UKIP are coming

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1870308.ece/alternates/s615/UK-Independence-Party-UKIP-leader-Nigel-Farage.jpg

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Brace yourselves...

[Letters]

Hmm. I'm not sure they are. They've had a #decent result but they don't have control of any local councils and the turnout for these sorts of elections is always low (it was something like 37% yesterday) which favours more extreme parties. I'd be surprised if they get any MP's next year.

[Niall_Quinn]

The results reveal the staggering stupidity of the majority of British drone people. The twats are voting Labour again. It defies all belief. If Tony Blair can't dissuade these cunts then nothing will. Fucking selfish bastards, keeping us all on the hamster wheel. I have a mate who votes Labour because his parents did - that's it! Think I'll kick him in the balls today. Imagine, my old man was a Nazi, my ma was a Nazi so fucking sieg heil I guess!

Obviously the cunts who voted Tory should just be gassed. Yes I know, using Hitler to make a point and then suggesting we gas Tories is a bit hypocritical but I offer extenuating circumstances - they are Tories, what else would you do with them?

UKIP - I mean well played, they bring a much fresher and open take on division, fear and hatred than the other parties. Seems to appeal to a lot of good folks, which brings us neatly back to Hitler.

Fucking politicians and their sheep. What to do with them all?

[Letters]

Who did you vote for?

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

BNP

[Niall_Quinn]

Who did you vote for?

Are you kidding me?

[Letters]

No.

[Letters]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/voters-do-walk-of-shame-2014052386883

:d

[Niall_Quinn]

No.

Well then I already know the whole ensuing debate from start to finish and how pointless it is to rehash it. Let's just talk about the weather.

[GP]

Well then I already know the whole ensuing debate from start to finish and how pointless it is to rehash it. Let's just talk about the weather.

What weather did you vote for?

[Letters]

Bit grey outside today. Supposed to be better towards the end of the Bank Holiday weekend.


I'm presuming you didn't vote. While I agree many people vote in stupid ways, the only options in the current system are:

Vote for one of the mainstream party, either because you actively support them or at least think they're the least of two evils.

Vote for a minority party which, under the current system, is going to mean you'll have no-one representing you (it's worth doing this in the European elections which are PR, in other elections not so much IMO)

Don't vote at all which means you have no chance at all of being represented.

The first two make some sense, the third makes none at all.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Bit grey outside today. Supposed to be better towards the end of the Bank Holiday weekend.


I'm presuming you didn't vote. While I agree many people vote in stupid ways, the only options in the current system are:

Vote for one of the mainstream party, either because you actively support them or at least think they're the least of two evils.

Vote for a minority party which, under the current system, is going to mean you'll have no-one representing you (it's worth doing this in the European elections which are PR, in other elections not so much IMO)

Don't vote at all which means you have no chance at all of being represented.

The first two make some sense, the third makes none at all.
Not that I'm really disagreeing with the rest of your post, but if you don't agree with someone enough to vote for them outright then they won't really represent you just because you vote for them by default. Vote for who you want to win, or in extreme cases to ensure someone terrible doesn't get in, but I don't think you should vote just so you have a better chance of being on the winning team.

Tbh I do wonder if it's worth having a None of the Above option. I imagine it'd be pretty popular. My Westminster MP won't be getting ousted until he retires anyway, mind. My local council are fucking idiots regardless of colour..... and I don't even know who my MEPs were/will be.

The thread title and that picture together though :sick:

[Letters]

Not that I'm really disagreeing with the rest of your post, but if you don't agree with someone enough to vote for them outright then they won't really represent you just because you vote for them by default.
I guess, but the current system makes voting for the least bad option which has a realistic chance of winning a fairly reasonable tactic. Under PR people could truly vote for what they believe and know their views counted for something.

None of the above would win by a landslide :d

[Flavs]

No one represents the every day British man more than a privately educated stockbroker

[Niall_Quinn]

Bit grey outside today. Supposed to be better towards the end of the Bank Holiday weekend.


I'm presuming you didn't vote. While I agree many people vote in stupid ways, the only options in the current system are:

Vote for one of the mainstream party, either because you actively support them or at least think they're the least of two evils.

Vote for a minority party which, under the current system, is going to mean you'll have no-one representing you (it's worth doing this in the European elections which are PR, in other elections not so much IMO)

Don't vote at all which means you have no chance at all of being represented.

The first two make some sense, the third makes none at all.

It makes no sense at all, to YOU. What really makes no sense is the thought you are being represented if you vote. Any proof of that?

[Letters]

What really makes no sense is the thought you are being represented if you vote. Any proof of that?
There is at least a chance of being represented if you vote (and the person you vote for wins - again, that's down to the system).
If you don't vote there is zero chance and thus it makes zero sense. Because like it or not someone is going to be in charge of the country, voting is the only chance you have of having a say, however small, in who that is. If you want none of them to be then...well, tough.

[Niall_Quinn]

I already know who's "in charge" of the country but they don't stand in elections so you didn't vote either, as it turns out. But what you have done is endorse the current system because that's the other side of the coin. You can claim I have no say in my personal affairs should a government I do not endorse decide to coerce me. That's correct. But I can equally claim that every action taken by government - any government by the way, because that's the system, has got your fingerprints all over it. And I'd also be correct. That's how it works.

Morally speaking I'd rather withhold endorsement than have "a chance of being represented" by the type of individuals who involve themselves in government. Perhaps I am more squeamish than you are.

[Niall_Quinn]

What weather did you vote for?

Sunny all the time. That's what it said in the manifesto and I'm confident that's the way it will be. This time, for the first time ever, it will be different. :cloud9:

[Xhaka Can’t]

I voted UKIP because I'm in favour of siestas.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Stood behind Paul Nuttall on the escalator at M&S.

I'm not sure how I resisted the urge to kick him down them. He bought a couple of white (obviously) shirts by the looks of it. If you're interested.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

They're coming..

[McNamara That Ghost...]

UK. :lol:

Alwful country.

This is some 'protest vote'. :sick:

[Letters]

"Voting UKIP in protest is like shitting in hotel bed in protest over bad service & then realizing u have to sleep in a shitty bed"
- Stuart Lee


Democracy :lol:
Awlful system.

[Niall_Quinn]

UK. :lol:

Alwful country.

This is some 'protest vote'. :sick:

Not so sure. There's inertia in politics. Clegg and his cynical power hungry band of liars have finally been wiped out. It's hard to recall a more dishonest party, they pretty much lied about everything and did a 180 on everything. Of course we are still plagued by Tory and Labour vermin so it's not like the destruction of Clegg's coven is a triumph for governance, the whole system is still rotten to the core. But at least it demonstrates a significant number of voters (bless them) have memory spans greater than 5 minutes or at least care when they are lied to. This seems to be an improvement and could indicate ridiculous class driven politics is finally being eroded. This protest vote won't change anything in practical terms, because it is a toothless protest. The political classes will only be shifted by violence and the people aren't ready for that yet. But it will at least disrupt the political public relations machine, they'll have to spend more time placating and pandering to keep up the pretence so the status quo is unharmed. And that's not bad because it means they will have slightly less time to continue with their destruction of society and peoples' lives.

The biggest encouragement is not ineffective protest votes, it's the fact that young people are seeing straight through politicians. This is where real progress can be made.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I wasn't calling it a protest vote NQ. :lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

I wasn't calling it a protest vote NQ. :lol:

Realised that but disagree. People won't vote that way in the general election. Which is interesting in it's own right and shows the levels of conviction we have going on here.

Also fascists elected in France and Germany. US and UK installing fascists in the east. Happy, happy days. Never let history stand in the way of brilliant ideas.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I voted UKIP because I like to think that people from other countries who live in mine are the main reason I have failed in life.

[Niall_Quinn]

I voted Tory because some sick child believes they have a right to a fraction the money I inherited, which my ancestors stole from sick children.

Actually no, I voted Labour because I want to wag my finger in disapproval at the bastards who are dismantling the hard fought rights won by past generations, and I also enjoy reminding people at dinner parties that men died to preserve these rights.

Actually no, I voted Green because I want to support every crack-pot environmental policy out there, approve of new global "green" taxes that don't make a damn difference to anything bar the bank balances of a few mega rich vampires, and couldn't give a shit if wealthy anti-environmental bastards are manipulating me at every turn - in fact I point blank refuse to think about that sort of factual rubbish.

Actually no, I voted Lib Dem because I want to see a law passed that compels me to mutilate my cock with a spiked mallet.

Only joking, I voted UKIP because that Cameron bastard allows foreigners to steal money from sick white children.

[Blink 1nce Quince 2wice]

Too much of politics is convoluted and inaccessible, but essentially I believe anyone eligible to vote should in fact vote but I am a hypocrite as I don't vote myself (more due to tardiness and laziness).

As a result I am unclear about the exact process but as I understand it, isn't there an option to 'void' ones vote (not by actually choosing not to physically go and vote) which essentially means....... I am not happy with the options presented and thus I am not behind any of the parties. If that is true, then you aren't formally represented by anyone but are in fact 'voicing' or making public your disdain or dissatisfaction at the options which is a statement in itself?

[Niall_Quinn]

Too much of politics is convoluted and inaccessible, but essentially I believe anyone eligible to vote should in fact vote but I am a hypocrite as I don't vote myself (more due to tardiness and laziness).

As a result I am unclear about the exact process but as I understand it, isn't there an option to 'void' ones vote (not by actually choosing not to physically go and vote) which essentially means....... I am not happy with the options presented and thus I am not behind any of the parties. If that is true, then you aren't formally represented by anyone but are in fact 'voicing' or making public your disdain or dissatisfaction at the options which is a statement in itself?

That would allow them to claim a high turnout. The result doesn't mean a damn, same party with multiple faces. Deeds prove this, despite the words. All of politics, all of economics is about the ever widening gap between the ultra rich and the rest. When you see that gap growing you know that minority influence is growing and everything thereafter is subject to the minority agenda. Politicians serve influential people, not common people. Politics is an audition, and in the worst case scenario a revolving door. What scares the establishment most is not knowing what their natural enemies (us) are thinking. When we ignore their election carnival and disregard the carefully selected candidates they put in front of us we avoid tipping our hand. Not only do they not know whether we endorse their candidates, they don't know if we endorse their system. The act of turning up to play in a rigged game says you accept the game, even if you don't accept the players. That's still a win for them because all they need to do is roll out better liars.

If I thought voting could make even the slightest difference I'd take a tiny win. But on the few rare occasions real candidates outside the control of the establishment have emerged (whether you agree with their manifestos or not), say for example Perot (asshole) or Paul (real economist) in the States, the mainstream media moves quickly and in an organised fashion to push these individuals to the fringe. Paul had huge support during his final campaign but there are party rules in place to ensure this support counts for nothing in the end. The same is true in the UK, a real candidate could never make any inroads. So you are always endorsing the system that presents and legitimises the very worst candidates when you vote.

Maybe you aren't lazy, maybe your gut is telling you not to waste the time.

[WMUG]

But on the few rare occasions real candidates outside the control of the establishment have emerged (whether you agree with their manifestos or not), say for example Perot (asshole) or Paul (real economist) in the States...

Elizabeth Warren

[Letters]

I voted Tory because some sick child believes they have a right to a fraction the money I inherited, which my ancestors stole from sick children.

Actually no, I voted Labour because I want to wag my finger in disapproval at the bastards who are dismantling the hard fought rights won by past generations, and I also enjoy reminding people at dinner parties that men died to preserve these rights.

Actually no, I voted Green because I want to support every crack-pot environmental policy out there, approve of new global "green" taxes that don't make a damn difference to anything bar the bank balances of a few mega rich vampires, and couldn't give a shit if wealthy anti-environmental bastards are manipulating me at every turn - in fact I point blank refuse to think about that sort of factual rubbish.

Actually no, I voted Lib Dem because I want to see a law passed that compels me to mutilate my cock with a spiked mallet.

Only joking, I voted UKIP because that Cameron bastard allows foreigners to steal money from sick white children.
Probably best not to vote then and become an internet warrior, that's the best way to make a real difference.

[Niall_Quinn]

Probably best not to vote then and become an internet warrior, that's the best way to make a real difference.

Or I could become a conspiracy theorist who believes in HAARP, or an anti-Semite like Norman Finkelstein, or a racist like Paul, or something equally abnormal.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Is it against the law to wipe your ass with a ballot paper?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

i think the problem is that the vast majority of the electorate want easy oven ready solutions to problems, and therefore simple solutions such as blaming it all on immigration are attractive.
The other reason of course is fear of change, and saying "stop the world i want to get off"
I am the opposite of a nationalist, i believe nation states are rather pointless on the whole and only stems from our tribal primitive state to mark our territory. For me in a global economy what alarms me is the amount of us in this country who cannot speak another language other than our own, compared to the amount of Europeans who are polyglots.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Whilst I can to some extent understand why people are "afraid" of immigration (I'm not myself but I can see why some are, though as it is I don't live in an area with a high foreign or even non-white population) can a lot of it not be put down to that when things get tough economically people blame outsiders and immigrants? The idea that outsiders are always the enemy; I guess in a way it's a natural reaction, a fear of the unknown. Jews have been a target for... well pretty much everyone all of the time, but it was also those from the Caribbean, then a bit later it was Indians taking our jerbs and now it's Eastern Europeans.

There is a certain irony that we complain about foreigners not learning our language or adapting to our culture, when we're probably one of the worst for it. Also, that British immigrants are always called expats.

[Niall_Quinn]

The nation state is hugely important if for only one reason, it puts a brake on ever increasing centralisation. Globalisation (or organised crime to give it its more accurate name) has been a global disaster for the majority of people on the planet. It is routinely confused with multiculturalism (which is an entirely different type of global disaster). Globalisation is a cause (religion of money), multiculturalism is a symptom (one of the many corresponding costs).

Globalisation has allowed corporations to exceed even the most ludicrous bounds afforded to them by (privileged) person status (without any of the responsibilities of the flesh and blood person), the increasingly blurred lines between national borders allows these psychopathic organisations to privatise profit and nationalise expenses by, for example, dumping greater tax burdens on their customers (victims) as they evade their liabilities. This is in our faces, it can't be denied any longer. One moment you'll find them hiding behind national jurisdiction to protect themselves against legal sanction, the next they'll be banking profits overseas and avoiding taxes or taking advantage of less stringent legislation. This is what globalisation is all about, the unchecked expansion of corporate power. This is why corporations are now more powerful than presidents and prime ministers, more akin to emperors. And richer than nations.

The confusion with multiculturalism is encouraged because it allows advocates and practitioners of globalisation to brand their opponents as racists whenever the self evident harm caused by unrestrained vulture capitalism is questioned. Racism has morphed into a Pavlovian tool sharpened to the point where even the slightest push back against the destruction of millennia spanning cultures and the rise of the homogenised consumer class (profit cow) can be rapidly undermined by turning the majority of an broadly ignorant (thanks to the media machine) population against the desired target.

Public opinion still counts because not only can it have an effect on profits, but it's also the most useful foundation for cognitive dissonance. To allow the world as it really is to sit beside the world as most imagine it is is best to let the victim reach their own contradictory conclusions. All that is required is a set of triggers to provoke the required sequence of conditioned responses regardless of the prevailing evidence. So it is we can go to war and destroy a culture while claiming such brutality is in the interests of peace and global harmony. This is of course insanity but most people accept it without question, or certainly without action. As with any system of doublespeak, multiculturalism really means monoculturalism, the merging of diversity into the lowest common denominator (which is the consumer anti culture). It's far easier to offer racism as a dirty reason for the unease people must surely feel as they see their cultures disintegrate around them. UKIP has tapped into this, not to rescue the citizen from the emerging dystopia but to put bums on seats in a push for power.

UKIP has no plans to eliminate the banking scam that underpins globalisation. It has no plans to break the stranglehold of regressive fossil based energy policy. It has no plans of any value other than to frighten people or give those who are to all intents mentally insane as a result of being exposed to relentless propaganda an easy explanation and quick fix that can never work but at least offers a demented hope. Literally, if we stop Romanians coming here then somehow, for whatever reason, things will be better. Or if we back out of Europe then somehow, for whatever reason, we will have more control. It's all utter nonsense. Farage knows that, he's a clever bloke. The sad thing is that those who see right through him are lost in their own delusions, whether it's the crazed notion a guy called Milliband offers an alternative or (really, fuck me sideways) a cunt like Boris Johnson is the answer. To even be considering the latter shows how lost we are.

That's because we aren't in this game at all. The nation state has almost been lost. Deeper centralisation is upon us and with that can only come deeper corruption and depravity. Hitler and Napoleon had wet dreams about the extent of power being wielded by modern day bureaucrats and CEOs. In another grand display of mental illness we all cheered when the "evil" empire and its Berlin Wall fell but then accepted a United States of Europe without a whimper. Psychiatrists could dedicate their lives to that alone. The "North Atlantic" Treaty Organisation has surrounded the "bad" guy Putin. The "terrorist" state of Iran is standing up to the shining light that is America and its 900 odd military bases spread around the majority of nations on the planet.

Big has never been good. The bigger it gets the worse it gets. If we can't defend the nation state (whether fools call us racists or not) then there's probably no hope left for the types of systems we claim to endorse, democracy (a myth anyway), human rights, all of that will be gone because when we ultimately end up with one government and one police force and one army then who the fuck will care what the people think? People are too afraid to tear a nation apart these days, even to defend their own lives or their kids' futures. What's the chance they'll pull the whole world to pieces?

Anyway, that's my headline defence of the nation state. And it goes without saying I disagree profoundly with those who claim nationalism is a bad thing by default or that any notion of the preservation of cultural diversity is racist, again by default.

Incidentally, if the nation state can be secured and the threat of global centralisation is defeated, it will then be time to attack the nation state and campaign for regional authority, and then local authority and eventually individual authority.

TL;DR Version

Fuck off Europe you fascist bastards.

[Power n Glory]

Some worrying ideas, NQ. How did fascism start? Wasn’t it born out of similar circumstances?

The current system has its flaws, but isn’t it more likely for the next regime to rise after this era to be even more oppressive? I don’t see why people should want to tear up the nation. It's pretty extreme. The whole One World Government argument is a little too David Ike/Illuminati for me. I’m more worried about how a more evolved political system takes advantage of the progress made by Globalisation. It’s not been all bad and a bit of stretch to say people have simply accepted wars and brutality without question. It’s the age of social media and we’re seeing people use these tools to protest or at least get clued up.

Regarding UKIP, I don’t believe they’re a racist party but they’re taking advantage of this situation and probably taking most of the votes of the idiots that would vote BNP. To me they seem like the British equivalent of the Tea Party. Once they stop talking about Europe, I think a lot of their supporters will be in for a shock.

[Niall_Quinn]

I refer my learned friends to the testimony from PnG and enter it into the record as exhibit A with bells on.

[Power n Glory]

Mocking aside, what are your proposing NQ?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Mocking aside, what are your proposing NQ?

The problem he describes is essentially self perpetuating and would begin again even if we temporarily gained absolute autonomy. The problem is human b wants what human a has and with no collective law there is nothing human a can do to defend himself from human b unless he enlists the help of human c, but human d is enlisted by human b to help him in his endeavours....so human a and c form
An alliance with human e and human f. You get the idea, society is borne out of human nature we may not like the shape its taken....but it's a part of us.

[Power n Glory]

The problem he describes is essentially self perpetuating and would begin again even if we temporarily gained absolute autonomy. The problem is human b wants what human a has and with no collective law there is nothing human a can do to defend himself from human b unless he enlists the help of human c, but human d is enlisted by human b to help him in his endeavours....so human a and c form
An alliance with human e and human f. You get the idea, society is borne out of human nature we may not like the shape its taken....but it's a part of us.

Exactly. I don’t think we’ll ever find a solution. Regardless of political systems, it will always be corrupt because that’s just our nature. Take away the laws and rulebook, we’d be in serious problems. All out anarchy.

[Power n Glory]

Whilst I can to some extent understand why people are "afraid" of immigration (I'm not myself but I can see why some are, though as it is I don't live in an area with a high foreign or even non-white population) can a lot of it not be put down to that when things get tough economically people blame outsiders and immigrants? The idea that outsiders are always the enemy; I guess in a way it's a natural reaction, a fear of the unknown. Jews have been a target for... well pretty much everyone all of the time, but it was also those from the Caribbean, then a bit later it was Indians taking our jerbs and now it's Eastern Europeans.

There is a certain irony that we complain about foreigners not learning our language or adapting to our culture, when we're probably one of the worst for it. Also, that British immigrants are always called expats.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ZJu-f-XOE

:lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

I thought we were talking about the nation state? My proposal, in strict terms of this particular argument, is to defend it for the reasons already given. I don't support the nation state as an ideal but at least let's not make it any worse than that.

But in terms of human nature, if human beings are so irresponsible and inadequate they can't possibly govern themselves then how on earth can they be expected to govern others? The whole concept of government is irreparably flawed if you present it as a remedy to this human condition you have assumed exists. Who are these immune super heroes that have risen above what is "part of us"? David Cameron? Barry Soetoro? Bill Gates? Henry Kissinger? Really? To me it seems they are the very worst candidates and represent a comprehensive indictment of your argument. And how many people have died through war, famine and crushing poverty under the governance of these stand out individuals? More or less than under a free for all, would you say? Or about the same? In terms of Armageddon and mass extinction, who holds the cards? Who can kill fast enough to wipe out the species and every other living thing on the planet?

Whenever an alternative to the present and total corruption is mentioned a fully furnished alternative solution tends to be demanded, or at least a jump to a theoretical and disconnected final solution is used for comparison to an idealistic accounting of the present system, which itself is one giant assumption that doesn't exist beyond the platitudes - it's a myth. For example, people will ask, "What's the alternative to democracy?", as if democracy really exists. "Anarchy? Fascism? Chaos?", as if the space between absolutes is devoid of substance. The fact anarchy (in it's misrepresented form), fascism and chaos are the signatures of war, global economic fraud, systemic political corruption, is skipped without notice. The goal of such dishonest comparison is to eliminate even the hint of alternatives and frame everything in terms of the present broken system. Anything outside is automatically deemed impossible or impractical. Because, well you know, it just is. And when eventually and patiently the argument for status quo is picked apart and laid bare (not difficult at all, but time consuming) there's always the safe and reliable haven, the idea all human beings are inherently bad. And so only more of the same bad solutions exist, and how convenient is that? Nobody who has thought it through suggests a leap to a polar opposite. Most would be encouraged by a decrease in the speed at which we are racing in the wrong direction. But that's impossible because it's not in our nature to be humane or just or civilised?

Okay then, here's my solution framed in the authorised format.

I suggest we make a list of the top 0.01% wealthiest individuals and kill them and their families, then take what they have. Now I am speaking the language of the unavoidably flawed human being. Whereas previously I'd suggested not endorsing corruption by not voting for a corrupt system, I am now framing things in the language of the statist (the only viable solution) - coercion and violence. I propose I also should be forgiven (just like they are) because I'm only human.

You've seen the manner in which a non-violent response is greeted, "Internet warrior, David Icke." You know you have a case when that sort of shite starts being shovelled. But I don't have much of a case now I have presented things in terms of a system that accounts for the supposedly unavoidable flaws in human nature. Would you argue this isn't how the state operates? Vietnam, Afghanistan (both communists and capitalists - as if that makes a difference - piling in), Iraq, just as recent examples?

Do we really want one all encompassing state? Would that be a good thing? Would it be altruistic by default? Yeah, probably. It makes sense. Just look at the evidence so far. Or better still, don't, under any circumstances.

Less government, more personal responsibility, now that's crazy and dangerous talk.

[Niall_Quinn]

Exactly. I don’t think we’ll ever find a solution. Regardless of political systems, it will always be corrupt because that’s just our nature. Take away the laws and rulebook, we’d be in serious problems. All out anarchy.

That is NOT the definition of anarchy. btw.

[Niall_Quinn]

Look, right on cue, here's Mark Carney with a limited hangout. He's talking about the symptoms again, while presiding over one of the most fundamental causes. Even he can't bury his head deep enough so it makes you wonder how the victims manage it. At least he understands what globalisation is.


Bank of England governor Mark Carney has turned his fire on City greed and the problem of growing inequality, calling for more to be done to clamp down on scandal-hit financial markets.

Mr Carney said globalisation had led to huge earnings that were ‘amplifying the rewards of the superstar’ – but ‘disturbing evidence’ suggested social mobility was decreasing.
His remarks are likely to be seen as an attempt by the former Goldman Sachs banker to show he is not a cheerleader for the City, after a speech last year which was viewed as a departure from the scathing tone of his predecessor, Mervyn King.

Mr Carney also defended the Bank’s low interest rate policy, saying it stimulated jobs – though he admitted it had caused a redistribution of wealth that hit savers.
In his most outspoken remarks so far, he said bankers operate in ‘a privileged heads-I-win-tails-you-lose bubble’.

He accused them of a ‘host of scandals’ including fixing interest rates, currency markets and the gold price. He said huge bonuses encourage bankers to take ‘too much risk’, adding: ‘When bankers become detached from end-users, their only reward becomes money.’

He said the system is ‘amplifying the rewards of the superstar and, though few of them would be inclined to admit it, the lucky’.

Mr Carney said banks in the UK and around the world are still ‘too big to fail’ – meaning taxpayers’ money must be used to prop them up in times of crisis.

The Canadian, who succeeded Lord King as governor last July, told the Conference on Inclusive Capitalism in London: ‘Perhaps the most severe blow to public trust was the revelation that there were scores of too-big-to-fail institutions operating at the heart of finance.

‘Bankers made enormous sums in the run-up to the crisis and were often well compensated after it hit. In turn, taxpayers picked up the tab for their failures.

‘That unjust sharing of risk and reward contributed directly to inequality but – more importantly – has had a corrosive effect on the broader social fabric.’

He warned about ‘the growing exclusivity of capitalism’, claiming the ‘basic social contract’ is ‘breaking down’ as the rich prosper at the expense of the less well-off.
And he pointed to ‘disturbing evidence that equality of opportunity has fallen’, warning that the young could face a bleak future.

He said: ‘Social welfare systems designed and enjoyed by previous generations may prove, absent reform, unaffordable for future ones.’

In the wake of the financial crisis, the Bank of England was handed sweeping new powers over the financial system.

Banks have been fined billions for scandals including the fixing of the Libor interest rate and the mis-selling of payment protection insurance.

But no senior bankers have yet been prosecuted over scandals that took place after the global crash.

Mr Carney warned jailing bankers will not fix bad behaviour.

He said: ‘Merely prosecuting the guilty to the full extent of the law will not be sufficient to address the issues raised. Authorities and market participants must act to recreate fair and effective markets.’

Critics claim it is business as usual in the City after Barclays hiked its bonus pool by 10 per cent to £2.4billion last month – despite a 32 per cent fall in profits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2641097/Carney-tears-bankers-spreading-inequality-Bank-England-governor-turns-fire-City-greed-calls-scandal-hit-financial-markets.html

[Letters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

[Power n Glory]

:lol: It's a shame I haven't seen any of the Monty Python stuff. It's on the 'to watch' list.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm not sure that I find the solutions offered by Libertarian philosophy uncompelling and inpractical because I've been brainwashed by a globalist corporate plutocracy that's ground me down to the point that as an individual I can never be greater than the sum of my parts. I just don't hold with the belief system (well not every aspect of it anyway) is all.
Frankly I don't find the concept of democracy is all its cracked up to be, whilst I believe freedom of thought, speech and association are essential, we make the fundamental error of believing that because everyone has the right to an opinion, that a prevalent opinion should be given credence even if its inane and irrational.

[milla]

Less government, more personal responsibility, now that's crazy and dangerous talk.

:gp:

Centralized government is overrated and why are we paying so many taxes? :coffee:

[Letters]

Centralized government is overrated and why are we paying so many taxes? :coffee:
Because of all the immigrants :coffee:

[GP]

Because of all the immigrants :coffee:

:gp:

Semd 'em all back to Siberniceragua.

[milla]

Because of all the immigrants :coffee:

Yeah, let's blame it on minority immigrants :good:

[Letters]

Yeah, let's blame it on minority immigrants :good:
:gp:

They come over here posting on our messageboards, over-using our smilies...



:coffee:

[WMUG]

Immigants, I knew it was them. Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.

[Letters]

They don't even learn themselves the language :angry:

[GP]

My country's fuck all

[milla]

:gp:

They come over here posting on our messageboards, over-using our smilies...



:coffee:


Careful there, you are breaching Geneva convention treaties and other human rights, right to WUM and smilies etc :sulk:

[Power n Glory]

I thought we were talking about the nation state? My proposal, in strict terms of this particular argument, is to defend it for the reasons already given. I don't support the nation state as an ideal but at least let's not make it any worse than that.

But in terms of human nature, if human beings are so irresponsible and inadequate they can't possibly govern themselves then how on earth can they be expected to govern others? The whole concept of government is irreparably flawed if you present it as a remedy to this human condition you have assumed exists. Who are these immune super heroes that have risen above what is "part of us"? David Cameron? Barry Soetoro? Bill Gates? Henry Kissinger? Really? To me it seems they are the very worst candidates and represent a comprehensive indictment of your argument. And how many people have died through war, famine and crushing poverty under the governance of these stand out individuals? More or less than under a free for all, would you say? Or about the same? In terms of Armageddon and mass extinction, who holds the cards? Who can kill fast enough to wipe out the species and every other living thing on the planet?

Whenever an alternative to the present and total corruption is mentioned a fully furnished alternative solution tends to be demanded, or at least a jump to a theoretical and disconnected final solution is used for comparison to an idealistic accounting of the present system, which itself is one giant assumption that doesn't exist beyond the platitudes - it's a myth. For example, people will ask, "What's the alternative to democracy?", as if democracy really exists. "Anarchy? Fascism? Chaos?", as if the space between absolutes is devoid of substance. The fact anarchy (in it's misrepresented form), fascism and chaos are the signatures of war, global economic fraud, systemic political corruption, is skipped without notice. The goal of such dishonest comparison is to eliminate even the hint of alternatives and frame everything in terms of the present broken system. Anything outside is automatically deemed impossible or impractical. Because, well you know, it just is. And when eventually and patiently the argument for status quo is picked apart and laid bare (not difficult at all, but time consuming) there's always the safe and reliable haven, the idea all human beings are inherently bad. And so only more of the same bad solutions exist, and how convenient is that? Nobody who has thought it through suggests a leap to a polar opposite. Most would be encouraged by a decrease in the speed at which we are racing in the wrong direction. But that's impossible because it's not in our nature to be humane or just or civilised?

Okay then, here's my solution framed in the authorised format.

I suggest we make a list of the top 0.01% wealthiest individuals and kill them and their families, then take what they have. Now I am speaking the language of the unavoidably flawed human being. Whereas previously I'd suggested not endorsing corruption by not voting for a corrupt system, I am now framing things in the language of the statist (the only viable solution) - coercion and violence. I propose I also should be forgiven (just like they are) because I'm only human.

You've seen the manner in which a non-violent response is greeted, "Internet warrior, David Icke." You know you have a case when that sort of shite starts being shovelled. But I don't have much of a case now I have presented things in terms of a system that accounts for the supposedly unavoidable flaws in human nature. Would you argue this isn't how the state operates? Vietnam, Afghanistan (both communists and capitalists - as if that makes a difference - piling in), Iraq, just as recent examples?

Do we really want one all encompassing state? Would that be a good thing? Would it be altruistic by default? Yeah, probably. It makes sense. Just look at the evidence so far. Or better still, don't, under any circumstances.

Less government, more personal responsibility, now that's crazy and dangerous talk.

How is more ‘personal responsibility’ possible? You may have to define what you mean if we’re going to talk less government. I’m assuming you mean people being guided by their own conscience or some sort of moral compass, but that’s assuming we’re all guided by the same moral compass. We’ve seen the sort of mess the economy is in because of less regulation. It’s all too easy to think of the current banking scandals as big, faceless corporate organisations and not break it down to an individual level. The majority of them must have known they were doing something morally wrong. Where was the personal responsibility there? Do we separate them from the pile and assume the bankers are some sort of different breed? They’re still individuals and there will always be people that take advantage of the system.

From your previous post.


This is what globalisation is all about, the unchecked expansion of corporate power. This is why corporations are now more powerful than presidents and prime ministers, more akin to emperors. And richer than nations.

If Globalisation is unchecked expansion of corporate power, less regulation isn’t going to help that. There is nothing wrong with Globalisation, it’s the individuals that choose to exploit it that’s the problem. Without Globalisation, we’d still have that problem because it boils down to abuse of power. That’s always been a problem in society and I don’t see it changing. It’s not just at corporate level. Even when I worked in retail or for McDonald’s, you’d always find someone pushing the boundaries, scamming the till, taking products/food when it’s unnecessary. Take basic economics out of the equation and you’ll still find greedy, opportunistic, manipulative bullies in this world. I’m not saying the current system is perfect, but there is some form of accountability.