Jump to content

RIP Michael Foot


TopGun

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

I seem to remember that when the Callaghan government was voted out, inflation had fallen to 8.9% and unemployment was falling as well. The IMF loan actually wasn´t needed as the forecasts for the PSB were worse than expected. The thing that got Thatcher elected in my opinion was the Winter of discontent.

If Callaghan had not done a Brown and dropped his bottle in the October of 78 and called an election, he would have won and we would never have had to put up with Thatcher and her Friedmanite cabal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Recessions happen, the problem for britain is that we have a Socialist government that spent all the money from the sunnier times. Prudence Brown "saviour of the world" told us all the days of boom and bust were over so the cupboard was bare and Brown has cripled the nation with debt. We are now in the same bracket as Spain, Greece and Portugal - the sick men of Europe. Peter Storrie would make a marvelous Socilaist leader.

Edited by dune
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm no more a tory than a labour luvvie. In many hours of discussion with our north american friends I seem to be a social democrat, along with most other europeans who were present. There is a place for government and there are services which only a central government can provide, but what we have now is overgovernment and at an horrendous cost, probably by a factor of 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what country represents the best example of capitalism and what country represents the best example of socialism...?

 

Britain under Blair and brown is pure Socialism. Tax the workers to support the bone idle that live on benefits. Tax the workers and spend spend spend. And true to Socialist past precedents here we are as the sick man of Europe yet again just as we were in 79. Will we ever learn the lesson that Socialism does not work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

oh dear- so do you think the train and bus services are better and bus services,power etc because i don,t they are just ripping of the public every chance they get.,maggie used our oil to pay for the legion of mass unemployed she created threw a overvalued pound and destroyed our manufacturing base and increased vat from 5% to 17.5% and backdoor national insurance increases. the polltax interest rates of 15 %-so all this spin she was a great leader is rubbish it was the falklands war which saved her bacon and she was then dumped by her own party.

she will be remembered in history has being our first women prime minster, and the leader of a party who beat a unelectable labour party who were in a state of civil war at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain under Blair and brown is pure Socialism. Tax the workers to support the bone idle that live on benefits. Tax the workers and spend spend spend. And true to Socialist past precedents here we are as the sick man of Europe yet again just as we were in 79. Will we ever learn the lesson that Socialism does not work?

i think you are a dreamer their are no Socialists in power,or do you think cameron (blair mark 2) is a socialist to:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Labour administration has left office with Taxes higher and having spent all the money.We are going the same way with Brown, and like Thatch, the next Tory leader will have to clear their mess up again.What sums up Labour is the Working Family Tax Credits. A system where a worker is taxed out of his income and then gets a tax credit back via his bank account. Anyone with half a brain, would cut out the middle man and reduce the tax taken out of his wages. If he's entittled to £10 Tax Credit, then tax him £10 a week less. However that would cut down on bureaucracy, which Labour loves, and people in "non jobs" dishing out the Credits would be out of work (Labour supporters).Labour's way is to create more and more layers of bureaucracy and jobs, so they can control everything from the top down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no more a tory than a labour luvvie. In many hours of discussion with our north american friends I seem to be a social democrat, along with most other europeans who were present. There is a place for government and there are services which only a central government can provide, but what we have now is overgovernment and at an horrendous cost, probably by a factor of 2.

 

I am very sorry but there is no way you are a Social Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recessions happen, the problem for britain is that we have a Socialist government that spent all the money from the sunnier times. Prudence Brown "saviour of the world" told us all the days of boom and bust were over so the cupboard was bare and Brown has cripled the nation with debt. We are now in the same bracket as Spain, Greece and Portugal - the sick men of Europe. Peter Storrie would make a marvelous Socilaist leader.

 

Ask yourself why this one happened and anyone, even those with limited mental capacity, will point to the collapse of the banks.

 

What led them to collapse? Greed.

 

A failed, blood red in tooth and claw, capitalist model which is as outdated and out of touch as the socialist model from the 1970s.

 

The problem for the blinkered majority on here is that they lack the ability to look for an alternative.

 

Still, keep banging your socialist drum and one day, maybe, someone will believe it as I'm sure, somewhere, there is someone as equally dense as yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain under Blair and brown is pure Socialism. Tax the workers to support the bone idle that live on benefits. Tax the workers and spend spend spend. And true to Socialist past precedents here we are as the sick man of Europe yet again just as we were in 79. Will we ever learn the lesson that Socialism does not work?

 

"... pure socialism"?

 

You might want to do a little research into political philosophy. Hint: find out what the term "mixed economy" means. Hint: find out what the term "social democrat" means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself why this one happened and anyone, even those with limited mental capacity, will point to the collapse of the banks.

 

What led them to collapse? Greed.

 

A failed, blood red in tooth and claw, capitalist model which is as outdated and out of touch as the socialist model from the 1970s.

 

The problem for the blinkered majority on here is that they lack the ability to look for an alternative.

 

Still, keep banging your socialist drum and one day, maybe, someone will believe it as I'm sure, somewhere, there is someone as equally dense as yourself.

Even in a capitalist model certain industries need tightly regulating. The banks being one of those (although the airline industry is free market, it is still regulated tightly) and for hundreds of years it was the BoE who did the regulating. Who changed this and introduced the tripartite system that replaced it? Well here's a clue the same guy that sold our gold at rock bottom prices. Personally, I believe that whilst guaranteeing the general publics money, Nothern Rock should have been allowed to fail (it wasn't because it was in the Labour heartlands). That would have been the "blood red tooth and claw capialist model", because the very nature of it means that the weak have to fail.What we have now is capialist profits and socialist loses(us). The facts the banks were allowed to get into this state was down to regulation, or a lack of it.It did not happen under Thatch's watch and that was the so called "era of greed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it collapsed because of their banks .

iceland is(was) ranked as the worlds no.1 socialist country by the UN..

they were as rich as the US in terms of GDP per capita....yet they blew it...

 

was it because of the countries ideals in "spreading the wealth" or was it due to other reasons..

 

anyone..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in a capitalist model certain industries need tightly regulating. The banks being one of those (although the airline industry is free market, it is still regulated tightly) and for hundreds of years it was the BoE who did the regulating. Who changed this and introduced the tripartite system that replaced it? Well here's a clue the same guy that sold our gold at rock bottom prices. Personally, I believe that whilst guaranteeing the general publics money, Nothern Rock should have been allowed to fail (it wasn't because it was in the Labour heartlands). That would have been the "blood red tooth and claw capialist model", because the very nature of it means that the weak have to fail.What we have now is capialist profits and socialist loses(us). The facts the banks were allowed to get into this state was down to regulation, or a lack of it.It did not happen under Thatch's watch and that was the so called "era of greed".

 

Oh please.

 

It is rather pathetic and rather childish to attempt to suggest that the collapse of the investment banks can be placed anywhere but their door.

 

Brown maybe a muppet but the inertia and lack of clarity shown by HM Opposition spoke volumes for their grasp of the situation.

 

The only politician who saw what was coming and was shouted down when he spoke about it was Vince Cable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iceland is(was) ranked as the worlds no.1 socialist country by the UN..

they were as rich as the US in terms of GDP per capita....yet they blew it...

 

was it because of the countries ideals in "spreading the wealth" or was it due to other reasons..

 

anyone..?

once again it was the bankers

 

Voters not worried about IMF, EU

 

On the basis of results coming in Sunday, many voters appear to have paid little heed to warnings that without the debt repayment agreement, Iceland will be unable to raise loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or succeed in a bid for fast-track membership of the European Union.

 

On the other hand, a large portion of voters viewed the deal as an unfair result of their own government's failure to curtail the recklessness of a handful of bank executives, including those who expanded operations to seduce British and Dutch customers with generous returns from online savings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please.

 

It is rather pathetic and rather childish to attempt to suggest that the collapse of the investment banks can be placed anywhere but their door.

 

Brown maybe a muppet but the inertia and lack of clarity shown by HM Opposition spoke volumes for their grasp of the situation.

 

The only politician who saw what was coming and was shouted down when he spoke about it was Vince Cable.

 

i agree ,he,s to sharp for the torys and labour party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recessions happen, the problem for britain is that we have a Socialist government that spent all the money from the sunnier times. Prudence Brown "saviour of the world" told us all the days of boom and bust were over so the cupboard was bare and Brown has cripled the nation with debt. We are now in the same bracket as Spain, Greece and Portugal - the sick men of Europe. Peter Storrie would make a marvelous Socilaist leader.

 

Recessions don't just 'happen', they are created! How you can be so nonchalant about the whole thing staggers me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recessions don't just 'happen', they are created! How you can be so nonchalant about the whole thing staggers me!

 

its no surprise to me i expect he runs down this great country every chance he gets,we are still one of the richest countrys in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want socialism go and live in Belarus or Cuba.

 

Or use your vote, as we can do given that we live in a democracy and have freedoms, to vote in some socialists. If you don't like that, go and live somewhere else more suited to your flippant and care free attitude to the importance of choice and voting power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism America, Socialism, North Korea, Cuba?

 

I wouldn´t say North Korea is socialist, it´s just run by a looper. In the case of Cuba, i think if it had been able to trade with it´s powerful neighbour fairly I think it would have been a success, but they couldn´t let that happen could they? The health service in Cuba is renowned as one of the best in the Americas, the hard fact is that you have to trade with the USA as they were and still are the most powerful nation on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Korea is a totalitarian communist dictatorship. Cuba has a decent healthcare system but its economys growth rates are slower than more capitalist south american countries such as Brazil

 

Thats what i was saying though, with the United States refusal to trade with Cuba it does rather leave the Caribbean nation at a bit of a disadvantage, especially since the collapse of the USSR which gave Cuba much needed trade i.e sugar for oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you possibly tell?

 

Back to Michael Foot, I'm sure he would have loved to have been part of the debate that we're having now.

 

I bet he would too, he didn´t stand a chance in the 83 election against Thatcher because of the Falklands factor and his image, much like Kinnock in 87 and 92. I actually had people say to me they were not going to vote Labour because he was either a, ginger or b, Welsh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iceland is(was) ranked as the worlds no.1 socialist country by the UN..

they were as rich as the US in terms of GDP per capita....yet they blew it...

 

was it because of the countries ideals in "spreading the wealth" or was it due to other reasons..

 

anyone..?

and another to rule out all that claptrap and conservative is great rubbish when the banks caused a worldwide collapse.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/4348312/Financial-crisis-causes-Icelands-government-to-collapse.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL at all the lefties banging on about the banking collapse.

 

I have a few points to make on this:

 

1. Where did the governments get the cash to bail them out? Yep, that's right, not the magic socialist money tree, but the taxes ultimately paid for by the wealth created from the private sector

 

2. Not all countries banking systems suffered or failed, just those where the governments FAILED to regulate properly.

 

3. The banking system collapse is less about pure capitalism and more to do with stupidy and fraudulent behaviour. Lending money to people who are unlikely to pay it back generally does not generate profit. This is not capitalism at work, but more akin to gambling

 

4. Packaging dodgy loans into complex financial vehicles is not capitalism....in my mind it is bloody fraud and people should be prosecuted.

 

 

 

The banking system needs capitalism to thrive, but gambling and fraud in their own rights are not capitalism. In order for capitalism to thrive, you do, believe it or not, need regulation to ensure that the greedy and reckless are not left unchecked. This whole crisis was caused by the failure of those in charge to regulate properly. I call Gordon Fraudon becuase he spent 10 years banging on about prudence when the Northern Rock were giving away 125% mortgages. The guy is a fraud.

 

Anyway, carry on......

Edited by Johnny Bognor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats what i was saying though, with the United States refusal to trade with Cuba it does rather leave the Caribbean nation at a bit of a disadvantage, especially since the collapse of the USSR which gave Cuba much needed trade i.e sugar for oil.

 

I agree with you that you need to trade with America because you need to trade to allow your economy to grow whatever country you are. If Cuba was less socialist and able to trade with America it would be a more prosperous countryn for its citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The banking system needs capitalism to thrive, but gambling and fraud in their own rights are not capitalism. In order for capitalism to thrive, you do, believe it or not, need regulation to ensure that the greedy and reckless are not left unchecked. This whole crisis was caused by the failure of those in charge to regulate properly. I call Gordon Fraudon becuase he spent 10 years banging on about prudence when the Northern Rock were giving away 125% mortgages. The guy is a fraud.

 

Anyway, carry on......

 

Typical neo-fascist revisionism. How they would have squealed like little piggies if the big nasty government had interfered in the free market and stopped people getting mortgages. Who does the government think it is telling people what they can afford they would have squinnied.

 

Far too many governments, of all hues, have embraced the financial services sector as if they are a wealth generator on a par with manufacturing.

 

All governments were then to scared that "The City" would up sticks and relocate and allowed them an almost free hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that you need to trade with America because you need to trade to allow your economy to grow whatever country you are. If Cuba was less socialist and able to trade with America it would be a more prosperous countryn for its citizens.

 

It has nothing to do with Socialism, it's to do with Castro.

 

If it were based on political systems they wouldn't trade with communist China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical neo-fascist revisionism. How they would have squealed like little piggies if the big nasty government had interfered in the free market and stopped people getting mortgages. Who does the government think it is telling people what they can afford they would have squinnied.

 

Far too many governments, of all hues, have embraced the financial services sector as if they are a wealth generator on a par with manufacturing.

 

All governments were then to scared that "The City" would up sticks and relocate and allowed them an almost free hand.

 

The bank of England controlled and regulated the banking system for hundreds of years, without too much complaint from the City. In the UK, it was Fraudon's lame Financial Suicide Authority (AKA FSA) that failed big time. LTV's of 125% and lending 8 times salary was always going to end in tears, but Bliar had an election to win and if they could keep the feel good factor going, it would ensure another term in office.

 

Fraudon and Bliar have a lot to answer for IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL at all the lefties banging on about the banking collapse.

 

I have a few points to make on this:

 

1. Where did the governments get the cash to bail them out? Yep, that's right, not the magic socialist money tree, but the taxes ultimately paid for by the wealth created from the private sector

 

2. Not all countries banking systems suffered or failed, just those where the governments FAILED to regulate properly.

 

3. The banking system collapse is less about pure capitalism and more to do with stupidy and fraudulent behaviour. Lending money to people who are unlikely to pay it back generally does not generate profit. This is not capitalism at work, but more akin to gambling

 

4. Packaging dodgy loans into complex financial vehicles is not capitalism....in my mind it is bloody fraud and people should be prosecuted.

 

 

 

The banking system needs capitalism to thrive, but gambling and fraud in their own rights are not capitalism. In order for capitalism to thrive, you do, believe it or not, need regulation to ensure that the greedy and reckless are not left unchecked. This whole crisis was caused by the failure of those in charge to regulate properly. I call Gordon Fraudon becuase he spent 10 years banging on about prudence when the Northern Rock were giving away 125% mortgages. The guy is a fraud.

 

Anyway, carry on......

 

:rolleyes:are you that simple you make me laugh when you started about lefties,who are they ? are bankers lefties or the great fraudster Bernard Madoff . it was the free market unregulated around the world which caused the collapse just like the 1930,s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical neo-fascist revisionism. How they would have squealed like little piggies if the big nasty government had interfered in the free market and stopped people getting mortgages. Who does the government think it is telling people what they can afford they would have squinnied.

 

Far too many governments, of all hues, have embraced the financial services sector as if they are a wealth generator on a par with manufacturing.

 

All governments were then to scared that "The City" would up sticks and relocate and allowed them an almost free hand.

see how he left out thatcher who started the casino economy while destroying manafacturing and her son blair carried on her policys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:are you that simple you make me laugh when you started about lefties,who are they ? are bankers lefties or the great fraudster Bernard Madoff . it was the free market unregulated around the world which caused the collapse just like the 1930,s.

 

Yep, the fact that the banking system was not regulated properly, which generally is the fault of Governments (including one's on the right) led to the reckless 'gambling' of the fin svcs industry. Fraudon has to take some resonsibility for this as he turned a blind eye (no pun intended) to the reckless lending on these very shores. We would still have been impacted by global events, but the damage would have been limited / contained.

 

see how he left out thatcher who started the casino economy while destroying manafacturing and her son blair carried on her policys.

 

Typical leftie propagander. Manufacturing's share of GDP fell faster in the 10 years prior to her arrival and fell faster in the 10 years after her arrival. If you look at the facts, not the socialist worker, you will see that manufacturing's share of GDP fell less during her tenure than at any other time in the last 40 years. If you couple this with the fall in Manufacturings share of GDP, across the major producer economies (USA, Germany), you will see that the West has been de-industrialising since the early 70's. I suppose it helps to have a scapegoat - do you blame the Norman invasion on Thatcher too?

Edited by Johnny Bognor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of Cuba, i think if it had been able to trade with it´s powerful neighbour fairly I think it would have been a success, but they couldn´t let that happen could they? The health service in Cuba is renowned as one of the best in the Americas, the hard fact is that you have to trade with the USA as they were and still are the most powerful nation on earth.

 

Cuba also has a higher literacy rate than the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, the fact that the banking system was not regulated properly, which generally is the fault of Governments (including one's on the right) led to the reckless 'gambling' of the fin svcs industry. Fraudon has to take some resonsibility for this as he turned a blind eye (no pun intended) to the reckless lending on these very shores. We would still have been impacted by global events, but the damage would have been limited / contained.

 

 

 

 

Typical leftie propagander. Manufacturing's share of GDP fell faster in the 10 years prior to her arrival and fell faster in the 10 years after her arrival. If you look at the facts, not the socialist worker, you will see that manufacturing's share of GDP fell less during her tenure than at any other time in the last 40 years. If you couple this with the fall in Manufacturings share of GDP, across the major producer economies (USA, Germany), you will see that the West has been de-industrializing since the early 70's. I suppose it helps to have a scapegoat - do you blame the Norman invasion on Thatcher too?

i do not read the socialist worker i regard myself has independant and will vote for any party unlike the nutty right and left, but she made major mistakes in policy such has a overvalued pound which gave a large part of our manfacturing to germany and she had the benefit of north sea oil which she waisted on mass unemployment .she will only be remembered has the first women prime minster in the history books and a devisive figure.

milton friedman anybody her guru at the time,did not believe in regulation but the free markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill spoke these immortal word over half a century ago and they ring as true now as they did then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill spoke these immortal word over half a century ago and they ring as true now as they did then.

 

He was probably just jealous, bearing in mind that Atlee had just wiped the floor with him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...