The ugly face of capitalism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ST4 said:
Radical quisling leftist nut job. Mercifully unelectable.
Click to expand...
Interestingly - since his election the Labour party has picked up more new members than the entire membership of the Lib Dems.

Maybe lots of people who didn't vote at all last time really like him? Or lots of people who were just waking up to politics who thought (wrongly) that the new politics of UKiP were the answer?

Maybe there are people who have realised that the further towards the centre the Labour party moved, the further to the right the centre moved. It's statistically impossible to be both on the left and in the centre - just the same as you can't be on the right and in the centre. I knew the Labour party was screwed when the Tories attacked them from the left about 10 years ago.
 
ST4 said:
Why, as I don't want to live in a land where other peoples money is spent on an undeserving greedy grasping untermenchen
Click to expand...
Does such a land exist that consider your views moderate right?

The undeserving greedy graspers stealing the majority of your hard earned money isn't people on benefits.
 
Last edited:
The Lib Dems should be capitalising on this, but Farron seems unable to get his message out. His speech at the conference today should get a bit of media coverage, but they need to be a lot more active if they want to capitalise on this great opportunity to immediately recover some of the support lost during the coalition years. The centre ground is a huge open goal at the moment.
 
ST4 said:
£900mil on refugee camps in syria. etc

I'd rather our taxes were cut
Click to expand...
How many millions do you think they've spent blowing up the place to create all these refugees? Its a double whammy isn't it.
 
ST4 said:
Yes, we have labour and Blair to thank for that.
Click to expand...
Oh really? The Conservatives opposed it, did they?

Revisionist history at it's best. You'd make a fine Communist.


Edit: retracted. Apparently only certain people are allowed to 'call names'.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
Oh really? The Conservatives opposed it, did they?

Revisionist history at it's best. You'd make a fine Communist.
Click to expand...

It's funny because it's true and he'll deny it from a position of ignorance!
 
I see it is pick on Steve time again.

Playground bully antics again, resorting to name calling and general childishness.
 
fracster said:
I see it is pick on Steve time again.

Playground bully antics again, resorting to name calling and general childishness.
Click to expand...
If you start using terms like "untermenchen" [sic] you can't really expect to be protected from that which you dish out.

He does this on purpose to get this response - why would you wish to spoil his fun?
 
ST4 said:
Yes, we have labour and Blair to thank for that. I wholly oppossed that war
Click to expand...
That's you me, Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Benn, you're in odd company there.

Or do you mean you wholly opposed that war in hindsight like the Tory party, the right wing media et al?

I'm asking because I remember the time well, we had some very strained conversations with our friends who believed we were very unpatriotic for not getting behind the war, it was a very minority opinion (at the time)
 
ST4 said:
The conservatives aren't true conservatives anymore.
Click to expand...
Who were the true Conservatives then?

As far as I can see (I'm only 51) this is the most right wing Tory government we have ever had. But if you could give me some details to change my mind, that'd be interesting.
 
At the time I was skeptical about these wars, these were US battles, not ours. We should have at the time stayed out. I might have even said staying out of WW2 might have been a good punt too. We should only look after our own interests IMHO.
 
Phil V said:
Who were the true Conservatives then?

As far as I can see (I'm only 51) this is the most right wing Tory government we have ever had. But if you could give me some details to change my mind, that'd be interesting.
Click to expand...

Really. £900mil on refugee camps and letting in all these people. Thatcher was the best PM, by far.
 
ST4 said:
£900mil on refugee camps in syria. etc

I'd rather our taxes were cut
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you're not rich enough for this government to be cutting your taxes, that's a perk they reserved for their really wealthy chums. If only you were harder working and more deserving :D
 
Ooh, and the Iraq war brings up back round to the Royal Family again. Guess which lovable, non-political monarch vetoed Tom Dalyell's application to debate a bill forcing Parliament to vote on an invasion of Iraq?

Go on, folks, have a guess.
 
ST4 said:
Really. £900mil on refugee camps and letting in all these people. Thatcher was the best PM, by far.
Click to expand...
Thatcher stopped short of privatising the NHS - left of Cameron
Thatcher only cut benefits for single parents, she left the disabled alone - left of Cameron
Thatcher failed to completely dismantle the links between trade unions and the Labour Party - left of Cameron
Thatcher failed to completely dismantle the right of trade unions to go on a legal strike - left of Cameron

Mrs T couldn't dare dream of the measures to dismantle this great country that Hameron has managed. To suggest that he's less right wing shows a complete lack of understanding of politics both large P and small.
 
Phil V said:
Thatcher stopped short of privatising the NHS - left of Cameron
Click to expand...
However, I seem to have missed the opportunity to buy shares in the NHS when it was privatised like I did in British Steel and the Royal Mail.

I also seem to have missed the point where the NHS stopped being publicly funded from taxation and moved to private funding at the point of delivery from its users.
 
Right . . . mind the doors please.

I'm on a break at work at the moment and really haven't got the time to read through everything in here.
Judging by the number of RTMs we're getting, I think this thread needs a review and clean up before it goes any further though.

Closing until somebody in the staffroom has the time to trawl through it.
 
Steve, I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or that your posts are honestly held views. The line is that thin IMO.
Everyone has different views, I get that, but everyone has a duty in this community to get along and at least try and discuss each other's point of view even if you disagree with it.
While this thread has been mostly polite (Up to the name calling of course), and respectful (Up to the use of nazi terminology of course), it's only going to foster ill-will and create more problems unless everyone starts to discuss things a little more respectfully.

A final thought from me about the NHS. The founding ethos is that it's available for everyone who needs it, regardless of income or whether or not you have paid enough into the system.
Take that away and simply put, you don't have the NHS anymore, you have private health insurance.
 
onomatopoeia said:
However, I seem to have missed the opportunity to buy shares in the NHS when it was privatised like I did in British Steel and the Royal Mail.

I also seem to have missed the point where the NHS stopped being publicly funded from taxation and moved to private funding at the point of delivery from its users.
Click to expand...
You're free to buy shares in any of the companies currently running NHS trusts.

Virgin Care might be the one for you, they're also based in a tax haven, so double bonus.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Virgin Care might be the one for you, they're also based in a tax haven, so double bonus.
Click to expand...
Gasp! A Branson-affiliated company dodging taxes? Say it ain't so!

I thought he was Saint Branson these days? :rolleyes:
 
ST4 said:
Why pay more tax than necessary? If its legal it isn't dodging, its merely paying the correct amount.
Click to expand...
Branson's tax exploits have not always been strictly legal.

And anyone who works in tax knows there is rarely "the" correct amount, more "a" correct amount. Choose which one you want, depending on your appetite for risk.

Will be interesting when the next BEPS announcement comes out shortly.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Privitised would mean to me having to pay for what was free. Like private schools, BUPA hospitals etc.
Click to expand...
No, it would mean transferring it from the public to the private sector. Because that's what the word means. It doesn't tell you who is paying for the service, only who/what owns the provider.

OED said:
The transfer of a business, industry, or service from public to private ownership and control
Click to expand...
 
Llamaman said:
No, it would mean transferring it from the public to the private sector. Because that's what the word means. It doesn't tell you who is paying for the service, only who/what owns the provider.
Click to expand...

Yes, but who cares. Its free at point of use. Real, true private sector work is to make it cost at point of use. Like a fee paying school etc.
 
ST4 said:
Banned but thought. Having to spoken to French and Spanish plus Dutch people on my travels, they seem to think the way I do. Beware of the silent majority ;)
Click to expand...
We must move in very different circles. I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the word "untermensch" (with the meaning you used it) except in a historical context, and then usually with derision and/or contempt for the concept.
 
Phil V said:
Since when did privatised mean 'not free at point of use'?
Click to expand...
To me, who remembers BT, British steel etc, being privatised, the word obviously means something quite different from what it means to you.

In the context of the UK government, I understand it based on previous examples since 1980 to mean the sale of a state owned business or service through a share offer on the London stock exchange. I want to understand how you define it, since that hasn't happened to the NHS..
 
ST4 said:
Real, true private sector work is to make it cost at point of use.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. I've never paid a penny to Facebook, Google or ITV despite using their services.

"Real, true private sector" doesn't care who pays it, as long as it gets paid. What you're describing is political ideology, not a business model.
 
Last edited:
onomatopoeia said:
To me, who remembers BT, British steel etc, being privatised, the word obviously means something quite different from what it means to you.

In the context of the UK government, I understand it based on previous examples since 1980 to mean the sale of a state owned business or service through a share offer on the London stock exchange. I want to understand how you define it, since that hasn't happened to the NHS..
Click to expand...
I'm old enough to remember that too, and sorry to hear that your understanding of such a simple word is lacking despite you receiving an education better than the youth of today get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top