Petition to make UK royal family pay for Buck Palace repairs

[Mike Muz]

This government meets most objective criteria for being a fascist one. We have the PM deciding she can change the law and remove people's rights by decree, instead of running it past parliament. In effect, she wants rule as a dictator.

We have a government who think it's OK to funnel money away from the poorest people in society (who need it the most), and into the pocket of the wealthy (who need it the least), with a cruel regime of benefit sanctions and with private businesses being paid to cheat the sick and disabled out of the benefits they need to have a remotely dignified life.

We have a government which is happily scapegoating foreigners, immigrants and people on benefits, knowingly stoking bigotry. Another obvious hallmark of fascism.

We have a health secretary who is quite open about wanting to privatise the NHS (he wrote a chapter of a book about it), who is starving the NHS of funding so that a few years down the line, when the level of care has become quite terrible, he can argue that it's time to bring in a US style system with health insurance and all private hospitals.

The government have also succeeded in turning our public broadcaster, the BBC, into the state broadcaster. I.e., the BBC is now stuffed full of Conservatives, its news and current affairs output has an overt pro-Conservative bias, and takes part in smear campaigns against the opposition while trying its best to ignore Tory criminality and scandals.

Does anyone think this is all OK? We have a 'timid' government, right?

Of course, I understand that most people don't really follow politics, and many of those who do follow politics are consistently being hoodwinked by the Tories into voting against their own best interest (Sun readers, for example), which is why politicians tend to lie a lot. So it's hard to blame these ignorant or gullible people.

I can't argue with a lot of that. Not so sure about the BBC though.

Mike

 

[KDM]

Some parts do need privatising

Interested to know which parts, if this is not just an assumption based on probability.

This is likely to go the usual way of derailing the original thread so I'll be brief.

The core of the nhs cannot be privatised or it would not be the nhs. The support structures of which there are many however can be. Maintenance, driver of grannies to the local hall type of local assist's, catering, centralising admins, pensions etc

The core problem is us. we all want private quality level healthcare whilst paying council money and until we get our own heads around this then the nhs will continue to struggle.

As to the royals, my point still stands, they have been paying for themselves for hundreds of years and contribute more to the public purse than the public purse contributes to them.Those facts are incredible easy to find even if you do not like the truth, it still remains the truth.

 

[technodup]

Let me have a go too...

We have a government who think it's OK to funnel money away from the poorest people in society (who need it the most),

The poorest people in society pay no tax- how is the government funnelling money away from them?

a cruel regime of benefit sanctions

You know sanctions are there as a punishment/deterrent? People are only sanctioned for wrongdoing, i.e. not turning up for appointments, being late, refusing work etc. Given the unemployed by definition have nothing else to do they have little excuse for such. And it's a reminder of the nature of work, where absence isn't paid for. It's called the real world.

and with private businesses being paid to cheat the sick and disabled out of the benefits they need to have a remotely dignified life.

Or checking that the huge number of 'sick and disabled' are actually sick and disabled. And importantly sick and disabled enough not to be in work.

We have a government which is happily scapegoating foreigners, immigrants and people on benefits, knowingly stoking bigotry.

Alternatively it's pointing out that countries, especially island nations like ourselves should maybe have a handle on who comes and goes. And that maybe if we didn't have so many immigrants, we wouldn't have so many on benefits. Now that assumes that all the unemployed are simply desperate to go to work, which many aren't, which takes us back to sanctions.

We have a health secretary who is starving the NHS of funding

The NHS receives more funding now than any time in history, so your claim is utterly untrue. This cannot continue however, and elements of privatisation are imo necessary and desirable. Health provision should be about outcomes, not idealism. As KDM pointed out, the majority do not/can not pay for the level of service they think they should have, and with treatments and meds getting ever more complex and expensive that will get worse.

The government have also succeeded in turning our public broadcaster, the BBC, into the state broadcaster. I.e., the BBC is now stuffed full of Conservatives, its news and current affairs output has an overt pro-Conservative bias, and takes part in smear campaigns against the opposition while trying its best to ignore Tory criminality and scandals.

Eh? The BBC usually takes a slight pro government bias if anything. Any 'smear' campaign against the 'opposition' is simply pointing out how inadequate Corbyn is. Do list the Tory scandals and criminality they have suppressed though. The top current and ongoing scandal is a certain Keith Vaz MP, of erm, the Labour side.

 

[shogun]

Funnily enough, Brexit and migration control will mean less low paid migrants but better paid nationals, all those lower wage people that the money makes a real difference too

Well that was a good wheeze. Do you actually believe this? No serious business is going to jack up their wage bill to fill positions with domestic nationals at one for one. More likely some will get a job being paid national rates to do two people's work...or they just won't replace the foreigners and may consider offshoring completely.

 

[KDM]

Funnily enough, Brexit and migration control will mean less low paid migrants but better paid nationals, all those lower wage people that the money makes a real difference too

Well that was a good wheeze. Do you actually believe this? No serious business is going to jack up their wage bill to fill positions with domestic nationals at one for one. More likely some will get a job being paid national rates to do two people's work...or they just won't replace the foreigners and may consider offshoring completely.

I can see your points but disagree, if I may?

Before the vote, (I have mentioned this before), a senior board member of Delioitte, one of the countries top 4 financial foercasting and accountancy firms was being interviewed on Sky news and said if we Brexit then operating costs would increase and when pushed he replied yes wages would have to go up for lower waged staff, this company advises many governments around the world and whilst they whole heartedly supported project fear, the admission poorer paid people would have to be paid more was a welcome and refreshing admission.

Get one person to do 2 peoples jobs. I think in the U.K. we have been doing this for many years and there is little scope to pair this back anymore. That said, the digital age is more likely to see less workers than any Brexit. Just think how many posties have lost their jobs due to txts and emails

Outsourcing to other countries then, Unlikely. They are not talking about consultants in hospitals, they are talking about farm workers, street cleaners, Bin men etc. The lower end jobs

It is impossible to outsource those unless someone in Romania has very long arms to pick the lettuce's in Norfolk

Now if they can outsource people who say something will never work so lets not try anything other than just moan about it being bad, then certainly they have achieved that.

As an aside to highlight many of the jobs cannot be outsourced I did look for jobs where you live, in Hobart through https://www.seek.com.au/jobs/in-All-Hobart-TAS and you get to see that many low paid are not able to be outsourced

 

[shogun]

I want to agree, I do get where you're coming from, but with policy like zero-hour contracts, I just don't feel the same optimism for corporate altruism.

We get a lot of seasonal workers, working holiday backpackers, that sort of thing here...But maybe it's our climate that allows that, as I guess when it's miserable where they're from, it's equally miserable in the UK.


I hope you have active unions in the UK and good employee membership, as I would expect the push will be on to lower wages at the bottom end to migrant worker levels.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Re:

The minimum wage kind of blocks that push down.
Apart from the fact the minimum wage is rising faster than anyone elses wage so it is effectively collecting people up as it rises.

It means places like Aldi become increasingly viable places to work as it's (I've heard from people who have done the switch) far less stressful and better paid now than many skilled and technical jobs.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

Aldi pay less than £10 an hour don't they? Struggling to think of skilled jobs that pay less. Perhaps they are care free though. Mainly Eastern Europeans here, and they are always talking foreign words to each other. Quite rude, soon put a stop to that though!

 

[Harryburgundy]

I'll have a go too...

Let me have a go too...

We have a government who think it's OK to funnel money away from the poorest people in society (who need it the most),

The poorest people in society pay no tax- how is the government funnelling money away from them?

That the poorest in our society are getting poorer under this government, whilst the very rich are getting richer is unequivocal. I know it's not an ideology that you embrace, but governments have a duty to support those areas in the UK that have suffered degeneration for whatever reason, but mostly as a result of the shifting trade and industries of global economies. Naturally those on low or no wages pay little or no tax which in turn reduces local authority budgets. Compounded with cuts from central government resources are reduced to a level of little more than fire-fighting. This is a downward spiral that benefits no-one.

a cruel regime of benefit sanctions

You know sanctions are there as a punishment/deterrent? People are only sanctioned for wrongdoing, i.e. not turning up for appointments, being late, refusing work etc. Given the unemployed by definition have nothing else to do they have little excuse for such. And it's a reminder of the nature of work, where absence isn't paid for. It's called the real world.

That's your real world view, and in my opinion, a bitter, narrow-minded and inhumane world. In principle, sanctioning might have a place for those few that have lost the will to look for a job, and if you live in one of those areas mentioned above, it would be hard not to sympathise with them. To penalise, for example, by way of a £50 reduction in benefits a single mother who is late for an appointment by five minutes because the bus was late (or whatever) is disproportionately punitive. I could go on about the downward spiral of malnutrition and its negative affect on the cognitive development of those children who parents are forced to buy cheap nutritional deficient food...but hey, some people are meant to be poor, right, and it's not the duty of a government to interfere. Sick.

and with private businesses being paid to cheat the sick and disabled out of the benefits they need to have a remotely dignified life.

Or checking that the huge number of 'sick and disabled' are actually sick and disabled. And importantly sick and disabled enough not to be in work.

Zero hours contracts deny workers some very basic protections and rights. Your general premise that people are basically lazy dodgers who will do anything not to work is very strange and totally at odds with reality.

We have a government which is happily scapegoating foreigners, immigrants and people on benefits, knowingly stoking bigotry.

Alternatively it's pointing out that countries, especially island nations like ourselves should maybe have a handle on who comes and goes. And that maybe if we didn't have so many immigrants, we wouldn't have so many on benefits. Now that assumes that all the unemployed are simply desperate to go to work, which many aren't, which takes us back to sanctions.

We do have a handle on who comes and goes. Migration is and has for many decades been a net benefit to this country. You're blaming migration for global economic difficulties. A nice easy target for you, well done.

We have a health secretary who is starving the NHS of funding

The NHS receives more funding now than any time in history, so your claim is utterly untrue. This cannot continue however, and elements of privatisation are imo necessary and desirable. Health provision should be about outcomes, not idealism. As KDM pointed out, the majority do not/can not pay for the level of service they think they should have, and with treatments and meds getting ever more complex and expensive that will get worse.

The NHS is a bit of a mess and it's difficult to find an answer. People are living much longer through various factors and the population is increasing. The funding is clearly disproportionate and represents real world cuts in spending. I'm not keen on privatisation for obvious reasons, means testing would probably be too complicated. My view is we need to take a more holistic approach to our nations health.

The government have also succeeded in turning our public broadcaster, the BBC, into the state broadcaster. I.e., the BBC is now stuffed full of Conservatives, its news and current affairs output has an overt pro-Conservative bias, and takes part in smear campaigns against the opposition while trying its best to ignore Tory criminality and scandals.

Eh? The BBC usually takes a slight pro government bias if anything. Any 'smear' campaign against the 'opposition' is simply pointing out how inadequate Corbyn is. Do list the Tory scandals and criminality they have suppressed though. The top current and ongoing scandal is a certain Keith Vaz MP, of erm, the Labour side.

The BBC is clearly pro-conservative biased but their narrative clearly appeals to your political ideology. And their impartiality isn't restricted to home politics. During the US presidential campaign the negative reporting on Trump (plenty of material there I agree) totally outweighed anything remotely negative about Clinton. For the record, I though they were/are equally poor candidates.

As for the Queen, jeez, why are we to be grateful for her 85%. 100% of her obscene wealth belongs to the country, plus the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall plus all the other stuff we don't know about.
Being anti-monarchy isn't anti-wealth. I have no problem with wealth, I would like us all to be more wealthy. That we have a family in the UK that inherits such obscene wealth (with no inheritance tax) by means of birth and feudalism is anachronistic. The French had the right idea in 1789.

 

[KDM]

As for the Queen, jeez, why are we to be grateful for her 85%. .

I agree Harry, how dare they donate 85% of their income to the poor people, bast*rds.