Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I like Ken, and continue to. Boris isn't so bad either.


My general feeling is that both have been an asset to London, and that the overall London Mayor bit has been a terrific advantage to both the Capital and the nation, regardless of who held the role.


Whilst I'm in a significant minority in my support for Blair, I think that the New Labour choice of Frank Dobson would have been a disaster for London, and a reflection of Blair's overreach in control.


I'm a firm believer that politicians don't actually control that much in terms of discretionary spend, and so Ken and Boris can't possibly have done that much for better or worse to fundamentally alter the city. However, they have done much to alter the psychology and self confidence of residents, and through empowerment of the electorate created a positive impact on infrastructure investment.


Personally, I'd like to see either, both or the next candidate take on the private taxi business. Door to door transport is a fundamental driver in private car ownership, and an effective private hire business could reduce car ownership dramatically.


I think Chavez was pissing in the wind if he thought a deal with Ken could alter UK Plc attitudes to Venezuelan politics, so whatever Ken offered for the rebate was peanuts in real terms. So then the only choice you'd have to make in retaining it would be a moral one. Will you take from a disenfranchised nation to support London?

Whilst I think e-dealer's points are weak I agree with his overarching point.


With housing benefit and welfare reforms meaning that more people are being moved away from expensive inner London housing to cheaper housing in the suburbs, the ability to commute to your place of work will be essential.


If fares are rising, are wages are remaining static then the Tory commitment to making work pay becomes harder and harder. I think subsidised, cheap, efficient transport is not only "A Good Thing" but actually results in a more productive economy as people get to work quickly and efficiently.

I was intrigued by the idea that we have been overcome by contemporary definitions of Fiat currencies.


You need to give me some time on this one, but I hope you'll find it...


Currency has been established as a way of trading on a barter basis (I give you two tomatoes for your four potatoes) that triangulated.. i.e. we don't have a transaction directly, so we use currency to shortcut more diverse exchanges (you give me 2 quid, and I'll spend it on someone else's computer chips).


All well and good.


The essence is that it's an exchange of like for like goods and services.


The credit crunch is that the principle has broken. That means there are people who want to paint the house, and we want the house painted, but somebody else has broken the system that allows us to transact.


The current currency is corrupt - it has been traded by people who don't trade goods and services but gamble and speculate upon future availability - to the point that we can't transact.


BUT Fiat currencies are intellectual constructions. They have nothing to do with our existence right here right now.


Are we not capable of creating new barter points, and new currencies that carry similar trusts?


Everybody fucked by the credit crunch wants to trade, but are prevented by an existing model.


Is there not an opportunity that we could trade regardless?

The debt is not owned by us, but by the people who wish to trade in that currency.


If we choose to exchange our own currency, and not trade in the currency in which others have acquired their wealth, then their currency has no impact upon our lives.


We are, by definition, in charge of our own destinies.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I have to wonder who's going to benefit from the Trump tarrifs  Possibly those in tje know who dumped their shares before it happened, banked the cash,  bought shares at rock bottom  and are now waiting for stock that crashed to go up again and make a fortune. But the bigger losers will be Americans who expect industry to move their factories to America, provide jobs and revive the economy, 20 years ago that could have happened but since then most factory jobs can now be done by robots  including warehouse movements, and if a tech company is going to build a new factory they will obviously use robotics and maybe AI to do the work, which means a gluten of goods and no one with the cash to buy them.  America will go into another depression and take the rest of the world with it. Forget the issues Liz Truss and Rachel Reeves combined have caused the economy, the trump tarrifs will make them look like saints by comparison.
    • Perhaps someone who works there owns a Tesla and is keen to promote more sales. After all poor Musk needs all the support he can get right now 😢
    • Well unless you have a different user name  you weren't actually commenting on this at all - i was responding to the posters who had concerns about the wooden planters falling apart.   Do carry on though...
    • Oh never mind. I was just commenting on the horrific traffic jams, pollution and delay of emergency services due to our beloved council blocking side roads.   back to beautiful cherry trees 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...