Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Would you like some ketchup with those chips?your politics has led to 2 pointless wars (3 if you inc libya) ,billions of dollars wasted and large numbers of lives lost, the migration crisis we see now has its roots in the failed wars of bush, balir and cameron and what do you say to that? water on under the bridge, move on, to the families of british soldiers killed/ maimed or ex service men living in hostels or having topped themselves... not quite so easy.
housing? you dont listen or address the fact that speculators are profiting from the state, hardly capitalism at its best.
private rents up 20% in the s/w this year alone, how high should they rise? would a 100% increase be enough or 200% ? after all the state will pick up the bill wont it?
Your assumption that a move to building more social housing will lead to mass homelessness is rubbish, makes no sense at all.
As for mcdonald, never heard of him til yesterday, his take on mrs T is hardly unique and like abbotts views, they are meaningless, these people are not in power so cannot change anything can they? why so hot under the collar?
I think you are coming across as very hot under the collar.
You have completely ignored a perfectly rational argument on Labour's rented housing policy, or else you don't understand supply and demand as you claim. Which one is it?
And as for blaming 'my politics' for two wars, well if we had taken the 'white flag' approach in previous conflicts we would likely be living under German rule...with a rather more right wing government than is currently the case.
And you are happy to defend McDonnells views as 'not unique' - this is a senior parliamentary figure stating that he wanted to murder another human being. He might not be in power now but you seem to think he will 'sweep into power'. And you are defending him. At best it is defending the indefensible."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Point 1 - problem is that socialism is reliant on capitalism to create the wealth to distribute, so socialism is a bit of a parasite in its relationship with capitalism. If we started with socialism there would be much less wealth to go round in the first place as Bompington says. And when you try to redistribute too much, you remove the incentives for that wealth to be created in the first place. Capitalism is what allows you to sit behind a keyboard in relative comfort and moan about....capitalism1) The actions of radical political movements in the past has allowed for ordinary people to share in that wealth that we all create.
4) Conservative does not necessarily mean neoliberal. My grandparents are lifelong Tory voters, but they don't support Thatcherism, they are more of the old school 1 nation Tories. So you are right, that not all conservatives are evil, heartless and selfish, but you've got to ask yourself why a Tory politician managed to land her party with the label "The Nasty Party". And people clearly are sharing in that wealth in a largely capitalist society, otherwise we would not be sitting here with a Tory majority government 
Point 4 - The Labour party PR machine most likely labelled the Tories as 'the nasty party'. Not sure we can really be bothered labelling Labour as the 'incompetent class warrior party' or similar as it's pretty obvious."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Point 1 - problem is that socialism is reliant on capitalism to create the wealth to distribute, so socialism is a bit of a parasite in its relationship with capitalism. If we started with socialism there would be much less wealth to go round in the first place as Bompington says. And when you try to redistribute too much, you remove the incentives for that wealth to be created in the first place. Capitalism is what allows you to sit behind a keyboard in relative comfort and moan about....capitalism1) The actions of radical political movements in the past has allowed for ordinary people to share in that wealth that we all create.
4) Conservative does not necessarily mean neoliberal. My grandparents are lifelong Tory voters, but they don't support Thatcherism, they are more of the old school 1 nation Tories. So you are right, that not all conservatives are evil, heartless and selfish, but you've got to ask yourself why a Tory politician managed to land her party with the label "The Nasty Party". And people clearly are sharing in that wealth in a largely capitalist society, otherwise we would not be sitting here with a Tory majority government
Point 4 - The Labour party PR machine most likely labelled the Tories as 'the nasty party'. Not sure we can really be bothered labelling Labour as the 'incompetent class warrior party' or similar as it's pretty obvious.
The idea of socialism is democratic ownership. Why would a worker-owned enterprise create less wealth than one which is owned by shareholders? Why is my Orbea, for example, inferior in terms of wealth creation than a Trek or Cannondale? Even if you were to define socialism as state activity, which many conservatives tend to do, then it is state-funded research which is responsible for a lot of technological advances - the computer and the Internet/www actually being two prime examples.
Whatever the economic system, humans will make progress, it's in our nature.
It was Theresa May who landed the Tories with the "nasty party" label when talking to party members about the need to expand the Tories' vision beyond just serving a small constituency and become more inclusive.0 -
A lot of lefties here are falling into the old trap of thinking that left = "for the many" and right = "for the few".
The fact is that capitalism and free markets have created vastly more prosperity, for vastly more people, than socialism - which, in all its history, has created pretty much zero prosperity for zero people (apart from the party elites, of course ;-))
It is entirely rational to believe that free markets are the best solution to poverty - and as a consequence, the pathetic, caricatured, stereotyping cliche that people who advocate it are either selfish or serfs who inexplicably fawn before their masters is simply a ridiculous slur.
Less than 1 million people globally are considered wealthy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-need-34k-income-global-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html
Whilst we live in the relative comfort of the West, the vast majority of the world's population are in poverty.
Are you telling me that socialism is responsible for the shanty town of Kibera and the slums in India or those in Malaysia? No, Capitalism, which requires the expendable commodity of cheap labour until the wheels of industry stop turning when the work becomes displaced to somewhere else.
We used to talk about the handfull of millionaires in the 70's, now we talk about the billionaires with their multi million pound flats in London and enormous luxury yachts. Does an individual worth £Xbn really do anything to redress the inequality? Does it really? How have all the Russian Oligarch's camped in London improved my standard of living with their millions? I know from the London Metal Exchange prices and in my line of work, it has done exactly the opposite.PS - Alain's wheeling out the old myth that northern Europe is a paradise of socialist prosperity and equality: have a look at Scandinavian Unexceptionalism
The Scandinavians enjoy a very high standard of living, probably due to their mixed economies which verge on the left of centre politically. This is mainly because wealth is very evenly distributed. I mis-trust any right wing propaganda that views any form of socialism as a threat to their comfortable lifestyle.
Next time you go to A&E and you don't pay for it through an insurance policy or your credit card...
Next time you get a doctor's appointment and it's free, just like the last time...
When you draw your pension - just think about the welfare state
Oh, and when you and your children have enjoyed a free education...
The 'JC and labour are loosers and the Tories are going to win' line is puerile and standing staunchly on one side of the fence or the other is totally un-constructive when it is plain to see, whatever your political standing, is that UK PLC is not in great shape and will sink with whatever Chinese/American/Indian/Saudi Arabian Oil boat it is tied to.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
OK, at this point you are either being disingenuous, or ingeniously stupid. Hard to tell which. You talk about "supply and demand" as if its an absolute, economics 2.0 tells us its not, due to real world things like substitutes and, here we go, non- market, including government, incentives: House rental is, like many things, an imperfect market. Hence BUYING a house is a direct substitute for renting, as indeed is living at home /house share, etc etc. So your idea that "decreasing the rental properties will lead to more homelessness" is like saying there will be more 18 yo virgins in Newcastle if the Ritzis nightclub closes down. The stock doesnt change. As to HOW you bring about the shift, its blindingly simple, apply a higher taxation rate on rental properties, plus a higher stamp duty to stop repeated house sales and purchases. No need for the state to repurchase anything. One of the single biggest differences between the UK and frankly, wholly successful Northern European economies is the differential view of a house as an "asset" which has to rise in value above and beyond other asset classes, and a home to live in. As for the "gravy train" assertion, whilst its true I cant be bothered to search for UK data, you claim to be a betting man, and Ill bet all the money in my wallet against all the money in yours (Im a 45 y.o. retiree living offshore so you decide if you'll be in the money or not) that rental properties are NOT owned by nurses, state school teachers, soldiers etc who do all the stuff of real value in the UK.
Asking so many questions I dont have time to answer them all, does not make you rightJohn McDonennell appointed shadow chancellor - the lunatics have take over the asylum. Here's a few of his previous statement and views on policy: :shock:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-mcdonnell-profile-jeremy-corbyns-new-shadow-chancellor-who-once-said-he-wanted-to-assassinate-margaret-thatcher-10499474.html
@ mamba, I will answer your point later although you need to understand supply and demand
theres alot more than one point you failed to address and i know plenty about supply and demand, which is why everyone and his dog is trying to get on the buy to let gravy train (funded by housing benefit, in turn funded by the likes of me and you on 40%)
i m just thinking "which beer or more, shall i have when stevo's buying"
I'm a busy boy and tax doesnt just save itself.
Your evidence thay buy to let is a gravy train is what? Many are simply trying to grt a decent return on their money or create a pension pot. Why penalise that? Sounds like politics of envy.
Anyway, on supply and demand re the private tenant right to buy and also the expected rent controls. As youre a supply and demand literate type this will be pretty easy to understand.
- Rent controls will reduce the return from rentals and in some cases make it uneconomic to rent a property.
- Private tenants right to buy means that a private landlords wil, have no control over when they have to give up their assets, and by implication no control over the price (otherwise they would just overprice the property to prevent a sale).
If I were a private landlord I would sell up and get out while I have control on price and timing. The result is a large decrease in rented housing availability with no change in demand. And as many wanting to rent will either not want to buy or not be able to afford to buy, result will be both an increase in homelessness and reduced labour mobility. It wil, also add to upward pressure on rental prices. The opposite effects from what is intended.
And do tell us, where will the state get all the cash to take these properties into public ownership? Or build enough tk replace the loss of private stock in the timescale that the landlord exit the market?
But frankly, I could give a T**S about the housing situation, my sense is the reason you are so adamant about this new /old labour chap even before hes had a chance to put out a manifesto, is the fear that your position in society is under threat by any viewpoint which challenges the failed neo-liberal orthodoxy of market liberalization, self regulation and "all for me" which BOTH mainstream political parties have been touting for so long. Frankly the BIGGEST failure of economics over the past fifty years hasn't been some Kenysian nightmare of "digging holes to fill them in again", but the right wing market liberalization and supply side "orthodoxy" of Friedman and Greenspan. Someone else here postulated, Krugman has been very keen to tout his theories to anyone who will listen, but he hasnt been wrong yet : Ive said it before, these populist movements will be very, (still cant think of another word), popular, and you and your hegemonic ilk nave three options; lead, follow or get out of the way.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
Would you like some ketchup with those chips?housing? you dont listen or address the fact that speculators are profiting from the state, hardly capitalism at its best.
private rents up 20% in the s/w this year alone, how high should they rise? would a 100% increase be enough or 200% ? after all the state will pick up the bill wont it?
Your assumption that a move to building more social housing will lead to mass homelessness is rubbish, makes no sense at all. I think you are coming across as very hot under the collar.
You have completely ignored a perfectly rational argument on Labour's rented housing policy, or else you don't understand supply and demand as you claim. Which one is it?
And as for blaming 'my politics' for two wars, well if we had taken the 'white flag' approach in previous conflicts we would likely be living under German rule...with a rather more right wing government than is currently the case.
And you are happy to defend McDonnells views as 'not unique' - this is a senior parliamentary figure stating that he wanted to murder another human being. He might not be in power now but you seem to think he will 'sweep into power'. And you are defending him. At best it is defending the indefensible.
You ve still not explainned your remark about mass homeless if we returned to a social housing run policy rather than using the private sector? rightyb0llox as you d say supply and demand would mean the opposite.
the wars in Iraq, Afgan and libya have zero to do with a direct attack through europe, taking in russia, far east and japan, that you think so, shows you ve little understanding of history - wasnt it the right that wanted a deal with the facists and the communists who first went to fight in spain?
'donnels views were made when he was a piffling back bencher? i think you or your ilk have defended cameron and his antics as an eton student?
'donnel has also issued an apology but the point is, why are you getting sooooo wound up about some guys which even i would admit is hardly likely to last out the year let alone 2020 ? but if they do survive this series of media/tory and LPP attacks then who knows?0 -
I do wonder if the UK will see a much wider political divide in the future. The current system has failed, so what will come in its place? My prediction (given 20 seconds' thought to this, so don't hold me to it in the future) is that the Tories will end up moving towards a US Tea Party style of libertarianism whereas Labour will drift leftwards, with the Lib Dems gobbling up the (now smaller) centre ground once voters realise they weren't all that bad after all. The Greens will feel the squeeze from Labour, but if Britain stays in the EU, the Tories (who will campaign to stay in) will continue to lose out to UKIP.
There, that's my not-given-it-much-thought-and-it-probably-won't-happen forecast. If it does happen, I'm going to stake my claim to geniusness.0 -
You're confusing value creation with the distribution of economic rents. Capitalism is A way of sharing proceeds, nothing more. The biggest jumps in value creation were in centrally managed economies, including the German industrial development post 1945 and Japans HUGE increase in productivity driven by the ministry of trade in the 1890s, which may well have been considered communist. Read more here: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/corporate-governance-and-sustainable-prosperity-william-lazonick/?isb=9780333777572Point 1 - problem is that socialism is reliant on capitalism to create the wealth to distribute, so socialism is a bit of a parasite in its relationship with capitalism. If we started with socialism there would be much less wealth to go round in the first place as Bompington says. And when you try to redistribute too much, you remove the incentives for that wealth to be created in the first place. Capitalism is what allows you to sit behind a keyboard in relative comfort and moan about....capitalism And people clearly are sharing in that wealth in a largely capitalist society, otherwise we would not be sitting here with a Tory majority government
.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
Scandinavia wasn't that wealthy until they discovered oil in the North Sea, so it can afford a punchy welfare system etc. people will tolerate high taxes if almost everyone already lives very comfortably.
i mean, the UK never discovered oil in the nor...oh, wait.
Never mind.0 -
John McDonennell appointed shadow chancellor - the lunatics have take over the asylum. Here's a few of his previous statement and views on policy: :shock:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-mcdonnell-profile-jeremy-corbyns-new-shadow-chancellor-who-once-said-he-wanted-to-assassinate-margaret-thatcher-10499474.html
@ mamba, I will answer your point later although you need to understand supply and demand
theres alot... market?
OK, at this point you are either being disingenuous, or ingeniously stupid. Hard to tell which. You talk about "supply and demand" as if its an absolute, economics 2.0 tells us its not, due to real world things like substitutes and, here we go, non- market, including government, incentives: House rental is, like many things, an imperfect market. Hence BUYING a house is a direct substitute for renting, as indeed is living at home /house share, etc etc. So your idea that "decreasing the rental properties will lead to more homelessness" is like saying there will be more 18 yo virgins in Newcastle if the Ritzis nightclub closes down. The stock doesnt change. As to HOW you bring about the shift, its blindingly simple, apply a higher taxation rate on rental properties, plus a higher stamp duty to stop repeated house sales and purchases. No need for the state to repurchase anything. One of the single biggest differences between the UK and frankly, wholly successful Northern European economies is the differential view of a house as an "asset" which has to rise in value above and beyond other asset classes, and a home to live in. As for the "gravy train" assertion, whilst its true I cant be bothered to search for UK data, you claim to be a betting man, and Ill bet all the money in my wallet against all the money in yours (Im a 45 y.o. retiree living offshore so you decide if you'll be in the money or not) that rental properties are NOT owned by nurses, state school teachers, soldiers etc who do all the stuff of real value in the UK.
But frankly, I could give a T**S about the housing situation, my sense is the reason you are so adamant about this new /old labour chap even before hes had a chance to put out a manifesto, is the fear that your position in society is under threat by any viewpoint which challenges the failed neo-liberal orthodoxy of market liberalization, self regulation and "all for me" which BOTH mainstream political parties have been touting for so long. Frankly the BIGGEST failure of economics over the past fifty years hasn't been some Kenysian nightmare of "digging holes to fill them in again", but the right wing market liberalization and supply side "orthodoxy" of Friedman and Greenspan. Someone else here postulated, Krugman has been very keen to tout his theories to anyone who will listen, but he hasnt been wrong yet : Ive said it before, these populist movements will be very, (still cant think of another word), popular, and you and your hegemonic ilk nave three options; lead, follow or get out of the way.
Interesting viewpoint from somebody that is obviously in a good financial position.
@Stevo:
If you can clarify everything in terms of black and white and the balance sheet, it's an easy world to reconcile.
If the premise of that reason is flawed, you might find yourself shouting your mouth off in a 2 dimensional way.
OT:
When a friend of mine bought a run down Gite in France for £20k, the neighbours of that Gite remarked "What for?" in that typically French way, adding "That's more than a car!".
Thatcher sold us the idea that we could all own our own home. In so doing, she accelerated the demand for bought housing and reduced the stock of council owned rental properties but of course, thereby securing the vote of those who managed to 'get ahead'.
In Denmark, 65% of housing is rented. When I lived in Sweden, I rented an apartment for the equivalent of £180 per month. It included maintenance fee, lighting, heating, hot water and a free communal laundry room.
It was a far better quality and value than anything I have rented at twice the cost in the UK. So what exactly is wrong with social housing? Why can't the nurses at the Hammersmith Hospital afford to rent a premises nearby? Why does a well-meaning mother of 2 or 3 have to put up with short term tenancies, having to shift her children to another school/area every 6 months because of the rent inflation? What good does it do those children and what long term hope have they got?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Kinda my point Rick, that socialism only kicks in on the back of wealth already generated. The Scandy example is I think limited to Norway which has/had oil reserves way larger than those of the UK in proportion to its economy and population.Scandinavia wasn't that wealthy until they discovered oil in the North Sea, so it can afford a punchy welfare system etc. people will tolerate high taxes if almost everyone already lives very comfortably.
i mean, the UK never discovered oil in the nor...oh, wait.
Never mind.
Although I would not describe Norway or the Scandies as socialist, more capitalist countries with high personal tax and certain indirect tax rates. The wider benefits provision I think is cultural and stems from the more enforced collectivism of living in a relatively inhospitable climate."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How about England in the industrial revolution, or the emergence of the USA as the worlds largest economy. And Germany post 1945 was starting from a ruined economy so of course it would grow quickly.
You're confusing value creation with the distribution of economic rents. Capitalism is A way of sharing proceeds, nothing more. The biggest jumps in value creation were in centrally managed economies, including the German industrial development post 1945 and Japans HUGE increase in productivity driven by the ministry of trade in the 1890s, which may well have been considered communist. Read more here: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/corporate-governance-and-sustainable-prosperity-william-lazonick/?isb=9780333777572Point 1 - problem is that socialism is reliant on capitalism to create the wealth to distribute, so socialism is a bit of a parasite in its relationship with capitalism. If we started with socialism there would be much less wealth to go round in the first place as Bompington says. And when you try to redistribute too much, you remove the incentives for that wealth to be created in the first place. Capitalism is what allows you to sit behind a keyboard in relative comfort and moan about....capitalism And people clearly are sharing in that wealth in a largely capitalist society, otherwise we would not be sitting here with a Tory majority government
.
As for your other post above, tbh it was too long and ramblingg to see what point you were trying to make. Althougg I did lose interest when you accused me of being stupid or untruthful. If I tell you things that dont fit in with your view, toughl. But at least try to reply clearly and concisely"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Kinda my point Rick, that socialism only kicks in on the back of wealth already generated. The Scandy example is I think limited to Norway which has/had oil reserves way larger than those of the UK in proportion to its economy and population.Scandinavia wasn't that wealthy until they discovered oil in the North Sea, so it can afford a punchy welfare system etc. people will tolerate high taxes if almost everyone already lives very comfortably.
i mean, the UK never discovered oil in the nor...oh, wait.
Never mind.
Although I would not describe Norway or the Scandies as socialist, more capitalist countries with high personal tax and certain indirect tax rates. The wider benefits provision I think is cultural and stems from the more enforced collectivism of living in a relatively inhospitable climate.
I think that what Rick's saying is that maybe we could have done with our oil wealth what the Norwegians did with theirs.0 -
Youre missing the point about the relative size. Norway oil production is similar in size to the UK but their population is about a 10th of the UK. If we had 10x the oil production we could do what they did....
Kinda my point Rick, that socialism only kicks in on the back of wealth already generated. The Scandy example is I think limited to Norway which has/had oil reserves way larger than those of the UK in proportion to its economy and population.Scandinavia wasn't that wealthy until they discovered oil in the North Sea, so it can afford a punchy welfare system etc. people will tolerate high taxes if almost everyone already lives very comfortably.
i mean, the UK never discovered oil in the nor...oh, wait.
Never mind.
Although I would not describe Norway or the Scandies as socialist, more capitalist countries with high personal tax and certain indirect tax rates. The wider benefits provision I think is cultural and stems from the more enforced collectivism of living in a relatively inhospitable climate.
I think that what Rick's saying is that maybe we could have done with our oil wealth what the Norwegians did with theirs."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm not missing any point. I was suggesting what Rick's point was.0
-
What, use it to invest in public infrastructure and save it for a rainy day in a sovereign wealth fund?
Fairly sure it was used to pay for lower taxes to help keep Maggie in power!!0 -
:roll: Read my post again mamba and reply to it, not what you want to reply to. I explained the impact of rent controls and private tenants right to buy on private housing availability. That's different from the impact of just providing social housing.
Would you like some ketchup with those chips?housing? you dont listen or address the fact that speculators are profiting from the state, hardly capitalism at its best.
private rents up 20% in the s/w this year alone, how high should they rise? would a 100% increase be enough or 200% ? after all the state will pick up the bill wont it?
Your assumption that a move to building more social housing will lead to mass homelessness is rubbish, makes no sense at all. I think you are coming across as very hot under the collar.
You have completely ignored a perfectly rational argument on Labour's rented housing policy, or else you don't understand supply and demand as you claim. Which one is it?
And as for blaming 'my politics' for two wars, well if we had taken the 'white flag' approach in previous conflicts we would likely be living under German rule...with a rather more right wing government than is currently the case.
And you are happy to defend McDonnells views as 'not unique' - this is a senior parliamentary figure stating that he wanted to murder another human being. He might not be in power now but you seem to think he will 'sweep into power'. And you are defending him. At best it is defending the indefensible.
You ve still not explainned your remark about mass homeless if we returned to a social housing run policy rather than using the private sector? rightyb0llox as you d say supply and demand would mean the opposite.
the wars in Iraq, Afgan and libya have zero to do with a direct attack through europe, taking in russia, far east and japan, that you think so, shows you ve little understanding of history - wasnt it the right that wanted a deal with the facists and the communists who first went to fight in spain?
'donnels views were made when he was a piffling back bencher? i think you or your ilk have defended cameron and his antics as an eton student?
'donnel has also issued an apology but the point is, why are you getting sooooo wound up about some guys which even i would admit is hardly likely to last out the year let alone 2020 ? but if they do survive this series of media/tory and LPP attacks then who knows?
And no matter how many times you claim I'm getting wound up, it doesnt really matter. I'm loving the fact that such a loser is leading Labour. Like I said above, it's just good sport Now calm down and have nice hot cup of tea "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Size matters, and the Norwegians had way more oil money to play with in relation to their size of their economy - a genuine surplus. Not sure there is a simpler way of sayig it. Although perhaps you can explain what happened to our oil money when Labour was in power on the 70s, late 90s and the last decade?What, use it to invest in public infrastructure and save it for a rainy day in a sovereign wealth fund?
Fairly sure it was used to pay for lower taxes to help keep Maggie in power!!
Evidence for the tax cut claim please? Not looked hard but company tax rates in Norway were lower than yhe UK in the Thatcher era."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Re Norway & UK oil revenue: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.it/2014/01/was-uk-governments-use-of-north-sea-oil.html?m=1
Reasonably balanced.0 -
Size matters, and the Norwegians had way more oil money to play with in relation to their size of their economy - a genuine surplus. Not sure there is a simpler way of sayig it. Although perhaps you can explain what happened to our oil money when Labour was in power on the 70s, late 90s and the last decade?What, use it to invest in public infrastructure and save it for a rainy day in a sovereign wealth fund?
Fairly sure it was used to pay for lower taxes to help keep Maggie in power!!
Evidence for the tax cut claim please? Not looked hard but company tax rates in Norway were lower than yhe UK in the Thatcher era.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-19871411
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-–-failure-invest-britain’s-future
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/10103345/We-wasted-North-Sea-oil-lets-not-do-the-same-with-shale-gas.html
Not the hard numbers but you get the idea0 -
First line of that mentions this is the view of someone who works for the Guardian, so unlikely to be 'reasonably balanced'.Re Norway & UK oil revenue: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.it/2014/01/was-uk-governments-use-of-north-sea-oil.html?m=1
Reasonably balanced."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And from the telegraph articleOne of his many predecessors was a young John Smith, who as a Labour minister in the 1970s suggested the same idea for North Sea revenues. He, too, got short shrift, due to Downing Street’s fears of Scottish ambition and the financial demands of austere times.0
-
First line of that mentions this is the view of someone who works for the Guardian, so unlikely to be 'reasonably balanced'.Re Norway & UK oil revenue: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.it/2014/01/was-uk-governments-use-of-north-sea-oil.html?m=1
Reasonably balanced.
So you are going to disregard any left wing journalism, no matter how balanced or fair it may be? I get the picture.
I often pick up some of the right wing broad sheets to read in a cafe or wherever, despite the fact that I know what political perspective they are coming from.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
First line of that mentions this is the view of someone who works for the Guardian, so unlikely to be 'reasonably balanced'.Re Norway & UK oil revenue: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.it/2014/01/was-uk-governments-use-of-north-sea-oil.html?m=1
Reasonably balanced.
First line of 2nd paragraph: "Not so fast. The opposing argument can also be stated in an equally compelling way."
If that's how you interrogate sources, then I'll leave it there shall I?0 -
using nordic countries as comparable to a large population, historically influenced, service driven the UK....KEK
corbyn...top KEK
corbyn wont cause labour to lose votes in a GE....not even a word for it.
btw what are the tories meant to do with the oppo apart from say how bad they would be...praise them? big them up? some people....jeez0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19703994#p19703994]the playing mantis[/url] wrote:btw what are the tories meant to do with the oppo apart from say how bad they would be...praise them? big them up? some people....jeez
Tory party are of course going to criticise Jeremy Corbyn. But have we given up all hope of having a media which, even if biased, sticks to honest interpretations of facts, rather than just lying?0 -
private rents up 20% in the s/w this year alone, how high should they rise? would a 100% increase be enough or 200% ? after all the state will pick up the bill wont it?
Your assumption that a move to building more social housing will lead to mass homelessness is rubbish, makes no sense at all.
:roll: Read my post again mamba and reply to it, not what you want to reply to. I explained the impact of rent controls and private tenants right to buy on private housing availability. That's different from the impact of just providing social housing:
as i never mentioned rent control (in this context or indeed these recent threads).... and as you ve still not explained why social housing would lead to mass homelessness.... i ll take that as you ve realised you are talking rightyb0ll0x
what having no housing policy and ever increasing rents is doing, is making hard working people poorer and poorer, HB goes ever upwards, whilst people who are already well off, get to secure their pension pots and/or return on their savings (your words) and unlike rent support in SH, this money does not go back into the pot of inproving or increasing housing.0 -
Scandinavia wasn't that wealthy until they discovered oil in the North Sea, so it can afford a punchy welfare system etc. people will tolerate high taxes if almost everyone already lives very comfortably.
i mean, the UK never discovered oil in the nor...oh, wait.
Never mind.
Likewise look at the summary of yesterdays Dutch equivalent to the budget - http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/09/dutch-economy-is-at-a-crucial-phase-says-finance-minister/
A lot of "leftybollox" in there (from an ostensibly right wing coalition)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Likewise look at the summary of yesterdays Dutch equivalent to the budget - http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/09/dutch-economy-is-at-a-crucial-phase-says-finance-minister/
A lot of "leftybollox" in there (from an ostensibly right wing coalition)
Yeah, well as usual those commie Dutch are going to come scrounging to Britain when socialism leaves their children starving to death AS IT ALWAYS DOES. But not this time! We'll be too busy knocking one out over pictures of Thatcher to listen to their pitiful left-wing whining. Bloody socialists.0 -
How about England in the industrial revolution, or the emergence of the USA as the worlds largest economy. And Germany post 1945 was starting from a ruined economy so of course it would grow quickly.
You're confusing value creation with the distribution of economic rents. Capitalism is A way of sharing proceeds, nothing more. The biggest jumps in value creation were in centrally managed economies, including the German industrial development post 1945 and Japans HUGE increase in productivity driven by the ministry of trade in the 1890s, which may well have been considered communist. Read more here: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/corporate-governance-and-sustainable-prosperity-william-lazonick/?isb=9780333777572Point 1 - problem is that socialism is reliant on capitalism to create the wealth to distribute, so socialism is a bit of a parasite in its relationship with capitalism. If we started with socialism there would be much less wealth to go round in the first place as Bompington says. And when you try to redistribute too much, you remove the incentives for that wealth to be created in the first place. Capitalism is what allows you to sit behind a keyboard in relative comfort and moan about....capitalism And people clearly are sharing in that wealth in a largely capitalist society, otherwise we would not be sitting here with a Tory majority government
.
As for your other post above, tbh it was too long and ramblingg to see what point you were trying to make. Althougg I did lose interest when you accused me of being stupid or untruthful. If I tell you things that dont fit in with your view, toughl. But at least try to reply clearly and concisely
Pity you din't want to read the post, its your loss as you would have learnt something.
Sometimes things are complex, if they are too complex for you, no worries.
Chandlers book "The Visible Hand" makes the point that the emergence of the US as a dominant economy was driven by two things, firstly a monopoly of the railways and telegraph, then secondly the centrally planned WWII manufacturing. The Industrial revolution, granted, I haven't studied in great detail but its hard to see it as a genuine capitalist event given there was little or no stock ownership. Can I perhaps apologize in advance if you aren't able to keep up, you're either unable to follow or, (I suspect) unwilling to as it doesnt fit in with your own paradigm. Not posting again as in either case its a waste of my time.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0
