.. the first casualty of politics is the truth

[Serial_Apologist]

I think there is a bit of a "backlash" going on
with folks ranting on about a "tax on aspiration" and other such nonsense
and others getting a bit steamed up about how unfair it is for them to give away some of the money they have made simply by buying a shed in Dalston in the 1950s which they sell for millions.
If we will have politics that only appeal to self interest :-(

Remembering as we do from Schumacher et al that anything that passes as a transaction is read as contribution to GDP, the ruling class took a mighty ideological risk in unleashing consumerism in the 1950s (and before that in the States), so that with low wage immigrant labour now furnishing the "recovery" they have little to fall back on politically other than blaming a prevoious Labour government they'd supported at the time for building up the banking sector at the expense of value-creating industry and scapegoating whoever constitutes a convenient target for the system's resulting inability to fund its own basic services.

[ahinton]

But surely the point is not worth making, given the disproportionality of the wealthy's impact through tax avoidance etc by virtue of the vastly larger quantitities of unpaid tax involved.

This should always be reminded whenever the "we're all as bad as them and therefore equally to blame" routine gets trotted out.

Maybe the rich should set an example - after all it is they or their friends who caused what we're all now paying for.

Fat chance of that, of course.

I'm not seeking to lay blame - proportionately or otherwise - for any of this kind of attitude but almost everyone does espouse tax avoidance in some form or another, even those who do so encouraged by government with its handouts of pension, ISA and other tax avoidance schemes; yes, of course the poorest advantage themselves of such things on a vastly smaller scale that the rich who have to do it in much more sophisticated detail but, as someone who currently doesn't make enough to pay income tax said to me, "I don't trust government to use tax incomes wisely, so if I had a tax liability I'd do absolutely anything to avoid it".

That said, the rich should of course at least try to set some kind of example insofar as it might be possible for them to do so, but not one encouraged by governments which do their best to screw everyone left, right and centre, wealthy and otherwise and then use at least some of their ill-gotten gains unwisely, such as by funding illegal wars.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the rich is one way of describing it; but i prefer Goldman Sachs and the other assorted corporate gangsters that own the legislatures and councils of our polities ... it is the organised lobbying by corporate entities that really drives the upper echelons of the administrations in the EU and USA [in Russia they are one and the same]

[amateur51]

Illogical and absurd, imv, and I'm not aligned to any political party either!

Well you can't blame them, can you?!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

more, if needed on the drop in wages in the UK originally from the ILO but in:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/04/british-workers-suffered-biggest-real-wage-fall-major-g20-countries

[amateur51]

I hope someone is going to synthesise a response to Gideon from the points make in Calum's msg # 26 & 35, preferably Eddie 'the quiet assassin' Mair or Emily 'the stare' Maitless of Newsnight.

If they're not available then I reckon Jon 'you'll not have seen this tie in a while' Snow would do.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

a constructive piece by G Monbiot

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/taming-corporate-power-key-political-issue-alternative

[jean]

I hope someone is going to synthesise a response to Gideon...

Am I alone in feeling uncomfortable with the appellation Gideon?

It seems to me like saying We know he's Jewish, and we know he doesn't want you to know, but we want to make sure you know. And there are so many more substantial reasons to object to him.

Or an I just being absurdly sensitive on his behalf?

[Richard Barrett]

It seems to me like saying We know he's Jewish, and we know he doesn't want you to know, but we want to make sure you know. And there are so many more substantial reasons to object to him.

Or an I just being absurdly sensitive on his behalf?

Is he Jewish? I didn't think so.

[Serial_Apologist]

a constructive piece by G Monbiot

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ue-alternative

"We have been persuaded that we only have power as consumers".

Now that the big multinationals dominating our essential provisions harmonise prices in tandem, undermining government advice to change bank/energy supplier, that particular mantra has taken a bit of a battering. Nevertheless people still have faith in the idea if not the reality of choice, so that the eternal circuit through the existing choices on offer ends up as the only alternative, durability only applying as a genuine descriptor to luxury items afforded by the rich, just as was the case in William Morris's time.

[Serial_Apologist]

Is he Jewish? I didn't think so.

Dunno if this sheds any light on the subject...

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Osborne

[jean]

Is he Jewish? I didn't think so.

I had always assumed so, but I may be wrong:

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/george-osbornes-alleged-jewish-connection

In which case, I withdraw my objection.

[Richard Barrett]

I had always assumed so, but I may be wrong:

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/george-osbornes-alleged-jewish-connection

In which case, I withdraw my objection.

Wikipedia has "Osborne comes from one of the oldest Anglo-Irish aristocracies, and is the heir apparent to the Osborne baronetcy." Which if true is fairly conclusive I would say.

[Beef Oven!]

Political correctness can make normally even-handed people hysterical or paranoid. It's terrible.

[Richard Barrett]

Political correctness can make normally even-handed people hysterical or paranoid. It's terrible.

What are you talking about?