Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 4 minutes ago, The Doctor said: You're making a distinction where one doesn't need to exist, unless only specific types of failure should be punished - in which case I'm baffled as to why failure to fulfill your responsibilities as an employer shouldn't. theres a price to pay with in work poverty now. If a building is structurally unsound, as trickle-down economics has been for years, you don't just give it a new coat of paint and go on until it collapses, you pre-emptively demolish it and rebuild. As I mentioned in the edited version of my post, this is wealth redistribution., taking money from well off taxpayers and giving it to the low paid. Isn't that what the left is supposed to believe in?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 On 30/09/2017 at 07:27, katieakita said: Oh dear oh dear, Foxin_mad sadly like most of the country you really know very little about Royal Mail and the Post Office. When Royal Mail lost its monopoly many European postal firms moved in, they didn't fancy delivering to every house in the UK so cherry picked the profitable ones and went whinging to the regulator to gain access to Royal Mails network and infrastructure to get them to deliver for them to places that were not viable to them. The regulator allowed this forcing the tax payer owned Royal Mail to deliver European rivals post at a financial loss. A considerable loss that used to be stated at around £180 million a year, now to sweeten the loss the regulator allowed Royal Mail to knock the 2nd post of the day on the head, one year they allowed the price of a 1st class stamp to rise from 46p to 60p so the general public got to pay for the subsidy to other countries postal service providers. Other cost cutting measures have included later starts so your post lands in the afternoon or boxes only getting emptied once a day. Any clown can make Royal Mail profitable knock the 6 day a week delivery on the head certainly to remote areas, charge an appropriate fee to supply remote areas and don't deliver rivals post at a loss. By now the tax payers windfall from the sale of Royal Mail has just about gone £2.3 billion was wasted by the Post Office add the profits Royal Mail have made since privatisation and the costs the public will pay out correcting the Post Offices "errors" and the money raised has gone. Also don't forget the Royal Mail have some prime land holdings in many major Cities. At Mount Pleasant a 12 acre site they have just sold 2.5 acres for the best part of £200 million. The position of Postmaster General was a high ranking government position tasked with raising revenue for the treasury and in the cold, cold light of day the most successful Postmaster General of all time was a Mr Tony Benn yes that one. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/royal-mail-sells-mount-pleasant-site-for-193m/10022967.article As for the government owned Post Office Margot James Postal Minister recently allowed a £1 million pound payment for senior management as a bonus for reducing losses by £10 million. A FOIR and pressure by the Information commissioner made Post Office Ltd admit that by forcing Postmasters to change contracts they had avoided paying £11.3 million in National Insurance contributions to the treasury But according to the Post Office this is not avoidance it is a reduction. The fact that it goes completely against government policy seems to have been ignored by the current government. Sadly the general public are totally unaware of Post Office issues and the government are happy to keep it that way, expect Mrs May to a fanfare announce further funding from the taxpayer to the Post Office next week, bet she doesn't say most of it will go to cover this. http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500257720/Group-litigation-against-Post-Office-being-prepared-in-Horizon-dispute On 30/09/2017 at 11:19, toddybad said: Don't expect.a response from fox. He only has a bile setting so isn't capable of discussing a detailed point that might affect his pre-programmed opinions Actually on the contrary. I will except when I am wrong unlike most left wingers. I probably don't know enough about the Post Office to comment further obviously the person above has done some serious groundwork into it and knows far more than I could ever know. Personally I think as a general rule state run monopolies are bad, but obviously there are significant issues the government have failed on. Certainly I question that a Corbyn run Post Office would be any better, they would want 4 day weeks and £15 an hour for delivering our post, if we disagreed the unions would be 'marching the streets' in protest at their ridiculous conditions. Look at the tube drivers, paid over 40k a year and can not be bothered to work 5 day weeks, I have no sympathy.
Buce Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 1 hour ago, The Doctor said: You're making a distinction where one doesn't need to exist, unless only specific types of failure should be punished - in which case I'm baffled as to why failure to fulfill your responsibilities as an employer shouldn't. theres a price to pay with in work poverty now. If a building is structurally unsound, as trickle-down economics has been for years, you don't just give it a new coat of paint and go on until it collapses, you pre-emptively demolish it and How do think Webbo makes a living? 2
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 (edited) What lovely people..... Edited 2 October 2017 by MattP
Guest Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 10 minutes ago, MattP said: What lovely people..... Jesus Christ, get a backbone Matt, ffs. You're as bad as the liberal left for false outrage. Anyway, as if we didn't already know it Cabinet is split over how Brexit should happen, Hammond admits https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/02/cabinet-is-split-over-how-brexit-should-happen-hammond-admits?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
The Doctor Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 4 hours ago, Webbo said: As I mentioned in the edited version of my post, this is wealth redistribution., taking money from well off taxpayers and giving it to the low paid. Isn't that what the left is supposed to believe in? Personally I'd rather that money taken from well off tax payers were invested to create opportunities for the poor to become well off tax payers rather than to prop up businesses that can't pay their employees properly.
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 1 hour ago, The Doctor said: Personally I'd rather that money taken from well off tax payers were invested to create opportunities for the poor to become well off tax payers rather than to prop up businesses that can't pay their employees properly. How do you do that? Govts creating successful businesses, picking winners from existing businesses and investing in them? Been tried before, doesn't work. The idea that you'll scrap all these low paid jobs and an equal amount of well paid jobs will miraculously appear is naive to say the least.
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 4 hours ago, toddybad said: Jesus Christ, get a backbone Matt, ffs. You're as bad as the liberal left for false outrage. It's the hypocrisy I can't stand, the bullshit about the kinder, gentler politics then stuff like this. I just hope it doesn't lead to another Jo Cox situation.
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 If you can't see the difference from someone outraged because a shop sells pink dresses to girls and a march calling for people to be executed because you disagree with their politics then it's you who's got the problem. 1
Guest Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 2 hours ago, MattP said: It's the hypocrisy I can't stand, the bullshit about the kinder, gentler politics then stuff like this. I just hope it doesn't lead to another Jo Cox situation. Is Corbyn leading the chorus? 1 hour ago, Webbo said: If you can't see the difference from someone outraged because a shop sells pink dresses to girls and a march calling for people to be executed because you disagree with their politics then it's you who's got the problem. Webbo, you seriously can't see the difference between a silly chanted song (you're a football fan ffs) and "a march calling for people to be executed"? Don't be so bloody ridiculous.do you think you're going to convince anybody that it is a serious issue simply by trying to pretend it is?
Guest Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: Here's the antidote to some of these people. Yeah, you're on shaky ground if the best you can manage is repeating that somebody is despicable. Unfortunately politicso discourse is more akin to football supporting these days with about the same average level of intelligence involved (dangerous comment on a football forum but I hope you know what I mean). The same can be said of all sides.
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: Is Corbyn leading the chorus? Webbo, you seriously can't see the difference between a silly chanted song (you're a football fan ffs) and "a march calling for people to be executed"? Don't be so bloody ridiculous.do you think you're going to convince anybody that it is a serious issue simply by trying to pretend it is? People were outraged by someone singing "does your boyfriend know you're here" but we're supposed to laugh off people calling for people to be hanged? I'm not outraged about, it's par for the course from our moral superiors on the left but I can't help feeling you'd be offended by a lot less if it was rightwingers saying things about labour.
Guest Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 9 minutes ago, Webbo said: People were outraged by someone singing "does your boyfriend know you're here" but we're supposed to laugh off people calling for people to be hanged? I'm not outraged about, it's par for the course from our moral superiors on the left but I can't help feeling you'd be offended by a lot less if it was rightwingers saying things about labour. I really doubt it. You might recall me standing up for WRM recently over free speech. This is even less serious - a gaggle of protesters singing songs like that is an expectation. It doesn't mean that they mean it!
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 23 minutes ago, toddybad said: I really doubt it. You might recall me standing up for WRM recently over free speech. This is even less serious - a gaggle of protesters singing songs like that is an expectation. It doesn't mean that they mean it! You did indeed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to say such things (although it could be describe as inciting violence) but I don't think it's wrong that they should be judged for what they say either.
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 49 minutes ago, toddybad said: Is Corbyn leading the chorus? He's definitely an enabler, he won't even come down on his acolytes who attack Labour members so I'm not expecting him to say anything on this To be fair Lucy Powell, Wes Streeting and a few others in the party have apologised for the behaviour, still some good people in the organisation, just all on the backbenches now.
Guest Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 42 minutes ago, Webbo said: You did indeed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to say such things (although it could be describe as inciting violence) but I don't think it's wrong that they should be judged for what they say either. I just think acting like silly songs are intended seriously is a bit ridiculous. But judge away.
Sampson Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 (edited) https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/7e9d6e88-a76b-11e7-93c5-648314d2c72c Not a fan of this Tory government at all but everything Philip Hammond says about Corbyn is spot on. Never thought I'd see such a populist and a cult of personality take hold one of the two major parties. I get that the youth of today aren't old enough to remember the old dystopian Eastern European dictators who just used to attack the corporate elite and big business and the "establishment" treat the state as God and infallible and offer nationalisation, price fixing and wealth distribution as easy answers to problems, while never even tackling and completely ignoring the issues of what these things did to shifting the supply and demand in the long-term Economy but I thought we'd got past that and that was part of history. Regardless of what you think about Margeret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Ian Duncan-Smith, John Smith or John Major - and many of those I profoundly disagreed with - you at least knew there was grown up discussion had between them taking into account long-term Economic planning who tried to actually get to the crux of the opposition argument - many of them made profound errors - but I never for one second saw any of them think Economics and Government was all just easy answers the way Corbyn does. That giving more money to the poor from the rich is an easy way to solve poverty. I've never seen another leader of major 2 parties try to win favour by claiming that austerity and cuts are simply because the Tories "don't care about nurses and firemen" and want them to starve while they get richer off the back of it which is why they give tax cuts to the rich - there absolutely are grown up discussions to be had about whether austerity has worked or not - but trying to win votes by just attacking it as not caring about firefighters and only implemented so the "establishment" could get richer while the fat-cats sit smoking their cigars - it's dystopian stuff (and this isn't exaggeration - watch Corbyn's Labour Party speech from last week, start at any point and within 3 minutes you'll hear him talking about how the Tories don't care and are only trying to get rich) - it's the stuff we were supposed to learn from history and it's the populism and easy answer peddling every good history book warned us against. And again, it's not so much even whether this gets implemented - but it's what it signifies - that populism can win. That simply attacking the "establishment" and championing the common man rather than actually having grown up Economic discussion can still win in a Western democracy in 2017 and most of us thought we were finally past that. Trump and Farage were and are frightening and it seemed many of the youth rightly saw the horrible dangers which hard-Right populism can do to a democracy - not just in terms of the short-term but how it lessens the power of democracy and debate when people like that get in solely for being "anti-establishment" and attacking the elite while championing the common man without actually having grown up Economic debate and engaging with tough decisions that every government has to make - every one of which will have its downsides and lead to people's deaths and misery. But it's frightening that the same young people who rightly saw this danger can't see the hard-Left populism of Corbyn and Sanders as doing exactly the same thing and using exactly the same tactics. Even if you agree with them, this cult of personality - the bumper stickers and chants for Corbyn to the point where people are just behind the man rather than taking a rigerous look at ideas - and the endless attacking of the corporate elite and championing the people - this is not healthy for a functioning democracy and I've never been as fearful of a leader of one of the 2 major parties and the long-term impact his success could have on our democracy than I am of Corbyn. I know I'm repeating myself now blah blah blah so I'll chill out and stop posting for a bit but it was an absolute worthwhile and spot on speech by Philip Hammond who I'm not normally a fan of. Edited 2 October 2017 by Sampson 1
The Doctor Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 4 hours ago, Webbo said: How do you do that? Govts creating successful businesses, picking winners from existing businesses and investing in them? Been tried before, doesn't work. The idea that you'll scrap all these low paid jobs and an equal amount of well paid jobs will miraculously appear is naive to say the least. Invest more in education (rather than just fobbing the responsibility off onto private enterprise) and in opportunities for people to retrain - give individuals the tools to help themselves. (I could also bang on about how investing in STEM is a guaranteed money spinner at this point). So if we don't subsidise businesses by paying a chunk of their wage bill, there'll be mass job losses? Sounds like a confession that the wealth creators aren't creating, just taking from the rest of us. Good to see you understand trickle down economics, the core of Thatcherism, is a busted flush though.
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 9 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Invest more in education (rather than just fobbing the responsibility off onto private enterprise) and in opportunities for people to retrain - give individuals the tools to help themselves. (I could also bang on about how investing in STEM is a guaranteed money spinner at this point). So if we don't subsidise businesses by paying a chunk of their wage bill, there'll be mass job losses? Sounds like a confession that the wealth creators aren't creating, just taking from the rest of us. Good to see you understand trickle down economics, the core of Thatcherism, is a busted flush though. Education, the answer to everything, that's why smoking and unwanted pregnancies are unheard of now. As for your second paragraph, you might have a point if it wasn't for the fact that living standards are double what they were when Mrs T first came to power, inflation is a fraction of what it was and unemployment is at it's lowest since 1975.
The Doctor Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: Education, the answer to everything, that's why smoking and unwanted pregnancies are unheard of now. As for your second paragraph, you might have a point if it wasn't for the fact that living standards are double what they were when Mrs T first came to power and unemployment is at it's lowest since 1975. It's why smoking rates and teenage pregnancies are at a lower point than any other generation, yes. Or I have a point because Thatcherism slowed growth and increased inequality: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/revealed-wealth-gap-oecd-report. Saying living standards have improved means little when we're talking 40 odd years ago - the entirety of the tech revolution has happened in that time.
Webbo Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 1 hour ago, The Doctor said: It's why smoking rates and teenage pregnancies are at a lower point than any other generation, yes. Or I have a point because Thatcherism slowed growth and increased inequality: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/revealed-wealth-gap-oecd-report. Saying living standards have improved means little when we're talking 40 odd years ago - the entirety of the tech revolution has happened in that time. If you look at this graph; https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016 There has been a massive increase in living standards since the early 80s. As for equality, who cares? As long as everyone is better off why does it matter if someone is even better off than you. Labours policies in the 70s drove talent out of the country and suppressed enterprise, keeping everyone equally poor isn't an improvement.
Recommended Posts