Off Topic The Politics Thread

It depends on what affects you I suppose doesn't it?

Low unemployment wouldn't make me feel better or cope better if I was reliant on foodbanks and couldn't afford to keep my family warm in winter and I'm not sure i would be particularly interested in inflation if I was disabled and told by IDS to get off my arse and get a job because a privately owned company, paid on commission per case they get off DLA decided there was not much wrong with me.

Interest rates probably would float my boat either if i had nothing to save and no home of my own.

I personally measure the success or failure of any Government based upon the impact to the well being of my fellow human beings above pretty much anything else and things certainly aint getting better for them under this shower and are most certainly getting worse.

 

Really good point. There's something very wrong about this discrepancy and it extends the gap between the richest and the poorest hugely which cannot be healthy. It's not a UK problem, it's worldwide. Here, there seems to be a new aristocracy being created...(and the irony is, sitting near the top will be ex-Labour prime minister and multi- property owner, Tony Blair and his fragrant wife, Marie-Antoinette...sorry, did I say Marie-Antoinette? I meant Cherie-Antoinette)

 

Does it really matter if the rich get richer than the poor at a faster rate as long as the poor's standard of living is on the rise?

Not saying I necessarily feel this way, but it's a point worth making.

 

Fair point, and I'm all for aspiration. It depends what the mega rich do with their money. If they carry out philanthropic works like Bill Gates, I wouldn't argue with it. If they use tax havens to pass all the wealth to their progeny, so they never have to work, it's not healthy. There is some merit to the words of the C19th Scottish-American Industrialist and philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie, who said: "A man who dies rich, dies disgraced."

 

how much is that

 

From a quick look at Wiki, the average gross income in the UK in 2012 was £26.500. (It's gone up since then)

So 60% was £15,900 gross income

Presumably, therefore, if you had gross income beneath £15,900, the government considered (I say considered because I understand the definition of poverty is being changed by Cameron's government) you were in poverty.

If anyone has any more authoritative numbers, be interested to see

 

Bravo Greece!
The brilliant decision to hold a referendum on the terms of their debt repayment could shake things up a lot. Ordinary people in Greece are suffering as a result of corrupt and incompetent international bankers, idiots in the EU who thought a country that has already defaulted on its debts 5 times and been kicked out of another currency union would prosper in the Eurozone and the digusting cheating of their own rich who have avoided paying tax at all combined with governments who let them get away with it. They have implemented 'austerity' to a degree that Osborne can only dream about, including cutting pensions by over 50%. So they elect an anti austerity government, which won't cut pensions any more. These people, elected on a very clear platform, are being attacked by unelected creeps and international bankers for refusing to put debt repayment before people.

We will see how petty the financiers are this week. They can continue their attack on the defenceless by refusing to support the Greek banks on Monday, bringing instant collapse. Or they can grant a stay of execution until the referendum on Sunday week, and help a controlled and managed probable exit from the Euro. The creditors will get none of their money back, Greece will suffer yet more, everybody loses because we put money ahead of humanity. But I'd like to see Merkel etc balance a clear, democratically expressed wish from the Greek people with what that dessicated bitch who runs the IMF demands as a return for her 'generosity'.

In a truly bizarre twist it seems John Redwood is making very much the same point, which makes me very nervous.

 

TOP POST.

Couldn't agree more SB.....................people first, over and above absolutely everything else.

 

But debts have to be paid. What's the solution?

 

Paid to whom exactly?

 

Just in general. Not just Greece but various countries have spent well beyond their means down the years. Early retirement, short working weeks, poor tax collection all on the never never. Someone must have been paying for it. The World Bank, IMF?

 

The IMF's mantra is to promote international financial stability and monetary co-operation. It also seeks to facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world....................................

..............unless you default of course, in which case it will asset strip your country and place all of these assest into the hands of private stakeholders and plunge your people into abject poverty!!

 

And where do their funds come from exactly?

 

I will give you a little clue Watford.................

There are 188 member countries in the IMF.

These countries make a contribution to the fund based upon their standing in the world economy.

The UK is a member, as is Greece.

The UK chips in, off the top of my head probably around 10 billion quid.

The money paid into the IMF comes from taxation within those member countries.

The taxes are paid by that countries people.

So, in actual fact.......................it's their own ****ing money!!!!!

 

The IMF is funded by virtually all countries to some extent, based mostly on their GDPs i.e. the biggest, richest countries pay the most.
The WB seems to be a bit more complicated than that and is almost self-funding from what I can make out.

None of which explains to me why other countries should bail out the mistakes of Greece (or Portugal, Spain etc.). Seems like every house on the street doing their bit to pay for the bloke who can't pay his mortgage after a lifetime of gambling and working a 30 hour week.

 

Which would be grand if Greece was only taking back its own contributions.

 

There are only two things banks excel at creating and they are:

1. Profit
2. Poverty

 

Fine, but what's the alternative? Most people (and most countries, businesses etc.) can use banks sensibly.

 

Co-operatives?