What will life be like under the Tories? (2010>)

[kenneal - lagger]

In that case it doesn't really matter what the government spends it's money on (social programs, warfare, public health service, transport, whatever). In *all* cases it's in the interest of the holders of the certificates of ownership (whether bonds or shares) to have bigger and bigger government.

In that sense it is indeed a scam.

It is a scam. Why should a government have to pay interest to a bank when it "borrows" money that a bank doesn't have? The bank creates the money it lends to government by writing it into existence in a ledger. Why can't the government just write the money into existence and then tax it away again?

The interest just goes into the hands of a few banking families and keeps the rest of us in slavery; wage slavery. It's not a lot different to old fashion slavery but it's a lot easier to administer and maintain as the slave doesn't usually realise that they are a slave. There is still a slave master, the employer, and a slave, the employee, but the slave master doesn't realise that he is usually a slave as well. As long as you owe money you are a slave to a banker somewhere.

It's all a huge Ponzi scheme that is about to break once governments realise that they can't keep chucking taxpayers money at it to keep it going. Actually it isn't tax payers money as it's all borrowed. they are chucking the bankers money at the problem to try and keep the bankers scam going.

[happychicken]

I'd like to see our 3rd political party given a chance, although sadly I doubt it will ever happen - they couldn't make more of a mess of this country than Crash Gordon and his bunch of twits who aren't socialists at all - they're neo-tories.

At least Nick Clegg's economic spokesman, Vince Cable is widely respected and the Lib Dems have always supported proportional representation.

I've never trusted tories and I detest tory values, even though I hate to admit some of my family and best friends are unfortunately life-long tory voters.

[DominicJ]

I detest tory values,

Any specific ones?

[happychicken]

I detest tory values,

Any specific ones?

Apologies, I should have been more clear about what I meant. I don't mean the official party line on things like taxation, family values, traditional values etc. What I really mean is the values that most tory voters I know have themselves - hedonism, materialism, and an "I'm alright Jack" mentality.

[RevdTess]

wage slavery. It's not a lot different to old fashion slavery but it's a lot easier to administer and maintain as the slave doesn't usually realise that they are a slave. There is still a slave master, the employer, and a slave, the employee, but the slave master doesn't realise that he is usually a slave as well. As long as you owe money you are a slave to a banker somewhere.

I agree. I think the only improvement over outright slavery is the fact that we're not slaves 24 hours a day and can choose to leave for another slave-master (though sometimes with very little choice). We're part-time slaves as it were. But the working hours are very much like slavery. Once most land becomes owned by a small number of people (or institutions), some system of work-coercion is pretty much inevitable as far as I can see, whether it's slavery, feudalism, or wageslavery. After that, if you're an owner, you want to see demand for land to rise as much as possible, to enable you to exploit more non-owners.

I think we could ease a lot of inequity by setting limits to land ownership in this country. We have concepts like inheritance tax already, to pull land back into the markets and prevent excessive accumulation of property by ever smaller groups of people.

I like modest land ownership by individuals because it gives them security and a stake in their landscape, locality and local community, so I'm not an out and out socialist. But I don't like landlordism - earning a living by imposing rents on the efforts of other people. And I certainly don't like institutional ownership of land for the benefit of shareholders, monarchy or government. I don't care how entrenched and traditional such things have become, they're still immoral in my view. Come the revolution etc...

[biffvernon]

The Tories would let folk kill foxes for fun again, demonstrating that they are still the Nasty Party under their thin greenwash.

[gug]

wage slavery. It's not a lot different to old fashion slavery but it's a lot easier to administer and maintain as the slave doesn't usually realise that they are a slave. There is still a slave master, the employer, and a slave, the employee, but the slave master doesn't realise that he is usually a slave as well. As long as you owe money you are a slave to a banker somewhere.

I agree. I think the only improvement over outright slavery is the fact that we're not slaves 24 hours a day and can choose to leave for another slave-master (though sometimes with very little choice). We're part-time slaves as it were. But the working hours are very much like slavery. Once most land becomes owned by a small number of people (or institutions), some system of work-coercion is pretty much inevitable as far as I can see, whether it's slavery, feudalism, or wageslavery. After that, if you're an owner, you want to see demand for land to rise as much as possible, to enable you to exploit more non-owners.

I think we could ease a lot of inequity by setting limits to land ownership in this country. We have concepts like inheritance tax already, to pull land back into the markets and prevent excessive accumulation of property by ever smaller groups of people.

I like modest land ownership by individuals because it gives them security and a stake in their landscape, locality and local community, so I'm not an out and out socialist. But I don't like landlordism - earning a living by imposing rents on the efforts of other people. And I certainly don't like institutional ownership of land for the benefit of shareholders, monarchy or government. I don't care how entrenched and traditional such things have become, they're still immoral in my view. Come the revolution etc...

You've no idea how much that pleases me.
I've said for years that it all went wrong with the enclosures act.
Whenever I say that, people look at me strangely LOL

[kenneal - lagger]

I detest tory values,

Any specific ones?

Apologies, I should have been more clear about what I meant. I don't mean the official party line on things like taxation, family values, traditional values etc. What I really mean is the values that most tory voters I know have themselves - hedonism, materialism, and an "I'm alright Jack" mentality.

How about the Tory values of self sufficiency, responsibility for one's actions and charity? The first two, at least, are very popular on this site. Hedonism usually comes a long way down on most Conservative's lists of faults, after all they are mostly conservative as well.

I suppose I am a bit hedonistic on occasions; when the sun comes out during the summer I can't see the point of clothes. It's a good job I live out in the country.

[kenneal - lagger]

The Tories would let folk kill foxes for fun again, demonstrating that they are still the Nasty Party under their thin greenwash.

I quite enjoy killing foxes although I do agree with the hunting with dogs ban. That is far to inefficient; much be better to give them all guns. I've had too many chickens killed by foxes to worry about killing a few of the b******ds.

At least Nick Clegg's economic spokesman, Vince Cable is widely respected and the Lib Dems have always supported proportional representation.

Whenever any one mentions the Lib Dems and government in the same sentence, Vince Cable is always mentioned as well. One man does not make a government so the Lib Dems have a fair way to go before they will get my vote. Proportional representation usually gives the small parties like the BNP a voice in government; just look at the say the monster raving loonies get in Israel.

[RevdTess]

Proportional representation usually gives the small parties like the BNP a voice in government; just look at the say the monster raving loonies get in Israel.

There's plenty of flexibility of approach to PR possible. For example, one could set a minimum % of votes that must be attained before any seats are won.

The same rules that prevent the BNP getting a voice also prevent the libdems and especially the greens gettings fair representation, and causes a feedback loop whereby people don't vote for them specifically because they can't win.

PR seems to work quite well for the european parliament, scottish parliament and welsh assembly. Surely it can work for the UK govt too?

[skeptik]

It is a scam. Why should a government have to pay interest to a bank when it "borrows" money that a bank doesn't have? The bank creates the money it lends to government by writing it into existence in a ledger. Why can't the government just write the money into existence and then tax it away again?

The interest just goes into the hands of a few banking families and keeps the rest of us in slavery; wage slavery.

The BoE was nationalised (taken into public ownership) in 1946. The entire capital value of the bank is held by the Treasury Solicitor, in the form of one share, on behalf of the Treasury. Accounts are presented to Parliament annually and any profit goes to the Treasury. 'A few banking families' have nothing to do with it.

I believe the same applies to the FED in the USA (although the 'ownership' structure - if it can be said to be owned by anybody - is more complex) . Any profit the FED makes is paid to the US Treasury.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalin ... qfrs.htm#5

[kenneal - lagger]

The government doesn't borrow money from the BOE they borrow on open market and sell bonds and guilts on which interest is paid.

[SILVERHARP2]

I think we could ease a lot of inequity by setting limits to land ownership in this country. We have concepts like inheritance tax already, to pull land back into the markets and prevent excessive accumulation of property by ever smaller groups of people.

I like modest land ownership by individuals because it gives them security and a stake in their landscape, locality and local community, so I'm not an out and out socialist. But I don't like landlordism - earning a living by imposing rents on the efforts of other people. And I certainly don't like institutional ownership of land for the benefit of shareholders, monarchy or government. I don't care how entrenched and traditional such things have become, they're still immoral in my view. Come the revolution etc...

Are you talking about agricultural land? , it would seem that farming is a small part of the UK economy so any cure to percieved unfairness would only effect a small % of the population?

Speculation and leverage seem to be at the heart of why middle class working people seem to be running faster to stand sill compared to their parents. I see some kind of rigged market where a "soft" cartel exists between bankers , central bankers and the government to play average citizens off against each other and thus ensuring a "trickle up" effect to those who know how to play the system.
Looking at the US it would appear that the average family of the 1950's had a much better quality of life compared to the generation today

[kenneal - lagger]

Speculation and leverage seem to be at the heart of why middle class working people seem to be running faster to stand sill compared to their parents. I see some kind of rigged market where a "soft" cartel exists between bankers , central bankers and the government to play average citizens off against each other and thus ensuring a "trickle up" effect to those who know how to play the system.

The government has been encouraging every one to take on more debt by not controlling house price inflation. Debt means slavery to bankers as you have to earn more each year to pay off the interest. In order to control wages, which usually increase along with house prices, Grasping Gordon has been turning a blind eye to immigration, legal and illegal, so ensuring a supply of minimum wage earners who keep the wage levels in check. The money trickles up through the interest payments to the banks and through increased government borrowing for all labours daft employment schemes. This is Labours "Dash for Growth".

Looking at the US it would appear that the average family of the 1950's had a much better quality of life compared to the generation today

There have been quite a few surveys in the UK which say that the best standard of life, not living, was in the fifties. Quality of life has been falling since. David Cameron has publicly acknowledges this and said the Tories wish to do something to address it.

[eatyourveg]

I detest tory values,

Any specific ones?

Apologies, I should have been more clear about what I meant. I don't mean the official party line on things like taxation, family values, traditional values etc. What I really mean is the values that most tory voters I know have themselves - hedonism, materialism, and an "I'm alright Jack" mentality.

Surely you are referring to 'Nulabour' here .