Is The UK In Trouble? - Above Politics 62

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
"You (The UK) will take Euro membership without a referendum" says our special guest Daniel Furr, about plans to seek money from the IMF.

We interview a political commentator and blogger, Daniel Furr on when the UK will need to take money from the International Monetary Fund to balance the books, something that the main stream media is ignoring. We also hear what Daniel thinks will be in the UK budget next week and finally Daniel and Martin talk about the recent smear campaign coming from the office of the Prime Minister.

Before our interview, Homer and Martin talk about Tea parties, revisit Martin's prediction that one of the big three auto makers will go bankrupt and the lack of ammo for the many gun owners in the States.




 

 




ABOVE POLITICS Number 62, with Martin Bain and Homer Fife, from AboveTopSecret.com.
Show length is 44:54.
Direct link to show MP3 file: atsmix_3270.mp3 (15 mb)
Subscribe to ABOVE POLITICS in your favorite MP3 utility/player: ABOVE POLITICS RSS feed
Subscribe to ABOVE POLITICS in iTunes for your iPod: ABOVE POLITICS iTunes feed

 



ABOVE POLITICS is the alternative political program from AboveTopSecret.com, all content is copyright (2009) by AboveTopSecret.com and The Above Network, LLC, all rights reserved. No content of the program may be rebroadcast in part or in whole from any web domain other than ATSMIX.com or ABOVETOPSECRET.com without prior written permission of The Above Network, LLC.


The Independent View: A solution - world government

Daniel Furr: If we are to fall, let us fall like men

International Reporters wanted for The Above Politics Show thread

The Above Politics Show Web Site


[edit on 4/18/2009 by Dave Rabbit]




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
First of I just want to say that I found the interview to be very interesting listening .
IMO while the possibility of a global central bank is very real the concept is either unworkable or would face massive hurdles . Allan Bollard has pointed out that the flaw with an Anzac currency would be the loss of New Zealand ability to manage monetary policy. Just think of that on a global scale . So rather then sanctions against so called tax havens I could foresee sanctions being placed against countries who don't sign up for such a plan .

The IMF or some other body could replace the Fed as the worlds most powerful central bank without there being a global currency or existing central banks but such a notions would buck current trends .



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
The IMF virtually destroyed Portugal when their socialist government required a bail out. Argentina had major sectors of the economy privatised , which has lead to massive poverty.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Whether or not privatization caused poverty in New Zealand is another topic in itself . One thing is that is for certain is the private sector terrible record at running what were state assets . The New Zealand rail system is back in government hands after it was absolutely trashed by the private sector . Currently the rail system is dying on the vine . The private sector has proven that largely more interested in asset stripping then anything else .



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Martin seems to have hit the nail on the head regarding the attitude of The PM on the email smear campaign. While I accept the PM might not have known the specifics of what was in Mcbride's thinking, can we really believe that the PM was that distance from one of his key advisors that he was not aware of the concept of the smear campaign?

If this is the case, we have a PM who finger seems to to well off the pulse of what is going on in his own office, which begs the question, What else is the PM finger off?

Last weeks show talked about accountability, and all that has happened is an advisors has "resigned" Does the PM think the British people are that stupid that Mr Mcbride has just disappeared with out a trace?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Perhaps Labour in the areas of the UK that are applicable are as desperate to cling to power as Labour were in New Zealand . Certainly Labour desperation didn't pay off hear and along with other contributing factors saw a change in government .

What is the opposition Conservative Party's like in the UK ?
Ie has the opposition had to become more pragmatist and less ideology to win favor in the polls ?

Anyway I'm off to get some sleep .



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Great Interview...

Keep up the good work!!!




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
from the amount of people who did not vote in the last election in the UK, it would seem the British public just dont bl==dy care anymore, what ever colour party gets in, the Brits get more tax, less freedoms, more government interferance, in everything, less jobs, crap education, huge aircraft carries they cannot crew[ half the surface fleet is now 'mothballed']
'civil servants' what the Brits call government employee's creating jobs that are not needed, the list goe's on, those Brits who are retiring, and can afford it, are going abroad 2 world wars did not do the UK much good at all, all the best minds are in wooden overcoats.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


It's not that Brits don't care; we do, very much so. The problem is that many people can't vote because they stopped registering their whereabouts; and to vote in Britain a voter needs to have either a fixed address (that the voter is officially registered to) else must prove a tie to the location in which he/she wants to vote.

Many people stopped registering when the Pole Tax (now Council Tax) was introduced - an unregistered person couldn't be billed; others because to register puts the registered person's name, DOB and home address into a publicly accessible document that debt collectors and other undesirables use to trace them (bad "friends" from a past life) ..... A lot of people (a small but sizable part of Britain's populace) feel they cannot now register to vote because of the problems that would now occur - remember that unregistered people aren't generally affected by government in their day-to-day lives so not voting is a small penalty to pay for not registering.

Homeless people are not always registered to vote. People who move about a lot are not always able to prove they have a right to vote for an MP of a particular region.

Another group that is without the right to vote is prisoners. Prisoners are stripped of their right to vote regardless of duration of incarceration (day, week, month, year...) and the type of crime committed; no matter whether government created a few extra crimes just to lower opposition votes (possible, especially with the current lot).

When someone has been running for a long time, never mind the seriousness of the reason, it becomes very hard to turn back and face-up. When someone's running from debt, crime or tax burdens, the likelihood of that person facing-up decreases the longer he/she is running. If governments really wanted more people to vote they'd allow amnesty for voting purposes which would require proof of ID but absolutely no sharing of details to any one or any agency beyond that required to enable voting without tracking.

Some people choose not to register just because they value their privacy - the right to a life uninterrupted by social rollcalls (for jury, war, disasters, community service etc...).



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Rapacity
 


And why should those convicted of a crime have the right to vote. What about the rights of their victims.

if you go to prison, you have given up your rights to votes as you have been convicted of breaking other people's rights. The last thing I want are criminals have a say on who runs my country.

The Labour Government had the opportunity to change the law regarding Council Tax and the electoral register but they decided not too. If you choice not be pay your council tax, why should you have the right to vote in general, council, district and parish elections?

If you choice not to register, then you can not complain about who is elected and what they do. Further, if you are not paying taxes because you "value your privacy", then I assume you do not want any part of the social services, NHS, policing etc?



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


There is some merit in what you say, pikestaff. There are many reasons why people choice not to vote and I am sure one of them is that our electored leaders do not care what we have to say once they are elected and even if the main parties in the UK would say they are very different, if you look closely, they have more in common. In some respects, they have to, to be in a position to get elected.

Those who vote, you would like to think, have done so based on looking at what the parties of those asking for their votes are going to to, so you can not complain if Government does things you dislike, if you voted for them. Take the example of new aircraft carriers. Did Labour say they would not spend money of new carriers? NO. Part of governing is the protection of the country and its citizens. We have, by voting, given this obligation to Government. How can you complain when Government spends money on protection.

Government can never keep all the people happy, all of the time, and have to take hard decisions about how to spend our taxes, and they have to balance spend across many areas.

And of course, if a citizen does not like what Government are doing, they can stand for office and put them self up for election by their peers!!



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Freedom ERP
 


People who do not pay Council Tax still pay tax. They pay tax when they earn, they pay tax when they buy (VAT), they pay tax when they sell (Capital Gains Tax), they pay tax when they hire something, they pay tax on their savings..... In my earlier post you will have noted that I stated that many people who didn't pay local taxation as protest against the transition from Rates to Pole Tax then Council Tax might now want to pay Council Tax but are afraid to fess-up because of the heavy handed way in which councils chase non-payers (I phrased it along the lines of: the longer someone runs...the harder it is to turn back...).

Also, people who do not register can not normally take assistance from the state - one normally needs to have a registered address. As you brought up the topic of benefits, most claimants do not pay Council Tax - it is paid for them as a benefit. That last fact kind of moots your point about non payment of local taxation being justification for someone not being allowed to vote. Taken further... ex-pats (who do not normally pay any tax to the U.K) can vote in general and local elections provided they can establish a tie to a region within the U.K (e.g - my Mum and Dad live in Cambridge, that's where I lived in the U.K...and I might return one day...).

Regarding prisoners, would you say that all crimes as stipulated by the state to be crimes warranting imprisonment are actual crimes as defined as an act committed that has detrimental consequences to others? In other words, do you agree with all crimes for which people may be imprisoned? I'll take this one step further, do you think that some acts that are currently rewarded with cautions should warrant incarceration? Further, are there some things that people do that you would lock 'em up for but which the state doesn't? Should those people whom you think ought to be in prison (but whom are not) have their right to vote removed? There are more people outside of prison who commit much worse crimes than some of those who are not in prison; perhaps you would have nobody vote?

What happens outside of a prison affects those with-in one too; never forget that. And never forget that some governments lock people up for dissidence - this current one is likely to stretch to that point (consider protesters, laws against photographing police officers...).

Here's another one for you, should someone be locked up for not paying his/her TV license automatically forfeit his/her right to vote?

Freedom ERP, were you locked away for 3 weeks for smoking in the privacy of your own home, were an election to occur during the first week of your incarceration, how would you feel were your wishes for government not fulfilled? How would you feel were the election so close that your vote would have tipped the scales in favour of your preferred party?

Also, just because Labour didn't abolish Council Tax doesn't mean that Council Tax is a fair means of local taxation. To be honest, I think it's most arbitrary: it taxes people based on the area within which they live (higher for nice areas - where people look after property; and lower for deprived areas - where some people trash everything). Just because someone lives in a big house doesn't mean he/she is rich; even were he/she rich, why should he/she pay extra in local taxation to support others - he/she would already be paying more in other forms of taxation.

Do you still think all prisoners must automatically forfeit their right to vote? Do you still think that non payment of local taxation is justification for someone not voting? Do you consider non-payment of a fine or debt reason enough for someone to be barred from voting?

Voting is an important part of life; and the basis of democracy. Like it or not, every able minded person must be afforded the right to vote. It doesn't matter that someone is a criminal, his/her vote is only one amongst millions; I'm sure that were it so bad it would be out-weighted by those other millions.

I don't know whether you realise it but what you wrote is very close to saying that someone who is poor or destitute should not be entitled to vote. That isn't what you said but it is only a few if not just one step away from that sentiment.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Rapacity
 


If you break the law and the sentence is imprisonment, you give up your rights. No questions. We all make choices and should accept the consequences for our actions.

And since when is not liking a tax been an acceptable reason not to pay it. Shall I say that to the VAT man next time I get a bill?

An elected Government changed from rates to Council tax, if people do not like this then they pay the council tax and get the right to vote.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by Rapacity
 


If you break the law and the sentence is imprisonment, you give up your rights. No questions. We all make choices and should accept the consequences for our actions.


Wrong. If you break the law and the sentence is imprisonment, you give up your right to roam freely within society. Imprisonment is (in this modern day and age) a means of "correcting" a person's behaviour, keeping people away from other members of society, and of ensuring people follow society's rules regardless of how arbitrary and bullish some may be.



And since when is not liking a tax been an acceptable reason not to pay it. Shall I say that to the VAT man next time I get a bill?


There is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance - one is a legally allowed means of not paying a tax that one does not like. I leave you to study that one and extrapolate my answer from it.



An elected Government changed from rates to Council tax, if people do not like this then they pay the council tax and get the right to vote.


You are confusing two things: taxation and democracy - re-read my earlier post, perhaps you will then understand it.

Taxation is intended to be the means government uses to raise revenue from those it governs. That revenue is intended to be used to build a country's infrastructure, pay for its defense, pay for its populace to be educated... and to pay for all other things from which a society's members collectively benefit. Granted taxation is now being used to deter people from performing particular activities (smoking, drinking, driving (too much)) and also fines are being used as a means of raising additional revenue; these are beyond the scope of this topic and I will not discuss them here. Britain is a society hence we all need to pay tax to pay for our society's smooth running. I believe we agree on this.

Based on what you have said, namely that those who do not pay tax do not deserve to vote, I can only deduce that you really do not understand that local and the national treasuries gain revenue from every member of society whether they pay the local/Council tax or not. Do you really believe that a person who slogs his guts out all day long working at his job but whom has failed to pay his local taxation (regardless of reason) should not be allowed to vote in local and parliamentary elections despite paying all other forms of taxation? Every member of British society deserves the right to vote on how British society is governed (I have only one exception: the mythical EU referendum. Read my posts in other threads to find out why I hold this exception).

Do you think that were a person to miss-calculate his tax return and pay less than he ought then he should be barred from voting until the difference is paid?

Should a rich person get two votes in each election just because he likely pays twice more tax than a poor person?

Should a person who's Council tax liability is paid by state benefits be denied his vote?

Those three statements/questions are as ludicrous as your "An elected Government changed from rates to Council tax, if people do not like this then they pay the council tax and get the right to vote." which translates as: if you don't pay Council tax then you don't vote.

Democracy requires funding; taxation is the route of that funding; but an inability to pay all forms of tax (hence contribute toward the funding of democracy) should never exclude a person from participating in democracy. We all contribute something to society be it finance or something less tangible such as charitable assistance to others.

I am a big believer in personal responsibility - my signature once stated that and its limits - but when a justice system is built around bullying then I cannot agree, ever, that all incarcerated criminals must be automatically excluded from voting in local and general elections. Nor do I agree that those who do not pay all their tax liabilities must not be allowed to vote in local and general elections regardless of whether the non-payer self-determined not to pay a particular tax - there are many people whom ceased to pay Council tax in protest at their money being used to commit treason and to take this country (Britain) into an illegal war (should these not be allowed to vote too?)

As I said in my first post on this thread, there are a lot of people in the U.K who are wrongly denied their democratic right to vote in both local and general elections. The European Court of Human Rights and I are in accord with that. Are you in agreement with the ECHR?

As a final question for you: do you see that not allowing a person to vote because a person protests a tax by not paying it denies that person the ability to vote to change that tax? Do you see the inherent problem with allowing some to vote and disallowing others to vote?

[edit on 26/4/09 by Rapacity]





top topics
 
8

log in

join