The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
...... stupid yokels ....Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
If you want a predominantly rural Britain you've got to go back to before 1850....
uninformed metropolitans.....
If you're suggesting that Charles's vision is nearly 200 years out of date, I wouldn't disagree. No wonder pb's Tories think it's cutting edge.
If the Conservatives really want to face the challenges of the future they need to be far more radical. A Conservative party, recognising the essential parochialism of Brexit Britain, might look much more meaningfully at piecemeal devolution. Offering far greater autonomy, including fiscal autonomy, to Scotland, Wales, London and perhaps other metropolitan areas, with tailored local policies to go with those far greater powers, might get them a renewed hearing that at present they just aren't getting in those areas.
Mogg, Gove, Boris and Davis, what a group. Not really thinking any woukd be up to it, who woukd be the least bad? Gove is smart, I think, but divisive, Mogg is a decent man even though his views socially are very old fashioned, Boris is unpredictable for better and worse and I get no read on Davis at all.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
So, your prescription for the future is for us to place our trust in the goodwill and enlightened self-interest of the privileged elite. History teaches us that may not be the best plan.
You missed my reply to your earlier post. That's only part of the story - but an important part - @DavidL identified the corporate part of it.
Fundamentally people need to think about what is good for society not just their selfish interests
Would JRM even be candidate? He has himself commented on the implausibility of a backbencher becoming PM. Whatever anyone might say about JRM, I would personally believe what he says.
He won't, this is just HY (representing the typical ConHome Conservative) p*ssing in the wind again. They look across at Labour activists 'enjoying themselves' under Corbyn and want a piece of the same.
Never has there been a front-runner less likely to become leader than JRM, for reasons already well aired. Even his fellow MPs can see that he is unsuitable. A lay remains a remarkable betting opportunity.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
So, your prescription for the future is for us to place our trust in the goodwill and enlightened self-interest of the privileged elite. History teaches us that may not be the best plan.
You missed my reply to your earlier post. That's only part of the story - but an important part - @DavidL identified the corporate part of it.
Fundamentally people need to think about what is good for society not just their selfish interests
Reconciling that last sentence with the Tories' traditional stance (at least post-1979) - and in the voters' eyes, not just their own - looks like quite a challenge.
Mogg, Gove, Boris and Davis, what a group. Not really thinking any woukd be up to it, who woukd be the least bad? Gove is smart, I think, but divisive, Mogg is a decent man even though his views socially are very old fashioned, Boris is unpredictable for better and worse and I get no read on Davis at all.
Mogg is more likely the next Tory opposition leader in my view, it will be one of the other 3 who will probably succeed May as PM
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
A thoughtful post, with echoes of what used to be called one-nation Toryism. The problem with business is wider however - it is that oligopoly is replacing capitalism, that big corporations have too much power and are able to act globally 'above' and out of reach of government (actually one of the arguments for the EU), and that top management is effectively almost unrestrained; I don't see much evidence of excessive shareholder power?
For the Conservatives the problem is that the growing list of things that are clearly 'wrong' generates a political desire for solutions, action and intervention - hence the growing Corbynism amongst the young; they aren't too worried (yet) about whether his solutions will work, they just want someone who appears willing to step up to the plate. May sees this, intellectually, but she lacks the character, and now the power, and quite probably the imagination, to do anything about it. And of course much of her party sees itself as the champion of lassez faire.
Corporatism (rather than oligopoly per se) is a real problem as are unrestrained managers. A focus on shareholders isn't so much shareholder power as the philosophy that the only thing that matters is net income (which incidentally benefits management with EPS targets)
Fundamentally One Nation Toryism is about taking on vested interests and standing up for the little guy. In today's world property regulation/Nimbyism is a big part of the problem
Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
I'm just astounded that 10% of people in Venezuela think life is better.
I had no idea that many Venezuelans were members of the ruling party.
Be fair - it may that soldiers were present when they were polled, so had to be generous.
Being more serious, my understanding is Chavez's spending did aid lots of people, if in a way which was unsustainable and has led to the dire problems they now face, so presumably some, albeit not many if that figure is right, think even today's disaster is better than what they had.
Millenials are set to receive the biggest inheritances of any post war generation, with inheritances more than doubling over the next 30 years and peaking in 2035 says the Resolution Foundation. However they will have to wait until 61 on average to receive them in full
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
So, your prescription for the future is for us to place our trust in the goodwill and enlightened self-interest of the privileged elite. History teaches us that may not be the best plan.
You missed my reply to your earlier post. That's only part of the story - but an important part - @DavidL identified the corporate part of it.
Fundamentally people need to think about what is good for society not just their selfish interests
I agree - but history shows that relying on the privileged elite to see beyond themselves is not necessarily going to reap many dividends.
The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.
As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.
Not at all, it is the EU which is inward-looking and protectionist, in leaving we can now look to broaden our horizons with the ever growing rest of the world.
We won't. That's a delusion Cutting ourselves from our neighbors doesn't bring us closer to everyone else. Somewhat the opposite in fact. The US Commerce Department asked US businesses what they wanted from a potential post Brexit deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. We're interesting as long as we are integrated.
So the Americans asked didn’t understand that if we are in the EU CU we can’t make independent trade deals with anyone?
No. They have almost zero interest in a separate trade deal with us. They are however interested in protecting their investments in the UK that depend on the free movement of goods and possibly people across Europe. We should be concerned about those investments too as they underpin a lot of jobs and wealth in the UK.
Ah, so large American multinational companies are in favour of the EU ‘freedoms’ that result in their British sales being taxed in Ireland or Luxembourg. Makes perfect sense.
Would JRM even be candidate? He has himself commented on the implausibility of a backbencher becoming PM. Whatever anyone might say about JRM, I would personally believe what he says.
It is not impossible he has enough MP backing to make the final 2 sent to the membership if former Leadsom backers move en masse to him but unlikely
Mogg, Gove, Boris and Davis, what a group. Not really thinking any woukd be up to it, who woukd be the least bad? Gove is smart, I think, but divisive, Mogg is a decent man even though his views socially are very old fashioned, Boris is unpredictable for better and worse and I get no read on Davis at all.
Mogg is more likely the next Tory opposition leader in my view, it will be one of the other 3 who will probably succeed May as PM
There's a happy New Year vision indeed. First we get to be led by Gove or Boris, then by Corbyn, and thereafter any hope for the future would rest upon Mogg. Despair and weep.
Well that was a boring draw on a boring pitch. The only consolation is that it means we avoided the whitewash.
The result highlights England's lack of a world class spinner tbh.
I think the batting is actually OK now though
World class ?
One who could just spin the ball might well have made a difference. Moeen bowled 13 overs out of 120 odd in the second innings (and a similar proportion in the first). For our sole spinner on such a slow pitch, that is an absolute joke.
Apparently Rashid and Root ‘don’t get on’. For me, the jury is still out on Crane. Essex championship was in no small part due to the efforts of the Saffir, Harmer, who was, by some distance the best spinner in English cricket last season.
I thought we'd seen an end to the 'not getting on' nonsense after Pietersen. It is one of the primary roles of any captain to manage a team of the best players, whatever their personalities, and make sure that they do get on. Otherwise they shouldn't be captain. Cook never seems to be able to do this, either.
As for Crane, the selectors don't seem to have any confidence in him either - otherwise he'd have played in this test.
It was to be fair, Pietersen who didn’t get on with anyone else. AIUI he was unpopular in the dressing rooms, and not just the England one. Agree about captaincy; that’s why Brearley was so good. Although as an Essex member Im duty bound to support Cook and further back Gooch, I don’t think making your best player Captain is any sort of guarantee of success. Indeed, making him Captain might actually detract him from concentrating on his game.
Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
Really interesting. The Vietnamese response is impressive (I suspect that China, not polled, would produce something similar), and the lack of nostalgia in Russia is striking. The gloom in France and Italy is not obviously justified - did things seem significantly better in either in 1967?
Would JRM even be candidate? He has himself commented on the implausibility of a backbencher becoming PM. Whatever anyone might say about JRM, I would personally believe what he says.
It is not impossible he has enough MP backing to make the final 2 sent to the membership if former Leadsom backers move en masse to him but unlikely
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
London is richer on average than the rest of the country and with the most facilities and public services available so has less need of a strong community than say a village in Yorkshire. London also compares itself more with New York and Paris than the rest of the country
The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.
As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.
Not at all, it is the EU which is inward-looking and protectionist, in leaving we can now look to broaden our horizons with the ever growing rest of the world.
We won't. That's a delusion Cutting ourselves from our neighbors doesn't bring us closer to everyone else. Somewhat the opposite in fact. The US Commerce Department asked US businesses what they wanted from a potential post Brexit deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. We're interesting as long as we are integrated.
So the Americans asked didn’t understand that if we are in the EU CU we can’t make independent trade deals with anyone?
No. They have almost zero interest in a separate trade deal with us. They are however interested in protecting their investments in the UK that depend on the free movement of goods and possibly people across Europe. We should be concerned about those investments too as they underpin a lot of jobs and wealth in the UK.
Ah, so large American multinational companies are in favour of the EU ‘freedoms’ that result in their British sales being taxed in Ireland or Luxembourg. Makes perfect sense.
That's the other side of the openness coin, yes. It means there's trade to tax, if that's any consolation.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Excellent comment. Companies like Apple, Amazon and Google have become leaches on the society that feeds them. They are the unacceptable face of capitalism for our times and their business model should not be tolerated. It is a challenge for a medium sized country to take on the power they represent but it is certainly a part of the challenge our government faces going forward.
More broadly but connected the challenge is to ensure that the fruits of society are shared more equally, that all of us have the life chances to make the most of our skills and productive lives. It is not easy in the face of international competition and advancing technology which threatens so many of us with redundancy but it should be the aspiration of government.
It will not be this government that does it for sure. Need a clear out of political elite in this county before there is ever any chance of it happening.
Would JRM even be candidate? He has himself commented on the implausibility of a backbencher becoming PM. Whatever anyone might say about JRM, I would personally believe what he says.
It is not impossible he has enough MP backing to make the final 2 sent to the membership if former Leadsom backers move en masse to him but unlikely
"Yes but no but...."
No.
Even if he is not the likely next Tory PM, Rees-Mogg is still the likely next Tory Leader of the Opposition
Mogg, Gove, Boris and Davis, what a group. Not really thinking any woukd be up to it, who woukd be the least bad? Gove is smart, I think, but divisive, Mogg is a decent man even though his views socially are very old fashioned, Boris is unpredictable for better and worse and I get no read on Davis at all.
Mogg is more likely the next Tory opposition leader in my view, it will be one of the other 3 who will probably succeed May as PM
There's a happy New Year vision indeed. First we get to be led by Gove or Boris, then by Corbyn, and thereafter any hope for the future would rest upon Mogg. Despair and weep.
After which Labour might finally choose to replace Corbyn with a leader who can win a working majority
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Has this ever existed? Certain examples of it have, with the Rowntree and Cadbury model villages etc., but I don't think it's ever been universal.
Can we bring back proper draught Guinness, served from 9 and 18-gallon barrels (self-gassed) and not this shytey 'Cool' stuff that is gassed like larger! And can wine be drunk buy gurlies* only when within the boundaries of a pub.
Ta'
* Gurlies can be a gender-fluid concept within this context.
The craft beer revolution has made Guinness about as relevant to modern life as Betamax,the spinning Jenny and being in the EU.
Most 'craft-beer' is owned-and-produced by Heinekin. DevilsBackbone is not quite what I drank three years ago.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Excellent comment. Companies like Apple, Amazon and Google have become leaches on the society that feeds them. They are the unacceptable face of capitalism for our times and their business model should not be tolerated. It is a challenge for a medium sized country to take on the power they represent but it is certainly a part of the challenge our government faces going forward.
More broadly but connected the challenge is to ensure that the fruits of society are shared more equally, that all of us have the life chances to make the most of our skills and productive lives. It is not easy in the face of international competition and advancing technology which threatens so many of us with redundancy but it should be the aspiration of government.
It will not be this government that does it for sure. Need a clear out of political elite in this county before there is ever any chance of it happening.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
So, your prescription for the future is for us to place our trust in the goodwill and enlightened self-interest of the privileged elite. History teaches us that may not be the best plan.
You missed my reply to your earlier post. That's only part of the story - but an important part - @DavidL identified the corporate part of it.
Fundamentally people need to think about what is good for society not just their selfish interests
Reconciling that last sentence with the Tories' traditional stance (at least post-1979) - and in the voters' eyes, not just their own - looks like quite a challenge.
Free market capitalism is the best mechanism the world has yet discovered for wealth generation.
But, to quote St Paul, the love of money is the root of all evil
Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
Really interesting. The Vietnamese response is impressive (I suspect that China, not polled, would produce something similar), and the lack of nostalgia in Russia is striking. The gloom in France and Italy is not obviously justified - did things seem significantly better in either in 1967?
When I was in China recently we didn't get to chat to too many people, but there was an overwhelming sense that things were hugely better than they used to be for people, so the flaws of the government got a pass, which makes sense.
On Italy and France, perhaps as people don't really compare with how things were, but how they think they were, and also as they are slanted by perceiving lesser prospects for themselves, which makes them harsher on today's actual quality.
History is not a path toward inevitable improvement, as has been oft noted, but show me someone who thinks globally things are bad now in historical terms and I'll show you someone who knows nothing of history.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
A thoughtful post, with echoes of what used to be called one-nation Toryism. The problem with business is wider however - it is that oligopoly is replacing capitalism, that big corporations have too much power and are able to act globally 'above' and out of reach of government (actually one of the arguments for the EU), and that stakeholders (particularly top management) are effectively almost unrestrained; I don't see much evidence of excessive shareholder power?
Sound thinking.
I think Charles was thinking of social stakeholders (local communities and so on) rather than top management! But the pressures on management only to be as social as regulation and commercial interest requires is huge in our globalised world. Paternalist management as advocated by Charles was common in Switzerland before they opened the capital markets - the families owning the big pharma companies were content to get 3% ROI while the companies behaved decently to staff - but the big foreign investors said wtf, we want 6-8% returns, and social responsibility has been squeezed in recent years. Companies who didn't respond lost out in seeking investment.
Despite my domestic Corbynism, I think the main problem of the modern world is not in Britain at all, but the rampant and largely untaxed and barely regulated multinationals. I don't see them as evil, merely a natural response to a largely unregulated global scene. If the G7 paid serious attention to getting a grip on them, the dividends for countries seeking effective control over their fates (whether left or right in vision) would be significant.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
I was born in London and have lived here continuously since I was 20...
A community is not about gossip or hierarchy. It's about having a regard for the people around you.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Excellent comment. Companies like Apple, Amazon and Google have become leaches on the society that feeds them. They are the unacceptable face of capitalism for our times and their business model should not be tolerated. It is a challenge for a medium sized country to take on the power they represent but it is certainly a part of the challenge our government faces going forward.
More broadly but connected the challenge is to ensure that the fruits of society are shared more equally, that all of us have the life chances to make the most of our skills and productive lives. It is not easy in the face of international competition and advancing technology which threatens so many of us with redundancy but it should be the aspiration of government.
It will not be this government that does it for sure. Need a clear out of political elite in this county before there is ever any chance of it happening.
Seems optimistic. It's not who makes up the elite it's what reaching the elite seems to do to people, so a clear out probably wouldn't lead to much change.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
So, your prescription for the future is for us to place our trust in the goodwill and enlightened self-interest of the privileged elite. History teaches us that may not be the best plan.
You missed my reply to your earlier post. That's only part of the story - but an important part - @DavidL identified the corporate part of it.
Fundamentally people need to think about what is good for society not just their selfish interests
I agree - but history shows that relying on the privileged elite to see beyond themselves is not necessarily going to reap many dividends.
Certainly not judging by Mr. Meeks contribution before yours. There is much wrong with Brexit but the nasty antipathy displayed to many millions of voters is pretty depressing. May has made many errors but her current course is not a bad one.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
So, your prescription for the future is for us to place our trust in the goodwill and enlightened self-interest of the privileged elite. History teaches us that may not be the best plan.
You missed my reply to your earlier post. That's only part of the story - but an important part - @DavidL identified the corporate part of it.
Fundamentally people need to think about what is good for society not just their selfish interests
I agree - but history shows that relying on the privileged elite to see beyond themselves is not necessarily going to reap many dividends.
Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
Really interesting. The Vietnamese response is impressive (I suspect that China, not polled, would produce something similar), and the lack of nostalgia in Russia is striking. The gloom in France and Italy is not obviously justified - did things seem significantly better in either in 1967?
Fifty years ago would take us to the height of the Vietnam War. It's not hard to imagine most Vietnamese on both sides of the line feel life is an improvement on that, even allowing for economic growth and political change!
1967 in France de Gaulle was still in power and France was still a significant player in world affairs. Maybe they've just grown cynical since?
Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
Really interesting. The Vietnamese response is impressive (I suspect that China, not polled, would produce something similar), and the lack of nostalgia in Russia is striking. The gloom in France and Italy is not obviously justified - did things seem significantly better in either in 1967?
When I was in China recently we didn't get to chat to too many people, but there was an overwhelming sense that things were hugely better than they used to be for people, so the flaws of the government got a pass, which makes sense.
On Italy and France, perhaps as people don't really compare with how things were, but how they think they were, and also as they are slanted by perceiving lesser prospects for themselves, which makes them harsher on today's actual quality.
History is not a path toward inevitable improvement, as has been oft noted, but show me someone who thinks globally things are bad now in historical terms and I'll show you someone who knows nothing of history.
The big worry in China - if the chats I’ve had are anything to go by - is that younger generations do not actually realise how far the country has come so quickly, and that this will have an impact on things like work ethic and the demands made on government. Prosperity is China’s biggest challenge.
Michael Theurer, deputy leader of the parliamentary FDP, has said that Angela Merkel should resign, and that if Jens Spahn replaces her then that would work fine for the FDP. That sounds like a public offer of a coalition.
I have increased my investment in Spahn, buying at 150. The average price I bought him at is over 400. He is still available at 50 if anybody wants some.
Merkel is available to lay at the ridiculously short price of 1.07.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
London is one big cesspit of greed, tax evasion , money laundering and "F*** you Jack I am alright".
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Has this ever existed? Certain examples of it have, with the Rowntree and Cadbury model villages etc., but I don't think it's ever been universal.
A good, thoughtful header I think. I'd add that the problem the Conservatives face is not that they don't have a vision of Britain post Brexit - but that they have two, and they're contradictory and incompatible. The first, mentioned in the article is the Powellite, UKIP one where we pull up our drawbridge first, stop the immigrants, cut international ties, restore our indigenous pride from some mythical perfect time and confidently bestride the world. Most Tory MPs, even many Brexiteers know this is completely nonsensical, but know the leave vote was in part driven by these sentiments and so feel they have to kowtow to the rhetoric at least, even as it alienates more liberal voters and toxifies the debate around Brexit.
The second vision, which could actually work in theory, sees Brexit as a way to finish the Thatcherite revolution and be more open. These Brexiteers acknowledge the reality that you have to go out into the world and pool sovereignty by doing deals, but didn't like that this was done through the EU as it blocked the type of radical deregulation and deal making they wanted to implement. It's people who were in favour of the single market but baulked when they realised that it sidelined their project - because inevitably rules agreed across all member states had to be satisfactory compromises. Plus, for people like Liam Fox, who dreams of turning up on gun boats to do trade deals, negotiating as a bloc was an emasculation - even if it made Britain's hand far stronger. The problem with this vision is that it's already pretty unpopular in the abstract, and is liable to be even more so when you get to the nitty gritty of trade deals. India and China (and likely other developing markets) are likely to demand more visas as a precondition of a trade deal - which won't go down well with those who were sold Brexit as a means to block immigration. Any U.S. trade deal will have to be ratified by Congress, where a fair number of Senators and Members of the House are controlled by industry interests, either because their state is reliant on them or through donations and lobbying. Those interests will demand access to our markets - which will go down like a bucket of cold sick as it's prime tabloid scare story fodder. Without those three mega-markets or Japan (which, you'll note has just done a deal with the EU), there just aren't the buccaneering deals out there to make it worth losing unfettered access to our biggest market.
It would also include lighter tax and regulation, especially of the city to attract business, but good luck selling that in a country where standards of living have been falling for a decade.
The problem is, they're trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, with the additional complication that some sort of deal has to be done with the EU. You can fudge it, and perhaps come up with something that keeps things ticking over, but you can't set out a compelling vision either way.
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
If you think income tax is "freely given" then stop paying it and see what happens.
Ha. I was at a discussion at uni once, and the lecturer seemed pretty annoyed when in answer to the generic question, 'why do we pay taxes?' I replied 'if we don't we go to prison'. It was the first thing that came to mind!
Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
Really interesting. The Vietnamese response is impressive (I suspect that China, not polled, would produce something similar), and the lack of nostalgia in Russia is striking. The gloom in France and Italy is not obviously justified - did things seem significantly better in either in 1967?
When I was in China recently we didn't get to chat to too many people, but there was an overwhelming sense that things were hugely better than they used to be for people, so the flaws of the government got a pass, which makes sense.
On Italy and France, perhaps as people don't really compare with how things were, but how they think they were, and also as they are slanted by perceiving lesser prospects for themselves, which makes them harsher on today's actual quality.
History is not a path toward inevitable improvement, as has been oft noted, but show me someone who thinks globally things are bad now in historical terms and I'll show you someone who knows nothing of history.
The big worry in China - if the chats I’ve had are anything to go by - is that younger generations do not actually realise how far the country has come so quickly, and that this will have an impact on things like work ethic and the demands made on government. Prosperity is China’s biggest challenge.
I'm sure the government will remind them things used to be worse. Hard to do really given the party itself has to be seen as always right. The next few generations should be interesting.
Very interesting article be Mr Herdson. But I'm not sure I get it. I don't think a respectable country need necessarily give any great attention to its self-image. We all have a mental concept of Britain, and elements of it that we like or dislike. We should not encourage politicians to presume to claim that they understand it or wish to guide it. The last British politician to obsess about national self-image was Tony Blair. He believed that in calling things by American names, we would become a modern country. Let us seek to steer out politicians away from such meddling. They should be made aware that they do not understand enough to interfere, and that we know that.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
A thoughtful post, with echoes of what used to be called one-nation Toryism. The problem with business is wider however - it is that oligopoly is replacing capitalism, that big corporations have too much power and are able to act globally 'above' and out of reach of government (actually one of the arguments for the EU), and that stakeholders (particularly top management) are effectively almost unrestrained; I don't see much evidence of excessive shareholder power?
Sound thinking.
I think Charles was thinking of social stakeholders (local communities and so on) rather than top management! But the pressures on management only to be as social as regulation and commercial interest requires is huge in our globalised world. Paternalist management as advocated by Charles was common in Switzerland before they opened the capital markets - the families owning the big pharma companies were content to get 3% ROI while the companies behaved decently to staff - but the big foreign investors said wtf, we want 6-8% returns, and social responsibility has been squeezed in recent years. Companies who didn't respond lost out in seeking investment.
Despite my domestic Corbynism, I think the main problem of the modern world is not in Britain at all, but the rampant and largely untaxed and barely regulated multinationals. I don't see them as evil, merely a natural response to a largely unregulated global scene. If the G7 paid serious attention to getting a grip on them, the dividends for countries seeking effective control over their fates (whether left or right in vision) would be significant.
It really needs collective action from the G20 rather than the G7 on multinationals as that is where most economic power now lies and all the latter are in the former anyway
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
London is one big cesspit of greed, tax evasion , money laundering and "F*** you Jack I am alright".
Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
Really interesting. The Vietnamese response is impressive (I suspect that China, not polled, would produce something similar), and the lack of nostalgia in Russia is striking. The gloom in France and Italy is not obviously justified - did things seem significantly better in either in 1967?
Fifty years ago would take us to the height of the Vietnam War. It's not hard to imagine most Vietnamese on both sides of the line feel life is an improvement on that, even allowing for economic growth and political change!
1967 in France de Gaulle was still in power and France was still a significant player in world affairs. Maybe they've just grown cynical since?
For much, and in some cases most, of the population this is a survey of guesses - since they weren't there. I would say there are a lot of rose-tinted-spectacles here.
I wonder how many of the 31% of the "life is worse in the UK" people have lived without central heating and an inside loo. Approx Half of the UK population were not alive at the first date in the survey.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Excellent comment. Companies like Apple, Amazon and Google have become leaches on the society that feeds them. They are the unacceptable face of capitalism for our times and their business model should not be tolerated. It is a challenge for a medium sized country to take on the power they represent but it is certainly a part of the challenge our government faces going forward.
More broadly but connected the challenge is to ensure that the fruits of society are shared more equally, that all of us have the life chances to make the most of our skills and productive lives. It is not easy in the face of international competition and advancing technology which threatens so many of us with redundancy but it should be the aspiration of government.
It will not be this government that does it for sure. Need a clear out of political elite in this county before there is ever any chance of it happening.
What’s the problem in Ayrshire?
Tories mainly, bunch of shysters, closely followed by their partners labour who are deluded shysters , Liberals are just lower than a snakes belly and SNP are the best of a bad bunch but very far from great though they do at least consider things from a Scottish viewpoint. Greens are just muppets.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
London is one big cesspit of greed, tax evasion , money laundering and "F*** you Jack I am alright".
No - not really. The south especially remains quite village like with lots of ordinary folk living ordinary lives. Meeks lives in a different altogether more privileged place.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
So, your prescription for the future is for us to place our trust in the goodwill and enlightened self-interest of the privileged elite. History teaches us that may not be the best plan.
You missed my reply to your earlier post. That's only part of the story - but an important part - @DavidL identified the corporate part of it.
Fundamentally people need to think about what is good for society not just their selfish interests
I agree - but history shows that relying on the privileged elite to see beyond themselves is not necessarily going to reap many dividends.
Certainly not judging by Mr. Meeks contribution before yours. There is much wrong with Brexit but the nasty antipathy displayed to many millions of voters is pretty depressing. May has made many errors but her current course is not a bad one.
It seems to me to be pretty obvious why the rich (Londoners or otherwise) should subsidise the poor. That way, they get to enjoy their wealth, undisturbed, in a civilised and safe country.
If we tell poorer people to drop dead, then eventually we'll have a revolution.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
London is one big cesspit of greed, tax evasion , money laundering and "F*** you Jack I am alright".
No - not really. The south especially remains quite village like with lots of ordinary folk living ordinary lives. Meeks lives in a different altogether more privileged place.
Some bits are counted as more 'real' London than others, as I recall, usually based, shockingly, on how they voted in the referendum.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
London is one big cesspit of greed, tax evasion , money laundering and "F*** you Jack I am alright".
And of course no turnips.
Ydoethur, it is full of non organic turnips, concentrated in the Houses of Parliament.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
London is one big cesspit of greed, tax evasion , money laundering and "F*** you Jack I am alright".
No - not really. The south especially remains quite village like with lots of ordinary folk living ordinary lives. Meeks lives in a different altogether more privileged place.
The south is not London though, but more and more of it being drawn in by the cesspit.
Since the Adonis story broke I've seen something like 3-4 different headline summaries on the BBC about it - has he made further revelations, or are they just cycling out new wording for the headline over and over?
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
I was born in London and have lived here continuously since I was 20...
A community is not about gossip or hierarchy. It's about having a regard for the people around you.
Well said. London is big but it is not bigger than the rest of the country. Promulgating a culture war with words like 'yokels' is rank idiocy. As a Lincolnshire boy who has lived in London since 1978 I have a foot in both camps. Personally I have never found that non-Londoners hate those from the capital, as has been suggested by some.
Since the Adonis story broke I've seen something like 3-4 different headline summaries on the BBC about it - has he made further revelations, or are they just cycling out new wording for the headline over and over?
He isn't even 'trending' on Twitter any more....well deserved obscurity has reclaimed him....
Good post, @MJW. The second vision is just as unrealistic as the first. Disintegration doesn't open doors to us that were closed because of the EU, but it does close doors that were previously open.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
s whole is the same.
Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
No.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work thaty can.
I was born in London and have lived here continuously since I was 20...
A community is not about gossip or hierarchy. It's about having a regard for the people around you.
Well said. London is big but it is not bigger than the rest of the country. Promulgating a culture war with words like 'yokels' is rank idiocy. As a Lincolnshire boy who has lived in London since 1978 I have a foot in both camps. Personally I have never found that non-Londoners hate those from the capital, as has been suggested by some.
As a Londoner who has lived out of London for many years my experience is very different. Resentment and dislike of the capital in other parts of the UK seems to be quite widespread.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greateon Without
Communities don't work thaty can.
I was born in London and have lived here continuously since I was 20...
A community is not about gossip or hierarchy. It's about having a regard for the people around you.
Well said. London is big but it is not bigger than the rest of the country. Promulgating a culture war with words like 'yokels' is rank idiocy. As a Lincolnshire boy who has lived in London since 1978 I have a foot in both camps. Personally I have never found that non-Londoners hate those from the capital, as has been suggested by some.
As a Londoner who has lived out of London for many years my experience is very different. Resentment and dislike of the capital in other parts of the UK seems to be quite widespread.
I think there's a fair amount of dislike, certainly, though I think hate is too strong a word for it. It's rich and dominant, and for visitors very expensive and crowded, so a certain level of resentment doesn't seen that shocking, but even as one who does not particularly like it, I'm not one who is in the camp of trying to diminish the capital on the assumption that will automatically improve things elsewhere.
But some few will enjoy hating the metropolitan elite, and some revel in such a title, as we have clearly seen, and want to hate stupid yokels.
The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
A thoughtful post, with echoes of what used to be called one-nation Toryism. The problem with business is wider however - it is that oligopoly is replacing capitalism, that big corporations have too much power and are able to act globally 'above' and out of reach of government (actually one of the arguments for the EU), and that stakeholders (particularly top management) are effectively almost unrestrained; I don't see much evidence of excessive shareholder power?
Sound thinking.
I think Charles was thinking of social stakeholders (local communities and so on) rather than top management! But the pressures on management only to be as social as regulation and commercial interest requires is huge in our globalised world. Paternalist management as advocated by Charles was common in Switzerland before they opened the capital markets - the families owning the big pharma companies were content to get 3% ROI while the companies behaved decently to staff - but the big foreign investors said wtf, we want 6-8% returns, and social responsibility has been squeezed in recent years. Companies who didn't respond lost out in seeking investment.
Despite my domestic Corbynism, I think the main problem of the modern world is not in Britain at all, but the rampant and largely untaxed and barely regulated multinationals. I don't see them as evil, merely a natural response to a largely unregulated global scene. If the G7 paid serious attention to getting a grip on them, the dividends for countries seeking effective control over their fates (whether left or right in vision) would be significant.
Agreed. When Britain retakes it’s seat at the WTO this would be a great issue to champion. There are too many very large multinational companies that don’t appear to be paying much tax anywhere, but any serious action needs to be in a global scale if it’s to be effective.
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
If you think income tax is "freely given" then stop paying it and see what happens.
The state is not society. Our obligations to each other run deeper than that
But it's the state that decides how much you're going to give and takes it from you with the threat of violence.
You are missing the point. Sure we pay taxes and some functions are provided centrally. But that doesn't absolve us of our obligations to each other.
The state is a convenience: society is what matters and they are not the same.
The obligation to provide falls, I believe, in the following order:
- self, - family, - community, - and finally, the state
Only where there is a genuine incapacity should provision be sought from the next level... and where there is a surplus of means, it should be used to provide at the level above...
The tax and benefit system incorporates self, family (to a limited extent) and the state. It is the diminution of family and the almost exclusion of community that sit behind many of society’s problems.
It would be a bit embarassing to have Jared O'Mara turning up to the Palace to be invested with a knighthood, only to witness him drunk and belching.
Maybe he will follow the example of the Home Secretary in Yes Minister: 'I gather he was as drunk as a lord, so after a discreet interval they'll probably make him one.'
It would be a bit embarassing to have Jared O'Mara turning up to the Palace to be invested with a knighthood, only to witness him drunk and belching.
Maybe he will follow the example of the Home Secretary in Yes Minister: 'I gather he was as drunk as a lord, so after a discreet interval they'll probably make him one.'
Hallam voters would probably like a second go before 2022.
But if these awards are for making a contribution to public life, why didn't Ken Clarke get one?
IMO they've become a way for besieged PMs to reward cronies and signal which senior MPs have become 'the enemy'. Hence no Sir Dominic Grieve either ...
It would be a bit embarassing to have Jared O'Mara turning up to the Palace to be invested with a knighthood, only to witness him drunk and belching.
Maybe he will follow the example of the Home Secretary in Yes Minister: 'I gather he was as drunk as a lord, so after a discreet interval they'll probably make him one.'
Hallam voters would probably like a second go before 2022.
But if these awards are for making a contribution to public life, why didn't Ken Clarke get one?
IMO they've become a way for besieged PMs to reward cronies and signal which senior MPs have become 'the enemy'. Hence no Sir Dominic Grieve either ...
He may of course have been offered one and refused it. Or been worried about jokes regarding antiques and relics from a comparison with the other Sir Kenneth Clarke.
Since the Adonis story broke I've seen something like 3-4 different headline summaries on the BBC about it - has he made further revelations, or are they just cycling out new wording for the headline over and over?
As he has backed away from the Conservatives, the UK will have to make do with this Adonis Blue:
I say this as a lifelong Labour supporter. Politics is not just about ideas, its about the people with the ideas. Most people I believe would love to get rid of the Tories and do not subscribe to their ugly concept of society. But people also have a tendency to cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse, and this I believe is why the Tories are safe in power as long as Corbyn and his fanatics control the Labour Party. Most people in those crucial marginal constituencies in middle England would like to see a fairer more equal society but shrink away in repulsion from the Marxist extremism of Corbyn and McDonnell and their army of chanting Cult of personality "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" fanatics.
As that well known leftie George Orwell might say, "Yes make the farm a fairer more equal society but beware in your quest for equality that you do not deliver the farm to the pigs."
I say this as a lifelong Labour supporter. Politics is not just about ideas, its about the people with the ideas. Most people I believe would love to get rid of the Tories and do not subscribe to their ugly concept of society. But people also have a tendency to cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse, and this I believe is why the Tories are safe in power as long as Corbyn and his fanatics control the Labour Party. Most people in those crucial marginal constituencies in middle England would like to see a fairer more equal society but shrink away in repulsion from the Marxist extremism of Corbyn and McDonnell and their army of chanting Cult of personality "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" fanatics.
As that well known leftie George Orwell might say, "Yes make the farm a fairer more equal society but beware in your quest for equality that you do not deliver the farm to the pigs."
Yet the Tories did better against Miliband, who was no where near as left wing as Corbyn.
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
If you think income tax is "freely given" then stop paying it and see what happens.
The state is not society. Our obligations to each other run deeper than that
But it's the state that decides how much you're going to give and takes it from you with the threat of violence.
You are missing the point. Sure we pay taxes and some functions are provided centrally. But that doesn't absolve us of our obligations to each other.
The state is a convenience: society is what matters and they are not the same.
The obligation to provide falls, I believe, in the following order:
- self, - family, - community, - and finally, the state
Only where there is a genuine incapacity should provision be sought from the next level... and where there is a surplus of means, it should be used to provide at the level above...
The tax and benefit system incorporates self, family (to a limited extent) and the state. It is the diminution of family and the almost exclusion of community that sit behind many of society’s problems.
For me Family Self Community State
I do what I do to provide for my family first and foremost. I really would not want to live a life where self was the number one priority.
Michael Theurer, deputy leader of the parliamentary FDP, has said that Angela Merkel should resign, and that if Jens Spahn replaces her then that would work fine for the FDP. That sounds like a public offer of a coalition.
I have increased my investment in Spahn, buying at 150. The average price I bought him at is over 400. He is still available at 50 if anybody wants some.
Merkel is available to lay at the ridiculously short price of 1.07.
Danke schön und wilkommen.
Yes, but Theurer is speaking from a position of weakness. The FDP alienated some of their voters by walking out of the talks and are the only party to have clearly lost ground in the polls since the election. Nor are they in a position to offer a majority coalition - they need the Greens, who actively dislike many of their policies. The demand should arguably be seen as an attempt to regain public attention likely to irritate their potential partners - much as though the LibDems in 2010 had demanded that Cameron resign as a condition for coalition.
Michael Theurer, deputy leader of the parliamentary FDP, has said that Angela Merkel should resign, and that if Jens Spahn replaces her then that would work fine for the FDP. That sounds like a public offer of a coalition.
I have increased my investment in Spahn, buying at 150. The average price I bought him at is over 400. He is still available at 50 if anybody wants some.
Merkel is available to lay at the ridiculously short price of 1.07.
Danke schön und wilkommen.
Yes, but Theurer is speaking from a position of weakness. The FDP alienated some of their voters by walking out of the talks and are the only party to have clearly lost ground in the polls since the election. Nor are they in a position to offer a majority coalition - they need the Greens, who actively dislike many of their policies. The demand should arguably be seen as an attempt to regain public attention likely to irritate their potential partners - much as though the LibDems in 2010 had demanded that Cameron resign as a condition for coalition.
2 markets - (i) 'next PM after May' and (ii) 'next tory leader'.
For a tory one cannot be (i) without also being (ii)
But one CAN be (ii) without being (i)
Ergo for any particular tory politician the odds in the (i) market should be higher than in (ii)
And sure enough this is indeed the case
With just the one exception - Philip Hammond.
For 'Phil the Thrill' it is the opposite. The spread is significant and is in the 'wrong' direction. You can back him @ 28/1 to be next tory leader and lay him @ 22/1 to be next PM after May.
Meaning ...
If he takes over from May before the GE you win the spread
If May leads into the GE and wins and he takes over at some point after that you win the spread
If May leads into the GE and loses and then he takes over you clean up - you win on both bets, the back AND the lay
All other outcomes you are flat
So this would appear to be a 'win big' vs 'win modest' vs 'no lose' scenario
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
If you think income tax is "freely given" then stop paying it and see what happens.
The state is not society. Our obligations to each other run deeper than that
But it's the state that decides how much you're going to give and takes it from you with the threat of violence.
You are missing the point. Sure we pay taxes and some functions are provided centrally. But that doesn't absolve us of our obligations to each other.
The state is a convenience: society is what matters and they are not the same.
The obligation to provide falls, I believe, in the following order:
- self, - family, - community, - and finally, the state
Only where there is a genuine incapacity should provision be sought from the next level... and where there is a surplus of means, it should be used to provide at the level above...
The tax and benefit system incorporates self, family (to a limited extent) and the state. It is the diminution of family and the almost exclusion of community that sit behind many of society’s problems.
For me Family Self Community State
I do what I do to provide for my family first and foremost. I really would not want to live a life where self was the number one priority.
I say this as a lifelong Labour supporter. Politics is not just about ideas, its about the people with the ideas. Most people I believe would love to get rid of the Tories and do not subscribe to their ugly concept of society. But people also have a tendency to cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse, and this I believe is why the Tories are safe in power as long as Corbyn and his fanatics control the Labour Party. Most people in those crucial marginal constituencies in middle England would like to see a fairer more equal society but shrink away in repulsion from the Marxist extremism of Corbyn and McDonnell and their army of chanting Cult of personality "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" fanatics.
As that well known leftie George Orwell might say, "Yes make the farm a fairer more equal society but beware in your quest for equality that you do not deliver the farm to the pigs."
Yet the Tories did better against Miliband, who was no where near as left wing as Corbyn.
Before Brexit. People voted Labour in 2017 to stop hard Brexit. And Corbyn won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown -who was nowhere near as left wing as Corbyn. Nor do I think its just about being left wing. Its him and his cronies personally. They are nasty pieces of work, and many of their supporters are either deranged, or fascists of the left.
2 markets - (i) 'next PM after May' and (ii) 'next tory leader'.
For a tory one cannot be (i) without also being (ii)
But one CAN be (ii) without being (i)
Ergo for any particular tory politician the odds in the (i) market should be higher than in (ii)
And sure enough this is indeed the case
With just the one exception - Philip Hammond.
For 'Phil the Thrill' it is the opposite. The spread is significant and is in the 'wrong' direction. You can back him @ 28/1 to be next tory leader and lay him @ 22/1 to be next PM after May.
Meaning ...
If he takes over from May before the GE you win the spread
If May leads into the GE and wins and he takes over at some point after that you win the spread
If May leads into the GE and loses and then he takes over you clean up - you win on both bets, the back AND the lay
All other outcomes you are flat
So this would appear to be a 'win big' vs 'win modest' vs 'no lose' scenario
You've got to hope for the double win, otherwise you're tying up a lot of case for a 1% return over a couple of years...
It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.
Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.
A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country
A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?
And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
Communities don't work that way in London. No one doffs their cap at the vicar, no one knows if Mrs Jones has taken a tumble. London works precisely because most people don't care too much about most other people around them, they just get on with their own business in their own circles and focus on making the best of themselves that they can.
Speak for yourself. Where I live we do know - and look out for - our neighbours. Until they died (at the ages of 98 and 99 respectively) I had a key to my neighbours’ house and regularly helped them out, as did my children. There is generally a pretty strong sense of community, a long-standing and very good local councillor and most residents have lived here a long time so, even during property booms, properties don’t get sold very frequently. And yes it’s Remainer country with most people earning well. But there are Housing Association properties too. Political views and where people are on the earnings scale don’t seem to affect how kind people are - or not.
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
If you think income tax is "freely given" then stop paying it and see what happens.
The state is not society. Our obligations to each other run deeper than that
But it's the state that decides how much you're going to give and takes it from you with the threat of violence.
You are missing the point. Sure we pay taxes and some functions are provided centrally. But that doesn't absolve us of our obligations to each other.
The state is a convenience: society is what matters and they are not the same.
The obligation to provide falls, I believe, in the following order:
- self, - family, - community, - and finally, the state
Only where there is a genuine incapacity should provision be sought from the next level... and where there is a surplus of means, it should be used to provide at the level above...
The tax and benefit system incorporates self, family (to a limited extent) and the state. It is the diminution of family and the almost exclusion of community that sit behind many of society’s problems.
For me Family Self Community State
I do what I do to provide for my family first and foremost. I really would not want to live a life where self was the number one priority.
Family God Queen Country
Very noble Charles. I did think about putting community before self. It is important to me but it seemed a tad pretentious.
2 markets - (i) 'next PM after May' and (ii) 'next tory leader'.
For a tory one cannot be (i) without also being (ii)
But one CAN be (ii) without being (i)
Not actually true.
Firstly (and I haven't looked) what is the definition of "next Tory leader" - does it include caretakers?
Secondly the PM doesn't have to be Tory leader. Even the PM can be a temporary arrangement (eg. if May suddenly resigned or fell under the literal bus).
2 markets - (i) 'next PM after May' and (ii) 'next tory leader'.
For a tory one cannot be (i) without also being (ii)
But one CAN be (ii) without being (i)
Not actually true.
Firstly (and I haven't looked) what is the definition of "next Tory leader" - does it include caretakers?
Secondly the PM doesn't have to be Tory leader. Even the PM can be a temporary arrangement (eg. if May suddenly resigned or fell under the literal bus).
That does raise an interesting question in the aftermath of the Damian Green resignation - who is the Theresa-under-a-bus next PM? Hammond or Davis?
A really good article....I wish all Tories were as rational as David H.
Asking T May for a vision is akin to asking Moen to score a century and take a fifer at the final test.
BTW...on cricket, can someone please take out Swan from TMS. He is a nasty, smarmy, arrogant little shit who would better fit becoming the next leader of UKIP........ Brexit personified in the guise of a cricket commentator....yuck.....
Michael Theurer, deputy leader of the parliamentary FDP, has said that Angela Merkel should resign, and that if Jens Spahn replaces her then that would work fine for the FDP. That sounds like a public offer of a coalition.
I have increased my investment in Spahn, buying at 150. The average price I bought him at is over 400. He is still available at 50 if anybody wants some.
Merkel is available to lay at the ridiculously short price of 1.07.
Danke schön und wilkommen.
Yes, but Theurer is speaking from a position of weakness. The FDP alienated some of their voters by walking out of the talks and are the only party to have clearly lost ground in the polls since the election. Nor are they in a position to offer a majority coalition - they need the Greens, who actively dislike many of their policies. The demand should arguably be seen as an attempt to regain public attention likely to irritate their potential partners - much as though the LibDems in 2010 had demanded that Cameron resign as a condition for coalition.
Did the LDs not in fact demand that Brown resign as a condition for coalition, or is that just a rumour (not least because the numbers were not really there)? I cannot imagine it went down well if they did.
A really good article....I wish all Tories were as rational as David H.
Asking T May for a vision is akin to asking Moen to score a century and take a fifer at the final t BTW...on cricket, can someone please take out Swan from TMS. He is a nasty, smarmy, arrogant little shit who would better fit becoming the next leader of UKIP........ Brexit personified in the guise of a cricket commentator....yuck.....
Swanny is a bit marmite - but find the link to UKIP a bit tenuous- weird even.
Just the sort of a laugh Prime Minister Corbyn would have - before abolishing them all.
You think he would really get rid of them? It wouldn't be a priority, and people would want some form of national award to recognise merit to replace it, and before you know it its New Years, and since its not gone yet, might as well reward people with the same, and then it just goes on and on.
God, Queen, Country, Family (however much I love them).
Reminds me of the Commandant from "Schindler's List". In real-life the guilt destroyed his whole family as well as those whom worshipped God in a different name that he was punished for....
Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
If you think income tax is "freely given" then stop paying it and see what happens.
The state is not society. Our obligations to each other run deeper than that
But it's the state that decides how much you're going to give and takes it from you with the threat of violence.
You are missing the point. Sure we pay taxes and some functions are provided centrally. But that doesn't absolve us of our obligations to each other.
The state is a convenience: society is what matters and they are not the same.
The obligation to provide falls, I believe, in the following order:
- self, - family, - community, - and finally, the state
Only where there is a genuine incapacity should provision be sought from the next level... and where there is a surplus of means, it should be used to provide at the level above...
The tax and benefit system incorporates self, family (to a limited extent) and the state. It is the diminution of family and the almost exclusion of community that sit behind many of society’s problems.
For me Family Self Community State
I do what I do to provide for my family first and foremost. I really would not want to live a life where self was the number one priority.
Family God Queen Country
Why should the monarch be ahead of country?
Surely even the monarch herself views duty to the country to be ahead of herself.
A really good article....I wish all Tories were as rational as David H.
Asking T May for a vision is akin to asking Moen to score a century and take a fifer at the final t BTW...on cricket, can someone please take out Swan from TMS. He is a nasty, smarmy, arrogant little shit who would better fit becoming the next leader of UKIP........ Brexit personified in the guise of a cricket commentator....yuck.....
Swanny is a bit marmite - but find the link to UKIP a bit tenuous- weird even.
Presumably because he is nasty, like Brexit? I don't get it either.
Haven't listened to commentary for a bit, I recall Swann being pretty funny as these things go, I don't know if he has gotten worse.
I say this as a lifelong Labour supporter. Politics is not just about ideas, its about the people with the ideas. Most people I believe would love to get rid of the Tories and do not subscribe to their ugly concept of society. But people also have a tendency to cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse, and this I believe is why the Tories are safe in power as long as Corbyn and his fanatics control the Labour Party. Most people in those crucial marginal constituencies in middle England would like to see a fairer more equal society but shrink away in repulsion from the Marxist extremism of Corbyn and McDonnell and their army of chanting Cult of personality "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" fanatics.
As that well known leftie George Orwell might say, "Yes make the farm a fairer more equal society but beware in your quest for equality that you do not deliver the farm to the pigs."
Yet the Tories did better against Miliband, who was no where near as left wing as Corbyn.
Before Brexit. People voted Labour in 2017 to stop hard Brexit. And Corbyn won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown -who was nowhere near as left wing as Corbyn. Nor do I think its just about being left wing. Its him and his cronies personally. They are nasty pieces of work, and many of their supporters are either deranged, or fascists of the left.
If people vote Labour to stop Brexit, they are going to be sadly disappointed. Corbyn and McDonnell’s vision of society and the economy would be hampered by EU rules. They will gratefully pocket Brexit, while blaming it and the Tories for anuthing that goes wrong, and get on with implementing whatever it is they want to do. And the wailing and gnashing of teeth from some of their supporters as they get hurt will be quite something to behold.
Comments
Fundamentally people need to think about what is good for society not just their selfish interests
Never has there been a front-runner less likely to become leader than JRM, for reasons already well aired. Even his fellow MPs can see that he is unsuitable. A lay remains a remarkable betting opportunity.
Germany: +45
Netherlands: +45
Sweden: +41
Poland: +41 (vs Communism)
Spain: +32 (vs Franco)
UK: +14
Hungary: -7 (vs Communism)
France: -13
Greece: -25 (vs Military Junta)
Italy: -27
Fundamentally One Nation Toryism is about taking on vested interests and standing up for the little guy. In today's world property regulation/Nimbyism is a big part of the problem
Being more serious, my understanding is Chavez's spending did aid lots of people, if in a way which was unsustainable and has led to the dire problems they now face, so presumably some, albeit not many if that figure is right, think even today's disaster is better than what they had.
Agree about captaincy; that’s why Brearley was so good. Although as an Essex member Im duty bound to support Cook and further back Gooch, I don’t think making your best player Captain is any sort of guarantee of success. Indeed, making him Captain might actually detract him from concentrating on his game.
Same applies, of course, to her in a female game.
No.
But, to quote St Paul, the love of money is the root of all evil
On Italy and France, perhaps as people don't really compare with how things were, but how they think they were, and also as they are slanted by perceiving lesser prospects for themselves, which makes them harsher on today's actual quality.
History is not a path toward inevitable improvement, as has been oft noted, but show me someone who thinks globally things are bad now in historical terms and I'll show you someone who knows nothing of history.
Despite my domestic Corbynism, I think the main problem of the modern world is not in Britain at all, but the rampant and largely untaxed and barely regulated multinationals. I don't see them as evil, merely a natural response to a largely unregulated global scene. If the G7 paid serious attention to getting a grip on them, the dividends for countries seeking effective control over their fates (whether left or right in vision) would be significant.
A community is not about gossip or hierarchy. It's about having a regard for the people around you.
Reform that you may preserve...
1967 in France de Gaulle was still in power and France was still a significant player in world affairs. Maybe they've just grown cynical since?
The second vision, which could actually work in theory, sees Brexit as a way to finish the Thatcherite revolution and be more open. These Brexiteers acknowledge the reality that you have to go out into the world and pool sovereignty by doing deals, but didn't like that this was done through the EU as it blocked the type of radical deregulation and deal making they wanted to implement. It's people who were in favour of the single market but baulked when they realised that it sidelined their project - because inevitably rules agreed across all member states had to be satisfactory compromises. Plus, for people like Liam Fox, who dreams of turning up on gun boats to do trade deals, negotiating as a bloc was an emasculation - even if it made Britain's hand far stronger. The problem with this vision is that it's already pretty unpopular in the abstract, and is liable to be even more so when you get to the nitty gritty of trade deals. India and China (and likely other developing markets) are likely to demand more visas as a precondition of a trade deal - which won't go down well with those who were sold Brexit as a means to block immigration. Any U.S. trade deal will have to be ratified by Congress, where a fair number of Senators and Members of the House are controlled by industry interests, either because their state is reliant on them or through donations and lobbying. Those interests will demand access to our markets - which will go down like a bucket of cold sick as it's prime tabloid scare story fodder. Without those three mega-markets or Japan (which, you'll note has just done a deal with the EU), there just aren't the buccaneering deals out there to make it worth losing unfettered access to our biggest market.
It would also include lighter tax and regulation, especially of the city to attract business, but good luck selling that in a country where standards of living have been falling for a decade.
The problem is, they're trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, with the additional complication that some sort of deal has to be done with the EU. You can fudge it, and perhaps come up with something that keeps things ticking over, but you can't set out a compelling vision either way.
But I'm not sure I get it. I don't think a respectable country need necessarily give any great attention to its self-image. We all have a mental concept of Britain, and elements of it that we like or dislike. We should not encourage politicians to presume to claim that they understand it or wish to guide it.
The last British politician to obsess about national self-image was Tony Blair. He believed that in calling things by American names, we would become a modern country. Let us seek to steer out politicians away from such meddling. They should be made aware that they do not understand enough to interfere, and that we know that.
I wonder how many of the 31% of the "life is worse in the UK" people have lived without central heating and an inside loo. Approx Half of the UK population were not alive at the first date in the survey.
In 1970 - pretty much the date in this survey - 75% of UK homes did not have Central Heating.
http://www.nhbc.co.uk/NewsandComment/Documents/filedownload,59849,en.pdf
Mr. G, sounds like something a closet pearly king would say...
If we tell poorer people to drop dead, then eventually we'll have a revolution.
But some few will enjoy hating the metropolitan elite, and some revel in such a title, as we have clearly seen, and want to hate stupid yokels.
The state is a convenience: society is what matters and they are not the same.
https://twitter.com/AmIRightSir/status/947043126782386176
- self,
- family,
- community,
- and finally, the state
Only where there is a genuine incapacity should provision be sought from the next level... and where there is a surplus of means, it should be used to provide at the level above...
The tax and benefit system incorporates self, family (to a limited extent) and the state. It is the diminution of family and the almost exclusion of community that sit behind many of society’s problems.
But if these awards are for making a contribution to public life, why didn't Ken Clarke get one?
IMO they've become a way for besieged PMs to reward cronies and signal which senior MPs have become 'the enemy'. Hence no Sir Dominic Grieve either ...
https://butterfly-conservation.org/files/adonis-blue-upperwing-male1--peter-eeles-web.jpg
As that well known leftie George Orwell might say, "Yes make the farm a fairer more equal society but beware in your quest for equality that you do not deliver the farm to the pigs."
Family
Self
Community
State
I do what I do to provide for my family first and foremost. I really would not want to live a life where self was the number one priority.
It's the SPD's move this January.
2 markets - (i) 'next PM after May' and (ii) 'next tory leader'.
For a tory one cannot be (i) without also being (ii)
But one CAN be (ii) without being (i)
Ergo for any particular tory politician the odds in the (i) market should be higher than in (ii)
And sure enough this is indeed the case
With just the one exception - Philip Hammond.
For 'Phil the Thrill' it is the opposite. The spread is significant and is in the 'wrong' direction. You can back him @ 28/1 to be next tory leader and lay him @ 22/1 to be next PM after May.
Meaning ...
If he takes over from May before the GE you win the spread
If May leads into the GE and wins and he takes over at some point after that you win the spread
If May leads into the GE and loses and then he takes over you clean up - you win on both bets, the back AND the lay
All other outcomes you are flat
So this would appear to be a 'win big' vs 'win modest' vs 'no lose' scenario
God
Queen
Country
Firstly (and I haven't looked) what is the definition of "next Tory leader" - does it include caretakers?
Secondly the PM doesn't have to be Tory leader. Even the PM can be a temporary arrangement (eg. if May suddenly resigned or fell under the literal bus).
Asking T May for a vision is akin to asking Moen to score a century and take a fifer at the final test.
BTW...on cricket, can someone please take out Swan from TMS. He is a nasty, smarmy, arrogant little shit who would better fit becoming the next leader of UKIP........ Brexit personified in the guise of a cricket commentator....yuck.....
Swanny is a bit marmite - but find the link to UKIP a bit tenuous- weird even.
God,
Queen,
Country,
Family (however much I love them).
Reminds me of the Commandant from "Schindler's List". In real-life the guilt destroyed his whole family as well as those whom worshipped God in a different name that he was punished for....
Surely even the monarch herself views duty to the country to be ahead of herself.
Haven't listened to commentary for a bit, I recall Swann being pretty funny as these things go, I don't know if he has gotten worse.
I actually don't understand this, how on earth could Putin lose? Is there really even a 3-5% chance?