|
Replies:
|
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 26 2015, 09:39 AM
Post #1041
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 26 2015, 09:16 AM
He is not a Labour supporter, that's why he can't vote. - Quote:
-
In recent years, he has "flirted" with various left-wing parties, including George Galloway's Respect, and he voted for the Green Party in the last general election. But in the local elections this year, he spoiled his ballot paper. "I've never subscribed to the lesser-evil-ism of modern politics," he explains. "Growing up in Wales, it was Labour, Labour, Labour. But [since] its move rightwards and embrace of the markets, Labour doesn't speak for me." http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/06/union-serwotka-interview This misses the point entirely, as I suspect you well know, that the reason Labour no longer speaks for, or to, these people is because Labour is now Tory-Lite.
With a leadership candidate standing whose avowed intention is to return Labour to its left of centre roots it is inevitable these people will want to return to Labour to support that candidate's leadership run.
Its not that these people aren't "Labour Supporters", its that there wasn't a genuine Labour party for them to support.
But you didn't answer my question.
If it is OK for Labour to do this now, why isn't it OK for the incumbent party at the next general election to do the same?
I suspect you didn't answer because you knew to do so would tie you up in a contradictory position.
What Labour, and seemingly yourself, are suggesting is that its OK to vote as long you don't want to vote for change; because if you do your vote will be rejected.
Which kind of negates the whole point of voting, don't you think?
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:03 AM
Post #1042
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
Surely the crux of the problem for Labour is not whether they are Tory Lite or not given that the electorate, in the vote that reall matters, voted for Tory Heavy.
Just because that happens doesn't mean I am happy about it but IT HAPPENED. I really struggle to understand how some people seem to think that what the labour party need is to shift to the left
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:43 AM
Post #1043
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Aug 26 2015, 10:03 AM
Just because that happens doesn't mean I am happy about it but IT HAPPENED. I really struggle to understand how some people seem to think that what the labour party need is to shift to the left Well, it's like this from my point of view.
Why didn't I vote Labour at the last GE - because the were too Tory-Lite, too Blairite and still refusing to take responsibility for some of the issues they caused.
I hate that the Tories got in on their own.
But I will not vote "tactically", I vote with my conscience and my principles; and I just couldn't bring myself to vote Labour.
My natural political leanings are, in the main, left of centre; and there was no left of centre party to vote for.
If I can't find a major party to vote for my "go to" position is to vote for the independent - because one of my major issues with party system is that the whips create a significant democratic deficit, and you don't have that problem with independents.
Now until this last couple of years or so I have always been lucky enough to find an independent to vote for when I haven't been able to vote for one of the major players. This time round the independent candidate dropped out about 5 weeks before the elections. So I had no "go to" position. So I voted on a point of principle regarding what I feel to be the major political issue of current times - immigration, and that meant voting for the only party willing to do what is necessary to deal with that issue - UKIP.
I have NEVER cast a vote "on a whim", I have always thought long and hard about where to vote.
As to the "shift to the left" thing. Many people registered to vote for Corbyn precisely because they want a shift to the left. Some of these people may never have voted before precisely because there had never been a LoC party to vote for.
The Tories got in becuase Labour were not credible enough, and some of that credibility was lacking precisely because Labour are, traditionally, LoC and had abandoned that area of politics.
Why vote for a party that can't even remain true to its own founding principles? Would you really expect them to be committed to their manifesto pledges if they can't be committed to core principles?
People talk about how great Blair was, he honestly wasn't. He was great only by comparison to the abject lack of greatness within the political sphere at the time.
Ed Miliband could have led Labour to Blair's first two election victories - that's how much the Tories were loathed and seen as not credible.
And because of Labour's current lack of credibility Cameron (who if we are being honest hadn't had a great election campaign) was able to lead the Tories to victory.
So what makes a party credible?
Holding to positions of principle - and NuLab showed many times it had no principles it wasn't willing to sell.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:54 AM
Post #1044
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 25 2015, 06:22 PM
- Quote:
-
Even if the clever-clever analysis is right, and Mr Corbyn lulls Tories out of their discipline while captaining a revolution, this does not account for the damage done to Labour. The mere act of choosing the most extreme leader in its history might be impossible to live down. He can resign immediately on September 12 but the harm to Labour’s good name will still be measured in years. For a generation of swing voters, Labour will always be the party that elected “that guy”, and only ever one rush of blood to the head away from another folly. Anyone who thinks the election of Mr Corbyn is anything but a huge net benefit to the Conservatives is trying very, very hard to be interesting. The enemy of sound political judgment is the desire for distinctiveness. Commentators sometimes parse straightforward events for surprising nuances or daring new angles because it makes for good copy. But it is better to be right than original. No, a Corbynite Labour party will not cause trouble for the Tories. Mr Cameron will not find him a confounding adversary across the parliamentary dispatch box. Demonstrations will not shake the government. They will not even shake the streets they are held on. Politics will not be reinvented. Mr Corbyn is not “on to something” with his critique of capitalism and western foreign policy. This is a passing commotion whose principal victims are the millions of low-paid Britons who need a serious party of the centre-left.
Source FT - J Ganesh Isn't that the truth of the situation? Tis election,. if Corbyn is elected ,shows a mind-set of the Labour party in general and its supporters in particular. That runs against ambitions and aspirations, and middle ground attitudes of the majority of voters. Extremism, and Corbyn is extreme in his views always fixes itself in the minds of people, and generates opposition to it, and that will remain for many years to come, and will damage the election chances of the Labour party for many years to come.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Aug 26 2015, 11:22 AM
Post #1045
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 26 2015, 10:43 AM
- ACH1967
- Aug 26 2015, 10:03 AM
Just because that happens doesn't mean I am happy about it but IT HAPPENED. I really struggle to understand how some people seem to think that what the labour party need is to shift to the left
Well, it's like this from my point of view. Why didn't I vote Labour at the last GE - because the were too Tory-Lite, too Blairite and still refusing to take responsibility for some of the issues they caused. I hate that the Tories got in on their own. But I will not vote "tactically", I vote with my conscience and my principles; and I just couldn't bring myself to vote Labour. My natural political leanings are, in the main, left of centre; and there was no left of centre party to vote for. If I can't find a major party to vote for my "go to" position is to vote for the independent - because one of my major issues with party system is that the whips create a significant democratic deficit, and you don't have that problem with independents. Now until this last couple of years or so I have always been lucky enough to find an independent to vote for when I haven't been able to vote for one of the major players. This time round the independent candidate dropped out about 5 weeks before the elections. So I had no "go to" position. So I voted on a point of principle regarding what I feel to be the major political issue of current times - immigration, and that meant voting for the only party willing to do what is necessary to deal with that issue - UKIP. I have NEVER cast a vote "on a whim", I have always thought long and hard about where to vote. As to the "shift to the left" thing. Many people registered to vote for Corbyn precisely because they want a shift to the left. Some of these people may never have voted before precisely because there had never been a LoC party to vote for. The Tories got in becuase Labour were not credible enough, and some of that credibility was lacking precisely because Labour are, traditionally, LoC and had abandoned that area of politics. Why vote for a party that can't even remain true to its own founding principles? Would you really expect them to be committed to their manifesto pledges if they can't be committed to core principles? People talk about how great Blair was, he honestly wasn't. He was great only by comparison to the abject lack of greatness within the political sphere at the time. Ed Miliband could have led Labour to Blair's first two election victories - that's how much the Tories were loathed and seen as not credible. And because of Labour's current lack of credibility Cameron (who if we are being honest hadn't had a great election campaign) was able to lead the Tories to victory. So what makes a party credible? Holding to positions of principle - and NuLab showed many times it had no principles it wasn't willing to sell. All The Best Fair enough. Basically the question is whether or not a shift to the left will make Labour more or less electable. Isn't it true that the Lib Dems are further to the left than labour and got creamed (obviously there are other mitigating factors at play.)
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Aug 26 2015, 11:24 AM
Post #1046
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Aug 26 2015, 10:54 AM
- RJD
- Aug 25 2015, 06:22 PM
- Quote:
-
Even if the clever-clever analysis is right, and Mr Corbyn lulls Tories out of their discipline while captaining a revolution, this does not account for the damage done to Labour. The mere act of choosing the most extreme leader in its history might be impossible to live down. He can resign immediately on September 12 but the harm to Labour’s good name will still be measured in years. For a generation of swing voters, Labour will always be the party that elected “that guy”, and only ever one rush of blood to the head away from another folly. Anyone who thinks the election of Mr Corbyn is anything but a huge net benefit to the Conservatives is trying very, very hard to be interesting. The enemy of sound political judgment is the desire for distinctiveness. Commentators sometimes parse straightforward events for surprising nuances or daring new angles because it makes for good copy. But it is better to be right than original. No, a Corbynite Labour party will not cause trouble for the Tories. Mr Cameron will not find him a confounding adversary across the parliamentary dispatch box. Demonstrations will not shake the government. They will not even shake the streets they are held on. Politics will not be reinvented. Mr Corbyn is not “on to something” with his critique of capitalism and western foreign policy. This is a passing commotion whose principal victims are the millions of low-paid Britons who need a serious party of the centre-left.
Source FT - J Ganesh Isn't that the truth of the situation?
Tis election,. if Corbyn is elected ,shows a mind-set of the Labour party in general and its supporters in particular. That runs against ambitions and aspirations, and middle ground attitudes of the majority of voters. Extremism, and Corbyn is extreme in his views always fixes itself in the minds of people, and generates opposition to it, and that will remain for many years to come, and will damage the election chances of the Labour party for many years to come. I find accusations of Corbyn being extreme as silly. He's further to the left but hardly extreme. Calling him a lefty dinosaur is probably more accurate. As to RJD's comments I do not think a Corbin leader of the Labour party is particularly good for the Tories either. Without a credible opposition the Tories could well get themselves into a right mess over Europe and loose discipline in general which is bad for everyone.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 26 2015, 12:56 PM
Post #1047
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 26 2015, 09:39 AM
- Steve K
- Aug 26 2015, 09:16 AM
He is not a Labour supporter, that's why he can't vote. - Quote:
-
In recent years, he has "flirted" with various left-wing parties, including George Galloway's Respect, and he voted for the Green Party in the last general election. But in the local elections this year, he spoiled his ballot paper. "I've never subscribed to the lesser-evil-ism of modern politics," he explains. "Growing up in Wales, it was Labour, Labour, Labour. But [since] its move rightwards and embrace of the markets, Labour doesn't speak for me." http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/06/union-serwotka-interview
This misses the point entirely, as I suspect you well know, that the reason Labour no longer speaks for, or to, these people is because Labour is now Tory-Lite. With a leadership candidate standing whose avowed intention is to return Labour to its left of centre roots it is inevitable these people will want to return to Labour to support that candidate's leadership run. Its not that these people aren't "Labour Supporters", its that there wasn't a genuine Labour party for them to support. But you didn't answer my question. If it is OK for Labour to do this now, why isn't it OK for the incumbent party at the next general election to do the same? I suspect you didn't answer because you knew to do so would tie you up in a contradictory position. What Labour, and seemingly yourself, are suggesting is that its OK to vote as long you don't want to vote for change; because if you do your vote will be rejected. Which kind of negates the whole point of voting, don't you think? All The Best Successful Labour is an inclusive party, that's something that left-wingers don't like. They appear to favour the position of almost permanent opposition where they are as much use to the people at the lower end of the economic pile as Thatcher was.
The last thing the UK needs is to strengthen the left 'V' right divisions, perhaps better understood as the destructive -- them and us -- mind set.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 26 2015, 01:04 PM
Post #1048
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 12:56 PM
classes requires The last thing the UK needs is to strengthen the left 'V' right divisions, perhaps better understood as the destructive -- them and us -- mind set.
The only reason that there is a swing to the left is because the pendulum has gone too far to the right. We get the sort of opposition that this Establishment assault on the working classes require in order to rediscover the true meaning of democracy and government - for the people.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 26 2015, 01:05 PM
Post #1049
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Aug 26 2015, 11:24 AM
- Tytoalba
- Aug 26 2015, 10:54 AM
- RJD
- Aug 25 2015, 06:22 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepLabour will always be the party that elected “that guy”, and only ever one rush of blood to the head away from another folly. Anyone who thinks the election of Mr Corbyn is anything but a huge net benefit to the Conservatives is trying very, very hard to be interesting. The enemy of sound political judgment is the desire for distinctiveness. Commentators sometimes parse straightforward events for surprising nuances or daring new angles because it makes for good copy. But it is better to be right than original. No, a Corbynite Labour party will not cause trouble for the Tories. Mr Cameron will not find him a confounding adversary across the parliamentary dispatch box. Demonstrations will not shake the government. They will not even shake the streets they are held on. Politics will not be reinvented. Mr Corbyn is not “on to something” with his critique of capitalism and western foreign policy. This is a passing commotion whose principal victims are the millions of low-paid Britons who need a serious party of the centre-left
Tis election,. if Corbyn is elected ,shows a mind-set of the Labour party in general and its supporters in particular. That runs against ambitions and aspirations, and middle ground attitudes of the majority of voters. Extremism, and Corbyn is extreme in his views always fixes itself in the minds of people, and generates opposition to it, and that will remain for many years to come, and will damage the election chances of the Labour party for many years to come.
I find accusations of Corbyn being extreme as silly. He's further to the left but hardly extreme. Calling him a lefty dinosaur is probably more accurate. As to RJD's comments I do not think a Corbin leader of the Labour party is particularly good for the Tories either. Without a credible opposition the Tories could well get themselves into a right mess over Europe and loose discipline in general which is bad for everyone. I agree that Corbyn is hardly an extremist, he is however a left-winger. I would argue against both a left-wing or a right-wing government, IMO both would end up damaging society because they would be too pre-occupied with their own political ideologies.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 26 2015, 01:12 PM
Post #1050
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 26 2015, 01:04 PM
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 12:56 PM
classes requires The last thing the UK needs is to strengthen the left 'V' right divisions, perhaps better understood as the destructive -- them and us -- mind set.
The only reason that there is a swing to the left is because the pendulum has gone too far to the right. We get the sort of opposition that this Establishment assault on the working classes require in order to rediscover the true meaning of democracy and government - for the people. It is one thing to state ones opposition to Tory policies, but to do anything about those policies one has to be electable. The history of the Corbyn type approach has been to give the Tories almost total domination in parliament. IMO, attacking Tory domination and getting Labour elected is more important than making a left-wing statement.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 26 2015, 01:15 PM
Post #1051
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 26 2015, 09:39 AM
- Steve K
- Aug 26 2015, 09:16 AM
He is not a Labour supporter, that's why he can't vote. - Quote:
-
In recent years, he has "flirted" with various left-wing parties, including George Galloway's Respect, and he voted for the Green Party in the last general election. But in the local elections this year, he spoiled his ballot paper. "I've never subscribed to the lesser-evil-ism of modern politics," he explains. "Growing up in Wales, it was Labour, Labour, Labour. But [since] its move rightwards and embrace of the markets, Labour doesn't speak for me." http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/06/union-serwotka-interview
This misses the point entirely, as I suspect you well know, that the reason Labour no longer speaks for, or to, these people is because Labour is now Tory-Lite. With a leadership candidate standing whose avowed intention is to return Labour to its left of centre roots it is inevitable these people will want to return to Labour to support that candidate's leadership run. Its not that these people aren't "Labour Supporters", its that there wasn't a genuine Labour party for them to support. But you didn't answer my question. If it is OK for Labour to do this now, why isn't it OK for the incumbent party at the next general election to do the same? I suspect you didn't answer because you knew to do so would tie you up in a contradictory position. What Labour, and seemingly yourself, are suggesting is that its OK to vote as long you don't want to vote for change; because if you do your vote will be rejected. Which kind of negates the whole point of voting, don't you think? All The Best I really didn't think your question was a serious one
You have a completely different view of what a political party is. Most see them as broad churches where the party members collectively evolve their policies usually guided by those they have elected as their leaders and then until the next policy iteration they stand together on the platform they have.
You seem to want an "I'm only a supporter when they agree with ME" approach. That is not a party, it's a single view and someone such would not qualify to vote under the Labour leadership election rules. I'm sure you'd like those rules to be different.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 26 2015, 01:47 PM
Post #1052
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 12:56 PM
Successful Labour is an inclusive party, that's something that left-wingers don't like. They appear to favour the position of almost permanent opposition where they are as much use to the people at the lower end of the economic pile as Thatcher was.
The last thing the UK needs is to strengthen the left 'V' right divisions, perhaps better understood as the destructive -- them and us -- mind set.
Except that to become successful NuLab all but excluded the very people it was founded to help.
I have no problem at all with a "more inclusive" Labour; but it needs to be one that doesn't abandon / exclude the working class.
And history will show that NuLab's immigration policies did more harm to the working class of Britain than Thatcher ever did.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 26 2015, 03:59 PM
Post #1053
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 26 2015, 01:47 PM
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 12:56 PM
Successful Labour is an inclusive party, that's something that left-wingers don't like. They appear to favour the position of almost permanent opposition where they are as much use to the people at the lower end of the economic pile as Thatcher was.
The last thing the UK needs is to strengthen the left 'V' right divisions, perhaps better understood as the destructive -- them and us -- mind set.
Except that to become successful NuLab all but excluded the very people it was founded to help. I have no problem at all with a "more inclusive" Labour; but it needs to be one that doesn't abandon / exclude the working class. And history will show that NuLab's immigration policies did more harm to the working class of Britain than Thatcher ever did. All The Best No they didn't, they were controlled to a large extent by the established economy, an economy that appeared to be working very well. NL took the path of redistributing wealth to people at the lower end of the financial pile and in setting up Quangos helping people to start-up businesses. There were other things that benefitted society for everyone but of course you know all this. You are just miffed because NL didn't actually take you personally by the hand and look after you.
Minimum wage, working tax credits, increased child allowance, winter fuel allowance, investment in the NHS and schools. THIS is your idea of excluding the working class ?
NL had one single judgement on immigration that you disagree with. Not only was it NOT AN ONGOING POLICY, but any action taken would have had very little effect on the overall numbers over a longer period of time, all down to EU regulations. But it does give you an opportunity to ignore the full picture and have a big whine about something. Thatcher? unemployment over 2 up to 4 million people. Millions thrown out of skilled and semi-skilled jobs onto the low paid jobs. And that is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the damage she did to working people. Even on immigration, the number of Muslims alone doubled during that Tory period.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 26 2015, 05:17 PM
Post #1054
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- disgruntled porker
- Aug 26 2015, 07:47 AM
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 01:32 PM
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 01:14 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Why? How did you jump to that conclusion? Greenspan and Brown could have opted for sound money, reduced the rate of money supply and tightened up on regulations that controlled risks and demanded much greater product transparency. They chose to do the opposite and claiming that the Tories and/or the Republicans were supportive is no argument against the fact that they, Brown and Greenspan, were in Gov. and made the wrong choices. Had those with the responsibility made the right choices then the World today would be a much securer place. As the IMF pointed out the era of cheap money and lax credit ended up overheating our economy as well as placing us in the worst position to absorb the downturn of any G20 country. There is a reason for Brown's voluntary purdah and removal from public life, he knows that we all know he made wrong choices. Time you did!
I don't think anyone would argue that wrong choices were made. Easy to say with hindsight. If I remember correctly, at the time, you were all for even less regulation by the "nanny state". You argued strongly at the time that govnt should not interfere in the private sector and let the market decide. Am I right? If so, then you would have been wrong too. Is that possible? Try putting yourself in Brown's boots. Would you have done the same, or even have made a worse call? Does this not explain to some extent why he did what he did? I'm not talking exoneration here, just a level of understanding rather than utter condemnation. Rubbish I was not posting here in that period. You are wrong, totally wrong and seek to make up things to suit your imagination. I am for well regulated capitalism to provide the most benefit for the majority and sound money which means I am no fan of QE and/or cheap money and lax credit. I believe the Banks required greater regulation and deposit ratios should be much higher than those that existed under Gordon Brown. I held these opinions prior to 1997. That said I am no fan of the public sector doing anything that could and should be undertaken by the profit motive based private sector. No I do not wish to privatise armed forces or the police, but I am shocked at the stupidity of those that believe nationalisation of industry would be beneficial to Joe Public. I am all for higher net disposable incomes, but this should be obtained as far as possible via increasing the added value of that which we sell abroad and wages should not be held down by allowing a continued over supply of labour via open-door immigration. You will be also surprised to learn that I am no fan of continued house price escalation, it makes no sense that the cost of a sq.m of accommodation should increase in real terms, here I wish to see the rate of house building increases dramatically as the problem lies, like most things, in supply/demand. No I am no idiot Socialist, I have seen what happens when we let idiot politicians make decisions. I believe in the market with as far as possible individual choice coupled with a free Press. I am also no fan of any Gov. encouraging individuals, via bribes, to take on long term financial commitments that they may not be able, eventually to afford. As a consequence I believe that the State should more strongly regulate mortgage loans, increase the deposit ratio, make money more expensive, institute the Golden Rule, abandon QE and run the State on a very balanced budget where there should be zero borrowings to finance current consumption. As for PFI only if the Financing Costs are no more than one or two percentage points maximum over the rates that the State can borrow and hence finance such projects and the actual costs of that provided are judged as fair to good value for Taxpayers. As for interest rates on money loaned to individuals I would cap this to 7.5% to 10% above the Bank Rate. I would kill off the legal Loan Shark business and limit the manoeuvrability of Banks to spread Credit Card risks across all users. Yep such actions would probably have an effect on growth rates, but it would also reduce risks to business and individuals. Face the truth Northern Wreck was out of control, it was reckless and the Gov. of the day was looking in the wrong direction. Whilst we are at it I pleased to see that this Gov. is slowly moving in the direction of my desires, pity it is at a snail's pace, however, that is an improvement on Brown's recklessness.
No I am no lover of free for all capitalism.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 26 2015, 05:25 PM
Post #1055
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 03:59 PM
1) Thatcher? unemployment over 2 up to 4 million people. Millions thrown out of skilled and semi-skilled jobs onto the low paid jobs. 2) NL had one single judgement on immigration that you disagree with.
1) Nu Lab's legacy: 1.8 Million unemployed Brits, and coincidentally 1.8 Million immigrant workers.
A huge boom of Zero Hour contracts - that not only pay NMW, but also exclude people from top-ups as well.
5% of the working age population stuck with NMW jobs; that has doubled from the 2.5% of workers on NMW when it was introduced. A further 5% of the working age population are working for 50p over NMW or less. And people on NMW stay trapped on it, with no pay increase, far longer than those whose base wage in above NMW - meaning that some jobs are just not seeing any significant increase in wages, most likely due to a massive influx of unskilled and semi skilled labour.
Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/number-workers-minimum-wage-doubled-4355480
A race to the bottom in terms of wages, as jobs affected by the influx of cheap labour see wages undermined and terms and conditions eroded.
Whole towns becoming "balkanised" immigrant areas, where Brits often don't even get a look-in when new jobs are up for grabs.
Not to mention the massive increases in cost of living that adding 8 million people to a contracting economy brings.
Thatcher ruined some areas of the working class for 2 or 3 generations. NuLab has ruined whole swathes of the working class permanently. Thatcher wishes she could have done this much damage to the working class.
2) Yes, and it is probably the most momentous decision they made, that will see generations of school-leavers scrabbling to make a living off NMW jobs.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 26 2015, 05:27 PM
Post #1056
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 03:59 PM
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 26 2015, 01:47 PM
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 12:56 PM
Successful Labour is an inclusive party, that's something that left-wingers don't like. They appear to favour the position of almost permanent opposition where they are as much use to the people at the lower end of the economic pile as Thatcher was.
The last thing the UK needs is to strengthen the left 'V' right divisions, perhaps better understood as the destructive -- them and us -- mind set.
Except that to become successful NuLab all but excluded the very people it was founded to help. I have no problem at all with a "more inclusive" Labour; but it needs to be one that doesn't abandon / exclude the working class. And history will show that NuLab's immigration policies did more harm to the working class of Britain than Thatcher ever did. All The Best
No they didn't, they were controlled to a large extent by the established economy, an economy that appeared to be working very well. NL took the path of redistributing wealth to people at the lower end of the financial pile and in setting up Quangos helping people to start-up businesses. There were other things that benefitted society for everyone but of course you know all this. You are just miffed because NL didn't actually take you personally by the hand and look after you. Minimum wage, working tax credits, increased child allowance, winter fuel allowance, investment in the NHS and schools. THIS is your idea of excluding the working class ? NL had one single judgement on immigration that you disagree with. Not only was it NOT AN ONGOING POLICY, but any action taken would have had very little effect on the overall numbers over a longer period of time, all down to EU regulations. But it does give you an opportunity to ignore the full picture and have a big whine about something. Thatcher? unemployment over 2 up to 4 million people. Millions thrown out of skilled and semi-skilled jobs onto the low paid jobs. And that is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the damage she did to working people. Even on immigration, the number of Muslims alone doubled during that Tory period. Most of the overmanning in the nationalised sector found new jobs. Call it throwing people out of protected work places if you wish, but everyone else calls it market reforms. Manufacturing VA fell under the NL Gov., not the Thatcher Gov. A very unfortunate truth for you. The situation in 1979 wrt to nationalised industries was not longer sustainable. Look a pre and post privatisation productivity rates and be shocked. It is also true that pre 1979 the country was more divided than today and there was much industrial strife encouraged by Trade Union Bosses with political objectives. Thatcher's reforms have been a boon and nobody wants to go back to those appalling times over massive overmanning, poor productivity and ghost workers. Also Labour had demonstrably demonstrated it had run out of ideas as to how these rogues could be tamed and it sticks in every true lefties craw that it took a Tory woman to do the job they lacked the gonads to face up to.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 26 2015, 06:05 PM
Post #1057
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
What have One Direction and Labour got in common? They are both splitting up in October. Source: G Fawkes
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Aug 26 2015, 07:02 PM
Post #1058
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 26 2015, 01:04 PM
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 12:56 PM
classes requires The last thing the UK needs is to strengthen the left 'V' right divisions, perhaps better understood as the destructive -- them and us -- mind set.
The only reason that there is a swing to the left is because the pendulum has gone too far to the right. We get the sort of opposition that this Establishment assault on the working classes require in order to rediscover the true meaning of democracy and government - for the people. I fail to see what other direction Labour can possibly go in, the torys have domination in the centre and right of centre and the country does not need another copycat party of tory lites, sadly UKIP are at present under represented but may come good by 2020, all I see for Labour is left of centre.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Aug 26 2015, 09:50 PM
Post #1059
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 26 2015, 07:37 AM
Tig: Your generation got free education
So did yours. Tig: so no debts to pay out of your wages
Personal choice. Nobody insisted that you went into debt to buy material gadgets.
Tig: housing was affordable because we actually built houses and had cheaper alternatives such as family sized council homes
Some truth, but in absolute terms more people own their homes today that in 1945.
Tig: there were plenty of jobs around and you didn't need a bullshit CV to land one of them
Plenty of none-jobs in the heavily subsidised unproductive nationalised industries. In ~1965, at Crewe Station, I counted 21 BR Workers doing absolutely sod all.
Tig: the safety net was bigger and best of all you had rights at work and nobody could steal your pension or erode your savings with near zero interest rate.
Not true, the welfare safety net was either near none existent or significantly smaller than today. Society was more violent and divided and yes Bullyboy Landlords and Loan Sharks did exist, probably in much greater numbers than today.
Tig: Time to stop arseing around and think of the nations future.......
Yep we need a generation of educated skilled people who can add real value not these dim-shits from bog standard Compos who think that importing a few panels and Quick-fitting them on roofs counts as a business. Where is the value added in that process?
It is true that if you culled all those over 65 years of age and stole the fruits of their labour you would be better off, be able to work even less hard than you do today and when the next conflict comes around you will shout "not my problem". Best strategy would be to export or cull the dim-shits who only excel at whinging and import more of those well educated East Europeans who understand the meaning of the phrase "fair days work for a fair days pay".
*Yawn*
Look I started my working life in the late seventies and it was a hell of a lot easier than it is today end of, only someone unable to admit the truth would say otherwise.
Oh and nice but irrelevant dig at the apparent economic failures of seventies Britain, next you'll be telling us of a messiah who miraculously solved the problem by dumping an additional million people out of work and turning the economy into a game of cards.........
File under overmanning on the cliche carousel....
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:05 PM
Post #1060
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 26 2015, 07:37 AM
Yep we need a generation of educated skilled people who can add real value not these dim-shits from bog standard Compos who think that importing a few panels and Quick-fitting them on roofs counts as a business. Where is the value added in that process?
Well you can't get bricklayers for love nor money, £950 pw is the going rate this month, chippies over a grand, and I dare not tell you what a fully qualified sparks or plumber can command at the moment, and we employ quite of few of those who are out on site on a seemingly permanent basis.
What was that about added value and bog standard compos's........?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:22 PM
Post #1061
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 26 2015, 05:25 PM
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 03:59 PM
1) Thatcher? unemployment over 2 up to 4 million people. Millions thrown out of skilled and semi-skilled jobs onto the low paid jobs. 2) NL had one single judgement on immigration that you disagree with.
1) Nu Lab's legacy: 1.8 Million unemployed Brits, and coincidentally 1.8 Million immigrant workers. A huge boom of Zero Hour contracts - that not only pay NMW, but also exclude people from top-ups as well. 5% of the working age population stuck with NMW jobs; that has doubled from the 2.5% of workers on NMW when it was introduced. A further 5% of the working age population are working for 50p over NMW or less. And people on NMW stay trapped on it, with no pay increase, far longer than those whose base wage in above NMW - meaning that some jobs are just not seeing any significant increase in wages, most likely due to a massive influx of unskilled and semi skilled labour. Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/number-workers-minimum-wage-doubled-4355480A race to the bottom in terms of wages, as jobs affected by the influx of cheap labour see wages undermined and terms and conditions eroded. Whole towns becoming "balkanised" immigrant areas, where Brits often don't even get a look-in when new jobs are up for grabs. Not to mention the massive increases in cost of living that adding 8 million people to a contracting economy brings. Thatcher ruined some areas of the working class for 2 or 3 generations. NuLab has ruined whole swathes of the working class permanently. Thatcher wishes she could have done this much damage to the working class. 2) Yes, and it is probably the most momentous decision they made, that will see generations of school-leavers scrabbling to make a living off NMW jobs. All The Best Unemployment under NL, pre meltdown, was 1.4 million. the lowest it had been since 1980.
Immigration is overwhelmingly a problem caused by EU legislation. Until you get that into your biased skull you will continue to wrongly whinge out your ant-NL garbage.
As far as I'm aware the "boom" in ZHC happened under the coalition after 2010.
The increase in those on NMW will partly be due to the legislation being gradually imposed. That the system might have been abused by bosses does not alter the good intentions behind its introduction. Nor does it cancel out the benefits so many low paid workers felt when it was introduced. To my knowledge Most workers get above the NMW and there is no evidence that I have seen suggesting that those on NMW are strictly limited to the minimum wage.
Your whinging is supported by the POST INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN situation. It is not supported by your continuing whinge against NL.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:30 PM
Post #1062
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Aug 26 2015, 10:05 PM
- RJD
- Aug 26 2015, 07:37 AM
Yep we need a generation of educated skilled people who can add real value not these dim-shits from bog standard Compos who think that importing a few panels and Quick-fitting them on roofs counts as a business. Where is the value added in that process?
Well you can't get bricklayers for love nor money, £950 pw is the going rate this month, chippies over a grand, and I dare not tell you what a fully qualified sparks or plumber can command at the moment, and we employ quite of few of those who are out on site on a seemingly permanent basis. What was that about added value and bog standard compos's........? The tradesmen you mention, with the incomes you mention are hardly likely to support a party led by Corbyn . who wishes to tax the higher earners more. Idealism is one thing, but practical reality sharpens the mind.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:31 PM
Post #1063
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 10:22 PM
Immigration is overwhelmingly a problem caused by EU legislation. Until you get that into your biased skull you will continue to wrongly whinge out your ant-NL garbage. Yes, I know.
Now which party promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, that would have given the UK electorate a say on that issue, and then reneged on it when they saw most other nations reject it, but then allowed it to slip through without a referendum when it was rebranded (but not significantly changed)?
Oh, hang on, that would be NuLab.
So I am very right to be anti-NuLab on that issue, and there is no bias.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:44 PM
Post #1064
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 26 2015, 05:27 PM
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 03:59 PM
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 26 2015, 01:47 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
No they didn't, they were controlled to a large extent by the established economy, an economy that appeared to be working very well. NL took the path of redistributing wealth to people at the lower end of the financial pile and in setting up Quangos helping people to start-up businesses. There were other things that benefitted society for everyone but of course you know all this. You are just miffed because NL didn't actually take you personally by the hand and look after you. Minimum wage, working tax credits, increased child allowance, winter fuel allowance, investment in the NHS and schools. THIS is your idea of excluding the working class ? NL had one single judgement on immigration that you disagree with. Not only was it NOT AN ONGOING POLICY, but any action taken would have had very little effect on the overall numbers over a longer period of time, all down to EU regulations. But it does give you an opportunity to ignore the full picture and have a big whine about something. Thatcher? unemployment over 2 up to 4 million people. Millions thrown out of skilled and semi-skilled jobs onto the low paid jobs. And that is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the damage she did to working people. Even on immigration, the number of Muslims alone doubled during that Tory period.
Most of the overmanning in the nationalised sector found new jobs. Call it throwing people out of protected work places if you wish, but everyone else calls it market reforms. Manufacturing VA fell under the NL Gov., not the Thatcher Gov. A very unfortunate truth for you. The situation in 1979 wrt to nationalised industries was not longer sustainable. Look a pre and post privatisation productivity rates and be shocked. It is also true that pre 1979 the country was more divided than today and there was much industrial strife encouraged by Trade Union Bosses with political objectives. Thatcher's reforms have been a boon and nobody wants to go back to those appalling times over massive overmanning, poor productivity and ghost workers. Also Labour had demonstrably demonstrated it had run out of ideas as to how these rogues could be tamed and it sticks in every true lefties craw that it took a Tory woman to do the job they lacked the gonads to face up to. Let me remind you. Unemployment under the Tories rose from a little over 1 million in 1980 to give the UK 17 years of unemployment figures from over 2m to almost 4m. Plus an increase (1979 to 1997) of around 1.5m claiming Incapacity Benefit. That's what those thrown out of work had to face. Its where the saying MacJobs arose as those people struggled to get any sort of employment.
Your continuing dishonest assessments on VA have been repeatedly rebuffed yet you still persist in trying to deceive people. It's all part of your needy MO.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:51 PM
Post #1065
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 26 2015, 10:31 PM
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 10:22 PM
Immigration is overwhelmingly a problem caused by EU legislation. Until you get that into your biased skull you will continue to wrongly whinge out your ant-NL garbage.
Yes, I know. Now which party promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, that would have given the UK electorate a say on that issue, and then reneged on it when they saw most other nations reject it, but then allowed it to slip through without a referendum when it was rebranded (but not significantly changed)? Oh, hang on, that would be NuLab. So I am very right to be anti-NuLab on that issue, and there is no bias. All The Best To my knowledge there was no promise to have a referendum on the LISBON TREATY.
Not only was the Lisbon Treaty a rebrand it was also a significantly changed document.
No, your bigoted approach to NL ignores all the good NL did, and that shows you to be very biased.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 26 2015, 10:56 PM
Post #1066
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 10:51 PM
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 26 2015, 10:31 PM
- C-too
- Aug 26 2015, 10:22 PM
Immigration is overwhelmingly a problem caused by EU legislation. Until you get that into your biased skull you will continue to wrongly whinge out your ant-NL garbage.
Yes, I know. Now which party promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, that would have given the UK electorate a say on that issue, and then reneged on it when they saw most other nations reject it, but then allowed it to slip through without a referendum when it was rebranded (but not significantly changed)? Oh, hang on, that would be NuLab. So I am very right to be anti-NuLab on that issue, and there is no bias. All The Best
To my knowledge there was no promise to have a referendum on the LISBON TREATY. Not only was the Lisbon Treaty a rebrand it was also a significantly changed document. . . . It was indeed much changed if you live in the UK, Ireland or Poland with loads of paragraphs added to specifically preserve their sovereignties.
The French did not fare as well and that has created a million disingenuously made quotes of a sad ex French PM saying the two documents are the same. For the French they are, for the UK they are not.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Aug 26 2015, 11:13 PM
Post #1067
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Aug 26 2015, 10:30 PM
- Tigger
- Aug 26 2015, 10:05 PM
- RJD
- Aug 26 2015, 07:37 AM
Yep we need a generation of educated skilled people who can add real value not these dim-shits from bog standard Compos who think that importing a few panels and Quick-fitting them on roofs counts as a business. Where is the value added in that process?
Well you can't get bricklayers for love nor money, £950 pw is the going rate this month, chippies over a grand, and I dare not tell you what a fully qualified sparks or plumber can command at the moment, and we employ quite of few of those who are out on site on a seemingly permanent basis. What was that about added value and bog standard compos's........?
The tradesmen you mention, with the incomes you mention are hardly likely to support a party led by Corbyn . who wishes to tax the higher earners more. Idealism is one thing, but practical reality sharpens the mind. How very patronising of you!
These are the same tradesmen who in periods of economic downturn the Tories accuse of being lazy, feckless and scroungers off the state, and yes I've been there and never forgot it.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 27 2015, 07:49 AM
Post #1068
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 26 2015, 06:05 PM
What have One Direction and Labour got in common? They are both splitting up in October. Source: G Fawkes IMO Guido is a smart mouthing immature fool.
|
|
|
| |
|
disgruntled porker
|
Aug 27 2015, 08:55 AM
Post #1069
|
Older than most people think I am.
- Posts:
- 1,945
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
ReJinald said:
- Quote:
-
Rubbish I was not posting here in that period. You are wrong, totally wrong and seek to make up things to suit your imagination.
No, you were posting on the original forum though. I read all of your posts on that forum with relish and formed my opinion accordingly.
ReJinalD said:- Quote:
-
I am for well regulated capitalism to provide the most benefit for the majority and sound money
I'm afraid you give me the impression that capitalism/private companies should be left unfettered by the nanny state, left to perform as market forces dictate.
ReJinalD said:
- Quote:
-
I believe the Banks required greater regulation and deposit ratios should be much higher than those that existed under Gordon Brown. I held these opinions prior to 1997.
That is not how your posts sounded to me at the time. I dare say many others will have the same impression.
ReJinald said:
- Quote:
-
That said I am no fan of the public sector doing anything that could and should be undertaken by the profit motive based private sector.
Which covers just about anything then?
ReJinalD said:
- Quote:
-
No I do not wish to privatise armed forces or the police, but I am shocked at the stupidity of those that believe nationalisation of industry would be beneficial to Joe Public.
I don't think anyone wants ALL industry to be nationalised; just the essential ones which proivide for the good of all.
ReJinalD said:
- Quote:
-
I am all for higher net disposable incomes, but this should be obtained as far as possible via increasing the added value of that which we sell abroad and wages should not be held down by allowing a continued over supply of labour via open-door immigration.
Can't fault that.
ReJinalD said:
- Quote:
-
You will be also surprised to learn that I am no fan of continued house price escalation, it makes no sense that the cost of a sq.m of accommodation should increase in real terms, here I wish to see the rate of house building increases dramatically as the problem lies, like most things, in supply/demand. No I am no idiot Socialist, I have seen what happens when we let idiot politicians make decisions. I believe in the market with as far as possible individual choice coupled with a free Press.
A few contadictions in there don't you think.
ReJinalD said:
- Quote:
-
I am also no fan of any Gov. encouraging individuals, via bribes, to take on long term financial commitments that they may not be able, eventually to afford.
You mean like Thatcher did when she encouraged people to own their own homes and start their own businesses?
ReJinalD said:- Quote:
-
As a consequence I believe that the State should more strongly regulate mortgage loans, increase the deposit ratio, make money more expensive, institute the Golden Rule, abandon QE and run the State on a very balanced budget where there should be zero borrowings to finance current consumption. As for PFI only if the Financing Costs are no more than one or two percentage points maximum over the rates that the State can borrow and hence finance such projects and the actual costs of that provided are judged as fair to good value for Taxpayers. As for interest rates on money loaned to individuals I would cap this to 7.5% to 10% above the Bank Rate. I would kill off the legal Loan Shark business and limit the manoeuvrability of Banks to spread Credit Card risks across all users.
You mean the nanny state should intervene here and regulate those sacred market forces?
ReJinald said:- Quote:
-
No I am no lover of free for all capitalism.
That one must surely be the icing on the cake!
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Aug 27 2015, 09:42 AM
Post #1070
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Aug 26 2015, 11:13 PM
- Tytoalba
- Aug 26 2015, 10:30 PM
- Tigger
- Aug 26 2015, 10:05 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The tradesmen you mention, with the incomes you mention are hardly likely to support a party led by Corbyn . who wishes to tax the higher earners more. Idealism is one thing, but practical reality sharpens the mind.
How very patronising of you! These are the same tradesmen who in periods of economic downturn the Tories accuse of being lazy, feckless and scroungers off the state, and yes I've been there and never forgot it. Your interpretation belies te facts.. Turkeys will not vote for Christmas. As far as am concerned skilled tradesmen the self employed, are worthy of their hire, and if working to contractor on piece work rates will work as hard and as diligently as anyone. My reply to you was based on the figures that you yourself supplied. To be honest I am surprised that someone as wealthy as yourself living in salubrious circumstances are so left wing indoctrinated. I think your the prime example of supporting socialism with other peoples money.. Only an opinion based on your contributions to this board.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Aug 27 2015, 10:12 AM
Post #1071
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Tytoalba
- Aug 27 2015, 09:42 AM
- Tigger
- Aug 26 2015, 11:13 PM
- Tytoalba
- Aug 26 2015, 10:30 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
How very patronising of you! These are the same tradesmen who in periods of economic downturn the Tories accuse of being lazy, feckless and scroungers off the state, and yes I've been there and never forgot it.
Your interpretation belies te facts.. Turkeys will not vote for Christmas. As far as am concerned skilled tradesmen the self employed, are worthy of their hire, and if working to contractor on piece work rates will work as hard and as diligently as anyone. My reply to you was based on the figures that you yourself supplied. To be honest I am surprised that someone as wealthy as yourself living in salubrious circumstances are so left wing indoctrinated. I think your the prime example of supporting socialism with other peoples money.. Only an opinion based on your contributions to this board.
Not all high earners are selfish bastards who look down on or patronise people who have less than them.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Aug 27 2015, 10:13 AM
Post #1072
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Tytoalba
- Aug 27 2015, 09:42 AM
- Tigger
- Aug 26 2015, 11:13 PM
- Tytoalba
- Aug 26 2015, 10:30 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
How very patronising of you! These are the same tradesmen who in periods of economic downturn the Tories accuse of being lazy, feckless and scroungers off the state, and yes I've been there and never forgot it.
Your interpretation belies te facts.. Turkeys will not vote for Christmas. As far as am concerned skilled tradesmen the self employed, are worthy of their hire, and if working to contractor on piece work rates will work as hard and as diligently as anyone. My reply to you was based on the figures that you yourself supplied. To be honest I am surprised that someone as wealthy as yourself living in salubrious circumstances are so left wing indoctrinated. I think your the prime example of supporting socialism with other peoples money.. Only an opinion based on your contributions to this board.
Not all high earners are selfish bastards and look down on or patronise people who have less than them.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 27 2015, 10:18 AM
Post #1073
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 26 2015, 05:17 PM
. . .. I am for well regulated capitalism to provide the most benefit for the majority . . That's a very self centred view.
Well regulated capitalism should also provide for no exploitation of monopolistic positions and for ALL to have both opportunity and a safety net ensuring a decent life for all those willing to contribute the efforts that they can.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 27 2015, 10:41 AM
Post #1074
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Aug 27 2015, 09:42 AM
- Tigger
- Aug 26 2015, 11:13 PM
- Tytoalba
- Aug 26 2015, 10:30 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
How very patronising of you! These are the same tradesmen who in periods of economic downturn the Tories accuse of being lazy, feckless and scroungers off the state, and yes I've been there and never forgot it.
Your interpretation belies te facts.. Turkeys will not vote for Christmas. As far as am concerned skilled tradesmen the self employed, are worthy of their hire, and if working to contractor on piece work rates will work as hard and as diligently as anyone. My reply to you was based on the figures that you yourself supplied. To be honest I am surprised that someone as wealthy as yourself living in salubrious circumstances are so left wing indoctrinated. I think your the prime example of supporting socialism with other peoples money.. Only an opinion based on your contributions to this board. If he is a wealthy man then presumably he makes a big contribution through taxation in order to responsibly support SOCIAL welfare ? That is with his money, not with "other peoples money".
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Aug 27 2015, 11:01 AM
Post #1075
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- gansao
- Aug 27 2015, 10:12 AM
- Tytoalba
- Aug 27 2015, 09:42 AM
- Tigger
- Aug 26 2015, 11:13 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Your interpretation belies te facts.. Turkeys will not vote for Christmas. As far as am concerned skilled tradesmen the self employed, are worthy of their hire, and if working to contractor on piece work rates will work as hard and as diligently as anyone. My reply to you was based on the figures that you yourself supplied. To be honest I am surprised that someone as wealthy as yourself living in salubrious circumstances are so left wing indoctrinated. I think your the prime example of supporting socialism with other peoples money.. Only an opinion based on your contributions to this board.
Not all high earners are selfish bastards who look down on or patronise people who have less than them. Your right of course. We should not generalise for political gain. Those in all brackets of wealth are individuals, with a wide variety of attitudes towards their fellow man. The worlds greatest philanthropists have been amongst the c very wealthiest.; The claim that the rich are by definition selfish and uncaring is a myth coined by the political left to justify their own ends. It is not true.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/11/18/the-50-philanthropists
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 27 2015, 04:54 PM
Post #1076
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Aug 26 2015, 10:05 PM
- RJD
- Aug 26 2015, 07:37 AM
Yep we need a generation of educated skilled people who can add real value not these dim-shits from bog standard Compos who think that importing a few panels and Quick-fitting them on roofs counts as a business. Where is the value added in that process?
Well you can't get bricklayers for love nor money, £950 pw is the going rate this month, chippies over a grand, and I dare not tell you what a fully qualified sparks or plumber can command at the moment, and we employ quite of few of those who are out on site on a seemingly permanent basis. What was that about added value and bog standard compos's........? Peanuts Tig. I was paying London Lawyers >£200 per hour in the early 1990s.
Bricklayers around here get £20 - £25 per hour. Plumbers and Electricians maybe a Fiver more.
But they are only providing a service, they are not inventing anything, their contribution does little towards solving the balance of payments deficit and anyway most of these skills are easily acquired these days. What does it take to become a certified Plumber Quickfixing panels on roofs these days? A couple of crap GCSE's and a 13 week NVQ. We need more Tradesmen that's true, but what we really need are more proper Engineers and Scientists, you know the types with University Degrees from real Universities that took 4 years of study to obtain.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 27 2015, 05:03 PM
Post #1077
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Aug 27 2015, 11:01 AM
The claim that the rich are by definition selfish and uncaring is a myth coined by the political left to justify their own ends. It is not true.
I've not heard this myth! is its existence a myth?
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 27 2015, 05:11 PM
Post #1078
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 27 2015, 05:03 PM
- Tytoalba
- Aug 27 2015, 11:01 AM
The claim that the rich are by definition selfish and uncaring is a myth coined by the political left to justify their own ends. It is not true.
I've not heard this myth! is its existence a myth? Clearly you cannot be a regular reader of this forum. With some there is a dreadful stench of spite and envy.
I was wondering what the collective noun for lefties should be? How about "a stench of lefties"?
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Aug 27 2015, 08:41 PM
Post #1079
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- disgruntled porker
- Aug 27 2015, 08:55 AM
ReJinald said: - Quote:
-
Rubbish I was not posting here in that period. You are wrong, totally wrong and seek to make up things to suit your imagination.
No, you were posting on the original forum though. I read all of your posts on that forum with relish and formed my opinion accordingly. ReJinalD said: - Quote:
-
I am for well regulated capitalism to provide the most benefit for the majority and sound money
I'm afraid you give me the impression that capitalism/private companies should be left unfettered by the nanny state, left to perform as market forces dictate. ReJinalD said: - Quote:
-
I believe the Banks required greater regulation and deposit ratios should be much higher than those that existed under Gordon Brown. I held these opinions prior to 1997.
That is not how your posts sounded to me at the time. I dare say many others will have the same impression. ReJinald said: - Quote:
-
That said I am no fan of the public sector doing anything that could and should be undertaken by the profit motive based private sector.
Which covers just about anything then? ReJinalD said: - Quote:
-
No I do not wish to privatise armed forces or the police, but I am shocked at the stupidity of those that believe nationalisation of industry would be beneficial to Joe Public.
I don't think anyone wants ALL industry to be nationalised; just the essential ones which proivide for the good of all. ReJinalD said: - Quote:
-
I am all for higher net disposable incomes, but this should be obtained as far as possible via increasing the added value of that which we sell abroad and wages should not be held down by allowing a continued over supply of labour via open-door immigration.
Can't fault that. ReJinalD said: - Quote:
-
You will be also surprised to learn that I am no fan of continued house price escalation, it makes no sense that the cost of a sq.m of accommodation should increase in real terms, here I wish to see the rate of house building increases dramatically as the problem lies, like most things, in supply/demand. No I am no idiot Socialist, I have seen what happens when we let idiot politicians make decisions. I believe in the market with as far as possible individual choice coupled with a free Press.
A few contadictions in there don't you think. ReJinalD said: - Quote:
-
I am also no fan of any Gov. encouraging individuals, via bribes, to take on long term financial commitments that they may not be able, eventually to afford.
You mean like Thatcher did when she encouraged people to own their own homes and start their own businesses? ReJinalD said: - Quote:
-
As a consequence I believe that the State should more strongly regulate mortgage loans, increase the deposit ratio, make money more expensive, institute the Golden Rule, abandon QE and run the State on a very balanced budget where there should be zero borrowings to finance current consumption. As for PFI only if the Financing Costs are no more than one or two percentage points maximum over the rates that the State can borrow and hence finance such projects and the actual costs of that provided are judged as fair to good value for Taxpayers. As for interest rates on money loaned to individuals I would cap this to 7.5% to 10% above the Bank Rate. I would kill off the legal Loan Shark business and limit the manoeuvrability of Banks to spread Credit Card risks across all users.
You mean the nanny state should intervene here and regulate those sacred market forces? ReJinald said: - Quote:
-
No I am no lover of free for all capitalism. That one must surely be the icing on the cake!
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Aug 27 2015, 08:52 PM
Post #1080
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Aug 27 2015, 09:42 AM
My reply to you was based on the figures that you yourself supplied. To be honest I am surprised that someone as wealthy as yourself living in salubrious circumstances are so left wing indoctrinated. I think your the prime example of supporting socialism with other peoples money.. Only an opinion based on your contributions to this board. You clearly don't get it do you? You rather amusingly think that if someone has money the must really be Conservative at heart!
Here's the thing, when you have fuck all you appreciate having financial security if you are fortunate enough to earn it later on in life, and yes lots of people took pity on me along the way and helped me when they needn't have done, I of course realise that in bullshit right wing land I'm supposed to say I did it all myself and worked my nuts off, except that would not be entirely true.
You see I know what it's like worrying about whether I can pay the rent or service the bills and it wasn't nice, and I'd not wish that on anyone, and unlike you I do not draw a large police pension at the expense of the taxpayer but instead I earned every single penny of the money I have and will have.
And you have the nerve to criticise me for being left leaning...........
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|