|
Replies:
|
|
johnofgwent
|
Aug 16 2015, 11:56 AM
Post #681
|
- Posts:
- 7,075
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 14 2015, 09:17 AM
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 14 2015, 06:59 AM
- Tigger
- Aug 13 2015, 11:43 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I think Steve's criticism was a bit unfair, and slightly deceptive. AFAIK Corbyn hasn't suggest nationalising BT, which is (along with British Ports) one of the few generally accepted "successes" of privatisation. He has suggesting renationalising the rail system - which given it now receives 3x more in tax payer funding than it ever did as a nationalised industry seem to me to be common sense. At least then what profit is made from that huge taxpayer investment will be spent on improving the rail system, rather than paying off shareholders. Also, IIRC, BT wasn't sold off at knockdown prices, unlike the Post Office and our holding in RBS. His points on the banking sector are, in effect, what we all have been thinking for some time, and his comments on the housing market are all perfectly valid. So trying to counter Corbyn's position with reference to BT (one of only a few privatisation successes) seems to me to be a little deceptive. BTW: Nationalised telecoms companies have managed to implement the internet as well - the idea that IF we renationalised BT we'd lose the internet is frankly laughable. All The Best
My post was clearly tongue in cheek responding to what the poster admitted was less than gospel Your wasn't so to correct your most obvious false points: The Post Office has not privatised Our holding in RBS has not been sold at 'knockdown prices' has it. For a start only a fraction has been sold and for market price for dumping a large number. Very disingenuous by you There were numerous privatisation successes, BT was just one. Yes arguably the biggest one. Please substantiate your assertion of 3x rail subsidies. And in real terms per passenger mile Not sure where to put this, so I'll do it in a reply here.
First off, to the point above about BT "not being sold off on the cheap" I think you'll find it was you know.
Most of my richer relatives in my father's generation applied for shares in BT. He did not, as he did nto have the money to spare, and neither did I, because I really did not actually understand what all the fuss was about, which shows how much I knew about slimeballs and the stock mrket in those days.
The BT share offer was made on the basis that the shares were to be paid for in three staged payments.
Those of my relatives who applied and succeeded in getting an allocation were instantly bombarded with offers to take them off their hands. The price of BT shares on the open market on the first day of puiblic trading (which bizarrely the "ordinary public" were barred from, you had to be WELL in with a greasy stockbroker to "benefit") was actually in excess of the FULL price not the part paid price AND the offers to my relatives (who sold them on the spot) included an undertaking that the NEW PURCHASER would take over the obligation to make the remaining stage payments.
It is clear that the BT privatisation would have been a success had the price been two, maybe three times as high as it was.
Corbyn has focussed on the concept of renationalisation of the Rail network and the Energy Companies.
I would vote for him tomorrow on that basis. But then again, I know the truth about "Directly Operated Railways" and I also saw what the New Electricity Trading Arrangements turned our energy companies into, and I saw the criminal activity that accompanied Tranche 4 Gas Deregulation from the inside ...
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 16 2015, 11:57 AM
Post #682
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 16 2015, 10:14 AM
So having seen Latuff cartoons (which often equate Israel with the third Reich) I suggest you have that question 3 wrong.
Well, I think that is perfectly justifiable.
Even yourself has said that at times Israel acts, in relation to the Palestinians, much like its nemesis the Nazis acted towards the Jews.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 16 2015, 12:03 PM
Post #683
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 16 2015, 10:46 AM
“Some of his stated political views are a cause for serious concern. At the very least he has shown very poor judgment in expressing support for and failing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in anti-Semitic rhetoric." ----
The original accusation seems reasonable and worth some investigation.
Except in the minds of most Israel supporters ANY and ALL criticism, even and often especially "legitimate criticism" is seen as "anti-Semitic".
Dare to condemn illegal settlements on stolen land - anti-semite. Dare to criticise the blowing up of kids playing football on a beach - anti-semite. Dare to criticise Israel's scant regard for the safety of non-combatants - anti-semite. Dare to criticise Israel's wilful disregard of obligations it willingly signed up to - anti-semite.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
Nonsense
|
Aug 16 2015, 12:36 PM
Post #684
|
- Posts:
- 762
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #113
- Joined:
- Nov 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 15 2015, 11:18 PM
- Nonsense
- Aug 15 2015, 08:27 PM
- C-too
- Aug 15 2015, 05:18 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
"It would not make any sense at all to suggest that people were no better off after Attlee's government than they were before WWII". Well,just because the welfare state came in during 1948,it doesn't mean that suddenly the poor pensioners,workers,mothers were enjoying social 'security',far from it, the post-war decade was worse than the war years. The only difference during the war years was that 'rationing' equalised,to a degree, the suffering that the poor had always experienced & take it from me, the early 'welfare state' was little better than 'parish poor law'. There is no doubt that Attlee's government was radical,were it not,a revolution could well have been on the cards. The people had fought a world war,lost family members, families were impoverished & were in no mood to endure Tory parsimony after making such sacrifices. It was the 'right wing' Hugh Gaitskell,who,perhaps put the last nail in the coffin of Attlee's government,with his 'austerity' budget(lesson's of history lost on latter Labour politicians)& after a comprehensive program of government it was exhausted. Not unnaturally, the British people,as usual, make the wrong decision at the most crucial time,by electing Churchill again(when will the stupid peasants ever learn-NEVER),when they have just had the old order under notice of being history,they go & revive the Tory party. As they say,"you get the government that you deserve".
The electorate put an end to Attlee's government. And that was after Attlee put an end to the horrors of pre-war Britain. Horrors such as high unemployment, serious ---- put your head in the gas oven, if you can borrow the money to pay for the gas ---- poverty levels, malnutrition, rickets as an almost norm for poor people. An end to having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for your sick child. As I posted earlier, if the Tory propaganda machine is more powerful than Labour's, and it obviously is, then a way around it has to be found. Blair/NL found a way around it and that was after 35 years of Old Labour playing opposition to the Tories. The message is loud and clear. Old Labour (Corbyn) guarantees more years in opposition. "The electorate put an end to Attlee's government".
It's called 'democracy'.
More to the point,your shallowness of thought,completely ignores the reasons why people suddenly choose a different party, BEFORE they even vote.
"And that was after Attlee put an end to the horrors of pre-war Britain".
So, you believe in politicians waving their magic wands & everything in the garden is lovely do you? Just what planet do you inhabit?
"Horrors such as high unemployment",
Who-where did I mention 'unemployment' in my post?
" serious ---- put your head in the gas oven"
Seriously, are trying to debate an issue or are you just trolling for the lack of coherence,reason or lack of honesty in your approach to engaging with others? Somehow,I think that deep down, you have some ongoing 'problems'
" if you can borrow the money to pay for the gas ---- poverty levels, malnutrition, rickets as an almost norm for poor people". 'Poverty' apart,what are you struggling to articulate by way of a contribution to debate??
" An end to having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for your sick child".
Well,well,well, at last, we have one scintilla of reality,wonders will never cease.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 16 2015, 12:43 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 16 2015, 12:49 PM
Post #685
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 15 2015, 11:58 PM
- Rich
- Aug 15 2015, 08:34 PM
- C-too
- Aug 15 2015, 07:11 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I am certain that you know as well as I do that REAL numbers of unemployed were off book due to manipulation of facts and figures and I have no doubt that this government and the last coalition indulged the nation in the same massaging of numbers. At the end of the day, no fxxxxr has any idea of how many bods are here, how many are in the black market, how many are swinging the lead etc etc. So tell me please.....does that bother you or are you quite content to let the situation get more worse?
When NL came to office they introduced the International Labour Organisation (ILO) method for counting the unemployed (as used by the EU). IIRC, this change added some 500,000 to the UK unemployment count. The fall in unemployment in the UK under NL was mirrored by the rise in employment. You have the boot on the wrong foot, it was the Tories who were seriously devious over the unemployment count. I gave PV the information a few weeks ago. The points made in my earlier post absolutely do stand, I guess you would be to honest to deny voting Tory during those high unemployment, poor getting poorer years. But too embarrassed to admit it. I have always voted tory and may consider UKIP next time, but I will never vote for a party that is more than willing to spend my money and then borrow from children not yet born to finance the ideology of false socialism cloaked in false tory lite when we all know that at heart marxism is the final aim.
For you see, it is the Labour party that is too ashamed/embarrassed to show it's true colours as it tries to be all things to all men, at least we all know where we stand with Mr Corbyn..........I wish him well for his honesty and integrity will take him far in the eyes of voters, Parliament and it's members have only themselves to blame for making the people who pay their wages cynical.
|
|
|
| |
|
marybrown
|
Aug 16 2015, 12:53 PM
Post #686
|
- Posts:
- 10,516
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #60
- Joined:
- Jul 27, 2014
|
Yes Mr Corbyn stands true to his own ideas..
Unfortunately some of them are very bizarre indeed..and no-one else's
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 16 2015, 01:02 PM
Post #687
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Aug 16 2015, 11:25 AM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 09:49 AM
Could it possibly be that Highway is a convert to the Corbyn Labour party?
I doubt it, that said the prospect of Corbyn standing toe to toe with Cameron in Westminster has some appeal to me, with all the relevant parties jostling for the centre ground we get sterile debate, the exchanges are certainly fiery at times but the scope is very limited with certain aspects seemingly out of bounds due to shared vested interests that they would rather the public did not get know about, especially if it's going to be broadcast in your living room at 6pm. Imagine Corbyn pointing out that a politician angling for some legislation is in fact going to benefit financially from the change? Or the fact that many misuse expenses? (Corbyn has the lowest has claimed the lowest allowance in the commons and uses the money ethically) or the hypocrisy of politicians preaching austerity for the masses but bypassing it themselves? I'd suggest the prospect of an unpretentious straight talker on the opposite side of the house will scare the pants off the establishment, dirty tricks are inevitable from his opponents. I would suggest that debates and PMQ's are sterile simply because of the lack of educated orators, just because one attended/was educated at a public school does not make one worldly wise and able to articulate in a manner that makes others sit up and listen.
Some will not like the examples I cite, Enoch, Winston, Margaret, Harold, Tony, but when they spoke, others listened and there was none of the usual animal type rowdism so despised by the viewing public.....fxxk knows what foreigners must think but personally I think they (MP's) set an awful example of how to discuss and debate topical issues.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 16 2015, 01:04 PM
Post #688
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 01:02 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 12:49 PM
I have always voted tory and may consider UKIP next time, but I will never vote for a party that is more than willing to spend my money and then borrow from children not yet born to finance the ideology of false socialism cloaked in false tory lite when we all know that at heart marxism is the final aim.
Quite clearly you are a victim of media propaganda ....... the purpose of which is to snare unthinking people like you. Well, at least you and I know where we stand.....is that a bad thing?
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 16 2015, 01:22 PM
Post #689
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 01:04 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 01:02 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 12:49 PM
I have always voted tory and may consider UKIP next time, but I will never vote for a party that is more than willing to spend my money and then borrow from children not yet born to finance the ideology of false socialism cloaked in false tory lite when we all know that at heart marxism is the final aim.
Quite clearly you are a victim of media propaganda ....... the purpose of which is to snare unthinking people like you.
Well, at least you and I know where we stand.....is that a bad thing?
Being receptive as I know you to be, its not all right! You know what you are told, I know what I observe. Huge difference .......... and I do think the earlier advice you were given 'to think first of your own offspring, and theirs' is very sound advice.
|
|
|
| |
|
Nonsense
|
Aug 16 2015, 01:25 PM
Post #690
|
- Posts:
- 762
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #113
- Joined:
- Nov 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 14 2015, 06:00 PM
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 14 2015, 05:44 PM
OK, as much as I hate to link to The Sun I have no choice because that is where this Boris Johnson article was published: Speaking of Corbyn he says: - Quote:
-
And if we look back at the past 32 years since he came into Parliament, can we really say he has been as eccentric as all that? Yes, he was one of the early campaigners against apartheid. Quite right, too — these days Mandela is regarded as a kind of modern saint. Yes, he was in favour of bringing the IRA to the negotiating table, a view treated as semi-treacherous at the time. These days he looks prescient — Martin McGuinness meets the Queen and no one bats an eyelid. Yes, he abominated the Iraq war and rebelled countless times against the government of Tony Blair. But these days you look at what is happening in Iraq and Syria — the almost daily bombings and massacres — and you have to respect his judgment. Sure, he spent decades campaigning for higher minimum wages for workers — and yet that ambition is now at the heart of Tory government policy. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/6559996/Jeremy-Corbyn-gets-top-Marx-for-caring.html
And for those who think he is still unelectable I suggest a quick listen to this: http://www.independent.co.uk/video/?videoid=4386570428001If he really was as bat-shit crazy as the NuLab Fanbois would have us believe do you really think he would have that kind of election record? All The Best
If Corbyn is elected as the leader of the Labour party, then Labour will have plenty of time to wallow in the sh!te of Old Labour opposition. 40 years of it since 1951. Will it become 50 years ? or 60 years ? I don't think it will be 60 years because even for the most stupid and the most biased political idiots, the penny must drop before then. Hopefully. "If Corbyn is elected as the leader of the Labour party, then Labour will have plenty of time to wallow in the sh!te of Old Labour opposition".
What makes you think that Labour's prospects are any the brighter if any of the other candidates win the leadership contest?
REALITY CHECK; 'New Labour' have now lost TWO elections in a row,they may well lose with CORBYN as leader, but, the 'alternatives' have a PROVEN record of losing TWO elections,a THIRD election lost by them is more than a 'possibility', it's practically a given.
It seems as if that party has a 'problem', either with the 'Leaders' that it selects,or the policies that the party persues,either way, it's the poorer members of the public that pay the price & they will not stay around until the party gets it 'right'.
The working class have washed their hands of Labour's patronising them whilst in opposition & ignoring them when in power.
The sucking up to the middle classes have not gained that party the slightest benefit whatsoever.
With such prospects on the distant horizon,it behoves ALL of them to set aside ideological differences,personal agrandizement,domestic party schisms & put in place policies that the general public want,not some MINORITY group or other niche.
With that THIRD 'Blairite' loss in prospect,Corbyn deserves proper consideration,either way,my betting is that Labour are on course to exceed 13 years in the political wilderness,something that BLAIR sold out the values,policies for which that party once stood for,in order to gain power, it will not happen again,without returning to traditional working class values & policies.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 16 2015, 01:44 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 16 2015, 01:46 PM
Post #691
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 15 2015, 11:18 PM
The electorate put an end to Attlee's government. . . - Nonsense
- Aug 16 2015, 12:36 PM
. ."The electorate put an end to Attlee's government".
It's called 'democracy'. / /
and
Attlee massively won the popular vote in that 1951 election with one of the highest popular votes ever and over a million more votes than the Tories. But in those days the constituency boundaries were somewhat less rigorously managed so Churchill got to be PM with the help of the now defunct so called Liberal Nationals
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 16 2015, 01:55 PM
Post #692
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 16 2015, 01:46 PM
- C-too
- Aug 15 2015, 11:18 PM
The electorate put an end to Attlee's government. . . - Nonsense
- Aug 16 2015, 12:36 PM
. ."The electorate put an end to Attlee's government".
It's called 'democracy'. / /  and Attlee massively won the popular vote in that 1951 election with one of the highest popular votes ever and over a million more votes than the Tories. But in those days the constituency boundaries were somewhat less rigorously managed so Churchill got to be PM with the help of the now defunct so called Liberal Nationals
I can still recite the campaign song I sang as a kid ...... 'vote vote vote for Mr Wainright, who's that knocking at the door? If it's Wainright let him in, If its the Tory kick his shin ....... '
|
|
|
| |
|
Nonsense
|
Aug 16 2015, 02:19 PM
Post #693
|
- Posts:
- 762
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #113
- Joined:
- Nov 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 16 2015, 01:46 PM
- C-too
- Aug 15 2015, 11:18 PM
The electorate put an end to Attlee's government. . . - Nonsense
- Aug 16 2015, 12:36 PM
. ."The electorate put an end to Attlee's government".
It's called 'democracy'. / /  and Attlee massively won the popular vote in that 1951 election with one of the highest popular votes ever and over a million more votes than the Tories. But in those days the constituency boundaries were somewhat less rigorously managed so Churchill got to be PM with the help of the now defunct so called Liberal Nationals That's true.
During the Attlee government,there were divisions between him & Gaistkell on the nature of the budget,between 'austerity' or more spending.
There's no doubt that Attlee was the most successful Labour P.M ever,perhaps the current candidates ought to emulate Attlee & not Blair.
As we know, election voting intentions are largely governed by how voters perceive how well or otherwise, their government's have improved things generally,but also, how they see whether that government is doing the right thing for social justice.
If an electorate go 'negative' on a government for whatever reason(such as internal divisions) before an election,it can be very difficult to win back that support at election time.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 16 2015, 02:23 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Gnikkk
|
Aug 16 2015, 02:35 PM
Post #694
|
- Posts:
- 1,162
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #45
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2014
|
- Heinrich
- Aug 16 2015, 07:06 AM
Jeremy Corbyn asked to prove he is not an enemy of JewsThe Jewish Chronicle of London has put seven questions to Jeremy Corbyn and says he must answer them in full or else "be regarded from the day of his election as an enemy of Britain’s Jewish community". The Jewish ChronicleI would put these people on my Ignore List if I were Jeremy Corbyn. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 16 2015, 04:26 PM
Post #695
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Quote:
-
PV, Except in the minds of most Israel supporters ANY and ALL criticism, even and often especially "legitimate criticism" is seen as "anti-Semitic". But that is not what he said, and it is not what I'm referring to.
In any case, opinion and or insinuation doesn't do it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 16 2015, 04:50 PM
Post #696
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 16 2015, 04:26 PM
- Quote:
-
PV, Except in the minds of most Israel supporters ANY and ALL criticism, even and often especially "legitimate criticism" is seen as "anti-Semitic".
But that is not what he said, and it is not what I'm referring to. In any case, opinion and or insinuation doesn't do it. So, specifically, what part of Corbyn's actions are the problem?
I've already shown that Q3 is bogus, and biased.
What evidence is there that other questions are not the same?
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 16 2015, 04:53 PM
Post #697
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 16 2015, 10:46 AM
---- “Some of his stated political views are a cause for serious concern. At the very least he has shown very poor judgment in expressing support for and failing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in anti-Semitic rhetoric." ----
The original accusation seems reasonable and worth some investigation.
It is wholly unreasonable unless it specifies exactly what he said, and further demonstrates that it is indicative of anti-semitism rather than wholly justifiable criticism of Israel's actions.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
Cymru
|
Aug 16 2015, 04:58 PM
Post #698
|
- Posts:
- 3,504
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
He can't be an anti-Semite as some of his best friends are Arab.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 16 2015, 05:09 PM
Post #699
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- johnofgwent
- Aug 16 2015, 11:56 AM
- Steve K
- Aug 14 2015, 09:17 AM
My post was clearly tongue in cheek responding to what the poster admitted was less than gospel Your wasn't so to correct your most obvious false points: The Post Office has not privatised Our holding in RBS has not been sold at 'knockdown prices' has it. For a start only a fraction has been sold and for market price for dumping a large number. Very disingenuous by you There were numerous privatisation successes, BT was just one. Yes arguably the biggest one. Please substantiate your assertion of 3x rail subsidies. And in real terms per passenger mile
Not sure where to put this, so I'll do it in a reply here. First off, to the point above about BT "not being sold off on the cheap" I think you'll find it was you know. Most of my richer relatives in my father's generation applied for shares in BT. He did not, as he did nto have the money to spare, and neither did I, because I really did not actually understand what all the fuss was about, which shows how much I knew about slimeballs and the stock mrket in those days. The BT share offer was made on the basis that the shares were to be paid for in three staged payments. Those of my relatives who applied and succeeded in getting an allocation were instantly bombarded with offers to take them off their hands. The price of BT shares on the open market on the first day of puiblic trading (which bizarrely the "ordinary public" were barred from, you had to be WELL in with a greasy stockbroker to "benefit") was actually in excess of the FULL price not the part paid price AND the offers to my relatives (who sold them on the spot) included an undertaking that the NEW PURCHASER would take over the obligation to make the remaining stage payments. It is clear that the BT privatisation would have been a success had the price been two, maybe three times as high as it was. Corbyn has focussed on the concept of renationalisation of the Rail network and the Energy Companies. I would vote for him tomorrow on that basis. But then again, I know the truth about "Directly Operated Railways" and I also saw what the New Electricity Trading Arrangements turned our energy companies into, and I saw the criminal activity that accompanied Tranche 4 Gas Deregulation from the inside ... Well an interesting outburst by you there John but why aimed at me? I never made any claim about whether BT was privatised on the cheap or not
I will say that nationalised BT was as classic a case of complete mismanagement as you could ever see. A buggers muddle where customers came last on the priorities and one we were only rescued from by privatisation.
But seeing as you picked up my post are you able to help ProV with his 3x assertion on rail subsidies that does seem to be less than getting any backing
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 16 2015, 05:11 PM
Post #700
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Nonsense
- Aug 16 2015, 12:36 PM
- C-too
- Aug 15 2015, 11:18 PM
- Nonsense
- Aug 15 2015, 08:27 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The electorate put an end to Attlee's government. And that was after Attlee put an end to the horrors of pre-war Britain. Horrors such as high unemployment, serious ---- put your head in the gas oven, if you can borrow the money to pay for the gas ---- poverty levels, malnutrition, rickets as an almost norm for poor people. An end to having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for your sick child. As I posted earlier, if the Tory propaganda machine is more powerful than Labour's, and it obviously is, then a way around it has to be found. Blair/NL found a way around it and that was after 35 years of Old Labour playing opposition to the Tories. The message is loud and clear. Old Labour (Corbyn) guarantees more years in opposition.
"The electorate put an end to Attlee's government". It's called 'democracy'. More to the point,your shallowness of thought,completely ignores the reasons why people suddenly choose a different party, BEFORE they even vote. "And that was after Attlee put an end to the horrors of pre-war Britain". So, you believe in politicians waving their magic wands & everything in the garden is lovely do you? Just what planet do you inhabit? "Horrors such as high unemployment", Who-where did I mention 'unemployment' in my post? " serious ---- put your head in the gas oven" Seriously, are trying to debate an issue or are you just trolling for the lack of coherence,reason or lack of honesty in your approach to engaging with others? Somehow,I think that deep down, you have some ongoing 'problems' " if you can borrow the money to pay for the gas ---- poverty levels, malnutrition, rickets as an almost norm for poor people". 'Poverty' apart,what are you struggling to articulate by way of a contribution to debate?? " An end to having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for your sick child". Well,well,well, at last, we have one scintilla of reality,wonders will never cease.  "democracy" yes, BUT you miss the point. Things improved massively under Attlee but Tory propaganda won the election of 1951.
Silly comments count for nothing. I never claimed that everything in the garden was lovely. My point from the start is the massive improvements made that made life for so many people so much better. That is planet earth, you must visit us some day.
You didn't mention unemployment, I did, and I did so for obvious reasons, reasons that appear to have gone over your head.
So you do not understand the poverty levels that existed before WWII. Well that figures. Suicides rose under Thatcher. For all the damage she did she did not quite manage to take us back to pre-war Britain.
So while you accept the reality of having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for a sick child before WWII, you are unable to extrapolate that into understanding that many people were seriously poor and were living on the breadline in those days. A situation that created a lot of emotional uncertainty that would lay down the foundations of high levels of suicide.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 16 2015, 05:14 PM
Post #701
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 16 2015, 11:57 AM
- Steve K
- Aug 16 2015, 10:14 AM
So having seen Latuff cartoons (which often equate Israel with the third Reich) I suggest you have that question 3 wrong.
Well, I think that is perfectly justifiable. Even yourself has said that at times Israel acts, in relation to the Palestinians, much like its nemesis the Nazis acted towards the Jews. All The Best I have? You sure?
Latuff's cartoons have in effect accused Israel of organising systematic mass murder - I would not support that. However I would support the accusation that Latuff goes over the top and if Corbyn has backed him he has questions to answer
A Latuff cartoon
Edited by Steve K, Aug 16 2015, 05:17 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Aug 16 2015, 05:15 PM
Post #702
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Aug 16 2015, 11:55 AM
- Tytoalba
- Aug 16 2015, 11:42 AM
Youth is wasted on the young and human principles does not put the food on the table. Its easy to pontificate about human principles but if you look at the history of the world they count for little I We are just celebrating VJ day and the only principle in that is that we defeated our enemy .It wasn't the nice people that won, but those that had the means and the courage and determination to do what needed to be done in spite of the casualties. Think about it.
Sickly gibberish linking two unrelated subjects, the young are the FUTURE of the nation, if you want principles they must be reinforced by example and and passed on, not chosen in the manner that suits the needs of a selfish minority that specialises in hypocritical lecturing to those the young folks. " When a nations young men are Conservative it's funeral bell is already rung"Henry Ward Beecher. Proverbs From the Pulpit 1887. You wouldn't understand anyway. Pity that nationals service finished and you failed to be better informed. Korea or the jungles of Malaya would have broadened your mind.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 16 2015, 05:21 PM
Post #703
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 16 2015, 04:53 PM
- C-too
- Aug 16 2015, 10:46 AM
---- “Some of his stated political views are a cause for serious concern. At the very least he has shown very poor judgment in expressing support for and failing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in anti-Semitic rhetoric." ----
The original accusation seems reasonable and worth some investigation.
It is wholly unreasonable unless it specifies exactly what he said, and further demonstrates that it is indicative of anti-semitism rather than wholly justifiable criticism of Israel's actions. All The Best Well you have no proof that there is no truth in the allegations. And it is for Corbyn to defend himself.
The allegations have been made and the questions asked, is he big enough to answer them ?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 16 2015, 05:25 PM
Post #704
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Aug 16 2015, 05:15 PM
- Tigger
- Aug 16 2015, 11:55 AM
- Tytoalba
- Aug 16 2015, 11:42 AM
Youth is wasted on the young and human principles does not put the food on the table. Its easy to pontificate about human principles but if you look at the history of the world they count for little I We are just celebrating VJ day and the only principle in that is that we defeated our enemy .It wasn't the nice people that won, but those that had the means and the courage and determination to do what needed to be done in spite of the casualties. Think about it.
Sickly gibberish linking two unrelated subjects, the young are the FUTURE of the nation, if you want principles they must be reinforced by example and and passed on, not chosen in the manner that suits the needs of a selfish minority that specialises in hypocritical lecturing to those the young folks. " When a nations young men are Conservative it's funeral bell is already rung"Henry Ward Beecher. Proverbs From the Pulpit 1887.
You wouldn't understand anyway. Pity that nationals service finished and you failed to be better informed. Korea or the jungles of Malaya would have broadened your mind. The mind broadening experiences of those on the Somme etc. did not stop soldiers, returning from WWI from rioting and burning down Bristol Town Hall over a dispute on demobilisation.
|
|
|
| |
|
Nonsense
|
Aug 16 2015, 06:18 PM
Post #705
|
- Posts:
- 762
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #113
- Joined:
- Nov 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 16 2015, 05:11 PM
- Nonsense
- Aug 16 2015, 12:36 PM
- C-too
- Aug 15 2015, 11:18 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
"The electorate put an end to Attlee's government". It's called 'democracy'. More to the point,your shallowness of thought,completely ignores the reasons why people suddenly choose a different party, BEFORE they even vote. "And that was after Attlee put an end to the horrors of pre-war Britain". So, you believe in politicians waving their magic wands & everything in the garden is lovely do you? Just what planet do you inhabit? "Horrors such as high unemployment", Who-where did I mention 'unemployment' in my post? " serious ---- put your head in the gas oven" Seriously, are trying to debate an issue or are you just trolling for the lack of coherence,reason or lack of honesty in your approach to engaging with others? Somehow,I think that deep down, you have some ongoing 'problems' " if you can borrow the money to pay for the gas ---- poverty levels, malnutrition, rickets as an almost norm for poor people". 'Poverty' apart,what are you struggling to articulate by way of a contribution to debate?? " An end to having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for your sick child". Well,well,well, at last, we have one scintilla of reality,wonders will never cease. 
"democracy" yes, BUT you miss the point. Things improved massively under Attlee but Tory propaganda won the election of 1951. Silly comments count for nothing. I never claimed that everything in the garden was lovely. My point from the start is the massive improvements made that made life for so many people so much better. That is planet earth, you must visit us some day. You didn't mention unemployment, I did, and I did so for obvious reasons, reasons that appear to have gone over your head. So you do not understand the poverty levels that existed before WWII. Well that figures. Suicides rose under Thatcher. For all the damage she did she did not quite manage to take us back to pre-war Britain. So while you accept the reality of having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for a sick child before WWII, you are unable to extrapolate that into understanding that many people were seriously poor and were living on the breadline in those days. A situation that created a lot of emotional uncertainty that would lay down the foundations of high levels of suicide. "So while you accept the reality of having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for a sick child before WWII, you are unable to extrapolate that into understanding that many people were seriously poor and were living on the breadline in those days".
You talk a lot of tripe C-too,I specifically mentioned about food-medicine for that very reason,which should have been patently obvious to you.
I lived through that period,I understand it completely, because I experienced it,whereas people born after the welfare state came into being are either ignorant about it,don't care about it or were the lucky one's.
Let me say that everything I have was paid for by blood,sweat & tears over many years.
When I was a youngster before 1948,I experienced not just the hunger of poverty,but living off jumble sale cast off's,the additional hunger of having to pay for the doctor with the quack remedies, then starving for the whole of the following week,in order to pay for those dubious 'medicines',those were the norm in our family. Frequent episodes of German Measles, Chicken Pox,Mumps etc through the years 1946-9 when the winters were particularly cold was coped with by sleeping under a 'Great Coat' of an uncle's.
We had years of 'Spam with everything', my parents would say that Saturday was the day of 'fasting', when really,it was a euphemism for an empty larder, mouldy bread with half eaten cheese by mice or dripping on bread was part of the 'luxuries' of daily life.
We had as much ice indoors as outside,even though I live on the south coast where I was born,the curtains stuck to the icy windows.
Ironically, bananas,oranges,or other foreign fruit was immeasurably fresher than the chilled compost displayed under artificial lighting that passes itself of as 'fruit' on our supermarket shelves today,the problem was in affording it as an extra to the 'rationed' foods.
Ao, I can assure you C-too, I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, one doesn't need to be born up north to be poor.
When I reflect on it,I would have been better off had I been in a Dr Barnado's home,but there you go, that's life.
It's because of my experience of the failure's of 'Labour' politics to deliver significant progress in living standards for those without,by raising the wages of those worse off,rather than increasing state benefits that benefit the middle classes more,that's why I would never,ever vote 'Labour'.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 16 2015, 06:34 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 16 2015, 07:13 PM
Post #706
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 01:22 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 01:04 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 01:02 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Well, at least you and I know where we stand.....is that a bad thing?
Being receptive as I know you to be, its not all right! You know what you are told, I know what I observe. Huge difference .......... and I do think the earlier advice you were given 'to think first of your own offspring, and theirs' is very sound advice. I am disappointed that YOU think that I am "unthinking" I am not sure what you really mean by that but I can assure you that I give a great deal of thought to what I post on here and to how I act in life, that is why I am an independent man, happily married with two good lads and have never been out of work in my life...another 3 years and I will, if it so pleases me, be able to give more thought to your vaccuous comments where other posters are concerned.
top tip, never attack the poster but by all means attack what they post and give a credible reason why you may disagree, that way it becomes civilised and much easier to understand people.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 16 2015, 07:24 PM
Post #707
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 16 2015, 05:21 PM
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 16 2015, 04:53 PM
- C-too
- Aug 16 2015, 10:46 AM
---- “Some of his stated political views are a cause for serious concern. At the very least he has shown very poor judgment in expressing support for and failing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in anti-Semitic rhetoric." ----
The original accusation seems reasonable and worth some investigation.
It is wholly unreasonable unless it specifies exactly what he said, and further demonstrates that it is indicative of anti-semitism rather than wholly justifiable criticism of Israel's actions. All The Best
Well you have no proof that there is no truth in the allegations. And it is for Corbyn to defend himself. The allegations have been made and the questions asked, is he big enough to answer them ? Can one prove a negative?, I am not taking Mr Corbyns side here, but I certainly see no evidence of him being anti semitic.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 16 2015, 07:39 PM
Post #708
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 07:24 PM
Can one prove a negative?, I am not taking Mr Corbyns side here, but I certainly see no evidence of him being anti semitic. Of course he's Anti-Semitic.
The Jewish Council said so, and if you dare disagree with them you are anti-semitic.
PS: I don't really agree with those sentiments, but that is exactly how your post will be rebutted by some.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 16 2015, 08:29 PM
Post #709
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 07:13 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 01:22 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 01:04 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Being receptive as I know you to be, its not all right! You know what you are told, I know what I observe. Huge difference .......... and I do think the earlier advice you were given 'to think first of your own offspring, and theirs' is very sound advice.
I am disappointed that YOU think that I am "unthinking" I am not sure what you really mean by that but I can assure you that I give a great deal of thought to what I post on here and to how I act in life, that is why I am an independent man, happily married with two good lads and have never been out of work in my life...another 3 years and I will, if it so pleases me, be able to give more thought to your vaccuous comments where other posters are concerned. top tip, never attack the poster but by all means attack what they post and give a credible reason why you may disagree, that way it becomes civilised and much easier to understand people. Please accept my apology. I assure you my comment was more tongue-in-cheek than bearing malice or disrespect .... an attempt at humour of sorts. However; you do present quite a lot of Daily Mail thinking on some topics, and that isn't really clever. It is why I said you think what you are told to think - much of which is propaganda, political propaganda. Honestly; I am not bigoted in regards to Conservatism or Conservatives, I have been one, and more than a few of my family still are ...... and I love them. My gripe is with Thatcherism, and this was adequately demonstrated in a link Steve put up on another thread.... it revealed that the rich got richer under Thatcher, a lot richer in terms of percentage increase in earnings. I'll add to this that the top earners seeing their income rise faster by more than four times as much as the bottom earners isn't the whole story ........ an increase of 1% pa on a wage of £10k pa, is a lot less than 4% of an £100k salary -= £3,900 pa increase MORE. She made wealthy people very wealthy, poor people poorer ... and that ideology persists.
Edited by Affa, Aug 16 2015, 08:31 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 16 2015, 08:38 PM
Post #710
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 16 2015, 05:09 PM
I will say that nationalised BT was as classic a case of complete mismanagement as you could ever see. A buggers muddle where customers came last on the priorities and one we were only rescued from by privatisation.
BT acted as it because it was a monopoly and the government managing it needed it to be profitable ...... and allowed BT to be very lax in dealings with customers. The advent of mobile technology was the death nell to BT, an end to its bad ways regardless of whether privatised or not - competition was its demise as we new it - privatisation needless!
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Aug 16 2015, 08:38 PM
Post #711
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 08:29 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 07:13 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 01:22 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I am disappointed that YOU think that I am "unthinking" I am not sure what you really mean by that but I can assure you that I give a great deal of thought to what I post on here and to how I act in life, that is why I am an independent man, happily married with two good lads and have never been out of work in my life...another 3 years and I will, if it so pleases me, be able to give more thought to your vaccuous comments where other posters are concerned. top tip, never attack the poster but by all means attack what they post and give a credible reason why you may disagree, that way it becomes civilised and much easier to understand people.
Please accept my apology. I assure you my comment was more tongue-in-cheek than bearing malice or disrespect .... an attempt at humour of sorts. However; you do present quite a lot of Daily Mail thinking on some topics, and that isn't really clever. It is why I said you think what you are told to think - much of which is propaganda, political propaganda. Honestly; I am not bigoted in regards to Conservatism or Conservatives, I have been one, and more than a few of my family still are ...... and I love them. My gripe is with Thatcherism, and this was adequately demonstrated in a link Steve put up on another thread.... it revealed that the rich got richer under Thatcher, a lot richer in terms of percentage increase in earnings. I'll add to this that the top earners seeing their income rise faster by more than four times as much as the bottom earners isn't the whole story ........ an increase of 1% pa on a wage of £10k pa, is a lot less than 4% of an £100k salary -= £3,900 pa increase MORE. She made wealthy people very wealthy, poor people poorer ... and that ideology persists. What about the majority in between Affa ? I would not agree with your statement that she made a lot a lot poorer or the rich richer. ? Where did you get that from. Today everyone is a lot richer than they were 30 or 40 years back ,and that is just evolutionary change taking place continuously.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 16 2015, 08:39 PM
Post #712
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 08:29 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 07:13 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 01:22 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I am disappointed that YOU think that I am "unthinking" I am not sure what you really mean by that but I can assure you that I give a great deal of thought to what I post on here and to how I act in life, that is why I am an independent man, happily married with two good lads and have never been out of work in my life...another 3 years and I will, if it so pleases me, be able to give more thought to your vaccuous comments where other posters are concerned. top tip, never attack the poster but by all means attack what they post and give a credible reason why you may disagree, that way it becomes civilised and much easier to understand people.
Please accept my apology. I assure you my comment was more tongue-in-cheek than bearing malice or disrespect .... an attempt at humour of sorts. However; you do present quite a lot of Daily Mail thinking on some topics, and that isn't really clever. It is why I said you think what you are told to think - much of which is propaganda, political propaganda. Honestly; I am not bigoted in regards to Conservatism or Conservatives, I have been one, and more than a few of my family still are ...... and I love them. My gripe is with Thatcherism, and this was adequately demonstrated in a link Steve put up on another thread.... it revealed that the rich got richer under Thatcher, a lot richer in terms of percentage increase in earnings. I'll add to this that the top earners seeing their income rise faster by more than four times as much as the bottom earners isn't the whole story ........ an increase of 1% pa on a wage of £10k pa, is a lot less than 4% of an £100k salary -= £3,900 pa increase MORE. She made wealthy people very wealthy, poor people poorer ... and that ideology persists. Thank you for your openess and honesty, however,
I still cannot understand why people are bothered with other peoples wealth, it means absolutely zilch to me, I am not wealthy or as some like to wrongly say "rich", FFS, what does it matter as long as you have food on the table and a roof over your head, how much more could you eat or drink if you were a multi millionaire? how much more sleep would you need, would you like to sit at home all day counting your money and not spending it because you love it and it is your god?
No, Affa, I see no inequality in life, but I do see lack of effort in striving to make ones life better by bending ones back as opposed to expecting someone else to carry your weight.
I do not expect ANYONE to agree with my view, but there it is, I rely on no one, and if it goes tits up then I have only myself to blame.
BTW, I would not read the daily Mail if you gave me a years free subscription.
Edited by Rich, Aug 16 2015, 08:41 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 16 2015, 09:04 PM
Post #713
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 08:38 PM
- Steve K
- Aug 16 2015, 05:09 PM
I will say that nationalised BT was as classic a case of complete mismanagement as you could ever see. A buggers muddle where customers came last on the priorities and one we were only rescued from by privatisation.
BT acted as it because it was a monopoly and the government managing it needed it to be profitable ...... and allowed BT to be very lax in dealings with customers. The advent of mobile technology was the death nell to BT, an end to its bad ways regardless of whether privatised or not - competition was its demise as we new it - privatisation needless! SSSHHHH, (don't tell Sid)
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Aug 16 2015, 09:18 PM
Post #714
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 08:39 PM
I am not wealthy or as some like to wrongly say "rich", FFS, what does it matter as long as you have food on the table and a roof over your head, how much more could you eat or drink if you were a multi millionaire? how much more sleep would you need, would you like to sit at home all day counting your money and not spending it because you love it and it is your god? BTW, I would not read the daily Mail if you gave me a years free subscription. I would be very annoyed if any of my six sons had said that to me, it would indicate a lack of drive and ambition, and in an ever more competitive world that would spell very poor prospects and a life of making do and accepting your lot, giving up in other words..........
And if you have more that you can eat, spend or use, help others with it. Perhaps now you can see why I am not inclined to Conservatism.......
Edited by Tigger, Aug 16 2015, 09:19 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 16 2015, 09:32 PM
Post #715
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 09:04 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 08:38 PM
- Steve K
- Aug 16 2015, 05:09 PM
I will say that nationalised BT was as classic a case of complete mismanagement as you could ever see. A buggers muddle where customers came last on the priorities and one we were only rescued from by privatisation.
BT acted as it because it was a monopoly and the government managing it needed it to be profitable ...... and allowed BT to be very lax in dealings with customers. The advent of mobile technology was the death nell to BT, an end to its bad ways regardless of whether privatised or not - competition was its demise as we new it - privatisation needless!
SSSHHHH, (don't tell Sid)
Wasn't he Gas privatisation though?
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 16 2015, 09:35 PM
Post #716
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 08:39 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 08:29 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 07:13 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Please accept my apology. I assure you my comment was more tongue-in-cheek than bearing malice or disrespect .... an attempt at humour of sorts. However; you do present quite a lot of Daily Mail thinking on some topics, and that isn't really clever. It is why I said you think what you are told to think - much of which is propaganda, political propaganda. Honestly; I am not bigoted in regards to Conservatism or Conservatives, I have been one, and more than a few of my family still are ...... and I love them. My gripe is with Thatcherism, and this was adequately demonstrated in a link Steve put up on another thread.... it revealed that the rich got richer under Thatcher, a lot richer in terms of percentage increase in earnings. I'll add to this that the top earners seeing their income rise faster by more than four times as much as the bottom earners isn't the whole story ........ an increase of 1% pa on a wage of £10k pa, is a lot less than 4% of an £100k salary -= £3,900 pa increase MORE. She made wealthy people very wealthy, poor people poorer ... and that ideology persists.
Thank you for your openess and honesty, however, I still cannot understand why people are bothered with other peoples wealth, it means absolutely zilch to me, I am not wealthy or as some like to wrongly say "rich", FFS, what does it matter as long as you have food on the table and a roof over your head, how much more could you eat or drink if you were a multi millionaire? how much more sleep would you need, would you like to sit at home all day counting your money and not spending it because you love it and it is your god? No, Affa, I see no inequality in life, but I do see lack of effort in striving to make ones life better by bending ones back as opposed to expecting someone else to carry your weight. I do not expect ANYONE to agree with my view, but there it is, I rely on no one, and if it goes tits up then I have only myself to blame. BTW, I would not read the daily Mail if you gave me a years free subscription.
I don't imagine there are very many of the top earners having to bend their back very much - unless it is in some high class bordello, and likely not even then. Do you?
You must pick up the D Mail content reading RJD here.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Aug 16 2015, 09:44 PM
Post #717
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 16 2015, 09:32 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 09:04 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 08:38 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
SSSHHHH, (don't tell Sid) Wasn't he Gas privatisation though? Yes, and how we laughed when Cedric Brown CEO of BG voted himself a 800% pay increase at the heigh of the 90's recession!
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 16 2015, 09:46 PM
Post #718
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 16 2015, 09:32 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 09:04 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 08:38 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
SSSHHHH, (don't tell Sid) Wasn't he Gas privatisation though? Yes, I did not infer otherwise I was merely making a subtle comparison.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 16 2015, 09:48 PM
Post #719
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Aug 16 2015, 09:44 PM
Yes, and how we laughed when Cedric Brown CEO of BG voted himself a 800% pay increase at the heigh of the 90's recession! Well you have to pay the going rate (set by the all-powerful, quasi-mythical Market) or people of his calibre just up sticks and go to another country.
Oh, how much better this country would be if they actually did it, rather than just bitching that they will do it unless we kiss their arses.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 16 2015, 09:51 PM
Post #720
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 09:35 PM
- Rich
- Aug 16 2015, 08:39 PM
- Affa
- Aug 16 2015, 08:29 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Thank you for your openess and honesty, however, I still cannot understand why people are bothered with other peoples wealth, it means absolutely zilch to me, I am not wealthy or as some like to wrongly say "rich", FFS, what does it matter as long as you have food on the table and a roof over your head, how much more could you eat or drink if you were a multi millionaire? how much more sleep would you need, would you like to sit at home all day counting your money and not spending it because you love it and it is your god? No, Affa, I see no inequality in life, but I do see lack of effort in striving to make ones life better by bending ones back as opposed to expecting someone else to carry your weight. I do not expect ANYONE to agree with my view, but there it is, I rely on no one, and if it goes tits up then I have only myself to blame. BTW, I would not read the daily Mail if you gave me a years free subscription.
I don't imagine there are very many of the top earners having to bend their back very much - unless it is in some high class bordello, and likely not even then. Do you? You must pick up the D Mail content reading RJD here. I am my own man Affa, I speak as I find as my wife will tell, she thinks that I have no diplomacy in me, I think differently, best to say it as you see it and take the flak, it has done me no harm as name calling cannot hurt me.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|