View Full Version : Thatchers legacy.
piratelassie
20-Dec-12, 19:19
When the public utilities were sold off under Thatcher people were queuing up to buy shares. Now that these private companies are ripping us off to maximise their profits I hope these people are proud of themselves. Is it not time to nationalise the utilities again?
When the public utilities were sold off under Thatcher people were queuing up to buy shares. Now that these private companies are ripping us off to maximise their profits I hope these people are proud of themselves. Is it not time to nationalise the utilities again?
No it isn't. They were bankrupting the country.
No it isn't. There were bankrupting the country.
You mean to say that the treasury was losing money?
Best thing she did... bunch of lazy want it all's...
Angel...
You mean to say that the treasury was losing money?
What do you think the treasury do with the money?
What do you think the treasury do with the money?
You didn't answer my question.
I now own my ex council house because of Maggie and her policies, should I speak against her?
M Swanson
20-Dec-12, 23:45
Nah! Not if it goes against the grain with you, Golach. You'd be in good company, because in every poll I've ever seen, which invites folks to nominate the greatest Prime Minister of all time, Margaret Hilda comes first or second. She plays catch-as-catch-can with Winston Churchill. Personally, I wish we had somebody of her strength and character to lead us, instead of the plonkers we have now, who all sing from the same hymn sheet. ;)
I now own my ex council house because of Maggie and her policies, should I speak against her?
You are an individual and so you took advantage of any opportunity that came your way. Nobody can say anything against that, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
How many gifts did the horse have to give?
I think the horse was all mouth...
M Swanson
20-Dec-12, 23:53
Is this it Rheg? Quite frankly, I'm a little disappointed in you. :(
Is this it Rheg? Quite frankly, I'm a little disappointed in you. :(
Is what, M Swanson? Surely you should be waiting for a reply from golach?
M Swanson
21-Dec-12, 00:01
Uhm! No! I don't wait for a reply from anyone Rheg. If one comes, whilst I'm flitting here and there, then great - I'm always pleased to chat. ;) Bring it on, I say! :D
piratelassie
21-Dec-12, 01:30
Where the hell did looking out for each other go. Today it seems its all me me me and society is worse for it.
Utilities should never of been privatised, surely they could have been reformed & modernised without selling them off & if they couldn't then maybe it's the Government that should have been privatised... lol
As for the selling of council houses... Nothing wrong with that as long as for every one sold a new one was built which didn't happen.
Where the hell did looking out for each other go. Today it seems its all me me me and society is worse for it.
It's people that change. Nobody can make you change (least of all the government of the day). If you don't like the person you are....change.
You didn't answer my question.
I thought it was rhetorical. It's the government's responsibilty to spend your taxes wisely. Getting best value.
It is not to run utilities badly and expensively.
People complain about high bills. You now have high bills, but (until recently, FIT, renewable subsidies etc.) you don't have huge proportions of your taxes wasted trying to keep ancient and clapped out utilities working.
I thought it was rhetorical. It's the government's responsibilty to spend your taxes wisely. Getting best value.
It is not to run utilities badly and expensively.
People complain about high bills. You now have high bills, but (until recently, FIT, renewable subsidies etc.) you don't have huge proportions of your taxes wasted trying to keep ancient and clapped out utilities working.
I disagree totally as I have a different view on the provision of renewable energy and your take on what is causing high bills.
If the energy utilities were in public ownership then there won't be any need for the Renewable Obligation incentive. The government would just simply do what is necessary to decarbonise the energy market.
The RO increases the cost of renewable energy by ~5p/kWh, but the build cost is just ~2p/kWh. So that would mean that the taxpayer would pay approximately 25% for their renewable energy than what they do currently. The government doesn't need a stick and carrot, it just needs to act on its best scientific advice and answer to public opinion.
The existing Renewable Obligation is a bit of a dog's dinner for consumers but it is working and that is why consumer and anti-windfarm groups are deeply opposed to it.
The only party that proposes to put the utilities back into public ownership is the Green Party.
When the public utilities were sold off under Thatcher people were queuing up to buy shares. Now that these private companies are ripping us off to maximise their profits I hope these people are proud of themselves. Is it not time to nationalise the utilities again?
Yes, it is time to renationalise. The Thatcher promise was that privatisation would 'increase competition resulting in better services and lower prices for the consumer'.
Show me one privatised utility/industry where that has happened.
When the public utilities were sold off under Thatcher people were queuing up to buy shares. Now that these private companies are ripping us off to maximise their profits I hope these people are proud of themselves. Is it not time to nationalise the utilities again?
Awwww whats up? Did you not buy the British Telecoms and British Gas shares when offered, some of us did [lol] And I am not a Thatcherite
M Swanson
21-Dec-12, 14:24
That's a pity Golach. It seems that you were given a wonderful opportunity to own your home, which is something a lot of us aspire too, but not all can. Margaret Hilda made that possible. Rest assured no other party would have. They're only interested in acquiring their own des res - hypocrites that they are! Hope you did well from your shares too. Must have made a good difference to your fortunes and prospects, surely. Me and thousands of other working class folks prospered and some remain grateful. Others don't, I suppose. Did you vote for her? Margaret Hilda was elected three times and the people never voted her out. A brilliant leader for those times, in my estimation!
Show me one privatised utility/industry where that has happened.
We could say all of them. We don't know how bad a state they would have been in by now, had they never been privatised.
piratelassie
21-Dec-12, 18:35
Thatcher,s policies were the promotion of greed. Stuff you if you cant pay for it, on matter your circumstances.
tonkatojo
22-Dec-12, 11:02
Thatcher,s policies were the promotion of greed. Stuff you if you cant pay for it, no matter your circumstances.
I find it strange having to agree with your above statement (I amended your spelling).
I find it strange having to agree with your above statement (I amended your spelling).
Again, no one else can make you be greedy. If you are, it is down to you.
And all the best for a speedy recovery M.
Kasper King
22-Dec-12, 17:36
Oh yes, I remember the glory days of the public owner industries.
Railway staff turning up hours late and still drunk from the night before, and when you complined the went on strike! Going to meetings with your opposite number and 5 turn up! Union barons telling the managers how to run the buissness and who can forget good old Arthur "king of the miners", telling the people of the UK that he did not like the democratic choice of government and was going to destroy it!
Ah yes and didn't you just love being stopped at the county borders by flying pickets who would not let you through unless you had you vehicle searched in case you where carrying coal! Not that the pickets had ever worked in the mines, the socalist workers party and rent a mod spring to mind. It was amzing how anoyed they would get when you drove past the check point on the moors in a landrover.
So my advice it take off the rose tinted glasses and return to the real world there are a lot of people out there that remember how thing really where.
Oh yes, I remember the glory days of the public owner industries.
Railway staff turning up hours late and still drunk from the night before, and when you complined the went on strike! Going to meetings with your opposite number and 5 turn up! Union barons telling the managers how to run the buissness and who can forget good old Arthur "king of the miners", telling the people of the UK that he did not like the democratic choice of government and was going to destroy it!
Ah yes and didn't you just love being stopped at the county borders by flying pickets who would not let you through unless you had you vehicle searched in case you where carrying coal! Not that the pickets had ever worked in the mines, the socalist workers party and rent a mod spring to mind. It was amzing how anoyed they would get when you drove past the check point on the moors in a landrover.
So my advice it take off the rose tinted glasses and return to the real world there are a lot of people out there that remember how thing really where.
So... Are you saying that all of societies ills in the 70's where caused by the fact that we had nationalised utilities?
M Swanson
22-Dec-12, 18:27
Oh yes, I remember the glory days of the public owner industries.
Railway staff turning up hours late and still drunk from the night before, and when you complined the went on strike! Going to meetings with your opposite number and 5 turn up! Union barons telling the managers how to run the buissness and who can forget good old Arthur "king of the miners", telling the people of the UK that he did not like the democratic choice of government and was going to destroy it!
Ah yes and didn't you just love being stopped at the county borders by flying pickets who would not let you through unless you had you vehicle searched in case you where carrying coal! Not that the pickets had ever worked in the mines, the socalist workers party and rent a mod spring to mind. It was amzing how anoyed they would get when you drove past the check point on the moors in a landrover.
So my advice it take off the rose tinted glasses and return to the real world there are a lot of people out there that remember how thing really where.
A brilliant post, thanks Kasper and an accurate account of how things were at that time. Britain was being crippled by outrageous Union demands. Scargill is on record for declaring that his intention was to topple the government. He cared not a jot for the miners, their families, or the industry. But, just before he declared the strike, he made sure a year's salary was paid into his account, whilst the workers struggled. The measure of the man and his loathesome ideology is that recently, he lost his fight in the High Court, for the NUM to continue paying for his London flat, in upmarket London, for HIS lifetime. Why would he need a second home? What did he ever do for Britain, the coal industry, or the miners?
A brilliant post, thanks Kasper and an accurate account of how things were at that time. Britain was being crippled by outrageous Union demands. Scargill is on record for declaring that his intention was to topple the government. He cared not a jot for the miners, their families, or the industry. But, just before he declared the strike, he made sure a year's salary was paid into his account, whilst the workers struggled. The measure of the man and his loathesome ideology is that recently, he lost his fight in the High Court, for the NUM to continue paying for his London flat, in upmarket London, for HIS lifetime. Why would he need a second home? What did he ever do for Britain, the coal industry, or the miners?
.... So.... Nationalised industries need to be privatised to stop greedy union bosses from lining their own pocket?
Should privatised industries be nationalised if they show any signs of corruption or greed by the management/shareholders?
We could say all of them. We don't know how bad a state they would have been in by now, had they never been privatised.
Really? So gas, electricity, water bills have all got cheaper? Railways are better, more punctual, and cheaper? Their services are better than they were before privatisation? Then there's the Post Office, is that better for the creeping privatisation being forced on it?
Again, no one else can make you be greedy. If you are, it is down to you.
And all the best for a speedy recovery M.
Really? Have you not noticed the stigmatising of the disabled, the sick, the unemployed? The abuse being heaped on those people at the behest of a government that derides society's weakest as 'scroungers' etc? You haven't noticed the abuse these people are now getting from the general public as a direct result of government rhetoric?
We could say all of them. We don't know how bad a state they would have been in by now, had they never been privatised.
Really? So gas, electricity, water bills have all got cheaper? Railways are better, more punctual, and cheaper? Their services are better than they were before privatisation? Then there's the Post Office, is that better for the creeping privatisation being forced on it?
Well, if you do don't know what state they would have been in, that's ok. Nor do I.
But if you think nationalised industries were more efficient than businesses, you are just a dreamer.
M Swanson
22-Dec-12, 19:55
No, can't say I have, Flynn. Although I
Really? Have you not noticed the stigmatising of the disabled, the sick, the unemployed? The abuse being heaped on those people at the behest of a government that derides society's weakest as 'scroungers' etc? You haven't noticed the abuse these people are now getting from the general public as a direct result of government rhetoric?
No, can't say I have Flynn! But I have noticed the stigmatising of the bogus disabled, the lead-swingers and those who have made a career out of unemployment. They're not the "weakest," by any definition and in stealing money that they have no entitlement to, they are robbing those who need it most. They're the abusers and it's good that the government are making some progress in identifying them and taking firm action. They owe it to the genuine claimants and workers who bankroll the scroungers.
Even Scargill is on the Fiddle, but he lost this one too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19806014
She was some woman. Its interestng that both the Greatish British woman and the Greatest British man (Churchill) were Tories. :lol:
She was some woman. Its interestng that both the Greatish British woman and the Greatest British man (Churchill) were Tories. :lol:
Churchill changed his political coat and colours so many times, its a wonder he was not renamed Joseph, he was a Liberal when he was chased out of Dundee.
Aye I know but he was great, being perfects more difficult.:lol:
Aye I know but he was great, being perfects more difficult.:lol:
Like yourself gleeber [lol]
piratelassie
23-Dec-12, 00:20
She was some woman alright, she did more damage to British industry than the Germans did in the war.[ QUOTE=gleeber;996075]She was some woman. Its interestng that both the Greatish British woman and the Greatest British man (Churchill) were Tories. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Churchill changed his political coat and colours so many times, its a wonder he was not renamed Joseph, he was a Liberal when he was chased out of Dundee.
His legacy means lots of things to different folk too, on one hand he was the symbol of the British bulldog spirit of strength and independence and then on the other he would advocate creating a federalised Europe. The BNP and UKIP who try to hijack his image seem to forget that part.
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 11:07
Ah! But Churchill was in favour of the 'dream.' He would never have gone along with the reality of the totalitarian EU. As he said:-
“We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us in the words that were used of old, ‘Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Captain of the Host?’, we should reply with the Shunamite woman ‘Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people’”.
Ah! But Churchill was in favour of the 'dream.' He would never have gone along with the reality of the totalitarian EU.
As I said, his legacy means lots of things to different folk.
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 11:26
Yes, agreed Rheg, but it's a pity the 'truth' often gets buried in the political dogma. Would you yourself, agree that Churchill would never have led Britain into the EU as it became and is still?
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 11:34
She was some woman alright, she did more damage to British industry than the Germans did in the war.[ QUOTE=gleeber;996075]She was some woman. Its interestng that both the Greatish British woman and the Greatest British man (Churchill) were Tories. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Well, for me, it's a question of who has the most capacity to hate, irrespective of the facts of Margaret Hilda's tenure as Prime Minister. On that count, I always think the left is far ahead of the right and as I'm not impressed with either side, I can afford to be impartial and let the facts speak for themselves. ;)
What the left 'hate,' most is Margaret Hilda's success. She rescued a country impoverished and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, created by the outgoing socialist government. Small wonder they hate her! She reminds them of their failure. That's it in a nutshell, imo!
Yes, agreed Rheg, but it's a pity the 'truth' often gets buried in the political dogma. Would you yourself, agree that Churchill would never have led Britain into the EU as it became and is still?
Possibly, possibly not. The question is hypothetical. You could ask the same question of any historical figure but it has no real meaning, history is history. For example, would Henry II have killed Thomas Becket if he thought that a complete separation of Church from State would have happened thus leading to Magna carta, a parliament etc etc.
Would George III have taxed tea if he knew that he would have lost the colonies?
The list of hypothetical questions is endless.
A final one.
Would Thatcher have gone down the route that she took if she knew the World's banks would have crashed?
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 11:48
Shove up and make some room for me on the fence, please Rheg. :lol: You set the 'hypothetical' rules on this one. Nae me! :D
Let's remember that this PM was reviled in Scotland and she, almost single-handedly, initiated the collapse of the Tory party North of the border.
I suppose we should thank her for that anyway ...
The flat-rate "community charge" - in which "a dustman paid the same as a duke"- offended Scotland's ingrained egalitarianism.
The flat-rate "community charge" - in which "a dustman paid the same as a duke"- offended Scotland's ingrained egalitarianism.
Is that the sort of egalitarianism that would treat a dustman differently from a duke?
Is that the sort of egalitarianism that would treat a dustman differently from a duke?
It's the same sort that prompted the French revolution I imagine, which is the opposite of what we are seeing from the Tories once again as they hammer the poor. The rich get richer.....
I was amazed, after watching 'The Iron Lady', at how many of Tory policies seem to be exactly the same now as then - "Let's trouser as much as we can chaps and who cares about the poor?"
secrets in symmetry
23-Dec-12, 16:10
Let's remember that this PM was reviled in Scotland and she, almost single-handedly, initiated the collapse of the Tory party North of the border.
I suppose we should thank her for that anyway ...
The flat-rate "community charge" - in which "a dustman paid the same as a duke"- offended Scotland's ingrained egalitarianism.She didn't quite do it single-handed. Michael Forsyth was her attack dog when he was a minister at the Scottish Office, and he completed the job as Scottish Secretary in the last two years of John Major's administration.
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 17:12
Let's remember that this PM was reviled in Scotland and she, almost single-handedly, initiated the collapse of the Tory party North of the border.
I suppose we should thank her for that anyway ...
The flat-rate "community charge" - in which "a dustman paid the same as a duke"- offended Scotland's ingrained egalitarianism.
"Ingrained egalitarianism?" What does that mean exactly, in this instance. Many of us in England considered the Poll Tax to be the epitome of equality and fairness. I was one, in a family of six; with five of us working. Why wasn't it fair to expect us to pay more than our pensionable neighbours, who obviously used fewer services and had a much lower income? That way, everybody contributed. My goodness, people had belly-ached for years about the unfairness of the rating system and I think it's still fairer than what we have today even. I know it was unfair to use Scotland as a testing ground and it was a mistake. But who drove the riots?
"Ingrained egalitarianism?" What does that mean exactly, in this instance. Many of us in England considered the Poll Tax to be the epitome of equality and fairness. I was one, in a family of six; with five of us working. Why wasn't it fair to expect us to pay more than our pensionable neighbours, who obviously used fewer services and had a much lower income? That way, everybody contributed. My goodness, people had belly-ached for years about the unfairness of the rating system and I think it's still fairer than what we have today even. I know it was unfair to use Scotland as a testing ground and it was a mistake. But who drove the riots?
The Poll Tax was very unfair, the Council Tax is still unfair though not as much. The only truly fair tax is Income Tax (as long as it is done in a fair way), that way everybody pays a fair amount of their income.
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 17:25
Thanks Alrock. But in what way do you consider the Poll Tax was unfair? I think you're right about Income tax, but I wonder how many would agree.
secretsquirrel
23-Dec-12, 17:42
you certainly have to admire her and her goverment they managed to sell to the british people what the british people already owned and the people lapped it up.
( the tories sold the family silver )
When the soviet union denationalised their industries they gave everyone in the country shares in them for free.
which country was more democratic?
Gas, Water and electric allways made huge profits these went to the public purse when they where nationalised industries. Is it any wonder we have such a high tax country now?
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 17:50
Whilst the socialists undersold badly, a chunk of our gold reserves!
You mean the "democratic," Russia with the leader Stalin, who slaughtered an estimated 30 million of his own people? I've heard him called many things in my long lifetime, but "democratic," has never been one of them.
And who do you think paid for the gas, water and electric industries to begin with, Squirrel? I remember those days well and a crew of six men digging a hole with one man holding a shovel whilst the other five watched! :D
Thanks Alrock. But in what way do you consider the Poll Tax was unfair? I think you're right about Income tax, but I wonder how many would agree.
Good example already given by PantsMAN....
The flat-rate "community charge" - in which "a dustman paid the same as a duke"- offended Scotland's ingrained egalitarianism.
.................................................. ...................
....I remember those days well and a crew of six men digging a hole with one man holding a shovel whilst the other five watched! :D
Still.... It kept them off the Dole Queue. If there is not enough work to go round is it not preferable to share the workload than having someone do all the work whilst the rest just rot away on the Dole?
No, can't say I have, Flynn. Although I
No, can't say I have Flynn! But I have noticed the stigmatising of the bogus disabled, the lead-swingers and those who have made a career out of unemployment. They're not the "weakest," by any definition and in stealing money that they have no entitlement to, they are robbing those who need it most. They're the abusers and it's good that the government are making some progress in identifying them and taking firm action. They owe it to the genuine claimants and workers who bankroll the scroungers.
If the Government was doing what it should be doing...and closing the tax loopholes through which the wealthy regularly drive a coach and horses, stopped subsiding the profits of greedy employers and really did tackle the bogus disabled, the lead-swingers and those who have made a career out of unemployment..then most of us wouldn't have any problems with the way they are acting.......but that is not what they are doing. They are hitting the easy marks, the ones who can't avoid anything and daemonising them all, and tarring them all as scammers...while giving the others a free pass to either pick our pockets or not have to put their hands in their own.
Let's put it all in perspective........benefit fraud (all benefit fraud.......which is not confined, whatever some might like to believe, to the bogus disabled, the lead-swingers and those who have made a career out of unemployment) includes also completion errors by applicants, due to frankly incomprehensible forms, and administrative error by incompetent staff. But hey.........simplistic is easiest for the simple!
I'm having a job reconciling the figures from an article written in late November to make them add up to the £3.4 billion (2.1% of all benefit expenditure last year) overpayment of benefits costs us. I'm a bit puzzled as to the figures, given though which appear to be £1.2 billion of fraud and £1.4 billion of mistakes prompting Lord Freud to say Clearly something is dramatically wrong with the current system when more money is lost because of mistakes by claimants than because of fraud. Can't see where the other £0.8 billion comes in though.unless it is due to fraud by those claiming tax credits?
An article using 2010/2011 figures makes interesting reading.......I have the figures over a 79 page DWP report.....but for the moment, I'll assume the websites have it more or less correct. I was interested in the fact that there are people scamming Pension Credit as well (and if they are scamming Pension Credit, they are also scamming Council Tax Benefits and maybe Housing Benefit pretty much automatically, plus getting perks to which they are not entitled)...don't hear a lot about that all over the media, do we? And wouldn't we be immensely hacked off if ,because some pensioners took advantage of a broken system, all pensioners were portrayed as scammers, scroungers and fraudsters?
And note the levels of Incapacity Benefit and DLA fraud...less than half of the fraud perpetrated by pensioners :eek:......but it is the sick and disabled getting hammered wholesale, while we get featherbedded.
Retirement Pension 0.0 per cent;
Incapacity Benefit 0.3 per cent;
Disability Living Allowance 0.5 per cent;
Council Tax Benefit 1.3 per cent;
Housing Benefit 1.4 per cent;
Pension Credit 1.6 per cent;
Income Support 2.8 per cent;
Jobseeker’s Allowance 3.4 per cent;
Carer’s Allowance 3.9 per cent.
Links to figures :
http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?CID=8&NID=16231&Title=How+much+does+benefit+fraud+cost+the+UK+econ omy%3F
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/02/26/new-figures-show-low-level-of-benefit-fraud/
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 18:47
Thank you for your lengthy response OQ. I wish I had time to do it justice, but with Christmas nearing I must be brief. I don't disagree with much that you write, but what baffles me, is that very few examples of fraud, (especially by working class people,) can be dealt with in isolation. I think the amount of money that is lost to the Treasury, because of tax-loops and avoiding payment, is a very serious matter, but it does not, imo, excuse taking action against fraudsters of benefits, who also remove millions of pounds from the pot. Tax fraud costs us more, but both need to be dealt with. They're different problems and I see them as each deserving action. One does not justify, or excuse the other. In this thread's instance we are dealing with benefit fraud.
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 18:57
Good example already given by PantsMAN....
.................................................. ...................
Still.... It kept them off the Dole Queue. If there is not enough work to go round is it not preferable to share the workload than having someone do all the work whilst the rest just rot away on the Dole?
I think any economy that is based on paying the going rate for men to do nothing, to very little, is in a lot of trouble, Alrock. There will always be unemployment, to one extent, or another and a certain number of unemployables. That's a fact! Even now we have over 2 million, and many more millions who are economically inactive which is surprising of course, because we have accepted over 2 million foreign nationals, to take jobs we allegedly can't fill! Hmmmmm!
My cousin worked for Southern Gas for years. At the time of the Poll Tax problems, he became a socialist overnight. A good move it was too! He stayed with SGB until he took early retirement and now has a home here and in France. I'm told that happy fate is not uncommon. Up the workers! :D
No, can't say I have, Flynn. Although I
No, can't say I have Flynn! But I have noticed the stigmatising of the bogus disabled, the lead-swingers and those who have made a career out of unemployment. They're not the "weakest," by any definition and in stealing money that they have no entitlement to, they are robbing those who need it most. They're the abusers and it's good that the government are making some progress in identifying them and taking firm action. They owe it to the genuine claimants and workers who bankroll the scroungers.
That's EXACTLY the stigmatising I'm talking about. How can you - or anyone for that matter - possibly know what a person's employment or health status is just by looking at them? What you have just done is parrot the Westminster Tory mantra almost word for word. Well done.
How can you - or anyone for that matter - possibly know what a person's employment or health status is just by looking at them?http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JarH2EU6U_w/TsTd7j0-WaI/AAAAAAAAC2c/XNOycYOjbJE/s1600/old+tramp.jpg
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 20:03
That's EXACTLY the stigmatising I'm talking about. How can you - or anyone for that matter - possibly know what a person's employment or health status is just by looking at them? What you have just done is parrot the Westminster Tory mantra almost word for word. Well done.
What? When have I ever stated that I can tell somebody's employment, or disability status by looking at them? Bizarre! My name's not Polly and if the Tory Party are pinching my lines, then I'm flattered.:lol: Who's a pretty girl then? ;)
"Ingrained egalitarianism?" What does that mean exactly, in this instance. Many of us in England considered the Poll Tax to be the epitome of equality and fairness.
SNIP
But who drove the riots?
Check out English history because there was a chap called Wat Tyler who also had a wee beef with the poll tax. And that was in 1381.
Funnily enough, the riots then were about the Statute of Labourers and The Statute of Labourers tied the English working classes to the land and imposed on them further taxation.
Wat proclaimed: “There should be equality among all people save only the king. There should be no serfdom and all men should be free and of one condition.”
Sounds like a good Scottish sentiment to me! Go on yersel' Wat!
ref - http://www.wearetheenglish.com/wattyler.html
M Swanson
23-Dec-12, 20:29
LOL. Wat Tyler? How far back does one need to be taken, when one asks who drove the last Poll Tax riots? It's not a difficult question surely! Not sure why you would choose not to answer it. :D
LOL. Wat Tyler? How far back does one need to be taken, when one asks who drove the last Poll Tax riots? It's not a difficult question surely! Not sure why you would choose not to answer it. :D
1381 - I said so in my post!
I believe that I was making a point about the desire for egalitarianism however I don't think it was anyone more sinister than Jock Thamson's bairns who were annoyed at the tax. At the end of the first year in Scotland there were 700,000 warrants issued for non-payment and ultimately 1.5m people refused to pay. The SNP backed non-payment; the Labour party opposed the tax but did not advocate non-payment.
According to the BBC " Unlike England, there was no real violence in Scotland, there was no the equivalent of the Trafalgar Square riots. And it was English unrest which eventually led to its abolition. "
So maybe someone from England could answer your question. here's your starter for 10 - http://www.militant.org.uk/PollTax.html but these guys are radical left-wing Trotskyists (maybe).
.....There will always be unemployment, to one extent, or another and a certain number of unemployables.....
Fair enough.... But then why can't Government see that blatantly obvious fact & accept that it is not necessarily their own fault that they are unemployed & stop treating them (me included) as scrounging work shy scum.
btw. I do do a full-time job, I just don't get paid for it, yet I still get treated as if I'm lying in bed all day watching Jeremy Kyle getting drunk on cheap cider at the expense of the tax payer.
secrets in symmetry
23-Dec-12, 21:14
The Poll Tax was very unfair, the Council Tax is still unfair though not as much. The only truly fair tax is Income Tax (as long as it is done in a fair way), that way everybody pays a fair amount of their income.On the whole, I agree with that mini-thesis. I'm in two minds about (targeted) sales taxes, but there's no doubt that flat taxes such as the poll tax are supported only by evil tories and the inveterately stupid.
Thank you for your lengthy response OQ. I wish I had time to do it justice, but with Christmas nearing I must be brief. I don't disagree with much that you write, but what baffles me, is that very few examples of fraud, (especially by working class people,) can be dealt with in isolation. I think the amount of money that is lost to the Treasury, because of tax-loops and avoiding payment, is a very serious matter, but it does not, imo, excuse taking action against fraudsters of benefits, who also remove millions of pounds from the pot. Tax fraud costs us more, but both need to be dealt with. They're different problems and I see them as each deserving action. One does not justify, or excuse the other. In this thread's instance we are dealing with benefit fraud.
The expression, "working class people" is kinda telling of an attitude I honestly can't believe still seriously exists in 2012 among thinking people.
What do you consider working class? The bloke emptying your bins and/or other council employees...but not those who sit in offices controlling them..or the local Councillors? The kid at the Supermarket checkout and/or other shop employees...but not the manager and the various "heads of departments...or the CEO ? The laddie who sorts your car and/or other garage employees but not the bloke who manages or otherwise runs the place? The person who valets your car, even if not an employee but an "entrepreneur"? The machinist sitting at a sewing machine churning out "designer" stuff for supermarkets and shops, which will add a minimum mark-up of 100%+ before it hits their hangers and/or the person who actively sells that person's work or the one who buys it and sells it on with the mark-up? The wifie sitting in a room in a bank punching information into a computer programme which decides if you are going to get a loan.or an account or the bank accountant, bank manager (who are all under the computer programme does the thinking regimen)..or those in Head Office who do what they are told by their bosses...and do "head office computer programmes are the way to go" so basically do what they are told by their bosses etc....until the very top layer of management and the shareholders reap the benefit? If you think logically about it....even the Queen and Prince Philip are working class...because we pay them specifically to do a job for us! (Their kids are also really working class, because Queenie pays them to give her a break!) So in your opinion, which of the above are not working class....and just why do you think that, if working is defined as earning an income for a service from someone who benefits from that service and is prepared to pay for it?
To me..and maybe I am weird (I find I have been saying that more and more over the last few years).....everybody who makes an income from others because of the sweat of their brow or the engagement (or pretendy engagement) of what passes for a brain, commonsense and pragmatism, while sitting behind a desk, whether as an employee, an entrepreneur shafting the Government, the salaried CEO of a company, a politician claiming a salary and expenses, a member of the House of Lords claiming expenses (attendance allowance?..never been able to work out the difference, tbh), is working class, imo..because they work to earn their income! If they didn't or just pretended to...they would be without jobs or their businesses would have gone down the tubes..
The only people in the UK who are NOT working class are those who don't work (which includes some/many people on the pension, like me, and the unemployed, disabled and sick)....and who could best be termed as the unwaged....and also, at the other end of the scale to an extent, those with access to enough inherited wealth which means that they don't ever have to dirty their hands by actually physically or mentally working, and have more than enough capital to just leave the bank to increase their accessible funds while they live the good life.
But many on the "inherited rich list" don't have (and will never have, in their opinion,) enough money...but can organise it, if it hadn't already been done centuries before and continued as part of their inheritance, that others do the "dirty work" for them, and they reap the benefits.....and the UK taxpayer gets shafted...whether because of ludicrous rents the likes of the Duke of Westminster demands for his London Properties, or the large amount of money we pump into maintaining his forestry holdings and his set-aside lands etc. He gets a bigger handout than the Queen does from the EU..and is that not counted as earning money....or is it just perceived as the god-given rights of the landowner.
I am still struggling, and likely always will to work out what believers in the "class" system use to define the differences between a "working class" person reliant on others paying their wages/salaries, and anybody else who acquires their income directly from the efforts of others, with input from themselves. Seems to me that, given I'd be gobsmacked if none of them sat behind a desk at a reasonably regular stage and had input into how their money was going to be increased/used ..and how much they are going to add to their own personal account in the following year, there is nobody in the UK, bar the unwaged, who isn't "working class".
I do despair at the sycophantic sheeple mentality of so many in the UK who appear to believe a class system has any real meaning, and is predicated more on income than anything else. Been saying for a long time that we are turning into America-Lite...which Margaret Hilda was instrumental in introducing...and which has been gradually and insidiously inserted into the brains of the "I'm all right Jack, and sod the rest of you" mindset of much of the UK population.
I don't think the way to go in the UK is divide and conquer as Cameron is doing......I think the way to go in the UK is what Cameron said...but blatantly obviously didn't mean "we are all in this together". ( He didn't say, as long as you aren't a big business, wealthy, a pensioner, have children, live in London etc). Soundbites without action are just words and signify nothing without implementation ...but if Cameron had meant what he said.....the whole UK tax, benefits and welfare system would have been undergoing root and branch reform from when the Coalition took power ..otherwise he is just spouting platitudes which only bears of very little brain believe, and like all Governments in my lifetime is doing dickering around the edges and accomplishing little of worth, on the certain assumption that those who think as he does will be jumping up and down cheering him....and until the next election, he can safely ignore all dissenters.
secrets in symmetry
24-Dec-12, 00:13
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JarH2EU6U_w/TsTd7j0-WaI/AAAAAAAAC2c/XNOycYOjbJE/s1600/old+tramp.jpg
It's karaoke time at the Camps.
Altogether now..
"Always look on the bright side of life." :cool:
weezer 316
24-Dec-12, 10:37
Yes, it is time to renationalise. The Thatcher promise was that privatisation would 'increase competition resulting in better services and lower prices for the consumer'.
Show me one privatised utility/industry where that has happened.
Telephony
BT was operating at around £700m a year loss at privatization, doing insane things like giving people a years free line rental as compensation because they had a line fault. Creaking exchnges that were amongst the worst in western Europe.
Fast forward to today......
Almost universal BB coverage, line rental and phone call charges that are something like 400% cheaper when adjusted for inflation since 1984. Exchange network that whislt not perfect is unrecognisible from 1984, and a company that has done that without spending tax money, and makes a handsome profit, and pays hundreds of millions TO the exchequer each year without spending any of our money.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JarH2EU6U_w/TsTd7j0-WaI/AAAAAAAAC2c/XNOycYOjbJE/s1600/old+tramp.jpg
French pensioner enjoying the air in the park. The truth is it is not possible to determine a person's employment or health status simply by looking at them. Anyone who can best call the NHS, they'll be most interested in someone who can save them millions on diagnostic technology, doctors, surgeons etc.
Telephony
BT was operating at around £700m a year loss at privatization, doing insane things like giving people a years free line rental as compensation because they had a line fault. Creaking exchnges that were amongst the worst in western Europe.
Fast forward to today......
Almost universal BB coverage, line rental and phone call charges that are something like 400% cheaper when adjusted for inflation since 1984. Exchange network that whislt not perfect is unrecognisible from 1984, and a company that has done that without spending tax money, and makes a handsome profit, and pays hundreds of millions TO the exchequer each year without spending any of our money.
OK.... So BT was in a mess, there is no way of knowing how it would have turned out if it had been kept in public ownership, could have been worse, but then again it could have better than it is now....
It's the principle of the matter, essential utilities should be state owned & run on a not for profit basis to keep the costs down for the consumer, not privately owned & run on a maximise profits for shareholders basis.
Telephony
BT was operating at around £700m a year loss at privatization, doing insane things like giving people a years free line rental as compensation because they had a line fault. Creaking exchnges that were amongst the worst in western Europe.
Fast forward to today......
Almost universal BB coverage, line rental and phone call charges that are something like 400% cheaper when adjusted for inflation since 1984. Exchange network that whislt not perfect is unrecognisible from 1984, and a company that has done that without spending tax money, and makes a handsome profit, and pays hundreds of millions TO the exchequer each year without spending any of our money.
So.....BT in private hands has benefitted from the modern technology that would have come had if it was still in public ownership. We are keen to forget that immediately after privatisation a 3 minute call from a callbox went up from 2p to 10p as well as similiar tarriff hikes from a domestic line. Rip off merchants.
weezer 316
24-Dec-12, 15:34
Modern technoligy would have come.....would ahev the money to deploy it? BT has spend something like £6bn over the past 5 years deploying the 21CN. Could the govt justify that investment now? You can bet your bottom dollar the argument would be it could be better spent elsewhere like the NHS or schools, and in light of govt cuts its hard to argue against that.
The 2p-10p raise just makes my point. Are you prepared to subsidise other peoples phone calls???!?!?!?! I aint! Are you?
The 2p-10p raise just makes my point. Are you prepared to subsidise other peoples phone calls???!?!?!?! I aint! Are you?
It proves my point as well. I was subsidising something, someone's pocket or dividend perhaps? :roll:
OK.... So BT was in a mess, there is no way of knowing how it would have turned out if it had been kept in public ownership, could have been worse, but then again it could have better than it is now....
It's the principle of the matter, essential utilities should be state owned & run on a not for profit basis to keep the costs down for the consumer, not privately owned & run on a maximise profits for shareholders basis.
Who says? Stalin?
So.....BT in private hands has benefitted from the modern technology that would have come had if it was still in public ownership. We are keen to forget that immediately after privatisation a 3 minute call from a callbox went up from 2p to 10p as well as similiar tarriff hikes from a domestic line. Rip off merchants.
The problem was, the government (us) couldn't afford to invest in new technology for BT or any other state run enterprise.
Who says? Stalin?
No.... Me.... But Stalin would probably agree (though I've never met the guy so have no real way of knowing), though even if he didn't it wouldn't change my opinion. My opinion is my own, not some learnt ideology from someone else.
Telephony
BT was operating at around £700m a year loss at privatization, doing insane things like giving people a years free line rental as compensation because they had a line fault. Creaking exchnges that were amongst the worst in western Europe.
Fast forward to today......
Almost universal BB coverage, line rental and phone call charges that are something like 400% cheaper when adjusted for inflation since 1984. Exchange network that whislt not perfect is unrecognisible from 1984, and a company that has done that without spending tax money, and makes a handsome profit, and pays hundreds of millions TO the exchequer each year without spending any of our money.
From what I have read, BT generated profits in the years leading up to privatization of between £150-450m per year. In which case the country was deprived of a valuable source of revenue.
From what I have read, BT generated profits in the years leading up to privatization of between £150-450m per year. In which case the country was deprived of a valuable source of revenue.
Unlikely to have been "profits" in the sense of the word understood by a self-employed person. Many state owned industries claimed to be profitable, while swallowing huge sums of taxpayers' money.
Unlikely to have been "profits" in the sense of the word understood by a self-employed person. Many state owned industries claimed to be profitable, while swallowing huge sums of taxpayers' money.
Or was that the propaganda given out by a government whose flagship policy was privatisation?
Who'd invest in a loss making company without the backing of the State?
secrets in symmetry
24-Dec-12, 18:13
French pensioner enjoying the air in the park.Lol no! It's Slickly, I recognise him from the photo in his avatar. :cool:
weezer 316
24-Dec-12, 20:27
OK.... So BT was in a mess, there is no way of knowing how it would have turned out if it had been kept in public ownership, could have been worse, but then again it could have better than it is now....
It's the principle of the matter, essential utilities should be state owned & run on a not for profit basis to keep the costs down for the consumer, not privately owned & run on a maximise profits for shareholders basis.
Sorry I am going to have to come back to this quote as it strikes at the heart of the issue. Your gut instinct is doing the thinking, not your head. Why on earth would you keep something public and loss making when you can provide the same service or better in private hands for either comparable or less cost WHILST raising tax revenue? Its common sense surely?
The very example BT shows the telecom infrastructure of a country can be run privately whilst maintaining things like its universal service obligation. So if I was you I would pick another target!
I am still holding of to my BT and British Gas shares, and thank you very much for the dividends I get each year. :)
Shame my Santander ones are not doing so well, but they were free from Abbey National
I am still holding of to my BT and British Gas shares, and thank you very much for the dividends I get each year. :)
You bliddy capitalist!! [lol]
It sounds to me like Golachs too weel off. He's the type of pensioner Nick Clegg was talking about. Take away his bus pass and no more winter fuel allowance . He disna need it.:lol:
.....The very example BT shows the telecom infrastructure of a country can be run privately whilst maintaining things like its universal service obligation.....
So is that why rural areas now have super fast broadband in line with the larger cities..... NOT?
It sounds to me like Golachs too weel off. He's the type of pensioner Nick Clegg was talking about. Take away his bus pass and no more winter fuel allowance . He disna need it.:lol:
Thats kept him quiet. I hope he hesna taken a turn. :lol:
Spirit of good weel an'all that. :roll:
weezer 316
24-Dec-12, 22:37
So is that why rural areas now have super fast broadband in line with the larger cities..... NOT?
Is that your measure of what you call an "Essential utility"?? Your argument eats itself in one line!
British gas is another superb example. The energy market has to be privatized, with the environmental impact of waste being largely eliminated by people having to pay for what they use rather than pay a fraction of what they use and be subsidized by someone else (although who pays god only knows). That market suffers from a lack of competition, not to much privitization. Quite how a govt would handle buying energy on the open market anybodies guess, and would lead to a revolution likely from people just like you as it would cause cuts in other areas to compensate for both waste and price fluctuations that are totally outwith anyone in this countries control.
Not of course that you would care, as such short sightedness would lead us right into that mess in the first place.
Is that your measure of what you call an "Essential utility"?? Your argument eats itself in one line!
British gas is another superb example. The energy market has to be privatized, with the environmental impact of waste being largely eliminated by people having to pay for what they use rather than pay a fraction of what they use and be subsidized by someone else (although who pays god only knows). That market suffers from a lack of competition, not to much privitization. Quite how a govt would handle buying energy on the open market anybodies guess, and would lead to a revolution likely from people just like you as it would cause cuts in other areas to compensate for both waste and price fluctuations that are totally outwith anyone in this countries control.
Not of course that you would care, as such short sightedness would lead us right into that mess in the first place.
You mentioned the energy market. The science says we gotta go renewables but it would be terrible to do that on current capitalistic ideology. Perhaps we should let the scientists run the world?
Is that your measure of what you call an "Essential utility"?? Your argument eats itself in one line!
British gas is another superb example. The energy market has to be privatized, with the environmental impact of waste being largely eliminated by people having to pay for what they use rather than pay a fraction of what they use and be subsidized by someone else (although who pays god only knows). That market suffers from a lack of competition, not to much privitization. Quite how a govt would handle buying energy on the open market anybodies guess, and would lead to a revolution likely from people just like you as it would cause cuts in other areas to compensate for both waste and price fluctuations that are totally outwith anyone in this countries control.
Not of course that you would care, as such short sightedness would lead us right into that mess in the first place.
Tell me.... Why can't a public company be run the same as a private company but instead of trying to make a profit for shareholders all profits going into investment?
How much extra infrastructure could we have for £1.7bn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13370899) & how many people could we get of the bru building that infrastructure?
Tell me.... Why can't a public company be run the same as a private company but instead of trying to make a profit for shareholders all profits going into investment?
Because private companies either succeed or close.
Public entities become instruments for swallowing government money.
Why is the Gills ferry cheaper than the Scrabster one?
Thats kept him quiet. I hope he hesna taken a turn. :lol:
Gleeber, the reason I was quiet, and had not responded to you was because I was with my Broker, we were discussing how to reinvest my winter fuel allowance and my pensioners bonus from our wonderful British Government. :)
weezer 316
25-Dec-12, 00:00
Tell me.... Why can't a public company be run the same as a private company but instead of trying to make a profit for shareholders all profits going into investment?
How much extra infrastructure could we have for £1.7bn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13370899) & how many people could we get of the bru building that infrastructure?
Why can't a public company be run the same as a private company??
If you dont know the answer to that then you shouldnt have posted in the first place. But I will lay out out the general ones....
1: Private companies stand and fall on their turnover. Public companies can hide gross inefficiences a private cannot by calling on public money. That in itself hurts the wider economy.
2: Public companies have little incentive to modernise and improve. See british rail. They are not subject to the same competitive pressures a private firm is. In some cases (NHS) this is a good thing, in most others its bad.
3: That £1.7bn wouldn't have been raised and therefore it, or any part of it, couldn't be reinvested in the telecoms network. BT on the other hand is rolling out ADSL2+ and fibre. That costs ALOT of money to do and yet costs you, who may not take advantage of the new services, nothing.
4: Done privately, the cost of maintenance is largely removed from the tax payer also. And it puts the private company in the position that if they want to continue making money, they need to maintain the network/service infrastructure. I wouldnt even hazard a guess at just how much that alone has saved the british govty in the 30 years since privitisations happened across the board. needless to say, we still have a fully functional telecom, gas and electricity network to naem but 3.
I see Mrs Thatcher is 'doing well' after her hospitalisation. I'm so glad. Fireworks are a nightmare to light in this weather.
Why can't a public company be run the same as a private company??
If you dont know the answer to that then you shouldnt have posted in the first place. But I will lay out out the general ones....
1: Private companies stand and fall on their turnover. Public companies can hide gross inefficiences a private cannot by calling on public money. That in itself hurts the wider economy.
2: Public companies have little incentive to modernise and improve. See british rail. They are not subject to the same competitive pressures a private firm is. In some cases (NHS) this is a good thing, in most others its bad.
3: That £1.7bn wouldn't have been raised and therefore it, or any part of it, couldn't be reinvested in the telecoms network. BT on the other hand is rolling out ADSL2+ and fibre. That costs ALOT of money to do and yet costs you, who may not take advantage of the new services, nothing.
4: Done privately, the cost of maintenance is largely removed from the tax payer also. And it puts the private company in the position that if they want to continue making money, they need to maintain the network/service infrastructure. I wouldnt even hazard a guess at just how much that alone has saved the british govty in the 30 years since privitisations happened across the board. needless to say, we still have a fully functional telecom, gas and electricity network to naem but 3.
As I explained in another post, there would be no need for the Renewable Obligation if the provision of energy was in public ownership and so we would be paying much less to heat our homes.
Kasper King
25-Dec-12, 12:06
What you are all forgeting is that it was most proffitable parts of the various industries coal, steel, shipbuilding, railways, etc that where taken to be nationalised never the unprofitable parts.
These where then run into the ground. All you had to do is look at the railways, it was run like clockwork and was running at a proffit before the war then a liebore government renaged on the agreement for compensation made with the rialway companies to pay for the war damage.
It then used them as an example of gross inefficency and poor quality to steal them.
Was it run any better after this? No it was overmanned poorley run with strikes every five days.
The steel industry tale is even worse. Plants being build in liebore hartlands as bribes to keep the votes even when there was no orders to produce any steel from the new plants and then the orders won by the original plant being given to the other two leaving the original plant with no work. The over manning and union interferance in the running of the industry, please it could and did end in disaster. And what happened to the plants left out? they retraimed the staff to multi-task, cut costs and made a profit!
As for the pol tax what is unfare bout everyone paying the same amount? If the civil servants had not messed with the idea it was very fair.
Why can't a public company be run the same as a private company??
The question that should be asked is "How can a public company be run better than a private company??"
1. By protecting those company's from takeover as if they are the very fabric of what makes our country Great. Much in the same way as Qinetic, Rolls-Royce and BAESystems are protected but in a slightly different manner.
2. Stop putting directors in place (as appointed by Tories) who are ideologically wedded to privatisation and so running the companies down. (MacGregor, strikes and coal as a good example)
3. Get proper managership in place who are ideologically wedded to having utilities in public ownership.
4. Stop treating the workforce as expendable numbers, jobs for all means political stability, wealth, happiness and good will to all others. ;)
Because private companies either succeed or close.
Public entities become instruments for swallowing government money.
Why is the Gills ferry cheaper than the Scrabster one?
Because private companies either succeed or close. Unless, of course, they are banks..and are allowed to carry on as before with little no change, at the taxpayers expense!
Moving away from BT.....
Scottish Water (a publicly owned company).... Better or worse than their privately owned English counterparts?
Public Transport.... Rail fares higher than ever.... Reduced services on the buses, only profitable routes now run unless subsidised (a bit self defeating).
. All you had to do is look at the railways, it was run like clockwork and was running at a proffit before the war
I think I read that none of the Railway companies had paid dividends on ordinary shares since 1920. They'd have been nationalised to maintain what was seen as a strategic asset, as well as for reasons of socialist dogma.
weezer 316
25-Dec-12, 23:44
Because private companies either succeed or close. Unless, of course, they are banks..and are allowed to carry on as before with little no change, at the taxpayers expense!
The banks are a different example. Their impact on the the wider economy meant they had to be bailed out. Millions of jobs would have dissapeared overnight, and millions more after that.
I think I read that none of the Railway companies had paid dividends on ordinary shares since 1920. They'd have been nationalised to maintain what was seen as a strategic asset, as well as for reasons of socialist dogma.
And the problem with that was what, exactly?
And the problem with that was what, exactly?
What do you mean? Everything is done for a reason and I have suggested two possible reasons that the railways were nationalised.
Her 'legacy' is about to come back and bite the current bunch hard in the backside. Recently released under the 30 year rule documents show she was desperate to do away with the NHS and to make everyone pay to send their kids to school:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/28/margaret-thatcher-role-plan-to-dismantle-welfare-state-revealed
It lays bare the tory lie that 'the NHS is safe in our hands'. The current lot are even using the self same adviser.
Her 'legacy' is about to come back and bite the current bunch hard in the backside. Recently released under the 30 year rule documents show she was desperate to do away with the NHS and to make everyone pay to send their kids to school:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/28/margaret-thatcher-role-plan-to-dismantle-welfare-state-revealed
It lays bare the tory lie that 'the NHS is safe in our hands'. The current lot are even using the self same adviser.
After reading the article it's clear some things never change.
Trust the Tories? Make your own mind up - but this neatly returns to my post #46 re. her, and the Tory party's, popularity in Scotland...
She did pay for the cost of Mark's search in the Sahara ~£1700 but she used her position as PM to take advantage that the Algerian military did the searching at no cost to her and a lot of other costs were waived.
She did pay for the cost of Mark's search in the Sahara ~£1700 but she used her position as PM to take advantage that the Algerian military did the searching at no cost to her and a lot of other costs were waived.
If it kept the Algerian army occupied, it couldn't have been a bad thing.
Except for finding Mark, obviously!
Her 'legacy' is about to come back and bite the current bunch hard in the backside. Recently released under the 30 year rule documents show she was desperate to do away with the NHS and to make everyone pay to send their kids to school:
Something a (now) geriatric said or did thirty years ago won't cost too many votes.
Everyone pays now, for the NHS and schooling.
Something a (now) geriatric said or did thirty years ago won't cost too many votes.
Everyone pays now, for the NHS and schooling.
And if she had succeeded in her aim, would we have been paying any less then in NI and tax.......and would we now? I don't think so!
And if she had succeeded in her aim, would we have been paying any less then in NI and tax.......and would we now? I don't think so!
Depends whether her aim was less tax.
If the NHS was somehow made to cost less, then either less tax would be paid by us, or the money would be spent elsewhere.
piratelassie
29-Dec-12, 00:53
The N.H.S. is NOT safe in tory hands, and the English either dont care or they want it privitised, very dangerous.
Depends whether her aim was less tax.
If the NHS was somehow made to cost less, then either less tax would be paid by us, or the money would be spent elsewhere.
Which part of dismantling of the NHS, which would be replaced by a system of compulsory private insurance, with state funded healthcare only for the poorest or most frail.......would make you assume that it would cost less, given private hospitals would be providing the health care for the poor and frail? Sounds as if we'd still be paying the usual Tax and NI..and into the bargain, those who could afford it would be paying private health insurance...pretty much as happens in the USA, in fact.
And almost as bad The extension of private school education was also proposed, to be encouraged with vouchers and tax breaks, and funded by an introduction of charges for state schools......so the poorer members of the country would be paying to fund private education for those who can afford it.
Not a lot has changed in the Tory attitude since Thatcher's day, has it?
... and the English either dont care or they want it privitised...
How do you figure that?
The N.H.S. is NOT safe in tory hands, and the English either dont care or they want it privitised, very dangerous.
you seem to be very anti English, do you have a problem with the English?
Which part of dismantling of the NHS, which would be replaced by a system of compulsory private insurance, with state funded healthcare only for the poorest or most frail.......would make you assume that it would cost less, given private hospitals would be providing the health care for the poor and frail? Sounds as if we'd still be paying the usual Tax and NI..and into the bargain, those who could afford it would be paying private health insurance...pretty much as happens in the USA, in fact.
And almost as bad The extension of private school education was also proposed, to be encouraged with vouchers and tax breaks, and funded by an introduction of charges for state schools......so the poorer members of the country would be paying to fund private education for those who can afford it.
Not a lot has changed in the Tory attitude since Thatcher's day, has it?
Notwithstanding that you think some of the ideas considered but never taken up wouldn't have worked well (maybe they didn't think so either, after checking it out), do you seriously think her intention was not to make health care cost less? Any government would be mad not to look around for what is costing the country most (defence? health? money handouts? education?) and give serious consideration to doing things differently.
The NHS is more than just doctors, nurses and beds- it may even be a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare of self-serving empire builders. Keeping the "treatment" part and dumping the suits would leave us with something unrecognisable as the "NHS."
Notwithstanding that you think some of the ideas considered but never taken up wouldn't have worked well (maybe they didn't think so either, after checking it out), do you seriously think her intention was not to make health care cost less? Any government would be mad not to look around for what is costing the country most (defence? health? money handouts? education?) and give serious consideration to doing things differently.
The NHS is more than just doctors, nurses and beds- it may even be a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare of self-serving empire builders. Keeping the "treatment" part and dumping the suits would leave us with something unrecognisable as the "NHS."
Truthfully...no! As far as I can make out, the decision not to implement had nothing to do with thinking or not thinking it would work....more that there was, at that time, enough people in the Cabinet who were against Thatcher's proposals because they could see themselves being thrown out of government.
I do have to laugh when people say stuff like it may even be a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare of self-serving empire builders. Who the hell but Governments set up the system in the first place? Who but Governments set up ALL our systems.. defence? health? money handouts? education? And who but Governments tend to sod all about anything unless there is a dogma/manifesto/policy imperative to appear "different"?
Why would the only way to improve any system be to get rid of it altogether, rather than just reduce the bureaucracy, put people who will run it as if the cash was coming out of their own pocket in charge of it.(ie people who give a toss as to something other than their own income, bonuses, pensions etc)?
That does not require privatisation.......it just requires the people doing the hiring to pick the best man/woman for the job...and not always go for the one who will do as they are told.
cptdodger
30-Dec-12, 00:11
and the English either dont care or they want it privitised, very dangerous.
Here we go again - go on then - back that statement up.
It is ever so kind of you guys to jump to the defence of us poor abused english folk. I am so grateful for your concern. It makes a nice change from being told i am a traitor or not fit to be the friend of another english person because i support an independent scotland.
If, as i suspect, piratelassie is talking about the english electorate not caring about the NHS then she could be right to make that point. The conservatives were voted in largely by Constituencies in england. Out of 304 seats there is one Tory MP in Scotland 8 in Wales and none in Northern Ireland. However I dont believe she is right - plenty of people DO care and will make that opinion heard at the next election ... I just hope it isnt too late.
If, as i suspect, piratelassie is talking about the english electorate not caring about the NHS then she could be right to make that point. The conservatives were voted in largely by Constituencies in england. Out of 304 seats there is one Tory MP in Scotland 8 in Wales and none in Northern Ireland. However I dont believe she is right - plenty of people DO care and will make that opinion heard at the next election ... I just hope it isnt too late.
The conservatives weren't voted in by the British electorate, they were handed power by that useless, greedy, power-hungry, lying waste of oxygen, Nick Clegg. That's why we have a supposed 'coalition' government. In real terms the conservatives have not won a general election since 1992. The conservatives have no mandate at all from the British public for any of the cuts and abuses they are now inflicting on the country.
If you want to blame anyone for the Westminster conservatives, then lay the blame squarely where it belongs, at the doors of the LibDems.
The conservatives weren't voted in by the British electorate, they were handed power by that useless, greedy, power-hungry, lying waste of oxygen, Nick Clegg. That's why we have a supposed 'coalition' government. In real terms the conservatives have not won a general election since 1992. The conservatives have no mandate at all from the British public for any of the cuts and abuses they are now inflicting on the country.
If you want to blame anyone for the Westminster conservatives, then lay the blame squarely where it belongs, at the doors of the LibDems.
Terribly sorry old boy (or Girl) but Clegg's lot have made themselves unvoteable. (They usually split the vote allowing Labour in) Labour will be beaten comfortably by the Conservatives and all shall then be as it should.
Terribly sorry old boy (or Girl) but Clegg's lot have made themselves unvoteable. (They usually split the vote allowing Labour in) Labour will be beaten comfortably by the Conservatives and all shall then be as it should.
I've got to admire your wishful thinking. :lol:
I've got to admire your wishful thinking. :lol:
Actually it is not. It is purely a numbers game. More people vote against labour than for. And this time their ridiculous rhetoric won't fool the British people. Natural conservatives might vote Libdem (not this time) but would never vote labour in a month of Sundays.
Actually it is not. It is purely a numbers game. More people vote against labour than for. And this time their ridiculous rhetoric won't fool the British people. Natural conservatives might vote Libdem (not this time) but would never vote labour in a month of Sundays.
Hopefully won't be our problem by the time of the next UK General election....
secrets in symmetry
30-Dec-12, 19:28
Terribly sorry old boy (or Girl) but Clegg's lot have made themselves unvoteable. (They usually split the vote allowing Labour in) Labour will be beaten comfortably by the Conservatives and all shall then be as it should.Lol!
I hereby announce you as the winner of the 2012 Forum Blue Blood award. :cool:
.
If you want to blame anyone for the Westminster conservatives, then lay the blame squarely where it belongs, at the doors of the LibDems.
Who do you blame for the number of Labour MPs elected being too small to form a government?
Actually it is not. It is purely a numbers game. More people vote against labour than for. And this time their ridiculous rhetoric won't fool the British people. Natural conservatives might vote Libdem (not this time) but would never vote labour in a month of Sundays.
I don't care for rhetoric, I care for what can be seen to have happened. Back in 2010, Gordon Brown said the tories will cut too deep which will have the effect of taking too much money out of the economy thus will hamper the road to economic recovery.
This has precisely happened and that is why David Cameron and Osbourne are making all sorts of excuses for their mismanagement and now admit that better times are now taking longer but they are totally avoiding the fact that their policies have anything to do with it. The tories duped the electorate with a lie of promises of great things that didn't deliver. They won't be taken in this time.
I don't care for rhetoric, I care for what can be seen to have happened. Back in 2010, Gordon Brown said the tories will cut too deep which will have the effect of taking too much money out of the economy thus will hamper the road to economic recovery.
This has precisely happened and that is why David Cameron and Osbourne are making all sorts of excuses for their mismanagement and now admit that better times are now taking longer but they are totally avoiding the fact that their policies have anything to do with it. The tories duped the electorate with a lie of promises of great things that didn't deliver. They won't be taken in this time.
Sounds like the world according to Balls and Milly. :lol:
Sounds like the world according to Balls and Milly. :lol:
Not just them, back in the real world, even the Telegraph are writing the tories off in 2015, now that takes some doing unless they've had a political bias conversion in favour of UKIP. It makes sense because they are so anti windfarm that the only party to go all out against wind is UKIP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9770710/Its-two-years-away-but-the-2015-election-is-already-lost.html#
secrets in symmetry
30-Dec-12, 23:12
Not just them, back in the real world, even the Telegraph are writing the tories off in 2015, now that takes some doing unless they've had a political bias conversion in favour of UKIP. It makes sense because they are so anti windfarm that the only party to go all out against wind is UKIP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9770710/Its-two-years-away-but-the-2015-election-is-already-lost.html#
Lol!
There's still two and a half years to go, and the Torygraph is making excuses already. :cool:
secrets in symmetry
30-Dec-12, 23:14
Sounds like the world according to Balls and Milly. :lol:Indeed. What they (and I) predicted two years ago has proven remarkably accurate.
That was the easy bit - it was obvious that what the Tories were doing wouldn't work, and it was obvious where it would go wrong. The difficult part was to figure out exactly what we should have done. It still is...
M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 01:11
Well, Cameron could have decided against a coalition with Clegg, run for a year and then called another General Election! I predict, that Labour will return in 2015 to complete the ruination of Britain, so enthusiastically started by Blair & Co. You heard it here first, SiS. :lol:
Who do you blame for the number of Labour MPs elected being too small to form a government?
The same people who ensured the number of conservative MPs elected were too few to form a government? That's why the LibDems had the deciding vote.
It won't happen next time. The LibDems will likely be voted into fourth place or even into obscurity - as no-one with a higher IQ than a potato is likely to vote LibDem again - UKIP will split the Conservative vote, and Labour will romp home with a clear majority.
Well, Cameron could have decided against a coalition with Clegg, run for a year and then called another General Election! I predict, that Labour will return in 2015 to complete the ruination of Britain, so enthusiastically started by Blair & Co. You heard it here first, SiS. :lol:
Here's the truth about the deficit, from a Conservative. Cameron's lies exposed: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html
The same people who ensured the number of conservative MPs elected were too few to form a government? That's why the LibDems had the deciding vote.
It won't happen next time. The LibDems will likely be voted into fourth place or even into obscurity - as no-one with a higher IQ than a potato is likely to vote LibDem again - UKIP will split the Conservative vote, and Labour will romp home with a clear majority.
Ok- you blame the voters for not voting the way you wanted them to. They must think they can vote any way they want!
Ok- you blame the voters for not voting the way you wanted them to. They must think they can vote any way they want!
I didn't say that, I was just using your example. You blamed people for not voting for enough Labour MPs, well, not enough tory MPs were elected either. That's why we had a hung parliament and the LibDems decided to impose this damnable tory government on us by signing a pact with the devil.
What should have happened was another election - and to keep having elections - until we had a proper democratic result, for better or worse.
M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 15:09
I didn't say that, I was just using your example. You blamed people for not voting for enough Labour MPs, well, not enough tory MPs were elected either. That's why we had a hung parliament and the LibDems decided to impose this damnable tory government on us by signing a pact with the devil.
What should have happened was another election - and to keep having elections - until we had a proper democratic result, for better or worse.
How about changing the boundaries back to where they were, prior to Labour tampering with them to gain an unfair march on the Tories? Personally, I don't think it would matter that much, because you could barely place a Rizla paper between their politics anyway. So, who do you believe will be the saviours of Britain, Flynn? Darned if I know, but unlike so many disillusioned voters, I do care! Guess I'm just a sweet old-fashioned girl! ;)
The same people who ensured the number of conservative MPs elected were too few to form a government? That's why the LibDems had the deciding vote.
It won't happen next time. The LibDems will likely be voted into fourth place or even into obscurity - as no-one with a higher IQ than a potato is likely to vote LibDem again - UKIP will split the Conservative vote, and Labour will romp home with a clear majority.
Nah, No conservative will vote UKIP in a General election. What would be the point?
secrets in symmetry
31-Dec-12, 17:04
Here's the truth about the deficit, from a Conservative. Cameron's lies exposed: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.htmlPatel is closer to the truth than the public Cameron/Osborne version, but he cherry picks....
The deficit was beginning to spiral out of control before the financial crisis hit (and the increase showed no signs of slowing down), but not enough to justify huge spending reductions. I think it could have been controlled by slowing down the rate of spending increases, and perhaps targeting them more carefully. Patel oversimplifies the pattern of budget deficits under Labour - to a ridiculous degree that makes him look foolish.
M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 17:17
Nah, No conservative will vote UKIP in a General election. What would be the point?
LOL. I've read it all now! That remark may have been true whilst Labour were in power, because Tories would not waste a vote that may be crucial in routing the wreckers of Britain. But, since Cameron's been in charge, few Tory party members that I know can see much difference between the two. Small wonder UKIP are growing fast. Of course, the Tories could change all that, by honouring the pre-election pledge to give us a referendum on staying in the EU, (as did Labour, who also reneged on the promise), but will it happen? Trust me, in England there are thousands turning away from the Tories and pledging their vote to UKIP, as indeed a lesser number of former Labour voters are.
I don't know how many Tories there are in Scotland. Not many would be my best guess and maybe they will stay faithful to the party. But trust me, Tories, south of the border are deserting the sinking ship in their droves. The point of voting UKIP, is that for too long, Britain has lost so much, thanks largely to its two-party political domination. Change has to start somewhere! Pity we can't chuck the lot out and start with a clean sheet. ;)
Change has to start somewhere! Pity we can't chuck the lot out and start with a clean sheet. ;)Oh dare I? Dare I say it???? Ach go on .... Its New Year lol... Stand clear.. You are ABSOLUTELY right M Swanson. Totally right. And guess what. We have that opportunity for change, right here, we can vote YES for an Independent Scotland. Oh..... And we CAN start with at least a cleaner sheet if not a CLEAN sheet. Roll on 2014!!!!!
Patel is closer to the truth than the public Cameron/Osborne version, but he cherry picks....
The deficit was beginning to spiral out of control before the financial crisis hit (and the increase showed no signs of slowing down), but not enough to justify huge spending reductions. I think it could have been controlled by slowing down the rate of spending increases, and perhaps targeting them more carefully. Patel oversimplifies the pattern of budget deficits under Labour - to a ridiculous degree that makes him look foolish.
Do you have reference for these claims?
because you could barely place a Rizla paper between their politics anyway.
If you don't like having free hospitals, free GP surgeries, free education, free roads, an independent police force, adequate fire and ambulance cover, a welfare state, an old age pension, then vote tory. If you like those things then vote Labour. If you want to be a bankrupt insignificance then vote UKIP. If you want to waste your vote then vote LibDem.
M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 19:07
If you don't like having free hospitals, free GP surgeries, free education, free roads, an independent police force, adequate fire and ambulance cover, a welfare state, an old age pension, then vote tory. If you like those things then vote Labour. If you want to be a bankrupt insignificance then vote UKIP. If you want to waste your vote then vote LibDem.
None of the freebies you list come out of Labour politicians pockets, Flynn. They're paid for by workers who make contributions to the pot. "An independent police force?" What a gas! Not since it was politicised by Blair! Ask any officer who served prior to Labour coming to power in 1997, if you don't believe me! "Old age pension?" What the pittance that was left to many after pension funds were raided by Labour's Brown? Again, nothing 'free' about pensions. Down to the workers and thank God we have some high-earners to make payments possible. "Bankrupt insignificance?" Another good laugh. What about Britain teetering on the edge, after the calamitous 'reign' of Callaghan et al? And who was the outgoing Labour MP, who told his Tory successor, "The pots empty. There's no money left?" Though I do agree about the LibDems! :lol:
You blamed people for not voting for enough Labour .
No I didn't. You should stick to the truth.
If you don't like having free hospitals, free GP surgeries, free education, free roads, an independent police force, adequate fire and ambulance cover, a welfare state, an old age pension, then vote tory. If you like those things then vote Labour. If you want to be a bankrupt insignificance then vote UKIP. If you want to waste your vote then vote LibDem.
It's the new democracy. Some geezer on the Internet tells everyone whom to vote for.
M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 19:19
Oh dare I? Dare I say it???? Ach go on .... Its New Year lol... Stand clear.. You are ABSOLUTELY right M Swanson. Totally right. And guess what. We have that opportunity for change, right here, we can vote YES for an Independent Scotland. Oh..... And we CAN start with at least a cleaner sheet if not a CLEAN sheet. Roll on 2014!!!!!
:lol: Steady Gov! You'll fall of the stage if you're not careful. :Razz Good luck to the Scots if they choose Independence.
BTW. Are you a Scot who qualifies to vote?
M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 19:21
It's the new democracy. Some geezer on the Internet tells everyone whom to vote for.
LOL. Repped. Sorry Sid, I've got to spread it.
secrets in symmetry
31-Dec-12, 19:34
Do you have reference for these claims?For growth of the annual deficit and annual variations in it, look up any website with annual figures.
Working out how much of the deficit since 2008 is due to the recession, and how much is due to pre-2008 structural effects and trends is of course more difficult, and is a bit of a black art. I estimated it in some detail a year or so ago, and I may even have posted the details on this forum. I don't have detailed figures to hand, but it was quite hard to blame much more than 50% of the 2011 recurrent deficit on the financial crisis and the subsequent recession. We've had another recession since then, so more of the present deficit can be blamed on the recession(s) and the flat economy.
:lol: Steady Gov! You'll fall of the stage if you're not careful. :Razz Good luck to the Scots if they choose Independence. BTW. Are you a Scot who qualifies to vote?I qualify to vote yes. I live in The highlands . I am an english woman and I have lived in Scotland since 1997.
piratelassie
31-Dec-12, 21:39
People south of the border voted in enough tories when they knew what their views were
Here we go again - go on then - back that statement up.
cptdodger
31-Dec-12, 22:28
The N.H.S. is NOT safe in tory hands, and the English either dont care or they want it privitised, very dangerous.
And you can prove beyond doubt that only the English people voted Conservative ? Not taking into account that Scottish people live in England, Polish people live in England, and every other Nationality you can think of - live in England and are also eligible to vote. In your words it has to be just the English that are dangerous.
David Cameron, a great upstanding English name.
People south of the border voted in enough tories when they knew what their views were
There you go again, having pop at the English. Whats your problem?
piratelassie
01-Jan-13, 02:35
I was having a pop at those south of the border
There you go again, having pop at the English. Whats your problem?
None of the freebies you list come out of Labour politicians pockets, Flynn. They're paid for by workers who make contributions to the pot. "An independent police force?" What a gas! Not since it was politicised by Blair! Ask any officer who served prior to Labour coming to power in 1997, if you don't believe me! "Old age pension?" What the pittance that was left to many after pension funds were raided by Labour's Brown? Again, nothing 'free' about pensions. Down to the workers and thank God we have some high-earners to make payments possible. "Bankrupt insignificance?" Another good laugh. What about Britain teetering on the edge, after the calamitous 'reign' of Callaghan et al? And who was the outgoing Labour MP, who told his Tory successor, "The pots empty. There's no money left?" Though I do agree about the LibDems! :lol:
Bt 'independent' I meant 'not privatised' as is gradually happening under the tories. Independent from political use is a different matter, see the miners in the 80s when Thatcher used the police as a paramilitary force to put down the legitimate right to withdraw labour in protest, the poll tax protesters when Thatcher used the police as a paramilitary force to put down legitimate protest etc.
People south of the border voted in enough tories when they knew what their views were
No they didn't. That's why we had a hung parliament with no party having enough seats to form a government. However, if enough people had also voted Labour north of the border, instead of wasting votes on the LibDems and SNP, things might have been different.
For growth of the annual deficit and annual variations in it, look up any website with annual figures.
Working out how much of the deficit since 2008 is due to the recession, and how much is due to pre-2008 structural effects and trends is of course more difficult, and is a bit of a black art. I estimated it in some detail a year or so ago, and I may even have posted the details on this forum. I don't have detailed figures to hand, but it was quite hard to blame much more than 50% of the 2011 recurrent deficit on the financial crisis and the subsequent recession. We've had another recession since then, so more of the present deficit can be blamed on the recession(s) and the flat economy.
Thanks, but you made the claim, it is only fair you provide the reference, as I have done.
No I didn't. You should stick to the truth.
I see. You accuse me of something I didn't do, but when I point out you actually did do the thing you accuse me of, I'm called a liar. Nice.
I see. You accuse me of something I didn't do, but when I point out you actually did do the thing you accuse me of, I'm called a liar. Nice.
You could set that to music.
legitimate right to withdraw labour in protest, the poll tax protesters when Thatcher used the police as a paramilitary force to put down legitimate protest etc.
The striking miners and their flying friends did not have the right to forcibly prevent other people going to work.
The poll tax rioters did not have the right to break shop windows. Surely the best poll tax protest would be to just not pay it.
The striking miners and their flying friends did not have the right to forcibly prevent other people going to work.
The poll tax rioters did not have the right to break shop windows. Surely the best poll tax protest would be to just not pay it.
I was in Trafalgar Square when that 'riot' happened. I saw how it started, and I saw who started it. It wasn't the protesters. It was the Met. The march had made its way up Whitehall very peacefully, then the police closed off Trafalgar Square and blocked the body of the march from entering. There were so many people and there was nowhere for us to go. It was sweltering hot, so people started sitting down. Then mounted police were charging out of a side turn and into the crowd. Things went mental. I remember people running screaming, I remember being battered by a mounted policeman as I tried to get away. It was chaos. I saw a police van reverse over a baby buggy as people screamed at the driver to stop, another police car drove straight though people knocking several down. Then it got ugly as people started defending themselves.
To this day I swear an order went out from Downing St to start something and make the protesters look bad. To this day I don't trust the police as far as I could spit.
To this day I swear an order went out from Downing St
Swear away. Did you read it or hear it going out?
I was having a pop at those south of the border
What border? We are a United Kingdom. I cannot remember going though a border check while traveling in this country
What border? We are a United Kingdom. I cannot remember going though a border check while traveling in this country
You're just being pedantic now, you know full well that there is an official border between Scotland & England, just because there is no border controls doesn't make it any less a border.
Interesting point of fact.... Watched the new Bond movie the other day, lost count the number of times that what should have been The UK or Britain in the script was actually scripted as England, the only time Scotland was mentioned was when he went there to get away from what was happening in England.
Interesting point of fact.... Watched the new Bond movie the other day, lost count the number of times that what should have been The UK or Britain in the script was actually scripted as England, the only time Scotland was mentioned was when he went there to get away from what was happening in England.
Like when we used to call the USSR before 1991 Russia?
Like when we used to call the USSR before 1991 Russia?
Yep.... Just like that.
M Swanson
01-Jan-13, 17:25
You're just being pedantic now, you know full well that there is an official border between Scotland & England, just because there is no border controls doesn't make it any less a border.
You're right Alrock. There's an estimated 1 million illegal immigrants, who would agree about England too! :lol:
cptdodger
01-Jan-13, 17:33
You're just being pedantic now, you know full well that there is an official border between Scotland & England, just because there is no border controls doesn't make it any less a border.
Interesting point of fact.... Watched the new Bond movie the other day, lost count the number of times that what should have been The UK or Britain in the script was actually scripted as England, the only time Scotland was mentioned was when he went there to get away from what was happening in England.
Hang on a minute though, you have just said Scotland and England are separated by a border, so why should it be stated as UK or Britain. If I'm in Scotland, I say I am in Scotland, and likewise if I'm in England, I never refer to being in Britain or the UK. Having said that, I have not seen the film, so are you saying when Bond is in Scotland it was being referred to as England ?
You're just being pedantic now, you know full well that there is an official border between Scotland & England, just because there is no border controls doesn't make it any less a border
The so called border you speak of is nothing more than a Post code boundary, or a line on a Ordnance survey map.
Golach, do you not think Scotland and England are separate countries? Or England and Wales?
Golach, do you not think Scotland and England are separate countries? Or England and Wales?
I lived on the border. It is just a sign at the side of the road. Do you think the people living in Berwick are different to those living in Ayton?
piratelassie
01-Jan-13, 23:11
Tnat,s the sort of daft question that irks people.[what border?] I am Scottish by birth, only Brittish by law, and laws can be amended.
What border? We are a United Kingdom. I cannot remember going though a border check while traveling in this country
Golach, do you not think Scotland and England are separate countries? Or England and Wales?
Squidge, there is brass line on a Bar in Leith Walk down here, on one side is Edinburgh the other side is Leith. does that constitute a border? This was done as Edinburgh & Leith had different licensing laws, and the Bar straddled 2 post codes.
And as you well know Squidge I am for the Union, not separation
Tnat,s the sort of daft question that irks people.[what border?] I am Scottish by birth, only Brittish by law, and laws can be amended.
aww shame piratelassie, you speak and write English, and laws will not amend that [lol]
Squidge, there is brass line on a Bar in Leith Walk down here, on one side is Edinburgh the other side is Leith. does that constitute a border? This was done as Edinburgh & Leith had different licensing laws, and the Bar straddled 2 post codes.And as you well know Squidge I am for the Union, not separationI am not asking your political persuasion nor whether a border makes you FEEL different Ducati. That is a personal thing for example there are many lancashire folk I know who would very quickly correct you if you suggested they were from Yorkshire lol.
I ask because I am curious.
Since a child learning about history and geography in an english school I was taught that Scotland and England and Wales are different countries. As a child holidaying in Scotland, my sister and I always cheered as we entered Scotland and crossed the border into a different country, and cheered as we crossed back into England. The same as we crossed the welah border. I wonder, regardless of where you put your cross on referendum day, why you wouldnt think the countries are different. You may argue that it doesnt matter but that is a different issue. It may not matter to you whether there is a 'border' or not or whether that identifies you or not, but to say that there isnt a border and there arent different countries within the UK seems to be contrary to what has always been the case
The striking miners and their flying friends did not have the right to forcibly prevent other people going to work.
The poll tax rioters did not have the right to break shop windows. Surely the best poll tax protest would be to just not pay it.
Define forcibly for me!
Re the poll tax... very many of we Scots didn't pay in the year it was imposed on us as a practice run, I was one of them...but that made no impact on the predominantly English Tory psyche......what it took was riots.....and is the fact that our Government only takes notice of rioters the fault of the rioters, or of a Govenment of all shades, which frankly, always ignores peaceful protest however it is done...as illustrated by the anti-Iraq war march?
secrets in symmetry
02-Jan-13, 01:38
Thanks, but you made the claim, it is only fair you provide the reference, as I have done.Ok, will do.
I thought about it a bit during a late afternoon walk today - and I couldn't see how I got the 50% figure. I'll have to do it again!
piratelassie
02-Jan-13, 01:42
I write and speak english, what is your point?
aww shame piratelassie, you speak and write English, and laws will not amend that [lol]
I write and speak english, what is your point?
Well it's not your language is it. In your world it belongs 'south of the border'.
Define forcibly for me!
Intimidation, threats, beatings, firebombings, attempted murder. Have I missed anything?
I am Scottish by birth, only Brittish [sic] by law, and laws can be amended.
And birth can be, er.... controlled?
.
Interesting point of fact.... Watched the new Bond movie the other day, lost count the number of times that what should have been The UK or Britain in the script was actually scripted as England, the only time Scotland was mentioned was when he went there to get away from what was happening in England.
And so you blame the English for the very common Hollywood scripting tactic where 'England' is used to mean United Kingdom or Britain so that the dim American viewer understands which country is meant? Don't blame the English for that, blame the Americans.
While we're on that subject take a look at what Hollywood does to the English. They are frequently cast as the 'bad guy', from Alan Rickman in Die Hard, to most recently England being the evil invaders in the new Total Recall film. Not to mention that obnoxious midget Mel Gibson's frequent anti-English films, from Gallipoli, to the wildly inaccurate nonsense of Braveheart where a Norman is portrayed as a Scot (Wallace) and the Scots and Irish are shown as allies completely ignoring The Bruce's brutal invasion of Ireland, and then the execrable The Patriot where the English were depicted as herding villagers into a barn and then burning it down. Something which has never happened at the hands of the English, and is only documented from WW2 by the Nazis and in massacres since in Africa and possibly the Balkan war.
If anyone on these islands has reason to complain about their portrayal by Hollywood it's the English.
M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 14:44
Very well put Flynn. I don't get to see many films these days, but I did pay good money to watch 'Braveheart.' I agree with your criticisms. It was a work, largely of fiction and should have been advertised as such. The re-writing and airbrushing of history, (particularly about England, or Britain), is so prevalent these days. Despite the hatchet jobs, there's no shortage of folks desperate to tap into all that England/Britain has to offer. Grrrrr!
the Scots and Irish are shown as allies completely ignoring The Bruce's brutal invasion of Ireland, .
You're right it wasn't a very good film, but wasn't it set in a time before R the B was king?
Hollywood is hollywood and as such should be treated as a work of fiction unless it states absolutely that it is a factual account. Thinking otherwise or taking offence is just daft. Watch a movie for entertainment .... If you want truth look elsewhere or pick your films very very carefully. And sids, yes you are right. Wallace died in 1305 and the Bruce was crowned in 1306. Braveheart ended at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 and the invasion of Ireland was in 1315.
M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 18:24
Hollywood is hollywood and as such should be treated as a work of fiction unless it states absolutely that it is a factual account. Thinking otherwise or taking offence is just daft. Watch a movie for entertainment .... If you want truth look elsewhere or pick your films very very carefully. And sids, yes you are right. Wallace died in 1305 and the Bruce was crowned in 1306. Braveheart ended at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 and the invasion of Ireland was in 1315.
So, it's all right with you for a film which claimed to be factual, but with a touch of fiction for drama's sake, should portray the English in such a bad light? I see!
M Swanson its a FILM. It wasnt true. It was a fictionalised account of the life of William Wallace. Expecting it to show his enemies as lovely people is like watching a film about Churchill and expecting them to show Hitler as a 'misunderstood' flower arranger. Braveheart is a nuisance of a film and it irritates the hell out of me. I spend my summers putting lots of people right about the Scottish Wars of Independence so it certainly is not a favourite of mine but taking the huff about it is just silly.
M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 18:57
Ah! So you would extend that rationale to all rubbish about the life of whoever, from wherever? How about one that portrays India, or Africa, or even Scotland in a similar bad light? Or anywhere else, for that matter? Guess the English are fair game and I can see why it irritates you. I'm not surprised. Unfortunately, some eejits will take it all as being factual and use it to stoke their prejudice and hatred. Been there, seen that! :roll:
I watch all films as entertainment and if they educate me then I count that as a bonus but I watch them critically and if interested will make an effort to find out what really happened rather than what the hollywood machine tells me happened. If a film portrayed MY life in a bad light then I might see being offended as justified but to be offended at how Hollywood portrays 'the English' doesnt make sense to me and actually seems a bit oversensitive. Villains are as likely to be middle eastern or eastern european today in the way they were once German or KGB. The fact that Alan Rickman plays the villain says more about how GOOD he is at it than about his nationality. How much better was he at the Sherriff of Nottingham than in Love Actually or Truly Madly Deeply? And of course it applies to all other countries too. Films are stories .... Tgere are usually goodies and baddies and I dont really care what nationality they are as long as they play a good part!
Braveheart irritates me simply because I end up telling people the real story all summer when I might want to talk about something more interesting. As for stoking prejudice and hatred.... I dont really think Braveheart was responsible for a massive increase in prejudice and hatred. It maybe led to an annoying increase in the number of drunken shouts of FREEDOM and the best that can be said is that it perhaps increased the interest in Scottish History but I havent seen any evidence of an increase in hatred and prejudice because of it.
Scottish Medieval History is full of great stories and i enjoy learning about it and teaching others. Braveheart didnt need to fiddle with the story, it was exciting enough.
I see a plot developing already, English traitorous SNP supporter is escaping from a secessionist purge in the aftermath of a No vote in 2014, she lives safe house to safe house and by the generosity of people with thick tartan stair carpets.
I am offended by that suggestion Rheg. Why make the traitor English? Or is she the heroine? Hmmmmm it might be ok to make her English if she is the heroine.
Intimidation, threats, beatings, firebombings, attempted murder. Have I missed anything?
You missed the response to the rest of the post of which that was only one small part!
Care to quantify, out of interest, the Intimidation, threats, beatings, firebombings, attempted murder produced during the miner's strike and the anti-poll tax marches by all those involved including the police....with links!
I watch all films as entertainment and if they educate me then I count that as a bonus but I watch them critically and if interested will make an effort to find out what really happened rather than what the hollywood machine tells me happened. If a film portrayed MY life in a bad light then I might see being offended as justified but to be offended at how Hollywood portrays 'the English' doesnt make sense to me and actually seems a bit oversensitive. Villains are as likely to be middle eastern or eastern european today in the way they were once German or KGB. The fact that Alan Rickman plays the villain says more about how GOOD he is at it than about his nationality. How much better was he at the Sherriff of Nottingham than in Love Actually or Truly Madly Deeply? And of course it applies to all other countries too. Films are stories .... Tgere are usually goodies and baddies and I dont really care what nationality they are as long as they play a good part!
Braveheart irritates me simply because I end up telling people the real story all summer when I might want to talk about something more interesting. As for stoking prejudice and hatred.... I dont really think Braveheart was responsible for a massive increase in prejudice and hatred. It maybe led to an annoying increase in the number of drunken shouts of FREEDOM and the best that can be said is that it perhaps increased the interest in Scottish History but I havent seen any evidence of an increase in hatred and prejudice because of it.
Scottish Medieval History is full of great stories and i enjoy learning about it and teaching others. Braveheart didnt need to fiddle with the story, it was exciting enough.
Braveheart didn't fiddle with the story. It completely rewrote it.
Wallace is portrayed as a Scot. He wasn't, he was a Norman.
He's portrayed as fair and just. He wasn't he was brutal and savage, burning, raping, and pillaging villages and towns.
The English are portrayed as uniformly evil, murderous, and merciless. There is not one sympathetic English character in the film.
Gallipoli is the same.
The worst is The Patriot where you have good Americans persecuted by evil English, even though at the time of the American Revolution there was no such thing as an 'American' and the colonists considered themselves British.
Then there are all the films with English bad guys.
Most of the Die Hards,
Robin Hood Prince of Thieves where an American Robin does battle with the evil English.
In the recent Robin Hood the goodies are played by Australians and the baddie is pure English.
Even contemporary sci-fi like the remake of the Time Machine has an English uber-baddie with a cut glass English accent in the form of Jeremy Irons.
In Leon the murderous 'bad guy' cop is played by an Englishman, Gary Oldman.
In Rob Roy the nastiest character is again an Englishman, Tim Roth.
In Silence Of The Lambs, guess what the baddie was? Yup, another pure English accent supplied by Welshman Anthony Hopkins.
In classic films like North By Northwest, the bad guy German has a perfect Oxbridge accent courtesy of James Mason.
Even in children's films like The Jungle Book, the baddie, Shere Khan, has a cut glass English accent.Then there's In Bruges: two plucky Irish assassins hiding from their killer boss, who just happens to be English.
Or how about 28 Days Later? Young Irish fella wakes up in hospital, finds others and gets out of London, only to be captured by baddie English soldiers.
I could go on… The truth is the English are routinely portrayed as the bad guys in nearly all Hollywood films.
I'd say they have very good grounds for complaint. After all, can you imagine the wails of 'racism' from the SNP if it were Scots being portrayed in such a way and so often?
No i cant imagine it.... Its nonsense. To say that this is racism trivialises what actually IS racism and the pain fear and suffering it causes. If people want to get angry about racism then they should direct their anger to help those poor people who live with it daily and not get oversensitively huffy about hollywood villains being portrayed by superb british actors.
Well it's not your language is it. In your world it belongs 'south of the border'.
Thank you Flynn, my point exactly
Hey Flynn-
You watch a lot of films, for someone who gets so annoyed by them.
How did you English people gain this terrible reputation? Must have taken some doing!
M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 20:41
Braveheart irritates me simply because I end up telling people the real story all summer when I might want to talk about something more interesting.
How odd? Can't you see, that in stating how you have to tell people the "real story all summer," proves my point? Many obviously take that nonsense for the truth and the result doesn't exactly endear Scots to the English, now does it? I believe you're making light of a serious concern and terrible wrong done to your countryfolk. It's just not helpful, or fair, imo.
M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 20:43
Hey Flynn-
You watch a lot of films, for someone who gets so annoyed by them.
How did you English people gain this terrible reputation? Must have taken some doing!
That's an easy one Sids. It's Socialism what done it!
No i cant imagine it....
Because it doesn't happen to the Scots. I've only seen one film where the baddie is a Scot, that film was Doomsday.
Hey Flynn-
You watch a lot of films, for someone who gets so annoyed by them.
How did you English people gain this terrible reputation? Must have taken some doing!
Their reputation has been imposed by Hollywood. Did I not make that clear enough?
M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 20:46
I see a plot developing already, English traitorous SNP supporter is escaping from a secessionist purge in the aftermath of a No vote in 2014, she lives safe house to safe house and by the generosity of people with thick tartan stair carpets.
LOL. LOL. You forgot the tartan slippers with the zip up the front Rheg! How could you? :lol:
Serious concern and terrible wrong????? Its a FILM. You seem to misunderstand me, Its the facts that they get wrong not that they somehow believe that all english people are pigs and all scottish people saints. For example..... There is no recognition of the role of Andrew de Moray and there is no bridge at the battle of Stirling Bridge, William Wallace was norman as has been said already, he was likely a knight already, the dress is all wrong pound for the number of times our william wallace has been asked why he isnt wearing a plaid, Brave heart is actually the name for the Bruce cos after his death his heart was taken on crusade by Sir James Douglas and it is to him the words ... 'Lead on Brave Heart as ever was your wont' are attributed as the casket with the heart of the Bruce was thrown onwards when the Douglas was killed in Spain. The queen was about four at the time the film has her meet wallace and have a torrid affair and Robert the Bruce didnt betray Wallace as the films show. These are probably the main facts that We spend the summer clarifying. Medieval days were horrid and cruel and barbarous whether in Scotland or England, france, Spain or the holy lands. What isnt helpful is getting our knickers in a twist about imagined slights when the reason some of the films have english villains is because England and Britain has some of the greatest Actors on the Planet and we should be proud of that and not whinge about it not being fair or being racist.
LOL. LOL. You forgot the tartan slippers with the zip up the front Rheg! How could you? :lol:M Swanson if she is on the run they would surely be union jack slippers... She would be in disguise for goodness sake lol.
You missed the response to the rest of the post of which that was only one small part!
Care to quantify, out of interest, the Intimidation, threats, beatings, firebombings, attempted murder produced during the miner's strike and the anti-poll tax marches by all those involved including the police....with links!
I was referreing to the miners strike only as the Poll tax riots had nothing to do with stopping people working.
No need for links, it is all very well documented. You would ask for a link to prove the sun rose most days. :roll:
Their reputation has been imposed by Hollywood. Did I not make that clear enough?
English moaning on the Internet could keep it going, whatever started it.
They're a handy villain for American films, because they're foreign to Americans but speak (obviously) English. Irish are good guys in the minds of many Americans and they're not sure what Scottish means (is anyone?).
English moaning on the Internet could keep it going, whatever started it.
They're a handy villain for American films, because they're foreign to Americans but speak (obviously) English. Irish are good guys in the minds of many Americans and they're not sure what Scottish means (is anyone?).
Aye, just like blacks and asians moaning about it keep it going… :roll:
Aye, just like blacks and asians moaning about it keep it going… :roll:
You're supposed to mention Hitler at this stage in the debate.
You're supposed to mention Hitler at this stage in the debate.
Why? Why? Why?
Sorry, I wasn't allowed to just ask 'why?' I had to use ten characters or more. :confused
This is the funniest twist'N'turn of a thread going off-topic I've read in a looooong time.
I see a plot developing already, English traitorous SNP supporter is escaping from a secessionist purge in the aftermath of a No vote in 2014, she lives safe house to safe house and by the generosity of people with thick tartan stair carpets.
Rheghead, this made me LOL. You do indeed stir with a long spoon.
No i cant imagine it.... Its nonsense. To say that this is racism trivialises what actually IS racism and the pain fear and suffering it causes. If people want to get angry about racism then they should direct their anger to help those poor people who live with it daily and not get oversensitively huffy about hollywood villains being portrayed by superb british actors.
I totally agree Squidge. It's to your credit that you continually challenge the nonsense.
M Swanson if she is on the run they would surely be union jack slippers... She would be in disguise for goodness sake lol.
M Swanson's not been around the forums too long Squidge so can be forgiven for not quite understanding the humour. :lol:
Why? Why? Why?
Sorry, I wasn't allowed to just ask 'why?' I had to use ten characters or more. :confused
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 23:56
You're supposed to mention Hitler at this stage in the debate.
Whoops Sids! I'm afraid you were the one to fall foul of Godwin's Law, by mentioning it first. 'Fraid you've lost the argument! :D
Tartan slippers with the wee zippy thing for you sids ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
I am well aware of Godwin's law, I asked why you think it should be relevant in this discussion? You wouldn't be trying to derail the discussion with a strawman argument would you?
This is the funniest twist'N'turn of a thread going off-topic I've read in a looooong time.
.....http://thepsychedelicsewingroom.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/devil_laghin_by_scotsgirl_606.gif.....
M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 00:32
Tartan slippers with the wee zippy thing for you sids ;)
LOL. Yes, indeed! :lol:
piratelassie
03-Jan-13, 01:02
Never mind anti english there seems to be a lot of Scottifh slagging going on.
Never mind anti english there seems to be a lot of Scottifh slagging going on.
Careful, you're still using their language.
Serious concern and terrible wrong????? Its a FILM. You seem to misunderstand me, Its the facts that they get wrong not that they somehow believe that all english people are pigs and all scottish people saints. For example..... There is no recognition of the role of Andrew de Moray and there is no bridge at the battle of Stirling Bridge, William Wallace was norman as has been said already, he was likely a knight already, the dress is all wrong pound for the number of times our william wallace has been asked why he isnt wearing a plaid, Brave heart is actually the name for the Bruce cos after his death his heart was taken on crusade by Sir James Douglas and it is to him the words ... 'Lead on Brave Heart as ever was your wont' are attributed as the casket with the heart of the Bruce was thrown onwards when the Douglas was killed in Spain. The queen was about four at the time the film has her meet wallace and have a torrid affair and Robert the Bruce didnt betray Wallace as the films show. These are probably the main facts that We spend the summer clarifying. Medieval days were horrid and cruel and barbarous whether in Scotland or England, france, Spain or the holy lands. What isnt helpful is getting our knickers in a twist about imagined slights when the reason some of the films have english villains is because England and Britain has some of the greatest Actors on the Planet and we should be proud of that and not whinge about it not being fair or being racist.
Liked a lot your Expecting it to show his enemies as lovely people is like watching a film about Churchill and expecting them to show Hitler as a 'misunderstood' flower arranger.
To be fair, Hollywood rewrites history/books etc for films to get in the requisite level of violence, slight sexuality and bias etc required to get sheeple from all over the world to trot along and pay to watch it. I watched Braveheart once...and boaked! I never watch films made in Hollywood based on books I have read anymore...because they always disappoint (those made by UK companies tend not to be quite as bad)...and have never felt inclined to read any book on the basis that "it was good enough for Hollywood to make a film of it for money".
Have to say, even if it is a good film, historically accurate and sympathetic in interpretation of the history/ book, I do still often cringe at the accents, Quite a fan of Star Trek...but every time Scotty opens his mouth, I could happily strangle him..nothing to do with his nationality.......more to do with his portrayal of our accent (whichever accent he thought he was using). I don't much care about the origins of the actors in films at all...I don't spend my time thinking that person isn't really Scottish/English/Australian or whatever....but I do kinda expect that "actors" who have relatively few other abilities, can do accents which come across as believable to those who live with the accents.
My current " Jesus wept......I could kill him for that" is David McCallum's pronunciation of Craigellachie in one of the oft repeated NCIS episodes. [mad]:lol:
piratelassie
03-Jan-13, 01:53
Flynn ,cant you grow up.
Careful, you're still using their language.
I was referreing to the miners strike only as the Poll tax riots had nothing to do with stopping people working.
No need for links, it is all very well documented. You would ask for a link to prove the sun rose most days. :roll:
Nope....there is a need for links for people who did not live in mining areas....or .only had access way back when to less than accurate TV/media reporting ...were not alive at the time but are reading this forum. But then...only trolls expect those who don't make the post to spend their time proving....or not.....the spurious point the troll makes. People who are not trolling do links to the whole point of their post.
If you can confirm via accurate reporting that Intimidation, threats, beatings, firebombings, attempted murder were produced during the miner's strike by all those involved including the police.it would be appreciated........and may engender a discussion. Otherwise, if you can't put up.....shut up!
Nope....there is a need for links for people who did not live in mining areas....or .only had access way back when to less than accurate TV/media reporting ...were not alive at the time but are reading this forum. But then...only trolls expect those who don't make the post to spend their time proving....or not.....the spurious point the troll makes. People who are not trolling do links to the whole point of their post.
If you can confirm via accurate reporting that Intimidation, threats, beatings, firebombings, attempted murder were produced during the miner's strike by all those involved including the police.it would be appreciated........and may engender a discussion. Otherwise, if you can't put up.....shut up!
You seem a bit bonkers. May I suggest you do one?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.