Cameron is a prat

[longfingernails]

The idea that the Tory treasurer is hawking Cameron around like Blair is just disgusting.

What are they thinking? They have the opportunity to destroy the last vestiges of socialism in this country, and thereby open up opportunities for millions - and instead, they get involved in the age-old pathetic donations circus.

This is just too depressing.

If the shoe fits...

Know many 'progressive millionaires', claig? Especially those who would donate to the Tory party?

I am pleased to say that I don't have the misfortune of knowing any progressive millionaires.

Yes, and it's not likely that you ever will.

There aren't that many, as millionaires tend to be right-wing and reactionary. Generally speaking, they seek to protect their own wealth and by implication, those of their own class.

You just throw in the word 'progressive' here because you want to associate 'progressive' (your idea of whatever that means) with political corruption.

'Progressives' - and by that I mean people who actually care about the general welfare of the majority of people in society, and those whom seek to make society a fairer, more civilised place - tend not to vote for, or donate to the Tory party, whose aims are the exact opposite.

'There aren't that many, as millionaires tend to be right-wing and reactionary'

So you think that there are no millionaire backers of the Labour Party?

'you want to associate 'progressive' (your idea of whatever that means) with political corruption'

Certainly not. Bin fines for not closing bin lids or leaving bins out on the wrong day have nothing to do with political corruption, but everything to do with progressive policies.

You need to get a political education, claig.

Both New Labour and Tory scum accept donations from millionaires. However, the majority of funding for the Tory party come from the City of London (roughly 50%).

We live in a plutocracy, where wealth can buy influence and legislation. It doesn't matter what party is in power. We have a systemic problem. The influence of big-business and wealthy millionaires donating money to political parties has made a mockery of democracy.

However, two things:

I didn't say there were no millionaire backers of the labour party. I said there were few (if any - can you name one) progressive millionaire backers of the labour party.

Secondly, New Labour are not 'progressive'. I've explained this to you a million times already. Wealth inequality increased massively under New Labour. They basically carried on the neo-liberal policies of the previous governments. This is a problem that Western governments have had to deal with since the early 1980s: privitisation of public assets, pritivisation of profits while socialising the risk, stagnating wages, increased cost of living, massive increase in wealth inequality, dismantling of the welfare state, increase in corporate power and influence in all aspects of public, private, and political spheres...

do people really think though that pensioners, or at least the ones who have voted Tory all their lives will suddenly jump ship and vote differently? Can't see it somehow.

I don't know who the current Labour backers are, but they did have millionaire backers under Tony Blair

'Labour has lost a string of wealthy backers since the departure of Tony Blair. Among the lost donors are Lord David Sainsbury, the businessman and former politician who contributed millions to the party?s coffers, including a donation of more than £3m in 2008. Lord Sainsbury declined to continue his support under Ed Miliband?s leadership. He has continued to donate to Progress, a Blairite faction within the party, and the community group Movement for Change.

Financier Sir Ronald Cohen, who provided £500,000 as recently as 2009, has also stopped contributing.

A donation of £1m promised by property baron Andrew Rosenfeld, one of Britain?s richest men, has yet to appear in the party finance registers of the Electoral Commission'

www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/09/30/labour-party-funding-on-trade-union-life-support/

'Secondly, New Labour are not 'progressive'.'

Of course they are not, but they say they are. That is why I mock the use of the Orwellian term 'progressive', because its use is intended to fool the public.

And here is a recent story about a donation. I don't know if it is true or not, but it was in the Daily Mail.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116495/A-100-000-gift-Eds-ride-tycoons-Rolls-The-real-story-Labour-leader-NHS-rally-was.html

Lord David Sainsbury , a donor since April 2004. His donations of over £8.4million to the Labour Party stopped when Ed Miliband became leader. There have been others too, very generous towards the labour party, many of whom have received gongs. The labour party has not been and is not a socialist party since the death of smith.

Bin fines and on the spot fines, identity cards, etc,,, are just ways of controlling an already frustrated and disenfranchised mass of humanity. New labour banded about the idea of rounding up dysfunctional families into sin bins and introduced family centres so they could influence and coerce. Progressive maybe, in the worst possible way but socialist no.

Under new labour the working class were labelled feckless wasters, useless eaters and dysfunctional, uneducated, an underclass and chavs. We were led to believe that through "meritocracy" we would all be middle class (what the hell is middle class anyway?)

True socialism would hand power to the working class, that's all of us, every man would be a politician, rather than having an elite bunch of "progressives," intellectuals and advantaged rich people making assumptions about what is best for us. Although we know they are not acting on our behalf, they are simply perpetuating and presenting class differences and inequalities differently depending on whose vote they seek.

Very good post, minimathsmouse. I hope ttosca reads it carefully and learns from it.

"Businessman Assem Allam, who wants Labour backing for a multi-million-pound property development, made the donation in a secret meeting with the Labour leader in February"

From claig's link. So why is it even news worthy that Cruddas is selling access to cameron and osborne ? Will people believe cameron when he says that he had no knowledge. How could he not know who he was having dinner with and what was being discussed?

This thread is full of pro - tories - where are the lefties?

Selling message is big money, particularly as we doggedly follow America's lead - will lead to these kinds of difficulties.

Lots of really good things happened in education under Labour - they promoted it in a way Tories would never have done ( many more young people now entering university is Labour's legacy) because deep down they (Tories) want people 'to know their place'.

Progressive, Hard Working Families, Fairness. Each of these sounds nice - who wouldn't argue for more fairness in society for example - but the whole point of these words and phrases is that they all mean different things to different people.

Take the word ?fairness?; we could use the Marxist 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. That's fine, and certainly sounds fair enough, who wouldn't argue with that? But is it fair? Why should someone who has, perhaps, built up a business from scratch and worked hard all their life, subsidise someone who plays the welfare system from cradle to grave? That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Another system would be to divide up the costs of government and give everyone an equal share to be settled at the end of the year - an all inclusive Poll Tax if you like. From the millionaires point of view this may seem perfectly fair and, objectively, it doesn't seem that much more unfair than the scenario described above, however, this system would impoverish the poor and bring genuine misery.

Until people define what they really mean when they use words like those above I always assume they are being used as part of a wider divide and rule strategy - specifically being used to massage the expectations from either end of the wealth scale with the inherent view to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and prepare us all for their inevitable failures.

Pants-

Progressive, Hard Working Families, Fairness. Each of these sounds nice - who wouldn't argue for more fairness in society for example - but the whole point of these words and phrases is that they all mean different things to different people.

Sure, that's a valid point. However, two things:

a) I don't think everyone agrees that 'fairness' is a priority aim to begin with. People have different values. I don't think the Tories, for example, value 'fairness' very highly compared with, say, entrepreneurship. 'Fairness' is not something which they tend to sit around worry too much about.

b) There is a limit to differently we can interpret 'fairness' before it becomes absurd. Surely, taking from the poor and most vulnerable to give to the richest and most powerful is not 'fair' by any reasonable definition, and anyone who has this definition can reasonably be dismissed.

mini-

True socialism would hand power to the working class, that's all of us, every man would be a politician, rather than having an elite bunch of "progressives," intellectuals and advantaged rich people making assumptions about what is best for us. Although we know they are not acting on our behalf, they are simply perpetuating and presenting class differences and inequalities differently depending on whose vote they seek.

Oh, I agree. True socialism is democratic. It would also require profound change from the system that we current have. Being 'Progressive' doesn't come in to this, as these measures are not put in place for the benefit of society, but for the benefit of the state in 'managing' society, and to facilitate the machine of Capitalist production.

---

claig-

It's difficult to discuss anything with you because you're so incoherent. Maybe if you laid off the sauce for a bit, you might be clearer.

You contrast 'progressive' with the 'real' progressives, but then you support the Tory scum and the Daily Heil - neither of which are progressive in any way, shape, or form. A society based on reactionary journalists of the Daily Heil would be nasty, brutish, and short.

'Maybe if you laid off the sauce for a bit, you might be clearer.'

But it is only with copious amounts of 'sauce' that I am able to get through one of your diatribes.

'you support the Tory scum and the Daily Heil'

There is no such thing as 'Tory scum' - that is a self-evident oxymoron.
I don't know what the 'Daily Heil' is and have never read it.

'A society based on reactionary journalists of the Daily Heil would be nasty, brutish, and short.'

I agree, it doesn't sound good at all. I count my blessings that I have never read it.

ttosca

I don't think the Tories, for example, value 'fairness' very highly compared with, say, entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship, to follow your example, can be quantified - The Tories could state entrepreneurship as a desired objective and align policy towards that end. Several months / years later you can analyse how many new businesses were created / how much GDP increased by because of governmental policies. For the reasons I explained above, fairness cannot be quantified in the same way without someone defining the terms of fairness up front in the first place.

Surely, taking from the poor and most vulnerable to give to the richest and most powerful is not 'fair' by any reasonable definition

I think you've inadvertently made the very mistake I was warning against. In the example I gave, I wasn't advocating taking anything from the poor and giving it to the rich. I was pointing out that, to a wealthy Laissez-faire capitalist (let's call them Ebenezer Scrooge for simplicities sake), it may seem perfectly fair to carve up the costs of government equally amongst everyone regardless of wealth. I don't think this is such an unreasonable interpretation of the word 'fair' as to dismiss this line of thinking outright.

(PLEASE NOTE THAT I'M NOT ACTUALLY IN FAVOUR OF ANY OF THIS - I'M ONLY TALKING HYPOTHETICALLY I'M ACTUALLY IN FAVOUR OF A FLAT TAX SYSTEM!!!)

I find it strange that a really straightforward post like mine would be interpreted as a "divide and rule" mantra.

Education encourages increased powers of thinking, reading between the lines and giving your point of view. The more people who are educated could possibly/probably lead to a healthier society where all people ( across social class divide) matter because they have a voice that can be heard.

A largely educated population would be more discerning when it read the Daily Mail and other Murdoch type press.

andisa Sorry, but my post wasn't a reaction to yours. Before you posted, ttosca and claig were having a discussion where the word 'progressive' kept cropping up. I believe that certain political buzzwords are ambiguous enough to be meaningless - hence my post.

I don't profess to be an expert on education but I suppose you'd also accept that a largely educated population would be more discerning when it read/watched the Guardian and BBC too.

Andisa, I was trying to work out if your comment about zilcho lefties was a joke or an observation. Labour did more for state educated kids in terms of access to higher education but failed to bridge the gap in standards between private and state education. Giving universities quotas is not going to address the issue that some kids are leaving school without a basic grasp of maths and English.

Pants-

Surely, taking from the poor and most vulnerable to give to the richest and most powerful is not 'fair' by any reasonable definition

I think you've inadvertently made the very mistake I was warning against. In the example I gave, I wasn't advocating taking anything from the poor and giving it to the rich. I was pointing out that, to a wealthy Laissez-faire capitalist (let's call them Ebenezer Scrooge for simplicities sake), it may seem perfectly fair to carve up the costs of government equally amongst everyone regardless of wealth. I don't think this is such an unreasonable interpretation of the word 'fair' as to dismiss this line of thinking outright.

I disagree. A flat-tax is patently absurd. A millionaire paying the same in tax as someone on the minimum wage? I don't think so.

Of course there are always going to be various definitions of these buzz words like 'fair' or 'progressive'. That's true of all words, though. At some point you have to draw the line. I'm not willing to concede that 'fair' is meaningless just because some laissez-faire nutter has absurd ideas of what constitutes 'fair'.

In any case, the point is not to come to consensus of what 'fairness' means, but ultimately fight for what your particular class perceives to be 'fair'. In other words, why should ordinary working people accept the definition of 'fair' where a millionaire pays the same tax as someone on minimum wage? They shouldn't, and they wouldn't.

claig-

'you support the Tory scum and the Daily Heil'

There is no such thing as 'Tory scum' - that is a self-evident oxymoron.

That's just sad. It really is. Who do you think you're benefiting when you come out with this stuff? Do you think you're being patriotic by being slavishly partisan?

I don't know what the 'Daily Heil' is and have never read it.

Sure you do. You talk about it all the time on here as if it were the word of God.

It's the daily newspaper which promotes some non-existent idealised past sometime around the 1950s, wheres women stayed home and made babies and knew their place, Britain was almost exclusively white, and everybody 'knew their place'.

'A society based on reactionary journalists of the Daily Heil would be nasty, brutish, and short.'

I agree, it doesn't sound good at all. I count my blessings that I have never read it.

You read it all the time. It's that misogynistic, sexist, racist, reactionary, little-Englander, mendacious, Nazi-supporting, trashy 'newspaper' which goes by the title the 'Daily Mail'.

That statement is true. He is also a smug, shiny, liar.