How Long Before A Vote Of No Confidence In Johnson Government?

[Tony L]

And yet the government creates 3% of our money and private banks 97%? (It does get to set some of the rules though should it wish to do so.)

Someone asked in another thread about the biggest changes over ones lifetime and I think this illustrates one of the big ones. The population has increasingly lost interest in the technical side of how things work (i.e. "reality"), in this case money but it could be anything, in favour of what seems plausible that is reasonably aligned with an existing outlook.

Huh? The fractional reserve banking system has existed pretty much as long as the concept of money itself. It really is nothing new and certainly hasn’t changed noticeably in any of our lifetimes. We reached a point where reserves were clearly too fractional back in the run-up to 2008, but I’d class that as criminality/fraud within the industry rather than a flaw of banking as a concept.

 

[h.g.]

We reached a point where reserves were clearly too fractional back in the run-up to 2008, but I’d class that as criminality/fraud within the industry rather than a flaw of banking as a concept.

Given negligible numbers of people have been prosecuted the practical reality is that it was not widespread criminal/fraud. It is part of how our money system operates which has evolved over the last few decades to increasingly fail to serve the interests of the majority. The scale of creating money to redistribute wealth rather than creating it is a large social problem today and a major flaw in banking as a concept (for the 99% not the 1%). It is fixable by government regulation but governments don't seem to be currently talking about trying to redirecting capital investment in this way. The time to do it was in response to 2007-2008 but the banks successfully blocked such moves. We now have the growth of things like peer-to-peer business lending which can't possibly match the low borrowing costs of a bank. I suppose they could apply to become banks in the future. But why not start to repair a broken down banking system instead?

 

[maxflinn]

Morally no, but but business wise yes. Unless you have a viable alternative you don’t get to play the game.

It's interesting that you agree it's morally wrong that the profits of banks should be put before the societal wellbeing of debtors (in the context we're discussing).

Banks of course will not see it that way, but that's their prerogative.

However government is different. Yes it should try to help maintain a well functioning, profit-making banking industry. But it also has a duty of care to the people, including those with distressed mortgages in times of deep recession.

Banks gamble with people's savings and pensions. It's their business model. When this goes well they make huge profits which are not shared with Joe Public. When it goes wrong, Joe Public has to pay, either by losing savings/pensions or by higher taxation and austerity, due to bank bailouts and government cuts, as per 08, when many paid with the loss of their homes, too.

I posit that under such circumstances (deep recession) absolutely everything should be done by government to prevent people from losing their primary homes (things like my proposal). It would help alleviate the burden on the state (taxpayer) of paying to house evictees and their families (housing benefit) which would free up money to help sustain distressed banks in the interim, stop a property crash and help to maintain a higher level of social harmony than there would otherwise be.

Morally, the right thing to do, and the banks keep functioning.

 

[Brian]

I’m a member of a union and have been for the last 20 years and I think that it is utterly useless and of no benefit.

I find it particularly ironic that my union outsourced the legal cover and work to a 3rd party company who seemed to be more interested in finding excuses not to take on a constructive dismissal case I had.

Unions main priority these days is about accumulating money and power and little to do with helping people, it’s absolutely pathetic that some here so blindly support them just because they have “union” in the name.

Evidence for this in bold?

Whatever the real reasons for this 3rd party co not taking on your case, this Tory govt and coalition before it have attacked the ability of Unions to effectively represent their members. Perhaps take a look there.

 

[stephen bennett]

Another pro-Tory uncritical article in the Guardian today.

The newspaper appears to just be reprinting Spectator articles now.

Stephen

 

[droodzilla]

Another pro-Tory uncritical article in the Guardian today.

The newspaper appears to just be reprinting Spectator articles now.

Stephen

Not quite as bad, but this thin gruel is what passed for "analysis" in the Guardian these days:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/25/boris-johnson-biarritz-swim-brexit-metaphor

 

[Cav]

Evidence for this in bold?

Whatever the real reasons for this 3rd party co not taking on your case, this Tory govt and coalition before it have attacked the ability of Unions to effectively represent their members. Perhaps take a look there.

A Trade Union is the membership.

 

[jackbarron]

Another pro-Tory uncritical article in the Guardian today.

The newspaper appears to just be reprinting Spectator articles now.

Stephen

You're right. The writer is Isabel Hardman. She is the assistant editor of The Spectator.

The Guardian's more recent history is littered with right-wing diatribes. Polly Toynbee used to specialise in slating Corbyn and the socialists in the Labour Party.

Mind you, she was probably half-right about Corbyn, because he has turned out to be inept.

Jack

 

[ks.234]

A Trade Union is the membership.

Yes, this is important. It’s so important that people support their union however they can. Just going along to LA meetings will make a big difference. So often just getting people to meetings will mean they meet other people experiencing the same problems and realise they’re not on their own. If they can help in small ways, but helping to book venues for future meetings, so much the better, that would help enormously.

On a deferent matter, when it comes to helping people with specific problems it has to be realised that a union helping you is how the process works. People often seem to want the union to make a problem just go away without getting involved themselves. The union can only help, support and represent a member to take action, if the member doesn’t want to act, the union can’t just wave a magic wand, or thump on tables to make the problem disappear.

 

[ks.234]

You're right. The writer is Isabel Hardman. She is the assistant editor of The Spectator.

The Guardian's more recent history is littered with right-wing diatribes. Polly Toynbee used to specialist in slating Corbyn and the socialists in the Labour Party.

Mind you, she was probably half-right about Corbyn, because he has turned out to be inept.

Jack

Hasn’t she changed her mind and is now a Corbyn supporter?

 

[jackbarron]

Not quite as bad, but this thin gruel is what passed for "analysis" in the Guardian these days:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/25/boris-johnson-biarritz-swim-brexit-metaphor

The journalist's analysis of Johnson in Europe is pretty lame. It mentions that he is, supposedly, sensitive - hence No 10 cancelled a Channel 4 News interview, after its head of news said the PM was a known liar.

Instead of following this up, The Guardian journalist paints Johnson enjoying being PM and negotiating at the G7 Summit. She seems to imply he has the right temperament to do this and Trump appears to love him.

Jack

 

[jackbarron]

Hasn’t she changed her mind and is now a Corbyn supporter?

You're right, she definitely became a Corbyn supporter. I stopped reading the political pages of The Guardian when she was attacking him and the socialists as often as possible.

I am not sure whether Toynbee is still a Corbyn supporter though. This will become clear in the next few weeks.

Jack

 

[Woodface]

It's interesting that you agree it's morally wrong that the profits of banks should be put before the societal wellbeing of debtors (in the context we're discussing).

Banks of course will not see it that way, but that's their prerogative.

However government is different. Yes it should try to help maintain a well functioning, profit-making banking industry. But it also has a duty of care to the people, including those with distressed mortgages in times of deep recession.

Banks gamble with people's savings and pensions. It's their business model. When this goes well they make huge profits which are not shared with Joe Public. When it goes wrong, Joe Public has to pay, either by losing savings/pensions or by higher taxation and austerity, due to bank bailouts and government cuts, as per 08, when many paid with the loss of their homes, too.

I posit that under such circumstances (deep recession) absolutely everything should be done by government to prevent people from losing their primary homes (things like my proposal). It would help alleviate the burden on the state (taxpayer) of paying to house evictees and their families (housing benefit) which would free up money to help sustain distressed banks in the interim, stop a property crash and help to maintain a higher level of social harmony than there would otherwise be.

Morally, the right thing to do, and the banks keep functioning.

The last Labour Govt did pretty much that in 2008, repossessions were far lower than predicted. Different in Ireland

 

[Woodface]

You're right, she definitely became a Corbyn supporter. I stopped reading the political pages of The Guardian when she was attacking him and the socialists as often as possible.

I am not sure whether Toynbee is still a Corbyn supporter though. This will no doubt become clear in the next few weeks.

Jack

Toynbee probably worried about Corbyn abolishing private schools?

 

[Brian]

A Trade Union is the membership.

Yes, absolutely.

 

[ks.234]

The day before talks on a VoNC, Swinson pits out another party before country missive. Boris must be rubbing his hands with glee. Or has Swinson already negotiated herself a deal with the Tories? Whichever, this is shameful politicking that will only, can only, damage chances of VoNC succeeding.

 

[Tony L]

Again, Swinson is absolutely right; Corbyn is a zero-credibility public laughing stock who hasn’t even earned the respect of many of his own MPs, let alone the rest of the house, but I do think she is setting herself up for a fall by shouting it so loudly. It is a tactical error IMO.

 

[ks.234]

Again, Swinson is absolutely right; Corbyn is a zero-credibility public laughing stock who hasn’t even earned the respect of many of his own MPs, let alone the rest of the house, but I do think she is setting herself up for a fall by shouting it so loudly. It is a tactical error IMO.

We can argue back and forth about whether Swinson is right or not, what is beyond question is that to publicise her letter the day before cross party talks is only likely to reduce the chances of a VoNC. Even if she is right, indeed, especially if she is right, she should save her comments for the talks due tomorrow and deliver them face to face. To publish them 24 hours before the meeting is nothing more or less than shameless politicking for personal or party ambition above attacking Boris Johnson, Brexit, or no deal.

In fact, she seems very quiet on Boris Johnson, I wonder why?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Beginning to wonder if Jo Swinson mightn’t be a ringer. An ERG sleeper agent.

 

[droodzilla]

It’s more than a tactical error. It could result in a chaotic no-deal Brexit *and* the re-election of a hard-right Conservative government with an increased majority.

There is *no* principled reason not to support Corbyn’s plan & it may well be the best chance we have of stopping Brexit - see my long post from just over a week ago.

Swinson’s Energy would be better spent trying to get Conservative “rebels” on board.

I understand the desire of the anti-Corbyn MPs to explore other options to stop No Deal - fair enough. But if they fail they will have to choose: a few weeks of a caretaker government led by Corbyn vs the potential chaos & economic damage of no deal.