Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

StupidMastiff t1_itl51t8 wrote

Reply to comment by N8CCRG in Penny Mordaunt pulls out of Tory leadership race, paving way for Rishi Sunak to become next PM | Politics News by FutureNytro

He's a near billionaire tax dodger who bragged about diverting funding from deprived areas to wealthy areas. He's an utter cunt.

518

leo_aureus t1_itl5krd wrote

I am honestly so amazed that we cling to the vestiges of a liberal democracy and pretend we don't notice how every single politician is either insanely weathly or becomes such after a little while in office. Totally not an oligarchy, though!

220

WatchandThings t1_itlanzv wrote

I keep thinking the world is entering a new feudalism where the new nobles are just company owning(whether directly or by investment) oligarchs instead of land owning lords. Having you describe it on the nation of actual monarchy and nobility, kind of really drives that new feudalism idea home.

106

BabySuperfreak t1_itmt00o wrote

Honestly the only missing component is that corporations are still barred from having private militias and the govt would give them a HARD side eye if they asked. Modern politicians might be whores, but they aren't dumb enough to write themselves out of relevance.

Should that ever change, however...

18

sunflower_love t1_itwg714 wrote

This is a good point I think. Private militias would take it that much closer to a complete cyberpunkish corporatocracy

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_itn3a9i wrote

I mean, just look at the dynamic of Elon, Ye, and Trump supporting each other in their celebration of owning social media companies and Ye complaining about Biden not meeting with Musk because for whatever reason billionaires should be at the head of the table.

So, yup.

9

Superb-Antelope-2880 t1_itmxyp1 wrote

Where was that never the case in some forms?

4

WatchandThings t1_itn1ocj wrote

I guess, the difference from where we were and where are now is that I'm seeing is the class gap widening. The class gap is starting to look more and more like the lords and serfs with blatant protection of the rich and the companies(the people that avoid all legal troubles and companies that pay the 'cost of doing business') making them another level of citizenry.

I think the new feudalism would be complete when they actually lock the voting powers away from the public, and only allow company ownership to existing oligarchs and their descendants.

4

Superb-Antelope-2880 t1_itolrqb wrote

I think it's no wider than it ever was, on a practical scale.

How much class mobility were there when colored people couldn't vote or women can't own land?

Atleast in America, people simply throw a segment of society under the hustle on purpose so white working men had a bigger slice of the pie.

The rich always had the biggest share regardless.

Now the slice for the common people are simply shared among more individuals so it appear there are less.

2

WatchandThings t1_itpwppm wrote

That's a fair point. What I was picturing was the early 1900s with Rockefeller and the crew being the top end and the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Company workers on the bottom end. I feel like we are heading towards that level of class separation, but we felt like we haven't fully arrived there.

But maybe the Bezos and the crew are the new elite and maybe we are not seeing the Triangle Shirtwaist Company workers because they are overseas.

1

moeburn t1_itlcgve wrote

> I am honestly so amazed that we cling to the vestiges of a liberal democracy and pretend we don't notice how every single politician is either insanely weathly or becomes such after a little while in office

It's a FPTP democracy, the least democratic of democracies.

22

musicantz t1_itll5qg wrote

His wealth isn’t from his time in office. He married rich.

16

mr_schmunkels t1_itm8spp wrote

Does that change anything in regards to the idea that being in office usually requires a huge bank account?

3

TheCrowsSoundNice t1_itmgv10 wrote

We've got to do something about billionaires. They are the worst people for humanity (Putin, Trump). And before you say there are some good ones, what made them good? - the fact they GAVE their money away. Let's just go ahead and do that for them.

8

SlightlyAngyKitty t1_itmp6jd wrote

If billionaires didn't exist and we had a functioning and fair society, there probably wouldn't be a need for the charities rich people donate to as tax write offs.

5

jwm3 t1_itxav3v wrote

Blame the gutting of the inheritence/estate tax by Reagan. It make oligarchies possible in the US. In the past, if you wanted your wealth to live on you had to build a museum, or charity, or found a university. Basically billionaires had to find a public good to invest in before they died.

1

utopianmessiah t1_itmo4hy wrote

We most definitely need to move towards a meritocratic leadership with academic + industry experience. Not the usual bullshit, she/he read classics at Oxbridge, became a local MP, and then suddenly fit to run the country (which has the 6/7th largest economy in the world).

Even Labour's rhetoric is a load of horseshit: eh, i'm a local geezer son, worked as a canary in the mines (and survived) and me daddeh was a bricklayer. Vote for me, I understand the working man!

ffs! We need a new model, new approach, new leadership...

2

empfindsamkeit t1_itlfr95 wrote

Politicians are generally not all that rich actually. And when they are, they usually earned it before entering politics. At least in the US. Richest congressman is Senator Rick Scott at $259 mil, whose company IIRC engaged in Medicare fraud, but he acquired all that wealth before becoming a senator. By the time you get to the 50th richest (out of 536) you're down to $10M. Median net worth is only $1M. With a salary of ~$175K and things like book deals/speeches for the more popular ones, it's not crazy to reach that level of wealth, especially with a spouse, while in office. Just investing $75K for 10 years (average length of service for Congressmen) would be enough to get one a $1M net worth.

−13

ButterflyAttack t1_itlj4aj wrote

Yeah, that's why they'll so often sell us out so cheaply. Either we have rich politicians or we have rich people buying and controlling the politicians. Either way, we are nothing but a resource from which to extract maximum value.

Yeah, occasionally you get politicians who mean well, they generally get stomped by the media - most of which is owned by a small group of rich people. Either way, we're fucked.

14

empfindsamkeit t1_itlmgug wrote

If true, there's nobody to blame but the people. They could throw these people out at any time. If they can't find ~500 honest, qualified people in the country on a regular basis then that's still an indictment of the people.

0

woopdedoodah t1_itlpno2 wrote

Realistically, the attributes that help you get elected (determination, people skills, organizational ability, etc) are also those most likely to make you rich.

3

Jebus_UK t1_itlefqc wrote

>He's an utter cunt.

About right - not quite as much of a cunt as Johnson though. If Johnson had got the nod the party and government would probably have collapsed - 100% As it stands - they have an 80% chance of collapsing.

I don't think the factions in the party will be united under Sunak. I don't think they woukd have under Johnson either. Which is why they should call a GE - throw it back to the people but they won't

35

OutsideObserver t1_itlve19 wrote

With parliamentary systems I always see people talking about "calling an election" - do they also happen automatically based on time or are they only called in certain circumstances?

9

thatbakedpotato t1_itlvty2 wrote

They must happen every 4-5 years, but they can happen sooner, which restarts the countdown until another must be called.

14

OutsideObserver t1_itlwx6r wrote

That is how I always assumed it was but thought I'd ask for clarification, thank you!

2

Treczoks t1_itndmcd wrote

In other words, he is a perfect Tory.

3

stonedseals t1_itmsqwn wrote

Not from the UK, but read that his wife isn't a UK citizen to avoid taxes on her wealth... Yikes for a PM's SO, imo.

1