Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Prosperous Britain.
Topic Started: Nov 3 2014, 11:02 AM (3,377 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]

Quote:
 
Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union, a major report finds today, but is still behind countries like Switzerland and Norway which chose not to join the bloc. Legatum Institute's 2014 Prosperity Index reveals Norway as the most prosperous country in the world, with Switzerland at number two in the list.


Quote:
 
The UK is ranked at number 13, three places higher than last year's index, and one spot ahead of Germany. France came 21st in the list, Spain 26th and Italy 37th, while Russia is the worst performing country in Europe, falling seven places to 68th.


Quote:
 
The survey also found that the UK is a world-leader for entrepreneurship, coming 8th in the list, and that British people are some of the most charitable.
The study shows It found 74 per cent of Brits donate to charity, the 4th highest in the index, compared to just 42 per cent in Germany and 26 per cent in France.


LINK

Those earning $25,000 (£15,643) a year in the UK take home 88.22pc of their wages, compared to the average of 82.17pc in Western Europe.


Not such a bad sh1t-hole relatively speaking. Considering we are not in the EZ with all it's ongoing problems that have, seemingly, no solution, the UK is well placed as a modern mature democracy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 6 2014, 01:36 PM
Affa
Nov 6 2014, 01:20 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 6 2014, 10:40 AM

Governments dont create jobs


Tell that to the millions of Private Sector employees that rely on Government contracts for their income.

The biggest investor in the UK economy is the UK government.
Whilst all other investors are making handsome profits from business opportunities in the UK, the taxpayer sees no return on his investment - or does he?







Being a private sector employee on a government contract I would like to say that the government doesn't create jobs and those who say that they do are being disingenuous.

Being entirely honest it is simply redistribution and I am at least honest enough to admit it being a reciepient of this redistribution.

It doesn't mean that these jobs are not important and do not benifit people but they are all paid for by JOBS that generate wealth that can be taxed. Taxing firms that hold government contracts on their profits is, once a gain, merely a form of redistribution.
Capitalist corporation and entrepreneur-friendly governments certainly do not create jobs. Socialist governments do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 09:41 PM
Stan Still
Nov 5 2014, 09:08 PM
Major Sinic
Nov 5 2014, 01:48 PM
C-too
Nov 4 2014, 06:09 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepPosted Image
Caring Labour!! Labour, given tthe chance, will increase the deficit, borrow more so that the nation continues to live beyond its means and the public sector debt will continue to spiral as will the interest payments and it will be our children and their children who will face the resulting economic nightmare. That is greed, selfishness, short-termism not care. It just doesn't seem to sink in with some people. You and your ilk should be ashamed of yourselves.
The only thing Labour and the left in general really care about is " power at any cost " total hypocrites feigning indignation and cry crocodile tears
Tories shed no tears over the impoverished English children.
Stereotypical nonsense
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Nov 6 2014, 05:20 PM
ACH1967
Nov 6 2014, 01:36 PM
Affa
Nov 6 2014, 01:20 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 6 2014, 10:40 AM

Governments dont create jobs


Tell that to the millions of Private Sector employees that rely on Government contracts for their income.

The biggest investor in the UK economy is the UK government.
Whilst all other investors are making handsome profits from business opportunities in the UK, the taxpayer sees no return on his investment - or does he?







Being a private sector employee on a government contract I would like to say that the government doesn't create jobs and those who say that they do are being disingenuous.

Being entirely honest it is simply redistribution and I am at least honest enough to admit it being a reciepient of this redistribution.

It doesn't mean that these jobs are not important and do not benifit people but they are all paid for by JOBS that generate wealth that can be taxed. Taxing firms that hold government contracts on their profits is, once a gain, merely a form of redistribution.
Capitalist corporation and entrepreneur-friendly governments certainly do not create jobs. Socialist governments do.
Care to justify that statement?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Nov 6 2014, 07:53 PM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 09:41 PM
Tories shed no tears over the impoverished English children.
Stereotypical nonsense




Perhaps you can explain why children living in R-poverty increased during 18 years of Tory administration?
Edited by C-too, Nov 7 2014, 08:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Nov 4 2014, 07:34 PM
No party deliberately sets out to create poor people.

It doesn't benefit anybody.

Parties can create them unwittingly though poorly though out policies and all are guilty of that.

Its just what happens when you allow politicians to run a country.

I cannot share your views apart from the last one where I agree is is INDEED what happens when you allow politicians to run a country.

But it is quite clear to anyone who does not wear rose tinted spectacles that this is quite deliberate.

It is clear to anyone who has the ability to stand back and look that the Conservative governments of Thatcher and Major were more than happy to quite deliberately create poor people, around here anyway. The destruction of the mining, steel and other heavy industries took away the earning power of a generation, and in some cases two. I don't want this thread to descend into the usual bollocks about this being "necessary" because that is utterly irrelevant and off topic to the point you are tying to make. FACT ONE: The South Wales of the seventies was characterised by the existence of a skilled and semi skilled workforce wo worked hard and in apalling conditions compared to the factoriers of today, but were paid for their labour and were proud of it. FACT TWO: The South wales of the eighties and early nineties was characterised by desolation, dereliction, factories that became bombsites and poverty and despair arising through mass unemployment on a scale not seen since the thirties.

But Labour are just as bad. They enjoyed donations from all sorts of offshore and local entrepreneurs pleased at the policies that encouraged the low skill low wage economy they needed right next door to the european market they could make their money in.

Far from "not benefitting anybody" these policies benefit the parties donors and the political elite who enjoy the gravy train that office brings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 08:32 AM
Heinrich
Nov 6 2014, 05:20 PM

Capitalist corporation and entrepreneur-friendly governments certainly do not create jobs. Socialist governments do.

Care to justify that statement?
I think Socialist governments DO create "jobs".

The problem comes when you try to work out what good the people DOING those "jobs" bring in exchange for the "wages" they get, and where the money to pay those "wages" comes from.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Nov 7 2014, 08:49 AM
AndyK
Nov 4 2014, 07:34 PM
No party deliberately sets out to create poor people.

It doesn't benefit anybody.

Parties can create them unwittingly though poorly though out policies and all are guilty of that.

Its just what happens when you allow politicians to run a country.

I cannot share your views apart from the last one where I agree is is INDEED what happens when you allow politicians to run a country.

But it is quite clear to anyone who does not wear rose tinted spectacles that this is quite deliberate.

It is clear to anyone who has the ability to stand back and look that the Conservative governments of Thatcher and Major were more than happy to quite deliberately create poor people, around here anyway. The destruction of the mining, steel and other heavy industries took away the earning power of a generation, and in some cases two. I don't want this thread to descend into the usual bollocks about this being "necessary" because that is utterly irrelevant and off topic to the point you are tying to make. FACT ONE: The South Wales of the seventies was characterised by the existence of a skilled and semi skilled workforce wo worked hard and in apalling conditions compared to the factoriers of today, but were paid for their labour and were proud of it. FACT TWO: The South wales of the eighties and early nineties was characterised by desolation, dereliction, factories that became bombsites and poverty and despair arising through mass unemployment on a scale not seen since the thirties.

But Labour are just as bad. They enjoyed donations from all sorts of offshore and local entrepreneurs pleased at the policies that encouraged the low skill low wage economy they needed right next door to the european market they could make their money in.

Far from "not benefitting anybody" these policies benefit the parties donors and the political elite who enjoy the gravy train that office brings.
I think stopping the Thatcher tanker of Financial Services/Free Market Economy required a water shed effect as in 1945, 1979 and 2007/8.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:33 AM
... I dont see many poor children in my travels and certainly not in the fast food outlets. ...
There must not be many children living in poverty in "prosperous" Britain, then.

]
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Heinrich you seem to have a preoccupation with trawling the internet to find pictures of very young English boys and girls. Now of course I am making no allegation or suggestion of any improper behaviour or thoughts on your part whatsoever; let me make that quite clear, but do you think such gratuitous reproductions of images of young children is altogether acceptable or necessary?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Nov 7 2014, 08:54 AM
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 08:32 AM
Heinrich
Nov 6 2014, 05:20 PM

Capitalist corporation and entrepreneur-friendly governments certainly do not create jobs. Socialist governments do.

Care to justify that statement?
I think Socialist governments DO create "jobs".

The problem comes when you try to work out what good the people DOING those "jobs" bring in exchange for the "wages" they get, and where the money to pay those "wages" comes from.

Which is why in an earlier post I was arguing that they are not really creating jobs but redistributing money. Most of it is probably beneficial to someone but whehter the cost of that benefit is justified or desirable is another issue
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Nov 7 2014, 09:18 AM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:33 AM
... I dont see many poor children in my travels and certainly not in the fast food outlets. ...
There must not be many children living in poverty in "prosperous" Britain, then.

]
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Heinrich you seem to have a preoccupation with trawling the internet to find pictures of very young English boys and girls. Now of course I am making no allegation or suggestion of any improper behaviour or thoughts on your part whatsoever; let me make that quite clear, but do you think such gratuitous reproductions of images of young children is altogether acceptable or necessary?
I was responding to a post about children in fast food restaurants as proof that there is no child poverty in England. My illustration was fitting. Your qiestion tells us more about you and how your mind works than about me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 11:41 AM
johnofgwent
Nov 7 2014, 08:54 AM
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 08:32 AM
Heinrich
Nov 6 2014, 05:20 PM

Capitalist corporation and entrepreneur-friendly governments certainly do not create jobs. Socialist governments do.

Care to justify that statement?
I think Socialist governments DO create "jobs".

The problem comes when you try to work out what good the people DOING those "jobs" bring in exchange for the "wages" they get, and where the money to pay those "wages" comes from.

Which is why in an earlier post I was arguing that they are not really creating jobs but redistributing money. Most of it is probably beneficial to someone but whehter the cost of that benefit is justified or desirable is another issue
You are mistaken. In a socialist command economy, essential goods and services are owned by the people who pay taxes and buy these goods and services. These publicly owned enterprises can pay for themselves or are subsidized. In the DDR, for example, there was no unemployment and everyone had a right to a job and free at-the-point-of-delivery medical care, education and subsidized housing. There was no homelessness. This has nothing to do with redistributing wealth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 09:41 PM
Stan Still
Nov 5 2014, 09:08 PM
Major Sinic
Nov 5 2014, 01:48 PM
C-too
Nov 4 2014, 06:09 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepPosted Image
Caring Labour!! Labour, given tthe chance, will increase the deficit, borrow more so that the nation continues to live beyond its means and the public sector debt will continue to spiral as will the interest payments and it will be our children and their children who will face the resulting economic nightmare. That is greed, selfishness, short-termism not care. It just doesn't seem to sink in with some people. You and your ilk should be ashamed of yourselves.
The only thing Labour and the left in general really care about is " power at any cost " total hypocrites feigning indignation and cry crocodile tears
Tories shed no tears over the impoverished English children.
:-\

The poverty level in the UK is the same as the poverty level in Germany, Japan and the US and many others.

The poverty level is pretty typical.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Nov 7 2014, 11:56 AM
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 11:41 AM
johnofgwent
Nov 7 2014, 08:54 AM
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 08:32 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I think Socialist governments DO create "jobs".

The problem comes when you try to work out what good the people DOING those "jobs" bring in exchange for the "wages" they get, and where the money to pay those "wages" comes from.

Which is why in an earlier post I was arguing that they are not really creating jobs but redistributing money. Most of it is probably beneficial to someone but whehter the cost of that benefit is justified or desirable is another issue
You are mistaken. In a socialist command economy, essential goods and services are owned by the people who pay taxes and buy these goods and services. These publicly owned enterprises can pay for themselves or are subsidized. In the DDR, for example, there was no unemployment and everyone had a right to a job and free at-the-point-of-delivery medical care, education and subsidized housing. There was no homelessness. This has nothing to do with redistributing wealth.
ahh moving the goal posts. We were not talking about the DDR we were talking about the UK. Strange the DDR was such a wonderful place they had to build a wall to keep the people in. I suppose nobody had Dachas either. I am not saying our society is perfect but it does appear that you may be tryng to say that of socialism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Nov 6 2014, 05:20 PM
ACH1967
Nov 6 2014, 01:36 PM
Affa
Nov 6 2014, 01:20 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 6 2014, 10:40 AM

Governments dont create jobs


Tell that to the millions of Private Sector employees that rely on Government contracts for their income.

The biggest investor in the UK economy is the UK government.
Whilst all other investors are making handsome profits from business opportunities in the UK, the taxpayer sees no return on his investment - or does he?







Being a private sector employee on a government contract I would like to say that the government doesn't create jobs and those who say that they do are being disingenuous.

Being entirely honest it is simply redistribution and I am at least honest enough to admit it being a reciepient of this redistribution.

It doesn't mean that these jobs are not important and do not benifit people but they are all paid for by JOBS that generate wealth that can be taxed. Taxing firms that hold government contracts on their profits is, once a gain, merely a form of redistribution.
Capitalist corporation and entrepreneur-friendly governments certainly do not create jobs. Socialist governments do.
Yes they do.............remember them?

Walking co-ordinator
Cheerleading development officer
Future shape programme manager
Nuclear free local authorities policy officer

There are many more with equally ridiculous titles, they were called
NON JOBS.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 6 2014, 02:21 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 6 2014, 10:40 AM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 03:59 PM
RJD
Nov 5 2014, 03:54 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepPosted Image
You ought to quit thinking that no financial help should be given to the poor and begin expecting the government to create proper paying jobs.
The Labour party tried that and, overmanned our public services
Governments dont create jobs , unless it is dsomething like calling up young people to become conscripts in the armed force.

They called it national service, so ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -
Some overmanning under Labour certainly did happen, but by the 1970s most of the overmanning had more than one reason.

After decades of scraping along with a weak economy and many trips to the IMF the 1970s saw the slide into the final pit of economic failure as a world recession exacerbated by the reduction of oil imports in 1973 hit home. In 1974 Labour took up the struggle of attempting to overcome the economic problems without putting millions out of work. Hence the final overmanning of industry.

Even though Thatcher was warned that to attack the problem head on would result in some 3m people unemployed, she chose to hit it head on.
Her actions created far more than 3m unemployed which although very damaging to society and to millions of families would IMO have been acceptable if she had done something address the problem of unemployment. She didn't, in fact she had laid the foundations for 17 years of high/mass unemployment under Tory governments.

Disingenuous and does not reflect on the fact that there was not only overmanning which was certainly not created by Labour Governments, but tolerated due to complete acquiescence to Trade Union power, there is no mention of the double whammy of wage increases that were not satisfied by productivity promises. The Unions had Gov. and the management by the gonads and were squeezing the life out of the UK. We all saw how it ended with The Winter of Discontent followed by the Gotterdammerung of the Union Gods. My goodness C2 is their no limit to your white-wash? Do you not yet realise that the UK unless the labour market was reformed and the crap none profitable businesses either turned around or shut down was heading for the Crapper. In 1979 there was no more rope left. Press reports around the World including one I recall from the NYH was that the UK was finished.
Today France, Italy and Spain are suffering because they have avoided the necessary labour reforms and as a consequence are stuck with high levels of unemployment and moribund economies.
This bitching against Thatcher reforms is misplaced and based on Red Nag myths. Manufacturing started it's rapid decline in ~1965 and the rate has been constant since, the only effect is that during Thatchers period net value added increased and subsequently under the last lot it declined in absolute terms.
C2 stop seeking to rewrite history.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Nov 7 2014, 08:54 AM
I think Socialist governments DO create "jobs".

The problem comes when you try to work out what good the people DOING those "jobs" bring in exchange for the "wages" they get, and where the money to pay those "wages" comes from.


Not a problem if you consider that the service industry does either directly or indirectly create the conditions where wealth can be created.

We can list numerous examples of jobs where there is no production, advertising, teaching, accountancy, lawyers, road sweepers, bin collection etc etc ......... without which industry falters and fails.

Should I tire of repeating that the wealth created in the UK is many times more than enough to fund such ventures as you likely refer to ........ and is instead hived off to where it does the nation little good at all - the nation from which is made these fortunes.

As I have also said, there are millions of unfulfilled jobs in the UK ....... all that is required is an investment in them, and sit back to admire the entrepreneurship that opportunity invites.

There is this certainty ........ being minimalist will eventually lead you to the bottom.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 7 2014, 04:34 PM
Trade Union power, there is no mention of the double whammy of wage increases that were not satisfied by productivity promises. The Unions had Gov. and the management by the gonads and were squeezing the life out of the UK. We all saw how it ended with The Winter of Discontent followed by the Gotterdammerung of the Union Gods. My goodness C2 is their no limit to your white-wash?
Quote:
 
is their no limit to your white-wash?


The Winter of Discontent was not about increased wage demands (untied to productivity), not about "who runs Britain", and was > about GOVERNMENT monetary policy, a wage freeze, the level of INFLATION that ate away at real wages and had more to do with OPEC machinations than with TU ambitions.

The Unions in at this time were no angels, I personally despised how these had held back progress, hated their militancy, which I do not deny - but both politics and business were culpable in the difficulties and cannot be excused any blame.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Why do Councils refuse to cut non-jobs and middle management, but quite happy to cut front line services, and what on Earth does a "walking co-ordinator" do for 40 hours a week? What qualifications do I need to apply for it?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
somersetli
Nov 7 2014, 12:44 PM



Walking co-ordinator
Cheerleading development officer
Future shape programme manager
Nuclear free local authorities policy officer

There are many more with equally ridiculous titles, they were called
NON JOBS.
How do you get qualified for these roles?
I'd love a job where I could earn more than twice as much for working less than half as hard, in a role that benefits no-one, ergo, and have responsibilities or accountability.
Get me one of those jobs and I promise I will vote Labour for ever and ever. /8/ ;D

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Nov 7 2014, 08:54 AM
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 08:32 AM
Heinrich
Nov 6 2014, 05:20 PM

Capitalist corporation and entrepreneur-friendly governments certainly do not create jobs. Socialist governments do.

Care to justify that statement?
I think Socialist governments DO create "jobs".

The problem comes when you try to work out what good the people DOING those "jobs" bring in exchange for the "wages" they get, and where the money to pay those "wages" comes from.

Well, if everybody did each other's laundry, ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
As far as the thread title is concerned......how, exactly does one person from another measure prosperity? should it be measured globally, continentally, countrywide or personally? myself, I do not consider myself wealthy by any means, but.............what more do I or my family need, our bellies are full, we are warm and reasonably well clothed, the dogs guinea pigs and budgies appear to be content, I am able enough to take care of my dad who is 86, I am employed as is my wife and you will not find any wealthy persons in the cemetery, so, just how DOES one measure prosperity........I can I suppose posit the maxim that hard work does bring positive results, but the likes of 640 odd bods in the palace of Westminster and those in the European parliament put paid to that ethic......ah well, onwards and upwards. /8/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Nov 8 2014, 12:27 AM
somersetli
Nov 7 2014, 12:44 PM



Walking co-ordinator
Cheerleading development officer
Future shape programme manager
Nuclear free local authorities policy officer

There are many more with equally ridiculous titles, they were called
NON JOBS.
How do you get qualified for these roles?
I'd love a job where I could earn more than twice as much for working less than half as hard, in a role that benefits no-one, ergo, and have responsibilities or accountability.
Get me one of those jobs and I promise I will vote Labour for ever and ever. /8/ ;D

So you are obviously not a banker or Tory MP. Those are non jobs that pay a great deal for doing very little in return.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Nov 7 2014, 09:18 AM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:33 AM
... I dont see many poor children in my travels and certainly not in the fast food outlets. ...
There must not be many children living in poverty in "prosperous" Britain, then.

]
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Heinrich you seem to have a preoccupation with trawling the internet to find pictures of very young English boys and girls. Now of course I am making no allegation or suggestion of any improper behaviour or thoughts on your part whatsoever; let me make that quite clear, but do you think such gratuitous reproductions of images of young children is altogether acceptable or necessary?
I second that thought
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 7 2014, 04:34 PM
C-too
Nov 6 2014, 02:21 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 6 2014, 10:40 AM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 03:59 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep[img]http://quote]The Labour party tried that and, overmanned our public services
Governments dont create jobs , unless it is dsomething like calling up young people to become conscripts in the armed force.

They called it national service, so ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -
Some overmanning under Labour certainly did happen, but by the 1970s most of the overmanning had more than one reason.

After decades of scraping along with a weak economy and many trips to the IMF the 1970s saw the slide into the final pit of economic failure as a world recession exacerbated by the reduction of oil imports in 1973 hit home. In 1974 Labour took up the struggle of attempting to overcome the economic problems without putting millions out of work. Hence the final overmanning of industry.

Even though Thatcher was warned that to attack the problem head on would result in some 3m people unemployed, she chose to hit it head on.
Her actions created far more than 3m unemployed which although very damaging to society and to millions of families would IMO have been acceptable if she had done something address the problem of unemployment. She didn't, in fact she had laid the foundations for 17 years of high/mass unemployment under Tory governments.

Disingenuous and does not reflect on the fact that there was not only overmanning which was certainly not created by Labour Governments, but tolerated due to complete acquiescence to Trade Union power, there is no mention of the double whammy of wage increases that were not satisfied by productivity promises. The Unions had Gov. and the management by the gonads and were squeezing the life out of the UK. We all saw how it ended with The Winter of Discontent followed by the Gotterdammerung of the Union Gods. My goodness C2 is their no limit to your white-wash? Do you not yet realise that the UK unless the labour market was reformed and the crap none profitable businesses either turned around or shut down was heading for the Crapper. In 1979 there was no more rope left. Press reports around the World including one I recall from the NYH was that the UK was finished.
Today France, Italy and Spain are suffering because they have avoided the necessary labour reforms and as a consequence are stuck with high levels of unemployment and moribund economies.
This bitching against Thatcher reforms is misplaced and based on Red Nag myths. Manufacturing started it's rapid decline in ~1965 and the rate has been constant since, the only effect is that during Thatchers period net value added increased and subsequently under the last lot it declined in absolute terms.
C2 stop seeking to rewrite history.
There is no limit to your selective memory and bias.

The main increase in wages went to the miners who did improve productivity, they went on to produce the cheapest deep mined coal in the world.

The unions at that time were a product of the failure of the so called 'Captains of Industry' (a Thatcher term) to secure financial stability, there had been 6 visits to the IMF between 1951 and 1976.

Despite high inflation the TUC had agreed a 5% limit on wage increases. The strikes in the year leading up to the winter of discontent along with that period were accurately described as discontent. They were often wildcat strikes or actions taken by low paid workers and others without it being backed by the unions. There were serious levels of discontent caused by many decades of failure to invest in industry, innovations and in the British workforce.
Edited by C-too, Nov 8 2014, 08:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Nov 7 2014, 11:56 AM
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 11:41 AM
johnofgwent
Nov 7 2014, 08:54 AM
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 08:32 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I think Socialist governments DO create "jobs".

The problem comes when you try to work out what good the people DOING those "jobs" bring in exchange for the "wages" they get, and where the money to pay those "wages" comes from.

Which is why in an earlier post I was arguing that they are not really creating jobs but redistributing money. Most of it is probably beneficial to someone but whehter the cost of that benefit is justified or desirable is another issue
You are mistaken. In a socialist command economy, essential goods and services are owned by the people who pay taxes and buy these goods and services. These publicly owned enterprises can pay for themselves or are subsidized. In the DDR, for example, there was no unemployment and everyone had a right to a job and free at-the-point-of-delivery medical care, education and subsidized housing. There was no homelessness. This has nothing to do with redistributing wealth.
The DDR was the epitome of the what a far left fascist state actually means, the East Germans were not free everything they did said was monitored people dare not speak openly one wrong word or an envious neighbour informing on you and you were likely to disappear or re-educated as they called it, think Stasi.

You had no choice but to conform be a party member and kiss ass every waking moment strangers were feared who and what are they, reams of paperwork were kept on every man woman and child, even if they had any money and most did not there was bugger all you could buy. just the crap made by the state.

Prior to the wall being built the mines and machine guns being put in place many of the well educated and those who could not stand the regime fled their brightest and best got out, that all changed when the wall was finished, try and get and you were shot or blown to bits in the minefields the people were kept prisoners broke and hungry everything was in short supply.

The poverty real poverty in Mother Russia was appalling for years and years.

Yes the DDR a real Utopia the people loved it so much they eventually tore that dam wall down with their bare hands, family and friends those still alive that is after years of suffering were once again reunited.

The far right, the far left are both fascist socialist ideologies are anything but social where the people are dictated to by those in power and told what they can or cannot do or think have not and will not stand the test of time, you cannot stop people thinking for themselves.

If you think the DDR was a good place to be try a week or two in North Korea, that will open your eyes and your mind, that wall of barbed wire and minefields that divides the same country just as the Berlin Wall did will come down one day, it may take years but one day the people in North Korea will pull it down and be free.



Edited by Stan Still, Nov 8 2014, 09:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Nov 8 2014, 08:30 AM
Heinrich you seem to have a preoccupation with trawling the internet to find pictures of very young English boys and girls. Now of course I am making no allegation or suggestion of any improper behaviour or thoughts on your part whatsoever; let me make that quite clear, but do you think such gratuitous reproductions of images of young children is altogether acceptable or necessary?

posted by Major S (apologies for poor editing)
Quote:
 
I second that thought << Stan

As I understand it H is concerned with and attached to the nursing profession, a profession which traditionally is associated with having a 'calling' for those that 'care'.

This is what I see, what I recognise in H ........ and I do sense his hurt at what he sees as injustice in our society, and nothing of a perverted nature at all.

As with political leaning, the perspective we see things from does reveal something of our own nature and upbringing (nurture).

Edited by Affa, Nov 8 2014, 03:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Nov 8 2014, 09:15 AM
Heinrich
Nov 7 2014, 11:56 AM
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 11:41 AM
johnofgwent
Nov 7 2014, 08:54 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Which is why in an earlier post I was arguing that they are not really creating jobs but redistributing money. Most of it is probably beneficial to someone but whehter the cost of that benefit is justified or desirable is another issue
You are mistaken. In a socialist command economy, essential goods and services are owned by the people who pay taxes and buy these goods and services. These publicly owned enterprises can pay for themselves or are subsidized. In the DDR, for example, there was no unemployment and everyone had a right to a job and free at-the-point-of-delivery medical care, education and subsidized housing. There was no homelessness. This has nothing to do with redistributing wealth.
The DDR was the epitome of the what a far left fascist state actually means, the East Germans were not free everything they did said was monitored people dare not speak openly one wrong word or an envious neighbour informing on you and you were likely to disappear or re-educated as they called it, think Stasi.

You had no choice but to conform be a party member and kiss ass every waking moment strangers were feared who and what are they, reams of paperwork were kept on every man woman and child, even if they had any money and most did not there was bugger all you could buy. just the crap made by the state.

Prior to the wall being built the mines and machine guns being put in place many of the well educated and those who could not stand the regime fled their brightest and best got out, that all changed when the wall was finished, try and get and you were shot or blown to bits in the minefields the people were kept prisoners broke and hungry everything was in short supply.

The poverty real poverty in Mother Russia was appalling for years and years.

Yes the DDR a real Utopia the people loved it so much they eventually tore that dam wall down with their bare hands, family and friends those still alive that is after years of suffering were once again reunited.

The far right, the far left are both fascist socialist ideologies are anything but social where the people are dictated to by those in power and told what they can or cannot do or think have not and will not stand the test of time, you cannot stop people thinking for themselves.

If you think the DDR was a good place to be try a week or two in North Korea, that will open your eyes and your mind, that wall of barbed wire and minefields that divides the same country just as the Berlin Wall did will come down one day, it may take years but one day the people in North Korea will pull it down and be free.



I visited the DDR on a number of occasions and never met anyone who thought it a good place to live, without exception everyone, probably even Erich H wanted to leave. A Socialist nightmare.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 8 2014, 03:56 PM
I visited the DDR on a number of occasions and never met anyone who thought it a good place to live, without exception everyone, probably even Erich H wanted to leave. A Socialist nightmare.

http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/09/29/the-dark-side-of-german-reunification/

Quote:
 
It should come as little surprise, then, that an opinion poll published in Stern magazine on Wednesday found 67 percent of easterners do not feel like they are part of a united country and only 25 percent said they felt like “ein Volk” (one people)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 8 2014, 12:14 PM
Stan Still
Nov 8 2014, 08:30 AM
Heinrich you seem to have a preoccupation with trawling the internet to find pictures of very young English boys and girls. Now of course I am making no allegation or suggestion of any improper behaviour or thoughts on your part whatsoever; let me make that quite clear, but do you think such gratuitous reproductions of images of young children is altogether acceptable or necessary?

posted by Major S (apologies for poor editing)
Quote:
 
I second that thought << Stan

As I understand it H is concerned with and attached to the nursing profession, a profession which traditionally is associated with having a 'calling' for those that 'care'.

This is what I see, what I recognise in H ........ and I do sense his hurt at what he sees as injustice in our society, and nothing of a perverted nature at all.

As with political leaning, the perspective we see things from does reveal something of our own nature and upbringing (nurture).

That's a nice remark, Affa, noted and appreciated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Heinrich
Nov 7 2014, 11:49 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 7 2014, 09:18 AM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:33 AM
... I dont see many poor children in my travels and certainly not in the fast food outlets. ...
There must not be many children living in poverty in "prosperous" Britain, then.

]
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Heinrich you seem to have a preoccupation with trawling the internet to find pictures of very young English boys and girls. Now of course I am making no allegation or suggestion of any improper behaviour or thoughts on your part whatsoever; let me make that quite clear, but do you think such gratuitous reproductions of images of young children is altogether acceptable or necessary?
I was responding to a post about children in fast food restaurants as proof that there is no child poverty in England. My illustration was fitting. Your qiestion tells us more about you and how your mind works than about me.
I should have thought just one photograph of young children would be more than sufficient to illustrate you point, such as it is. My own view is that you decision to publish more than one such picture was excessive and to post even one picture was unnecessary.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lefty
Member Avatar
New Member
[ * ]
RJD
Nov 3 2014, 11:02 AM
Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union, a major report finds today, but is still behind countries like Switzerland and Norway which chose not to join the bloc. Legatum Institute's 2014 Prosperity Index reveals Norway as the most prosperous country in the world, with Switzerland at number two in the list.

I think it's worth pointing out that Norway is a part of the European Economic Area (EEA), a group of nations which comprise the EU member states plus Iceland and Lichtenstein.

This agreement permits these three nations to participate in the EU's single market and adopt all legislation with the exception of agriculture and fisheries.

So Norway as a nation still relies heavily on the EU for trade and despite not being a member (more a 3/4 member), still has to adopt most of its legislation. It has no say on the decision table.

It doesn't sound that attractive a prospect when you look at it closely.

Edited by Lefty, Nov 9 2014, 11:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Nov 9 2014, 06:12 PM
Heinrich
Nov 7 2014, 11:49 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 7 2014, 09:18 AM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Heinrich you seem to have a preoccupation with trawling the internet to find pictures of very young English boys and girls. Now of course I am making no allegation or suggestion of any improper behaviour or thoughts on your part whatsoever; let me make that quite clear, but do you think such gratuitous reproductions of images of young children is altogether acceptable or necessary?
I was responding to a post about children in fast food restaurants as proof that there is no child poverty in England. My illustration was fitting. Your qiestion tells us more about you and how your mind works than about me.
I should have thought just one photograph of young children would be more than sufficient to illustrate you point, such as it is. My own view is that you decision to publish more than one such picture was excessive and to post even one picture was unnecessary.
Perhaps you have not heard the expression, "A picture is worth a thousand words". Besides, your innuendo was vile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lefty
Nov 9 2014, 11:48 PM
RJD
Nov 3 2014, 11:02 AM
Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union, a major report finds today, but is still behind countries like Switzerland and Norway which chose not to join the bloc. Legatum Institute's 2014 Prosperity Index reveals Norway as the most prosperous country in the world, with Switzerland at number two in the list.

I think it's worth pointing out that Norway is a part of the European Economic Area (EEA), a group of nations which comprise the EU member states plus Iceland and Lichtenstein.

This agreement permits these three nations to participate in the EU's single market and adopt all legislation with the exception of agriculture and fisheries.

So Norway as a nation still relies heavily on the EU for trade and despite not being a member (more a 3/4 member), still has to adopt most of its legislation. It has no say on the decision table.

It doesn't sound that attractive a prospect when you look at it closely.

Norway doesn't rely heavily on the EU for trade, its exports are 70% related to oil, petroleum and gas of which all can go on the spot market. Its main export market is the UK.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Nov 10 2014, 07:56 AM
Lefty
Nov 9 2014, 11:48 PM
RJD
Nov 3 2014, 11:02 AM
Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union, a major report finds today, but is still behind countries like Switzerland and Norway which chose not to join the bloc. Legatum Institute's 2014 Prosperity Index reveals Norway as the most prosperous country in the world, with Switzerland at number two in the list.

I think it's worth pointing out that Norway is a part of the European Economic Area (EEA), a group of nations which comprise the EU member states plus Iceland and Lichtenstein.

This agreement permits these three nations to participate in the EU's single market and adopt all legislation with the exception of agriculture and fisheries.

So Norway as a nation still relies heavily on the EU for trade and despite not being a member (more a 3/4 member), still has to adopt most of its legislation. It has no say on the decision table.

It doesn't sound that attractive a prospect when you look at it closely.

Norway doesn't rely heavily on the EU for trade, its exports are 70% related to oil, petroleum and gas of which all can go on the spot market. Its main export market is the UK.



But it is still highly disingenuous for anyone to quote Norway as an example we could follow. It has a huge excess of oil and gas and that dominates its economic strength.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Heinrich
Nov 10 2014, 01:40 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 9 2014, 06:12 PM
Heinrich
Nov 7 2014, 11:49 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 7 2014, 09:18 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I was responding to a post about children in fast food restaurants as proof that there is no child poverty in England. My illustration was fitting. Your qiestion tells us more about you and how your mind works than about me.
I should have thought just one photograph of young children would be more than sufficient to illustrate you point, such as it is. My own view is that you decision to publish more than one such picture was excessive and to post even one picture was unnecessary.
Perhaps you have not heard the expression, "A picture is worth a thousand words". Besides, your innuendo was vile.
I made it absolutely clear that I was not suggesting anything untoward on your part, but if that is the way you wish to take it, well I have nothing to add.

I repeat that the pictures of young children you posted had only a tenuous link with the thread (if any of them had an image of MacDonalds in the background for instance there might have been some justification, albeit weak). Why post several? was one not enough to make your point? You think my 'innuendo' was vile ( I of course reject that it was either an innuendo or vile). Entirely separate from your unnecessary posting of several photographs of young children, I do wonder how many people when voicing concerns about any form of child exploitation or abuse are accused of vile innuendo by the guilty as well as the innocent?

In conclusion, you are choosing to continue this line of correspondance. However I have not made any suggestion of wrongdoing whatsoever on your part; that is entirely your interpretation.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Nov 8 2014, 09:15 AM
Heinrich
Nov 7 2014, 11:56 AM
ACH1967
Nov 7 2014, 11:41 AM
johnofgwent
Nov 7 2014, 08:54 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Which is why in an earlier post I was arguing that they are not really creating jobs but redistributing money. Most of it is probably beneficial to someone but whehter the cost of that benefit is justified or desirable is another issue
You are mistaken. In a socialist command economy, essential goods and services are owned by the people who pay taxes and buy these goods and services. These publicly owned enterprises can pay for themselves or are subsidized. In the DDR, for example, there was no unemployment and everyone had a right to a job and free at-the-point-of-delivery medical care, education and subsidized housing. There was no homelessness. This has nothing to do with redistributing wealth.
The DDR was the epitome of the what a far left fascist state actually means,
"a far left fascist state". !jk! !jk! !jk!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 8 2014, 04:50 AM
As far as the thread title is concerned......how, exactly does one person from another measure prosperity? should it be measured globally, continentally, countrywide or personally? myself, I do not consider myself wealthy by any means, but.............what more do I or my family need, our bellies are full, we are warm and reasonably well clothed, the dogs guinea pigs and budgies appear to be content, I am able enough to take care of my dad who is 86, I am employed as is my wife and you will not find any wealthy persons in the cemetery, so, just how DOES one measure prosperity........I can I suppose posit the maxim that hard work does bring positive results, but the likes of 640 odd bods in the palace of Westminster and those in the European parliament put paid to that ethic......ah well, onwards and upwards. /8/
You are so right Rich. Prosperity, much as poverty, is relative. You are content with your situation. You have what you need, and so does your familly. You consider that to be adequate. You don't require an excessive pile which is exactly that; "excess". Some people however, feel the need to have massive excesses for one reason or another, and unless they do, they are never truly content.

I was reading an article the other day about the most expensive fish and chips in the country. One place in London was doing tham at £52 a go! One customer even gave them a good write up and said it was value for money. Well all I can say is that the guy must be really "prosperous". Or possibly just more money than sense? Or escaped for a secure institution?
Edited by disgruntled porker, Nov 10 2014, 10:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 10 2014, 09:47 AM


I was reading an article the other day about the most expensive fish and chips in the country. One place in London was doing tham at £52 a go!
Locally that would need to be lobster in batter and chips to come even close to that.

(I did have monkfish tail as a restaurant meal in Brittany last Friday, €17.50)
Edited by papasmurf, Nov 10 2014, 09:59 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 10 2014, 09:07 AM
But it is still highly disingenuous for anyone to quote Norway as an example we could follow. It has a huge excess of oil and gas and that dominates its economic strength.

Take the Nordic countries as whole, and it is then disingenuous to argue that there can be no comparison.
That region, the worlds most successful - living standards, is typified by one thing.
State Capitalism!
The State doesn't control Capitalism through regulations as we here so disastrously do, but through the share market. It has a stake in a little over half of all listed companies, and these do do well.

It's not Nationalisation, it is however how a Nationalist government behaves = in the interest of the Nation.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 10 2014, 09:57 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 10 2014, 09:47 AM


I was reading an article the other day about the most expensive fish and chips in the country. One place in London was doing tham at £52 a go!
Locally that would need to be lobster in batter and chips to come even close to that.

(I did have monkfish tail as a restaurant meal in Brittany last Friday, €17.50)
You can buy a full lobster from a well known supermarket for £5 now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply