RIP Michael Foot

[TopGun]

well..on a more personal note..my mother bought her council flat in Millbrook in the early 90's for £11k thanks to the right to buy scheme. she did not even get mortgage, she got a loan for £11k. she had to keep it for 3 years before she could sell it..

 

well, it was paid off completely after a couple of years and she sold it in 2001 for over £100k.

 

I grew up in millbrook so I guess I am one of fenguerolas examples..If maggie brought in the right to buy or she championed it...then thank you very much is all I can say...my mother now lives in a better place and it is also owned out right.

 

Nothing wrong with right to buy as it puts ownership and responsibility on people and offers them opportunities they possibly would not have otherwise. It's good aspiration for those who want to try. But unfortunately as social housing places are sold new ones have to created.

Edited 6 March, 2010 by TopGun

[Fuengirola Saint]

Fuengirola seemed to think that reducing the amount charged to Lord Montagu under the Community Charge, was tantamount to the poor subsidising the rich. As you rightly point out, a subsidy is something awarded to somebody in need, so although we since learn that he teaches English, his comprehension seems a little lacking.

 

Oh grow up

[Fuengirola Saint]

Go ahead and provide me with documentary evidence that the unemployment figures have not been manipulated downwards by Labour. And then produce evidence that those snippets I provided were somehow innacurate or falsified.

 

You are a nutter, you are the one that said in the first place that the government massaged the figures downwards and i said give me one example of this happening, then you put the onus on me to prove otherwise.

I will say this only one more time,the government did change the way the figures were worked out by using the ILO figures and not the JSA claimant count used by the previous government, thus adding around 700,000 to the unemployment count.

[Wes Tender]

Oh grow up

 

I suspect that I'm more mature than you, both physically and mentally.

 

Instead of just throwing a wobbly, why don't you just explain your peculiar reasoning that because a few wealthy people received a reduction to the amounts they paid for the Community Charge, that somehow they were bizarrely being subsidised by the poor.

[Fuengirola Saint]

I suspect that I'm more mature than you, both physically and mentally.

 

Instead of just throwing a wobbly, why don't you just explain your peculiar reasoning that because a few wealthy people received a reduction to the amounts they paid for the Community Charge, that somehow they were bizarrely being subsidised by the poor.

 

Because, rich man gets tax cut, at the same time poor man gets tax rise, work it out

[ecuk268]

Go ahead and provide me with documentary evidence that the unemployment figures have not been manipulated downwards by Labour. And then produce evidence that those snippets I provided were somehow innacurate or falsified.

 

It's a bit difficult to prove a negative. I would say that the onus is on you to provide evidence that it happened.

[Whitey Grandad]

Because, rich man gets tax cut, at the same time poor man gets tax rise, work it out

No no no. It doesn't work like that. Rich man pays less tax, spends more money. Rich man spends it more wisely than the government. Money is made 'round' to go round. Everything works more efficiently. There is an 'optimum' tax rate at around 20% which maximise the total tax take for the government. Anything above that is pure political spite.

[Fuengirola Saint]

No no no. It doesn't work like that. Rich man pays less tax, spends more money. Rich man spends it more wisely than the government. Money is made 'round' to go round. Everything works more efficiently. There is an 'optimum' tax rate at around 20% which maximise the total tax take for the government. Anything above that is pure political spite.

 

Ah the trickle down effect,that worked wonders in the 80´s eh? Look we are not going to agree, you believe that the rich shouldn´t be taxed at a higher rate and i do i´m afraid.

In reality, who needs more than €100,000 a year to live on?

Edited 6 March, 2010 by Fuengirola Saint

[Whitey Grandad]

Ah the trickle down effect,that worked wonders in the 80´s eh? Look we are not going to agree, you believe that the rich shouldn´t be taxed at a higher rate and i do i´m afraid.

In reality, who needs more than €100,000 a year to live on?

And what was wrong with the 80s? We have been going steadily downhill since then and the state has been taking an increasingly large share of what we all produce as a society with horrific results. But that is not the main point. If people cannot take risks and earn the rewards in this country then they will go to others where they can. I discussed this once in a private meeting with Nigel Lawson when he was chancellor, and he said that the idea is to encourage people to stay in Britain and pay taxes here.

 

Oh, and the relatively rich are taxed more even with a flat tax, but why on earth should they? Should they pay more for a loaf of bread?

[Wes Tender]

You are a nutter, you are the one that said in the first place that the government massaged the figures downwards and i said give me one example of this happening, then you put the onus on me to prove otherwise.

I will say this only one more time,the government did change the way the figures were worked out by using the ILO figures and not the JSA claimant count used by the previous government, thus adding around 700,000 to the unemployment count.

 

OK, just one example you say? Didn't take much Googling.

 

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/02/24/54400/hundreds-of-thousands-of-teenagers-left-on-short-courses-to-massage-unemployment-figures.html

 

http://birminghamlibdems.org.uk/news/000437/john_hemming_mp_questions_minister_about_massaged_employment_figures.html

 

I've given you an extra example, free, gratis and for nothing.

[Whitey Grandad]

OK, just one example you say? Didn't take much Googling.

 

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/02/24/54400/hundreds-of-thousands-of-teenagers-left-on-short-courses-to-massage-unemployment-figures.html

 

http://birminghamlibdems.org.uk/news/000437/john_hemming_mp_questions_minister_about_massaged_employment_figures.html

 

I've given you an extra example, free, gratis and for nothing.

How about long-term sickness benefit? How many on that these days?

[Fuengirola Saint]

And what was wrong with the 80s? We have been going steadily downhill since then and the state has been taking an increasingly large share of what we all produce as a society with horrific results. But that is not the main point. If people cannot take risks and earn the rewards in this country then they will go to others where they can. I discussed this once in a private meeting with Nigel Lawson when he was chancellor, and he said that the idea is to encourage people to stay in Britain and pay taxes here.

 

Oh, and the relatively rich are taxed more even with a flat tax, but why on earth should they? Should they pay more for a loaf of bread?

 

I remember the 80´s as a time of chronic unemployment, whole communities laid to waste and the start of the dependency culture that the Daily Mail and Express love to bang on about.

Nigel Lawson may have said it was to encourage people to stay in Britain but i think it had a lot to do with keeping more money for themselves

[Whitey Grandad]

I remember the 80´s as a time of chronic unemployment, whole communities laid to waste and the start of the dependency culture that the Daily Mail and Express love to bang on about.

Nigel Lawson may have said it was to encourage people to stay in Britain but i think it had a lot to do with keeping more money for themselves

I remember it up to then as a time of closed shops, restrictive trade, inefficient companies, but the changes were absolutely necessary. You try opening a coal mine now and see if you can get anyone to work in it.

 

Look, if you tax people for making money then they'll stop doing it. Then there's not enough for funding the essential public services. The trick is to set the right levels to maximise the revenue without stifling economic activity and at the moment we are way too far in the wrong direction.

[Fuengirola Saint]

OK, just one example you say? Didn't take much Googling.

 

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/02/24/54400/hundreds-of-thousands-of-teenagers-left-on-short-courses-to-massage-unemployment-figures.html

 

http://birminghamlibdems.org.uk/news/000437/john_hemming_mp_questions_minister_about_massaged_employment_figures.html

 

I've given you an extra example, free, gratis and for nothing.

 

That has always happened,not saying it´s right but it was happening under the Tories as this part of the very same article you pointed me to says and i quote

 

"The last Tory government was damaged by the revelation that people were being pushed off the unemployment roll and onto incapacity benefit to massage the numbers in their favour. We need to look very carefully at what is going on to make sure that the same sleight of hand is not now happening again. I have written to the Minister of State for Work asking her to provide the Government's response to this very serious charge."

 

I really thought you had found evidence that the government had found a new way to massage the figures

I remember the YTS in the 80´s. did exactly the same.

[Whitey Grandad]

That has always happened,not saying it´s right but it was happening under the Tories as this part of the very same article you pointed me to says and i quote

 

"The last Tory government was damaged by the revelation that people were being pushed off the unemployment roll and onto incapacity benefit to massage the numbers in their favour. We need to look very carefully at what is going on to make sure that the same sleight of hand is not now happening again. I have written to the Minister of State for Work asking her to provide the Government's response to this very serious charge."

 

I really thought you had found evidence that the government had found a new way to massage the figures

I remember the YTS in the 80´s. did exactly the same.

Quite correct but the figures for incapacity benefiters at the moment are far higher than they have ever been.

[Fuengirola Saint]

I remember it up to then as a time of closed shops, restrictive trade, inefficient companies, but the changes were absolutely necessary. You try opening a coal mine now and see if you can get anyone to work in it.

 

Look, if you tax people for making money then they'll stop doing it. Then there's not enough for funding the essential public services. The trick is to set the right levels to maximise the revenue without stifling economic activity and at the moment we are way too far in the wrong direction.

 

I understand what you are trying to say but as i said before who needs much more than €100,000 a year to live a comfortable life, What rates of taxation do you think are fair then?, because there have been so many examples of tax rises for the poorest, i.e VAT on heating up from 5% to 17.5% Why? What heartless **** thought that one up?

This governments total **** up on the 10 p rate, don´t even get me started on the poll tax again ;-)

[Fuengirola Saint]

Quite correct but the figures for incapacity benefiters at the moment are far higher than they have ever been.

 

I don´t know for sure but i think a lot of it is people playing the system. Some people really know what they are about when it comes to benefits. I´ve got a mate back in England who is an alcoholic, he was on JSA being out of work at the time temporarily, then they put him on incapacity benefit because of his alcoholism and voila an instant 20 pounds a week pay rise

[Gemmel]

I understand what you are trying to say but as i said before who needs much more than €100,000 a year to live a comfortable life, What rates of taxation do you think are fair then?, because there have been so many examples of tax rises for the poorest, i.e VAT on heating up from 5% to 17.5% Why? What heartless **** thought that one up?

This governments total **** up on the 10 p rate, don´t even get me started on the poll tax again ;-)

 

Who are you to decide how much is enough for people to live on?

Don't forget those people earning over a 100k are contributing a lot more financially then the dole merchants.

 

You don't get many 100k a year jobs that are cushty numbers, they will have to work ******* hard and beyond what a lot of people would be prepared to put in.

[Hamilton Saint]

I wonder if our ex pat friend would be so complimentary of Socialism if he lived in Britain and had to pay Browns stealth taxes.

 

Socialism? Do you know what socialism means?

 

You sound like those ultra right-wing Republicans in the US who think right-wing Democrats are dangerous and frightening "liberals". And that lefties in Canada are "communists".

[Fuengirola Saint]

Who are you to decide how much is enough for people to live on?

Don't forget those people earning over a 100k are contributing a lot more financially then the dole merchants.

 

You don't get many 100k a year jobs that are cushty numbers, they will have to work ******* hard and beyond what a lot of people would be prepared to put in.

 

High horse for Gemmel! I was just saying that i thought that amount was enough for a comfortable lifestyle.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Socialism? Do you know what socialism means?

 

You sound like those ultra right-wing Republicans in the US who think right-wing Democrats are dangerous and frightening "liberals". And that lefties in Canada are "communists".

 

He doesn´t have a clue, thinks New Labour are Socialist and gets his political opinions from the Daily Express

[Wes Tender]

Ah the trickle down effect,that worked wonders in the 80´s eh? Look we are not going to agree, you believe that the rich shouldn´t be taxed at a higher rate and i do i´m afraid.

In reality, who needs more than €100,000 a year to live on?

 

You obviously lack the imagination to see further then the end of your nose.

 

Yes, the point that Whitey made is a good one. That lower taxation means that an individual has the increased freedom to spend their money in the way that they wish and that they are usually far better at spending that money than the wasteful and overly bureaucratic Government.

 

But there is also the question of incentive to consider. At the bottom of the scale, with young or unskilled workers, pay levels are accordingly lower, so that sometimes somebody might consider that if they work and additionally pay transport costs, they are hardly better off than if they stayed at home and claimed various benefits. They have no incentive to work beyond the satisfaction that their self-esteem is boosted and that the money in their pockets has been earned by hard graft rather than being a hand-out (not that many feel any stigma about that any more).

 

At the top end, what we are discussing, the same question of incentive is just as significant. I have already stated an opinion that if people feel that they are being treated unfairly with the taxation take, they will either find ways to avoid it, or else they will emmigrate. When tax rates for the super wealthy were at 80% and more, (some as high as 98%) emmigration of some of the brightest people occurred. You have heard of the Brain Drain, I take it?

 

There is even a disincentive for people to work harder to put their earnings above the level where they would switch to paying over 40% and now there is a 50% rate. That is the tax on earnings, of course. On most things that you buy, you pay a further 17.5% tax, apart from petrol, where you pay over 75% tax and VAT on top of that too; a tax on a tax!

 

But as I pointed out before, when Maggie Thatcher cleaned up the plethora of different rates and simplified it to just two tiers, with a top rate of 40%, there was a howling and gnashing of teeth from people on the left like you, because they felt that the Exchequer would be left short because of the lower rate. In fact the Exchequer took considerably more, as there was less incentive for the top earners to avoid paying it, because they deemed the rate to be fair. Also, the Brain Drain reversed with many Scientists and other economic emmigrants returning to these shores.

 

So contrary to your flawed argument that lower rates for wealthy people are subsidised by the poor it has been proven that there can be tax reductions for the wealthy that actually bring in more money to spend on the less well off sectors of society.

 

Perhaps, if you try really hard, you could also picture a scenario whereby a wealthy owner of a factory or business has enough of being persecuted by the "squeeze them until the pips squeak" class warriors of the Labour Government and decide that they will shut down and move their factory abroad, where they will be received with open arms, with the resultant job losses to the UK.

 

So who needs more than £100,000 to live on? Well Gordon Brown is on about £189,000 and the Chancellor is well over that mark too.

 

Does it occur to you that if Markus Liebherr was on £100,000, he wouldn't be buying Saints, would he?

 

Naturally you resent wealthier people owning bigger houses, driving more expensive cars, clothes, etc. But their expenditure in these areas provides employment and profit in all sorts of directions.

 

Most politicians on the left are motivated by envy, dogma and resentment rather than by practicalities. But then again, most of them have never experienced life in the real World of business and manufacturing.

[Fuengirola Saint]

You obviously lack the imagination to see further then the end of your nose.

 

 

 

Perhaps, if you try really hard, you could also picture a scenario whereby a wealthy owner of a factory or business has enough of being persecuted by the "squeeze them until the pips squeak" class warriors of the Labour Government and decide that they will shut down and move their factory abroad, where they will be received with open arms, with the resultant job losses to the UK.

 

.

 

You make some well made points, but reading the text above people will bleat about being to highly taxed or regulated but they generally move factories abroad for lower labour costs and higher profits,nothing more. I don´t feel envy, i don´t really care about the rich because i know in reality i cannot change the way the world is run but i would still prefer a socialist system where people work for the good of the majority instead of the minority.

Sorry thats just my view.

[View From The Top]

This is one of the few times i'll ever agree with you.

 

Please never do it again as it makes me feel unclean.

[Fuengirola Saint]

 

But there is also the question of incentive to consider. At the bottom of the scale, with young or unskilled workers, pay levels are accordingly lower, so that sometimes somebody might consider that if they work and additionally pay transport costs, they are hardly better off than if they stayed at home and claimed various benefits. They have no incentive to work beyond the satisfaction that their self-esteem is boosted and that the money in their pockets has been earned by hard graft rather than being a hand-out (not that many feel any stigma about that any more).

 

 

 

Did you agree with the introduction of the minimum wage or did you think the way of Ruth Lea and her cohorts that it would cost millions of jobs?

[Gemmel]

you make some well made points, but reading the text above people will bleat about being to highly taxed or regulated but they generally move factories abroad for lower labour costs and higher profits,nothing more. I don´t feel envy, i don´t really care about the rich because i know in reality i cannot change the way the world is run but i would still prefer a socialist system where people work for the good of the majority instead of the minority.

Sorry thats just my view.

 

 

:d:d:d:d:d

[Fuengirola Saint]

:d:d:d:d:d

 

Whatever

[Whitey Grandad]

Did you agree with the introduction of the minimum wage or did you think the way of Ruth Lea and her cohorts that it would cost millions of jobs?

It's the most simplistic and stupid idea that I have ever heard of. To somehow think that making employers pay more will mean that lower-paid workers will be beter off. It just exports jobs in the manufacturing sector to countries with lower labour rates. In my business we use a lot of piece-rate outworkers and we have to pay them 25% more than the average time for the job to make sure that nobody receives less than the average rate. Work that one out!

 

But in all honesty the benefits system has more effect than the minimum wage in that it sets a platform below which it is not worth going out to work. If benefits pay more than 37x the hourly minimum wage then nobody is going to take the lowest paid jobs.

[Wes Tender]

It's the most simplistic and stupid idea that I have ever heard of. To somehow think that making employers pay more will mean that lower-paid workers will be beter off. It just exports jobs in the manufacturing sector to countries with lower labour rates. In my business we use a lot of piece-rate outworkers and we have to pay them 25% more than the average time for the job to make sure that nobody receives less than the average rate. Work that one out!

 

But in all honesty the benefits system has more effect than the minimum wage in that it sets a platform below which it is not worth going out to work. If benefits pay more than 37x the hourly minimum wage then nobody is going to take the lowest paid jobs.

 

Agree entirely.

 

I'd add a couple of points. The immediate result of introducing the minimum wage is that everybody above it, insists that their differentials are made up to where they were, thus ratcheting up wage levels. When those differentials have been re-established, the lower wage earners are back where they started.

 

But I would say that it is my belief that minimum wages are not anything to do with the Government and that they should keep their noses out of matters that do not concern them. Market forces should determine the level at which they are set. Legislation to ensure equal pay for women, or to prevent discrimination on grounds of race are acceptable, but that is as far as Government inferferance should go.

 

As Whitey says, of course there have been job losses as a result, both because some businesses have gone bust or downscaled as a result and also because jobs have been exported to countries with lower unit labour costs.

 

Fuengirola Saint:but i would still prefer a socialist system where people work for the good of the majority instead of the minority.

Sorry thats just my view.

 

My political philosophy is based on equally simplistic foundations; that is better to level everybody upwards rather than downwards. Labour is all about levelling everybody downwards. There really are not enough super rich people in this country that the revenue from them would make any appreciable difference to the lot of the lower income people. Anyway, as I reapeatedly point out, they will either emmigrate or avoid paying those swingeing taxes. Therefore the Labour Government place the biggest burden on the middle classes, who are disincentivised to work harder. It would be far better for the wealth-makers to have the incentive to create decent jobs with good pay levels, so that employment is increased and the benefit culture is reduced.

 

But if you prefer your Labour philosophy of levelling Society downwards, then that's up to you, but then again, you're not living here to have to put up with it, are you?

[Fuengirola Saint]

Agree entirely.

 

I'd add a couple of points. The immediate result of introducing the minimum wage is that everybody above it, insists that their differentials are made up to where they were, thus ratcheting up wage levels. When those differentials have been re-established, the lower wage earners are back where they started.

 

But I would say that it is my belief that minimum wages are not anything to do with the Government and that they should keep their noses out of matters that do not concern them. Market forces should determine the level at which they are set. Legislation to ensure equal pay for women, or to prevent discrimination on grounds of race are acceptable, but that is as far as Government inferferance should go./QUOTE]

 

Market forces eh? Is that the same market forces that almost forced the collapse of the banking sector?

Could you answer me if the market is so ****ing great why has it needed billions upon billions of government bailouts across the globe to keep it going? Could you tell me why it´s ok to privatise profit but nationalise losses i.e RBOS,Northern Rock,GM,AIG Fanny Mae etc

If there was no minimum wage, wage levels would be lower thus forcing the Government to pay more in tax credits and benefits, you think that is a fair system where the government pays out more in benefits so the employer can pay lower wages?

Edited 7 March, 2010 by Fuengirola Saint

[Fuengirola Saint]

Agree entirely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be far better for the wealth-makers to have the incentive to create decent jobs with good pay levels, so that employment is increased and the benefit culture is reduced.

 

 

They don´t create decent jobs with good pay levels though do they? Where were these jobs in the halcyon days that were the deregulated 80´s and 90´s?

it´s just a load of codswallop to justify grabbing more for themselves

[View From The Top]

Unfettered capitalism has really shown itself to be the way forward over the last couple of years.

 

Thank god it has hasn't taken direct intervention into the free market by governments to prop up the system. That would be really bad wouldn't it.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Unfettered capitalism has really shown itself to be the way forward over the last couple of years.

 

Thank god it has hasn't taken direct intervention into the free market by governments to prop up the system. That would be really bad wouldn't it.

 

Exactamundo! I afraid the right wingers amongst us cannot see further than their wallet or next tax cut.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Yes Fuengirola Saint and the Socialist model you live under in Spain has delivered.....

.....20% unemployment.

 

It is the entrepreneurs, the pioneers the innovators and the ambitious that will get us out of this mess; the wealth creators. You have to create the right environement for them to flourish and that means lower taxes.

[Whitey Grandad]

Exactamundo! I afraid the right wingers amongst us cannot see further than their wallet or next tax cut.

Those struggling to earn some money are worried about their wallets because money keeps being stolen from it to subsidise other members of society - and I don't mean the rich because there simply aren't many of them about, unless you mean those in the public sector.

[Whitey Grandad]

[quote=Fuengirola Saint;643009

Market forces eh? Is that the same market forces that almost forced the collapse of the banking sector?

Could you answer me if the market is so ****ing great why has it needed billions upon billions of government bailouts across the globe to keep it going? Could you tell me why it´s ok to privatise profit but nationalise losses i.e RBOS,Northern Rock,GM,AIG Fanny Mae etc

In Britain that has been as a result of this government's obsession with the banking and financial sector and the mistaken idea that it makes money (or used to). It doesn't. It only creams some off the top from the true 'wealth creators', i.e. the manufacturing and trading sectors. The public and service sectors are secondary areas which depend entirely on the former.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Yes Fuengirola Saint and the Socialist model you live under in Spain has delivered.....

.....20% unemployment.

 

It is the entrepreneurs, the pioneers the innovators and the ambitious that will get us out of this mess; the wealth creators. You have to create the right environement for them to flourish and that means lower taxes.

 

When will you lot learn, Spains government is as socialist as New Labour i.e NOT SOCIALIST.

Sorry to shout but i felt it necessary to get the point over as you will insist on calling these governments socialist.

It is capitalisms failures that have got us into this mess stop deluding yourselves, capitalism needs and wants high unemployment to keep wage demands down. If a society cannot or does not want to deliver full employment in this day and age then i´m afraid it has failed miserably.

Edited 7 March, 2010 by Fuengirola Saint

[Fuengirola Saint]

In Britain that has been as a result of this government's obsession with the banking and financial sector and the mistaken idea that it makes money (or used to). It doesn't. It only creams some off the top from the true 'wealth creators', i.e. the manufacturing and trading sectors. The public and service sectors are secondary areas which depend entirely on the former.

 

This governments obsession? what about the previous one? They were as bad, i´m not defending this government´s conduct re the banking sector but to try and blame just the government for this mess just shows how obsessed with it you are.

[Fuengirola Saint]

In Britain that has been as a result of this government's obsession with the banking and financial sector and the mistaken idea that it makes money (or used to). It doesn't. It only creams some off the top from the true 'wealth creators', i.e. the manufacturing and trading sectors. The public and service sectors are secondary areas which depend entirely on the former.

 

In the other countries was it their government´s obsessions as well?

[View From The Top]

In Britain that has been as a result of this government's obsession with the banking and financial sector and the mistaken idea that it makes money (or used to). It doesn't. It only creams some off the top from the true 'wealth creators', i.e. the manufacturing and trading sectors. The public and service sectors are secondary areas which depend entirely on the former.

 

I'm sorry, but that's bollixs.

 

It was Thatcher who let loose the City and successive governments of all hues that have carried on with letting them run riot.

 

Governments across the political spectrum have been forced to bail the investment banks out and if that isn't a failure of capitalism I don't know what is.

[sadoldgit]

A true gentleman and the most honest of politicians.

 

And better hair than David Beckham.

[Wes Tender]

I'm sorry, but that's bollixs.

 

It was Thatcher who let loose the City and successive governments of all hues that have carried on with letting them run riot.

 

Governments across the political spectrum have been forced to bail the investment banks out and if that isn't a failure of capitalism I don't know what is.

There used to be the joke about the Russian whose electricity broke down and needed fixing. The State Electricity company told him that they could come out and see him on the fifteenth of June three years later. He looked at his diary and said sorry, I've got the Gas man coming that day.

 

Would you prefer the old Socialist system from the former Soviet Union? The point is, although there are some hiccups sometimes, the free market capitalist system is the best way to run business and industry. As soon as you get nationalisation and subsidies, the scope increases for bureacratic costs to rise, overmanning and profligacy to increase.

 

I hope that in your everyday life, you appreciate that with everything you buy, you have a choice. That you can also drop those suppliers who do not give you good service. If they fail because they do not offer competitive prices or good service, would you wish them to stay in business and continue to use their services? I don't think so.

[Whitey Grandad]

In the other countries was it their government´s obsessions as well?

In America it was Clinton who 'encouraged' the banks to lend money to the 'poor' so that they could buy houses. The rest is history. Economically we have sufered far more from the recession than the rest of Europe.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm sorry, but that's bollixs.

 

It was Thatcher who let loose the City and successive governments of all hues that have carried on with letting them run riot.

 

Governments across the political spectrum have been forced to bail the investment banks out and if that isn't a failure of capitalism I don't know what is.

The decline of manufacturing has accelerated considerably under the last few governments, who happen to have been Labour.

[Whitey Grandad]

This governments obsession? what about the previous one? They were as bad, i´m not defending this government´s conduct re the banking sector but to try and blame just the government for this mess just shows how obsessed with it you are.

Oh please. They've been in long enough now that they can't pin the blame on anyone else.

[Whitey Grandad]

When will you lot learn, Spains government is as socialist as New Labour i.e NOT SOCIALIST.

Sorry to shout but i felt it necessary to get the point over as you will insist on calling these governments socialist.

It is capitalisms failures that have got us into this mess stop deluding yourselves, capitalism needs and wants high unemployment to keep wage demands down. If a society cannot or does not want to deliver full employment in this day and age then i´m afraid it has failed miserably.

Does full employment mean that evey mother has to go out to work? It was Harriet Harman who said that 'mothers who don't work are a problem'. We are all treated as 'economic working units' who, if we're lucky and do as we're told might just be allowed to keep a little pocket money for ouselves, and perhaps a cup of tea on Wednesdays.

[View From The Top]

The decline of manufacturing has accelerated considerably under the last few governments, who happen to have been Labour.

 

Take off your blue tinted glasses mate as you sound as deluded as those wearing red ones.

 

Thatcher and Major were the friends of manufacturing in the UK. Yes siree, they were a force for good f'sure.

[Lord Duckhunter]

There used to be the joke about the Russian whose electricity broke down and needed fixing. The State Electricity company told him that they could come out and see him on the fifteenth of June three years later. He looked at his diary and said sorry, I've got the Gas man coming that day.

 

Would you prefer the old Socialist system from the former Soviet Union? The point is, although there are some hiccups sometimes, the free market capitalist system is the best way to run business and industry. As soon as you get nationalisation and subsidies, the scope increases for bureacratic costs to rise, overmanning and profligacy to increase.

 

I hope that in your everyday life, you appreciate that with everything you buy, you have a choice. That you can also drop those suppliers who do not give you good service. If they fail because they do not offer competitive prices or good service, would you wish them to stay in business and continue to use their services? I don't think so.

 

Spot on.

 

How long did it used to take to get a phone line installed?

 

Foot wanted to renationalise everything that MT set free. He wanted to follow an agenda way to the left of the Callaghan Gov. A Gov, that let's not forget, needed bailing out by the IMF. The basic rate of tax was 33% and the top rate was 83% pre Thatcher. Rates that are unthinkable nowadays and anyone suggusting them would never get voted for by the British people.

 

Did those tax rates give us better services?

 

Did they redistrubute wealth to the poorest?

 

Did nationlised industries bring more wealth to the Country?

 

Of course not, the country was on it's knees, the sick man of Europe.

 

 

But then that's Labour Gov's for you. You'll also end up paying more tax, and they'll always run out of money.Always have done, and always will do.

[View From The Top]

Would you prefer the old Socialist system from the former Soviet Union?

 

You're a loon.

 

Oh, a tory?

 

Oh, same thing.

 

The simple, undeniable fact is that the the capitalist model so beloved my the tories/New Labour acolytes has failed and lead to the deepest recession in 70 odd years.

 

It failed due to one thing. Greed.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Does full employment mean that evey mother has to go out to work? It was Harriet Harman who said that 'mothers who don't work are a problem'. We are all treated as 'economic working units' who, if we're lucky and do as we're told might just be allowed to keep a little pocket money for ouselves, and perhaps a cup of tea on Wednesdays.

 

Come on mate, you know exactly what i mean, we seem to have hit a dead end here,.

With Wes coming out with the old Soviet jokes as well, Lets just accept that your free market utopia wouldn´t work without a nice old fashioned dose of government intervention.