Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
A council identifying with the landlord class and some half conscious contempt for the little people. And more than annoyed likely that they faced resistance (because of the strong community). They were well aware of the value and the profits that could be made if they could drive them away and build new.
Well that was not that easy. So it was a inconsistent policy of neglect, then some "renovation", but not a renovation for the residents but despite them.
And if they had tried to put the available budges to the best possible use (consulting the residents and considering their wishes) - that would have resulted in real improvement - and an incentive to STAY. So no chance to put the place to a more profitable use than to house those people.
the funds they had and that waited for investment were therefore used for "beautification", pet projects and not real improvement.
The facade was important - for the council, or managment - not the residents: Likely so that the investors for other projects would not be reminded by the old optics that some underclass people had been able to resist gentrification.
The residents did not ask for a prettier facade and insulation was not that important, the building is so compact that heating was not an issue.
On the other hand the requests of the plebs for other improvement were stubbornly ignored.
the budgets were allocated otherwise like for the facade - but then it had to be the cheapest cladding possible.
If saving was important - why not ditch the facade at all then ? - oh it was an eye sore for the surrounding wealthy people. (And maybe it was important to provide some contracts for buddies).
The old concrete facade WAS safe, and so were the metal frame windows, former fires had happened of course and always stayed within the apartments, where the fire brigade could handle them well.
The fridge burnt and then ignited the outside of the building and then the fire raced over the facade burst the windows and crept into all of the house.
But no money to improve electric safety, likely also the gas tubes were not encased as they should have been.
A renovation for show, done with a lot of contempt for the people for whom it supposedly was done and with a focus on saving and splurging on the wrong things.
This was about class. About power. And those who know best would not let themselves be influenced by the plebs.
8
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
In Austria paying 200 USD per month would mean you have a wage of 5,260 per month before taxes. Mandatory payroll tax 3,8 % for the employee and 3,8 % for the employer. There is a yearly cap for both parties at 2,200 USD each.
Of course that is not enough (even if a person pays max. *), so there has to be additional funding from the general tax revenue (= taxes of the rich and of profitable biz).
* Austria spends on average USD 5,400 - 5,500 per person, but that includes persons w/o income like minors or retired, or unemployed people, and many people do not have a salary of plus 5,000 USD per month.
all data regarding spending: 2017 Kaiser, they and also world bank give the numbers in USD
It should be noted that the U.K. has a more cost-efficient system - or at least spends less per person. A small part of it might be that the population is younger.
(I think the numbers for all countries incl.spending for care for the elderly).
Spending per person is only 4,300 in the U.K. in 2017
Services are likely better in Austria than in the U.K. (where the NHS has been systematically defunded for 10 years, the pretext for the Tories being austerity after the banksters crashed the economy. Finally ! they got their chance).
But you have to slap approx. 27 - 28 % on the U.K. spending-per-person to land at the Austrian spending level (which is pretty average, slightly on the higher side for any rich country).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
? Thatcher, Cameron, May were defeated by Europe ??? Nope they were defeated by politics against the people, when the economy is not doing well the populists rise, and the right wingers are the uglies. Cameron wanted to solve his Boris Johnson problem, the NHS bus would have been a non-issue had not the government imposed austerity to compensate for the losses of the banksters.
if Thatcher had been a no-nonsense politician that had been FOR the little people, she would have been hard to beat. She was wrong on the EU issues btw, UK got a very good deal by the EU, better than other countries. Of course if you deindustrialize, go for a low wage service sector economy and puhs high finance (speculation ! for the most part) a country as a whole will not do well. That is the difference: on the continent the countries KEPT quality manufacturing, that softened the neoliberal assault.
2
-
2
-
2
-
'Good thing the borrowing of the Tories was for tax cuts for the rich, the bailout for the banks, the effects of austerity. Even Cameron admitted at some point that austerity had not helped to keep debt stagnant. On the contrary - austerity harmed it and therefore harmed tax revenue. - Plus more military spending and not to forget the very generous subsidies for Hinkley Point never mind the idea to let the Chinese run a nuclear power plant in the U.K. -
the U.S. had much higher debt (as percentage of GDP) after WW2 and 90 % tax marginal tax rate for every dollar over 2,1 million USD ( in todays purchasing power). They got that tax rate in 1944 and the nominal 90 % were kept in the books although the rich had loopholes created for them. In a 1960 debate Nixon and JFK discuss an effective top marginal tax rate of 72 %.
Taxes were high in other rich countries as well, they stayed relatively high in the U.S. until Reagan came in. That was the next spending and debt spree, this time not in investment like after WW2 but for tax cuts (especially for the rich and biz), military spending,
Part of the money in the 1940s went to war loans for the U.K., weapons, food - not to forget the Marshall plan after the war (1947 I guess). The crazies in the U.S. continued to spend boldly, infrastructure, Marshall plan (export subsidies really), education, research. And they adhered to the advice of Keynes to reduce debt when the economy is good - they got it mainly from the high income earners and big biz (the only way to avoid that was to invest - but then someone else made good business and paid tax - one way or another what the government spent came back to them, the money kept circulating).
They considerably lowered the debt within 10 years, and managed the switch from a war to a consumer economy.
NOW
No bold ideas, and same old same old. How is that working out for the U.K. ? in the U.S. wages (real wages = adjusted for inflation) have remained stagnant (well they drown in private debt and work several jobs. Think of it: in 1940 the 40 hour workweek became the law in all of the U.S. - it was a good fit for the stage of the economy THEN.
But real wages have fallen in the U.K. - of course the economy is not working, there is not enough disposable income.
and INVESTMENT in water and sewage systems and railway is reasonable. Most wealthy countries were never so stupid to give that out of public hand. Of COURSE the consumers will be exploited if it is a natural monoply.
btw. the railway does get plenty of subsidies: for longtime investment and for routes that have less passengers but are run for the common good. profit does nothing to make services that are natural monopolies better. people MUST use them, so there is no marketing or sales etc. necessary and usually they are generic and uniform (think sewage system or bridges or water system - product differentiation would not make sense. So why let the profiteers extract profits.
In France a part of Paris was under private contract and the contract expired (2009 or 2011), the citizens pressured the mayor to take back water back into public control, they have had it with the profiteers. In Bordeaux the mayor and some managers of the water company went to prison. They call it the system Bordaux in France. They have large companies that are in the biz of water - but it turns out they all take advantage of the customers. (so now they prey on developing countries because the citzens in France and elsewhere called their bluff).
2
-
2
-
Corbyn IS old Labour (Brexit is a tricky affair, but that is on the Tories) - if Frank Field REALLY wants to fight poverty PM Corbyn is his best shot. - Labour does not have a rampant anti-semitism problem. Ridiculous ! Times of Israel recently cited a study (in an anti Corbyn article btw) 6 % of the UK population holds views that the survey classifies as anti-semitic, that has been stable over the years, less prejudice than against any other minority in the U.K. There are more anti-semitic views in the far right, all other groups have them equally.
Examples for alleged anti-semitism in Labour
Jackie Walker was suspended for mentioning that in her familiy there were Jewish slave traders (she is a black Jewish woman).
And expelled for a post recommending to pay more attention on Holocaust memorial day to the other genocides (that day IS for all atrocities, I think she felt the Holocaust dominated in practice). That post was not unreasonable, inflammatory or controversial. And I think it was adressed to a smaller audience, not even sure if it was within a facebook group.
Not like tweeting to a large following.
THAT gets you expelled for being a black, "anti-semitic" Jew (linving with a Jewish partner) - who also happens to be the co-founder of Momentum (with the other Jew - Landsman). Who happens to be outspoken about Palestine and Israel. Go figure.
Now there is an official complaint against Jeremy Corbyn because he called 2 jewish people who came to pro Palestine events (to disturb them and more than once) "Zionists that may be lacking in English self irony".
Oh the humanity ... another tempest in the teacup.
I do not think a HONEST MP would bring the party in disrepute by repeating the absurd allegations of anti-semitism. Helping a hostile media, the ENEMIES of the working class, the low income people. Helping the Tories.
Field was looking for a pretext to break away from Labour because of Brexit. And in retaliation for deselection. There is certainly a reason that happens, Corbyn used that VERY moderately - so far.
His stance seems to be: if he has to aide the Tories and do damage to the agenda of the working people (see Labour manifesto) so be it.
2
-
+Shalom Cave diving is an unusual sport to begin with. Diving is expensive, takes a time commitment, it is not like going for a run or lifting weights. - Hobbies with those characteristics (time and money consuming, leaning on the extreme or unusual , nerdy ) have a much higher male participation.
Of those who do dive most explore the beautiful warm ocean waters, or lakes (that can get muddy but is less dangerous and challenging than cave diving). And lakes are easier to come by than caves.
The British divers that took the lead in finding the way are experts in diving in caves, navigating narrow passages and muddy and cold water. A RARE skill set that differs from that of even the best trained military divers.
I think many of the caucasians were such expert amateurs - the pioneers, the Brits were for sure.
I guess the Thai authorities sent out a call for help for the exteme specialists, and any expats that were in the country and willing to help, and filled the lines with good military divers - Thai.
Thailand is not a wealthy country, so they have less "regular" amateur good divers, not sure if the upper class in Thailand is so willing to take a risk (if they tend to dive for a past time).
But it is a popular destination for expats. Costs of living are low, warm weather, beautiful country, if one likes watersports, ...
Like an Austrialian.
The doctor who was also an experienced cave diver (an unique combination) was flown in from Australia.
Beyond that it did not make sense to get people from foreign countries (unless they were very good cave divers).They had to start the search QUICKLY, install the guiding rope, the support stations for the explorers, the pumps. -
Growing experience in that dangerous environment helped, once they had their team set up, it did not make sense to introduce new people - just for the sake of making the crowd more diverse.
good for the Thai government to ask for international help quickly.
Participation according to gender, ethnicity, nationality - both in shouldering your share and being allowed in - matters in REGULAR situations and in life in general.
Not in a once in a lifetime rescue.
I also assume that in societies where there is a distinct class/wealth hierarchy (so that only the upper class can afford to dive) there will be less amateur volunteers - the higher ups may be less willing to risk their precious life.
And the commoners are lucky if they can afford essentials. Then there may be cultural differences if diving as hobby is a thing, and last but not least the media coverage in the early stage when they were "hiring".
The Indian army does have divers but they will not be sent unless the Thai army asks for them.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Americans don't like universal health care ? ? UK per capita costs USD 3,900, US + USD 9,000 (the most expensive), wealthy European country 5,000 - 5,500 (and for that money a country definitely can have a good and well working system). The UK system is obviously underfunded (the only wealthy country to have lower costs is Japan , which is impressive, in Europe the next nations have around 4,500 and upwards, so the NHS is quite competitive cost-wise). This are the data for 2014, source World Bank.
P.S. I know your comment was of 10 months ago, it is more relevant than ever. (in the U.S and UK)
1
-
1
-
July 2018 Fairy godmother to Corporate Dems: Chose between 2 scenarios They can win the midterms in a landslide (so they can do damage control on Trump), in 2020 they win the presidency and get a supermajority in the Houses. Then they can SHAPE policies. Undo the damage caused by Trump. They can save the country, partially even the world (Global Warming)
Getting reelected is EASY, campaigning is mostly pleasant, grassroots efforts. Their jobs, the salaries and benefits as representatives are secure. Oh - and they MUST switch to publicly funded campaigns, and small individual donations no SuperPac Money.
MONEY OUT OF POLITICS: Important. Also restrictions on the Revolving door. It gets much harder to cash in on pro Big Biz votes after they leave office. (Other Western "democracies" still have corruption and the politicians working for Big Biz because of THAT). So they must be content with the pay they are getting. And work for their constituency - not Big Donors.
****************************
OR 2) They can KEEP the MONEY in POLITICS. They continue to get Big Donations for party leadership and individual campaigns. And the whole lucrative circus for ex-politicians continues (incl. them becoming part of the election game, in media, as strategists or consultants)
There are higher risks involved, one can lose a seat - therefore it is important to have served the party leadership + the Big Donors loyally. Then they will provide cushy jobs and lucrative contracts for ex politicians.
****************************
The Corporate Dems can chose only ONE scenario (with all pro and cons of the package)
What would the Dems choose ?
Well, scenario 2 - MONEY - OF COURSE.
P.S: Scenario 1) is realistic (even the super majority).
If they would rally behind a Sanders platform in a BELIEVABLE MANNER they could win convincingly and with increasing numbers.
1
-
1
-
Mann * (another opponent of Corbyn and of Jewish descent) and Louise Ellman are repeating the word anti-semitism over and over and over. - well they might be overdoing it. 0,5 % of the UK population are of Jewish descent, the citizens KNOW that they were taken in friendly during WW2 and fared well in the country. And continue to do well. Crying wolf over things that were SAID (and are not remarkable, not for a common sense person) might backfire - also considering the problems the country faces.
The people that have to deal with an underfunded NHS, zero hour contracts, business owners worried about Brexit, students with debt (and in unpaid internships) - might have little sympathy for the manufactured outrage.
* speech in parliament delivered with pathos and skill - but imprecise and trying to imply Corbyn and momentum in a deceptive manner.
Only one example:
an alleged threat of an Islamist - and WHAT has that to do with Momentum - which he obviously despises and wished to make look bad. That is odd - if he has the interests of the party and winning elections at his hearth - even if they disagree on some of the policies - he should recognize their contribution in elections and activating the base.
But if he would rather lose to the Tories than win with Corbyn, if the interests of Israel, the lobby are more important than getting a government that cares for the downtrodden in the U.K. - than it makes sense.
And there are other powerful interests (finance, tax dodging multinationals, fracking, war mongers, MI6 and MI5 hiding reckless erratic behavior behind secrecy, weapons exporters) whose interests align with the that of Blairites and the Israeli lobby.
1