UK Prime Minister David Cameron mentions The Smiths 'ban' - ITV.com

Just f*** off and die Cameron and while you're at it take those twats Gove and Osborne with you.

 

[Rowntree]

I enjoy both the Smiths and capitalism.

See, I don't think we have capitalism. In capitalism the money made at the top is supposed to filter down to the bottom. What we have are people and companies at the top who hoard all the wealth and in so doing taking vast amounts of capital out of the system keeping those at the bottom very, very poor.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey Rowntree, I also have a Mrs that also sends me outside.
Tell me, would you say you are a Trostskyite?

I don't know what I am Peter!

I believe in minimum living standards that could easily be met if the world wasn't so full of greedy bastards but I have no problem with capitalism per se - it just needs to be measured with a level of socialism. That aside, I'm not too happy where we're heading environmentally.

- - - Updated - - -

Surely political parties move where the votes are. The electorate move, and the parties act accordingly. If the policies appeal enough the party wins.

Cameron isn't great, but you know something? I reckon he'd let you smoke inside.

I'd argue that in a democracy such as ours it's important that the political parties offer us a choice rather than just following the votes and in so doing removing any choice.

I don't want to smoke inside but I would like to have the choice!

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

How dare you! You can't do that.

- - - Updated - - -


Hi Johnny, I think you're right but I wonder if the role of political leaders is not to follow what they think the public wants but to lead them? I think they call it conviction politics.

This is true, but consensus politicians won the day over conviction politicians some years ago. I think we now have managed decline in the West. It is certainly a very long time since the West produced a real Statesman.

It's hard to imagine, for instance, Churchill being made PM in 1940 in circumstances where the media and social networks were as they are today. He'd be attacked viciously until he could not take the job. Churchill was a great man, but he wasn't always a good man, but we didn't need a good man in 1940. If we did we'd have stuck with Chamberlain und jetzt e Deutsch sprechen.

It's been claimed both Churchill and FDR had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbour and let it happen to get the US into the war. Imagine Infowars.com and the rest of the nuts if they had gotten hold of that, true or false.

Similarly, if Reddit was around on D-Day we'd still be in the harbours, while thread after thread asked if Hitler was really that bad a chap after all?

For good or bad we are stuck with a society where everyone is an expert on things of which they have little or no experience. Yes, I include myself. We all do it. Without it this forum would be awful. It would be TTY.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

See, I don't think we have capitalism. In capitalism the money made at the top is supposed to filter down to the bottom. What we have are people and companies at the top who hoard all the wealth and in so doing taking vast amounts of capital out of the system keeping those at the bottom very, very poor.

I believe in minimum living standards that could easily be met if the world wasn't so full of greedy bastards but I have no problem with capitalism per se - it just needs to be measured with a level of socialism. That aside, I'm not too happy where we're heading environmentally.

I'd argue that in a democracy such as ours it's important that the political parties offer us a choice rather than just following the votes and in so doing removing any choice.

I don't want to smoke inside but I would like to have the choice!

Interesting as usual, Rowntree.

We had choice, but that ended up with polarisation, and that did us little good either. Perhaps we old democracies take our freedoms for granted. Many friends I have from the most recent EU accession states are thrilled when their elections come around and are mystified by my cynicism for ours. "Yeah... Get back to me in a century and let me know how you're getting on.", I reply.

There will always be those at the bottom, and I don't really see how the CEOs of FTSE companies are keeping those people poor. If Google or Apple or any of the multinational corporations were nationalised tomorrow the one thing we can guarantee is their profits would still not trickle down. Not through greed, but simply because very quickly profits would slump. Private capital is essential to innovation. That's not to say I believe in it in all cases. Certain sectors, energy and water, and certain parts of our transport infrastructure, for example, are so important they should have never been sold off.

Put government in charge of pretty much anything and they'll f*** it up, again regardless of their ideology. By the way, I see even that dear old 20th century relic Socialism has an app now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/phone-app-venezuela-supermarket-supplies

Simon Bolivar didn't have toilet paper, so why would the Venezuelans need it? Bloody counter-revolutionaries, that's what they are.

It's fashionable to blame these corporations and banks for all our ills, but ultimately the fault lies with we, the public. We elect and re-elect politicians of all and any political stripe whom we employ to make our laws and to provide for the enactment and enforcement of such. The banking crisis was caused not by a lack of regulation. It was caused by the unwillingness or inability of our political classes to stand behind those regulations.

For their part the banks did what banks do. What did we expect? We know they're bastards. We can hardly complain when they behave like them. Perhaps we should think of them as the scorpion in that fable about the fox and the scorpion who asks for a lift across the river. When they do what is their nature, we need to look to those whose job it is to keep them in control, and that is the political class, and we, the people, to borrow a famous American phrase, put them there.


TL;DR - It's your fault Rowntree! (And mine.)

 

[Rowntree]

Interesting as usual, Rowntree.

We had choice, but that ended up with polarisation, and that did us little good either. Perhaps we old democracies take our freedoms for granted. Many friends I have from the most recent EU accession states are thrilled when their elections come around and are mystified by my cynicism for ours. "Yeah... Get back to me in a century and let me know how you're getting on.", I reply.

There will always be those at the bottom, and I don't really see how the CEOs of FTSE companies are keeping those people poor. If Google or Apple or any of the multinational corporations were nationalised tomorrow the one thing we can guarantee is their profits would still not trickle down. Not through greed, but simply because very quickly profits would slump. Private capital is essential to innovation. That's not to say I believe in it in all cases. Certain sectors, energy and water, and certain parts of our transport infrastructure, for example, are so important they should have never been sold off.

Put government in charge of pretty much anything and they'll f*** it up, again regardless of their ideology. By the way, I see even that dear old 20th century relic Socialism has an app now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/phone-app-venezuela-supermarket-supplies

Simon Bolivar didn't have toilet paper, so why would the Venezuelans need it? Bloody counter-revolutionaries, that's what they are.

It's fashionable to blame these corporations and banks for all our ills, but ultimately the fault lies with we, the public. We elect and re-elect politicians of all and any political stripe whom we employ to make our laws and to provide for the enactment and enforcement of such. The banking crisis was caused not by a lack of regulation. It was caused by the unwillingness or inability of our political classes to stand behind those regulations.

For their part the banks did what banks do. What did we expect? We know they're bastards. We can hardly complain when they behave like them. Perhaps we should think of them as the scorpion in that fable about the fox and the scorpion who asks for a lift across the river. When they do what is their nature, we need to look to those whose job it is to keep them in control, and that is the political class, and we, the people, to borrow a famous American phrase, put them there.


TL;DR - It's your fault Rowntree! (And mine.)

Johnny, money is printed and it's in the system, the multi rich then take a massive proportion of this money out of the system where it will stay in their accounts until God knows when. How can they not be a massive problem?

While we're looking at industries that should never have been privatised as it's common ground! Take Thames Water, they've apparently just squirreled away half a billion pounds in a tax haven. That's half a million pounds that for me they've over charged their customers - us Brits - and taken that money out of our economy.

Look at other companies - say Ebay, if you want to sell your stuff online this is the place where it's going to happen. In theory a great idea until you see the amount of money which is again taken out of the economy by their and Paypal's fees. Then you look at normal shopping, if we shopped in our local shops the economy would keep all the money circulated but instead we spend vast quantities in supermarkets and again we lose a great chunk of our money out of the economy. On the one hand you could argue that we've bought this upon ourselves by shopping at these places but we were left with little choice considering they've skewed the whole market with their bullying buying prowess.

I'd argue it's all only down to us in that we've never overthrown everything. It's not like we'd have improved anything at all just by voting 'cause our governments have all proved equally abysmal!

We've sleepwalked into a situation where we're getting financially bummed from all angles thanks to successive governments being in the hands of corporations. I was watching a bit of daytime telly yesterday while I was doing my figures and a couple of excellent points were made. The Turks who've been protesting have been put in a very positive light by our media yet when we have protesters protesting about the exact same problems they're branded as anarchists and trouble makers by the media and our politicised police force is sent in to sort them out. Why are other countries citizens righteous to ask questions yet if we do we're crushed by the state - an action supported by the media?

Don't delude yourself that it's all down to us Johnny, we're under control from all angles and our democracy is extremely thin.

Going back to my first sentence, I'm fine with companies producing massive amounts of money but if that is all just squirreled away then it might as well have not been made in the first place. Under capitalism the people in these companies should be earning greater amounts and then these people would spend the money and it would stay in the system. What we have are people being vastly underpaid in relation to the money they're making for their companies, the same people struggling by, not spending, all thanks to the greed of those at the top.

Viva la Revolution Johnny!

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Do rich people "take" the money, Rowntree, or do they - -and I am happy to use the term loosely - earn it?

Corporations tend to supply goods or services people want or need, so that the money is not taken, at least in the sense I think you imply. It isn't taken in the Ronnie Biggs sense. As I tap away on this iPad I don't think Apple "took" that money from me. I gave it. If I'd walked past the store I would still have it.

Similarly with eBay/Paypal, Amazon or Google. They happen to be the best at doing what they do. I've tried alternatives to Google quite recently, including a very attractive search engine which exhorts personal online privacy called DuckDuckGo. It's good. About a tenth as good as Google. It means people won't be able to find me online, at the expense of me not being able to find anything online either. Back to Google.

I've been watching Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, calling out these huge companies for their labyrinthine tax dodges, but she has yet to discover any illegality. I'm not entirely sure why the PAC is taking the lead in this when on the face of it I would have thought it would be better investigated by the Treasury Committee, but perhaps that tells us something in itself.

Perhaps the Treasury Committee knows that Hodge's calls for morality in tax affairs is, in fact, grandstanding. I haven't read the UK tax legislation but I'd bet my house the word "morality" does not appear.

If government fails to legislate in such a way companies can legitimately avoid tax whose fault is that? I return to the point I made in my previous post. Politicians and the public.

As for eBay and others and consumer choice, the people have spoken. I like that Michael Portillo railway show. The most recent series went through Europe and a companion book was published. It was £25 in Waterstones, and £12 on Amazon including postage. I bought it from Amazon. Of course, even if I had bought it from Waterstones that money would not have stayed in the local economy either. Waterstones are a huge company in themselves.

I agree it seems many corporations are not paying back into the system but if they are not breaking the laws, again, whose fault is that? Few, if any, nations legislate in any way for gradations of morality. The legislate against what is right and wrong in broad terms, murder, rape, kidnap, robbery and so on, but not outside the bounds of existing law.

I don't know if you saw the recent Senate hearings in Washington on this issue. They called the Apple CEO, whose name escapes me, and treated him like a small God. Supine doesn't come even close to describing it.

Again, politicians failing to do the job expected of them. When they actually get their act together something might happen, until then things will remain the same. One major step could be taken by putting the brakes on lobbying. That would be truly revolutionary, and a step we could probably agree upon.

The other revolution, that of a couple of thousand people in Istanbul, or several hundred in London, won't happen. Most people, while recognising that things aren't great, have not come close to being as dissatisfied as the middle class poshos of the Anarcho-Syndicalists, or the rape apologists of the SWP.

In Turkey, that apparent mass movement against a democratic government which achieved over 50% of the vote just last year, is in truth somewhere between a few hundred and the low thousands. I was watching a clip on LiveLeak from a protestors RC helicopter the other day, and was astonished jus how few people were there.

This infamous "1%" at the top of the tree so loathed by the Occupy movement and those similarly minded, will be safe from harm while at the bottom just an infinitesimal fraction of that number directly oppose them. That might change temporarily if we are stupid enough - and we are - to gat involved in Syria, but if you are expecting an overthrow of the system anytime soon I'm afraid that's sheer naivety.

 

[Rowntree]

I'm not expecting to overthrow anything Johnny, I'm stating a personal preference rather than a prediction. I'm fully aware that the UK masses are happy to blame immigrants and the poor for everything and any control they had over their own brains long since deserted them.

I think Cameron is waking up to the problems of billions disappearing into a black hole every year, the trouble is that instead of hammering this point home on a daily basis he'll still pander to the idiots on the right and attack those at the bottom. Laws need to be upheld across the Western World and if companies don't want to pay tax in our countries we have to be strong enough to let them go and let something else take their place. If a company like Thames Water wants to squirrel their billions away offshore then f*** them off. Why not introduce laws to protect the financial interests of the country?

Johnny, people don't give up their money by choice so you're correct that it's down to governments to take it off them. Don't kid yourself that it's the people's fault though, with ever diminishing value to our money we have no choice but to play the system the best we can to our own means.

Do rich people earn their money? If you point to the man who earned all his own money I'm happy for him to keep it. What's pretty much always the case is other people earn the money for rich people. While I have no problem with the boss earning more than the rest if your company is making profits of millions a year then I'd wager that boss isn't paying his staff their worth. This was my point on Capitalism Johnny. The theory is that the money earned at the top filters down, this isn't happening so if we're going to continue with this system then something has to change. You might think things are fine now but what about in another ten years? Another twenty when everyone is still struggling by?

Recessions tend to go as quickly as they come but this time could be different as there is no real hope for improvement, especially in southern European countries.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

While there is a ballot box things can change, but while we are as seemingly committed to the idea that the people make the choices - aka democracy - we can hardly complain when we find ourselves on the wrong side of that decision. The Canadian electorate destroyed their right wing party almost utterly not so long ago, so no party in safe. Nick Clegg might be finding that out sooner than he might wish.

I sense a note of derision in your use of the word "masses", but it is these masses who make the country tick over. Not agreeing with the left, or right for that matter, of the political spectrum doesn't make them idiots. These people aren't drones to be dismissed just because they don't follow a certain creed. One of the major problems on the left has been their perceived betrayal of the working classes in this country. Even Mandelson admitted it recently.

Personally I think it might be traced back to Essex Man's backing of Thatcher. I'm not sure many of the left have forgiven them even now, and it might explain Labour's open door immigration policy, as so neatly outlined by Andrew Nether. New immigrants tend to back the liberal left when they finally get the vote. Labour's policy was an attempt to the swing the elections of the 2020s and 2030s in their favour. It's hard to see how it helped the British working class.

I don't hold with this Owen Jones led "attack on the poor" narrative. (This is the guy who defended Mick Philpott after his children were killed, but before it dawned on Jones that it was probably Philpott himself. It seems even Labour are tiring of his lunacy, so that is at least one thing they are doing right).

I don't know anyone who begrudges state aid to those who need it. They begrudge those who don't need it. Sifting those two groups from each other is where the problem lies. There's little doubt innocent people are being caught up in the efforts to weed out what are essentially criminals.

As for self made men, I suppose it depends on where you draw the line. Is Bill Gates a self made man, or did he cease to be one when his company started employing ten people, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand? Many of these conglomerates now accused of tax avoidance or sundry underhand practices, such as eBay, Facebook, Google and Microsoft do tend to have been started by one or two geeks. In that sense those are self made men.

I agree this recession is different. I don't believe anyone really knows what to do to solve the problem.

 

[Reelaround]

I enjoy both the Smiths and capitalism.

I feel sorry for David Cameron. He 'inadvertently' left his young daughter inside a pub, then remembered she was there, left behind.

 

[Rowntree]

I agree this recession is different. I don't believe anyone really knows what to do to solve the problem.

I do Johnny. You claw the many of billions of pounds back that is sitting idle and will continue to do so. There's plenty of money in the World, it just isn't in the system. Of course, the people in power - e.g. those with the money - will never accept this and while people back this status quo it will never happen so the World will just have to spend the rest of time in recession or something close until the people decide that enough is enough. In the meantime we'll have to put up with the continued blame for our predicament on those who have nothing. Fraudulent claims amount to a miniscule amount compared to money which should be paid in tax but isn't but hey, who cares if the rich keep their money, they earned it after all so we might as well swallow the lie that fraudulent benefit claims and immigration are the cause of all of our ills. In fact, attacking the poor isn't enough and f*** clawing the money back, just give the rich a tax break eh Cameron, that's what we all need because the rich are more likely to spend money than the rest of us aren't they and has been proven by the unemployment levels before and after the tax break, the rich will sort the economy out by raising employment, NOT!

 

[Madcap]

Put government in charge of pretty much anything and they'll f*** it up, again regardless of their ideology.

Exactly...and therein lies where self-reliance is needed. Living in a capitalistic system you have to exploit it or be exploited. Learn how to invest in the system or be subject to what the system can afford to dole out to you. Morrissey can get rich patronizing the misfortunate. Morrissey invests in irony...the rest of us can invest in Apple.

 

[Rowntree]

Exactly...and therein lies where self-reliance is needed. Living in a capitalistic system you have to exploit it or be exploited. Learn how to invest in the system or be subject to what the system can afford to dole out to you. Morrissey can get rich patronizing the misfortunate. Morrissey invests in irony...the rest of us can invest in Apple.

Capitalism is a game of winners and losers and not everyone can win. So while I agree that self reliance is the only way to be sure for yourself it doesn't account for those that don't win.

Just been listening to some stuff on the G8 Summit, it seems Cameron is bang on the money for once, let's hope he makes some headway.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

I feel sorry for David Cameron. He 'inadvertently' left his young daughter inside a pub, then remembered she was there, left behind.

I left my briefcase on top of the car once.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Capitalism is a game of winners and losers and not everyone can win. So while I agree that self reliance is the only way to be sure for yourself it doesn't account for those that don't win.

Just been listening to some stuff on the G8 Summit, it seems Cameron is bang on the money for once, let's hope he makes some headway.

Life is about winners and losers. There will always be people at the top and people at the bottom. It has always been that way.

 

[Rowntree]

Life is about winners and losers. There will always be people at the top and people at the bottom. It has always been that way.

Of course there will Johnny, in the meantime what do you propose is done about the missing billions in the World's economy? Do you think it would be better clawed back and put to good use or do you think it's better served just sitting idle for decade upon decade in the bank accounts of the greedy?

I was watching something on telly yesterday and this nob who invented Moshi Monsters was talking about turning it into a billionaire business. What f***ing for? What's he going to do with the billions? f*** all good that's for certain. Another man who'd be put to better use if he was melted down for glue.

It appears that even Cameron understands the problem and he's in league with the big corporations.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Of course there will Johnny, in the meantime what do you propose is done about the missing billions in the World's economy? Do you think it would be better clawed back and put to good use or do you think it's better served just sitting idle for decade upon decade in the bank accounts of the greedy?

I was watching something on telly yesterday and this nob who invented Moshi Monsters was talking about turning it into a billionaire business. What f***ing for? What's he going to do with the billions? f*** all good that's for certain. Another man who'd be put to better use if he was melted down for glue.

It appears that even Cameron understands the problem and he's in league with the big corporations.

Please stand by while I find out what the hell Moshi Monsters are...

And... I'm back. Sorry about that.

So, Michael Acton Smith, for it is he, runs Mind Candy which due in no small part to Moshi Wotsit is valued at £200m. Apparently he started out in an attic with a £1000 he borrowed from his Mum. He seems to be a self made man, the type of person you spoke of some posts ago.

I can't but think Mind Candy is both literally and figuratively his business.

If he can turn a group of cartoon monsters into a billion quid he's definitely not a knob, as you so beautifully put it. He's a bloody miracle worker.

I assume he will be employing people to help him - in fact at the moment he employs 170, according to Wiki. Presumably he will need more. I cannot fathom what it has to do with anyone else, providing he pays his taxes both personally and at a corporate level.

I'd much rather he had his money than he is forced to hand it over for the benefit (...) of the Jeremy Kyle crackheads. f*** that.

What you are talking about is Communism. It's been tried. The people didn't like it. (This is the part you claim that wasn't really Communism.)

Let's take a singer, one at random... Ummm... Morrissey. Yeah, he'll do. Let's say he has an estimated net worth of £30m. Should we take his money too, or will there be a level at which he may keep the fruits of his labours? If he makes it to £50m, does he lose it all? A half? Two-thirds? Who will decide? You? Some sort of... Central Committee?

Will we return to Year Zero, and if so will you be joining the rest of us toiling in the fields, or will you be feet up in the back of the Zil?

 

[I Like You]

I enjoy both the Smiths and capitalism.

I enjoy both Kid Rock and communism.

 

[Rowntree]

Please stand by while I find out what the hell Moshi Monsters are...

And... I'm back. Sorry about that.

So, Michael Acton Smith, for it is he, runs Mind Candy which due in no small part to Moshi Wotsit is valued at £200m. Apparently he started out in an attic with a £1000 he borrowed from his Mum. He seems to be a self made man, the type of person you spoke of some posts ago.

I can't but think Mind Candy is both literally and figuratively his business.

If he can turn a group of cartoon monsters into a billion quid he's definitely not a knob, as you so beautifully put it. He's a bloody miracle worker.

I assume he will be employing people to help him - in fact at the moment he employs 170, according to Wiki. Presumably he will need more. I cannot fathom what it has to do with anyone else, providing he pays his taxes both personally and at a corporate level.

I'd much rather he had his money than he is forced to hand it over for the benefit (...) of the Jeremy Kyle crackheads. f*** that.

What you are talking about is Communism. It's been tried. The people didn't like it. (This is the part you claim that wasn't really Communism.)

Let's take a singer, one at random... Ummm... Morrissey. Yeah, he'll do. Let's say he has an estimated net worth of £30m. Should we take his money too, or will there be a level at which he may keep the fruits of his labours? If he makes it to £50m, does he lose it all? A half? Two-thirds? Who will decide? You? Some sort of... Central Committee?

Will we return to Year Zero, and if so will you be joining the rest of us toiling in the fields, or will you be feet up in the back of the Zil?

The world is financially up shit creek. What would you do about it apart from think that what we've got is working fine?

Try not to insinuate that I don't work, I work seven days a week.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

I insinuated no such thing. Perhaps part of this issue is borne out of your paranoia that those wicked rich people are out to get you.

On balance, I think your far more likely to get lumped on the back of the head by a poor person, but if you want to blame Roman Abramovich, or the bloke who invented Moshi Monsters, or... The Edge, be my guest.

You are right. Things aren't great at the moment. This is my... fourth, I think, recession.

I'm still here, Rowntree. I'm still here. And so are you.

 

[Rowntree]

I insinuated no such thing. Perhaps part of this issue is borne out of your paranoia that those wicked rich people are out to get you.

On balance, I think your far more likely to get lumped on the back of the head by a poor person, but if you want to blame Roman Abramovich, or the bloke who invented Moshi Monsters, or... The Edge, be my guest.

You are right. Things aren't great at the moment. This is my... fourth, I think, recession.

I'm still here, Rowntree. I'm still here. And so are you.

Johnny, I've no rich person paranoia, I'm just struggling to see why squirreling billions away in offshore accounts to avoid being taxed or basing your business in a tax haven while operating everywhere else is in any way beneficial.

You're actually far more likely to come to harm through poverty though than by someone clubbing you on the back of the head - well, not you and I, we're lucky enough to have been born where we are so, yes, we are alright and as long as we're alright that's all that matters right?

You said you were a capitalist, I was just stating that for capitalism to work then under capitalist theory the money has to filter down and at present it doesn't and that's why the system is on its arse - so if a the theory doesn't work and it's crashed and burned most reasonable people would look at ways to make it work. Not you though Johnny, you carry on championing the reasons that it doesn't work.