The Labour Government

philfodenswristsock said:
The system has quietly reverted to its origins, the new aristocracy, where, if you're lucky enough to get the leg up or be born into the right family, go to the right schools, mingle in the right circles, take unpaid internships while Dad covers your rent, work as a 'special adviser' to politicians then life is good. I've never found it 'nice' that the Dimblebys, Zoe Ball, Sophie Ellie Bextor, Dan Snow, Claudia Winkleman, Freya Ridings, Kate Beckensale, and on and on and on and on.... follow in their parents footsteps, it's corruption!
Click to expand...
I don't really have a huge problem with this, as long as they're not the only people getting the opportunities. Obviously people are always going to get opportunities because of who they know. You're never going to stop that. But the problem arises when you simultaneously close off avenues that got people from outside those opportunities too. There's been a widely-publicized collapse in working class kids becoming actors, for example. Part of that might be cuts to various art schemes, but a bigger issue is just the sheer cost of living these days, as well as the concentration of opportunities in London and the South East. It's become increasingly difficult for someone without the support of their parents to support themselves in any sort of entry-level position in the more unstable professions. I don't see the 'nepo-babies' as the villains. It's a wider systemic issue.

But yeah, the idea that these people are just there on merit is ridiculous. There's a reason that Hollywood is full of the sons and daughters of famous actors and the Premier League isn't full of the sons of famous footballers. And that's because while a famous name and financial stability might help you negotiate the youth football system, football is still merit-based, whereas acting is a largely subjective industry. Arnold Schwarzenegger's son would have no doubt had a much tougher time following his father's footsteps into bodybuilding rather than acting.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
I don't really have a huge problem with this, as long as they're not the only people getting the opportunities. Obviously people are always going to get opportunities because of who they know. You're never going to stop that. But the problem arises when you simultaneously close off avenues that got people from outside those opportunities too. There's been a widely-publicized collapse in working class kids becoming actors, for example. Part of that might be cuts to various art schemes, but a bigger issue is just the sheer cost of living these days, as well as the concentration of opportunities in London and the South East. It's become increasingly difficult for someone without the support of their parents to support themselves in any sort of entry-level position in the more unstable professions. I don't see the 'nepo-babies' as the villains. It's a wider systemic issue.

But yeah, the idea that these people are just there on merit is ridiculous. There's a reason that Hollywood is full of the sons and daughters of famous actors and the Premier League isn't full of the sons of famous footballers. And that's because while a famous name and financial stability might help you negotiate the youth football system, football is still merit-based, whereas acting is a largely subjective industry. Arnold Schwarzenegger's son would have no doubt had a much tougher time following his father's footsteps into bodybuilding rather than acting.
Click to expand...
Virtually everybody puts their own families above their own morals. If you can give your son or daughter a leg up in life then you are going to do it. When I was young, the working class job to have was working on the newspapers, they were paid astronomical sums for what they actually did. Could anyone get in on the gravy train? No, just friends and family of those already employed at the newspapers. i.e. Exactly the same nepotism as for the middle class.
 
M18CTID said:
It was October 2008. He got the date wrong but not the facts
Click to expand...
Brown and Darling did not save the global financial system.

The UK had to pump more public money into its banks, the highest proportion in the G7, because they were in a worse position than in comparable economies. That was due to a catastrophic failure of regulation which occurred on Brown and Darling’s watch.

They’re the facts of the matter.
 
Brewster's millions said:
Brown and Darling did not save the global financial system.

The UK had to pump more public money into its banks, the highest proportion in the G7, because they were in a worse position than in comparable economies. That was due to a catastrophic failure of regulation which occurred on Brown and Darling’s watch.

They’re the facts of the matter.
Click to expand...
Yet it's widely recognised that their actions widely contributed to it, But of course, you know better than the experts as per fucking usual
 
hammocity said:
You may not be convinced but it's a last resort measure to try and repair failing economies.
Click to expand...
I just think, the monetary committee should have their hands taken off the interest rates. Inflation I usually caused by a shock and historically sorts itself out fairly soon after. We are infatuated by it and it takes the eye off the ball of the real issues like employment and crushing inequality. The interest rate is way too high because they are obsessed by inflation. Great for the rich and their unearned income stream, not so great for us attempting to pay the bloody mortgage and service loans/overdrafts
 
M18CTID said:
Yet it's widely recognised that their actions widely contributed to it, But of course, you know better than the experts as per fucking usual
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on whether you want to give credit to people who allowed the UK banks to get into such a perilous position that £250bn of public money was required in just a single year to prevent a complete collapse of the UK financial system.

Also, different governments took different approaches to the issue - the US government for example made little to no direct investment of equity into its banking system, Germany relied largely upon loans. The direct intervention of the UK government via nationalisation was the largest of any G7 country. So the idea that the UK led the way and other major economies copied Brown and Darling’s approach doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
 
M18CTID said:
Yet it's widely recognised that their actions widely contributed to it, But of course, you know better than the experts as per fucking usual
Click to expand...
Heard this brought up in an interview with an ex-Conservative cabinet member the other day and he said that was the best thing that Brown did and saved the world from an unmitigated disaster.

Can’t remember who it was, but one of the old and bold, proper Conservative MPs.
 
hampshireblue said:
But you said:

"First of all, the Tories inhereted a country that was broke after Brown spent at the money bailing out the banks. We had a £150bn deficit, i.e. going further and futher into the red at the rate of £150bn per year, so SOMETHING had to be done."

So actually you support the actions of Brown and Darling?
Click to expand...
Yes of course. I wasn't blaming Brown for bailing out the banks, merely stating that having done so, the country was broke.

Strange that the Labour supporters on here cut the Tories no slack for similarly having to introduce a furlough scheme that cost hundreds of billions, with the ensuing financial consequences we are now having to deal with. But no, it's all the Tories' fault. It's a hypocritical and frankly piss poor argument.
 
Palerider said:
Virtually everybody puts their own families above their own morals. If you can give your son or daughter a leg up in life then you are going to do it. When I was young, the working class job to have was working on the newspapers, they were paid astronomical sums for what they actually did. Could anyone get in on the gravy train? No, just friends and family of those already employed at the newspapers. i.e. Exactly the same nepotism as for the middle class.
Click to expand...
Of course. There are plenty of things that 'everyone would do' but are not ideal. The job of politics is to create a fair system despite this and ideally give a leg up to the less fortunate in society. Unfortunately, we've created a generation of politicians who are more than happy to use their generous expenses to give paid jobs to their own family rather than actually advertising a position and picking someone on merit (to pick a single example).
 
Picking from a small pool ends up like cousin marriage. The one thing we can say about our country, society over the last 3 decades is, it's got worse. Now, that could just be purely chance... but MAYBE... if we selected our leaders, our thinkers, our representatives from a bigger pool and weren't quite so focused on them being on board with the hopes and desires of who ever it is has instigated this weird obsession in the west with identity politics, with the policy of countries that shouldn't at the front of our mind... maybe if they had lead our lives, struggled like us, seen our injustices, then MAYBE we might be in a better place. Our democracy is akin to sheep in a pen being lead through a tight corridor to the field as the farmer sticks injection up their arse! It's a controlled democracy.
 
BTW, changing the subject a bit, how long do guys think Starmer has left? I have a sneaking feeling (call it a long shot) that he's going to resign later this week. Depends on how the vote goes tomorrow. I think if he loses it, or wins only by the skin of his teeth, he may throw in the towel. Also depends on when the story about the superinjunction and the rent boys finally breaks ;-)
 
philfodenswristsock said:
I'm not convinced by the argument. We have data stretching back to the 1200s. Inflation rises and is usually followed by a fall.
Click to expand...

Or hyper inflation if you print too much money. I guess once there is a currency default, unemployment is rife, and everyone is eating mud as a loaf costs £1bn …them, eventually, inflation will fall.
 
Chippy_boy said:
BTW, changing the subject a bit, how long do guys think Starmer has left? I have a sneaking feeling (call it a long shot) that he's going to resign later this week. Depends on how the vote goes tomorrow. I think if he loses it, or wins only by the skin of his teeth, he may throw in the towel. Also depends on when the story about the superinjunction and the rent boys finally breaks ;-)
Click to expand...
Judging by the way Streeting has been leaning slightly Left recently..... somethings brewing!!!
 
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