I can't be the only person struck by the almost juxtaposition of two news news reports:
1) that Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, has accused UK Prime Minister David Cameron of "acting immorally by favouring the rich", (an allegation Cameron countered by saying "the last Budget took 2m people on the lowest incomes out of debt [sc income tax?] altogether and from April 2012 pensioners will see the largest ever cash rise in the basic state pension." See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17878806
2) See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17883101 "the combined worth of the country's 1,000 wealthiest people is £414bn, up 4.7%" according to the Sunday Times Rich List
Showing posts with label david cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label david cameron. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 April 2012
Thursday, 8 March 2012
War 'vital to our national security'
This is a headline quote in today's Metro free newspaper (London). It is from UK Prime Minister David Cameron. One of the things that provokes terrorism is our armed forces' presence in various countries. In particular, I believe I am right in saying, where this involves non-Muslims being in Muslim countries.
Of course, terrorist attacks, whether real or false flag, generate work for our security services, either setting up the false flag attacks or trying to prevent attacks. Is that really what 'Dave' meant?
Of course, terrorist attacks, whether real or false flag, generate work for our security services, either setting up the false flag attacks or trying to prevent attacks. Is that really what 'Dave' meant?
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Sound bite brings no nutrition
David Cameron (UK Prime Minister) has said that social housing should be allocated to those who work hard. It the kind of superficial comment we're used to from politicians of all persuasions. It doesn't really bear close examination.
First, how would someone determine how hard anyone is working, and second, there's a vector here. How hard anyone is working doing what? It does actually matter what they're doing. It needs to be socially constructive and in support of human needs - as well as being sustainable within the resources available. Do we want people working hard against these goals?
First, how would someone determine how hard anyone is working, and second, there's a vector here. How hard anyone is working doing what? It does actually matter what they're doing. It needs to be socially constructive and in support of human needs - as well as being sustainable within the resources available. Do we want people working hard against these goals?
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
The country
UK Prime Minister David Cameron, in his New Year podcast, said that of the current financial crisis, "this is not the Government's debt, it's the country's debt." Presumably "the country" is the same "the country" that is "held to ransom" whenever there's a strike.
This, I assume, is another way of saying "we're all in this together". We are, but some up to their ankles and some up to their necks. I assume that the PM is not talking about private debt - such as many of us owe for mortgages and on credit cards - but money that the Government has borrowed from the banks. We'll all be paying it back through our taxes to the Government, but surely it is still the Government's debt?
Many argue for monetary reform, and in particular the government taking back the sole right to issue money, which should be taken back from the banking system, which creates money from thin air by writing a debt on one side of its balance sheet and an asset on the other. To the asset is added the interest the debtor must pay, but as all money comes from banks, the interest must be paid from more loans.
This, I assume, is another way of saying "we're all in this together". We are, but some up to their ankles and some up to their necks. I assume that the PM is not talking about private debt - such as many of us owe for mortgages and on credit cards - but money that the Government has borrowed from the banks. We'll all be paying it back through our taxes to the Government, but surely it is still the Government's debt?
Many argue for monetary reform, and in particular the government taking back the sole right to issue money, which should be taken back from the banking system, which creates money from thin air by writing a debt on one side of its balance sheet and an asset on the other. To the asset is added the interest the debtor must pay, but as all money comes from banks, the interest must be paid from more loans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)