DonPeffers Posted November 25, 2017 Author Share Posted November 25, 2017 I am happy to remove the adjective 'multi-millionaire' relating to Hammond from my 2nd post if it is offensive to you and especially if it diverts attention from the real issue. Just let me know. I am not aiming at a cheap tabloid shot and don't buy tabloid newspapers. Also we're talking of his two Budgets in one year screwed up, so is he learning? I wondered if his latest screw up was deliberate to deflect Marr's attention from the question he had just posed which was 'how is the Government planning to create jobs for those soon to be lost to robots and automation?' and therefore the question was not pursued or answered. From what I've seen of his latest Budget it provides no additional funding for education despite parents being asked for cash to help fund schools in the PM's own Maidenhead constituency--see http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/wargrave-schools-ask-parents-cash-13909575 and yet the PM declared it a marvellous Budget. Great stuff. You are correct in that even if Hammond gave away every last penny and became totally reliant on his Ministerial salary (or did the job for free) then he would still be incompetent and out of touch. I am not sure if you class the Independent as a tabloid rag but their article http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/philip-hammond-public-sector-pay-sexism-overpaid-in-country-a7844111.html calls him the 'most overpaid public sector worker in the Country. The Budget will help continue the housing Ponzi scheme with ever inflating prices but eventually the bubble has to burst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Not offensive in any way. It reduces the point to a question of money when it is more important than that. Many many readers will be deflected from the actual examination of the individual when they hear they are a millionaire and that does the debate a dis-service. People hear "millionaire minister" and immediately assume a negative attitude from which they cannot be budged, as if millionaire = bad in every way. It's a crock and it should be called out every time. PM supports Chancellors budget? Instead of what? Hardly surprising or newsworthy. Did Hammond make the comment to deflect Marr? Possibly. We all do that on occasions when asked an awkward question. So millionaire or not, he thinks like us... The independent isn't a traditional tabloid but that doesn't stop them from wanting to attract readers with an occasional off-piste item aimed at the lower denominators. So lets examine it. His ministerial salary (what he is paid for doing his job, badly or otherwise) and the perks that comes with (a car and maybe some healthcare for us mere mortals, much more for a minister) is the same as it would be if he wasn't a millionaire. Yes he makes extra money from his personal wealth but it's not actually his salary. So the premise of the piece is wrong. That's just bad journalism aimed at people who don't think. If one of us was chancellor, we'd get exactly the same. Then some journo says "That Blatman fellow is overpaid". If it said "..overpaid because he isn't qualified or suitably experienced" that's fair enough but "...overpaid because he is rich already" is the politics of jealousy. He'll be paying more tax on all that money don't forget. His contribution to the state coffers is more in a year than ours is likely to be in many tenss of years, so who is doing the most good for tax incomes which go to support schools, the NHS and to fill potholes, him or us? As for jobs lost to automation, we've been hearing that since the 70's. Those who look back will fail. Those who move with the times won't. Job requirements evolve. It was ever thus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted November 26, 2017 Author Share Posted November 26, 2017 The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/budget-philip-hammond-pledges-to-build-300-000-homes-a-year-93wkszq5h states The chancellor will: Launch an inquiry into “housebuilders land banking, speculators hoarding land and local authorities blocking development” to report next spring then http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/22/philip-hammonds-housebuilding-company-has-sat-undeveloped-housing/ Interesting articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted November 27, 2017 Author Share Posted November 27, 2017 New (indeed is in touch) story relating to property developer Kevin Green http://www.kevingreen.co.uk/press/from-homeless-to-millionaire-and-still-proud-of-his-local-roots/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 No controlling interest since 2010 say most reports. Yes there is a trust fund and there is a possibility he will benefit from dividends if Castlemead make it back in to the black (Castlemead were over 600K in the red last year). Conflict of interest is a more difficult question for me. What if he had thousands of shares in BP? Or Marks and Spencer? Or [insert company name here] and then gave some sort of government incentive to the market area that included the company in which he had shares? Is that worse than politicians sitting on Boards and being paid then lobbying for that "industry sector". Loads of them do. What about speaking engagements? Plenty do that too and I could go on. Kevin Green is the second biggest buy-to-let landord in the UK. Many people believe the buy-to-let marketis responsible for a lot of the ills in the housing market including the difficulty many have even getting on the ladder in the first place. And just to be clear here. I am neither condoning nor criticising anyone or anything. I am more interested in navigating the various points of view to see if there is some truth to be un-covered over and above "the story" and/or the angle from which the story is viewed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 I have no time to get involved with this fascinating subject, but I have always been incredulous that a minister can hop from one portfolio to another with no specialist knowledge in any of them. It has always been explained to me that they rely heavily on civil servants to provide the advice and specialist knowledge, and that the minister simply guides the civil servant along a politically acceptable path for the current incumbent party. As for wealth and private education, I would be far less happy with a poorly educated politician being given a portfolio than one who has had the best education money can buy. Who would put, for example, an ex-pupil from a comprehensive who left at at fifteen with no qualifications whatsoever into a ministerial role? By the way, look back at Transport Minister Ernest Marples' historic self-interest with construction and awarding of contracts to build motorways. He even stood in front of a hoarding with Marples-Ridgeway on it cutting the ribbon for a section of the M1 - allegedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff oakley Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 Interesting discussion you two have going here. I come from a South Yorkshire mining family where a dead dog with a rose would get elected over a Tory and I am old enough to have seen many good people as MP's. from all sides. What is a problem is wealth as it gets in the way. My recent MP was Steve Webb a minister in the coalition a Liberal. He was a great MP for the area and did what we would all want and when elected as a Minister he was one of the few that actually understood his brief and was unfortunately beaten. He was quickly made "Sir Steve Webb and has gone on as a director for a huge insurance and investment fund. Does that suddenly make him a bad person as he is now quickly gaining a lot of wealth. Now some of the labour MP's I personally knew in the past were good men and women but they represented the views of their members but struggled intellectually with tasks of government. You could say they were in touch with the people but were out of touch with business, of the aspirations of people outside their sphere of influence. SO the rich MP's and poor MP's rely on lobbyists to tell them what the ordinary man in the street wants with no proof as they are paid by others. What I want in government are ministers who are bright, who do not get caught out by special interest groups lobbying and distorting or by civil servants doing a "Sir Humphry" on them. If they have money good it shows they are bright, if they are bright and have no money, do a good job they will. But who are these common people they are out of touch with? We have a famous boxer who thought we have never had a female PM. we have people who can tell you everything about eastenders but have no idea how their own tax is paid and used. We need a government that sets out an agenda to make being on benefits so bad that is isn't a lifestyle choice, I was unemployed and shocked by what I saw and how much advice there was to avoid work. We need people to take responsibility for their lot and get out and vote with some idea of issues, when I listen to some of my staff who do not vote, especially the girls, it makes me sad that they throw away what other sin the world are still dying to try to get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted November 29, 2017 Author Share Posted November 29, 2017 My final word on the Chancellor is that he has given us some memorable (NOT in a Churchillian way) quotes--some apparently his own and some by commentators. Leaked Cabinet comments attributed to the Chancellor reported--Train driving is so easy even a woman could do it. Also public workers are overpaid. A BBC Budget analyst, commenting on the latest Budget and the alcohol duty increase on white cider, said I've been analysing Budgets for many years and never thought I would use this phrase; this is a terrible Budget for tramps. Hammond again--“Where are all these unemployed people? There are no unemployed people,” he asked, on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/philip-hammond-latest-chancellor-no-unemployed-people-annual-budget-jobless-a8063416.html for the video magic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted November 29, 2017 Author Share Posted November 29, 2017 Moving on; what does the collective think of Norwich hospital begging patients for donations on their appointment letters? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-42096941 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff oakley Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 1 hour ago, DonPeffers said: Moving on; what does the collective think of Norwich hospital begging patients for donations on their appointment letters? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-42096941 Most Hospitals have some form of charity support to purchase things and to provide for services that are not covered by the NHS. Great Ormond Street are actually awash with cash and do great things with it. It seems to me a Labour MP is trying to make out something is wrong when it is not or perhaps the cynic in me might suspect a labour MP under investigation for allegedly groping two women is creating good stories around him. It is a none story this time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.