Sunday Times Rich List

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Sunday Times just published its list of the richest 250 people in the Uk with a combined wealth of about £0.5trn.

I wonder which party these people support?

[BobG]

Anyone got a reason why this should be so?

BobG

[drfchound]

Bob, it might just be that the most of the richest people vote Conservative because they feel that a government of another type might not suit their circumstances.

[belton rover]

I would imagine it’s because giving donations to, say, Labour, to help them run the country would be a bit of a waste of money. Perhaps Labour would get more donations if they were running the country.

Does anyone have any comparable data from when Blair was in power, just for context?

[selby]

  Have the Labour Party got any morals accepting any money at all from that list.
  Is it the disproportional amount of money or the moral taking of any donations at all from these people that bothers you?
  If you stop these donations do you stop donations from workers unions to the Labour Party?
  Is £2.5 million too much going to the Labour Party just to splash it on Chinese takeaways and beer at parties in Durham?

[DonnyOsmond]

Conservatives are a party that look after business, they have the richest peoples interests at heart.
Labour are a party that usually look after workers, so they tend to get a lot of funding from unions.

[drfchound]

From The Guardian: 


Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to union campaigns, its new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.

In a move that could blow a hole in Keir Starmer’s general election war chest, Graham said that while Unite would still pay £1m in affiliation fees to Labour, “there’s a lot of other money that we use from our political fund where, actually, I’m not sure we’re getting the best value for it”.

Graham, speaking to the Guardian to mark her first 100 days as leader of Britain’s biggest private sector union, said: “The fact that I am being quite robust is because Labour needs to talk about workers, needs to defend workers and needs to defend communities.”

She described the Labour reshuffle, regarded by many at Westminster as a shift to the right, as “white noise” and lamented the lack of a shadow secretary of state for employment rights and protections, saying it was “not a good signal” for the party to send.

Len McCluskey, the previous leader of Unite, was a vehement supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and had already reduced Unite’s financial commitment to Labour since Starmer took over as leader in spring 2020, but Graham made clear she wants Unite to focus less on courting Labour.

[scawsby steve]

Anyone got a reason why this should be so?

BobG

Maybe you should ask our benefactor, Terry Bramall, Bob.

Yes, he's given donations to the Tory Party, but he's given far more to DRFC.

[BobG]

I have no means of contacting Terry Bramall. Have you?

BobG

[Bentley Bullet]

I have no means of contacting Terry Bramall. Have you?

BobG

I have. Would you like me to PM you next time we have a meet the owners event?

[BobG]

If you want to.

BobG

[Bentley Bullet]

I'll put it in my diary. I can't promise to join you though because I might be elsewhere spending my well-earned pension.

[normal rules]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjPz-y6-vz3AhVbQUEAHTEIB18QFnoECCAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-380535%2FLabours-rich-list-party-donors.html&usg=AOvVaw3ouCw9AXn59LMabhXAQ-Mb

[danumdon]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjPz-y6-vz3AhVbQUEAHTEIB18QFnoECCAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-380535%2FLabours-rich-list-party-donors.html&usg=AOvVaw3ouCw9AXn59LMabhXAQ-Mb

Looks like the House of Lords appointments commission has been busy again.

So no buying of political favours there then, I wonder if our resident stooges have an oponion on that, I’ll not hold my breath.

[Draytonian III]

Conservatives are a party that look after business, they have the richest peoples interests at heart.
Labour are a party that usually look after workers, so they tend to get a lot of funding from unions.

Pardon

[DonnyOsmond]

Conservatives are a party that look after business, they have the richest peoples interests at heart.
Labour are a party that usually look after workers, so they tend to get a lot of funding from unions.

Pardon

What's the issue?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Interesting how some think we have a democratic system here in the UK. There's should be zero donations, all funding for parties coming from taxes (on the rich).

[SydneyRover]

Interesting how some think we have a democratic system here in the UK. There's should be zero donations, all funding for parties coming from taxes (on the rich).

Agreed, it doesn't mean there isn't democracy in the UK, just not quite the democracy that is needed for a fair society is all.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Interesting how some think we have a democratic system here in the UK. There's should be zero donations, all funding for parties coming from taxes (on the rich).

Agreed, it doesn't mean there isn't democracy in the UK, just not quite the democracy that is needed for a fair society is all.

I'm not sure how a society with a large majority of the press that supports the elite and rich, and allows an unfair funding of the pro elitist party - ie information and money is pushing one agenda- can be called democratic. For sure, within that there is a system there that allows for some opposition especially if that elitist side goes too far, but as we have seen over and over, this is limited, the balance of power always returns to the elite and even the opposition become supportive of the elite.

What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box, that everyday people have power. Keep the masses drugged up on that and all manner of other society instruments from celebs to sertraline, from footy to fashion. It's democracy only from the point of the ballot box, not at any stage prior to that. So sad when it doesn't go all the way.

So many are caught in this belief that is less real than a belief in the magic man in the sky. It's a religious mania we try to spread to the world. And so easy to see past it, but why don't people do that?

[SydneyRover]

BRR, I accept pretty much all of that except:

''What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box''

One would have had to be living under a rock not to understand the sycophant and coward that johnson is and for the dimmies moaning that ppl didn't accept the vote in 2016 or 2019 should understand we are here in this position as a direct result of the ballot box choice many made, too many. They need to own every bit of it and grow some.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR, I accept pretty much all of that except:

''What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box''

One would have had to be living under a rock not to understand the sycophant and coward that johnson is and for the dimmies moaning that ppl didn't accept the vote in 2016 or 2019 should understand we are here in this position as a direct result of the ballot box choice many made, too many. They need to own every bit of it and grow some.

Agreed, the ballot box does have an effect, though my meaning was more that ultimately it does nothing to change the power the elite have. The myth of it only serves to keep things as they are, indeed allow things to get worse - ie inequality rises over time. The mugs suck it up, think that they have real choice there.

Hopefully I took your reply right! 

[scawsby steve]

BRR, I accept pretty much all of that except:

''What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box''

One would have had to be living under a rock not to understand the sycophant and coward that johnson is and for the dimmies moaning that ppl didn't accept the vote in 2016 or 2019 should understand we are here in this position as a direct result of the ballot box choice many made, too many. They need to own every bit of it and grow some.

Dimmies? There you go again, resorting to insults, as a replacement for intelligent, articulate conversation.

Your argument against the ballot box, that too many people make the wrong choices, is probably the most anti-democratic thing I've ever heard.

[BobG]

Any debate, any democratic party, and voting plan that does not take into account the level of knowledge, intelligence and sophisticatioon of the electorate is not going to get very far at all.... We can see the evidence of that right here in this topic and on this forum!

BobG

[scawsby steve]

Any debate, any democratic party, and voting plan that does not take into account the level of knowledge, intelligence and sophisticatioon of the electorate is not going to get very far at all.... We can see the evidence of that right here in this topic and on this forum!

BobG

Would you care to elaborate further on that, Bob?

[BobG]

Not really Steve. I've said what I wnated to say. The point I make is quite clear

Cheers

BobG

[Bentley Bullet]

Any debate, any democratic party, and voting plan that does not take into account the level of knowledge, intelligence and sophisticatioon of the electorate is not going to get very far at all.... We can see the evidence of that right here in this topic and on this forum!

BobG

But if we all shared the same level of knowledge, intelligence and sophistication as you Bob, we'd have a Labour party in charge.

That's the problem.

[drfchound]

It is becoming more prevalent on this forum for Labour supporters to insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn’t also vote Labour.
Only today I have seen non Labour supporters being described as dimmies and fools by SydneyRover.
I have seen a post by bst in which he says he would be happy for Labour to go into a GE with right wing policies then if they were to win, change back to left wing ones.
And yet he criticises Johnson for lying but is prepared to accept the Labour Party conning their supporters.
What was he saying the other day about not being a hypocrite ?

[BobG]

Hound, BB. There are more political and philosophical luminaries than you can shake a stick at that support my contention that the level of sophistication of an electorate is crucially important. Right back as far as Plato. He wrote that democracy is dangerous as its typical citizen is shiftless and flighty:

"Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times, he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy".

It would be much safer, Plato thought, to entrust power to carefully educated guardians. Exemplar No. 1 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

At the opposite end, Karl Marx made huge play with the level of sophistication, of the intelligence, or lack of, of electorates. Exemplar No. 2 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

John Stuart Mill in the nineteenth century proposed giving extra votes to citizens with university degrees or intellectually demanding jobs because those with neither did not have the intelligence or experience to contribute sensibly. Mill worried that others would lack knowledge and judgment hence he wanted to give more votes to those better qualified.  Exemplar No. 3 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

In the United States, élites who feared the ignorance of poor immigrants tried to restrict ballots. In 1855, Connecticut introduced the first literacy test for American voters. New York in 1921 introduced a law requiring new voters to take a test if they couldn’t prove that they had an eighth-grade education. Exemplar No. 4 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

And, of course, your God, Adam Smith, had a few words to say too.

Here's an idea. If we value the power to make good decisions, why not try a system that’s a little less fair but makes good decisions more often? It's called “epistocracy,” and it means “government by the knowledgeable.” Funny how you went all egalitarian, like all good Socialists, when I made an elitist suggestion! Exemplar No. 5 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

Get off your righteous hobby horses. Think for once.

This debate has proved my contention beyond any shadow of doubt.

Cheers

BobG

[SydneyRover]

There's a bad joke in there somewhere Bob

[Bentley Bullet]

Hound, BB. There are more political and philosophical luminaries than you can shake a stick at that support my contention that the level of sophistication of an electorate is crucially important. Right back as far as Plato. He wrote that democracy is dangerous as its typical citizen is shiftless and flighty:

"Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times, he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy".

It would be much safer, Plato thought, to entrust power to carefully educated guardians. Exemplar No. 1 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

At the opposite end, Karl Marx made huge play with the level of sophistication, of the intelligence, or lack of, of electorates. Exemplar No. 2 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

John Stuart Mill in the nineteenth century proposed giving extra votes to citizens with university degrees or intellectually demanding jobs because those with neither did not have the intelligence or experience to contribute sensibly. Mill worried that others would lack knowledge and judgment hence he wanted to give more votes to those better qualified.  Exemplar No. 3 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

In the United States, élites who feared the ignorance of poor immigrants tried to restrict ballots. In 1855, Connecticut introduced the first literacy test for American voters. New York in 1921 introduced a law requiring new voters to take a test if they couldn’t prove that they had an eighth-grade education. Exemplar No. 4 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

And, of course, your God, Adam Smith, had a few words to say too.

Here's an idea. If we value the power to make good decisions, why not try a system that’s a little less fair but makes good decisions more often? It's called “epistocracy,” and it means “government by the knowledgeable.” Funny how you went all egalitarian, like all good Socialists, when I made an elitist suggestion! Exemplar No. 5 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....

Get off your righteous hobby horses. Think for once.

This debate has proved my contention beyond any shadow of doubt.

Cheers

BobG

Churchill said similar. Thatcher also commented on the idea of Business people having two votes. Is that what you want? Is that your idea of democracy? Do you actually WANT democracy?