Liverpool Riot 2011 [Archive] - Page 2

Howie_P

August 12th, 2011, 09:01 AM

Shoppers and revellers urged to come to Liverpool city centre
By David Bartlett
Aug 12 2011

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/ldp2/aug2011/7/6/liverpool-one-shopping-centre-300-927540075.jpg

LIVERPOOL city centre is “open for business” this weekend – as the police pledged an increased presence to reassure all those coming to town, whether day or night.

Assistant Chief Constable Colin Matthews said visitors should carry on with normal life and not stay away because of fears the riots of earlier this week could return.

Police also confirmed that Liverpool FC’s opening game of the Premier League will go ahead as planned tomorrow).

Everton’s opener away at Tottenham in London, however, was cancelled.

Police said they were keen to reassure people the city centre was open for business, after residents voiced their concerns on social network Twitter that there could be trouble in the city centre.

Liverpool One will close at 7pm tonight and tomorrow, but it will return to normal opening hours next week.

Frank McKenna, of lobby group Downtown Liverpool in Business, warned that confidence had been shaken and it could take some time to restore.

Today, Liverpool’s Lord Mayor Cllr Frank Prendergast will hold a civic reception for some of the local heroes who cleaned-up the city’s streets following the disturbances earlier this week.

Charles Jupiter, 21, who set up a Facebook group called Liverpool Clean Up within hours of the first night of trouble, and his friends, will be thanked for their efforts.

ACC Matthews said: “Merseyside Police understands that some people may have concerns about coming into the city after seeing reports of disorder earlier in the week on regional and national television.

“I would like to reassure people that the force has taken strong and robust action to deal with the minority of people who have been involved in disorder on our streets.

“A number of arrests have already been made and over the coming days there will be an increased police presence to deal with any incidents, if they should arise.

“I would urge people to carry on with their daily business and not to change their plans. The increased police presence in the city centre on Friday and Saturday night will ensure that visitors can enjoy their visit to the city.”

Continues (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/08/12/shoppers-and-revellers-urged-to-come-to-liverpool-city-centre-92534-29222414/2/) >>

Keayman

August 12th, 2011, 11:11 AM

The drivel coming out of the BBC and Sky looks like it was written by No. 10. The real root of the problem is just ignored concentrating on looters being caught or other such trivia. Cameron, and surprisingly Miliband, say it is "criminality". Which is bollocks! A whole country just doesn't go on a looting binge.

Their must be some ulterior motive for Miliband not going for the jugular.

Even youth leaders a lot closer to this underclass than you or I are saying that it's just criminality and 'i'll have a bit of that'

I think i'll believe them.

tomo90

August 12th, 2011, 11:15 AM

It is also true that each of these cities has a very different make up of it's ethnic minorities.

e.g. Newcastle's being mainly sub continental Asian and appears to have no real established black community but for very recent immigrants.

Liverpool om the other hand (a dissapointing one) lacks a large sub continental asian community who were attracted to mill and industrial areas -Sad as I believe these communities have been a massive commercial boost to cities like Manchester and Birmingham and have helped their regeneration greatly from the establishment of local businesses and thriving self supporting communities.

However, Liverpool does have an extremly long established black population that was in part identified by the government report following the 81 riots as a previously unacknowledged racial group called 'Liverpool born black' (people who were /4th/5th/6th + generation English) as opposed to the post war immigrants from the caribbean that made up the majority of what was then black Britain (Bristol, London and Cardiff aside).

This is just a note to the above discussion and I am making no point or claim related to the riots or their cause.:)

Yeah that is very true. I found the same living in Newcastle myself. Although, I think both have seen a surge in the other type of ethnic minority in their city. I see a sizebale number of Asians in Liverpool now and I saw the same for Blacks in Newcastle.

Keayman

August 12th, 2011, 11:17 AM

You write in riddles - maybe because you are confused. You fail to understand our society. You fail to understand why a whole country simultaneously rioted - thinking lots of confused thoughts but never the real one.

BTW, I remember seeing the riots in Parli in 1981. Deja Vu.

It wasn't simultaneous, it was clearly copycat and 'getting in on the act' of thieving and wanton vandalism.

If it was political or even against the overpaid CEO's - then burn a bank or the town hall.

Cast Iron Shaw

August 12th, 2011, 11:25 AM

More problems in London, this time at Hampton Court Palace where a quartet of youths in heraldic uniform have just begun luteing!!

MarineMan

August 12th, 2011, 11:37 AM

It wasn't simultaneous, it was clearly copycat

There were riots in Burnley, Bradford a few years back. I never saw them repeated all over the country. But then it was about race and there was not a level of disenfranchised have-nots.

Deja Vu. 1981 all over the same deep root reasons and simultaneous eruptions. There will be the criminal opportunists who take advantage in the looting which the hard of thinking think is the real reason.

If it was political or even against the overpaid CEO's - then burn a bank or the town hall.

The more intelligent middle classes do that. The working class just generally riot. Social history tells us that. Read some. Just looking back to 1981 tells us that as well.

It is not difficult to figure out.

MarineMan

August 12th, 2011, 11:49 AM

Even youth leaders a lot closer to this underclass than you or I are saying that it's just criminality and 'i'll have a bit of that'

I think i'll believe them.

I believe Harriet Harman:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/11/article-2024708-0D62620B00000578-869_634x273.jpg[/QUOTE]

Wow! A cut from the Daily Mail. <chuckle, chuckle>

Harman was right...

"You are not going to make things better by this focus on deficit reduction. which actually threatens police numbers and council services."

The Tory idiot, Gove, blamed Labour for the deficit - which is in effect blaming Labour for the world-wide financial crash that came in from the USA. The hard of thinking will believe him! The Tories made the cuts, not Labour. The LibDems and Labour put forward plans to reduce the deficit over a longer period without causing great social disorder and deprivation. The Tories allowed Philip Green to walk off with countless millions in unpaid taxes.

The riots were predicted!!!!! The REASON is the CUTS!!!!
I notice there are never economic widespread riots when there was full unemployment.

The disenfranchised' vote doesn't make any difference to themselves. It doesn't change anything. They vent frustration in riots - historically this is the method. The blow-off valve!!

The current unnecessary cuts is the final straw and the blow-off valve opens.

I feel angry about the rioting. Very angry!! Clegg knew what was to happen before he got into bed with filth like Cameron. Clegg could have made sure he got into bed with Labour.
YItK1izQIwo

Social history tells us what causes riots. This is all known, no secret.
Clegg was right! Riots are predictable. All avoidable!!

.

golden66

August 12th, 2011, 12:59 PM

Just thought I'd add a few points.

Ignorance and naivety will never cease to amaze me.

How can anyone be surprised about the current UK riots? Riots have been common place with common similarities, especially since the 1980's. Looting,burning and violent disorder spreading to UK cities has all happened before. What also helped to fan the flames this time was 24 hour news and social networking. What a surprise!

Stop being incredulous. The bottom has now fallen out of the working class. Deliberate structural inequality has created an underclass that have to endure enforced idleness, heightened resentment and embedded insecurity about the future. The problems associated with the ghetto have suffocated hope. Ambition is paralysed. A total sense of wasting away,decay and being abandoned.

Governments have no intentions to accommodate or negotiate with the underclass only to control,suppress and demonise them. This results in an excluded population who either become apathetic or rebellious. A rebellious underclass feel that they have nothing to lose by rioting. It provides a feeling of euphoria and catharsis, a feeling of unity and purpose, heightens public awareness to their predicament and exposes the governments deliberatly enforced inequality and suppresion. Torching the ghetto signifies entrapment and material gain signifies relentless pressure from the consumer society. Those who take part in the riot but who are not in the underclass are just opportunistic criminals just like politicians who allowed themselves extortionate undeserved expenses with impunity.

Riots will increase and intensify. Divisions will remain and grow, not just based on class but racially as well. Each spell of conflict clears the air temporarily but will not prevent the gathering storm clouds.

Keayman

August 12th, 2011, 01:03 PM

You agreed with Jane on an earlier post that it isn't party political, even Milliband isn't taking that stance. This could easily have happened when our money was given to bail banks out and still allow themselves huge bonus's - and which party was that under?

worcsauce

August 12th, 2011, 01:40 PM

Re the earlier points trying to link looting with EMA. It is perhaps worth noting that only when we get back to school/college in Sept will any effects of the changes be felt. Even then those who previously on £30 will continue to get £20. Anyone going into their 3rd year of post 16 study will continue to be paid EMA at the level agreed at their initial application.
For everyone else there will be the 16-19 Bursary which is at the discretion of institution except for some categories who are guaranteed higher amounts than would be possible under the old arrangements.
There is no doubt that underlying causes of deprivation play a role but attempts to link to a particular payment really do not add up.

MarineMan

August 12th, 2011, 01:43 PM

Just thought I'd add a few points.

Ignorance and naivety will never cease to amaze me.

How can anyone be suprised about the current UK riots? Riots have been common place with common similarities, especially since the 1980's. Looting,burning and violent disorder spreading to UK cities has all happened before. What also helped to fan the flames this time was 24 hour news and social networking. What a suprise!

Stop being incredulous. The bottom has now fallen out of the working class. Deliberate structural inequality has created an underclass that have to endure enforced idleness, heightened resentment and embedded insecurity about the future. The problems associated with the ghetto have suffocate hope. Ambition is paralysed. A total sense of wasting away,decay and being abandoned.

Governments have no intentions to accommodate or negotiate with the underclass only to control,suppress and demonise them. This results in an excluded population who either become apathetic or rebellious. A rebellious underclass feel that they have nothing to lose by rioting. It provides a feeling of euphoria and catharsis, a feeling of unity and purpose, heightens public awareness to their predicament and exposes the governments deliberatly enforced inequality and suppresion. Torching the ghetto signifies entrapment and material gain signifies relentless pressure from the consumer society. Those who take part in the riot but who are not in the underclass are just opportunistic criminals just like politicians who allowed themselves extortionate undeserved expenses with impunity.

Riots will increase and intensify. Divisions will remain and grow, not just based on class but racially as well. Each spell of conflict clears the air temporarily but will not prevent the gathering storm clouds.

Congrats. One of the best posts I have read on this ruck. YOu hit the nail on the head.

MarineMan

August 12th, 2011, 01:49 PM

I would rather Milliband was shouting resign across the house rather than siding with those who caused this mess.

MarineMan

August 12th, 2011, 02:34 PM

Continues (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/08/12/shoppers-and-revellers-urged-to-come-to-liverpool-city-centre-92534-29222414/2/) >>

There was no real problems in Liverpool CIty Centre. In fact Liverpool didn't really have any. A few burned out cars and few windows smashed and kids running around.

Rollingstone Gather

August 12th, 2011, 03:08 PM

There was no real problems in Liverpool CIty Centre. In fact Liverpool didn't really have any. A few burned out cars and few windows smashed and kids running around.

But as Liverpool is the poorest area in the country -by your reckoning it should have had the most rioting?

AnonyMiss

August 12th, 2011, 03:10 PM

I think

sternslovchild

August 12th, 2011, 03:49 PM

As a liverpool 8 resident I look I can verify Monday and Tuesday were very scary. There was smoke in my flat from the burning cars.

Paul D

August 12th, 2011, 04:04 PM

It's not a competition, a higher diversity doesn't make a place inherently better. I do think Liverpool's black/asian population is very ghettoised though, you barely see a black face in the North of the city.

There's quite a few Indian family's that have children in my daughters school in Norris Green now,there's a couple of African family's aswell,I can honestly say,seeing these people around the area on a day to day basis is not that unusual now.For the size of the place though,I'll admit,it's a drop in the ocean,there's a definite change happening though.

Cast Iron Shaw

August 12th, 2011, 05:58 PM

There's quite a few Indian family's that have children in my daughters school in Norris Green now,there's a couple of African family's aswell,I can honestly say,seeing these people around the area on a day to day basis is not that unusual now.For the size of the place though,I'll admit,it's a drop in the ocean,there's a definite change happening though.

Latest available info for what it is worth

Liverpool has a recorded population of 442,300 and is the 6th largest city in the UK
It covers 11,160 hectares
176,300 residents are employed ie 60.2% of employable age are in work compared to the nation wide 'core' average of 63.6%

Black ethnic population, recorded in 2007, was 37,100 which was approx 8.5% of the city's population at the time.
In January 2011, there were 8,007 Liverpool Council employees of which 432 (ie just over 5%) declared themselves as Black/Minority/Ethnic

Of course these figures may be skewed a bit as not everyone wants to declare themselves as a 'minority' but it may help to answer some of the questions

Liverpool has prided itself by a longstanding tolerance to other cultures particularly African and Chinese.

Medici

August 12th, 2011, 06:00 PM

I would like to see more people from ethnic minorities visible in the council and the running of the city.

geoff189d

August 12th, 2011, 09:29 PM

It is not race, it is economic. And Liverpool is the most white of English cities.

People like me who live in Birmingham are quite envious of you. The last time I was in Liverpool I thought how nice to be back in "An English City".

Medici

August 12th, 2011, 10:07 PM

People like me who live in Birmingham are quite envious of you. The last time I was in Liverpool I thought how nice to be back in "An English City".

Nah.

Awayo

August 13th, 2011, 12:20 AM

Geoff is a meff.

geoff189d

August 13th, 2011, 12:36 AM

Geoff is a meff.

Ha ha. I had to look that word up in urbandictionary.com! It originates from Liverpool apparently.

MarineMan

August 13th, 2011, 12:46 AM

I would like to see more people from ethnic minorities visible in the council and the running of the city.

That would mean about two councillors then.

Howie_P

August 13th, 2011, 12:51 AM

Liverpool riots: 61 people are charged
Alan Weston
Aug 12 2011

A TOTAL of 61 people have now been charged in connection with the incidents of disorder in south Liverpool and Birkenhead since Monday.

They are:

1. A 17-year-old male from L15, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

2. Curtis Corrigan, aged 23, of Lidderdale Road in L15, was charged with breach of the peace.

3. A 15-year-old male from L15, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

4. A 16-year-old male from L3, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

5. A 16-year-old male from L15, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

6. Anthony Bath, aged 18, of Montague Road, was charged with a public order offence.

7. A 17-year-old male from L7, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

8. A 16-year-old male from L9, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

9. Tom Ellis, aged 20, of Coronation Drive, was charged with breach of the peace.

10. A 16-year-old male from L1, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

11. A 15-year-old male from L7, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

12. A 17-year-old male from L15, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with possession of a controlled drug.

13. A 16-year-old male from L1, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

14. A 17-year-old male from L18, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

15. A 15-year-old male from L3, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

16. Mark Burns, aged 26, of Cathcart Street, was charged with violent disorder.

17. Steven Earle, aged 19, of Edgbaston Way, CH41 was charged with violent disorder.

18. A 17-year-old male from CH43, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with violent disorder.

19. A 14-year-old male from Birkenhead, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

20. A 14-year-old male from CH43, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with possession of explosives for unlawful purposes.

21. A 17-year-old male from L7, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with public nuisance.

22. Andrew Bradburn, aged 22, of Bentnick Street, was charged with violent disorder.

23. A 16-year-old male from L17, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with violent disorder.

24. A 15-year-old male from L5, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

25. A 17-year-old male from L15, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with breach of the peace.

26. Vincent McClean, aged 30, of Tancred, L4 was charged with breach of the peace.

27. Lee Shaw, aged 40, of Whetstone Lane, Ch41, was charged with violent disorder.

28. Terry Doyle, aged 41, of Falkner Street, was charged with breach of the peace.

29. James Lyons, aged 19, of Childers Street, L13, was charged with breach of the peace.

30. Lateef Salim, aged 22, of Bickerton Street, was charged with theft.

31. Anthony Gardner, aged 19, of Princes Ave, L8, was charged with breach of the peace.

32. Susan Shaw, aged 47, of Sunnyside, L8, was charged with criminal damage.

33. A 14-year-old male from L15, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with burglary.

34. A 14-year-old male from L13, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with burglary.

35. A 17-year-old male from L7, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged with public nuisance.

36. Michael Kelly, aged 25, of Acorn Court, L8, was charged with possession of an offensive weapon.

37. Michael Binns, aged 18, of Kremlin Drive, L13, was charged with breach of the peace.

38. Gary Anthony Jones, aged 47, of no fixed abode, was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

39. A 16-year-old male, from L23, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.

40. Michael Anthony Doyle, aged 19, of Whetstone Lane, CH41, was charged with breach of the peace.

41. Ronni Ashton Harri Whitby, aged 20, of Grasmere Avenue, CH43, was charged with breach of the peace.

42. Ben Sysum, aged 22, of Liversidge Road, CH42, was charged with burglary and aggravated taking of a motor vehicle.

43. A 15-year-old male from CH41, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with burglary and aggravated vehicle taking.

44. A 15-year-old female, from CH43, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with aggravated vehicle taking.

45. A 15-year-old female from CH44, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with aggravated vehicle taking.

46. Dean Hughes, aged 18, of Osborne Road, L13, was charged with breach of the peace.

47. Joseph Michael Moran, aged 18, of Vineside Road, L15, was charged with breach of the peace.

48. Josh Ryan Brack, aged 18, of Crown Road, L12, was charged with breach of the peace.

49. Sebastian Praxitelous, aged 18, of Hollytree Road, L25, was charged with breach of the peace.

50. Omar Ahmed, aged 24, of Liscard Road, L15, was charged with a public order offence.

51. A 17-year-old male, from L8, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with violent disorder.

52. Blaine Julian Montgomery, aged 25, from Victoria Close, L17, was charged with possession of cannabis.

53. Andrew Robert Kinsella, aged 30 of Rumney Place, L4, was charged with public order offence.

54. Adam Terrence Francis, aged 18, of Hawkmore Close, L10, was charged with possession of cannabis.

55. Sam James Cruse, aged 20, of Little Heath Road, L24, was charged with possession of cannabis.

56. Alexander King, aged 41, of Falkland Road, CH44, was charged with a public order offence.

57. Leon Foster, aged 22, of Jericho Close, L17, was charged with possession of an offensive weapon.

58. Daniel Mark Williams, aged 22, of Clarenden Road, CH44, was charged with possession of an offensive weapon and possession of cannabis.

59. A 17-year-old male, from L11, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with racially aggravated public order.

60. A 17-year-old male, from L14, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with possession of a controlled drug.

61. Lee Koumis, aged 37, of Leeds Street in L3, was charged following a warrant for his arrest for theft from a shop dating back to July 25, 2011.

Source: Liverpool Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2011/08/12/liverpool-riots-61-people-are-charged-100252-29227672/)

Awayo

August 13th, 2011, 12:59 AM

Interestingly enough, where the addresses have been revealed those arrested are mostly not from where the disturbances occurred. Closer than most however is an arl girl of 47 (wft?) from Princes Park. I mean really.

Awayo

August 13th, 2011, 01:09 AM

But then innocent before proven guilty of course.

MarineMan

August 13th, 2011, 01:36 AM

Cast Iron Shaw

August 13th, 2011, 10:06 AM

Look at the ages. teens and early 20s. No future, disenfranchised, no hope. I can see why they went out rioting - a public school Hooray Henry made massive cuts affecting millions like these.

The blame is the Hooray Henry.

I guess some people would take a different view, John

44% of the total arrested were under 18

Do you honestly believe they went out to make a protest against a 'Hooray Henry'?

It seems to be that the majority of those arrested already had the designer gear, electrical goods, phones jewellery they were looking to obtain illegally

Didnt see too many supermarkets robbed for the basics in life. It was booze and 'luxury' items.

It was pure opportunism and I'm ashamed to say in this country, pure greed.

Eastisleast

August 13th, 2011, 10:18 AM

BeeGee

August 13th, 2011, 10:57 AM

I blame the Guardian.

And why not - Rodney (call me Dave) certainly does.

cambrian

August 13th, 2011, 11:09 AM

MarineMan

August 13th, 2011, 11:12 AM

I blame the Guardian.

I never knew they were HMG. You are such a sycophantic dumbo.

openlyJane

August 13th, 2011, 11:32 AM

....

Paul D

August 13th, 2011, 11:33 AM

Dear Mr & Mrs Cameron,

Why did you never take the time to teach your child basic morality?

As a young man, he was in a gang that regularly smashed up private property. We know that you were absent parents who left your child to be brought up by a school rather than taking responsibility for his behaviour yourselves. The fact that he became a delinquent with no sense of respect for the property of others can only reflect that fact that you are terrible, lazy human beings who failed even in teaching your children the difference between right and wrong. I can only assume that his contempt for the small business owners of Oxford is indicative of his wider values.

Even worse, your neglect led him to fall in with a bad crowd. He became best friends with a young man who set fire to buildings for fun. And others:

There’s Michael Gove, whose wet-lipped rage was palpable on Newsnight last night. This is the Michael Gove who confused one of his houses with another of his houses in order to avail himself of £7,000 of the taxpayers’ money to which he was not entitled (or £13,000, depending on which house you think was which).

Or Hazel Blears, who was interviewed in full bristling peahen mode for almost all of last night. She once forgot which house she lived in, and benefited to the tune of £18,000. At the time she said it would take her reputation years to recover. Unfortunately not.

But, of course, this is different. This is just understandable confusion over the rules of how many houses you are meant to have as an MP. This doesn’t show the naked greed of people stealing plasma tellies.

Unless you’re Gerald Kaufman, who broke parliamentary rules to get £8,000 worth of 40-inch, flat screen, Bang and Olufsen TV out of the taxpayer.

Or Ed Vaizey, who got £2,000 in antique furniture ‘delivered to the wrong address’. Which is fortunate, because had that been the address they were intended for, that would have been fraud.

Or Jeremy Hunt, who broke the rules to the tune of almost £20,000 on one property and £2,000 on another. But it’s all right, because he agreed to pay half of the money back. Not the full amount, it would be absurd to expect him to pay back the entire sum that he took and to which he was not entitled. No, we’ll settle for half. And, as in any other field, what might have been considered embezzlement of £22,000 is overlooked. We know, after all, that David Cameron likes to give people second chances.

Fortunately, we have the Met Police to look after us. We’ll ignore the fact that two of its senior officers have had to resign in the last six weeks amid suspicions of widespread corruption within the force.

We’ll ignore Andy Hayman, who went for champagne dinners with those he was meant to be investigating, and then joined the company on leaving the Met.

Of course, Mr and Mrs Cameron, your son is right. There are parts of society that are not just broken, they are sick. Riddled with disease from top to bottom.

Just let me be clear about this (It’s a good phrase, Mr and Mrs Cameron, and one I looted from every sentence your son utters, just as he looted it from Tony Blair), I am not justifying or minimising in any way what has been done by the looters over the last few nights. What I am doing, however, is expressing shock and dismay that your son and his friends feel themselves in any way to be guardians of morality in this country.

Can they really, as 650 people who have shown themselves to be venal pygmies, moral dwarves at every opportunity over the last 20 years, bleat at others about ‘criminality’. Those who decided that when they broke the rules (the rules they themselves set) they, on the whole wouldn’t face the consequences of their actions?

Are they really surprised that this country’s culture is swamped in greed, in the acquisition of material things, in a lust for consumer goods of the most base kind? Really?

Let’s have a think back: cash-for-questions; Bernie Ecclestone; cash-for-access; Mandelson’s mortgage; the Hinduja passports; Blunkett’s alleged insider trading (and, by the way, when someone has had to resign in disgrace twice can we stop having them on television as a commentator, please?); the meetings on the yachts of oligarchs; the drafting of the Digital Economy Act with Lucian Grange; Byers’, Hewitt’s & Hoon’s desperation to prostitute themselves and their positions; the fact that Andrew Lansley (in charge of NHS reforms) has a wife who gives lobbying advice to the very companies hoping to benefit from the NHS reforms. And that list didn’t even take me very long to think of.

Our politicians are for sale and they do not care who knows it.

Oh yes, and then there’s the expenses thing. Widescale abuse of the very systems they designed, almost all of them grasping what they could while they remained MPs, to build their nest egg for the future at the public’s expense. They even now whine on Twitter about having their expenses claims for getting back to Parliament while much of the country is on fire subject to any examination. True public servants.

The last few days have revealed some truths, and some heartening truths. The fact that the #riotcleanup crews had organised themselves before David Cameron even made time for a public statement is heartening. The fact that local communities came together to keep their neighbourhoods safe when the police failed is heartening. The fact that there were peace vigils being organised (even as the police tried to dissuade people) is heartening.

There is hope for this country. But we must stop looking upwards for it. The politicians are the ones leading the charge into the gutter.

David Cameron was entirely right when he said: “It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to think that the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities, and that their actions do not have consequences.”

He was more right than he knew.

And I blame the parents.

openlyJane

August 13th, 2011, 11:39 AM

.....

MarineMan

August 13th, 2011, 11:42 AM

^^Very good.

Respect for other people, compassion, desire to contribute, hard-work, empathy & personal responsibility are not the attributes of any one social or economic group.

Having a low income does not bar you from possessing these qualities.
Having been born into privilege is no guarantor of possession of these qualities either.

You have lost the plot.

Paul D

August 13th, 2011, 11:44 AM

Things got out of hand & we’d had a few drinks. We smashed the place up and Boris set fire to the toilets.”

David Cameron recalls his time at Oxford, speaking in 1986

Paul D

August 13th, 2011, 11:47 AM

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/04/exclusive-david-cameron-and-the-bullingdon-night-of-the-broken-window/#ixzz1Utuiln00

Exclusive: David Cameron and the Bullingdon night of the broken window
April 4, 2010 4:05 pm by Jim Pickard
676 18

David Cameron supposedly retired early to bed before a raucous evening in 1987 in which the Bullingdon Club ran from the police through the streets of Oxford – according to “When Boris met Dave”, the recent TV programme.

In fact, I can reveal, the youthful Cameron was most definitely at the party. Unlike most of his friends, however, he – along with Boris Johnson and another student called Sebastian Grigg – escaped capture by the forces of law and order.

Mr Cameron’s apparent capacity to rise almost without trace is neatly embodied in the story of his early brush with the law.

The evening had ended with a pot being sent crashing through a restaurant window – sending some of the revellers, including Johnson, the future mayor of London, scurrying for safety while their less fortunate friends earned themselves a night in the cells at Cowley police station.

Many details of the evening have been kept a closely-guarded secret by the group of old friends, who have remained tight-lipped about Cameron’s involvement in the escapade.

But one former Bullingdon member recalled how the arrests took place in Oxford’s botanical gardens where – silhouetted by the lights of the police cars – the students, who had been hiding on the ground, stood up one by one.

At that point, however, Cameron had sprinted off down a side street towards St John’s Lane to make good his escape, according to the person. He said the idea that the future Tory leader was not part of the original escapade was ludicrous.

“A policy of omerta has descended on the Cameron episode. He definitely got completely clean away, so that part of it is true, but the idea that someone just went to bed early! I mean, come on….”

The former member added, ironically: “There were tiers, there was (on one hand) an advanced commitment to smashing up rooms and (on the other) there were just kind of people who went to bed early.”

Cameron has never pretended to have lived a blameless youth. “There was a time at university when lots of people drank too much and fell over, and I plead guilty,” he has said.

Yet unlike most students he seems to have had a precocious sense of how his youthful indiscretions might have an impact on his later ambitions. The episode provide a fascinating insight into Mr Cameron because it suggests that the future leader of the Conservative party was already thinking of his CV.

The old friend says that, in retrospect, it was “extraordinary” that Cameron was so determined not to be caught.

The three students who escaped were not only all Old Etonians but they already had political ambitions, standing for Parliament in 1997.

All lost in the Labour landslide. But in the early hours of that Oxford morning, the trio were “self-aware enough to know they weren’t going to be arrested”, he recalls. “Of course we all knew it was ridiculous but there was a sense of seriousness about some members of the group.”

Years later, it was quite a common joke within that circle that the three who ran for Parliament in 1997 were also the three who ran from the flowerpot incident in 1987.

They were not only the fleetest of foot – “I never knew Boris could run so fast,” the club member said – but arguably the most mature.

”Maybe we always thought we were going to be running the country, certainly that’s how we talked, in terms of which of us would be the one to lead the Conservative party when the time came,” he said.

Johnson has claimed that he was one of those to be arrested, giving vivid details of his supposed night in the cell.

In the early hours before dawn, the mayor has recalled, two policemen came to talk to the youths. “By this stage I am afraid that the Bullingdon club was very far from the proud phalanx of tail-coated twits that had set out for dinner the night before,” said Johnson. “Some of us were beginning to whimper for our mothers.”

In fact Boris was already far from the scene, according to the other former member: “It was part of his (Johnson’s) narrative to be caught… Foresight, isn’t it, of knowing that in 20 years’ time things would have changed so much that a la Bertie Wooster it would have been part of everybody’s CV to have stolen a policeman’s helmet?”

Those from less golden backgrounds disliked the elitism of the Bullingdon Club. But it was viewed by Cameron’s set as a “safe” alternative to more louche institutions such as the Piers Gaveston Society.

The japes tended to involve violence directed at furniture rather than people: ”Compared to them[the Gaveston], the Buller was respectability incarnate,” the source said. “It is a club with a great sense of tradition.”

I put this anecdote to the Tory press office, which refused to comment.

dreadathecontrols

August 13th, 2011, 11:49 AM

yep

my only criticism of this current bunch of rioters is a distinct lack of imagination.
they could have peddled into a rich area and had a much better party.
Still nothing is ever like the old days...
a more serious point is that, this all started in 1957 with the notting hill 'race' riots. which was basically the local caribbeans , only ten years off The Windrush, defending themselves from gangs of racist attackers.
the media said the same things then.Blacks and associates= animals and thugs.(white racist attackers are ,well, they're us , eh)As they have done all through my life from notting hill in the '70's, brixton, toxteth, st paul's, southall etc the whole country in the ''80's -inc tottenham- and the poll tax riots ion the '90's.
(there used to be resistance on the free party scene too, as we fought the feds when facing eviction.And guess what? we were animals and thugs...)And recently in the little anti cuts student 'riots'
Rioters whatever the reasons have always been portrayed as a sub human mob without cause or reason.
This country pretends its a stable homogeneous place. but the reality , for what ever differing reasons at the time, is different.
some people like to watch the
royal wedding. some people like to riot.
the same now as in 1981.
What are the values of the looting mob? greed.What are the values of the bent police, the bent mp's ,the phone hacking journalists?
And here's a thing.
this lot of riots involved a fairly small number, 3000 tops.
but the media went apeshit about it
Why? Because the preceding story was about them , the media phone hacking scandal which is now conveniently forgotten....
__________________

openlyJane

August 13th, 2011, 11:59 AM

......

Eastisleast

August 13th, 2011, 01:04 PM

I never knew they were HMG. You are such a sycophantic dumbo.

Beats being an obsequious commie.

Mostly Lurking

August 13th, 2011, 09:23 PM

Why are people bothering to engage with John? Just ignore him, he gets bored here and will move onto vandalising Wikipedia again.

Cast Iron Shaw

August 13th, 2011, 10:35 PM

Why are people bothering to engage with John? Just ignore him, he gets bored here and will move onto vandalising Wikipedia again.

Really?

Do you know this for a fact?

MarineMan

August 13th, 2011, 11:13 PM

You are, simply, confused

Stop telling yourself lies and believing them. The reason for the riots was because of the economic situation, brought on by Cameron's cuts. Simple.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is severely deluded or brainwashed.

MarineMan

August 13th, 2011, 11:15 PM

Beats being an obsequious commie.

This lunatic thinks anyone who is not a Tory voter is a commie. A very sad case, but fascinating to read - the rambling thoughts of an obsessed mind. Fascinating.

MarineMan

August 13th, 2011, 11:16 PM

Why are people

How is the train spotting going?

MarineMan

August 13th, 2011, 11:18 PM

Things got out of hand & we’d had a few drinks. We smashed the place up and Boris set fire to the toilets.”

David Cameron recalls his time at Oxford, speaking in 1986

Yep! And people voted for these out of touch Hooray Henry's. I know of no main party that is absolutely hated than the Tory Party.

MarineMan

August 13th, 2011, 11:28 PM

yep

my only criticism of this current bunch of rioters is a distinct lack of imagination.
they could have peddled into a rich area and had a much better party.

They did, but the rich areas were packed with police. The poor areas were not. St.John's Wood High St in London was packed with police. Half a mile away in Edgware Rd none were to be see. The population is mainly Arab with a sizable Moroccan community. A group of hoodie black youths appeared. The Arabs, to their credit, gathered and ran them off. The local Cockneys were getting drunk in the pub.

Mostly Lurking

August 14th, 2011, 12:01 AM

Really?

Do you know this for a fact?

Yes, he has been banned from there many times too.

BeeGee

August 14th, 2011, 11:23 AM

Dear Mr & Mrs Cameron,

And I blame the parents.

Could not agree more. And while Rodney (call me Dave) insists on austerity for all. the number of MPs in Westminster stays resolutely at 650, no MP will lose their job in a downsizing exercise. MPs pay has not been cut or frozen and inflation rises are still being applied, one or two 'grand gestures' of course but no across the board cuts. If we are expected to contribute to recovery why aren't these greedy bastards doing the same? Expenses continue to inflate and bolster incomes and the Standards Committee is under constant pressure from MPs to keep their mouths shut. Pensions? The MPs pension is the greatest scandal, whilst Joe Public's pension is torn to shreds the MPs pension remains unchanged and platinum plated. It is a final salary pension scheme based on 1/50ths and annual rises are linked to RPI and not CPI.

Ever felt you where in the wrong job? :bash:

MarineMan

August 14th, 2011, 11:45 AM

Could not agree more.

How is The Mail on Sunday today? :lol: :lol:

The problem is Cameron and his cuts. It was predicted, even by his own Deputy PM. Amazingly, we never see economic riots when there is full employment and money is about. Get it? Has the penny dropped?

If we get these Hooray Henry's out of No.10 then that is a great step forward.

BeeGee

August 14th, 2011, 12:39 PM

How is The Mail on Sunday today? :lol: :lol:

The problem is Cameron and his cuts. It was predicted, even by his own Deputy PM. Amazingly, we never see economic riots when there is full employment and money is about. Get it? Have the penny dropped?

If we get these Hooray Henry's out of No.10 then that is a great step forward.

Knobhead.

MarineMan

August 14th, 2011, 01:36 PM

Knobhead.

I do agree, Cameron, the restaurant and toilet wrecking Hooray Henry (he knows about social misbehavior), is a 100% knobhead. You voted for those knobheads didn't you? The petty mindedness of the Wirralite.

I feel angry about the rioting. Very angry!! Clegg knew what was to happen before he got into bed with filth like Cameron.

"if they [Tories] slash and burn public services on a thin mandate, a violent backlash is not inconceivable."
..
"there is a very serious risk [of rioting]"
-Nick Clegg April 2010

Clegg could have made sure he got into bed with Labour.
YItK1izQIwo

Social history tells us what causes riots. This is all known, no secret.
Clegg was right! Riots are predictable. All avoidable!!

Eastisleast

August 14th, 2011, 05:19 PM

Could not agree more. And while Rodney (call me Dave) insists on austerity for all. the number of MPs in Westminster stays resolutely at 650, no MP will lose their job in a downsizing exercise. MPs pay has not been cut or frozen and inflation rises are still being applied, one or two 'grand gestures' of course but no across the board cuts. If we are expected to contribute to recovery why aren't these greedy bastards doing the same? Expenses continue to inflate and bolster incomes and the Standards Committee is under constant pressure from MPs to keep their mouths shut. Pensions? The MPs pension is the greatest scandal, whilst Joe Public's pension is torn to shreds the MPs pension remains unchanged and platinum plated. It is a final salary pension scheme based on 1/50ths and annual rises are linked to RPI and not CPI.

Ever felt you where in the wrong job? :bash:

The number of MPs is to be reduced to 600 and the Government took a 5% paycut on assuming power.

Tom Hughes

August 14th, 2011, 06:33 PM

I do agree, Cameron, the restaurant and toilet wrecking Hooray Henry (he knows about social misbehavior), is a 100% knobhead. You voted for those knobheads didn't you? The petty mindedness of the Wirralite.

I feel angry about the rioting. Very angry!! Clegg knew what was to happen before he got into bed with filth like Cameron.

"if they [Tories] slash and burn public services on a thin mandate, a violent backlash is not inconceivable."
..
"there is a very serious risk [of rioting]"
-Nick Clegg April 2010

Clegg could have made sure he got into bed with Labour.
YItK1izQIwo

Social history tells us what causes riots. This is all known, no secret.
Clegg was right! Riots are predictable. All avoidable!!

Slight over-simplification..... if it was really the case, the rioters would still be very much in action, they would also have a large element of public support. Instead they have been castigated by ALL of society regardless of status, creed, race or politics. In fact there would have been several far worse periods in the past 30yrs for people in the likes of Smithdown to have revolted for political reasons. The nature of the rioting, the average age of the participant and the type of target attacked tells us all we need to know. Ask the people on the likes of the boot estate or various other estates wrecked by scallies..... they've seen all of this before, and worse. Scallywags finding impetus via over-tolerance and organisation via mobiles and PC's.... add a spark and mischief ensues. No need for political-social-analysis.... there have always been no-marks bent on destruction and their 15mins of fame....

LABlue

August 14th, 2011, 08:16 PM

Knobhead.

:lol:

john is the worst kind of activist - one that does fuck all apart from spout know-all shite on message boards.

I do prefer your description though

jets9

August 14th, 2011, 10:11 PM

As well as being deeply depressed about the riots I had made a conscious decision not to dip into the skyscraper city debate for fear of its effect on my mental health....today during a moment of madness? and/or weakness I have 'dipped', tentatively into the last 2 pages of this thread.

I thought the last 2 pages would represent a graduation to a 'calmer' less tendentious rambling debate and discussion.........Instead I got

'You are such a sycophantic dumbo'

'The blame is the Hooray Henry'

'Anyone who thinks otherwise is severely deluded or brainwashed'.........:lol: :hilarious :rofl:

'the rambling thoughts of an obsessed mind.'

'but the rich areas were packed with police. The poor areas were not'

'The local Cockneys were getting drunk in the pub.'

Anyway :nuts: I feel ok now...taken the meds but won't be 'dipping' again

MarineMan

August 15th, 2011, 12:52 AM

Slight over-simplification..... if it was really the case, the rioters would still be very much in action, they would also have a large element of public support. Instead they have been castigated by ALL of society regardless of status, creed, race or politics.

That was the case in 1981 as well. After match analysis was that the rioters had a case - as now.

MarineMan

August 15th, 2011, 12:53 AM

:lol:

john is the worst kind of activist - one that does fuck all apart from spout know-all shite on message boards.

I do prefer your description though

Oh look! A football knobhead!

MarineMan

August 15th, 2011, 12:55 AM

LABlue

August 15th, 2011, 07:31 AM

Oh look! A football knobhead!

come on John you can do better than that. I'm sure some of the people you admire are 'football knobheads'

anyhow in my less than subtle way I still do wonder what you are doing to support your (apparently strongly held) beliefs and views on this and other subjects.

I was as emotional as you seem to be about some of the issues you talk about I like to think Id try and do something more than lecture people on an internet messageboard. Hey but that's just me - opinions eh.

Eastisleast

August 15th, 2011, 07:36 AM

Stop telling yourself lies and believing them. The reason for the riots was because of the economic situation, brought on by Cameron's cuts. Simple.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is severely deluded or brainwashed.

Political riots my arse. Where were the banners and why aren't the leaders stating their case in the media?

Most people grow up, others like you simply grow older.

MarineMan

August 15th, 2011, 09:39 AM

Political riots my arse. Where were the banners and why aren't the leaders stating their case in the media?

Oh my God! This one thinks it was an organized demo and they forgot the protest banners. :lol:

It was because there are no jobs for many and the standard of living has dropped for those on low pay to survival status. In short, brought on by Hooray Henry Cameron's cuts - the guy who wrecked restaurants and his mate the mayor of London took to wrecking the toilets.. Those cuts that his deputy PM said would result in riots.

But Mr Cameron's period at Carlton is not remembered so fondly by some of the journalists who had to deal with him. Jeff Randall, writing in The Daily Telegraph where he is a senior executive, said he would not trust Mr Cameron "with my daughter's pocket money".

"To describe Cameron's approach to corporate PR as unhelpful and evasive overstates by a widish margin the clarity and plain-speaking that he brought to the job of being Michael Green's mouthpiece," wrote the ex-BBC business editor. "In my experience, Cameron never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative, which probably makes him perfectly suited for the role he now seeks: the next Tony Blair," Mr Randall wrote. Sun business editor Ian King, recalling the same era, described Mr Cameron as a "poisonous, slippery individual".

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/david_cameron2.html

"He [Cameron] has previously admitted to being a member of the Bullingdon Club, notorious for the drunken vandalism of its predominantly aristocratic members."

"Cameron was a member of the club at a time when it was derringer to engage in the ‘man of the people’ pursuits of washing down “a cocktail of drugs with an honest, working class box of chips and a five pound bottle of wine”. Looking at the impressive list of famous members and the impeccably tailored member before me, it seems hard to imagine why any of these last bastions of the British aristocratic classes would participate in activity more suited to British football fan culture."

'"We went out to get drunk but it was not planned to trash the place. It just got very out of hand. I wish you could hold the story for a week. People could get sent down for this."'

"Thames Valley police confirmed that 14 men had been involved in the melee but said only four had been arrested because there were not enough cells to hold them all. "We had reports of them throwing plates and glasses around at the White Hart. The owner said they had quite a lot to drink and were becoming aggressive. "Four people were arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage. They were too drunk at the time to be interviewed and were put in the cells at Abingdon."

golden66

August 15th, 2011, 11:27 AM

MarineMan it's totally futile to respond to the brainwashed masses. They are now incapable of grasping reality and rely on ignorance,naivety and arrogance to stress extremely dangerous thought processes.

MarineMan don't devalue your mostly valid arguments by engaging yourself with subservients who have a misguided deference to our vile elites. It is a complete waste of time.

If they think that Cameron,Milliband and their kind genuinely believe in equality and justice;if they think a redistribution of wealth means taking from the poor and giving to the rich; if they think that the underclass should remain silent and excluded; if they think corruptness is foregiveable by our elites; if they think their government represents their interests;if they think governments operate in the same world that they live in; if they think that their governments are not responsible for social and economic decline then just understand that to them ignorance really is bliss.

Keayman

August 15th, 2011, 03:35 PM

Nice speech but what are YOU going to do about it. I expect labour loving John thinks Miliband can correct things though so you're not totally at one with him.

golden66

August 15th, 2011, 05:46 PM

The systematic problems caused by succesive goverments are widespread,deep and extremely damaging. They have thrown a devisive ideological net acoss our society and it's up to people to decide if they wish to find ways to escape it or be caught in it.

We are all born with a will to survive so we react to this ideolgical attack in a variety of ways and at a variety of levels depending on our circumstances. Some people are subserviant,some apathetic,some compliant,some rebellious,some sychophants, some enlightened and revolutionary. It is up to individuals to decide which coping strategy will be of most benefit to themselves.

In our deeply Disunited Kingdom it's disturbing that many people show indifference or just vague or misplaced interests towards the orchestrators who have caused our darkening predicament. The greatest asset a human being has is their brain so why not start putting it to use.

A first tentative step for these people would be to dip their feet into the waters of non mainstream politics. This is where real political choice lies and that may allow democracy to flourish because it is not and will never do in the hands of Cameron,Miliband or Clegg.

BeeGee

August 15th, 2011, 06:10 PM

[QUOTE=MarineMan;82872306]I do agree, Cameron, the restaurant and toilet wrecking Hooray Henry (he knows about social misbehavior), is a 100% knobhead. You voted for those knobheads didn't you? The petty mindedness of the Wirralite.

/QUOTE]

You know absolutely nothing about me or my voting pattern. Assumptions quite often make the one who assumes into a numpty. Thanks for proving the theory.

Howie_P

August 16th, 2011, 09:14 AM

Rioting blamed on absent fathers and poor school discipline by former Edge Hill MP, Lord Alton of Liverpool
by John Siddle, Liverpool Daily Post
Aug 16 2011

CITY rioting was last night blamed on absent fathers and poor school discipline by former Edge Hill MP, Lord Alton.

Speaking in the House of Lords, the Lib-Dem peer warned of “far worse events in the future”.

Lord Alton called for the examination of the “flaccid language of rights, which has pushed to one side the idea of duties, obligations and responsibilities”.

He said: “Eight hundred thousand children in this country have no contact with their fathers.

“As parents, we have to be on the side of teachers. We must re-establish discipline in our schools.

“If we do not, it will not be what we have seen that will come back to haunt us; it will be far worse events in the future.”

Source: Liverpool Daily Post (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/08/16/rioting-blamed-on-absent-fathers-and-poor-school-discipline-by-former-edge-hill-mp-lord-alton-of-liverpool-92534-29241241/)

golden66

August 16th, 2011, 10:26 AM

There are only two sections of society to blame:The mainstream politicians and ourselves for voting for them.

jets9

August 16th, 2011, 02:11 PM

There are only two sections of society to blame:The mainstream politicians and ourselves for voting for them.

That's a very liberterian statement at heart. I take it that means 'it's everybody for themselves' from now on.

albionfagan

August 16th, 2011, 02:14 PM

Society is completely fucked, just look at the breaking news today and all of its implications for our PM.

Those at the top lie and steal from society, so do those at the bottom.

Awayo

August 16th, 2011, 02:16 PM

It's the Queen's PM.

albionfagan

August 16th, 2011, 02:23 PM

No, it's the UK's PM, who we allow to be our PM.

Awayo

August 16th, 2011, 02:31 PM

Medici

August 16th, 2011, 03:14 PM

^^ This has been the constitutional settlement ever since Walpole, however the relationship between the sovereign and the PM has changed. During Diana's funeral, instead of the Queen advising the PM, it was Tony Blair advising the Queen. The problem with the relationship is that the royal prerogative gives the PM unaccountable power in parliament that a US President could only dream of.

golden66

August 16th, 2011, 03:30 PM

That's a very liberterian statement at heart. I take it that means 'it's everybody for themselves' from now on.

Please read #327.

Awayo

August 16th, 2011, 04:19 PM

During Diana's funeral, instead of the Queen advising the PM, it was Tony Blair advising the Queen.

Minister's advise the monarch. Ministers are the monarch's advisors and have been since Norman times. That is their job. The monarch does not advise anyone. She commands.

albionfagan

August 16th, 2011, 04:25 PM

A silly point I know but really he isn't. She's your queen (horrible thought, I know) and he's first amongst her ministers. A minister means a servant. The Queen's servant in this case, not ours. That's the constitutional position in any case. You do have the opportunity to vote for the the parliament to which he owes his position however.

The monarchy has absolutely no power whatsoever, your pedantry isn't even accurate. He's our Prime Minister we chose him, or at least have acquiesced to his premiership.

Awayo

August 16th, 2011, 04:27 PM

You chose your local MP. Maybe. The Conservative party chose its leader. After the election, this man became the Queens first minister.

tomo90

August 16th, 2011, 04:46 PM

I have an absent father and I come from a teen pregnancy. I wasnt going around looting and causing havoc.

Awayo

August 16th, 2011, 05:22 PM

Is your mum seeing anyone at the moment tomo? :naughty:

Neilsatiscitycentre

August 16th, 2011, 07:17 PM

I have an absent father and I come from a teen pregnancy. I wasnt going around looting and causing havoc.

Glad to hear it. I know somebody in their 80's who has smoked 40 a day since they were 15 and they are perfectly healthy; doesn't mean smoking doesn't give you lung cancer.

Paul D

August 16th, 2011, 07:33 PM

Medici

August 16th, 2011, 09:10 PM

Minister's advise the monarch. Ministers are the monarch's advisors and have been since Norman times. That is their job. The monarch does not advise anyone. She commands.

Ministers do not advise the sovereign, the PM has an audience once a week with the Queen, ministers are too busy running their departments.

design_man

August 16th, 2011, 09:23 PM

Who's this macarasmus person who joined the forum,started up a thread like this and then stopped posting? We seem to have a load of people who join lately but don't take part.Loads of really old threads being brought back to,Accura used to do that a lot,it's weird other people are now doing it for no apparent reason.

I have noticed that too.....creepy, obsessive behaviour, no doubt Bammy will be on the case if it continues, it might that people who aren't entirely welcome are testing the water a bit? The internet is now so big, so much bigger than it was five years ago, you'd hope people would move on, find a niche, a place they can settle in and be comfortable in, a place they would be welcome in.

tomo90

August 16th, 2011, 09:32 PM

Is your mum seeing anyone at the moment tomo? :naughty:

No actually lol

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 12:49 AM

If they think that Cameron,Milliband and their kind genuinely believe in equality and justice;

Cameron? All his Eton and Harrow oiks want is to maintain their privileged lifestyle at all costs.

Ed Milliband went to a London Comp and obtained a master degree in economics at the London School of Economics.

A bit of a difference between the two.

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 12:54 AM

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 12:56 AM

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 01:05 AM

Nice speech but what are YOU going to do about it. I expect labour loving John thinks Miliband can correct things though so you're not totally at one with him.

Another one. I am anti-Tory! Get it. Even a tennie dweller like you can get that.

What you do not understand get back, instead of making a bigger knob of yourself.

ill tonkso

August 17th, 2011, 01:16 AM

This had nothing to do with the Toty party :\ There is no evidence to support that. It was spontanious violence from the bottom of British society.

golden66

August 17th, 2011, 09:23 AM

Cameron? All his Eton and Harrow oiks want is to maintain their privileged lifestyle at all costs.

Ed Milliband went to a London Comp and obtained a master degree in economics at the London School of Economics.

A bit of a difference between the two.

Why didn't Labour reduce inequality during its 13 years of government?

Miliband is part of the professional classes who tend to be compliant and sychophantic to the system rather than enlightened and revolutionary. He is just another champagne socialist, a careerist politician who has never really had a real non political job and who has far more in common with Cameron than he will ever have with the desperate/excluded classes.

I see Miliband's old comp became a PFI in 2006 and has dropped the name comp. Not at all socialist and all done under a Labour government.

The Labour Party have moved closer and closer to Conservative economics,values and ambitions. They would have made similar cuts to the Conservatives. It's death by a thousand cuts whether it be Labour or Conservatives.

What the UK urgently needs is a new type of person offering a new type of politics. We will only find it in non mainstream politics.

BeeGee

August 17th, 2011, 10:45 AM

I know about the petty mindedness of the Wirralite.

Born in Glasgow - Milton Keynes? :nuts:

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 11:10 AM

Born in Glasgow - Milton Keynes? :nuts:

You were born in both? But the Wirral dwellers are petty minded. They make their living from Liverpool but slag the place.

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 12:04 PM

Why didn't Labour reduce inequality during its 13 years of government?

They did, but not enough to be futile . We still have domestic leasehold - England & Wales and the only countries in the world to have this (leasehold is rent). A half baked attempt at commonhold was passed which has largely failed. We still have forfeiture of residential leases - the landlord can take the whole lease back for free of say you are a year behind in service charges. The premises may be worth say £300,000 on the market. Any other business the assets would be ordered to be sold, the debt debt repaid and remainder kept by the debtor - not with property - the freeholder takes the lot back. Rachmanesque laws are still here which should have been stripped away decades ago. These are all laws made by the landed rich and powerful many years ago.

Labour made no impact on the planning laws which cram over 55 million into 7.7% of the land mass. The land ownership monopoly was not even looked at.

Miliband is part of the professional classes who tend to be compliant and sychophantic to the system rather than enlightened and revolutionary. He is just another champagne socialist, a careerist politician who has never really had a real non political job and who has far more in common with Cameron than he will ever have with the desperate/excluded classes.

I do not 100% disagree with you, but he is in a party that at least have a social conscience of some description, while the Tories have none. There is a world of difference in background and circles between the two. Cameron is in business to keep the status quo - to maintain the lifestyle, at all cots, of the upper ruling class.

Labour have done little to break the London-Oxford-cambridge power triangle. All they have done is give lip service in getting more state school pupils into Oxbridge.

The old class struggle was the struggle to prevent a strata of people being suppressed and used as factory and cannon fodder. It is still there, it still does exist although not in the overt rigid form it once was.

The UK has a caste rather than class system. All the important jobs: military, financial, judiciary, education, civil service, church, around the royals etc, are filled predominantly by private school kids. The real top jobs from a handful of schools like Eton, Harrow, Wellington military, etc. In a highly centralised country these people in these positions matter. You could be a one hell of a bright man, yet they judge you on the school you went to from 11 to 16,17,18. We have 99 universities, yet in the powerful jobs, what school you went to only matters. This is totally unacceptable in a modern country that wants to progress.

To get into these private schools you are usually from a certain type of family who hold certain values have a set of defined manners and speak in a certain way to such an extent an accent has evolved with them. They have the odd outsider, who is usually a "very" bright kid for PR purposes to give the impression they are open - scholarships.

Those from the connected families can be as thick as pig shit. Those who understand the system, can tell lies and bluff their way in by adopting the dress, accent and values - they usually get found out. Now, a middle class kid like Major can be PM and Precot of working class roots can be deputy PM, for PR reasons, but those who permanently run the UK prime institutions are not from schools in Brixton. A caste system is clearly at work. Labour has done nothing to break this harmful system.

The private schools say they are better than others, which is tripe of course, and say their kids should get the top jobs and into another pretentious institution, Oxbridge. 5% of pupils are private schooled, yet 50% of Oxbridge is private school kids. They even tutor them on how to pass the entrance interview, which the average Comp does not. To add insult to injury, the state gives Oxbridge a special subsidy to pay for the likes of one-to-one tutoring - no wonder they do well in passing exams. The ruling caste have managed to get the state to fund them too.

David Hornsby, who went to Oxbridge and taught there. His comment of rich fee-paying kids who: "had learnt to hide their vapidity behind a veneer of pseudo-intelligence".

Helmut Schmidt, the ex German Chancellor, said of underperforming Britain in the 1970s, "you will never get anywhere unless you get rid of that ridiculous class system".

The country is crying out for a meritocracy. We will only get that when the ruling caste system is smashed and a federal republic emerges. That may be painful with the odd military coup here and there. These bastards will not let go of power and privilege easily. Two military coups were planned against Wilson, when the country was at full employment and the economy sound. The people were happy enough - there were no riots. They thought he would cut off their gravy train.

The ambitious state school kid in the UK can only reach a certain level and after will hit a concrete ceiling. The privileged few will try to stop him.

The Labour Party have moved closer and closer to Conservative economics, values and ambitions. They would have made similar cuts to the Conservatives. It's death by a thousand cuts whether it be Labour or Conservatives.

What the UK urgently needs is a new type of person offering a new type of politics. We will only find it in non mainstream politics.

It is true that Labour partially kept in place Freedman's economics, adopted by Reagan & Thatcher in a big way - based on the UK having around 1 million unemployed to keep labour costs down. Although Blair got it down to 0.5 m. Freedman is into rigging the free-market. The biggest free-market riggers are the Tories. Labour are still committed to a Welfare state. The Tories do not want it and stomach it because of public opinion.

What the UK needs:

Breaking down the highly toxic upper class ruling class caste strata. That can be easily done. Getting HMG institutions to restrict intake of private educated kids is one way.
A Proper PR voting system.
The House of Lords fully Democratic
Adopt Geomonic Economics

The most important is No. 4. Geoist economics is apolitical

Keayman

August 17th, 2011, 12:29 PM

As the biggest knob here Johnboy, and with these endless policies of yours which your beloved Labour have never implemented, why don't you stand for 'erection'.

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 12:42 PM

As the biggest knob here Johnboy, and with these endless policies of yours which your beloved Labour have never implemented, why don't you stand for 'erection'.

And in comes Mr Keayman, adding such value in his debating skills. Mr Keayman has eff all to to say of any description - getting personal means he has lost it, if he ever had it to begin with of course. I am sure he does not get past the third sentence then lose focus and then drool over pictures of vandalized tennies, the prelude of the sink estates. How odd.

Keayman

August 17th, 2011, 12:45 PM

So ironic Mr Waterways - see your post 351 then tell me that isn't personal. Just because your missus took you to the cleaners during your divorce does not give you the right to talk down to people.

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 12:49 PM

So ironic

If you haven nothing to add, which you rarely do, then why don't you just eff off. Such a pest.

Keayman

August 17th, 2011, 01:00 PM

Seriously, why don't you do something about it and stand for election. All these policies you could implement that your beloved party won't. You John could make a difference. You talk the talk!

Or are you one of the sub-serviants like your other log in name posted?

golden66

August 17th, 2011, 01:16 PM

In recent news articles Miliband has admitted that Labour layed the foundations for the riots by not being capable of reducing inequality.

It is now definetly time for supporters of the Labour party to abandon their nostalgic fantasy relationship with the party and move on. It is now definetly not the party of its origins being formed by an alliance between socialist societies and trade unions.

Especially, since the 1980's it has incresingly fallen in line with free market conservatives. It is not at all a socialist party having dropped this word since the early 1990's,it does not believe in public ownership or government intervention;it does not believe in a fair redistribution of wealth;it does not believe in the welfare state;it does not believe in strong trade union law and is increasingly against publicly funded education and healthcare.

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 01:22 PM

Seriously, why don't you do something about it

I lecture on it. You would never had heard of it only for me, even though you do not understand it.

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 01:36 PM

In recent news articles Miliband has admitted that Labour layed the foundations for the riots by not being capable of reducing inequality.

"inequality". Blair at least dragged all up. All boats rise on the same rising tide. It is what mechanism to use to reduce the vast majority of the wealth being in the hands of a few. Many political isms have come about since the onset of the industrial revolution, when in a world full of technology advances and wealth creation a grinding level of poverty emerged. Naziism, Socialism, Communism, fascism, Toryism, etc. None have 100% succeeded. Most failed miserably.

Geoist economics is apolitical. It is an economic system -the one we used before income tax - which is as daft as the window tax. In its various levels of implementation around the world it has been an amazing success. Many times it has been snuffed out by vested landed interest. It was snuffed out in the UK in 1909, creating the biggest upheaval in modern UK politics. I saw a documentary about the 1909 Commons vs. Lords battles last week on BBC Parliament, and not once did they mention the land tax was the root cause of the upheaval - which is was. The vested interest people, the Lords, won in suppressing the land valuation tax. The whole idea has been removed from the psyche of the people - the media never covered it. The game Monopoly was devised to teach LVT. It was originally called the Landord's Game and Brair Rabbit in the UK.

It is now definetly not the party of its origins being formed by an alliance between socialist societies and trade unions.

The more successful trade unions were in changing the laws, the more they dissolved themselves. Proof of success to a point.

Especially, since the 1980's it has incresingly fallen in line with free market conservatives.

You mean "rigged free-market" conservatives.

Geoism:

Gives a fair share of society's production by default.
It reclaims community created wealth,
It leaving private wealth in private hands.
It prevent appropriation of common wealth into private hands (a big problem in the current isms).
The ambitious and bright are rewarded
The lazy not rewarded,
No grinding poverty levels are created.
It creates the climate for economic growth
It rolls back harmful speculators on essential land and its resources
It rolls back the state.
It rolls back social and subsidized housing
It promotes top-class growth assisting transport infrastructure.
The state's job is to ensure there no monopolies, pubic wealth is not appropriated and the free-market is not rigged.
It fits into any political ism

HollyBlack

August 17th, 2011, 03:41 PM

In recent news articles Miliband has admitted that Labour laid the foundations for the riots by not being capable of reducing inequality.
It is now definitely time for supporters of the Labour party to abandon their nostalgic fantasy relationship with the party and move on. It is now definitely not the party of its origins being formed by an alliance between socialist societies and trade unions.
Especially, since the 1980's it has ....
What is the alternative?

Is the TUC willing, at some point, to start sponsoring MPs directly, instead of through the Labour Party? We have, or had, a Cooperative Party, so why not a Trades Union Party?

I have often thought that government (in many nations) would be better if lawyers were prohibited from holding public office. Perhaps the better answer is to limit sponsorship of left-of-centre candidates for public office to Trades Union members in good standing.

Let me ask again, is the TUC willing, at some point, to start sponsoring MPs directly?

golden66

August 17th, 2011, 05:25 PM

The Labour Party has now aligned itself so closely to the Conservatives that we now have virtually a one party system. Also the Liberal Democrats have shown that they are just a party that makes up the numbers and are willing to metamorphose into whatever is the largest party to allow the one party system to continue.

General elections have now become pointless and the voting system is completely obsolete.

The alternative to this state of affairs is to campaign for a PR voting system and cherry-pick from the non mainstream political groups.

HollyBlack

August 17th, 2011, 07:15 PM

The Labour Party has now aligned itself so closely to the Conservatives that ...
The alternative to this state of affairs is to campaign for a PR voting system and cherry-pick from the non mainstream political groups.
Isn't the answer for a motion to be brought to the TUC to form a Trades Union Party which will seek a similar relationship to the Labour Party as has the Cooperative Party. And which will reinstate an abbreviated Clause Four*.
That is to say, where the TUC Party selects an MP candidate, the Labour Party is expected to selected the same person (who is in turn expected to be a member of both parties - as well as a member of a Trade Union affiliated to the TUC).

* To secure for all workers the fruits of their industry and a most equitable distribution upon a basis of common ownership of means of production and supply.

MarineMan

August 17th, 2011, 11:54 PM

Is the TUC willing, at some point, to start sponsoring MPs directly, instead of through the Labour Party? We have, or had, a Cooperative Party, so why not a Trades Union Party?

The Labour party was set up on behalf of the Trade Unions. It is/was the political wing of the trade unions, however with full independent control.

I have often thought that government (in many nations) would be better if lawyers were prohibited from holding public office.

Spot on my dear!!!!!

Perhaps the better answer is to limit sponsorship of left-of-centre candidates

Who decides what is the centre or right or left of centre, a mix of left and right or no centre at all?

MarineMan

August 18th, 2011, 12:03 AM

The Labour Party has now aligned itself so closely to the Conservatives that we now have virtually a one party system.

We do not! Read my recent posts.

Also the Liberal Democrats have shown that they are just a party that makes up the numbers and are willing to metamorphose into whatever is the largest party to allow the one party system to continue.

The Liberals are firstly after PR and quite rightly so. 25% of people vote LibDem. The LibDems have some of the most progressive policies of any party.

General elections have now become pointless and the voting system is completely obsolete.

Exactly. When the most hated party in the country, the Tories, a self-interest groups really, get in with absolute power when only 1 in 3 votes for them, the system is clearly wrong. It is unrepresentative of the people of the UK.

The alternative to this state of affairs is to campaign for a PR voting system and cherry-pick from the non mainstream political groups.

You are getting warm. :)

MarineMan

August 18th, 2011, 12:13 AM

* To secure for all workers the fruits of their industry and a most equitable distribution upon a basis of common ownership of means of production and supply.

I agree with this in principle. However the Labour Party's means to achieve this do not work.

Geoism economics will work and this is not party political. The core of Geoism is Land Valuation Tax. Geoism goes further.

LVT was a part of the original Labour Party's aims. Many Labour people attempted to get it implemented until WW2. However, the Liberals, to their credit, from the early days ran with it and still do.

Howie_P

August 19th, 2011, 12:36 AM

http://www.staff.ljmu.ac.uk/beshpate/RIOT.jpg

Source - http://merseymagazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/RIOT-5.jpg

Medici

August 19th, 2011, 07:54 PM

http://www.staff.ljmu.ac.uk/beshpate/RIOT.jpg

Source - http://merseymagazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/RIOT-5.jpg

If social and environmental reasons were the primary causes and these people had a genuine cause why didn't they show their faces? That's because they are scum through and through, no excuses.

design_man

August 19th, 2011, 08:27 PM

http://streetsofliverpool.co.uk/1911-general-transport-strike/strike-warning/

Interesting link from a very interesting website

Howie_P

August 19th, 2011, 11:29 PM

http://streetsofliverpool.co.uk/1911-general-transport-strike/strike-warning/

Interesting link from a very interesting website

That is fascinating. Did not the rally on St Georges Plateau which escalated into the riot in which so many were injured take place on Sunday 13th? That poster warning people to stay away from the area appears to have been published the following day.

Medici

August 20th, 2011, 12:08 AM

^^ Howie, would you agree that the recent riots have nothing to do with decent working class traditions but are the consequence of the undermining of traditional communities and institutions that had a lot of dignity. The creation of an underclass is something altogether different, the lumpenproletariat.

Howie_P

August 20th, 2011, 12:19 AM

dreadathecontrols

August 20th, 2011, 08:58 AM

They did, but the rich areas were packed with police. The poor areas were not. St.John's Wood High St in London was packed with police. Half a mile away in Edgware Rd none were to be see. The population is mainly Arab with a sizable Moroccan community. A group of hoodie black youths appeared. The Arabs, to their credit, gathered and ran them off. The local Cockneys were getting drunk in the pub.

good point.

dreadathecontrols

August 20th, 2011, 09:03 AM

:cheers:If social and environmental reasons were the primary causes and these people had a genuine cause why didn't they show their faces? That's because they are scum through and through, no excuses.
erm no mate . its as simple as not wanting to get caught on cctv.
only the stupidest of rioters cant think that one through.
i must say though , despite the above post,most of the posts about this on ssc have been very balanced.
i was suprised by that . thought they'ed all be of the above ilk.:)

interesting to hear argumants about marx.
i was part of a more recent interpriation of marxixt analysis called 'autonomia operia', came out of the italian (and german)struggle in the '70's .
we had a group based in london and were 'around' during the riots in the '80's.
autonomist theory re valorised the lumpen classs as being the most likely to be revoltionary because of its lack of stake in both class society and the labour movement , which was marx's classical 'vangaurd'.
the theory was that the underclas' lives of criminality, rioting, free parties, drug culture, a life not based on either consumption or propduction of commodities,etc was in itself in opposition to the status quo.
we thought that our time had come in 1981. and again in 1990(poll tax)
but than as now. as we have sen the state responds with heavy armoury, both on the streets and in the courts.
BTW im a man of peace now:cheers:

HollyBlack

August 20th, 2011, 05:21 PM

The Labour party was set up on behalf of the Trade Unions. It is/was the political wing of the trade unions, however with full independent control. ...
Well, if the TUC did it before then they should do it again. Now that parts of the Labour Party no longer represent socialist policy.
Which is a lot to do with State ownership of the natural monopolies of Electricity, Gas, Oil, Coal, Steel, Airports, Rail (including everything), Buses, Mail, Parcels, Telecommunications, Television (not satellite TV), Roads and Bridges (not vehicles), Health Services, Education, Policing, Military, etc..
And various State enterprises, whatever can be run at a profit to reduce tax burden.

MarineMan

August 20th, 2011, 07:52 PM

Well, if the TUC did it before then they should do it again. Now that parts of the Labour Party no longer represent socialist policy.
Which is a lot to do with State ownership of the natural monopolies of Electricity, Gas, Oil, Coal, Steel, Airports, Rail (including everything), Buses, Mail, Parcels, Telecommunications, Television (not satellite TV), Roads and Bridges (not vehicles), Health Services, Education, Policing, Military, etc..
And various State enterprises, whatever can be run at a profit to reduce tax burden.

I am against private monopolies. We have that in land (0.3% of the population own 70% of the land). This is outraegous. This has resulted in super high land prices cascading into house prices.

All the natural resources of the land are common wealth, as is the land. A coal mine extracting coal can be private, however they pay to extract the resources and pay tax on the amount extracted. We do this with oil and Brown negotiated deals on using the electromagnetic spectum - again common wealth. The congestion charge is a charge on roads which is scarse and a tax on central of city pollution makers.

The way they got around a private monopoly is to have a public owned, or not for profit organisation to run the core and rent out the rest. British Gas is now a private monopoly. Railtrack was a private monopoly which was a disaster. It was set up primarily as a land company to gain as much as possible for railway land. It was bound to fail (taking millions of small investors money with it) and fall into the arms of the state.

Just charge them tax on the values of the land they own and a lot is solved. No need for "State enterprises, whatever can be run at a profit to reduce tax burden", as LVT solves that, as only the values of land are taxed (or realistically wealth reclaimed). Reclaim common wealth that crystalizes in land values and charge for natural resource extraction and usage.

Martin Wolf...Financial Times...
Finally, as Herman Daly has noted (http://steadystate.org/modernizing-henry-george/), today economically valuable resources are much more than just land (and what lies below it). They include all the services of the biosphere - those that are appropriated, those that are appropriable and those that are non-appropriable. If we do not think seriously and intelligently about how to price resources, we are likely to go seriously adrift, perhaps even into disaster. Here land is the least of our problems -- it is appropriable and, by and large, appropriated. So, at least, the price mechanism works, even though the distribution of the gain is grossly unjust. But, in other cases, no appropriation is possible, or at least it is not easy. Nobody can appropriate the atmosphere. It is nigh on impossible to appropriate the oceans. How do you own species diversity? These are serious challenges.

Because something is privately owned does not mean it is better run. History does not back this up.

Howie_P

August 21st, 2011, 01:35 AM

we thought that our time had come in 1981. and again in 1990(poll tax)
but than as now. as we have sen the state responds with heavy armoury, both on the streets and in the courts.

That is always going to be the response of the State. The increased repression, demonisation and further marginalisation or exclusion of various groups will not, however, resolve any of the underlying problems in our society.

The last year has seen student protests against the abolition of EMA and increases in university tuition fees, trade union protests against the wider cuts to public sector jobs and services, anarchist flash mobs/black blocs against banks and others, far right marches against immigrants and Islamism, and the recent occurence of disaffected youth (underclass/lumpenproletariat) rioting and looting without reason.

Welcome to the dis-United Kingdom.

What next? My money is on prison riots!

Keayman

August 21st, 2011, 03:31 PM

Well I agree with you on that's how the state will always react but what have the prisoners got to riot about? If the state done their job in the prisons, there'd not be much chance of rioting in the 1 hour i'd allow them out of their cells per day. ;)

jets9

August 21st, 2011, 08:44 PM

I am against private monopolies. We have that in land (0.3% of the population own 70% of the land). This is outraegous. This has resulted in super high land prices cascading into house prices.

All the natural resources of the land are common wealth, as is the land. A coal mine extracting coal can be private, however they pay to extract the resources and pay tax on the amount extracted. We do this with oil and Brown negotiated deals on using the electromagnetic spectum - again common wealth. The congestion charge is a charge on roads which is scarse and a tax on central of city pollution makers.

The way they got around a private monopoly is to have a public owned, or not for profit organisation to run the core and rent out the rest. British Gas is now a private monopoly. Railtrack was a private monopoly which was a disaster. It was set up primarily as a land company to gain as much as possible for railway land. It was bound to fail (taking millions of small investors money with it) and fall into the arms of the state.

Just charge them tax on the values of the land they own and a lot is solved. No need for "State enterprises, whatever can be run at a profit to reduce tax burden", as LVT solves that, as only the values of land are taxed (or realistically wealth reclaimed). Reclaim common wealth that crystalizes in land values and charge for natural resource extraction and usage.

Martin Wolf...Financial Times...
Finally, as Herman Daly has noted (http://steadystate.org/modernizing-henry-george/), today economically valuable resources are much more than just land (and what lies below it). They include all the services of the biosphere - those that are appropriated, those that are appropriable and those that are non-appropriable. If we do not think seriously and intelligently about how to price resources, we are likely to go seriously adrift, perhaps even into disaster. Here land is the least of our problems -- it is appropriable and, by and large, appropriated. So, at least, the price mechanism works, even though the distribution of the gain is grossly unjust. But, in other cases, no appropriation is possible, or at least it is not easy. Nobody can appropriate the atmosphere. It is nigh on impossible to appropriate the oceans. How do you own species diversity? These are serious challenges.

Because something is privately owned does not mean it is better run. History does not back this up.

^^^^ :ohno:

You just don't get it, do you?

The vast majority of human thought, endeavour, activity is privately owned and privately run. That's where we are, that's where we've come from and where we are going.

'State' action (not THE state as such) is chimera.

Peeps who actually fantasise that taxes, price mechanisms and programmes can fix anything are nothing more than dupes for the famous 'isms'...socialism/communism, fascism and environentalism.

All public political work must be as local as possible where it can do as little damage as possible (and that includes fanciful and contentious tax fantasies).......it's one of the ways to keep the megalomaniacs at arms length.

Howie_P

August 22nd, 2011, 12:11 AM

but what have the prisoners got to riot about? If the state done their job in the prisons, there'd not be much chance of rioting in the 1 hour i'd allow them out of their cells per day. ;)

It will happen. Closing prisons and cutting the funding to the Prison Service at the same time that the prison population is increasing is a recipe for disaster. The cuts to both the Police and the Prison Service should be scrapped.

BIG WEAPON

August 22nd, 2011, 05:57 PM

socialism/communism

BECAUSE SOCIALISM IS THE SAME AS COMMUNISM ISN'T IT.

I SEE YOU'RE AU FAIT WITH HICKSVILLIAN FUCTARDISM HOWEVER.

gottago

August 22nd, 2011, 06:49 PM

BECAUSE SOCIALISM IS THE SAME AS COMMUNISM ISN'T IT.

I SEE YOU'RE AU FAIT WITH HICKSVILLIAN FUCTARDISM HOWEVER.
If your caps lock key is broken then press shift as you type and it will make it lower case and less ridiculous.

dreadathecontrols

August 24th, 2011, 02:35 PM

That is always going to be the response of the State. The increased repression, demonisation and further marginalisation or exclusion of various groups will not, however, resolve any of the underlying problems in our society.

The last year has seen student protests against the abolition of EMA and increases in university tuition fees, trade union protests against the wider cuts to public sector jobs and services, anarchist flash mobs/black blocs against banks and others, far right marches against immigrants and Islamism, and the recent occurence of disaffected youth (underclass/lumpenproletariat) rioting and looting without reason.

Welcome to the dis-United Kingdom.

What next? My money is on prison riots!

yep/thats waht happened in the '80's.
you sound like a politicised chap.
not enough of them on ssc .
but hey, they deleted the tottenham riots thread.or at leat i cant find it....
mods, why is that:cheers:

openlyJane

August 24th, 2011, 03:44 PM

.....

Rollingstone Gather

August 24th, 2011, 03:48 PM

^^^^ :ohno:

You just don't get it, do you?

The vast majority of human thought, endeavour, activity is privately owned and privately run. That's where we are, that's where we've come from and where we are going.

'State' action (not THE state as such) is chimera.

Peeps who actually fantasise that taxes, price mechanisms and programmes can fix anything are nothing more than dupes for the famous 'isms'...socialism/communism, fascism and environentalism.

All public political work must be as local as possible where it can do as little damage as possible (and that includes fanciful and contentious tax fantasies).......it's one of the ways to keep the megalomaniacs at arms length.

There's an interesting thought that if you did factor all the things that nature does for us (with regards to private enterprise) then businesses would rarely make a profit. The obvious examples are C02 absorption and waste breakdown.

Ultimately this will be old style capitalism's breakdown (no recycling of resources, endless energy, subjugation of earths ecosystems) . Sustainability is the future.

Socialism via a figurehead (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Gaddafi) always breaks down because people want to be free. 'Its not mine its all of ours' didn't quite work in the context of a political movement, because the state always corrupts itself against the people, but in an economic one it may succeed, as I can quite happily buy a bag of coffee that 1) Doesn't f*ck people over 2) Can continue in perpetuity because it is sustainable.

The Tories can see this by the way, that's why they changed their logo to a tree and go on about sustainability.

westernfront

August 26th, 2011, 02:30 AM

You have an, almost, romantic view of the downtrodden poor.
Having very little money will reveal, surer than anything, what your true values are.

Those with herd-like sensibilities, whether rich or poor, black or white, swallow whole, without any filtration, the dominant values of whatever society they inhabit.

I've seen plenty of 'poor' or low-paid parents handing out money or goods to their off-spring, like the proverbial sweets ( they also give unrestricted access to those too!). They indulge every consumerist whim - without stopping to question the value of those whims. Rich parents do this too; did anybody watch the 'reality' show, 'Made in Chelsea?".

I have witnessed the phenomenon of parents PAYING their children to do well in exams, or rewarding them financially for good grades. Their children strut around in all of the latest gear; their parents pay for their mobile phone contracts; they throw lavish and expensive birthday parties for them. These children rarely hear the word 'no'.

It is disturbingly common to overhear parents in supermarkets and shops asking their toddler, "What do you want for dinner?", or "which one do you want?" This is met with a confused look from the child - as children that age are not equipped to make such, or any decisions. Parents make the decisions, and the decisions they make shape the child's value system.

Benefit money can just as easily be spent on books for toddlers, as it can on mini-trainers with a designer label. You can eat healthily on a low budget. You can walk rather than get a taxi or a bus. Your children will absorb these values and the decisions and choices they make later in life will reflect them.

The language & culture of choice and liberal individualism ( which translates as 'do anything you want') has become, for many parents the model for parenting.

The fact is - a child without boundaries and rules is a very scared child; and one that develops a sense of omnipotence. Most children will test the boundaries; some, according to temperament, will push very hard and continually - but when they do and they are successful, it feeds something very unhealthy in them. Eventually, for some, the police and the courts have to step in.

Indulgence leads to a desire for a repeat and to greed.

It is not easy to become a conscious person of integrity, with an alternative value system to the mainstream - but it is a possibility for all people, regardless of economics.

In my opinion.

Great post.

westernfront

August 26th, 2011, 02:42 AM

Why didn't Labour reduce inequality during its 13 years of government?

Miliband is part of the professional classes who tend to be compliant and sychophantic to the system rather than enlightened and revolutionary. He is just another champagne socialist, a careerist politician who has never really had a real non political job and who has far more in common with Cameron than he will ever have with the desperate/excluded classes.

I see Miliband's old comp became a PFI in 2006 and has dropped the name comp. Not at all socialist and all done under a Labour government.

The Labour Party have moved closer and closer to Conservative economics,values and ambitions. They would have made similar cuts to the Conservatives. It's death by a thousand cuts whether it be Labour or Conservatives.

What the UK urgently needs is a new type of person offering a new type of politics. We will only find it in non mainstream politics.

Inequality gaps only matter to the envious. If Person A and Person B are both better off then why should Person A worry about the size of the gap with Person B.

If you knew somebody who offered you a deal where you would be £100 a month better off and they would be £50 million better off, would you refuse?

Makes me laugh the amount of wasted time people spend talking about governments etc. Governments don't run your life - you do. Forget about them completely and make your own luck.

golden66

August 26th, 2011, 12:22 PM

^^
Incredibly ignorant.

The main motivation of capitalism is inequality. The greater the inequality the greater control the rich have over the poor or in other words the greater control the few have over the many.

It is constantly happening in the UK economy where wave after wave of new and impoverished workers are expected to work for lower and lower wages. Each succesive wave of worker undercuts and replaces the previous wave. The most valuable worker to a capitalist is the one who is prepared to work for the lowest wages i.e. those who are experiencing the greatest inequality.

Ofcourse inequality is relative and has large variations around the world. In some cases it is brutal and wicked and others finanacially exploitative. In all cases, however, it is deliberatly designed by the capitalist elites to protect their power structure both nationally and internationally.

Your scenario is flawed. The money I am making is becoming more worthless as time passes as the differential inequality increases. This is a fools paradise, I am now making the rich richer at my own expense. The money I accumulate is so small that it will gain very little interest and will all be taken from me through taxation, inflation, debt. repayments, normal material needs etc. and will further increase inequality. In other words I would be better off not entering into such a deal because I'm just ending up fueling the system rather than making myself significantly better off.

If you make the elites richer they will in turn exploit you more. When Cameron talks about the "Big Society" he does not mean the rich giving to the poor he means the poor giving to the rich so that they can be exploited further.

I think you should abandon these delusional notions that "we make our own luck". It is an insult to millions of workers who have remained poor whilst working extremely hard. It wasn't just bad luck why they remained poor, they were deliberatly made poor.

westernfront

August 27th, 2011, 12:29 AM

golden66

August 27th, 2011, 08:29 AM

jets9

August 27th, 2011, 05:35 PM

As I say it's a fools paradise. You may feel better off but in reality you are worse off. If you don't own your land, don't own your property, aren't self-sufficient and don't work for yourself then most of your existence in this capitalistic world will be about fuelling the system to create greater inequality. Most deals you enter into from getting a mortgage to buying a tin of beans increases your own and societies inequality.

I take it that the 'deals' you refer to also include the conversations and SSC contacts that you 'enter into.'

I do hope this point isn't too subtle for you but the moment any of us lift our weary heads from our beds in the morning we are all increasing our own and societies inequality.

gedit!

westernfront

August 28th, 2011, 02:15 AM

As I say it's a fools paradise. You may feel better off but in reality you are worse off. If you don't own your land, don't own your property, aren't self-sufficient and don't work for yourself then most of your existence in this capitalistic world will be about fuelling the system to create greater inequality. Most deals you enter into from getting a mortgage to buying a tin of beans increases your own and societies inequality.

If your standard of living improves then you are better off. It doesn't matter one jot to me whether Mr Jones' standard of living has improved even more.

The whole inequalities argument is a "keeping up with the Jones' type" approach - how much somebody else is better off than yourself without paying any regard to your absolute level of standard of living... which despite all the moaning, is relatively high in this country in comparison to the rest of the world.

Keeping up with Joneses only breeds envy and jealously.

golden66

August 28th, 2011, 10:32 AM

MarineMan

August 28th, 2011, 10:44 AM

^^^^ :ohno:

You just don't get it, do you?

The only one who deoesn't get it is you. I do not advocate public pownership of all - just no private momopolies.

Peeps who actually fantasise that taxes,

I am not into fantasies. I am into matters that work and proven to work. What does not work is what we have right now. Community wealth is appropriated by private individuals and groups. Private wealth is appropriated by the community. It should be the reverse. The mechanism to do this is Geoist economics with Land Valuation Tax as its core. All proven to work - ask Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Harrisburg, USA, etc, etc. Even Martin Wolf of the FT is a firm supporter.

MarineMan

August 28th, 2011, 10:56 AM

The standard of living in the UK is and will continue to decline as capitalists exploit wave after wave of cheap foreign labour coming to the UK and import more lower quality goods from abroad. Also government cuts in wages,jobs and services in the public sector will reduce the standard of living overall.

Good post. Very true. They rig the free market. Yet these arseholes spout about the free-market - they mean a rigged free-market to suit themselves.

Only those who own their own land,property ,are already affluent or at the top of the income pyramid will see a rise in living standards. Most incomes will be eroded by rising levels of taxation, wage cuts, debt repayments,rising unemployment ,rising inflation and increasing privatisation.
Again, spot on.

The chances of you marginally, never mind significantly, improving your standard of living are declining day by day. Good luck on The National Lottery. oh, and stop going on about envy and jealousy, reducing inequality is about fairness and justice.The sycophantic brainwashed resort to type when the vast imbalance of the nation's wealth is brought up. A 100 years of anti-Communist brainwashing surfaces. Having the wealth in the hands of a few is bad, just plain bad. Any decent economist will tell that. Getting the wealth equal is wrong. Getting it fair is right. The current systen is unjust and that is clear. The problems that create the imbalance are known.

The beneficiairies of the current unjust system spend an amazing amount to ensure the ignorant tow the current line. The mass vote for a system which is not to their own benefit. They are told it is black and white. The other side is big bad Communism and the line of fairness is the one we have. Communism is used as the frightener.

In fact a Capitalist system that is fair and does fairly distribute wealth is Geonomics. This has been pushed out of the minds of the population over 100 years - all gain in Geonomics, except maybe the Duke of Westminster, but he is not short of the odd shilling or two.

MarineMan

August 28th, 2011, 11:04 AM

Inequalities only matter to the envious.

You are clearly brainwashed. In your primitive mind, you see anyone who has a sense of justice in them and highlights a section of the community that owns most of the wealth, as envious. Envy, jealousy, etc, are stock words used by the right-wing and plain greedy.

jets9

August 28th, 2011, 03:14 PM

The only one who deoesn't get it is you. I do not advocate public pownership of all - just no private momopolies.

I am not into fantasies. I am into matters that work and proven to work. What does not work is what we have right now. Community wealth is appropriated by private individuals and groups. Private wealth is appropriated by the community. It should be the reverse. The mechanism to do this is Geoist economics with Land Valuation Tax as its core. All proven to work - ask Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Harrisburg, USA, etc, etc. Even Martin Wolf of the FT is a firm supporter.

You are a dupe.

MarineMan

August 28th, 2011, 04:23 PM

A fool I clearly am not, which is more than I can say about you deing duped.

Winston Churchill, Einstein, Tolsoy, etc were all duped in your primitive mind. Read back on my posts on this thread. If you want more info contact me.

MarineMan

August 28th, 2011, 04:45 PM

Which is a lot to do with State ownership of the natural monopolies of Electricity, Gas, Oil, Coal, Steel, Airports,

If John Lennon airport was public owned it would have had a terminal rail station by now. HMG will not pour public money were the benefactors will primarily be a private company - Peel Holdings.

Cast Iron Shaw

August 28th, 2011, 07:27 PM

John
They may do
The Cruise terminal is one example as discussed elsewhere

Cast Iron Shaw

August 29th, 2011, 09:50 PM

If John Lennon airport was public owned it would have had a terminal rail station by now. HMG will not pour public money were the benefactors will primarily be a private company - Peel Holdings.

Of course Peel are only a minority shareholder of Speke Airport now.

They sold 65% to Vancouver Airport Services in 2010

westernfront

August 30th, 2011, 01:46 AM

You are clearly brainwashed. In your primitive mind, you see anyone who has a sense of justice in them and highlights a section of the community that owns most of the wealth, as envious. Envy, jealousy, etc, are stock words used by the right-wing and plain greedy.

Not really fella - I just don't judge people by how much money they have and truth be told if I look at the best moments in life, none of them have anything to do with money.

If you want to spend half of your life whingeing about how much money somebody with more has in relation to yourself than go ahead - waste your time... and while your at it, practice what you preach by distributing your own to people lower down the food chain, inside and outside the UK.

westernfront

August 30th, 2011, 01:50 AM

westernfront

August 30th, 2011, 01:51 AM

If John Lennon airport was public owned it would have had a terminal rail station by now. HMG will not pour public money were the benefactors will primarily be a private company - Peel Holdings.

No it wouldn't. If it was publically owned it would probably still have tiny passenger numbers and not be able to put a case forward.

westernfront

August 30th, 2011, 01:59 AM

HollyBlack

August 30th, 2011, 05:13 AM

This I agree with - and it's the natural order of things as the west declines and the east rises, but I guess as somebody with socialist tendencies you won't mind seeing the standard of living rise in other "less well off" countries in relation to the comparatively "rich" UK or do your political ideals only apply to your own back yard?
I beg to differ.

Life is not a zero sum game.

If the population is for the most part productive (refining oil, bandaging wounds, making bread, farming, teaching, driving trains, playing music that is in demand and so on and on) then the population for the most part will be wealthy.

But if the population is for the most part not productive (on the dole, retired, too sick to work, counting money, investing portfolios, balancing accounts, making laws, guarding prisons and serving time, writing poetry just for the joy of it and so on) then the population for the most part will be poor.

Government and economic policies only serve the people if they get those people productive. For example, banking is beneficial only to the extent that it promotes the doing of productive things. Otherwise it is impoverishing.

There is plenty of scope for an improvement in both Western and Eastern living standards. What is requires is that people are productive, not merely (rich and poor) consumers. That is really all it requires, the rest falls into shape. These principles were known as early as 1844 and still apply today.

openlyJane

August 30th, 2011, 12:15 PM

^^Nor is all 'productivity' financially rewarded, or included in systems of measuring wealth or GDP or whatever.

Traditionally, men have been paid a surplus to cover the work that their wives have done for free (the 'family wage' - and which men have guarded jealously).

Furthermore, when in the workplace ( the outside of the home one!), women are still being paid less than men. 'Men's' jobs are still valued and rewarded more highly. Women's 'other' unpaid productive labour is relied on without much question at all.

The whole socialist thesis was based on a patriarchal model of work and economic value; and on the measurement of those values.

Marx was a materialist, and a patriarchal one at that.

I'm clearly playing devil's advocate here - because overly-simplistic models of society, are just that, overly simplistic.

As far as I can see, capitalism is here to stay: and, furthermore, it no longer conforms to outdated conceptions of it. It is now a globalised system - and each culture interprets it according to its own dominant values.

Materialists replace spiritual or religious values with material ones.
Highly educated societies tend to value intellectual work over manual labour.
Patriarchal societies value the masculine world to the detriment of feminine values.
Western economies and governments impose their own definitions of value & worth onto 'emerging economies' and 'under-developed' countries: both these terms being coined according to the model of a western value system.

At the end of the day - we are each responsible for the way we act, for the way we behave towards others, for the decisions we make...

We all live within certain sets of conditions - as dictated by our family, our community, our culture, and of course, these conditions shape our experience - but that is not the only story.

In an, often, dehumanising world, becoming a human being is a high calling - and not a given.

MarineMan

August 31st, 2011, 11:18 AM

MarineMan

August 31st, 2011, 11:25 AM

Of course Peel are only a minority shareholder of Speke Airport now.

They sold 65% to Vancouver Airport Services in 2010

We know that. If the fools had the sense to make the airport easily accessible then it would be used more - that mean a station under the under terminal serving all the local town & cities directly and a direct Merseyrail connection. They would have been the biggest benefactors of increased trade.

If the airport was public owned maybe the station would have been built - Peel would not put up money, and clearly wanted most to be public money.

Peel officially, and rightly, slagged the Merseytram system stating money rightly should have been spent on an airport station. They were right. But they did not push it enough and were not prepared to put up enough money. They wanted public money spent to their gain.

MarineMan

August 31st, 2011, 11:32 AM

Highly educated societies tend to value intellectual work over manual labour.

Highly educated societies tend to be rich enough to have material possessions - except in Communist countries. The likes of Romania and Cuba had highly educated populations. They tend to value art more.

You can have a wealthy society but that well educated. Arab oil states and parts of the USA come to mind. They ted not to value the arts and be highly materialistic.

But the arts do not give you a decent roof over your head. In the Western world basic labour saving machines in the home are not regarded as being materialistic.

MarineMan

August 31st, 2011, 11:34 AM

I beg to differ.

Life is not a zero sum game.

If the population is for the most part productive (refining oil, bandaging wounds, making bread, farming, teaching, driving trains, playing music that is in demand and so on and on) then the population for the most part will be wealthy.

But if the population is for the most part not productive (on the dole, retired, too sick to work, counting money, investing portfolios, balancing accounts, making laws, guarding prisons and serving time, writing poetry just for the joy of it and so on) then the population for the most part will be poor.

Government and economic policies only serve the people if they get those people productive. For example, banking is beneficial only to the extent that it promotes the doing of productive things. Otherwise it is impoverishing.

There is plenty of scope for an improvement in both Western and Eastern living standards. What is requires is that people are productive, not merely (rich and poor) consumers. That is really all it requires, the rest falls into shape. These principles were known as early as 1844 and still apply today.

Good post.

MarineMan

August 31st, 2011, 11:41 AM

Not really fella

Yes fella!!!! Brainwashed! You use stock right-wing words.

If you want to spend half of your life whingeing about how much money somebody with more has in relation to yourself than go ahead - waste your time... and while your at it, practice what you preach by distributing your own to people lower down the food chain, inside and outside the UK.

Your brainwashing could not absorb simple points. Look at the wealth distribution in the UK. It needs attention urgently. Societies that have most of the wealth in the hands of a few do not work properly. They is a better way. They likes of you think the system is fine and it the world financially collapses every few decades then that is OK. It is NOT OK. The system is bad - it does not work. A crash in 1929 and one over 80- years later. It would have been about 30 or 40 years but for WW2 and using computer to fend it off for while.

It does not work.

openlyJane

August 31st, 2011, 11:44 AM

Highly educated societies tend to be rich enough to have material possessions - except in Communist countries. The likes of Romania and Cuba had highly educated populations. They tend to value art more.

You can have a wealthy society but that well educated. Arab oil states and parts of the USA come to mind. They ted not to value the arts and be highly materialistic.

But the arts do not give you a decent roof over your head. In the Western world basic labour saving machines in the home are not regarded as being materialistic.

You clearly do not understand what is meant by a materialistic analysis of society - do you?

MarineMan

August 31st, 2011, 11:55 AM

John
They may do
The Cruise terminal is one example as discussed elsewhere

There is direct and indirect public funding. Soton's tends to be indirect.

MarineMan

August 31st, 2011, 12:13 PM

You clearly do not understand what is meant by a materialistic analysis of society - do you?

I know exactly what it is. I did read a bit of Marx. A great social and economic thinker along with Engles indeed he was. However, at the same time as Marx, American Henry George went back to the future and promoted economics promoted by Adam Smith - Smith is on the back of our money. George locked horns with Marx a few occasions.

Marx said, a capitalist economic system divides society into two classes:
Non-owning workers.
Non-working owners.

Marx called the resulting situation alienation. Marx said that when workers possessed the fruits of their labour, alienation would be overcome and class divisions would cease. He is just about right. Henry George's view was that what is under our feet, the commonwealth of LAND, and its RESOURCES is the key to obtaining what Marx identified. George stated, reclaim the wealth of the fruits of a society which soaks into land and crystalizes as land values and its resources by those who occupy the land and extract its resources - by use a levy based on "value"..and allow people to enjoy the fruits of their labour by not taxing them, i.e., income tax, Council tax, VAT, etc.

Toadboy

August 31st, 2011, 12:26 PM

MarineMan

August 31st, 2011, 01:24 PM

HollyBlack

August 31st, 2011, 01:35 PM

This is where global capitalism fails. Automation and cheaper labour elsewhere render people redundant and non productive.
How do we shift to a healthy productive population without derailing global corporatism and smashing the banks?
We need a political leadership that understands that the need to get people productive is the priority.
Making more profit is not a higher priority where it conflicts. Maintaining law and the traditional social order is not a higher priority where it conflicts. Balancing books and protecting wealth is not a priority where it conflicts.

And thank you Jane for reminding us all that, on the whole, productive work performed by women in the home has historically been less visibly productive than other equally productive work.

As a practical matter I have already suggested that the TUC form a new TUC controlled political party with a similar affiliation to the Labour Party as the Cooperative Party presently has. A mirror image of the American Tea Party if you will.

MarineMan

August 31st, 2011, 04:08 PM

We need a political leadership that understands that the need to get people productive is the priority.
...
...
As a practical matter I have already suggested that the TUC form a new TUC controlled political party with a similar affiliation to the Labour Party as the Cooperative Party presently has. A mirror image of the American Tea Party if you will.

To get people productive? Geonomics does that with little intervention. It rolls back speculators who are the big problem, and have been pushed into the background as if they were not responsible.

Economist Fred Harrison on the cause Credit Crunch and how to solve it....

"Any good economist will tell you, as people's real disposable incomes rise, that money ends up in one place, and one place only, the LAND MARKET. As there is growth land values rise, and it should rise. Except, the problem occurred when that increase in value went into private pockets instead of going into services: highways, hospitals, schools and so on, that created that value in the first place"
..
..
"This is the sources of our problem, not bankers, big bonuses, sub-prime mortgages in America and the other excuses they have. This is the heart of the problem of the market economy, we have to address it. There has to be political consensus, there has to consensus, with no body playing party politics"

The above is at. 3 min 35 secs

5Mp02TOXpuw&feature=player_detailpage#t=215s

There is no need for another Labour Party backed by the TUC.

Medici

September 1st, 2011, 07:32 PM

Marx was the antithesis of the classical economics of Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus. I don't think classical economics are what we need right now, 30 years of neo liberal homage to them is the reason the economy is in tatters. In fact some of it is lunatic fringe, voodoo economics, after all where else would a loopy idea like the Poll Tax come from?

MarineMan

September 1st, 2011, 11:18 PM

Marx was the antithesis of the classical economics of Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus.

He wasn't really.

I don't think classical economics are what we need right now, 30 years of neo liberal homage to them is the reason the economy is in tatters. In fact some of it is lunatic fringe, voodoo economics, after all where else would a loopy idea like the Poll Tax come from?

Classical economics was twisted for vested interest reasons.

From Fred Harrison....

The Queen Could not be Told the Truth

When the Queen of England visited the London School of Economics. She asked a simple question about the looming economic disaster, "why did no one notice it coming?". Professor Garicano replied, "at every stage everyone was relying on someone else, and all thought they were doing the right thing". As modern economists use a collection of mangled economics the Queen could not be told the truth.

Economists 100 Years Ago Colluded to Distort Economics

A century ago a group of influential economists: John Bates Clark, Frank Knight, Francis Walker, Edward Seligan and Richard Ely, colluded to manipulate the building blocks of classical economics. They had an ideological agenda. The future they shaped is our reality. Their mission was clear, to protect the vital interests of the privileged few. To so they had to conceal the unique qualities of the classical factors of production - LAND.

A century of economic disasters followed that literally messed with our lives. Economics has been a tool for contorting our collective consciousness. The current economic crisis as an example to the pathetic state to which economics has been reduced.

Modern Economists are Confused

We handsomely reward economists to fine tune to the economy to keep it stable. When boom turns to bust they escape into mysticism. They claim, "occasional slow downs are natural and necessary features of a market economy". The people we trust to keep the economy on an even keel have no idea what makes an economy explode. Take the central bankers, they pontificated, moving interest rates up and and manipulating the money supply. They didn't know what they were doing - it was all an illusion.

The problem lies in some of the theories invented by encomists. They do not reflect the real world. They are fictions invented to explain an imaginary market economy. When the economy overheats the imaginary equations turn out to be useless.

Economists Admit Their Economic Models Do Not Work

The Daddy of all central bankers was Alan Greenspan, of the US Federal Reserve. He said, "the models do not forecast recession because the parameters are dominated by what happens in normal times when the economy is growing".

As the economy crumbled, He said to the US congress, "I discovered a flaw in the model which I perceived as a critical function structure which defines how the world works, I was shocked". Greenspan's victims are more than shocked, they are traumatised losing their homes and jobs.

In failing to raise the warning flags, Greenspan was not alone, economists at the Bank of England also failed to forecast the end of the business cycle. They confessed their economic models break down when the going gets tough. Rachel Lomax, deputy governor of the Bank of England confessed, "When it comes to quantifying the changes in credit conditions, our workhorse economic models still cannot help us very much".

If you were caught by surprise when the bottom fell out of the credit market, don't worry, you were in good company. Leading economist at places like the LSE were also shocked. Professor Sir Charles Woodhart, served on the Bank of England monetary policy committee, he now admits that standard forecast economic models are "effectively pretty useless".

Here is an example of the nonsense that can be produced by economic theory. According to the British governments Property Valuation office in Jan 2008, land values will continue to rise until 2013. Six months later the economy had broken down. The graph has been erased from their web site.

Land Speculators Are the Biggest Gainers

Who gains from this intellectual mess? One groups of people reap spectacular rewards, property developers, land speculators all reap windfall gains from one asset that sustains us all, LAND.

In the good times when people go mad buying and selling properties, we lionise these developers. Yet all they doing is cashing in the on the land values others create. Take the case of a cluster of flats adjacent to a prime brownfields site. Their presence gives value to the adjacent site, yet the thousands of residents of the flats will not share in the increased values they help create.

Banks Fuelled The Property/Land Bubble

Bankers around the world played their part in the economic crisis pumping up credit to fuel the property bubble. As land values rose bankers even created more money. This was a self inflated bubble of hot air. It had to burst.

Economists Who Know The Answers Are Suppressed

For the past century economist have messed with our minds. All is not lost. A few economists have been stewards of the precious knowledge of how the economy works. The Nobel prize winning economist Bill Vickry and the California professor, Mason Gaffney. All voices of reason that have been suppressed.

We Need To Force Through ChangeTo Eliminate Vested Interests

With all the global crisis's converging, mass unemployment, poverty, terrorism. It is time to make up our minds and stop playing the game that was rigged 100 years ago. If we do not challenge the vested interests that exploit people, all of us, the environment and future generations will pay the ultimate price. We have to oblige our elected leaders to deal with the realities on the ground.

In the end it is up to everyone to assume personal responsibility and restore common sense in the way we govern society.

--------------

People do not argue with the teachings of Henry George; they simply do not know it. He who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree.
- Count Leo Tolstoy

Medici

September 1st, 2011, 11:37 PM

He was because classical economy stipulates that trade between nations be liberalised and markets opened up, Marx stated that economic relationships between capital and labour would eventually break down leading to the overthrow of the bourgeoise and the inaugaration of a Communist society based on collective wealth. Tolstoy is a great novelist, which ones have you read? Nevertheless he was also a dreadful reactionary who hated the westernisation and liberalsation of Russia and this theme is explored throughout his art, particularly in Anna Karenina, War and Peace and the death of Ivan Illych.

MarineMan

September 2nd, 2011, 12:41 AM

Marx never once mention the word Communist.

Medici

September 2nd, 2011, 06:35 AM

Marx never once mention the word Communist.
Strange, considering he wrote this short pamphlet

http://ebooks-imgs.connect.com/ebooks/product/400/000/000/000/000/030/706/400000000000000030706_s4.jpg

MarineMan

September 2nd, 2011, 08:10 AM

You may find that others chose the title, which was changed a few times, and adapted some of the text. Marx never mentioned communist in his writings, although Engles did.

We need to go back to Classical economics. Vested interest changed it. It is based on land and extraction of its resources, which was removed in neo-classical about 100 years ago. Since then the world economy has been in boom & bust mode.

Fred Harrison...

Economists 100 Years Ago Colluded to Distort Economics

A century ago a group of influential economists: John Bates Clark, Frank Knight, Francis Walker, Edward Seligan and Richard Ely, colluded to manipulate the building blocks of classical economics. They had an ideological agenda. The future they shaped is our reality. Their mission was clear, to protect the vital interests of the privileged few. To so they had to conceal the unique qualities of the classical factors of production - LAND.

A century of economic disasters followed that literally messed with our lives. Economics has been a tool for contorting our collective consciousness. The current economic crisis as an example to the pathetic state to which economics has been reduced.

MarineMan

September 2nd, 2011, 08:18 AM

Can America turn around the social and economic problems that are now beyond the control of Federal and State governments? Mason Gaffney, professor of economics at the University of California, argues that effective solutions must be underpinned by a radical reform of the tax system - by taxing LAND and its resources.

PwkvHPnDqwY&feature=player_profilepage

Medici

September 2nd, 2011, 06:07 PM

MarineMan;83418168]You may find that others chose the title, which was changed a few times, and adapted some of the text. Marx never mentioned communist in his writings, although Engles did.

From the preamble

"A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself."

"

Medici

September 2nd, 2011, 07:00 PM

MarineMan

September 2nd, 2011, 07:04 PM

Medici

September 2nd, 2011, 07:05 PM

Did you understand what I wrote?

Have you actually read it?

MarineMan

September 2nd, 2011, 07:08 PM

Anyway the digression was enjoyable, but has little to do with why a group of horrible little sh*ts gathered on Smithdown wanting to raid the shops. All they need is a proper litlle slap not socio-historical analysis.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/images/stories/streetsign3.jpg

Police Remove Makeshift Daily Mail Reader Warning Sign

POLICE in Kent have removed a makeshift sign that warned drivers and pedestrians about nearby Daily Mail readers.

Another victory for bureaucracy over common sense
The sign was erected by Tom Logan, from Ashford, who wanted to protect strangers and passing motorists from talking to any of his neighbours by accident.

He said: "I moved here about three months ago and noticed fairly quickly that there was a huge number of Daily Mail readers in the street.

"At first you assume it's an oversight or a budget thing and that eventually the council will come along and remove them, but weeks went by and nothing was done.

"I realised it was actually quite dangerous having so many of them so close together, especially if a motorist asked for directions and suddenly found themselves talking to some arsehole who thinks Eichmann had the right idea about gypsies.

"And just imagine walking along what looks like a normal English street on a Sunday afternoon, perhaps with your wife and child, when all these weirdos come up to you and start sniffing your bum to see if you've had anal sex.

"Then they start asking how many abortions you had before deciding to bring another socialist homo into the world and tell your wife that if she has a full-time job then she may as well just drop her child into a disused mineshaft."

Kent County Council said it has removed 45,600 Daily Mail readers from 1,595 streets since the beginning of the year but admitted it was still a huge problem.

A spokesman said: "Unfortunately we cannot allow members of the public to put up their own warning signs, whether they are for Daily Mail readers, giant, armoured bin rats or level Richard and Judy crossings."

Mr Logan added: "I stole the sign from near a school, painted the middle bit white and then added the masthead and a big photograph of an idiot that I cut out of the Daily Mail.

"I thought it was quite good."

MarineMan

September 2nd, 2011, 07:09 PM

Have you actually read it?

You are some Daily Mail reading fruit cake. Naive to the hilt.

Medici

September 2nd, 2011, 07:09 PM

Hmm Peter Hitchens no less, whom David Cameron called a "maniac". Indeed he reminds me of another fanatical obsessive on here.

Medici

September 2nd, 2011, 07:11 PM

You are some Daily Mail reading fruit cake. Naive to the hilt.

Your insults do not bother me at all.

MarineMan

September 2nd, 2011, 07:21 PM

Your insults do not bother me at all.

When I insult you will know it. That was an observation.

Medici

September 2nd, 2011, 07:31 PM

When I insult you will know it. That was an observation.

Personally, I hate observations, as they are evre so objective and people who think that their subjective opinions are objective are usually very deluded.:madwife:

MarineMan

September 3rd, 2011, 12:01 AM

Personally, I hate observations, as they are evre so objective and people who think that their subjective opinions are objective are usually very deluded.:madwife:

You are clearly a fruit cake.

Medici

September 3rd, 2011, 12:52 AM

You are clearly a fruit cake.

That's because you only understand utilitarian concepts, you have no personality or soul.

westernfront

September 3rd, 2011, 01:25 AM

Yes fella!!!! Brainwashed! You use stock right-wing words.

Your brainwashing could not absorb simple points. Look at the wealth distribution in the UK. It needs attention urgently. Societies that have most of the wealth in the hands of a few do not work properly. They is a better way. They likes of you think the system is fine and it the world financially collapses every few decades then that is OK. It is NOT OK. The system is bad - it does not work. A crash in 1929 and one over 80- years later. It would have been about 30 or 40 years but for WW2 and using computer to fend it off for while.

It does not work.

and what system does work exactly? Give examples. Thanks.

westernfront

September 3rd, 2011, 01:36 AM

You look after your own backyard first.

There may be hope for you yet - you might grasp a simple fact of human nature that the vast majority of people look after their own backyard first and that includes both rich and poor. Utopia for all doesn't and will never exist.

MarineMan

September 3rd, 2011, 09:46 AM

That's because you only understand utilitarian concepts, you have no personality or soul.

That confirms you are clearly a fruit cake. How is the Daily Mail this morning?
Do they have a double page spread on council house dwelling scroungers? Do they want to whip the unemployed?

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" of the society

You obviously do not want any over a good. Probably a me, me, me type.

MarineMan

September 3rd, 2011, 09:55 AM

and what system does work exactly? Give examples. Thanks.

Geonomics. Used in Hong Kong, Singapore, Parts of the US, Australia, etc. The core is:

Land Value Tax (LVT) which is essential and prime
An unrigged free-market,
Eliminating speculation on land
Eliminating speculation on the earths resources

The key to understanding is understanding where the value in land comes from:

Land values were socially created by the community - NOT the landowner. This community created wealth is reclaimed to pay for community services which benefit us all.
Private wealth is is kept by the individual who created it - no income tax.

Currently we do the reverse, which produces booms & busts, most wealth in the hands of a few, a grinding sub-poverty level and world-wide crashes every generation or so.

Income tax and all other taxes, VAT, Council Tax, TV tax, inheritance tax, etc can all be eliminated using LVT. Geonomics goes further and takes into account the land resources and charging for use and extraction. In short, charge for all commonwealth of land and resources usage and extraction, inc the electromagnetic spectrum.

The UK needs to be more productive, less 'disincentivized' and less property obsessed. Land taxes would smooth out damaging housing bubbles and encourage more productive investment.
A Land Value tax would help address the inter-generational inequality between property haves and have nots that was massively exacerbated by the long property booms of 1995-2007
A land tax is easy to collect, hard to avoid, and would help fund the large scale infrastruce investment that the UK needs

For an ultra-capitalist, the rapid accumulation of wealth over the last 15 years, which in property terms amounts to about £2.5 trillion, is making us fat and lazy. Only a wealth tax can sort it out. LVT is wealth tax, or more correctly reclaiming commonly created wealth.

The OECD, the rich nation's think tank, has joined the ranks of Land Value Tax supporters.

Land Value Tax is impossible to avoid - land's location is know to its inch. Land cannot be taken off-shore. The Greek govmt loses 15 billion euros each year due to tax evasion. They are NOT a big govt or country. Taxing land values mean the land cannot be moved off-shore and all tax is collected.

LVT can fund all infrastructure - Hong Kong built a new metro using it. Infrastructure is the basis for economic growth creation - look at London's underground. The economic growth created by infrastructure is not being fully cycled back into funding it - it is being slid down a giant sluice called the land market, draining it away into private hands.

Land Value Tax taxes Wealth not Income. Understand that.

Harmful speculation on land drops when LVT is levied - more will be spent on the structure rather than the land.

LVT will do the opposite and accelerate home ownership - 2/3 of the price of the average UK home is the land not the bricks. LVT will do the opposite and accelerate home ownership.

LVT clears up Derelict buildings - Harrisburg in the USA adopted a watered down form of LVT and cleared up all the derelict buildings. You pay full tax on the land irrespective if a building is on it or not. Currently put a hole in the roof and remove the bathroom and you pay no tax whatsoever, and leave a derelict, eyesore building attracting vandals and vermin. In Fred Harrison's 2005 book Boom and Bust, he points out that landowners who aggressively accumulate land for property speculation in prime parts of the country would face a huge LVT bill. Idle land and buildings would be brought into use using LVT. Harmful land speculation is rolled back.

LVT is superb for British cities - Liverpool attempted to get LVT, inviting from the USA Josh Vincent of the Center for the Study of Economics in Philadelphia, but were beaten down by Whitehall.

LVT gets rid of stealth taxes - in its ultimate form is known as the SINGLE TAX. Income tax can be abolished, or vastly reduced.

LVT is reclaiming community created wealth to pay for community services - LVT is not a tax, despite tax in its title.

Full Geoism is one tax the SINGLE TAX - this means no speculation on land and the earth's resources, such as copper derivatives, etc. BTW, a few weeks ago water was made a commodity - water derivatives a have emerged. Geoism would forbid this harmful, speculating, nonsense.

LVT shift tax from families to Idle landlords - Over time, the aim of LVT would be to shift the tax burden off hard-working families and on to idle landlords - as in Hong Kong, where revenues from land taxes keep income tax low, there is no VAT or capital gains tax, and enterprise flourishes. People keep more of the fruits of their labour.

People overall pay less using LVT -Using LVT, someone earning £40,000 a year would stop paying around £7,000 in income tax, £1,000 to £2,000 in VAT, £1,600 Council Tax, up to £11,600 at this point, and any of the transaction charges that fill the exchequer's coffers. No more capital gains tax or stamp duty on property sales or the sale of shares. Instead they would pay a fixed annual sum, to be paid monthly, on the value of their land, which could have a wide range, depending on how much the land is worth.

LVT means you can move to an internal tax haven - Move out of town and work locally, and your overall tax bill could be a fraction of its current total. Buy an expensive piece of real estate in the city centre and you would probably pay more. You can move to an internal tax haven, like in rural Wales or Cornwall where the land values are very low and pay little LVT (recall no Council Tax, VAT, etc). The local economy would appreciate the spending income of the "exiles".

LVT is a voluntary tax - you can move to a lower land value area and pay less tax.

LVT does not distort business behaviour - All stays the same. In fact as there is no income tax and VAT businesses are slicker, cheaper and easier to run. There are no admin costs to collect taxes.

LVT will Promote Higher Quality Homes & the Construction industry - There are many positive points for wealth creation. A worker keeps all his income and there is a 100% gain for every extra hour worked. If you develop your house, it has only limited effect on the value of the land, giving you every incentive to modernise and improve the house. Under the Council Tax, increases in house values, as opposed to land values, lead to higher taxes, which is a disincentive to carry out improvements in the first place. Currently we curtail the construction and its associated manufacturing industries.
LVT prevents the rich from clawing back all their taxes

Britain's top earners pay on average £1.25 million in taxes in their lifetime. The people who rent their homes are generally in the lowest income bracket. Over their working lives the poor pay over £0.25 million in taxes. The rich on average pay 5 times more in taxes.

That sounds fair. Doesn't it? But wait.....

Income tax is the more you earn, the more you pay. Called Progressive taxes.
Sounds fair as the richer pay more. But!!! Progressive taxes has exactly the
opposite effect.

Every increase in house value for top earners offsets any tax they contribute. During boom times it's possible to claw back a lifetimes taxes in just three years. Meanwhile...the lowest earners and those who pay rent, pay more overall.

Families on the lowest incomes subsidize the lives of the rich. Is that fair?

Despite all these advantages, there are many powerful forces ready to dismiss LVT as fanciful, not least the property-owning classes who have an entrenched view that their house/land price is a just reward for their labour - which it was not. Community activity created the wealth of their land not them, the landowner.

What LVT campaigners have shown is that the average taxpayer will be no worse off, if anything far better off, they will simply pay less income tax and a higher wealth tax. They will also have larger and better homes to boot. Then the improved economy all around will make them wealthier again. A wealthy economy rolls back the state and welfare state.

Once a fair system is in place and the harmful hot spots identified and neutralized (speculation and land and its resources and elimination of monopolies) then we have a firm stable base to work from.

MarineMan

September 3rd, 2011, 09:59 AM

There may be hope for you yet -

There is no hope for you at all. Anyone who sides with the Tory party is clearly not very bright and ignorant of socio/political history over the past 200 years.

you might grasp a simple fact of human nature that the vast majority of people look after their own backyard first and that includes both rich and poor. Utopia for all doesn't and will never exist.

We all know that, well most of us.

MarineMan

September 3rd, 2011, 11:26 AM

Gandhi....

There are seven great sins in the world:

Wealth without work
Commerce without morality
Politics without principle
Knowledge without character
Science without humanity
Pleasure without conscience
Worship without sacrifice

The Tories break every one.

Medici

September 4th, 2011, 03:37 PM

That confirms you are clearly a fruit cake. How is the Daily Mail this morning?
Do they have a double page spread on council house dwelling scroungers? Do they want to whip the unemployed?
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" of the society
You obviously do not want any over a good. Probably a me, me, me type.

Maybe, but I know your type.

http://pics.livejournal.com/drug_goy/pic/001016tr

MarineMan

September 5th, 2011, 12:48 AM

Maybe, but I know your type.

Do you see reds under the bed as well? How is the Mail today? A brainwashed Tory voting lunatic.

dreadathecontrols

September 5th, 2011, 03:50 PM

Great post.

yep :cheers:

Keayman

September 16th, 2011, 05:25 PM

Did you understand what I wrote?

Did you understand that Marx mentioned communism.

Of course big bonus's and fat cat bankers raking it in whilst losing money are part of the problem as was the banks being deregulated and not controlled.

Not all higher disposable income goes into land, what about furnishings, holidays, cars etc - your theory is too simplistic and you made it up. All these youtube economists who are great at spouting after the event are just brilliant aren't they, not one seemed to have a clue it was about to happen.

And the liver is clad in Granite. :nuts::ohno::|

Keayman

September 16th, 2011, 05:27 PM

It seems your own link blows your own theory out of the water.

Banks Fuelled The Property/Land Bubble

Bankers around the world played their part in the economic crisis pumping up credit to fuel the property bubble. As land values rose bankers even created more money. This was a self inflated bubble of hot air. It had to burst.

MarineMan

September 16th, 2011, 11:01 PM

Keayman

September 17th, 2011, 05:12 PM

Greed brought down the economy, overlending by banks, over borrowing by dullards and no regulatory body nor by the government, not my theories either but fact.

Did you really think the Liver Buildings was finished in concrete - tut tut.

MarineMan

September 18th, 2011, 10:57 AM

"This is about corporations. Old fashioned or refashioned, corporate welfarism."
- Prof Joseph Stiglitz

"Why do we live in a world where everyone talks about freedom and the benefits of that freedom accrue to fewer and fewer people as capital and power concentrates."
- Philip Blond

the golden vision

September 18th, 2011, 10:58 AM

MarineMan

September 18th, 2011, 11:11 AM

Most societies have a ruling elite. An elite try to stay in power. How they stay in power is not only by controlling the means of production, to be Marxist, i.e. controlling the money, but controlling the cognitive map - the way we think".
- Gillian Tett (Financial Times)

You're getting there,gradually.:) You should post that everyday,just to remind people.

I'm already there and have been for eons, that is obvious. Socialism will not cure the problem, as you appear to think. It will only paper over the cracks. I know the root problem and the solution - back to the future. They need to catch up.

The problem is the economic system we use not any political ism. But! Some political isms preclude certain economic systems for vested-interest reasons - the Tory party being one of them.

the golden vision

September 18th, 2011, 11:24 AM

^^^^Keep your bigotry under control and you're almost rehabilitated.

MarineMan

September 18th, 2011, 11:37 AM

^^^^Keep your bigotry under control and you're almost rehabilitated.

What bigotry might this be?

Is it the sort of bigotry that means not agreeing with you?
Reminder: Socialism did not work as the poverty strata remained -the strata it was supposed to eliminate. Although it did drag many out of grinding poverty.

the golden vision

September 18th, 2011, 09:22 PM

Ah, my mistake.:)

Rollingstone Gather

September 21st, 2011, 03:07 PM

Money will go where there is growth and lowest risk.

If their is a shortage of property and property prices go up it will go there. If there is a Land Value Tax, the government would get more revenue from the growth.

Are you arguing that LVT would stop property crashes?

By the way if the value of land goes down are you saying that its the communities fault?

MarineMan

September 21st, 2011, 11:04 PM

Are you arguing that LVT would stop property crashes?

Yes. In US states that taxed land more, the 2008 crash made less impact. Tax it all and no impact.

By the way if the value of land goes down are you saying that its the communities fault?

Yes. The wealth in the value of land, can go up, down, good or bad, and was put there by the community.

Rollingstone Gather

September 23rd, 2011, 02:39 PM

Yes. In US states that taxed land more, the 2008 crash made less impact. Tax it all and no impact.

Yes. The wealth in the value of land, can go up, down, good or bad, and was put there by the community.

Is the community the people who pay their taxes? e.g. council tax etc..

MarineMan

September 23rd, 2011, 06:16 PM

Is the community the people who pay their taxes? e.g. council tax etc..

The community is all. They collectively create economic growth that crystalizes into LAND values. Look at where land values come from. They did not appear out of thin air. The owner did not make them by painting the front door and gracing the district by living there. LAND and the CAPITAL (anything man made) on the land, the building, are very different. The building depreciates over time like a car does. The LAND does not.
This is just basic economics.

Rollingstone Gather

October 20th, 2011, 03:48 PM

The community is all. They collectively create economic growth that crystalizes into LAND values. Look at where land values come from. They did not appear out of thin air. The owner did not make them by painting the front door and gracing the district by living there. LAND and the CAPITAL (anything man made) on the land, the building, are very different. The building depreciates over time like a car does. The LAND does not.
This is just basic economics.

There is a lot of coverage of LVT in the Financial Times recently:
http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=land+value+tax&ftsearchType=type_news

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/29bf998e-e61c-11e0-960c-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1bKV1BMaW

Medici

October 28th, 2011, 06:42 AM

Crime in Walton becoming a problem, with youths intimidating the locals, banners on tescos, regarding murders etc and I don't think the police are doing much. Needs sorting out. Seriously.

McGrath

October 28th, 2011, 05:15 PM

I think the Walton situation at the moment is really tense with a local gang being cornered slowly by the authorities and, tragically, the murder of a young man at the weekend. Let's hope the police can get a hold on things.

Medici

October 28th, 2011, 05:47 PM

A number of 'shrines' are appearing all over north Liverpool, and to me they are intimidating and arrogant and should be removed.

Howie_P

December 14th, 2012, 10:15 AM

Joe Anderson fears Government cuts may cause more riots
By David Bartlett | Dec 14 2012

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/ldp3/feb2012/1/0/dp-riots-620-55926030.jpg
A second night of unrest in the Liverpool riots on Smithdown Road in Toxteth.

LIVERPOOL Mayor Joe Anderson has warned Prime Minister David Cameron that Government cuts may lead to a repeat of rioting.

More (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/12/14/joe-anderson-fears-government-cuts-may-cause-more-riots-99623-32427016/) >>

Howie_P

December 14th, 2012, 10:27 AM

Government cuts ‘will mean more Liverpool riots’ says Mayor Joe Anderson
by David Bartlett, Liverpool Echo | Dec 14 2012

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/liverpoolecho/aug2011/3/9/liverpool-riots-image-3-248102858.jpg
Rioters take to the streets of Liverpool

THE summer riots of 2011 will happen again due to the devastating affects of government cuts, Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson has warned the prime minister.

In a letter to David Cameron Liverpool’s mayor outlines the serious threat to community cohesion from government policy.

Mayor Anderson urged Mr Cameron to agree to have talks over the issue and said that he “fears the worst”.

“I believe that community cohesion is being seriously threatened by the lack of funding to our city and others, I believe that the so-called summer of discontent will happen again if we do not address this issue.”
In the letter the Mayor outlines how Liverpool is being forced to make cuts equivalent to £252 for every resident because of government cutbacks, reported last week in the ECHO.

This compares to an average £61 across English councils. North Dorset is least affected at just £2 a head worse off.

Liverpool comes second only to Hackney in terms of highest cuts per person, according to recent figures compiled by Newcastle council. Knowsley is almost as badly hit at £251 per head, third in the national list.

Today Liverpool Liberal Democrat leader Cllr Richard Kemp said the letter was “irresponsible” and talking up the possibility of a new round of riots increased the likelihood.

“This is scaremongering of the worst type, next Wednesday the council chief executive and I are meeting with senior advisors to the Deputy Prime Minister (Nick Clegg) which is far better than just blustering.”

Mayor Anderson and the Bishop of Liverpool James Jones are to host a cuts summit next month with leaders from Bristol, Sheffield, and Birmingham.

In his letter the Mayor warns: “Some local authorities are being dismantled because of the scale of the cuts they are required to make, there are others that are practically no worse off.”

He added: “We anticipate the impact of the changes in welfare reform to have a significant detrimental impact on the economy of the city as there will be even less money in circulation than at present.”

Last month Bishop James questioned the fairness of the way cuts were being made, during a debate in the House of Lords.

Mayor Anderson refers to the Bishop’s intervention, and added: “I fear the worst in respect of our ability to continue to deliver services to the vulnerable and desperate people in some of the most deprived communities, not just in Liverpool but the country.

“I ask you to reflect upon calls for the government to consider the fairness argument, in light of the considerable weight of evidence, and review the formula before the desperate measures take effect and remove the things that make for a quality of life, the very things that complement and contribute towards a ‘big society’.”

*On David Bartlett's blog: I predict a riot, Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson tells PM David Cameron (http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/2012/12/i-predict-a-riot-liverpool-may.html)

Source: LiverpoolEcho.co.uk (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/12/14/cuts-will-mean-more-liverpool-riots-says-mayor-joe-anderson-100252-32424910/)

macca_lad

December 14th, 2012, 12:12 PM

I hadn't seen this posted. Apologies for starting a new thread.

What a great advert for Liverpool.

Awayo

December 14th, 2012, 12:51 PM

Source: LiverpoolEcho.co.uk (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/12/14/cuts-will-mean-more-liverpool-riots-says-mayor-joe-anderson-100252-32424910/)

I don't know if this thread really needed to be revived Howie. However, now it is here it is worth pointed out that it is the Echo's headline that has spun Joe Anderson's letter as saying that the Government's cuts will "mean more *Liverpool* riots". Rather he predicts, in one line in a fairly long letter, that the cuts being imposed nationally to poorer local authorities will lead to a repeat of the "so-called summer of discontent" that cities all over England suffered last year. Nowhere does he predict a riot in Liverpool.

One can argue about the causation of rioting of course, why some cities experienced riots last year and others not and why some those that did see disturbances following the commencement of rioting in London such as Birmingham and Manchester/Salford experienced far worse from theirs than did Liverpool and Nottingham for example from much less serious serious trouble (I remember one of the Merseyside police deputy cons saying at the time that what they were dealing with was really riots like the ones in London but the sort of lumber they are faced with around Bonfire Night most years). Possibly styles of policing is the key factor. It certainly is according to Liverpool uni's Clifford Stott (http://www.madmobsandenglishmen.com/) (I really need to get hold of his book about the events of 2011). However, it is interesting that the authorities with the largest per head cuts in central Government funding do tend to the ones that experienced rioting last year, including as well as northern cities but also poorer London boroughs, including Haringey, which contains Tottenham, the flashpoint that started of the whole sequence of events.

Howie_P

December 14th, 2012, 12:51 PM

I hadn't seen this posted. Apologies for starting a new thread.

What a great advert for Liverpool.

See the story has made the BBC News - 'Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson says cuts will 'cause riots'', (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-20716881).

macca_lad

December 14th, 2012, 01:51 PM

I don't know if this thread really needed to be revived Howie. However, now it is here it is worth pointed out that it is the Echo's headline that has spun Joe Anderson's letter as saying that the Government's cuts will "mean more *Liverpool* riots". Rather he predicts, in one line in a fairly long letter, that the cuts being imposed nationally to poorer local authorities will lead to a repeat of the "so-called summer of discontent" that cities all over England suffered last year. Nowhere does he predict a riot in Liverpool.

One can argue about the causation of rioting of course, why some cities experienced riots last year and others not and why some those that did see disturbances following the commencement of rioting in London such as Birmingham and Manchester/Salford experienced far worse from theirs than did Liverpool and Nottingham for example from much less serious serious trouble (I remember one of the Merseyside police deputy cons saying at the time that what they were dealing with was really riots like the ones in London but the sort of lumber they are faced with around Bonfire Night most years). Possibly styles of policing is the key factor. It certainly is according to Liverpool uni's Clifford Stott (http://www.madmobsandenglishmen.com/) (I really need to get hold of his book about the events of 2011). However, it is interesting that the authorities with the largest per head cuts in central Government funding do tend to the ones that experienced rioting last year, including as well as northern cities but also poorer London boroughs, including Haringey, which contains Tottenham, the flashpoint that started of the whole sequence of events.

Are you joking?

Using the example of riots, implies that he is justifying why a riot would be legitimate. Wreckless doesn't even begin to cover it. It is shocking.

This is going to demolish the image of Liverpool. I'm sure businesses will be extremely concerned by this and if they were thinking of investing here they will no longer be.

Great work Labour.