the production of goods or services that create surplus value, while unproductive capital may represent or preserve value but does not generate new value through production.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@talbenavraham1478 Thank you for the background. You say that change in demographics has changed the UK for the worst . I entirely agree with you that things have got worse in the 58 years of my life. I wouldn’t however entirely lay the blame with demographic change. After all, the difficulties we face today are much more about inequality and systemic issues than demographic shifts. The real problems stem from massive socio-economic factors that have created a society marked by stagnant wages, rocketing house prices, and stark disparities in wealth distribution. Cuts to and underfunding of public services have left many communities struggling, while the privatisation of these services reduces investment in the areas that need it most.
Instead of addressing these systemic inequalities, society often resorts to scapegoating vulnerable groups, diverting attention from the fact that wealth continues to flow into the hands of the richest. We see a focus on issues like “stop the boats”, framing them as a problem, when in reality, the true enemies are those arriving in yachts – individuals who benefit from an oligarchical grip on our political parties and media, including Reform UK.
This dynamic creates a Kulturkrieg that acts as a disguise for the real class struggle. While the narrative may highlight cultural differences, it obscures the critical need to confront the economic disparities that are fundamentally shaping our lives. By recognising that the Kulturkrieg is a distraction, we can shift our focus back to the pressing issues of inequality and systemic injustice that require our urgent attention and collective action.
All the best to you.
RS
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegoodpimps The legacy of Tony Blair's relationship with Europe and its implications for the UK has been a subject of significant debate.
Firstly, while there was considerable speculation and some evidence that Tony Blair might have been interested in the role, there is no concrete, public statement from him confirming that he actively sought to become "President of Europe." Therefore, it is accurate to say that it was a widely discussed possibility rather than a confirmed fact. Secondly, although Tony Blair did make the UK more amenable to the European Project by actively engaging with the EU, adopting EU policies, and promoting the UK's role within the union, his approach was pragmatic, as he did not push for full integration (e.g., joining the Eurozone), balancing European engagement with national interests. Thirdly, the statement that Blair's policies and Brexit have "created a significant mess" is a subjective interpretation. It reflects the view that the pro-European policies of Blair contributed to the conditions leading to Brexit, and that Brexit itself has resulted in significant challenges for the UK. However, whether this constitutes a "mess" depends on one's perspective on both Blair's legacy and the impact of Brexit. This is a matter of political opinion rather than an objective fact. Finally, the possibility of the UK being "elevated to greatness" outside the EU, the Council of Europe, and the ECHR is contingent on various factors, including economic performance, diplomatic strategy, legal frameworks, and public perception. While some argue that independence could allow the UK to pursue a more distinct and potentially powerful role on the world stage, others caution that isolation from European institutions could lead to economic, legal, and diplomatic challenges that might hinder such aspirations.
Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the decisions made by future UK leaders and their ability to navigate these complex challenges.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymondwoods2304
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law !
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil ?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that !
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake !
Robert Bolt - A Man for All Seasons
For someone who believes leaving the ECHR is a step forward, the quote from Sir Thomas More serves as a warning about the risks of dismantling legal protections to achieve a short-term goal. More argues that laws are there to protect everyone, and if we start removing them to deal with specific challenges, like deporting asylum seekers, we could weaken the legal framework that keeps society safe and orderly.
Even though leaving the ECHR might seem like a solution for managing immigration, it sets a precedent for eroding legal protections that could affect everyone in the future, not just asylum seekers. More’s message is that upholding legal principles is essential, even when it's difficult, because abandoning them could lead to chaos and a loss of rights for all.
1
-
@raymondwoods2304 William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law !
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil ?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that !
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake !
Robert Bolt - A Man for All Seasons
For someone who believes leaving the ECHR is a step forward, the quote from Sir Thomas More serves as a warning about the risks of dismantling legal protections to achieve a short-term goal. More argues that laws are there to protect everyone, and if we start removing them to deal with specific challenges, like deporting asylum seekers, we could weaken the legal framework that keeps society safe and orderly.
Even though leaving the ECHR might seem like a solution for managing immigration, it sets a precedent for eroding legal protections that could affect everyone in the future, not just asylum seekers. More’s message is that upholding legal principles is essential, even when it's difficult, because abandoning them could lead to chaos and a loss of rights for all.
1
-
1
-
Isn't it ironic that the UKIPy people are saying the Conservative Party has changed when the party has been struggling for years to transform itself into a Nigel Farage party by appealing to a small reactionary section of the electorate? The very solid basis of the Conservative Party - the "blue rinse" ladies and the golf club gentlemen are no longer their core constituent. They now appeal to, on the one hand, millionaire donors that seek to seek to deregulate by pushing down standards, wages, and slashing workers’ rights, and on the other, appealing to right-wing electorate that are more nationalist, anti-immigration, and anti-EU.
In making this shift, it has alienated many of the party's traditional supporters, who valued stability, law, and order, and moderate economic policies. Instead of strengthening conservative values, this shift has often undermined them in favour of a deregulated, socially fragmented society. So, the critique from UKIP-like voices feels contradictory when the party has arguably embraced their core ideologies in practice.
1