Tired of Waiting Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) I look forward to hearing all about this on the BBC news. Quite. Broon was a disaster, anyone with half a brain already knows that. The tribal idiots will dismiss this as they always do. McRuin has done more to advance the incidence of poverty in the UK than any bankster could if they were minded to it. Quite something from a party who's expressed constituency is those on society's margins. You couldn't make it up. I think the two of you got to the core of our problems. Labour was absolutely incompetent, and now, attempting to deflect the blame, it also lost the moral high ground. But our our main media organisation is partial, due to the "unique" way it is funded, it behaves and thinks like the public sector. To make things even worse we also have the electoral client state, by sectors (public), class (benefits), and regional (Scotland and Wales). And yet, by some miracle, Labour lost. English private sector workers must have voted 'en masse' for the Tories or Lib Dems. On the positive side, this may indicate that the electorate is not totally brain dead. On the negative side, the LibDem vote may fall by the next election, mainly thanks to the BBC bias. ( I still think we need Scottish independence. ) . Edited June 11, 2011 by Tired of Waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 What is utterly shocking to me is Brown's sheer illiteracy. What on earth was he doing in government at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Labour supporters come in the form of ... - idiots - public sector workers who want to keep their pointless job - scum who do nowt but claim benefits! Plus regional support - Scotland and Wales. It's a amazing that with the stupid education system, the massive public sector and the shear number of spongers on the street that labour lost the last election, the vested interests are just so great + 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limpet Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Is not that an oxymoron? The Tories and their chums in the press are going after Balls because they see him as a major threat (they don't care about Milliband). They are aided by disgruntled Blairites who rather like Cameron because he appears to be a facile unprincipled lying little war monger out of the same cast as their hero. Still why discuss the current problems facing Britain when we can rerun the tired and tedious tale of the bickering that brought down NuLab. It is even less interesting now that all the protagonists are on the opposition benches where they are likely to remain for years to come. The problem is that politicians on all sides have so little contact with reality that they actually think the public are interested in this drivel. The only place he could be a threat would be in a pie eating contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Is this thread where the Tory think tank is tonight ? I am not a Tory. And back in 1997 (still young) I though New Labour had the right policies/manifesto. Actually, I still think so, pity they never delivered on it. Not even close. Quite the opposite in fact, on their fiscal "prudence", golden rules... If you understand basic maths you must accept that. On the economy they fecked this country for a generation. And we will never ever recover these lost decades. Ever. Snap out of your imagined reality (Labour good / others bad). Labour is worse than the others, because it debases the country's economy, its foundations, its productive capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) What is utterly shocking to me is Brown's sheer illiteracy. What on earth was he doing in government at all? It really is shocking, how this man got so far. Edited June 11, 2011 by Sir John Steed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I am a left leaning voter but never have only voted Labour in one general election, the first I was eligible for. In some ways some of my economic views are fairly right wing in that I favour a free market for most goods and service, however I don't at all believe that the Tory party actually have free market views, they strike me as in favour of big business. Take for example their new "welfare to work" policy. A free market solution would have involved me being able to go to the job centre and working with some unemployed people there to find them jobs. If they successfully got and kept jobs I could have been rewarded. Instead we see Serco / A4E etc awarded huge contracts with exclusive rights. How is that a free market? Likewise in banking I favour a proper free market approach coupled with full reserve banking. If you invest all your savings with Timak Banking and I lose your money then it is gone. In ways like this I favour the free market and personal responsibility. It would genuinely reward banks that were good at banking and punish failure. Where I do disagree with the right wingers are the social issues. I genuinely believe the NHS to be, almost, the perfect way of providing health care and am strongly against marketisation. I also struggle with the "free market" solutions for dealing with 17 year olds with 3 kids and a drug habit - you can't just let people die in the streets or rely on charities to sort out the problems. I don't know what you do with them, and can see it is annoying to see them "rewarded" with a decent home and money without having to work, but what is the genuine alternative that doesn't punush the children for the actions of the parents? Forced seperation and shipping them off to Barnados was tried and was awful for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I am a left leaning voter but never have only voted Labour in one general election, the first I was eligible for. In some ways some of my economic views are fairly right wing in that I favour a free market for most goods and service, however I don't at all believe that the Tory party actually have free market views, they strike me as in favour of big business. Take for example their new "welfare to work" policy. A free market solution would have involved me being able to go to the job centre and working with some unemployed people there to find them jobs. If they successfully got and kept jobs I could have been rewarded. Instead we see Serco / A4E etc awarded huge contracts with exclusive rights. How is that a free market? Likewise in banking I favour a proper free market approach coupled with full reserve banking. If you invest all your savings with Timak Banking and I lose your money then it is gone. In ways like this I favour the free market and personal responsibility. It would genuinely reward banks that were good at banking and punish failure. Where I do disagree with the right wingers are the social issues. I genuinely believe the NHS to be, almost, the perfect way of providing health care and am strongly against marketisation. I also struggle with the "free market" solutions for dealing with 17 year olds with 3 kids and a drug habit - you can't just let people die in the streets or rely on charities to sort out the problems. I don't know what you do with them, and can see it is annoying to see them "rewarded" with a decent home and money without having to work, but what is the genuine alternative that doesn't punush the children for the actions of the parents? Forced seperation and shipping them off to Barnados was tried and was awful for everyone. The NHS is probably the worst method of delivering high quality medical care devised by man. NO ONE has copied this model - because it would bankrupt any economy that tried to do so. The money should go to the patient and the service should be provided by private sector providers - same with education. The public health, education and welfare systems in this country exist for the benefit of the people running them - not for the benefit of the poor b*stards who have no choice but to use them This must change - not least because the money has run out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwick Yellow Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) Of course, anyone you disagree with is 'Tory scum'. I'm no Tory, but I despise Labour with a passion. We need a single term, genuinely right ring party to really take this country by the scruff of the neck without a thought for it's popularity with parasites and their representatives in parliament. And no, I don't mean the s*dding BNP. They are socialists, who should get a share of the piano wire when the time comes. I couldn't agree more....I frankly have no affiliation with any recognised party in this country but find my thoughts always dominated by a deep visceral hatred for the spineless, sponging hypocrites who form the Labour Party. I voted Tory in the last election not because I like them or 'right on' Dave in particular but because they still I believe are less incompetent and deliberately destructive than the crew of devious entitlement obsessed, sociopathic, bullying scum who run Liebour. What people seem to miss and this has started to creep out and will do more is that the Liebour elite did all this deliberately...........the pandering to Scottish interests, the deliberate loss of control of our borders, the mass bribes (sorry pay increases) to senior figures in the public sector plus mass expansion in that area, the soft sponsorship of Common Purpose, the visceration of the BBC to nothing more than their mouthpiece, the failed move to regionalisation in England, the lies about EU integration, the pandering to the bankers to fund their schemes..........all done to ensure they fiddled the system so they couldn't lose again. Its testament to how crap Brown was they they still did.....just about. Edited June 11, 2011 by Warwick Yellow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Basically the extra spending went on increasing the pay roll and inflating wages in the public sector with very little impact on the quality of services. The increase in the pay roll was bad enough, going a long way towards an increase in the structural deficit of the 90 billion mentioned. More catastrophic was the wage push, in the name of the fat c**ts social justice for workers. However, the final salary pay schemes linked to these stellar pay increases now show a 1.5 trillion black hole. Justice for today's workers but raping the unborn of money which they had no benefit from, absolute selfish jam today stuff from the fat c**t. Totally criminal what the Labout government did, and using Enron-style accounting practises to boot, anything like pension or PFI just code name the f**ker ''raptor'' and lose off balance sheet. The longer term pension implications are something the govt didn't give a toss about, still they aren't the ones picking up the tab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I am not a Tory. And back in 1997 (still young) I though New Labour had the right policies/manifesto. Actually, I still think so, pity they never delivered on it. Not even close. Quite the opposite in fact, on their fiscal "prudence", golden rules... If you understand basic maths you must accept that. On the economy they fecked this country for a generation. And we will never ever recover these lost decades. Ever. Snap out of your imagined reality (Labour good / others bad). Labour is worse than the others, because it debases the country's economy, its foundations, its productive capacity. Nope. Banking system means this scenario accross the western hemisphere was inevitable and has been since at least the 1920's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 The NHS is probably the worst method of delivering high quality medical care devised by man. NO ONE has copied this model - because it would bankrupt any economy that tried to do so. The money should go to the patient and the service should be provided by private sector providers - same with education. The public health, education and welfare systems in this country exist for the benefit of the people running them - not for the benefit of the poor b*stards who have no choice but to use them This must change - not least because the money has run out. Nope, the money should stay with it's original owner. Trying to make a market after you've nicked stuff is lunacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 The NHS is probably the worst method of delivering high quality medical care devised by man. NO ONE has copied this model - because it would bankrupt any economy that tried to do so. The money should go to the patient and the service should be provided by private sector providers - same with education. The public health, education and welfare systems in this country exist for the benefit of the people running them - not for the benefit of the poor b*stards who have no choice but to use them This must change - not least because the money has run out. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Nope, the money should stay with it's original owner. Trying to make a market after you've nicked stuff is lunacy. No one thinks an economy without any form of taxation is a viable proposition To do this we would have to return to the level of hunters gatherers, which would require the starvation of probably 95% of the World's current population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 No one thinks an economy without any form of taxation is a viable proposition= Doesn't matter. To do this we would have to return to the level of hunters gatherers, which would require the starvation of probably 95% of the World's current population. Erm no. All the civilisation you see was created by voluntary interaction. It's not my fault you've got no imagination and a pathetic desire to be trated like a bipedal cow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) I am a left leaning voter but never have only voted Labour in one general election, the first I was eligible for. In some ways some of my economic views are fairly right wing in that I favour a free market for most goods and service, however I don't at all believe that the Tory party actually have free market views, they strike me as in favour of big business. Take for example their new "welfare to work" policy. A free market solution would have involved me being able to go to the job centre and working with some unemployed people there to find them jobs. If they successfully got and kept jobs I could have been rewarded. Instead we see Serco / A4E etc awarded huge contracts with exclusive rights. How is that a free market? That is a very good point Timak. (...) Where I do disagree with the right wingers are the social issues. I genuinely believe the NHS to be, almost, the perfect way of providing health care and am strongly against marketisation. I'll leave the NHS argument for that other thread. By the way, someone posted supporting my point there. LINK: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=164870&view=findpost&p=3017904 I also struggle with the "free market" solutions for dealing with 17 year olds with 3 kids and a drug habit - you can't just let people die in the streets or rely on charities to sort out the problems. I don't know what you do with them, and can see it is annoying to see them "rewarded" with a decent home and money without having to work, but what is the genuine alternative that doesn't punush the children for the actions of the parents? Forced seperation and shipping them off to Barnados was tried and was awful for everyone. I agree, that is a difficult one. Of course most of us agree that these girls and children should be helped. The contradiction come from the fact that, once you make this a rule/system/law, then you create a perverse incentive for the future. That is the problem. I don't know what is the solution here. It has to be humane, but avoid perverse incentive. Luckily we have dozens of neighbouring EU countries that do not have this problem in numbers not even close to ours. IIRC the Netherlands has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy. And there are others doing very well too. I think we have the highest rates. Just a thought: why don't we (the gov./charities/think-tanks) go there and learn from them?? Edited June 11, 2011 by Tired of Waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) I agree, that is a difficult one. Of course most of us agree that these girls and children should be helped. The contradiction come from the fact that, once you make this a rule/system/law, then you create a perverse incentive for the future. That is the problem. I don't know what is the solution here. It has to be humane, but avoid perverse incentive. Luckily we have dozens of neighbouring EU countries that do not have this problem in numbers not even close to ours. IIRC the Netherlands has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy. And there are others doing very well too. I think we have the highest rates. Just a thought: why don't we (the gov./charities/think-tanks) go there and learn from them?? Because there is too much in it for our vested interests to change anything. Right wingers get to act superior and condescending when there are damaged people about and lefties get to feel superior and charitable. The idea of fixing them and getting them to compete on a more even footing is verbotten. Can you imagine the whinging from Tory HQ if Dave announced he was rolling out montesori schooling for everyone in the UK, not just his lickspittle chums kids? Can you imagine the whining from labour if Red Ed announced that al the barrieers to entry hte state had erected to preserve the status quo of the average public sector "helper" were removed so people could have cheap access to the help they need? Nothing is changing until the state goes completely bankrups, and that's a fact. Edited June 11, 2011 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Doesn't matter. Erm no. All the civilisation you see was created by voluntary interaction. It's not my fault you've got no imagination and a pathetic desire to be trated like a bipedal cow. Sorry Injin, but this is complete and utter nonsense And I will ignore your insults, because they say far more about the weakness of your arguments than I ever could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Because there is too much in it for our vested interests to change anything. Right wingers get to act superior and condescending when there are damaged people about and lefties get to feel superior and charitable. The idea of fixing them and getting them to compete on a more even footing is verbotten. Can you imagine the whinging from Tory HQ if Dave announced he was rolling out montesori schooling for everyone in the UK, not just his lickspittle chums kids? Can you imagine the whining from labour if Red Ed announced that al the barrieers to entry hte state had erected to preserve the status quo of the average public sector "helper" were removed so people could have cheap access to the help they need? Nothing is changing until the state goes completely bankrups, and that's a fact. Well that's probably true, but if the state goes bankrupt it will of course be replaced by another state. That's what the rest of us are arguing about - the form of the state No one else is arguing that we could exist without any state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Well that's probably true, but if the state goes bankrupt it will of course be replaced by another state. Yep, a much smaller one That's what the rest of us are arguing about - the form of the state No clue why - you have zero input. You might as well argue about what you want the stars to look like. No one else is arguing that we could exist without any state. Not relevent to anything, the same as your opinions about what state you would like to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Yep, a much smaller one No clue why - you have zero input. You might as well argue about what you want the stars to look like. Not relevent to anything, the same as your opinions about what state you would like to have. So what you are basically saying is, you have no clue why you are 'here' either becasue you also have zero input. Tell you what - if you stop posting, I'll stop posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 So what you are basically saying is, you have no clue why you are 'here' either becasue you also have zero input. Tell you what - if you stop posting, I'll stop posting. All I am doing is informing you of the right answer. You can either accept it or be wrong, and I don't care much which. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onesmallstep Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 the lady's not for turning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 All I am doing is informing you of the right answer. You can either accept it or be wrong, and I don't care much which. All I am doing is informing YOU of the right answer. You can either accept it or be wrong, and I don't care much which. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 The NHS is probably the worst method of delivering high quality medical care devised by man. NO ONE has copied this model - because it would bankrupt any economy that tried to do so. The money should go to the patient and the service should be provided by private sector providers - same with education. The public health, education and welfare systems in this country exist for the benefit of the people running them - not for the benefit of the poor b*stards who have no choice but to use them This must change - not least because the money has run out. This makes no sense. The NHS is a cheap system to run. One centralised insurer delivering treatment with economies of scale private companies would kill for. If there is no money to run the NHS then there is surely no money to run a system (insurance / voucher) that has proven to be more expensive in every other country it has been tried in. Just using pure logic please explain to me how a system with competing private entities (with their own admin, purchasing, advertising, equipment, payrolls etc) would be more efficient than a single monolithic enterprise such as the NHS? Are we to believe that doctors would heal people better if they had a profit motive? Show me a cheaper system with better outcomes in a similarly sized country and I'll be impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.