Hillviewred
Star Player
Surprised Rob Trent hasn't replied to this constant calling of Matt Hancock,Handjob,with,yes we get it.I see it now,it's an attack on a Tory.Double standardsDo you think Matt Handjob believes no footballers pay tax?
Surprised Rob Trent hasn't replied to this constant calling of Matt Hancock,Handjob,with,yes we get it.I see it now,it's an attack on a Tory.Double standardsDo you think Matt Handjob believes no footballers pay tax?
Surprised Rob Trent hasn't replied to this constant calling of Matt Hancock,Handjob,with,yes we get it.I see it now,it's an attack on a Tory.Double standards
It's a British media trait.Without having seen the article I suspect the Spectator are pointing out by being the good guy footballer he's actually done a lot to help his brand and wealth.
Whether it's honest or cynical is near impossible to discern but where he's raising and spending his own wealth (as opposed to tax revenue) why should he get anything other than praise?
Is it a British or more human trait to have a natural cynicism towards public philanthropy?
He’s only doing what the Spectators Government are failing to do.Without having seen the article I suspect the Spectator are pointing out by being the good guy footballer he's actually done a lot to help his brand and wealth.
Whether it's honest or cynical is near impossible to discern but where he's raising and spending his own wealth (as opposed to tax revenue) why should he get anything other than praise?
Is it a British or more human trait to have a natural cynicism towards public philanthropy?
Without having seen the article I suspect the Spectator are pointing out by being the good guy footballer he's actually done a lot to help his brand and wealth.
Whether it's honest or cynical is near impossible to discern but where he's raising and spending his own wealth (as opposed to tax revenue) why should he get anything other than praise?
Is it a British or more human trait to have a natural cynicism towards public philanthropy?
I'm a lefty and don't necessarily agree with him, I think they should boost benefits through a UBI and not have the government dictate how families allocate their money. I bet Rashford might even agree but he's gone down the route he has
Great to see UBI get a mention. My PhD research is currently examining its ecological implications and I'm involved in a couple of trials in Europe and India. It's certainly proving to be an exciting and increasingly credible idea, and has to form part of the transition to a sustainable and just, post-growth economy, in my opinion.
On Rashford specifically, his entry into the political arena was reactionary, based on the fact that he saw a policy he affiliated with being axed. Like you say, in an ideal world I'm not sure that he'd necessarily favour in-kind benefits over something like a UBI, but it wasn't an either-or-option at the time.
For me, this is another example of class politics. Conservative media outlets like the Spectator hate to see working-class footballers like Rashford getting above their stations and meddling in things that they shouldn't. It's interesting how the financial affairs of Tory (or other) politicians don't come under the same level of cynical scrutiny.
Great to see UBI get a mention. My PhD research is currently examining its ecological implications and I'm involved in a couple of trials in Europe and India. It's certainly proving to be an exciting and increasingly credible idea, and has to form part of the transition to a sustainable and just, post-growth economy, in my opinion.
On Rashford specifically, his entry into the political arena was reactionary, based on the fact that he saw a policy he affiliated with being axed. Like you say, in an ideal world I'm not sure that he'd necessarily favour in-kind benefits over something like a UBI, but it wasn't an either-or-option at the time.
For me, this is another example of class politics. Conservative media outlets like the Spectator hate to see working-class footballers like Rashford getting above their stations and meddling in things that they shouldn't. It's interesting how the financial affairs of Tory (or other) politicians don't come under the same level of cynical scrutiny.
I think the traditional media are going to try and destroy him because they will be worried about his influence. They know how engaged football can make people, to the extent that one's football alleigences can influence their politics - Scotland being a good example.
I think both sides of this go quite deep. Rashford and Roc Nation almost certainly have an agenda deeper than making money for their clients and the Spectator and their ilk aren't just looking to bring Rashford down a peg or too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/insider/jay-z-roc-nation-marcus-rashford-b918514.html?amp
It's not mentioned in the article but clearly there are broader motivations behind JZs company and I suspect it's about changing the narrative around stars from modest backgrounds, particularly black ones. We know what the traditional media do to these people - see Raheem Sterling - so you can hardly blame them.
Great to see UBI get a mention. My PhD research is currently examining its ecological implications and I'm involved in a couple of trials in Europe and India. It's certainly proving to be an exciting and increasingly credible idea, and has to form part of the transition to a sustainable and just, post-growth economy, in my opinion.
On Rashford specifically, his entry into the political arena was reactionary, based on the fact that he saw a policy he affiliated with being axed. Like you say, in an ideal world I'm not sure that he'd necessarily favour in-kind benefits over something like a UBI, but it wasn't an either-or-option at the time.
For me, this is another example of class politics. Conservative media outlets like the Spectator hate to see working-class footballers like Rashford getting above their stations and meddling in things that they shouldn't. It's interesting how the financial affairs of Tory (or other) politicians don't come under the same level of cynical scrutiny.
My apologies as this veers off topic.
As a complete layman who's read a few bits and pieces both pro and anti UBI and hasn't really formed a firm opinion, do you as someone more involved have any thoughts on price inflation?
One of the main potential criticisms I've seen, suggests that if you just give everyone in a population a regular sum of X (broadcasting the fact), then the price of everything, particularly bread and butter daily items, will inflate in proportion to X. In doing so wipes out the benefit to the people who need it most, leaving them no better off in real terms?
Where I like it is in generating public funding efficiency in cutting swathes of welfare means testing and administration. And as SDD says doing away with a system where Government kind of dictates how people use their money.