The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Mic09]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I don't mean to be picky, but socialism is where the means of production,( plus hospitals, schools, and all that) is owned and controlled by society, and capitalism is where it's owned privately and run to make money for those private owners.

So when you next talk to your space alien friends ( remember to wear a tin foil hat) perhaps you could slightly adjust your theory in light of the facts?

I know my words above come across as extremely rude, sorry, they're not meant to offend, but to point out the absurdity of your claim. England (the UK) is along way from a socialist state, though there are remnants, still of publicly owned and run "means of production and distribution"

Ok, but don't you agree that a great number of British business (such as above mentioned schools, hospitals, and many others) are , as you say, 'controlled by society'? And what does that mean, controlled by society? Do you onw it? Do I own it? Can we affect it? No. It's the people up top, who have strong links to political parties. As mrs Thatcher use to say, there is no such thing as 'society', and no 'public' runs any of those government funded institutions.

'' "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." ' (http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm) (Thatcher)

Plus, let's keep this to a clean discussion - the tin foil remarks are uncalled for.

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Mic09

[tonyh29]

It may appear to be pick on Mic09 day but you've  fallen into the lazy trap on Thatchers use of the no such thing as society line  it's a great sound bite for the left but it's always quoted in isolation without the context of the full article 

Thatcher was actually saying the complete opposite ....She was attacking the then-current use of “society”, which was often expressed in the phrase: “Society is to blame.”

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

You know what Tone? Too much of it rings true

On a small scale I'd agree with what Sharky was saying .... we've discussed previously that this government has continued Burnhams privatisation of the NHS , where I disagree is that I don't buy into this line that the NHS is being privatised completely ... State pensions the government have committed to triple lock until 2020 where I'm sure it will get looked at again , indeed has to be looked at again as pension costs will cripple the country , Brown knew this when he raided the pension pot and this government know it as well , but that isn't the same as what's in the OP ... The new workplace pension laws I believe should get future generations to a point where they build up a decent size nest egg of their own and then the state pension will most likely be withdrawn for these people and you could argue "why not ? " 

Edited March 19, 2016 by tonyh29

[Xann]

The NHS is being set up to be milked dry.

It's already being deliberately sabotaged.

Where this has been uncovered, it's been hushed up because of the connections involved.

Most of the press look the other way anyway.

[chrisp65]

46 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

It may appear to be pick on Mic09 day but you've  fallen into the lazy trap on Thatchers use of the no such thing as society line  it's a great sound bite for the left but it's always quoted in isolation without the context of the full article 

Thatcher was actually saying the complete opposite ....She was attacking the then-current use of “society”, which was often expressed in the phrase: “Society is to blame.”

 

it's also claimed she never actually said **** the poor

[tonyh29]

not really sure of the relevance of a Jimmy picture in this case but since we are doing irrelevant here's a picture of Jimmy Saville with Harold Wilson

 

[Xann]

Hey, chatting to someone in the smoking room and having them around for Christmas are two different things

[PompeyVillan]

Buried On Budget Day... At 5:45pm while the political talking shop was in full swing and everyone else was heading home for the evening, Sky News quietly published an exclusive analysis of newly-released official data – and the findings are absolutely explosive.

Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008.

To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude.

By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid.

This gigantic loss is scandalous for the Chancellor and ruinous for the public purse, particularly given that the disabled and the poor are being made to disproportionately suffer from yet another £3.5 billion of cuts to public services – on top of the additional £12 billion announced last year.

Move Your Money

Labour caused the global financial crisis though.

[tonyh29]

3 hours ago, Xann said:

Move Your Money

I kinda read that and thought he was selling these shares tomorrow , but reading the FT it appears these shares are being sold between now and 2020 at a rate of £5.8bn a year as part of a plan laid out in 2015 

it it seems the current low share price means we have already lost £9bn * on what the government originally paid for them during the bail out .... the £22 bn loss * is a forecast based on today's share price ... I've no idea if £22bn is on top of the £9bn or part of it 

the other noteworthy consideration is that RBS have made losses of £50bn since that time.

it could just be that he's making another **** up but there might be some economic trickery at play 

either way it's still Labours fault

 

 

 

* small print Share prices can go up and down 

 

[snowychap]

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I kinda read that and thought he was selling these shares tomorrow , but reading the FT it appears these shares are being sold between now and 2020 at a rate of £5.8bn a year as part of a plan laid out in 2015 

Wasn't one of the criticisms of Brown's sale of (some of the) Gold reserves that he announced how much and when he was going to sell thus depressing the price?

Edited March 19, 2016 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Wasn't one of the criticisms of Brown's sale of (some of the) Gold reserves that he announced how much and when he was going to sell thus depressing the price?

I hadn't heard this criticism before but it probably sounds about right ... I thought the main criticism was  that he took advice from his advisers / experts  who advised him not to sell and then he did anyway ... 

[Xann]

46 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

... either way it's still Labour's fault

If you say it enough times I guess you can convince yourself it must be true.

[tonyh29]

30 minutes ago, Xann said:

If you say it enough times I guess you can convince yourself it must be true.

Genius     

[Xann]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

... * small print Share prices can go up and down 

You've omitted the rest of the FT article. It says RBS will be a much smaller company by then, so even if the markets stayed stable, they'll still be worth less.

 

[blandy]

6 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Ok, but don't you agree that a great number of British business (such as above mentioned schools, hospitals, and many others) are , as you say, 'controlled by society'? And what does that mean, controlled by society? Do you onw it? Do I own it? Can we affect it? No. It's the people up top, who have strong links to political parties. As mrs Thatcher use to say, there is no such thing as 'society', and no 'public' runs any of those government funded institutions.

Some are, though to an ever greater extent, they're being sold off to private companies. Once upon a time the utilities (water, gas, electricity) were nationally owned. They were sold off. Same with the Post Office, Same with Railways, telecoms, Power generation -and the process of doing the same with schools and hospitals is underway. There is actually very little left that is still owned by the nation. Huge tracts of UK land are owned by the Crown, more still by a few private land owners. Hospitals are Trusts, Universities and colleges are individual businesses....

Thinking about my day - from the food at breakfast and dinner, the plates and cutlery I used, the radio I listened to, the computer I'm typing this on, the furniture, the shop I went to - all of it produced and owned by private companies (apart from the broadcaster, BBC who made the radio programme). The Land my house is on is owned by the Duke of Lancaster. The house is mine. That's a very long way from a socialist country.

Where I agree is that "the people up top, who have strong links to political parties" plus multinational capitalist companies have a massive influence and degree of control, and it's growing. But it's basically big business that runs the country more than the workers, or the people like you and me.

[Mic09]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Some are, though to an ever greater extent, they're being sold off to private companies. Once upon a time the utilities (water, gas, electricity) were nationally owned. They were sold off. Same with the Post Office, Same with Railways, telecoms, Power generation -and the process of doing the same with schools and hospitals is underway. There is actually very little left that is still owned by the nation. Huge tracts of UK land are owned by the Crown, more still by a few private land owners. Hospitals are Trusts, Universities and colleges are individual businesses....

Thinking about my day - from the food at breakfast and dinner, the plates and cutlery I used, the radio I listened to, the computer I'm typing this on, the furniture, the shop I went to - all of it produced and owned by private companies (apart from the broadcaster, BBC who made the radio programme). The Land my house is on is owned by the Duke of Lancaster. The house is mine. That's a very long way from a socialist country.

Where I agree is that "the people up top, who have strong links to political parties" plus multinational capitalist companies have a massive influence and degree of control, and it's growing. But it's basically big business that runs the country more than the workers, or the people like you and me.

I'm off to watch some butch men throw an egg around so I will only have a quick reply

Trust me, the big, 'capitalist' as you call them corporations are all for as much taxation as possible. Taxation means that no small company is able to break through anymore. Did you ever wonder why there is no more new car companies that make it big? It's because the taxation and regulations are killing the everyday bread eating Joe. Big corporations have no need to support capitalism, as capitalism would enable the small companies to have a go at them. Today, through numerous government interventions, those big companies have monopolies in many areas of the market (auto industry being the prime example).

Plus, what you are trying to describe is communism - I am not arguing that the majority of the businesses in UK are government run (I apologise if I did not make my argument a little clearer). Socialism is not running everything by the government. Socialism is taking away from you and me and giving it to the third person, with a benefit to the beurocrat . And surely you cannot argue that this is not the case today?

[Rds1983]

40 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I'm off to watch some butch men throw an egg around so I will only have a quick reply

Trust me, the big, 'capitalist' as you call them corporations are all for as much taxation as possible. Taxation means that no small company is able to break through anymore. Did you ever wonder why there is no more new car companies that make it big? It's because the taxation and regulations are killing the everyday bread eating Joe. Big corporations have no need to support capitalism, as capitalism would enable the small companies to have a go at them. Today, through numerous government interventions, those big companies have monopolies in many areas of the market (auto industry being the prime example).

The principal reason why you don't see new companies breaking through in industries such as automotive (or oil/gas, medical, aerospace or any other high end engineering) is due to the strict level of regulations involved that make supplier and quality assurance incredibly expensive and difficult to deal with. If you are not already set up to deal with these costs and have the necessary qualifications that let you operate in these industries then it will cost you an absolute fortune to gain them and this must be done before you can legally sell your products; let alone convince an established company to risk buying from you. These regulations govern the entire supply chain all the way back to the companies making the base materials to the finished product.

[OutByEaster?]

47 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Socialism is taking away from you and me and giving it to the third person, with a benefit to the beurocrat . And surely you cannot argue that this is not the case today?

Socialism is you and me and everyone pooling our resources for the benefit of everyone. Capitalism is taking away from you and me and giving it to those who own the banks.

Increasingly, corporations are pressing for increased taxation on the general populace (and not for them) because they've manipulated governments into handing that money over to them. The Pentagon for example largely exists as a way of funnelling more than a billion dollars a day of tax into the hands of arms companies, which in turn finance election campaigns for politicians who in turn maintain wars for the purpose of ensuring that there's a demand for a billion dollars a day of tax payments for arms companies. Of course, if that goes wrong, the government can ensure that more tax can bail the banks out. It's capitalism at the bottom and socialism at the top. 

The natural result of the societal pattern followed by neoliberalism is societies like Brazil or South Africa or indeed parts of American cities - where the rich are so rich they're gold plating their cars and the poor are so poor that the rich can't drive their gold plated cars anywhere without getting shot or robbed.

You seem to be advocating a sort of anarchy whereby tax is pretty much absolved and people look after themselves - where if you want a road, you pay for a road, if you want a Doctor, you pay for a Doctor and nobody gets in the way of you doing so. It's similar to what the Koch brothers believe in. I dread to think of the kind of societies it would produce.

 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

I'm off to watch some butch men throw an egg around so I will only have a quick reply

Trust me, the big, 'capitalist' as you call them corporations are all for as much taxation as possible. Taxation means that no small company is able to break through anymore. Did you ever wonder why there is no more new car companies that make it big? It's because the taxation and regulations are killing the everyday bread eating Joe. Big corporations have no need to support capitalism, as capitalism would enable the small companies to have a go at them. Today, through numerous government interventions, those big companies have monopolies in many areas of the market (auto industry being the prime example).

Plus, what you are trying to describe is communism - I am not arguing that the majority of the businesses in UK are government run (I apologise if I did not make my argument a little clearer). Socialism is not running everything by the government. Socialism is taking away from you and me and giving it to the third person, with a benefit to the beurocrat . And surely you cannot argue that this is not the case today?

No offence mate, but you have a very weak understanding of the tenets of socialism. 

[Mantis]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Socialism is you and me and everyone pooling our resources for the benefit of everyone. Capitalism is taking away from you and me and giving it to those who own the banks.

Increasingly, corporations are pressing for increased taxation on the general populace (and not for them) because they've manipulated governments into handing that money over to them. The Pentagon for example largely exists as a way of funnelling more than a billion dollars a day of tax into the hands of arms companies, which in turn finance election campaigns for politicians who in turn maintain wars for the purpose of ensuring that there's a demand for a billion dollars a day of tax payments for arms companies. Of course, if that goes wrong, the government can ensure that more tax can bail the banks out. It's capitalism at the bottom and socialism at the top. 

The natural result of the societal pattern followed by neoliberalism is societies like Brazil or South Africa or indeed parts of American cities - where the rich are so rich they're gold plating their cars and the poor are so poor that the rich can't drive their gold plated cars anywhere without getting shot or robbed.

You seem to be advocating a sort of anarchy whereby tax is pretty much absolved and people look after themselves - where if you want a road, you pay for a road, if you want a Doctor, you pay for a Doctor and nobody gets in the way of you doing so. It's similar to what the Koch brothers believe in. I dread to think of the kind of societies it would produce.

 

 

 

No it isn't.