==========

No, we are controlled by the state.

Capitalists can’t pass laws. That’s politicians and the unelected non democratic peers.

You completely fail to realise that the real problem is state debts. That’s isn’t anything to do with capitalism. It is to do with the state and the fraudsters in power.

Let me show you the difference and why its fraud. Take pensions.

1. Private pension run by a company. The capitalist example. Here companies have to show the assets against the liabilities, and when there is a short fall make up the difference.

2. The state. No liabilities are shown on the accounts for the state pension. The payments up front for the future pension are treated as profits and spent.

If a company behaved as the state does, the directors would rightly be jailed.

There is no capitalist controlling the state and its fraud. It’s purely politicians.

Where were the capitalists controlling the fraud there?

You have unawarely become stuck, in the same sort of insidious ‘one-eyed rut’ that Mao Zedung and his various and multifarious favourites were blind-as-bats in.
They had to be publicly set aside, outside of the saner Deng’s more circumspect, constructive, humanitarian, inter-nationally-attuned, and cogently peaceful-revolution,
with its pragmatic horse-before-cart field-teams recording all the Facts first,
so that the planning-rooms thereafter would be “win-win-win-win-win-win-win” oriented to meet every real need, and to do so affordably*.

* What Deng missed, but we (you all) must not, is the further strategic essential of making these Peacefully-Revolutionary Plans not simply ‘sustainable’ but ‘longest-term-sustainworthy’ too.
China’s run-away coal-fired power-stations, and other polluters, are in truth not only not sustainworthy but are not going to be long-term sustain-able either; so he (‘China’) will have inadvertenrtly made the same mistake as Mao’s “we have a Billion People, we can afford to lose One-million of them to enemy Nuclear Bombs and still win the war”.
===============

It must have been when I was about 35 that I realized that a great many political correspondents talk out of their posteriors, and know nothing about the subject they are speaking, and expecting you to listen, to.

Maude really ought to spend some time in parliament to get a better feel for it. Some of her “oratory” here is excellent, and I do enjoy the mistakes she makes due to exaggeration….. while making her point.

I often thought that radio and TV analysis had very little bearing on the day to day work of parliament. The recent NHS computer commissioning argument a case in point.

Perhaps she should take up the pulpit along with her other sisters of the cloth.

Perhaps I missed my calling too, half a dozen of them. I am probably best at digging weeds out of a newly seeded lawn.

Now that is a career.

Then Baron/ess speaker would be the video moderator with a bank of 20 or 30 people in the video chamber on screen ready to speak, making the meeting quorate, and so on.

She might not be inclined to choose a member
in St James Park, as next member to speak, unless of course everybody else were in St James Park as well.

I picked up her contrasting the union co-operation with employers in the US and their counterparts in Italy, a point of fact (data from OECD is as reliable as it gets).

For me, American Marxist economists are up there with tanning booths – perhaps Lord Soley can comment with all due authority.

It seems a pity that written documents can be used under the Open Parliament Licence, but not video clips.

As many people now prefer video over text, it would be nice if the license could be updated, even if some limits need to be retained to prevent bulk rebroadcasting of the entire archive.

Sometimes I’m listening to the debate while doing something else, so I’m not watching the video. Of course, it’s useful when there’s a visual, such as ministers sitting on each other’s laps.