Do you want to discuss boring politics? (156 Viewers)

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The Tories will be obsessed with Reform. Given the Tory base is very right wing there's little doubt what their direction of travel will be.
I suspect their collective hatred for 'Liberal lefties' might see them in some sort of pact at the next election. Or even Farage joining the Tories and becoming their leader. Nightmare scenario.

Farage would destroy the Tories like he has every other party with his ego. I genuinely don’t think he’d want to be anything but top dog. And half the PCP would leave the second he joined making Lib Dem’s official opposition. If reform had 10+ seats and the Tories were third it might have happened. I can’t see it now.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
The Tories will be obsessed with Reform. Given the Tory base is very right wing there's little doubt what their direction of travel will be.
I suspect their collective hatred for 'Liberal lefties' might see them in some sort of pact at the next election. Or even Farage joining the Tories and becoming their leader. Nightmare scenario.

I think you're right. They've also lost a few high profile one nation tories as well.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Isn't that what we all want to get back to?
And why the fuck would any one want to stay silent, I'd of thought we should be screaming about it.

We've got the change (that 20% of the electorate voted for) so let's insist that the new government take us to a world of mass employment, decent pensions, free education and affordable housing!

Let's just see what happens under Labor

It’s more those that had those things because they lived in a country that until recently had ran half the planet, shouldn’t be whining about the next generations finding ways to live better that don’t rely on having an economy bigger than China.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
My issue with it is it is basically an us and them approach. Many jobs it’s impossible and yet in the same company many have the luxury of planning their own diaries from home.
I never had you down as so socialist.

But inequality's the case with a lot of things though isn't it. Your nice new Mercedes company car to travel to meetings etc, whilst I have to pay for the pothole damage I get going to mine. Or one job I had early doors where I had to work rigidly 9-5 while people on a higher grade could do flexi-time. Three of us used to sit there for half an hour watching the traffic map turn red with hold ups, as we had literally no work to do but had to stay until five. I mean surely the more flexible approach would be to let you sod off and then come in earlier when some work actually turned up?!?
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
That's not how ot works Malc. That method of banking finished when Noah defaulted on his loan to build an Ark.

Banks operate under a system called "fractional reserve banking" They no longer need savers to deposit funds in order for them to operate. In fact most banks actually lose money, in the costs associated with handling the majority of their customers accounts, (ie the cost of staff wages. High street branches, security and technology etc etc)

Large banks can quite literally pull money out of thin air. It's a corrupt system and all banks are implicit in its misuse.
It's only when they get way too greedy that we have major global crashes, and even then hardly any bankers get prosecuted.
Obviously showing my age, growing up in an era of mutuals and building societies. Where does the money come from to pay the interest on my savings then?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Isn't that what we all want to get back to?
We do indeed. Which is why I support the causes, policies and parties more likely to make it happen. Right wing economics emphatically does not do that and we have at least a century of evidence to support it.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
My issue with it is it is basically an us and them approach. Many jobs it’s impossible and yet in the same company many have the luxury of planning their own diaries from home.
Couldn't you apply the same logic to other aspects of work? Some people are on their feet all day, some people are sat at a desk; some people commute to an office 5 minutes away, some people have to go from site to site hours away and so on and so on.

There's all sorts of working conditions that apply to some people and not others. Why is it this one that riles people up so much? Think it's just despite the data people have got it into their heads that people that WFH are sat around doing nothing.

Funny thing is in most of the places I worked pre-covid WFH was fine for upper / senior management. Only seemed to become an issue for people when the rest of us who had jobs that could be done from home got given the option.
 

fatso

Well-Known Member
Obviously showing my age, growing up in an era of mutuals and building societies. Where does the money come from to pay the interest on my savings then?
It's a bit complicated, but under fractional reserve banking, a bank can borrow 10 million pounds (for example) from another bank at a ridiculously low rate called the LIBOR rate (London inter bank operating rate although this has just changed to the SOFR , secured overnight financial rate)

The borrowing bank can then lend (or invest) that money up to 8 times its value (the fraction from fractional reserve banking) and charge everyone its lending to a far higher rate than it originally borrowed at.

So they borrow £10 million and on the strength of that, they can lend £80million
And then charge interest on the £80 million even though £70million never even existed.
(It's all to do with the calculated risk of defaulting)

You have to understand that banks don't deal with money, they deal with RISK

That's why it's often so hard to qualify for high loans and mortgages.

The real crazy fucked up thing is that the original £10million that was borrowed never actually existed, it was part of the £80 million pounds that the lending bank was allowed to carry on its books when IT originally borrowed £10million from someone else previously!!!

So in banking, there is a theoretical unending supply of money. Banks are only kept in check by inflation rates and interest rates, which, if they get out of hand leads to lenders defaulting and the banks RISK getting too high.
So for banks the question is, how greedy can we be without our RISK becoming too high

As for savers, well the banks don't give a shiny rats shit for savers, the banks offer that service at a loss, as they are legally obliged to do in order to be called banks, and then be allowed access to the inter bank lending rates, and be able to operate under the fractional reserve banking process.

That's very simplistic but I hope it helps.
 
Last edited:

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
It's a bit complicated, but under fractional reserve banking, a bank can borrow 10 million pounds (for example) from another bank at a ridiculously low rate called the LIBOR rate (London inter bank operating rate although this has just changed to the SOFR , secured overnight financial rate)

The borrowing bank can then lend (or invest) that money up to 8 times its value (the fraction from fractional reserve banking) and charge everyone its lending to a far higher rate than it originally borrowed at.

So they borrow £10 million and on the strength of that, they can lend £80million
And then charge interest on the £80 million even though £70million never even existed.
(It's all to do with the calculated risk of defaulting)

You have to understand that banks don't deal with money, they deal with RISK

That's why it's often so hard to qualify for high loans and mortgages.

The real crazy fucked up thing is that the original £10million that was borrowed never actually existed, it was part of the £80 million pounds that the lending bank was allowed to carry on its books when IT originally borrowed £10million from someone else previously!!!

So in banking, there is a theoretical unending supply of money. Banks are only kept in check by inflation rates and interest rates, which, if they get out of hand leads to lenders defaulting and the banks RISK getting too high.

That's very simplistic but I hope it helps.
Thanks for trying to explain.
So, my understanding of what you have said is,-

I am assuming that my savings are real money and that the interest I, and other savers, received does come from lending it. However, our savings aren’t enough to meet the lending requirements of those who need to borrow and so they are lent imaginary money. Is the interest the borrowers pay real or imaginary money? If it’s real, it sounds almost like imaginary money laundering.

And I thought bitcoin sounded bonkers🤪
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
It's been highlighted because the turn out was much lower this time than predicted.
It’s not just that, it’s that such a huge majority has been achieved whilst actually getting less votes than last time. A huge victory without persuading anyone that they are the most worthy recipient of their vote.

Despite having an awful Tory government for 14 years, Labour could not convince people to vote for them. Wasn’t Starmers majority halved?
 

fatso

Well-Known Member
Thanks for trying to explain.
So, my understanding of what you have said is,-

I am assuming that my savings are real money and that the interest I, and other savers, received does come from lending it. However, our savings aren’t enough to meet the lending requirements of those who need to borrow and so they are lent imaginary money. Is the interest the borrowers pay real or imaginary money? If it’s real, it sounds almost like imaginary money laundering.

And I thought bitcoin sounded bonkers🤪
Yea you've got it.

The only real money is the money that is earned through your hard labour. And that money depreciates through the effect of inflation, which is always higher that the banks interest rate, so the working classes are always required to keep working just to stand still.

The banks borrow imaginary money, and charge you real money in the form of interest! Which you then have to work in order to pay.

It's a piss poor system designed to reward the bankers, and keep the poor working.
And now, because we are living longer, they want us to work longer and have longer mortgages so we can pay more interest to them on the imaginary money that never even existed.

Get your head around that!
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Yea you've got it.

The only real money is the money that is earned through your hard labour. And that money depreciates through the effect of inflation, which is always higher that the banks interest rate, so the working classes are always required to keep working just to stand still.

The banks borrow imaginary money, and charge you real money in the form of interest! Which you then have to work in order to pay.

It's a piss poor system designed to reward the bankers, and keep the poor working.
And now, because we are living longer, they want us to work longer and have longer mortgages so we can pay more interest to them on the imaginary money that never even existed.

Get your head around that!
Thanks, this post makes it all make sense.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
It’s not just that, it’s that such a huge majority has been achieved whilst actually getting less votes than last time. A huge victory without persuading anyone that they are the most worthy recipient of their vote.

Despite having an awful Tory government for 14 years, Labour could not convince people to vote for them. Wasn’t Starmers majority halved?

But it's irrelevant.
Statmer won within in the boundaries of our electoral system.
If people would prefer PR, vote for the Libs as its one of their policies, (though they didn't do too badly out of FPTP this time round).

I say this as one of the disenfranchised who normally votes Labour and didn't bother but they won and that's that and they've got an opportunity to improve the country now so let's see how they get on.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
The thing is ,it doesn't matter now how many people voted for them just that they won. If they are seen to be doing a good job they will be fine and if not they are in trouble.

Exactly. I've got my opinions on how things will go, (and they're not very positive), but they've got 5 years to show they can do and I don't think even their most ardent critic expects miracles to happen straight away.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
It’s not just that, it’s that such a huge majority has been achieved whilst actually getting less votes than last time. A huge victory without persuading anyone that they are the most worthy recipient of their vote.

Despite having an awful Tory government for 14 years, Labour could not convince people to vote for them. Wasn’t Starmers majority halved?
And? That doesn't matter. In a FPTP system he did enough to win a big majority. All that matter now is if people perceive him to be a success or not and then they get to choose again in 5 years.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
But it's irrelevant.
Statmer won within in the boundaries of our electoral system.
If people would prefer PR, vote for the Libs as its one of their policies, (though they didn't do too badly out of FPTP this time round).

I say this as one of the disenfranchised who normally votes Labour and didn't bother but they won and that's that and they've got an opportunity to improve the country now so let's see how they get on.

Shouldn’t it be worrying for Labour supporters that,despite the Tories awful record in power for the past 14 years, their party was unable to win the hearts and minds of the electorate? I would be surprise if questions aren’t asked about that within the party once the 8nitial euphoria has evaporated,

It makes little practical difference now, but the lack of a systemic shift in the electorates affinity with the Labour Party does not bode well for the next election. Consequently it may limit the scope of change which could disaffect current Labour voters

TBH I’m going to leave this now, it is what it is and we know which party will be in government for the next 5 years, barring disaster. There’s nowt anybody can do about it.
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
It’s more those that had those things because they lived in a country that until recently had ran half the planet, shouldn’t be whining about the next generations finding ways to live better that don’t rely on having an economy bigger than China.
Are you taking about people in or approaching their 90s ?
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Shouldn’t it be worrying for Labour supporters that,despite the Tories awful record in power for the past 14 years, their party was unable to win the hearts and minds of the electorate?

It makes little practical difference now, but the lack of a systemic shift in the electorates affinity with the Labour Party does not bode well for the next election. Consequently it may limit the scope of change which could disaffect current Labour voters

TBH I’m going to leave this now, it is what it is and we know which party will be in government for the next 5 years, barring disaster. There’s nowt anybody can do about it.
No, because people may have differing opinions on the Labour party due to the performance over the next 5 years.

Your argument relies on most people not changing their opinions in the next 5 years. If Labour are seen to do well then they can easily win again against what is likely to be a fractured Tory party.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Shouldn’t it be worrying for Labour supporters that,despite the Tories awful record in power for the past 14 years, their party was unable to win the hearts and minds of the electorate?

It makes little practical difference now, but the lack of a systemic shift in the electorates affinity with the Labour Party does not bode well for the next election. Consequently it may limit the scope of change which could disaffect current Labour voters

TBH I’m going to leave this now, it is what it is and we know which party will be in government for the next 5 years, barring disaster. There’s nowt anybody can do about it.

All that's relevant is how they perform.
The tories have blown a big majority from 2019.
If Labour screw up they'll do the same. That's it really. They've got an opportunity not to screw up though so it's over to them.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
All that's relevant is how they perform.
The tories have blown a big majority from 2019.
If Labour screw up they'll do the same. That's it really. They've got an opportunity not to screw up though so it's over to them.
Exactly, that shows that the publics perception at one general election has very little to do with the outcome of the next.

If people think things are better for them when 2029 comes around then 2024 opinions matter very little.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
But it's irrelevant.
Statmer won within in the boundaries of our electoral system.
If people would prefer PR, vote for the Libs as its one of their policies, (though they didn't do too badly out of FPTP this time round).

I say this as one of the disenfranchised who normally votes Labour and didn't bother but they won and that's that and they've got an opportunity to improve the country now so let's see how they get on.
The compromise is you flip the HoL to PR, hold the elections two years after a parliamentary election, allow it to have delaying powers and suggest modifications to bills, but is unable to stop them ultimately.

Then all marginal (including the unsavoury) voices get heard, but people still get local representation (which is the benefit of our current system, it's easy to know who to contact to take up your cause).
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
The compromise is you flip the HoL to PR, hold the elections two years after a parliamentary election, allow it to have delaying powers and suggest modifications to bills, but is unable to stop them ultimately.

Then all marginal (including the unsavoury) voices get heard, but people still get local representation (which is the benefit of our current system, it's easy to know who to contact to take up your cause).

I think reform of the house of Lords will come.
Let's remember that a recent PM stuck his brother, a 30 year old suspected to be his daughter or half sister and the son of a KGB agent in there.
Not a great example of democracy!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top