Sir Tony Blair Wades In To The Fray

threespires said:
I know you're joking but I think we have a real issue that any attempt to discuss something that might genuinely assist in improving the lot of what we used to call the working and middle classes is painted as some sort of extremism.

I don't want to kill anyone, rich or otherwise :-) but I would like a public discussion on the potential for an incremental wealth tax on people worth more than £10million rising from 1% to 3% depending on their level of wealth. I'd like to discuss the potential benefits that could have alongside the risks and technical complexity of implementation. I'd like to discuss this for both economic and political reasons.

But instead people want to shut down the debate before it even gets started on the grounds of extremism or impracticality.

Meanwhile our former PM has in effect said it was a mistake for the current government to try and offer the most basic of living wages.

Which of us is the extremist?
Click to expand...
It is absolutely a debate that needs happening. It’s such a sad reflection on human nature that many people would prefer hoarding money they don’t need and will never spend to giving it to people who do need it.

Taxing the rich to the hilt is unfair, impractical and would most likely be counter productive. But 1% to 3% is a million miles from the hilt and could transform society.
 
Postman Pep said:
Like nobody knew any of that ...

Yet the hostility is almost universal ?

No wonder 'Centrism' is collapsing.
Click to expand...
Is Centrism collapsing, or is extremism, both left and right, increasing in direct correlation to the global economic crisis and the migration (economic and population) crisis?

When the only sense anyone seems to be able to make of anything is “It’s their fault!” does that not feed the beast that is radical extremism, to the detriment of the less radical centrists born of compromise and common sense?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It is absolutely a debate that needs happening. It’s such a sad reflection on human nature that many people would prefer hoarding money they don’t need and will never spend to giving it to people who do need it.

Taxing the rich to the hilt is unfair, impractical and would most likely be counter productive. But 1% to 3% is a million miles from the hilt and could transform society.
Click to expand...
Often, I think it’s not that the ultra-rich are against another penny or two in taxation, but rather it’s never a penny or two and they see THEIR money being wasted in far too many ways, so why add to that outcome?

Government bloat is real, as is the inflation in wages and benefits in the public sector, yet I struggle to find the person who feels like their interactions with the public sector have improved in any way whatsoever.

Are roads improving, government services, literally ANYTHING to do with the interface of government and the population that pays for it?

Like everything else in life, no-one minds paying for good quality…if they can find it!
 
BlueNomad said:
Often, I think it’s not that the ultra-rich are against another penny or two in taxation, but rather it’s never a penny or two and they see THEIR money being wasted in far too many ways, so why add to that outcome?

Government bloat is real, as is the inflation in wages and benefits in the public sector, yet I struggle to find the person who feels like their interactions with the public sector have improved in any way whatsoever.

Are roads improving, government services, literally ANYTHING to do with the interface of government and the population that pays for it?

Like everything else in life, no-one minds paying for good quality…if they can find it!
Click to expand...
Some valid points, although the wealthy moaning about the inefficiency of the state is nothing new.

And no, public services are not improving any more. But there are lots of people in the public sector trying their absolute best who should not be abandoned. A civilised society needs a strong public sector. If that means some inevitable waste then so be it. There’s plenty of waste in the private sector that none of that cohort seem to moan about. Large organisations can be wasteful - it’s inescapable.

So people should pony up.

One thing Blair was correct about, however, was the welfare bill where there will have to be some painful choices. The current trajectory is simply not sustainable.
 
Earlyriser said:
Thatcher' s policies appeared to be successful at the time but in the long run they have been disastrous. They pandered to a section of the media which is even more powerful today
Click to expand...
Like Blair it never really lasts, he inherited a growing economy, they spent and spent and things improved, no more boom and bust they said, then Iraq and a bust happened and it was all over.
It was a positive time briefly but that was all, we are discussing all the same problems. They weren't solved, I dont believe they ever will tbh.
 
Postman Pep said:
You referenced his "continuing appeal to the centre" not me.

What is that based on? Does the podcast with the war propagandist and the ex spook have a comment section?
Click to expand...
He knows who is popular to the centre although he doesnt now what the centre is :-)
 
west didsblue said:
Seems equally reviled by the left and the right so he must be doing something right!
On the other hand, any suggestion that we or anyone should support Trump should be treated with the opprobrium it deserves.
Click to expand...
So the left is bad
The right is bad
And those in middle are bad

:-)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The thing that’s gone largely unnoticed about this missive is his support for unregulated AI, like nothing could go wrong there…
Click to expand...

He’s defo in the pocket of big tech. If you want to see further dodgy dealings with the family name attached to it have a look at his son Ewan’s apprenticeship training company multiverse. Seen as a tech unicorn with the outside investments it gets and valued at £2.1 billion but never actually turned a profit. Ofsted has gone in recently and has been damming about its low completion rate of the apprenticeship programmes Multiverse delivers. The tax payer isn’t exactly getting value for money with the funding the company gets.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
He’s defo in the pocket of big tech. If you want to see further dodgy dealings with the family name attached to it have a look at his son Ewan’s apprenticeship training company multiverse. Seen as a tech unicorn with the outside investments it gets and valued at £2.1 billion but never actually turned a profit. Ofsted has gone in recently and has been damming about its low completion rate of the apprenticeship programmes Multiverse delivers. The tax payer isn’t exactly getting value for money with the funding the company gets.
Click to expand...
Yes like I said earlier he’s definitely been got at. Really sad what power and money does to people.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It is absolutely a debate that needs happening. It’s such a sad reflection on human nature that many people would prefer hoarding money they don’t need and will never spend to giving it to people who do need it.

Taxing the rich to the hilt is unfair, impractical and would most likely be counter productive. But 1% to 3% is a million miles from the hilt and could transform society.
Click to expand...
If it means Jim Davidson fucks off I’m all in.
 
threespires said:
I know you're joking but I think we have a real issue that any attempt to discuss something that might genuinely assist in improving the lot of what we used to call the working and middle classes is painted as some sort of extremism.

I don't want to kill anyone, rich or otherwise :-) but I would like a public discussion on the potential for an incremental wealth tax on people worth more than £10million rising from 1% to 3% depending on their level of wealth. I'd like to discuss the potential benefits that could have alongside the risks and technical complexity of implementation. I'd like to discuss this for both economic and political reasons.

But instead people want to shut down the debate before it even gets started on the grounds of extremism or impracticality.

Meanwhile our former PM has in effect said it was a mistake for the current government to try and offer the most basic of living wages.

Which of us is the extremist?
Click to expand...

There needs to be a way to keep prices down including rent and the cost of living rather than improve wages, improving wages will just mean that the rest of our stuff will go up in price because the people who set prices know people have more money.

I'd rather peoples rent was cut by a third than have an increase on an hourly rate.
 
Last edited:
expatblue said:
There needs to be a way to keep prices down including rent and the cost of living rather than improve wages, improving wages will just mean that the rest of our stuff will go up in price because the people who set prices know people have more money.

I'd rather peoples rent was cut by a third than have an increase on an hourly rate.
Click to expand...

Agree with that in principle albeit more complex to implement politically and economically. Blair wasn't offerimg anything meaningful either way other than some jam tomorrow based on some magical growth driven by a view of AI that is firmly rooted in a level of delusion he accuses everyone else of.

I've read his essay twice now and it is both morally and intellectually bankrupt. In places it's not a bad analysis of some of the problems the country and the government face (though he's too busy preening about his own success as a politician to recognise some of his own contribution to those problems). But then his 'radical' prescription is to essentially double down on the failed policies of the past.

Think he's basically a paid for gaslighter at this point and we already have more than enough of those thank you.

.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The thing that’s gone largely unnoticed about this missive is his support for unregulated AI, like nothing could go wrong there…
Click to expand...

To me the 'tell' on where he's really coming from is the whining he does about the EU regulation in this space. I've been through that legislation and anyone who thinks that is anything more than the absolute bare minimum we need is either a half-wit or has a significant vested interest. He's a lot of things but he's not a half-wit.
 
threespires said:
To me the 'tell' on where he's really coming from is the whining he does about the EU regulation in this space. I've been through that legislation and anyone who thinks that is anything more than the absolute bare minimum we need is either a half-wit or has a significant vested interest. He's a lot of things but he's not a half-wit.
Click to expand...
Regarding the bolded bit.


I'm sure to tonight's QT panel will get to the bottom of it ...
IMG_20260528_165256.jpg
 
Keir's plan for growth seems to be to develop a war economy, but the military spending for that can't be afforded either in a country failing to produce the goods and services its people are consuming.
Most of the profits on them are simply being sucked abroad with little reinvestment here and the foreign asset class isn't paying it's fair share of tax either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top