AIBU to want a party to "take on the rich and powerful"

[BlueJuniper94]

AIBU to want a party to "take on the rich and powerful" but without all the woke stuff? I don't really like that term but you know what I mean. Why doesn't this seem to be an option

Corbyn etc with their student political views stand no chance. 🙄

I’d prefer a party that creates policies focussed on making the poor and powerless better off.
What level of “rich and powerful” are you hoping to take on? Successful entrepreneurs? CEOs, board level execs of large companies? Medium sized companies? Or billionaires? Royalty? Land-owners? What’s your definition? And what will happen if your party succeeds?
We already know plenty of incredibly hardworking, intelligent, successful people who have taken their skills elsewhere. it’s not easy to do the jobs that they do, that’s why they are paid a lot. Be very careful what you wish for.
What policies would your party implement? And how would they benefit the country, and the poor?

I agree - as I suspect most people would. But the trouble is that nobody seems to have an efficient and workable idea for that.

Growing inequality is very corrosive to social cohesion. Nothing good can ever flourish in a low trust society. The gap between rich and poor is expanding at quite a rate now. The rich used to build libraries and schools and hospitals, and housing for their workers. Now they just live in ivory towers. Economic decline, and high migration is a recipe for disaster. David Betz, professor of Warfare at UCL or KCL, I can't remember says the UK, nationally, will look like Northern Ireland at the peak of the troubles within 5-20 years.

It is a lack of will, not a lack of ideas.

But we used to be producers - of wool and steel and pottery as well as coal and tin - world-class materials.

It's sad that all we seem to be now is a a financial hub.

I agree with OP. It would be great to have a party that served not ruled if it got into power, and used that power to improve the quality of everyday life. No for-profit driving anything that affects infrastructure - so transport, hospitals, education, utilities, cleaning and maintaining public places would all be profit free and have money ploughed back into improving their services.

That doesn't have to be anti-capitalist. But anti vulture-capitalism would be a refreshing change. It is not financially sustainable that all the money bottlenecks at the very top of society. A society in which everyone is paid enough to have a disposable income generates industry, jobs, and innovation.

Too right OP! Let’s have a country with a population comprised of the poor and weak! I’m sure that country will be a huge success!

Brilliant idea!

I thought you meant a knees up

Are you a jealous person? Do you resent hard work and success? Would you rather those people lived elsewhere?

YABU to use the word woke. And also its only 'woke' people who recognise that inequality

Which is what?

Agree. Tackle poverty at the root cause.

This. You do benefit from the tax the rich paid. It's just unfortunate the government has its priorities wrong.

People who hate successful people sound like they come from Loserville. Improve your own life and don't be so pathetic.

london brings in over 25% of all tax revenue. It’s propping up the whole country. If the financial hub slowly moves elsewhere, we wont be able to survive.

These are good questions. And perhaps I'm surprised they need much consideration as though what we vote for ever bears much relation to what we get!

Nonetheless - could some of the answers lie in this new post national global world? Countries no longer exist anymore, only economic zones. Elites are no longer tied to places or people to whom they feel any sense of attachment or responsibility. I feel like medieval Kings were closer to their people than our current elites who live completely isolated lives.

I'm not a hard-core Marxist, I'd like to see the gap between the lowest paid worker and the CEO shrink back to x20 or somewhere in that region. Housing needs to be sorted, that would fix many problems. I would rather people who wanted to take care of relatives young or old, who needed care, were able to do so without being forced into wage slavery and the state picking up the tab for others being paid to care. This makes no sense to me.

I'd rather society was a bit more equal and the rich paid more taxes. They'd still be rich. And they didn't all get to be rich by working hard either.

Labour hates the successful/rich, hence the cynical removal of the non dom status and loss of thousands of successful people from this country, no thanks, if you want communism move to Russia.

What’s your definition of rich?

But we used to be producers - of wool and steel and pottery as well as coal and tin - world-class materials.

This is Trump's message. The US used to be a manufacturing powerhouse, he and his cohort say, but manufacturing has been off-shored. They want it back in the US, hence the tariffs.

Not sure that's working yet.

Not sure it would work anywhere, with any flavour of government. Unless the entire world economy alters radically.

But it doesn't actually create anything, other than abstract wealth. And claims to need sky high rates of migration to do so. How about bring back manufacturing instead to reinvigorate all the communities which died when they went abroad. The world is no longer at peace. We have subcontracted far too much to either hostile countries, or countries that potentially will be in the future. Why is this not something worth exploring

X post with Cher

But what would that actually involve? Come on @BlueJuniper94 , you can’t just throw peanuts from the gallery if this is so important to you- we are an island nation with a history of empire, a reasonably open democracy and generlly safe, how exactly do we “ close the borders”? Are you suggesting we build a wall? 🙄

The world economy is changing though. Sanctions and tarrifs and the end of unipolarity and the advent of AI is already seriously affecting the jobs market and it hasn't even started yet. We will be on UBI before we know it.

So it's not so much about manufacturing capability being something that "might not work" in an economic sense - it's more about not being able to afford not to have these capabilities ourselves in a strategic sense. We will be very very vulnerable otherwise.

Nationalised or not-for-profit ends up being very inefficient though. Badly run by less talented managers, because the civil service pays less.
Although this weird subsidised system we have now is also absolutely terrible.
We lost our industry as other countries caught up and have cheaper labour. As those countries develop the costs will go up, once their workers demand proper pay etc.
As per PP, the rich used to pay for housing for workers etc but many rich didn't, which was why the welfare system was developed. Our standards are so much higher now that is unaffordable to provide it all either by wages or handouts. The Cadbury family provided basic housing not a room for each child and cars.

I would be happy to engage if it wasn't for your closing remark, which just exposes that you're only interest is to drag me down for a mud wrestle. I'm not going to, I'm going for a shower. But you know, and everyone else knows, serious countries have borders.

Someone strip mining and hoarding the fruits of the UKs assets