BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty

Subject: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 May 08 - 08:04 PM

Oh shit have people no memories?

Local authority services will be destroyed.

Dare we hope, as rubbish collections disappear, as the needy are shovelled onto the streets, as the oligarchs come to rule the planning system, and God help the people because the local authority won't, that the stupid, stupid English will learn, will even begin to see an inkling of how they will be dispossessed and reduced to lackey status if the old Etonians and plutocrats get to control parliament and the country again?

Time to stockpile milk bottles, petrol and rags.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Padre
Date: 03 May 08 - 01:22 AM

Do I take it from your 'sky is falling' input that the Liberal party has lost some local election (or did they win)?

And what will you do with gasoline in a milk bottle? You will have a hard time pouring it into the gas tank of your Austin A-40.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:03 AM

Here comes poverty. Richard, its already there, without Boris influencing it. Sounds like a neat idea to pass the buck to the incoming Mayor.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: DMcG
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:24 AM

Many of the general public interviewed mentioned things like the 10% tax rate, fuel prices, food prices ... The depressing thing is that so many people seem unable to distinguish between local and national government. Either that, or they think 'sending a message to Westminster' is more important than how their local services are run.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: alanabit
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:36 AM

It looks like Labour are losing power the same way as Schroeder did in Germany - by pissing off their own supporters. They have tried to hang on to power by increasingly stealing the Tories clothes. That sort of political transvestite will always be doomed to opposition. All Brown has to do to stay in power is to keep his own supporters on board. It's the old political maxim: Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:39 AM

The local elections have always been a means of showing the government "that one isn't amused"

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: sapper82
Date: 03 May 08 - 04:16 AM

Yes, Richard, I do have a memory.
I have a memory of being on duty to provide fire fighting cover for the Firemen's strike in 1977.
I have memories of one of the troops on my squadron going to Glasgow to clean the streets of rubbish in '78.
I have a memory of being on standby for going to Liverpool to bury bodies at the same period.
I remember RCT lads driving oil tankers past picketts of striking hospital porters when they'd stopped the civvie drivers from delivering fuel oil.
I remember the same strikers vetting people trying to get to hospital casualy departments to see if they were sick enough to pass.

That is why I am a Tory and that is why I will never vote for a socialist in any form.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: DMcG
Date: 03 May 08 - 04:19 AM

You are absolutely right, of course, Villan, but that still seems to me to be a poor use of voting.

Back in the days that people tried to have witty default signatures on emails, one of the favourites I received was something like:

"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Please find enclosed your lifetime supply of democracy"

Voting someone into power in a local election to send a message to someone else, while ignoring what the person you elected actually wants to do seems to me to waste one of the very few Xs we really have. Your view may, of course, differ.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 03 May 08 - 04:46 AM

The English are essentially a small 'c' conservative lot. They are never amused and, having been criticised heavily when small by their upbringers, who had themselves been criticised heavily when small by their upbringers who were    et cetera, as a result are arch fault-finders who seek to find the weakness of others, like their politicians. (tho' it doesn't stop there, natch).

So you can have done a great job for a long time, but one bad error will count for more. Thus can the voters blithely ignore, forget, or re-write and re-remember the things you got right.

All of this is of the essence of a blaming society, where it's always someone else who carries the can.

An alternative is some form of loyalty. (Or even memory) We are often loyal to partners, and to family and real friends. Sometimes to country.

GUEST Shimrod expresses amazement at the idea of loyalty.

It used to be the Concervative's secret weapon.

All the the above is why I'm relieved that I never sought political office. What with the kind of voters we have who are moody, irrational, ignorant, disloyal, resentful, and so easily swayed while denying with their last breath that anyone can sway them, that they are basically ignorant, that they are moody, that they are irrational.


As ever, we'll get the politicians we deserve. If we don't like the result, we can ignore WHO put them in, just be annoyed with them by voting others in, and the merry(?)-go-round will continue.

Wake me when it's over.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:19 AM

The 1970's were an entire object lesson to the labour party that there is no way for them to 'keep their supporters aboard' or appease them, and as sapper points out - it ended in the winter of discontent.

The problem I have with the tories is that the supporters they keep aboard are probably quite as bad as a trade union movement, puffed up with its own importance - namely the Ulster unionists (didn't the Irish policies that saw your friends getting shot over there sicken you, Sapper - they were quite unnecessary and stopped almost as soon as Labour got in?) other supporters are the Murdoch press, the millionaire cliques that pay no taxes, the list goes on.

I don't think Blair had any choice with Afghanistan and Iraq. He knew how America had vindictively buggered up our economy when we refused to support them over Vietnam. He wasn't going to spend his tenure picking up the pieces like Wilson did.

However because of this Brown and Blair spent a lot of time picking lead out of their ass from their own supporters. The raising of the 10p tax rate was inexplicable and inexcusable.

The failure to clean out M15/MI6 (particularly after that suspicious suicide of the scientist). The failure to tackle huge profits by cartels and monopolies operating in this country - and make them pay sensible amounts of tax. These have been the real moral failures.

As a Labour Party supporter - albeit a passive one - I am sorry for its failures. As someone who has worked as a teacher, and seen the iniquitous 'National Curriculum' come and go, and then someone who has had to manage living on allowances with my disabled wife. I can see that the Labour Party has more inherent decency than the tories. It occurs to it to do decent things that the tories would never think of.

And they don't sneer at us from the party platform, like Peter Lilley did.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:35 AM

As a Londoner, I am glad the Livingstone regime has been overthrown. We should be having street parties.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:39 AM

I switched on the radio to hear that Boris Johnson wasw now Mayor of London (hooray) and then heard him praise Ken Livingstone whom he described as a "very considerable public servant". That was pretty decent of him.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Leadfingers
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:53 AM

Sapper - New Labour dropped ANY reference to Socialism from their manifesto in 1997 ! The Blair cabinet was further to the right than John Majors !!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 03 May 08 - 06:24 AM

Thats becuase they knew there was no chance of getting in as the governing party, if they didn't do that.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 03 May 08 - 09:56 AM

Well all you ken haters ..

If Ken's so bad, why does Boris want to keep him on in city hall?

Isn't he confident enough in his own abilities?

Does he need advice?

Help?

From Ken?

Why?

Is Ken actually pretty good?

Come on Rockin Reeler ... explain that for us why don't you ...

I mean ... presumably ken was doing a bad job and Boris felt that he would do a better job ...

... y'know ... undo kens mistakes ... implement better policies ...

... not say "actually ken I need you to give me a hand ... cos I actually don't have a clue ..."

He's right about Kens "transparent love of London".

At least he has the guts to realise that once the politicking is over, someone needs to do the job of keeping London Going and they need to know what's going on.

Ken was a good guy and London will look back on this day with a resounding "Doh!"

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:14 PM

Well, not that I think that US politics are any great prize these days - far from it, in fact - but are we allowed to gaffaw snicker titter politely at you Brits over the defeat of Red Ken?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: folk1e
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:42 PM

Ken going could be a blessing in disguise ......

If anybody expects Boris to do a good job (this includes you RR) I would be amazed! It was a vote against rather than a vote for.

Having said that ..... when it does go tits up in London, I wonder how many will look back on the departure of "Red" Ken with sadness.

Gordon Brown however will probably be quite pleased with this one   aspect of the election. Not only does he get rid of one of his arch enemies, but he is replaced by a buffoon who will be all too easy to tag with "The Conservatives couldn't even run London, don't vote for them in the next election" mantra!

I have been known to be wrong ...... but I would put money on this one!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:45 PM

Help yourself. he had a lot of fans actually. people you wouldn't expect. The trash press used to rubbish him and say London was a mess.

To those of us outside of London - its always seemed a bit of a mess. When you get to the M1 - it always feels to us like you're leaving the warzone. London never seems noticeably better or worse. Just a bloody mess.

The newspapers used to make fun of his irritating voice and his collection of newts, but you'd meet Londoners and they'd say stuff like - he does his best for us.........

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:46 PM

Ironically, if Ken had not been welcomed back into the bosom of the New Labour Party, he might still be London Mayor today.


G

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:14 PM

well he's edited a magazine. Boris can't be as big a plonker as he seems on telly.

Still if its an act, its a bloody good one!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:58 PM

I agree with that Al. I can't understand why Ken thought it a good idea to re-join Labour.

Anybody with an ounce of political sense could see the writing on the wall when Blair was forced to make a run for it.
The country just wants them gone...every man jack of them.
Economics dont come into it when the electorate are sickened and now Labour are an embarrasment, every time we see their smug faces we are reminded of how they made us all complicit in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands.

We want them to vanish from vision and memory, because we are as guilty as the politicians.
No point in saying well the Tories supported the war too.....Thats what Tories do!!....support wars.   This was our beloved Labour party, a hundred years of history fighting for the oppressed, giving medical care and education to the poor......and led by a raving madman. We all knew he was as mad as a hatter, but we were afraid to leave our very unsocialist comfort zone.

Thankfully for me and my fellow Scots, we will never have to thole the Tory boot on our necks, our country will soon be free,
politically and free of crazed quasi-religious warmongers

No tears please for the "ex-party"....We allowed Blair, Brown and the rest of the scum to rip it to pieces......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 May 08 - 04:32 PM

"Ironically, if Ken had not been welcomed back into the bosom of the New Labour Party, he might still be London Mayor today."

He will rue the day he accepted the invite.

He's got too much class to say it, but Labour know it's true.

Even Boris knows it's true.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Gulliver
Date: 03 May 08 - 06:52 PM

Well said, Akenaton. Blair and Co. (yes, the whole Labour leadership with very few exceptions) threw their collective conscience to the wind to preserve power and their own jobs, over Iraq. Shame on the lot of them--they deserve to go. So there's going to be a blip in social services? Try telling that to the thousands of maimed and the dependents of the dead who are rotting away in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 May 08 - 07:03 PM

Boris can't be as big a plonker as he seems on telly

True enough, it doesn't really seem possible that he could be. But the signs are that he probably is.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 May 08 - 07:18 PM

I've been reading about "Boris the Menace" for years so I know who he is and what an idiot he is.

Most of the voters have no idea or they wouldn't have voted for him either.

It is a classic tactic to field someone that nobody really knows anything about as a "fresh" candidate running against an old hand.

Of course these days with all the Apathy that exists most people don't know who's in government, I've heard people on the tube admitting they don't know who the prime minister is, let alone anything about the MP for Henley - now Mayor of London, so fielding an unknown was never going to be that hard.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 May 08 - 07:51 PM

He wasn't an unknown. He was already a very well known buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 May 08 - 07:59 PM

Can we make that "racist, bigoted, elitist buffoon" please?

And then can we see if we can spot the difference from other conservatives?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 May 08 - 08:08 PM

Sapper 82 - don't you get it?

When the capitalist system makes the rich richer and teh poor poorer the capitalists say that the weak must go to the wall so that the strong can survive, that the capitalist system should be allowed to take its course.

When the capitalist system offers a chance to the poor to take the rich bastards by the throat (economically speaking, of course) and take back the profit from their unrequited labour, do the rich bastards say that the system should be allowed to take its course? No, they send in the army.

You were deprived, by the command system of the army, of any chance to obey the dictates of a conscience. That is no excuse for failing now to have one.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 04 May 08 - 04:30 AM

Now the street parties are over, I am going to sit back and enjoy the sight of Boris sacking all of Ken's placeman: y'know, the usual Trotskites, Jew hating homophobic Islamisists, men loathing feminists, and other assorted dangerous cranks.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 04 May 08 - 04:48 AM

I am just listening to that pillock Gordon Brown on TV. Don't trust anytthing he says or does. He looks a wreck.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 04 May 08 - 04:50 AM

Oh my god, he is saying "I understand what people are saying. I understand how they are feeling th epinch. I am just an ordinary person as well and I am feeling the pinch"

Yes Gordon. How much are you on?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 04 May 08 - 04:51 AM

or should I say "What are you on"

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 08 - 04:54 AM

"and other assorted dangerous cranks."

Ah RR lad..... better keep a weather eye open for a blond haired politician with one brain cell.

(with apologies to Mr Stevenson)

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 04 May 08 - 05:20 AM

Now, now, akenaton. Far from one brain cell, he is an intellectual who has edited a magazine, written informed journalism and one highly accliamed history book. He has also fathered four highly intelligent children; which admittedly, falls one short of Ken the Stud, who has fathered five highly intelligent children from as many mothers. (ooooh, I know- bitch.)

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 04 May 08 - 05:21 AM

Now he has time on his hands, I suppose we can expect the happy announcement very soon of some more births.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 04 May 08 - 05:39 AM

I have heard that Boris is planning to go really green and ban all cars coming into London. They will have to park in specially provided park and ride carparks outside of the M25.
People can then either take the train, bus, bycycle or run (the last two options will get a bonus tax reduction on your salary).

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 May 08 - 05:47 AM

'Now the street parties are over, I am going to sit back and enjoy the sight of Boris sacking all of Ken's placeman: y'know, the usual Trotskites, Jew hating homophobic Islamisists, men loathing feminists, and other assorted dangerous cranks.'

Reminds me of Derek Brimstone's hill billy uncle, Ezra Maddox III. He taught Derek to play the banjo and was the least predjudiced person in the world.... hated jews, catholics, students, faggots, communists, socialists, protestants, protesters, hippies, and anyone else who wasn't family. Hated them all equal....

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 08 - 05:55 AM

The longest period of economic stability and growth
The highest spending on health
The highest spending on education including the re-building or replacement of all secondary schools
More children taken out of poverty than ever
10 years of tax changes that helped the economy and took many families out of poverty
The ending of the war in Ireland
Crime down by 10% where I live


So lets put the Tories back in.


The removal of the 10% tax band was stupid and affected people the tories really don't care about

The war was wrong ......................... but the Tories were in favour of that!

People have been embarrassed by a number of things the government have done and they don't like that. People want quiet uneventful lives.

As we speak the Tory leadership, Lord Snooty and his palls, are attaching electrodes to various parts of Boris in the hope that they can stop him doing and saying stupid, offensive things. If you doubt this just watch Boris in interviews.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 04 May 08 - 06:05 AM

The longest period of economic stability and growth - What a load of rubbish
The highest spending on health - can't fault that, except that it has been totally squandered
The highest spending on education including the re-building or replacement of all secondary schools - squandered springs to mind
More children taken out of poverty than ever -not where I live
10 years of tax changes that helped the economy and took many families out of poverty - and has put them back in it.
The ending of the war in Ireland - 100% with that
Crime down by 10% where I live -not where I live.

You forgot Iraq - that has cost us a bomb in terms of lives, cost and an ex leader called blair who should b etried for what he and Bush did in Iraq.

Be proud and vote Labour, you know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 08 - 06:18 AM

You forgot Iraq - I didn't

But I think the Tories would like to

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 04 May 08 - 06:20 AM

Mmmm, my mother in law (97) always says "the servants do rob you", so one simply has to keep them in their place!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 08 - 07:09 AM

Exclnt.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 04 May 08 - 07:26 AM

This is what happens when you spend 11 years running scared of the tories. They catch up.

Gordon Brown engineered the Tax Credit Programme which was the worst-run government welfare programme in history. I used to work in it. He was chronically disloyal to his own leader for years and should have been shovelled back to the back benches years ago.

As chancellor, he left the Inland Revenue and the rest of the civil service in such a state that even if the government raised taxes to deal with poverty and greed the government couldn't even collect the money.

We need a socialist Labour leader for the last two years of this government that will lay the foundations for victory at the election after next by:

Repealing all the anti-union legislation passed since 1979

Making it amandatory for all employers to recognise trade unions

Making company directors personally liable for any tax avoidance by their companies

Making the same directors Criminally liable for any deaths or injuries among their workforces

Nationalise the railways and bring down fares

Nationalise the Utilities and drop prices

Scrapping Trident and the new aircraft carriers

Binging home the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan

Scrapping ID Cards

Rebuilding the Legal Aid system

Reintroduce proper Unemployment benefit and stop bullying people with families into accepting low-paid casual jobs

And finally, sacking anyone from the cabinet or the NEC who hasn't had a real job.

We're going to lose the next election but if we pass the right laws while we've still got some time we can at least lay the foundations for rebuilding the Labour movement.

We're going to lose to the Tories next time but we don't have to make life easy for them. If we put in measures that will benefit the people Labour was founded to serve then they are going to have to justify repealing them - or just swallow them like the Tories had to when they got back in after the Attlee government.

Time's running out.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 04 May 08 - 07:27 AM

RR

Why does Boris want to keep ken on in some capacity?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 04 May 08 - 07:31 AM

"Mr Johnson told Mr Livingstone he hoped to "discover a way in which the mayoralty can continue to benefit from your transparent love of London". "

BBC website 3/05/08

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 04 May 08 - 07:34 AM

So Boris isn't doing what you expected him to do ...

So your little gloat earlier serves to do nothing more than expose the level of your ignorance.

The difference between you and me is that Boris won't let me down.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 04 May 08 - 07:48 AM

How do you know Boris will let me down? He may turn out to be an excellent mayor. He may turn out to be awful. What he wont do is turn the Mayor's office into a platform for self aggrandizement and his whinging and whining loony mates; but I think we have had this argument before elsewhere, haven't we, lox.

To give Ken his credit, he is brilliant and resourseful; but his shortfalls far outweighed all of this. The freinds he kept were dangerous and he gave them either platforms or jobs in his office. I think Boris was so kind to him was becasue Ken, from what I hear, was close to tears at losing his job. Me too: Mind you, they were tears of joy. Unless you are a victim of the IRA, doesn't Ken cry easily.Remember when he started blubbing when he apologised to black people for London's part in the slave trade and there werent even any cringe sheilds for his audiance to hide behind.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 04 May 08 - 07:58 AM

mmm hmmm

3rd time ...

Why does Boris want ken to stick around?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 04 May 08 - 08:02 AM

He felt sorry for him, maybe. Maybe it is because Ken does have ability and Boris wants to draw upon that? Maybe it is so that he can mock and humiliate him. I don't know. I can't read Boris' mind.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 04 May 08 - 08:09 AM

I need add nothing more to this discussion.

Your last post illustrates in terms that I could never hope to equal, exactly what a shallow ignorant person you are.

Folks - frame this one.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 04 May 08 - 08:13 AM

Maybe it is to keep an eye on Ken. All I said, am saying, is that I don't know...and neither do you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Phil
Date: 04 May 08 - 11:03 AM

Who would vote for a clown who charged you £25 a day to drive to work. Livingstone is a charlatan, end of story. Goodbye Red Ken, goodbye Gormless Gordon. Here comes a new start, at last.

Phil*

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 08 - 12:07 PM

At last a carefully thought out contribution deep in the understanding of the problems facing London and the country at large and even the world

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: DMcG
Date: 04 May 08 - 12:26 PM

Under the proposed changes to the congestion charge, high emissions vehicles that emit more than 225g of CO2 per kilometre will be charged £25 to enter the congestion charge zone, while low emissions vehicles that emit less than 120g of CO2 per kilometre will be allowed to enter the zone for free.

Don't you think the statement "Who would vote for a clown who charged you £25 a day to drive to work" might be a little misleading? Though I agree people whose vehicles are high polluting might well have chosen not to vote for Ken.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 08 - 03:21 PM

Well put DmcG, I guess this forum is not really the place to carry forward discussions with lots of often unknown facts

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: sapper82
Date: 04 May 08 - 03:49 PM

From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 03 May 08 - 08:08 PM

"Sapper 82 - don't you get it?"

Yes Richard, I do get it all too well. Perhaps YOU are the one who does not get it?
Was it "The Capitalist System" that denied able children from the Working Class the chance to make the best of their tallents?
After the way the English education system was built up from the mid 19th Century, initially with the assistance of philanthopic capitalists, was it not the socialists who destroyed the Grammar School System, forcing all children into the same "one size fits all" sausage machine?

Was it not the New Labour Socialists who, by their abolition of Advance Corporation Tax Relief, robbed pension funds of billions over the past 11 years whilst plunging their own snouts into the trough?

Yes, I do have a lot of doubts about the scale of globalisation, but still strongly feel that socailism is, and always has been a dead duck and that a strictly regulated Capitalist system is the better way forward..

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: sapper82
Date: 04 May 08 - 04:03 PM

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: The Villan - PM
Date: 04 May 08 - 06:05 AM

The longest period of economic stability and growth - What a load of rubbish - Agreed. It was built on the back of the sound ecconomic situation the Tories left behind and is now running out of steam.


The highest spending on health - can't fault that, except that it has been totally squandered - And there is tha fault. Typical socialist thinking. "Ooh! We have a problem, lets throw some money at it and it'll be all ok."


The highest spending on education including the re-building or replacement of all secondary schools - squandered springs to mind - But why do the schools need rebuilding? The worst school buildings are those built in the '60s and '70s. The so called "decaying Victorian Schools" that still survive are actually much better buildings to work in and are only decaying because of the funds were swallowed up trying to sort out the more modern schools.



More children taken out of poverty than ever -not where I live - or where I live. Anyway, what is the definition of poverty?

10 years of tax changes that helped the economy and took many families out of poverty - and has put them back in it. - Again, what definition of poverty do they use? And have the tax changes REALLY helped the ecconomy? Robbing pension funds of billions has put MANY into poverty whilst our caring New Labour Socialists have had their snouts in the trough for their own pensions. Many people simply can not afford to pay sufficient to provide a meaningful pension because of the Socialist robbery over the past 11y.
A case of "We know what is best for you" and "Do as I say, not as I do."

The ending of the war in Ireland - 100% with that - But didn't John Major start the process off?

Crime down by 10% where I live -not where I live. - Or where I live!

You forgot Iraq - that has cost us a bomb in terms of lives, cost and an ex leader called blair who should b etried for what he and Bush did in Iraq.

Agree 100%.

Be proud and vote Labour, you know it makes sense. - New Labour luvvies need more time with their snouts in the trough.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 May 08 - 04:09 PM

"After the way the English education system was built up from the mid 19th Century, initially with the assistance of philanthopic capitalists"

Thank you thank you, doffs cap, but we don't want crumbs of education we want the bakery - it is our right.

Some working class kids went to Grammar Schools but most of us didn't.

In the 1950s around 2/3 of the population could be described as working class. Around 1/3 of those got to the Grammar Schools whilst 2/3 of the middle and upper classes got here.

"New Labour Socialists" you must be desperate for something to say.

"whilst plunging their own snouts into the trough"

I seem to remember all those City toffs with their snouts in the Stockmarket trough and piles of cocaine whilst unemployment went through the roof and generations of working class children left school with no chance of work.

I will give you this Sapper, most of us socialists can't agree on what it is or how to do it but if you think you can control gloab capitalism you are dafter than we are.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 May 08 - 05:15 PM

I think the grammar school I was in, was a one size fits all sort of sausage machine. It was only intereted in the kids who went to univeristy and, mid 1960's that was about five kids a year. It could be a pretty brutal dump as well.

having said that I think there were better grammar schools. I think, my wife attended one where the head was intent on serving a largely working class population. I think the staff at my school looked down on us as peasants. the Latin teacher used to call us 'clots and hobbldehoys' - which I think just about summed the place up.

Schools and eduation was always going to have to change and start serving society more closely - making better use of what kids there were. Rather than aping the public schools.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 08 - 06:13 PM

Opening post of this thread was posted by someone who professes to be part of the UK's legal profession.

Bottles? Rags? Petrol?

Now can any of you tell me why it is that it is always the looney left that immediately call for recourse for violence from the word go, then complain about lack of dialogue and reason when they get knocked flat on their arses.

Most other posts from the left relating to the subject illustrate that the "Luddites" are alive and well and are still just as misinformed and blind as they ever were.

Eleven years? Remember the ten election promises that were handed out in 1997 by NuLabour - OK all you Labour supporters, tell us how many, after eleven years of government, have they delivered on - hint try None, that will give you the correct answer "Education, education, education" my arse - plus the fact that everyone is a damn sight worse off now than they were in 1997.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 08 - 06:51 PM

Well Teribus you've fair changed your tune.

Not so long ago, I remember you defending Blair's actions on Iraq in the face of all evidence that he and Bush had created a major disaster, both for the Iraqis and for the West.

Try to be consistent man!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 May 08 - 01:21 AM

"Making company directors personally liable for any tax avoidance by their companies"

Why? Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. A whole profession, composed of people called 'Chartered Accountants' is built upon it.

Unless, of course, by "Making company directors personally liable" you mean giving them even bigger bonuses proportionate to the amount of tax they save their companies from paying.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:16 AM

Oh dear Ake, everything has got to be so mono-chomatic in your world hasn't it? Go open another tin of "Chum".

Tell me what on earth has Iraq got to do with the absolute hash that NuLabour has made of governing the UK over the last eleven years? Give you a hint Ake - absolutely nothing.

Labour - Run out of money again, for no discernable improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: DMcG
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:22 AM

Not in the BBC's opinion! (Teribus @ 6:13)

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:53 AM

Nice one DMcG,

the current economic problems are not caused by the British Government they are caused by American banks lending money to people who cannot afford to pay it back.

This is globalisation. Food prices are going up all over the world for all sorts of reasons that are nothing to do with Gordon. The"Market" response to global warming and oil shortages is to use food for fuel. Just what the poor need.

Now how can we control global capitalism? Short coherent answers please

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 05 May 08 - 03:34 AM

Get rid of Gordon Brown

Is that short enough?

I see he is now breaking wind and promisiing to make changes, the ones he should have done before the elections. Maybe the elections were a great kick up the arse and maybe he just might do something positive for once.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 05 May 08 - 03:45 AM

I am inclined to agree

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 May 08 - 04:25 AM

The question was 'How do we control Global Capitalism'.

Getting rid of Gordon Brown won't do that, it won't have the slightest effect. The UK simply doesn't have the political clout. So getting the current Tory Chinless-Wonder Brylcreem-Boy as PM won't either.

Brown was a good Chancellor who stayed too long, but anyone with more than half a working brain-cell could see that he wasn't PM material, and that his side-kick with the unmatching hair and eyebrows isn't Chancellor material. Square Pegs in Round Holes.

And anyone with more than half a working brain-cell can see that the young Tory Toff-In-Charge would be even worse. Show us some real policies - there, you can't because he hasn't thought of any. He's only good for jumping on his bike, and jumping on to the latest faddy trendy sound-byte bandwagon. We thought Major and Hague were disasters, but elect that lightweight and the wheels really will fall off.

IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 05 May 08 - 04:39 AM

Compared with the challenges of climate change, Aids and globalisation the problems of the Labour Government and Lord Snooty and his palls is small beer

Best of luck world

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:17 AM

well ithink there has been some improvement from tory days. More people are working these days and that keeps people out of mischief.

You can sneer but unemployment is a big source of unhappiness to people.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 May 08 - 12:26 PM

I can't wait for unemployment, wld. Four years to go, and counting the seconds! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 06 May 08 - 05:15 AM

>>Gordon Brown is expected to abandon plans to tax people for throwing out rubbish in a bid to revive the Government's popularity.<<

Now thats going to endear us to you Gordon.

>>MPs are secretly plotting to award themselves a pay rise of up to £15,000 a year, the Daily Express reports.<<

Ah, thats what we like to hear, if it's true.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 08 - 06:52 AM

Hah...my education is now complete.
A lecture from Teribus on "Living with a monochrome thought process", by the man who wrote the definitive edition!!

Contrary to popular opinion, Teribus does like colours....as long as they're red, white and blue....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 06 May 08 - 07:56 AM

The Daily Express! The paper that carried two weeks of anti asylum seeker headlines including " Asylum Seekers ate my Donkey"

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 06 May 08 - 12:53 PM

Well thanks for that link on NuLabs record on election pledges DMcG.

BBC - the undoubtedly unbiased source that it is, or would have us think it is.

Amazed to read that NuLab has not put up taxes, yet everybody is a damn sight worse off now than they were in 1997. Of course the criteria that the Beeb were measuring against was "direct" taxation. Blair & Brown were great believers in indirect or "stealth" taxation, which has rocketted in the last 11 years. By the bye DMcG who was it that was going to dispense with the 10p Tax band, but had to wind their necks in as it would provoke a back-bench rebellion and lose the Government a vote in the Commons that would cause Gordon of Cartoon to go to the country?

Also amazed to see that the pledges relating to the NHS have been met, the Beeb must therefore believe that the NHS is better because of it. If they do they must be the only group in the country, apart from NuLab, that think that way.

Education the same

Defence the same

Foreign Policy the same

List goes on and on

What they have done is what most Labour governments do - they throw money at things without addressing the problem of what is actually wrong - recipe for disaster. Tony Blairs timing was perfect, he stood from under well before the cracks became too wide to ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 06 May 08 - 01:06 PM

How many millions were unemployed in the 80s and how rich were the Stockbrokers?

It's interesting that throwing money thing - when we re-build or replace all the secondary schools its called throwing money at a problem.

When the rich have houses with more bedrooms than they have fingers and toes, cars big enough to invade Poland and send their children to schools that cost 50 times the cost of state education it's not throwing money it's a just reward.

The rich only respond to bribery whilst the poor respond better to poverty and threats.

House prices have gone up a lot then down a bit. Why do they go up - simple really it's the market stupid - house prices reflect the wages of those who seek to buy them.

Let me be clear the Government have made a number of stupid decisions.

The Lord Snooty and his palls have no policies, no answers and no ideas

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,Crapaud
Date: 06 May 08 - 01:18 PM

"The Market response to global warming and oil shortages is to use food for fuel"

Don't think that's entirely true, Les.

The market's response to global warming is to offer "carbon offsets" for the terminally guilt-ridden.

The market's response to oil shortages (more strictly, to the increased prices which are only partially due to shortages) is to open new fields which were previously uneconomic (or exploit tar-sands ditto).

The market's response to subsidies on bio-fuel is to use food for fuel, but subsidies are the cause, not the market.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 06 May 08 - 01:33 PM

Fair enough Crapaud, I was responding like the daily Express.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: DMcG
Date: 06 May 08 - 01:51 PM

You miss my point rather, Teribus. You are assuming I am a defender of New Labour. In fact, I don't think that the left/right split is a particularly helpful way of thinking about the issues. I fully agree, for example, that the 10% tax introduction and removal was inept, or opportunism, or more likely both.

What I was really getting at is that making subjective assertions that 'none of the promises have been fulfilled' simply opens you up to someone else making the exact opposite assertion, with neither side actually providing anything remotely like evidence. The BBC survey, whatever its faults, is more solid evidence than either viewpoint had provided up to that point. As to its independence: obviously no body can be truly independant but it is a least a survey that is not from a think-tank or newspaper directly linkable to either party.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 06 May 08 - 02:33 PM

Point well taken DMcG.

"When the rich have houses with more bedrooms than they have fingers and toes, cars big enough to invade Poland and send their children to schools that cost 50 times the cost of state education it's not throwing money it's a just reward." - Les in Chorlton

Bit envious there are we Les?

Some points that of course should be obvious about your "Rich example":

1) The "Rich" use their money to buy the "houses with more bedrooms than they have fingers and toes". Are you objecting to their right to spend their money on what they choose?

2) The "Rich" use their own money to buy "cars big enough to invade Poland". Their choice and people work at building, maintaining and selling those cars so they (The "Rich") create employment.

3) The "Rich" use their own money to "send their children to schools that cost 50 times the cost of state education". I take then that the education of their children is not a burden on the state, therefore by doing what you object to they make sure that more state resources go to whoever requires it.

4) "it's not throwing money it's a just reward" - No Les it's called exercising ones choice in accordance with ones means.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 06 May 08 - 02:58 PM

I have private medical insurance, not becuase I can afford it, but becuase the national health is so crap.
I am unemployed but not claiming benefits, so I am not one of those rich gits.
Until the national health is sorted I will keep my private medical insurance as long as I can.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 May 08 - 03:08 PM

yeh I'm envious, even if he isn't.

course I'm bloody envious. I've spent my life taking care of my disabled wife and I don't have the option to choose any of those things.

And theres lots of other people like me, and they're envious too. And you won't make me ashamed of my feelings - which are totally justified.

there are winners in this society and for for some unknown reason (could it be the totally unfair distribution of wealth?) there are a hell of a lot more losers. this is despite most people slogging their socks off at shit jobs.

basically the only things the toffs can't fix for themselves is football, snooker and boxing. showbiz and the music biz. literature and the arts are almost completely the the preserve of the hooray henry types.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 06 May 08 - 04:35 PM

Being envious of what someone else has is a pretty pointless exercise.

If someone who is rich decides to spend his money on whatever takes his fancy that's fine by me. It harms no-one and puts money in circulation.

When the Government starts throwing money at a problem without direction and without addressing the problem, they are not fixing anything they are only perpetuating the problem, and what is more important Les and WLD they are doing it with your money - that's the difference

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 06 May 08 - 05:15 PM

It's about justice. I have a very rich life and I would like most people to have access to what I have.

I left school at 15 I have a Masters degree and lots of banjos.

People who have 100 or a 1000 times more wealth have very rarely worked a 100 or a 1000 times harder or more effectively.

And that's it really.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 May 08 - 07:18 PM

'I have a Masters degree and lots of banjos.'


that should ensure a certain amount of solitude

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:13 AM

Justice? Naw Les, typical British socialist politics of envy:

"He/They have something, I/we don't, lets take it away from him/them."

On the other hand some of those with 100 or 1000 times what you have started out with a damn sight less than you had and did earn every penny - you don't seem to differentiate to accommodate those people. You just lump them all together as being "Rich", and therefore all evil exploiters of the downtrodden working class.

Envy is what your dislike is about Les, justice doesn't even enter the equation.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 May 08 - 02:17 AM

Put it anoher way Teribus

More food. Kill the bosses.

Its an idea whose time will come, even in England.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:13 AM

Trust Teri to dig up 'politics of envy'. As though politics of gluttony, pride, avarice, anger and sloth weren't a thousand times worse.

But Les and the rest, you're never going to inspire the masses with the slogan "We're not as bad as the other lot".

"Swallow hard and vote Labour", they told me, "Things could be a lot worse."
So I swallowed hard and voted Labour.
And lo, things were a lot worse.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:13 AM

"On the other hand some of those with 100 or 1000 times what you have started out with a damn sight less than you had and did earn every penny - you don't seem to differentiate to accommodate those people."

Just a technical point but you don't know what I started with or what I have now.

I will grant you that point that when people have genuinely earned what they have they deserve it, no problem. But lets just remember that the really rich don't get most of their wealth from wages but from investment. If you start off rich you can invest and get richer with out actually working, not an option for the poor.

Yes I know investment is essential for world trade and industrial development but it is creating incredible differences in power and wealth. It is building factories in Asia where children make trainers and footballs for a few pence a day.

Many trans-global organisations have more power and wealth than most third world countries. This does not support democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:20 AM

Well Paul I am not going to repeat what I think we have got right and wrong again.

But I will repeat this:

You do nothing, start your own party or join one that exists.

and this:

The Lord Snooty and his palls have no policies, no answers and no ideas

Cheers

Les

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:26 AM

Les
Sorry to say, but you seem brainwashed and have lost the abilty to look at the real world.
Labour have done a really crap job and do not deserve to be in control.
Face facts.
Les

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:31 AM

Your are probably right Villian, I just think, we the exception of the war the Tories supported, we have done a better job than most people expected.

Will Lord Snooty and Mad Boris will do a better job?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:45 AM

What will you do if Boris doesn't cock it up?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:16 AM

Well, it's quite simple really, if Lord Snooty and his palls do a much better job they will be proved right, we will be proved wrong and they will get elected again.

That's democracy!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:37 PM

Now I do like this one

Alexander stands firm in vote row

But Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said something now "had to give".

He added: "The positions of Wendy Alexander and the prime minister are incompatible. This claimed agreement is clearly not there.

"Either she has to go, he has to go or they both have to go and I suspect he wants to stay so I think she's now in a very difficult position."

Wendy Alexander has said she will not quit as Scottish Labour Leader over her call for an early referendum on Scottish independence.

Her comments came after Gordon Brown earlier failed to explicitly support her stance during question time at the House of Commons.

Why doesn't Brown Bugger off to Scotland and lets have an English Prime Minister.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:57 PM

Roo much of my posts on this thread get ignored (no blame) to make adding more feel specially worthwhile.

However, I notice Teri returning to a familiar point, the supposed 'politics of envy'.

Just to point out that this is another good example of 'projection'.

The right don't like to acknowledge their own greediness, which is one of the fundamental driving-forces of c*p***l**m. So they try to unload their discomfort onto the left.

It's just avoidance.

if we weren't encouraged to be greedy, a major motivation to keep buying would go, and THEN where would we be?

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:18 AM

Exactly so Ivor, without the "politics of envy" the whole Capitalist system would implode.

Capitalism will of course have to be abandoned ultimately, due to environmental and social issues. Globalisation will also be consigned to the dustbin, and for the first time in thousands of years we will be obliged to try to survive as a species.

Perhaps everything does work in cycles.

I sometimes wonder about folks like Teribus....Do they really think that we can continue laying waste to our world for ever?
Do they ever really THINK?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 May 08 - 05:41 AM

Why doesn't Brown Bugger off to Scotland and lets have an English Prime Minister.

Because the Prime Minister is not the Prime Minister of England?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 08 May 08 - 05:50 AM

Well he should be, after all the rest seem to have their independance and subsidies from England.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 08 May 08 - 07:28 AM

Anyway the dust seems to be settling and Brown will probably just sit back and do very little, other than break wind.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 May 08 - 09:49 AM

There was a PM name of Grodon
From Scotland, so constantly snowed on
Evolution has shown
His huge bollocks have grown
co thats wot his fartz had blowed on

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 08 May 08 - 09:56 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 08 - 10:16 AM

If we gathered together all the money in this country, and divided it equally among the total population

1. We would have NO health service.
2. We would have NO public services.
3. We would have NO jobs.
4 We would have only what food we could grow in our window box or garden.

Like it or not, capital is what supplies work, and work is what gives us the wherewithal for the purchase of the goods and services we MUST have to survive.

Bear in mind that the high salaries of corporate managers reflect, to some degree, the level of responsibility they bear, part of which is the welfare of their workforce.

Why the hell would any sane man take more responsibility without a commensurate increase in remuneration? If I tried to promote the teaboy to vice chairman, and continued to pay him teaboy's wages, I'm pretty sure his reply would be unrepeatable in refined company.

Before you try to destroy the system, you really ought to give some thought to what will replace it, otherwise you will find yourself handing over what little you have to the biggest local bully, and starving to death.

Now I'm not a particular devotee of capitalism, but it has, on the whole, been a much better system than what passes for socialism, or indeed what passes for communism.

It's probably worth remembering that Aneurin Bevin, and Adolph Hitler both called themselves socialists, so it's a pretty uncertain thing.

IMHO, the single largest problem we have is the "US & THEM" which prevents capital and labour working together for the benefit of all.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 May 08 - 11:18 AM

It's probably worth remembering that Aneurin Bevin, and Adolph Hitler both called themselves socialists, so it's a pretty uncertain thing.


Don, I had you down as someone who didn't repeat old tired cliches.

First- learn to spell Adolf. A,D,O,L,F, Adolf.
Two, read about the history (which most moderately informed people have bothered to do) of Socialism, Corporatism, Syndicalism, National Socialism, Social Darwinism, Anarchism, Communism and related topics.

And don't quote William Brown's father from 1921 about "what would happen if we shared out the wealth".

And of course what is meant by Socialism has developed over the last 150 years. Quite a bit.

As for the remuneration for responsibility, I wonder why anyone is a nurse or a teacher when people get thirty times the salary for gambling with other people's money? Leaders are useful, innovators are a good thing, but they aren't superhuman, and they can't eat fifty dinners a day.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 08 - 11:27 AM

"without the "politics of envy" the whole Capitalist system would implode." - Akenaton

What absolute rubbish Ake, it (the "politics of envy") plays no part in it whatsoever, continuous evolution, continuous questioning of the status quo, continuous improvement an continuous innovation all play a major part in making the "capitalist" system work. Which explains why the "capitalist" system could provide for the population while the "communist" could not, and why the "capitalist" system completely eclipsed and saw the demise of the "communist" system (Anyone who thinks that the current system running China at the moment is communist is dreaming).

Don't know about you guys (Ivor and Akenaton) but I find that I have to buy very little beyond what it takes to feed me and put clothes on my back. But then I do not envy other people their possessions, I never have. I am also fortunate in that I find myself with no great need, or in any competition, to "impress" anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 08 - 11:36 AM

"As for the remuneration for responsibility, I wonder why anyone is a nurse or a teacher when people get thirty times the salary for gambling with other people's money? Leaders are useful, innovators are a good thing, but they aren't superhuman, and they can't eat fifty dinners a day." - Paul Burke

Answer to your first question is that not everyone is capable of making a living "gambling with other people's money", if they tried it they would starve to death.

"Leaders are useful" - No Paul they are essential - even a rowing boat with only two people in it needs a captain.

"innovators are a good thing" - Far more than a good thing Paul because without them nothing progresses, nothing improves.

And while leaders and innovators are human they do deserve to compensated for their efforts and while they themselves cannot eat fifty dinners a day, they can most certainly create the conditions whereby a great many people can eat three square meals a day.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 08 May 08 - 02:42 PM

teri

I'm quite like you, small requirewments.

I repeat my, rather than Ake's characterisation, which you didn't respond to.

if we weren't encouraged to be greedy, a major motivation to keep buying would go, and THEN where would we be?

Don (WYSIWYG),

yOU WROTE,


IMHO, the single largest problem we have is the "US & THEM" which prevents capital and labour working together for the benefit of all.

WHICH i THINK RATHER CONFUSES AND HIDES THE PROB.

(Sorry for caps)


The fact is Capital and Labour are at odds.

The paradox is tha, :-

on the one hand,For Capital, Labour isn't people but a cost ,an economic cost 'to keep down/under control'.

On the other hand, without Labour there'd be no profits, no system, no stuff to buy. To THAT extent, C. and L. ARE working together. Neither C., nor an individual, makes cars, Labour does.

Yet Labour thereby 'makes' the profits, which it doesn't see much of. Explaining how Labour does is something those in work and on , below, or just above the minimum wage don't seem able to understand.

See Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickled and Dimed for the US experience of rumbling along the bottom, and Polly Toynbee's Hard Work for the UK experience (tho Polly cheated, because she kept popping home, unlike Barbara.) They were both written recently.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:55 AM

Are we encouraged to be greedy Ivor? I think the Advertisement Industry tries to tempt us to renew or replace things, but I do not believe that they try to get us to buy more of anything. I credit human beings with a bit more sense than that.

Is "greed" the sole preserve of those of one particular political slant?

Paul Burke came out with this in an earlier post of his- "Trust Teri to dig up 'politics of envy'. As though politics of gluttony, pride, avarice, anger and sloth weren't a thousand times worse."

Now while the "politics of envy" is a well known soubriquet for left-wing political thinking in the UK, the others he mentions are not necessarily restricted, or only applicable, to those on the right.

Your arguement that Capital and Labour are at odds is ludicrous, both are interdependent, they always have been, one cannot exist without the other. DonT is perfectly correct when he states:

"the single largest problem we have is the "US & THEM" which prevents capital and labour working together for the benefit of all."

Although just to emphasise the point I would have inserted, "mentality held by some" after "US & THEM".

"Neither C., nor an individual, makes cars, Labour does.

Yet Labour thereby 'makes' the profits, which it doesn't see much of." - Ivor

Now that is a gross over simplification isn't it?

You mention Capital and Labour - Where does Management come into your equation? Strictly speaking it falls on the side of Labour, Capital is after all only "money", and that is not money as in what you or I see it as. That is money as an abstract, a tool that is there to be used by those who know how to, and out of those Ivor, for a fair percentage of them, money has no value at all.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:27 AM

Labour at its lowest since 1930 when records started, says poll.

49% of voters favour the Conservatives
23% of voters favour Labour

Now what would I do, if I was Brown. Well someof the things I would do are

Bring back law and order as we used to know it, where police and teachers had control.
Bang up these alcohol binge louts that are a disgrace to society.
Bring back Matrons in hospitals and get rid of all the deadwoods. Give matrons the control they used to have. Make the National health something to be proud of again.
Make teachers teach and cut out all the paperwork crap.
Get rid of all the do gooder politically correct idiots that are ruining this country.

Just doing that would save Labour from a fate worse than death, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 May 08 - 12:49 PM

Ah yes!

jack warner in Dixon of Dock green
Hatti Jaques in Carry On Matron
Jimmy Edwards in Whacko!

Actually its a time machine we need.

Len Hutton could beat the aussies, Stanley Matthews could piss rings round Renaldo, Anthony Eden could retake the Suez canal and keep the Jews and the Arabs part and the Yanks would back us up this time.

Sadly even if labour accomplished all these miracles, Gordon would still have all the personal magnetism of a slug.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 09 May 08 - 12:56 PM

>>Gordon would still have all the personal magnetism of a slug<<

he he I like that one Al :-)

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:22 PM

We are encouraged to be greedy as individuals. By several forces. Advertising is but one. The mass Media does it too, telling us about the latest .........................et cetera.

we are told on all sides that if we stopped consuming, our civilisation would collapse.

bush has just given the Americans a load (?) of cash with the patriotic duty being to go and buy IN ORDER TO GET THE SYSTEM MOVING again. So, no not just advertising.

By the 'keeping up with the Joneses' syndrome.

By a psychology that 'believes' buying more will bring satisfaction.Factually erroneous but part of the psychology of many.

by industry and commerce constantly having the new, the improved, and the different. Do encourage us to keep buying. Look at CDs. They got introduced, and people bought their existing collections all over again in a 'new' format'

You sell 'stuff' by many meanings of sell. There's not much to be made out of valuing, rather than stuff, relating, intimacy, contentment, authenticity, personal creartivity(I'll keep that). Still less, satisfaction. And gratitude for what one already has.

Our system is so designed as to try to make us constantly dissatisfied.

The there's fashion, another driver of dissatisfaction, and going shopping and consuming.

So - no, not just advertising.

And a big driver is shareholder/stockholder demand that the share value keeps rising, otherwise the investments will go elsewhere. So there's pressure from there to grow, to innovate, to sell, sell, sell. And sell more.

And the rich and the well-off are as likely to be envious as anyone, if not more so.

you credit people with intelligence, yet advertising persists and grows. And business wouldn't chuck money into advertising if it was useless. So it plainly is invaluable.

of course greed is not the preserve of one particular politics, tho the insurance man who taught me a lot about money said people were motivated by but two things - need or greed. We were selling savings plans, insurance, pensions.

on the other hand, the valuing of accumulation in itself does seem to me more fundamental to the thinking of the right than to the left.

you say my capital/labour account is ludicrous, yet you don't address the point that for capital, Labour is a cost to be kept under control. Even if capital is making millions in profit, costs (including wages and salaries) being kept under control is basic. Especially when, as I said above, it's the shareholders who have to be satisfied above all and constantly. Meanwhile, Labour is replaceable, and no particular workers are indispensable.

Nor have you met the point that even in the UK, the (approx) 5th biggest economy in the world, that strong economic fact doesn't persolate or cascade to all - 1.6 million unemployed, millions encircling the minimum wage. So if they can't benefit in a good economic time in a strong economy, when exactly will they? meantime, because they are good boys and girls who've been whupped into line, and wouldn't say boo to a goose in many numbers,............

When successively Russia and China took on capitalistic methods, suddenly millions and dire poverty appeared almost overnight. You get rich by working hard? Didn't look like it. And the response to those developments was, 'well that was bound to happen once capitalistic practices were introduced.'

Why?

because the divergence into rich and poor is not a law of nature or providence. It's inherent, a necessary part , of capitalism.

btw, have you ever wondered why the 'trickle-down' theory wasn't the 'cascade-down' theory?

management is Labour from the point of view of its position in the economy; Capital in the sense that it does the work of Capital rather thasn labour at the coalface. Insofar as management deosn't think of itself as labour, its members have (along with millions of others), false conscousness; i.e. managers' beliefs about their function is at variance with their actual function.

No, Capital is not 'just' money, but one side of a fundamental divide in society. it is also 'money'. the job of capital is Biblical - to go forth amd multiply. If it doesn't, it's not doing its job.

"Turning £100 into £110 is work; turning "100 million into £110 million, is inevitable." (some rich bloke - might have been Buffet.)


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 08 - 07:01 AM

"We are encouraged to be greedy as individuals. By several forces."

You list Advertising, Mass Media, politicians, et cetera. As previously stated they encourage members of the public to buy, they do not encourage members of the public to be greedy. I can see that it would be very easy for those forces you speak of to "sell" you something, how on earth could they promote and induce "greed" in someone who is not already "greedy"?

"we are told on all sides that if we stopped consuming, our civilisation would collapse."

Now that is strange Ivor, because I have never been told that once and like you I have been wandering around all over this planet for quite a number of years and in the course of that journey in terms of time and distance I have found that I "need" progressively less.

Do you know Ivor, that if accosted on the street by a "market researcher" when asked your age, if you say you are over 34, your form is automatically discarded. It is discarded because your opinions and subsequent answers are of no interest, because the "Ad-Men" know that there is nothing, or very little that they can say or do to "make" you buy something.

"Bush has just given the Americans a load (?) of cash with the patriotic duty being to go and buy IN ORDER TO GET THE SYSTEM MOVING again."

How often has he done this Ivor? How often has anyone else done this? Not often is it, and in this particular instance it has been in response to a specific cause. So no, President Bush by authorizing the recently announced tax rebates is not encouraging people to be "greedy", he and his administration are hoping that by helping to put more money in circulation more money will be spent. Exactly how that money is spent, if at all,
is entirely up to individual choice, neither President Bush, nor anybody else has got any control over that.

The 'keeping up with the Joneses' syndrome, and the belief that "buying more will bring satisfaction" are also individual faults, the latter is actually a mental illness. At no point in my life have I ever had it preached to me that I must "keep up with the Joneses", and I don't know maybe it's just a "Scottish" thing but in my youth I was always taught the exact opposite of "buying more will bring satisfaction". We were always taught that having the ability to buy, gained by your own endeavours, if and when you want to, will bring you satisfaction

"by industry and commerce constantly having the new, the improved, and the different. Do encourage us to keep buying."

What you are talking about here is progress, I know most socialists are "Luddites" at heart and are bitterly opposed to progress, irrespective of how many times that history has proved them wrong. But as you correctly state in that quotation from your post, industry and commerce encourage you to buy – they do not encourage you to be "greedy".

"Our system is so designed as to try to make us constantly dissatisfied."

Now how exactly does "our system" do that Ivor, or is this just another version of the universal left-wing socialists whinge, "I'm dissatisfied with (whatever) it must be someone else's fault".

"Then there's fashion, another driver of dissatisfaction, and going shopping and consuming."

Personal choice Ivor, if you are daft enough to be caught up in it then more fool you. One thing I learned from my father – what is fashionable for me at any given moment in time is what I actually happen to be wearing at that given moment in time. But there again I had the advantage of going to school in the days when school uniforms were the norm (covered from when I was 5 years old until I was 17 years old), then I did my time in the Navy after which I was either in coveralls or in jeans and casual shirts, so no Ivor, I do not regard fashion as a driver of dissatisfaction, neither do many of my friends and acquaintances.

"And a big driver is shareholder/stockholder demand that the share value keeps rising, otherwise the investments will go elsewhere. So there's pressure from there to grow, to innovate, to sell, sell, sell. And sell more."

That is progress, advancement and I note that one thing that you omit to mention with regard to all that in the passage quoted above – job security, increased employment from increased production.

"And the rich and the well-off are as likely to be envious as anyone, if not more so."

Now exactly why should the "rich" be more likely to be envious? Your statement is completely irrational, and more likely to be based on envy than reason.

"the valuing of accumulation in itself does seem to me more fundamental to the thinking of the right than to the left."

Biblical parables about "talents" and "wise" and "foolish" virgins spring to mind in reading that which you have written above Ivor. Do the "right" have a greater regard for savings and investment? I would say yes. Are you saying that generally the "left" are spendthrift wasters? Certainly the current NuLab Government are. There are families in the UK now who have three generations that have never worked a day in their lives – that fundamentally is wrong.

"Labour is a cost to be kept under control."
Absolutely, that is essential, prudent, basic, good business practice. When labour is a cost not kept under control, your business becomes uncompetitive and goes to the wall and jobs are lost. The classic that always comes up in the Maggie Thatcher threads is the mining industry, costs were not kept under control a ton of British coal cost £250 to produce, when you could buy open cast Australian coal on the dockside in the UK for £8 per ton – so where do you buy your coal if you are interested in keeping costs down?

"Even if capital is making millions in profit, costs (including wages and salaries) being kept under control is basic. Especially when, as I said above, it's the shareholders who have to be satisfied above all and constantly. Meanwhile, Labour is replaceable, and no particular workers are indispensable."

Who are the largest "shareholders" Ivor? Where do their "profits" go? By the bye no-one is indispensable.

"Nor have you met the point that even in the UK, the (approx) 5th biggest economy in the world, that strong economic fact doesn't percolate or cascade to all - 1.6 million unemployed, millions encircling the minimum wage. So if they can't benefit in a good economic time in a strong economy, when exactly will they?"

1.6 million, around 2.6% of the population, that Ivor is low compared to other industrial counties. Spain 12.8%; Finland 10%; France 9%; Germany 8.1%; Belgium 6.7%; Italy 6% the USA 5%. Are people better off now than when I was a lad – every indicator seems to suggest that - yes they are.

Did "dire poverty" appear overnight in Russia and China, or was it already there but nobody was courageous enough to draw it to anybody's attention. If Lenin or Stalin came back now they wouldn't recognize Russia, Putin has made the claim that very soon Russia will replace Britain as the worlds fifth largest economy – dire poverty indeed. That represents a massive economic leap forward that would have been impossible under communism, especially the brand of it practiced in the USSR.

"the divergence into rich and poor is not a law of nature or providence. It's inherent, a necessary part , of capitalism."

What complete and utter rot, irrespective of system there has always been the division of rich and poor, there always will be. It is a "law of nature" because it is a fact of life that people are not created equal. They may be "equal in the eyes of God", they may be considered "equal in the eyes of the Law", but one thing is for certain that measured against any other yardstick in life no two people on this planet are equal.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 May 08 - 02:52 PM

so where would you say you were teribus on this evolutionary ladder?

One of life's aristocrats, a field marshall, second lieutenant, NCO, PBI.......?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 11 May 08 - 04:40 AM

Teribus,

Yes how can you make somone greedy who isn't already?
What do YOU suppose would happen if people only bought what they had to or really needed?
What do you suppose would happen if EVERYONE was no longer affected by advertising, peer pressure, shareholder-pressure, and were consequently no longer interested in following fashion, getting the latest anything, having big holidays, gave up their car(s),etc.?

You said nobody's ever told you that if we stopped consuming, our civilisation would collapse; later you remind me that I didn't allude to one consequence of shareholder demand - 'job security. increased employment'. So no-one told you, and you've still worked out the basic connection between consumption and employment, if not something more basic.

With all developments in industry, business, technology, you describe as progress. It was recently reported, was it not?, that for all our 'progress', we are no happier; obviously there's progress ,and then there's progress.

Can you really, really not see that quite as much as all these devel rationale is also to keep the wheels turning, and the profits continuing (to grow)? To see it as nothing but about progress , seems to me naive at best, (ingenuous further down the scale).

There are at least a couple of reasons why the rich might be more envious.

Rich people in the business world are competitive.

Firstly, they are in a better position to be competitive, to express/manifest the same competitiveness that has resulted in their wealth. And compete with each other over better, bigger, more expensive everythings you can think of. [Capitalism = whoever has the most shit when they die - wins!!]

So their envy is the other side of the competitive coin.

Secondly they manifest their envy in how far more than enough isn't enough. Why else would someone worth sat more than 33 million, oh ok, 310 million, continue to seek more rather than leave the field to others.

I've already explained how the system keeps us constantly dissatisfied. So see before.

You still don't directly address the contradiction that wages have to be kept under tight control (despite rising prices in many fields), yet the same people have to spend (see above) and keep spending, and spend increasingly (if expenditure doesn't keep rising, the economy is in trouble), and also save, save at a time when millions are already losing ground financially.

To say 1.6 million unemployed is low is a fascinating statement.

You made clear your comparison to say it's low. A lot hangs on a) what comparison you choose, and b) the reason for your choice.

I won't get into the comparison game, simply repeat, in the 5th most powerful economy in the world, and at a time when, allegedly,, we are better off than ever, it seems to me a devastating criticism of our system that we have that many people out of work.

Re Russia and China, it is only what I've gathered from the radio that there are larger numbers of the impoverished, especially in Russia than before the end of the Cold War; it's unarguable that in those two countries, a considerable middle-class has sprung up, and even more, that there has appeared a rash of millionaires there. They have clearly not made their millions in the steady hard-working building-up of a business over 2,3,4 or 5 generations, but within 10 years.

And those examples make it crystal-clear how much the division between rich and poor can be demonstrated NOT to be a law of nature, but a consequence of a human creation. And why the division is a function of the workings of the system, far from being 'rot', is merely an observable Scottish [ :-) ]fact.

best wishes, Teribus

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 08 - 05:21 AM

Worlds population Ivor. Is it growing or decreasing? Are people generally better off now than they were fifty years ago? Have peoples expectations gone up or down?

There is your market Ivor, it has got absolutely nothing to do with "forces" making us "greedy", the increasing worlds population alone will always ensure that there is a demand for whatever people need.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 11 May 08 - 08:34 PM

But will the supply to this demand be sustainable?
In "developed" countries such as the UK most of what we want, we do not need. We are simply led to believe that we need the huge quantities of junk and junk services provided by the system.

This state of affairs was bad enough when we actually produced things and were relatively solvent.
Now we have reached the point when we have been presented with billions of "monopoly money" from the banks. Money which enables us to keep buying the junk, and which we have no hope of ever repaying!

But what does it matter? Its only a game....and if the Banks get too greedy and collapse, well we'll just Nationalise them. Just till they're back on they're feet of course.

What a fucking joke!

Teribus...I never thought I'd say this, but your posts on this thread prove what a phoney you are. You know very well that the Capitalist system does not prosper by providing what people "need".
Do people need an offensive or defensive Nuclear weapons system?
Do people need squadrons of attack aircraft?
Do we need a package holiday industry?
Do we need two or three cars to a family at the expense of a proper public transport system.

Just a few examples from millions...

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:56 AM

We need more exx, Ake, but I think terib believes he is right, and that his view makes sense.

I already know that we all arrange what we know in order that it make sense to us.(Gestalts - patterns,shapes,forms). Knowledge that doesn't 'fit', is explained oddly,contortedly, explained away, or, as i've found to be so very common, just ignored (doesn't get on the dial).

My point about wages being kept down (to make business competitive) conflicting with the need for them to rise (to buy to keep the economy growing) is one that's been just ignored.

There are others.

The fact is that most of us do not know how our own society actually wotks (knowledge missing), but we still have to make sense. However much is missing, we still have to make sense; so te picture looks curious to those who know more or different.

it's just know use saying that it doesn't matter how much you know - of course it does. (I just wish I wasn't so ignorant.)

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:29 AM

"My point about wages being kept down (to make business competitive) conflicting with the need for them to rise (to buy to keep the economy growing) is one that's been just ignored." - Ivor

Has it been ignored Ivor? I thought that I had covered that one. You and your company for your power requirements buy British coal at £250 per ton. Me and my company in direct competition to yours pay £8 per ton for coal from Australia. Number of ways at looking at that disparity Ivor:

- I make 30 times the profit that you do
- I make my product one thirtieth cheaper than you do
- I manufacture thirty times what you do for identical cost

Anyway you look at it you go out of business because you have not controlled your costs. Now you bang on about "labour". The poor ould "workin' class" Hey Ivor if they don't want to work for me they can bugger off and do something else, thats called initiative. Trouble with you and Akenaton you seem to be lost without a Nanny-State to wipe your arses and blow your noses for you from cradle to grave.

And this from Akenaton was priceless:

"You know very well that the Capitalist system does not prosper by providing what people "need".
Do people need an offensive or defensive Nuclear weapons system?
Do people need squadrons of attack aircraft?
Do we need a package holiday industry?
Do we need two or three cars to a family at the expense of a proper public transport system.

Just a few examples from millions..."

Really Ake?
- Well the "Capitalist" system has done a damn sight better job of feeding, clothing and providing employment to its citizens than any alternative system, especially communism. Tell me Akenaton how many West Germans were shot attempting to escape to East Germany?

- "Do people need an offensive or defensive Nuclear weapons system?" Oh yes it guaranteed our freedom from 1945 to 1990, otherwise in 1945 we would have all experienced the joys of living under the sort of regime that Joseph Stalin (One of the greatest mass murderers in history) thought was best.

- "Do people need squadrons of attack aircraft?" Does a country need armed forces? Of course they do, unless of course you wish to live your life as directed by someone else.

- "Do we need a package holiday industry?" You tell me, I don't use it. Does it provide a means that others enjoy? Yes I'd say so. Does it provide holidays in the sun for many, efficiently and at low cost? Yes I'd say so. I'd love to hear what Akenaton's alternative would be, and why we should enjoy that more.

- "Do we need two or three cars to a family at the expense of a proper public transport system." I suppose it depends on how many are in the family and what their requirements are. I also cannot see why owning two or three cars prevents the government, local or national, from providing a proper public transport system. Because people own cars more tax supposedly related to transport is taken in than without there being all those cars

Oh yes I forgot Nanny-State - Please look after me because I am totally incapable - Anything that is wrong in my life is the fault of somebody else - I am not repsonsible for anything in my life I demand that you look after me - Bollocks, get a grip and take charge.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:39 AM

time moves on and Australians realise they can carge us what the hell they like for coal - having got Thatchers idiots to dismantle the mining industry, disband the army of expertise, reduce to rubble the factories servicing the heavy industrial machines.

the trouble with simplistic remedies - they appeal to the simple monded who unfortunately are allowed a vote.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:01 PM

Nice wriggle T ....but it doesn't wash, you have made no attempt to answer the point I was making.......and you know why.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:14 PM

Nothing really worth responding to, other than to make it clear to you that contrary to the shite you write about me, I want to see less government not more ......and no Capitalism at all
As a Scot, I remember a time when rampant Capitalism did not exist.
People made a life for themselves and had a lot of happiness as well as a lot of hard work.

I know you are not a simpleton, so why is it always Capitalism or Communism in your black and white world? Do you not realise that there will have to be alternatives?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:38 PM

Teribus
You've covered the 'keeping down costs' part of the equation very well.
What is missing is much about wage-rises, to be able to continue buying,[never mind coping with rising prices - wheat, rice, gas, petrol, et cetera.]


Nothing either about the rather unlikely ones who wish to sup from the government, aka you and me - most recently the banks !. Just think; The Banks looking to the "Nanny State" to bail them out after they've ballsed things up. Amazing.

And on Today (BBC premier morning news prog), a businesswoman expected help from the government in order that business could go thru the expensive business of getting greener. She followed up this plea by saying about something else that the government 'a kick up trhe pants'. That's the way to get the gov. to help you out; with a charm offensive.

I-I-I-I, on the other hand, said nothing about getting a hand-out from the gov. Absoltely nothing . [I believe that is an obsession of the right - tho see above for a contradiction.)

I look to employers. Oddly.

Like I assume that market forces will kick in, now that so many immagrants have left again, and fruit will not lie rotting because the pickers. No, wages for fruit-picking will obviously rise. That's how the free market works.

As the banks have discovered.

Meanwhile, ordinary people will be writing-off their credit card debts.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 May 08 - 08:26 PM

"My point about wages being kept down (to make business competitive) conflicting with the need for them to rise (to buy to keep the economy growing) is one that's been just ignored."


Not ignored, T.    It's part and parcel of the US & THEM scenario.

Somewhere in the discussion there is a point of compromise which gives the workers the maximum they can have without destroying the supplier of their jobs, and gives the company the highest profits it can make without having to deal with industrial action which may result in the destruction of the supplier of the shareholders' income.

The problem is that both sides have to be looking, for that point to be reached.

If both parties would look at the situstion from the point of view of ENLIGHTENED self interest, both would realise that they are interdependent, and they must all survive or none will survive.

If that is a simplistic viewpoint, so be it. I would rather be the advocate for a simplistic solution which COULD work, than the shop steward watching my members' livelihood going down the tubes because they, and I, refused to budge from an unachievable position.

Remember Arthur Scargill. He took his men back to work with a settlement they could have had a year earlier. In fact they would have been better off, because they would by then have been negotiating the NEXT increase.

So all the bloodshed and bitterness was wasted, and all laid at Thatcher's door. Well, I'm sorry but there were TWO pigheaded idiots involved, and Scargill was one of them. In fact it was he that made it possible for union bargaining power to be broken.

WORKING MAN'S HERO??    NOT REALLY!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 08 - 12:51 AM

Good post Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 13 May 08 - 12:52 AM

Maybe the heading should have been

UK stikes, more poverty.

I agree with your comments Don.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 13 May 08 - 02:01 AM

Don

Your post can't get around the fundamental contradiction. Employers have to keep wages down to compete; simultaneously, they worry about sales not continuing to grow to satisfy their shareholders , and themselves.

So they look to the Nanny State to help them out by providing benefits, like Working Tax Credit, which saves the employers having to pay them in the form of wages.

And then have the gall to complain that government is on their back.

We have had a relatively strike-free 10 - 15 years since the Tories brought in anti-union legislation that our brave , bold labour government has done nothing about.

And we still have 1.6 million unemployed, millions hovering around or below the minimum wage, a major still growing housing crisis, the prices of food, housing, oil all rising, and clearly NOT related to strikes in the slightest.

But I repeat myself. Seemingly i have to.

I have lkeft above any numbers of points not yet addressed.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 08 - 03:00 AM

Ever stood at a supermarket checkout with your tenner in your hand waiting to pay for your purchases, while the twenty or so sheep in front of you wrestle with their debit or credit cards.

Do you ever ponder on how wonderful "progress" is as the chechout machine spits out each card, or the assistant queries the signature?

Do you ever wonder if this miracle of technology has been imposed on us because we really "need" it, or because the capitalists who run the supermarkets and banks can con more money out of us in useless services and in the process, "slim down their workforce and become more competitive"

Ever noticed how the service provided to customers by banks gets worse and worse while charges keep increasing.
They are only interested in robbing credit customers nowadays.

Well, I dont "need" their services, but due to the way this Capitalist society is run, I am forced to use them.

Just another example from millions...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 13 May 08 - 04:32 AM

I don't go to the bank, I use online banking. Much simpler.

I would rather use a card at the checkout. far less hassle. Always hated cheques and if I use 6 a year now, thats it.

Dunno why you are whinging Akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,Firth
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:24 AM

No such thing as poverty in the UK. If lazy parents who receive the massive benefit cheques drank less there would be food on the table. Better still if they went and got a job like the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 08 - 03:33 PM

Well Guest...If you have a corrupt system, heavily biased towards one sector of society, is it any wonder that folks play the system.

I think it was Marx who said that Capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction...and those seeds are just a poppin' up everywhere these days.......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:54 PM

"I think it was Marx who said that Capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction" - Akenaton

Well we could always look at a couple of "Marxist" countries and judge by the queues of people hammering on the door to get in and escape all this destruction:

- North Korea
- Zimbabwe
- Cuba

There again we can look at all those countries that "Uncle Joe" brought into the light of "Marxist benevolence". I mean that if what Ake says is true, when actually allowed free choice, what did the peoples of those countries opt for.

Another way of looking at what Marx said would be that Capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction in the form of continual reinvention and regeneration, both of which require freedom of thought and expression and above all innovation, all facets of life that are an anathema to the prophets of Marx and Lenin.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 08 - 02:44 AM

"in the form of continual reinvention and regeneration, both of which require freedom of thought and expression and above all innovation"

Oh fuck!!....I'm outa here!
Teribus has discovered "politician speak"....Prepare to be engulfed.

Are you a friend of Peter Mandelson by any chance T?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 08 - 02:51 AM

Yet again Teribus confuses my hatred of Capitalism, with some notion that I would like to see a Eastern bloc style Communist system in its place.

Monochrome or what!!

Teribus...your thinking is still rooted in the "cod war"
Sorry "cold war"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:09 AM

Oh, No Ake, not in the least, I realise exactly what you are, a pathetic little armchair anarchist who can do nothing but knock. You haven't a single constructive thought in your entire being.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 08 - 03:01 AM

Too late to do anything constructive about Capitalism T.

As an operative in the building industry, I realise that when the cracks go right to the foundations, demolition is th only option.

BTW...I dont see Anarchism as "negative". At the very least it gives a vision that humanity and the planet will survive in the long term.
Nobody suggests that transforming society will be easy or pleasant, our five minutes (in real time) of Capitalism has left us all twisted, we no longer value the things which make life worth living, but prefer to inhabit a crazy hybrid of Disneyland and the House of Horrors.

Just to keep on keeping on with a system which promotes Global war and Global terror as a means of control, a system which causes a huge divide between two sectors of society in the quality of life that they can expect; and leading ultimately to the complete destruction of the environment which every species on this earth requires to survive, is negativity in the extreme....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:04 AM

Given that you are correct about what are the current ills of the human race, Ake, you have signally failed to explain why, if what you say about capitalism is true, all other forms of government suffer the same problems.

If you wish to prove an argument of cause and effect, you really need to examine the position of the horse vis-a-vis the cart.

Capitalism is certainly very imperfect, but I would submit that nothing else has worked as well up to now.

I repeat, you need to know, before you destroy the status quo, what you will put in its place, and please don't say anarchism. The last thing anyone needs, is to find that the biggest bloke in the area can walk into their house and help himself.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:33 AM

"We have had a relatively strike-free 10 - 15 years since the Tories brought in anti-union legislation that our brave , bold labour government has done nothing about.

And we still have 1.6 million unemployed, millions hovering around or below the minimum wage, a major still growing housing crisis, the prices of food, housing, oil all rising, and clearly NOT related to strikes in the slightest."


Come on Auto, that's a complete mish-mash of half truth, and fuzzy thinking.

1.6 million unemployed....Historically this country has had around 750,000 unemployed since WW2, who are either workshy, or unemployable. No government in this country has ever solved thst one, nor ever will.

Unemployment, in the Thatcher years DID rise steeply, and that was a regrettable after effect of the Wilson/Callaghan period 1973-1979, which included devaluation of the pound, and inflation rising to an all time high of more than 20% which the Tories inherited in 79.

Since New Labour won in 2007, inheriting an inflation rate of 2.5% approx. they have been "reducing" unemployment largely by altering the criteria by which one decides who is unemployed ("He's not unemployed, he's undergoing retraining"), which of course removes many from the "unemployed" list, while we still have to support them from our taxes.

Posterity may well agree with my view that New Labour are chiefly notable (not able) for their ability to move goalposts.


As to Oil prices, they are dependent on events in foreign parts, over which our government has no control, as in fact is the housing crisis, due to the greed mainly of US banks.

Rising oil price inevitably means high osts for energy, food, and fuel.

The presence or absence of the right to disrupt, er, sorry, I mean strike has no bearing whatsoever on these current problems, but I would certainly claim that, without the curtailment of trade union power, we would have many fewer British companies still solvent today.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:38 AM

As we don't keep our energy, food, and fuel in osts, I'm sure you will have worked out that should read costs.

I lost my last sentence, which was:-

The unemployment figures would, in that case, have been significantly, and disastrously, increased

DT

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: mayomick
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:03 AM

People wonder why Ken rejoined Labour . It couldn't have realy done him much good to get an endorsement from Brown ,but whatever else you say about Livingstone he's always been a smart operator . Possible scenario:
Gordon Brown's popularity continues to plummet . Boris makes a mess out of the mayorship and everybody starts to look back to the halcyon days of the Livingstone era .
Livingstone wins a bye election and becomes the new MP for Brent .
Brown resigns leadership of Labour Party after losing general election to Cameron. Enter the new leader of Her Majesty's Opposition .

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 08 - 03:11 PM

"I repeat, you need to know, before you destroy the status quo, what you will put in its place, and please don't say anarchism. The last thing anyone needs, is to find that the biggest bloke in the area can walk into their house and help himself."

Don...I think you are using the Capitalist's measureing stick.
It does not have to be like that, there have been many societies throughout history who have been much more successful than present day Capitalism.

A good example was the native American culture.
A culture based on conserving the natural habitat and involving a fine system of "local govt".

Of course I don't suggest that we beome nomadic hunter gatherers again, but I believe that the secret of our survival lies in the study and understanding of primitive societies...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 08 - 04:56 PM

Anyone who has watched a soccer match, and seen the antics of some of its followers, might suggest that we LIVE in a primitive society.

O.K. That's a flippant response, but to take up your point, for sure there have been systems that worked better than capitalism IN THEIR TIME, times when the concept of "Capital" did not exist.

None of those could cope with the logistics of a population such as we have now. They all relied on the fact of having an abundance of resources in relation to population which allowed everyone to help himself. That situation no longer pertains, even if you do away with the concept of ownership.

I've been accused of coming up with simplistic ideas, but I couldn't hold a candle to the idea of looking at Aboriginal society as a possible model for todays world.

Any further comment from me will, I imagine be met with the usual "you are looking at it from the capitalist's point of view", so I will confine myself to one last thought, and it's this. It only appears to you that I am looking at it from the capitalist point of view because YOU are looking at it from the labour (small l) point of view, and in fact I am labour, but I know that it is Capital that provides me with work. Perhaps it is YOU that needs to reconsider?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:17 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T - 15 May 08 - 04:56 PM

Good post Don very well put.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:04 AM

Well Don ...It seems we must agree to disagree once again, but I will say that it is always a pleasure to discuss these matters with you, as you are thoughtful and open minded (for a Tory) :0)

Perhaps we can agree that if Capitalism continues and expands as in China , India, (Africa?) there is very little hope for humanity, the environment, or the wasteful lifestyle to which we have become accustomed?
In fact, if the Capitalist ethos is adopted worldwide, "Global War" will be the vision of the future, as massive powers struggle for control of dwindling resources.
PS....If you know the whereabouts of Teribus, please send him on a cheerleaders costume, size XXXXL I know he'll just love it.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:16 AM

Sorry Don...I forgot to address your point on population.

It is my opinion, that population has been artifically inflated by modern social/ economic systems.
If this continues we will certainly be unable to feed ourselves in a very short period of time....(Capitalism/Communism unsustainable in foodstuffs). Not to mention water, energy,minerals etc,etc.

Would it not be more sensible to look at population growth critically, rather than fight an unwinnable war with the consequences...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:36 AM

Don't know about the Cheer Leaders uniform Ake - but I do note that you still demonstrate that you do not have one single constructive thought in your head, or at least not one that you can express. Maybe you should consider that instead of the worlds population, because that is a very sorry state to be in indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 08 - 05:37 AM

........'unable to feed ourselves......', no chance, GM will solve all our problems - not!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:45 AM

If you take the trouble to check out the true situation, you will find that in fact there is sufficient food produced in this world for everyone alive today to have what he/she needs.

There are two obvious reasons why this doesn't happen, and one less obvious.

1. Distribution. The bulk of the surplus food is produced in and by countries which already have enough, and nobody is offering to pay to distribute the spare stuff to Biafra, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and the like.

2. Waste. Only this week, it has been reported that UK residents waste up to one third of the food they buy, a disgusting state of affairs which, I would guess is equalled by US citizens, if not exceeded, and probably less than equalled in countries such as Canada and Australia, where I feel there is a less wasteful culture (I'm making an educate guess on that).


The less obvious cause is foreign aid, or rather the way in which it is supplied. Give a man who is starving a sack of seed, and HE WILL EAT IT!!

Of course he will.

Feed his family for a year and send him off to college to learn how to produce food. When he comes back, feed him for a further year and supply seed as well. Tell him you will buy his food surplus at harvest time and watch him work.

Of course he will.

Expensive, but simple, and when we reach the stage (as we will) where WE need food from him we'll have it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:51 AM

Notwithstanding the above, you are right on one point. We WILL have to control population. No doubt about that at all.


BUT HOW!!

I suppose since every third child born is Chinese, we should all have no more than two.

That's what I did, anyway.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 08 - 12:06 PM

Agree with you about waste Don, but surely even you must admit rthat waste is openly encouraged by Capitalism.
(Supermarket offers....the throwaway society .....chinese imports.)
Buy , buy, buy.
Capitalism also needs large centres of population, to produce the junk and to consume the junk

But thats only a couple of facets. Teribus accuses me of negativity, but I honestly see nothing in this system to be optimistic about

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:22 PM

Capitalism does not actively encourage or discourage waste, greed, or any other evil, Ake.

This is the point where I feel your cart is being pushed rather than pulled.

Capitalism supplies employment, employment supplies income, income gives the power to purchase what we need or what we WANT. Capitalism by employing us produces that which we may need or want to purchase.

What we do with that purchasing power is OUR responsibility, and we can be as greedy, or as frugal as WE choose.

Nobody forces us to overconsume, or to waste resources. The supply is put in front of us, and WE make our own decisions.

There are "isms" which dictate what we may or may not, and in some cases what we must or must not, do. Capitalism is one of the very few that does not, so if we want to blame somebody for our excesses, I'm afraid we must look closer to home for the culprit,.....Perhaps a mirror?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 08 - 05:18 PM

Well, i don't think we should be too hard on ourselves Don, bombarded as we are about the sorts of things we should buy to make our lives complete.
The message of Capitalism is insidious and designed to appeal to our baser instincts ...I will agree with you there..its a powerful message and will take many generation to wash from our psyche.

Then again maybe it wont take so long.
I remember as a child, a society which offered status as a measure of worth, not money.
Doctors, public officials, policemen, builders were given a certain status in that society, money did not enter the equation to any extent, as all in that society we relatively poor.
The society worked pretty well, as every soul was made to feel that they were contributing in one way or another.

To day money is God, and I suppose you are right we invented God; but Capitalism was the catalyst.

The crux of my argument is that lifestyle supported by Capitalism is utterly unsustainable...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 08 - 06:04 PM

Well my friend, as you say we tend to disagree about the definitions, but if it comes to changing the status quo, we'll BOTH need to do quite a bit of rethinking to find an alternative that IS sustainable.

It's the kids and Grandkids I worry about.

The worst I have to fear is that I'll wind up as fertiliser when they have to plant food crops in the cemetery.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:43 AM

"I remember as a child, a society which offered status as a measure of worth, not money.
Doctors, public officials, policemen, builders were given a certain status in that society, money did not enter the equation to any extent, as all in that society we relatively poor.
The society worked pretty well, as every soul was made to feel that they were contributing in one way or another." - Akenaton

Ah yes Akenaton those good old days when everyone knew their place - far, far better than today eh?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 17 May 08 - 03:44 PM

Yes Teribus there was good and bad in that old society

Today we have a whole generation of lost children afloat in a word with no place for them, an ever increasing army of old people who have ceased to be of any use to the system and a hindrance to their families....if families still exist!

A workforce holding down multiple jobs in an effort to pay credit charges and morgage payments to the later day outlaws of the banking industry.
I bet most would chose to trade their slavery for a place in a real society...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 May 08 - 03:59 PM

Its not so much that everybody knew their place - its more that it was a pretty shitty place for most of us. No matter what the state of ones knowledge on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:08 AM

Akenaton, have a really good read of this:

"Capitalism supplies employment, employment supplies income, income gives the power to purchase what we need or what we WANT. Capitalism by employing us produces that which we may need or want to purchase.

What we do with that purchasing power is OUR responsibility, and we can be as greedy, or as frugal as WE choose.

Nobody forces us to overconsume, or to waste resources. The supply is put in front of us, and WE make our own decisions.

There are "isms" which dictate what we may or may not, and in some cases what we must or must not, do. Capitalism is one of the very few that does not, so if we want to blame somebody for our excesses, I'm afraid we must look closer to home for the culprit,.....Perhaps a mirror?" - Don(Wyziwyg)T

Don has got it summed up there perfectly.

By the bye you don't obtain a "society" off-the-shelf - people make whatever society they CHOSE to live in - Oh Dear there is that thing called personal choice cropping up again.

As for your: "Today we have a whole generation of lost children afloat in a word with no place for them, an ever increasing army of old people who have ceased to be of any use to the system and a hindrance to their families....if families still exist!

A workforce holding down multiple jobs in an effort to pay credit charges and morgage payments to the later day outlaws of the banking industry."

We have a whole generation of lost children afloat in a word with no place for them Akenaton because the so-called "Baby Boomer" generation turned out to be by and large absolutely useless parents, nothing to do with with what was on offer in the shops. The loss of "family" again down to personal choice, the halcyon days you hark back to were governed by belief in education, respect for education, people knew and acknowledged what their responsibilities were, they did not shirk duty, they had respect for themselves and each other, they possessed that vital tool for living called self-discipline. They did not endlessly hammer on about what their rights were, they did not always adopt the line of least resistance in order to take the easy way out.

The circumstance that drives people to hold down multiple low pay minimum wage jobs was brought about by a total disregard and disrespect for education and personal expectation far outstripping the personal ability to achieve. Everything that can be has been dumbed down so that everybody is an "achiever" even if the achievement is worthless. What the country needs are mathematicians, scientists, doctors, nurses and engineers, not thousands of basket case degrees in social studies.

Nothing whatsoever to do with "Capitalism" Akenaton, your, "Well, i don't think we should be too hard on ourselves" sums up perfectly what is wrong - Somebody else's fault again - grow up, high time a hell of a lot of people did that in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:14 AM

Still so many points just get plain ignored.

That is one basic way the talkboards I know about, function.

e.g.

Without Labour, stuff would not be bought. So the better they're paid, the more they'd buy, and the more profits would be made.

While the point about Labour as a cost has been addressed, and justifies, tis one hasn't been.


Again, the point that people are under the illusion that buying/ consuming brings satisfaction.


or that the system finds ways to keep consuming going. My example was CDs, the introduction of which led people to buy what they already had all over again.

Or that fashion and fads are other ways to keep consuming going.

Or that shareholder strength is a driver for growth of consumption.

Or that if the poor cannot be lifted in a rich country now, what do the circumstances have to be when they will?

or why we had a 'trickle-down' theory and not a 'cascade-down' theory.

Or the connection between the introduction of Capitalism in Russia and China and the explosive emergence of a load of millionaires/billionaires.

Teri said advertising doesn't get people to buy more than they need or want.

Breathtaking.

If you all really think we don't know the importance of consuming to our society, and nobody has forced the point on us, tell us what you think the consequences would be if everyone no longer found mortgages, more clothes, cars, holidays, replacement kitchens, insurance, more food than for survival, drink, DIY, gardening stuff, the latest gadgets, if we no longer found them necessary for our happiness or satisfaction?

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:28 AM

"Or the connection between the introduction of Capitalism in Russia and China and the explosive emergence of a load of millionaires/billionaires."

Disingenuous comment of the month, without a doubt.

The millionaires were always there, but they didn't advertise. Do you REALLY think the Politburo, and the Chinese equivalent lived on potato soup, or a handful of rice??

The millions just got transferred, and those newly rich are probably paying wages to their workers which, though low by our standards, are more than they could have DREAMED about under communism.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:01 PM

Just to get some sort of reality check here a question for Akenaton and Ivor:

"How many Russians were members of the Communist Party"

Population was 293,047,571 in 1991. In 1989 the Party had 19,000,000 members. That is roughly 6.48% of the population Ake, Ivor.

Now tell us do you think that they were treated the same as everybody else in Russia, or did Party Membership carry with it enormous privileges - Animal Farm, Ivor "All animals are equal except that some animals are more equal than others".

As Don T says the millionaires were already there, Lenin, Stalin, et al, they just replaced the Russian Tsarist Aristocracy with their version of it - "Workers of the World Unite" indeed - Complete and utter load of bollocks if you ask me and they all knew it from day one.

Yet even with all those gullible little epsilons beavering away night and day the system they worked under failed to feed them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 18 May 08 - 02:23 PM

I see you have both responded to but a single one of the points I re-raised , (and,interestingly, the same one - namely the one not about US but but about NOT-US).

Imf(airly)io, you are both under an illusion if you believe that the millionaires simply were given their millions by alleged 'old millionaires'.

That is either lack of knowledge, or re-writing history, (a practice not solely indulged in by the Left). The correct information is out there a-plenty.

Consequently, I notice that of all the points I repeated, all the rest has been ignored again.

Btw, apparently the true figure of the proportion of food thrown away in the UK is actually about 20%.

The 'fact' that people in the UK throw away is one third turns out to be true only when such things as vegetable peelings and bones were included in the calculation.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:08 PM

Teribus.

You appear to have "animal farm" and "brave new world" confused.

And I waould argue also that you have misused BNW as an example.

I see BNW as a fairly accurate prediction of twenty first century western culture.

Soma = ectstacy

Orwell and Huxley were two quite different characters dealing with contrasting material.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:39 PM

Auto,

The reason I only made response to one point in your post was quite simply due to the fact that all the other points you made had already been answered in my previous one.

They all lump together in the category of "blame the system for our own individual faults".

If I believed, as you apparently do, that the whole human race was too stupid and gullible to be held responsible for its own individual actions, I believe I would cease to care what happened to it.

As to the millionaire/billionaire point, of course I didn't think that the money was gifted from one lot to the next. I was simply pointing out the naivete of believing that communist states had no rich/privileged class.

The rulers in any authoritarian system live as well as any capitalists, but generally the lower orders are considerably worse off than in capitalist states, where opportunity for advancement also exists.

As has been said before, judge a state by the number of people who are prepared to die to get out, and so called socialist states don't stack up at all well. Just look at the queues of people at Sangat awaiting a chance to sneak INTO our capitalist state.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:01 AM

No confusion Lox, the first quote was from Animal Farm and identified as such. The term "epsilon" is from BNW but was not attributed as it was only the term used.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 08 - 02:53 AM

The really interesting point is that Don and T maintain that the people, not the system control the direction of travel in a society.

Why then, when sections of society rise in protest, are they...the conservatives, the ones who scream loudest to bring in the army!

Capitalism and Communism cynically manipulate consumers in all societies.
At this moment they are doing their best to convince us that we should carry on the status quo regardless of the damage we are doing to our environment.

The system is more important than life on Earth!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 08 - 05:53 AM

""Why then, when sections of society rise in protest, are they...the conservatives, the ones who scream loudest to bring in the army!

Capitalism and Communism cynically manipulate consumers in all societies.
At this moment they are doing their best to convince us that we should carry on the status quo regardless of the damage we are doing to our environment.""


Have the army started wearing blue uniforms and pointy hats while I wasn't looking??

As far as I can recall (and I'm sure I'll be told LOUD and LONG if I'm wrong), the army has been called in twice in mainland UK in the last century.

1. To root out a nest of terrorists in Sidney Street, London, back when Winston Churchill was Home Secretary.

2. The Iranian embassy seige when the SAS went in to save hostages.


They are obviously wildy eager, and ready to start shootng people at the drop of a hat.

As to manipulation, is there some far off corner of the nation where you are being made to consume at gunpoint??

If not, then they can only manipulate you if YOU let them. It's a dark and scary world you inhabit, where your will and intellect is being subverted by unseen forces.

I guess I must be very lucky. I buy only what I want, and, if I feel that doing this will harm others or the planet, then I buy only what I NEED.

I hate this bloody government, but they CANNOT be accused of defending the status quo. Credit where it's due, they are working harder than most on dealing with climate change (now I'll have to go and wash my mouth out, after praising New Labour), and the Tories are supporting it, in fact many of the initiatives have been pinched from the Tories.

David Cameron has said on TV that he doesn't mind Brown using his (Cameron's) ideas, as it doesn't matter who thought of them first, as long as they are acted upon. I have never heard a politician say anything like that before. (Interview on "SUNDAY" hosted by Andrew Marr....BBC1).

Don T.



Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 19 May 08 - 06:40 AM

An innocent mixing of metaphors then ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 19 May 08 - 07:33 AM

They may have called the army in twice in the last century but I wonder how many times the police were called in when incidents like the miners' strike in the 1980's occurred?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 08 - 12:06 PM

Hey Akenaton and Ivor a useful little exercise to go through:

1. List all the things that you have spent your money on during the last year.

2. Out of that list detail in Column A - Essentials that I needed.

3. Out of that list detail in Column B - Additional "essentials" that I purchased because advised or compelled to do by outside influences (Evil Corporate Capitalists, Advertising Agencies, "Peer" Pressure).

4. Out of that list detail in Column C - Non-essential, or luxury items purchased purely because YOU wanted them.

5. Out of that list detail in Column D - Non-essential, or luxury items that you purchased because advised or compelled to do by outside influences.

I've done it - Guess what you two:

Column A made up the bulk, food, clothes, medical expenses, biggest item was house repairs.

Column B was empty

Column C was expenses involved in going to festivals and holiday.

Column D was empty.

Let me know how you got on with it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 19 May 08 - 02:21 PM

Don,

oddly, I agree considerably about taking personal responsibility to a considerable degree.

Two observations about that.

Firstly, when i have brought up the idea of taking one's own responsibility, the usual response is for posters to flee the thread. And I can understand that because I know how resistant people are to taking their responsibility. Hence the persistance and commonness of expressions like 'what else could I do?'; 'I had no choice'; 'that's just the way I am'; 'it was fated'; 'it was bound to happen'; 'it was   inevitable'; 'i always do that, but i don't know why'.

Secondly, and on the other hand, with the points of mine that I still say have gone unanswered,I can't see where responsibility comes in. E.g. that Labour purchasing power is needed to buy the goods we produce and want or need; that there are fashions and must-haves in all fields; why the poor are so rampant in a very rich country (in a poor country i can see it); all those Russian and Chinese billionaires; the lack of relationship between consumption and satisfaction (do you know much about addiction in its many forms?; and so on.)

To say my points amount to 'blaming the system for our individual faults', is just false. E.g., it's not the fault of individuals in the Labour Force that wages can be kept under tight control, nor that wages need to be high enough to consume what's produced. Nor that shareholders demand growing profits.

And I'm not saying this is all about human stupidity - more about fitting into the society one finds oneself in, learning that questioning the bases of society is thought not a good idea, and lacking the responsibility you talk of to examine and question. Taking personal responsibility is as two-edged a sword as anything else.

Incidentally, for all the talk of regarding others as stupid, the assertion that we've had 750,000 minimum unemployed since the war because there's always a feckless rump of layabouts, is untrue (and not holding that part of the unemployed in the highest regard). I seem to remember (haven't checked ) that for quite a while in the 50s, unemployment was around 100,000, and th't had the figure gone above half a million, the government of the day would have had to resign.

So I must say, you (and Teri) are just not addressing the substantive problems. Merely seeking to dismiss them with vague gestures, light misdescription, and red herrings.

And I see no need to propose an alternative system. A close critical examination of what we already have seems to me important work to be done. What people make of any realisations about the flaws in our current ruling beliefs is their business. many have already seen some of what's wrong with what's on offer, and already sought alternatives.

I shall present the following again, as you haven't responded so far. I'm not blaming anything, and even suggesting that within the following is precisely personal responsibility manifested.

"If you all really think we don't know the importance of consuming to our society, and nobody has forced the point on us, tell us what you think the consequences would be if everyone no longer found mortgages, more clothes, cars, holidays, replacement kitchens, insurance, more food than for survival, drink, DIY, gardening stuff, the latest gadgets, if we no longer found them necessary for our happiness or satisfaction?"


Plenty of time for teri's test, but first things first.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 08 - 03:11 AM

No mistake from me, I know many Conservatives, (none as congenial as Don), who scream for the army to be deployed in response to any percieved danger to "our way of life".

I suspect Teribus with his army background may fall into this catagory of "Colonel Blimps".

Do you both seriously expect us to believe that Capitalism spends billions on advertising for no return.
Ivor is correct, we live in a capitalist society and we are encourage to think that the Capitalist ethos is sensible, when in reality it is the ultimate madness, for all the reasons Ivor has listed and many more besides.

"Teribus's list" is of course one of his "cunningly constructed plans" in which we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Ivor is again correct in stating that Teribus does no treat this compex subject seriously, but in a simplistic and dismissive manner.
This is common to all of his ilk, to whom reason is anathema.

Teribus cites "house repairs" as a large item in his personal budget.
Now that is a bit of double speak if ever I heard one!

I'm in the building trade and have seen many operations fall under the heading of house repairs.
New Conservatories....kitchens...bathrooms...dormer windows...extensions...etc
Somehow I don't see Major Teribus living in a slum with the water runnin' doon the walls ...Do you?

I've seen them all trying to justify what they do to their houses as neccesary repairs when its really to increase the resale value, or keep up with the Jones's. Throwing out perfectly funtional items because they think them unfashionable, or may affect the sale price.

"Lets make money and fuck the environment".....one question for Teribus, how many times have I heard that??......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:24 AM

To those reading this thread please note that both Akenaton and Ivor have both ducked the question, although in his defence I must state that Ivor has referred to it and stated that he will deal with it later. We'll see if "deal with" actaully means answer.

Sorry Ake, don't know exactly how many times I have to state this on this Forum, but for one more time, I have never served in any Army, so, so much for my army back-ground referred to in your post.

Counter to what you believe, it is normally those on the left-wing of politics that are readiest to "fight" for what they believe in, or want, or demand.

"Teribus cites "house repairs" as a large item in his personal budget.
Now that is a bit of double speak if ever I heard one!

I'm in the building trade and have seen many operations fall under the heading of house repairs.
New Conservatories....kitchens...bathrooms...dormer windows...extensions...etc" - Akenaton - the builder.

Where do "drain repairs" come in that list Akenaton - frippery, luxury, or essential. Unfortunately my property is up the top end of the run, there is actually nothing wrong with the drains at my end, but because they are "common use" I have to pay my part of any repairs downstream, that is the law. Why the drains have been damaged downstream - other people putting up extensions, additional off road parking, etc. Doesn't matter a jot that they should have considered the consequences of that work before it was carried out, I still had to pay.

How does that fit in with your; "I've seen them all trying to justify what they do to their houses as neccesary repairs when its really to increase the resale value, or keep up with the Jones's. Throwing out perfectly funtional items because they think them unfashionable, or may affect the sale price."

I'd be interested in hearing from you on that but I don't think that you will bother as it would entail you admitting that:

1. Drain repairs are essentials
2. Drain repairs do not increase the resale value of the property
3. Drain repairs have got nothing to do with keeping up with the Joneses.
4. The list indicating how you spent your money over the past 12 months will not be made although I expect that if Akenaton did go through the exercise his list would look remarkably like mine as far as column population went, which would put some rather significant holes in some of his contentions detailed in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 08 - 01:27 PM

A little free professional advice T.
The volume of shit issuing from upstream can cause problems for the best of drainage systems.
Just like Capitalism there comes a time when the whole infrastructure breaks down and the shit spreads all around.
Now, if you produce anything like the volume at home that you do on Mudcat you are likely to be the most unpopular guy in your neighbourhood.

Perhaps a new state of the art sewage treatment plant, paid for by special subscription by your neighbours may be the answer....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 20 May 08 - 02:37 PM

From: Teribus - PM
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:24 AM

To those reading this thread please note that both Akenaton and Ivor have both ducked the question, although in his defence I must state that Ivor has referred to it and stated that he will deal with it later. We'll see if "deal with" actaully means answer.


Meantime, to those same readers, please note that Teri continues to duck the points I've repeated; duck or ignore or ??????, can't quite tell.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 08 - 03:41 PM

Hey Ake:

"Just like Capitalism there comes a time when the whole infrastructure breaks down and the shit spreads all around."

Just like something to which the time came between 1917 and 1991 when the infrastructure breaks down and the shit spreads all round - But it wasn't capitalism was it Akenaton?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:21 AM

Interesting example of how insideously Capitalism works, on today's BBC news.
Playboy, One of the worlds biggest producers of pornography, is marketing a range of stationary and clothing for schoolchildren.
This stuff,bearing the Playboy logo is being presented in shops and catalogues beside well known childrens brands like Disney.

This practice is known as "normalising" the brand, making it more acceptable.

The marketing of women as sex objects is one Is now a multi billion pound industry. Perhaps it is just a coincidencebut apparently the new "free" Capitalist countries of Eastern Europe are top contributers to this industry...isn't progress wonderful.

By the way Teribus, despite your sense of humour bypass, you are quite correct, any system, Capitalist or Communist which attempts to build an infrastructure to enslave the many for the benefit of the few will ultimately fail.
At least Communism went in relative peace.

Don't believe for one second that Capitalism will just slip off into the quiet night....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:33 AM

LINK HERE

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 22 May 08 - 07:20 PM

I've seen it in woolworths near where I live.

My little girl was interested in the pink stuff with the bunny rabbit on.

I did not acquiesce to her unwitting request that i allow her to be initiated gradually into a lifestyle and worldview that I sincerely hope she doe not fall for in later life.

Brand loyalty is the key here. It's fun, its innocent and therefore so is the magazine and pornography. Of course you have to wait till you're older to do all that, but the mindset is instilled young to make it more appealing when you're older.


Teribus, perhaps you should reread "Brave new world". Is it a horror story, or am I just a savage?

And where would you fit in?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 May 08 - 07:28 PM

""Interesting example of how insideously Capitalism works, on today's BBC news.
Playboy, One of the worlds biggest producers of pornography, is marketing a range of stationary and clothing for schoolchildren.
This stuff,bearing the Playboy logo is being presented in shops and catalogues beside well known childrens brands like Disney.""

Interesting example of stretching the facts beyond recognition, in order to produce a pseudo proof of a personal opinion.

One corporation, owned by a Loony Tunes eccentric with the sexual instincts of a precocious twelve year old schoolboy, is NOT Capitalism.

If there is a descriptive "ism" for this, I would suggest that it is Hedonism, which is not at all the same thing.

I too deplore the placing of these goods alongside children's products, and agree that they SHOULD be removed, but their presence is not due to Capitalism.

It is purely the result of one company's desire to gain some mainstream credibility, and will only succeed if people are dumb enough to fall for it.

In my whole life, nobody has ever "sold" me anything by advertising. I decide what I want in general terms, then do the necessary research to decide on a specific product. I then go to a retailer and "buy" it.

Anyone CAN do it. It's called willpower.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:09 AM

"In my whole life, nobody has ever "sold" me anything by advertising. I decide what I want in general terms, then do the necessary research to decide on a specific product. I then go to a retailer and "buy" it.

Anyone CAN do it. It's called willpower.

Don T"

Well put Don, the same goes for me. That is exactly the route I follow for every purchase I make.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 23 May 08 - 02:18 AM

Meanwhile you both continue not to respond to so many points.

There's nothing like picking asnd choosing what to reply to , and to ignoring to plenty.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 23 May 08 - 02:40 AM

Well I don't know about the local elections, the By-election result was stunning.

Tory candidate Edward Timpson won 7,860 more votes than his Labour rival, overturning a 7,000 Labour majority at the general election - a 17.6% swing.

A pretty good turnout as well.

Now then Gordon Brown, how low can you go.......

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: sapper82
Date: 23 May 08 - 03:51 AM

Excellent result!!
Interesting though, Labour is against the hereditory principal in the House of Lords, but are quite happy for seats to be passed from parent to child!
What a pity for them the electors saw sense!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 May 08 - 05:13 AM

"If you all really think we don't know the importance of consuming to our society, and nobody has forced the point on us, tell us what you think the consequences would be if everyone no longer found mortgages, more clothes, cars, holidays, replacement kitchens, insurance, more food than for survival, drink, DIY, gardening stuff, the latest gadgets, if we no longer found them necessary for our happiness or satisfaction?"


If everyone did as you suggest, then shareholders of companies would have to accept a lower return on their investments, as they would not be able to switch their cash to more lucrative concerns.

Only if the reduction in consumption were partial, would the collapse that you hint at take place, as investors withdrew from the less lucrative investments.

Any economic system in the FREE world is , of necessity, a balancing act:-

Prices follow demand.
Wages follow prices.
Demand follows wages.

I see no reason why that would change when there was a downward trend.

If your putative consumers decided not to consume, they would presumably not need the wherewithal for that consumption, so the fall in wages caused by same would to some extent cushion the fall in profits, and one might expect a new, lower, balance point to be reached, which would in real terms approximate proportionately to the current status quo.

We are talking here about a medium of exchange....My Labour, for company's money....My wages, for company's goods......

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:23 AM

Have you ever heard of the McLibel trial?

It was proved during this case, to the satisfaction of the courts, that mcdonalds deliberately and maliciously targeted young children for two reasons.

Firstly because they would pester their parents. Pester power in this context is recognized in the courts as a means by which to put pressur on parents to consume in ways they otherwise might not choose to.

Secondly and more importantly, if children can be roped into the whole McDonalds food substitute scam (as I see it) then they will develop long term comfort associations with McDonalds food in their adulthood.

These points have been successfully been upheld by the british courts iin a legal battle between two self representing unemployed londoners on the dole versus the might of McDonalds international, who spent millions on the best legal team and brought in expert witness after expert witness to attempt to make a mockery of the charges that had been levelled against them.

So, to simplify, in conclusion,

It has been proved in court, in this instance, that advertising uses subtle psychological techniiques to pressure people into buying things they otherwise wouldn't necesserily want.

But it is obvious that there is more to it than that, and no amount of "hooray for freedom and hooray for choice" parties will change it.

Kids wear the clothes that the billboards tell them to wear, they use the phones that the billboards tell them to use and they follow the lifestyles that the magazines invvent about celebrities.

It's all about the kids annd being cool. And of course the baby boomers are suckers for wanting to remain kids at heart so they try and be like the kids and to outcool them.

The illusion of choicce is never more easiily diispelled than by simply taking note of the homogeny of style attitude and liffestyle iin popular culture.

And if everr you feel you want to fit in, you need only wear whatt the celebs are wearing and buy the chheap versions of their clothhes that are sold on the billboards.

This is of course the reason why folk is a dying artform. We're a fringe bunch because we listen to it and do it.

But kids are having the imagination squeezed out of them by the relentless pressure to listen to thhe established musical styles, shop at top shop, drink coffee at starbucks etc etc etc ...

Go to prague or warsw and see the same stuff there that we see here.

Maybe it's easy for a couple of arrogant old timers to ignore it because they are just about escaping it, but the reality of thhe world todday is that of homogeny and conformity, led by corporate propaganda (advertising)

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 08 - 11:11 AM

Guest Lox, ever heard of that old saying:

"A fool and his money are soon parted"

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 23 May 08 - 12:15 PM

The 'McLibel case was bad enough but isn't the 'Playboy' one even worse?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 May 08 - 03:09 PM

"Maybe it's easy for a couple of arrogant old timers to ignore it because they are just about escaping it, but the reality of thhe world todday is that of homogeny and conformity, led by corporate propaganda (advertising)"

Thank you Lox for your interesting if facile dissertation on the character of two people you know nothing about....Most edifying.

The reality of the world today is that any individual CAN choose to conform, or NOT.

Kids are indeed vulnerable to subtle persuasion. I used it very successfully to steer them away from a lifetime of mindless conformity, and in the process produced two very bright, successful, and individually worthwhile human beings.

My daughter at 39 is an E grade nurse specialising in intensive therapy, and the mother of three fine children who are similarly individualistic.

My son is head of art at one of the biggest secondary schools in the area, leading the efforts of five subordinates. He too has children, as yet too young to be affected by ads.

My kids DID suffer some peer disdain because they did not wear the right designer labels. Both of them started breakaway groups which eventually included many who had been against them initially.

Both developed, without instruction from me, their own personal tastes in clothes, food, music, and just about everything else.


IT CAN BE DONE, and IMHO IT SHOULD BE DONE.


The Playboy affair, by its very nature, is indeed a quantum leap worse than anything McD could do in the way of harm.

Customer pressure should easily sort that one out.

BTW I am NOT arrogant, but I will confess that I am proud of my kids individuality. HELL, they no longer take any notice even of me!

And that's how it should be.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 23 May 08 - 05:24 PM

As you should be.

Individuality is to be nurtured in children and that is what I also do with mine.

The advertising behemoth sells overpriced unnecessary products using a social ideal.

You too can be a fun sexy coke drinking maccy-d eating dynamic super - indeed uber guy/gal.

To be this unique individual, you just need to wear these clothes, these sunglasses and ... have this attitude ...

... ah ... the attitude ... that's the dangerous part ...

With the attitude comes a general shallow persona, constructed of a shallow philosophical and political and "spiritual" pic'n'mix, which like mcdonalds leaves one feeling entirely undernourished.

"Kids are indeed vulnerable to subtle persuasion. I used it very successfully to steer them away from a lifetime of mindless conformity, and in the process produced two very bright, successful, and individually worthwhile human beings."

So we agree. Our kids deserve better and they are under pressure and we must open our eyes to the realities they face and help them to deal with them.

Sadly for many kids, their parents are suckers for the whole rebranding thing and they will find it cute dressing their kids in "trendy" playboy gear. and will let their kids push them into buying the stuff when their cooler - or should I say more neglected friends start wearing it to school.

Who wears the clothes? P Diddy? Snoop Dogg? Kate Moss? Amy winehouse? what's the message? do drugs, cheat on your partner, avoid relationships, become self sufficient emotionally and financially, when it all goes wrong take a pill.

I've known many people for whom it's too much because the programming and the needs of the soul just aren't compatible.

Sex is used in many ways in advertising, and peoples fears and insecurities about their sexuality and desirability are targeted mercilessly.

Mainly, ppeople are duped into believing that to be accepted socially they have to be sexually desirable. Of course the only way to prove this is to have lots of partners and to appear uncaring and unconcerned.

But in the meantime, the best way to increase our desirability is to wear the clothes etc that will make us desirable and sexy.

This exploitation of our deepest insecurities (in an admittedly facile nutshell, for the sake of brevity) has been gradually creeping down the ages from older teens to younger teens and now to preteens.

What playboy are doing is absolutely a million times worse than anything mcdonalds have ever done.

However, I believe they will get away with it and it will be commonplace in a couple of years to see little girls wearing tee shirts with the bunny logo on them.


Advertising is insidious and it defines fatter people as unattractive and renders them outcasts. So young girls become body dysmorphic and abuse themselves through starvation.

I will not be so crass as to simplify anorexia and bulimia as being mere symptoms of this problem, but I certainly believe that there are many girls out there who would eat better if it wasn't for the pressure they are under to look thinner.

Ironically, I know a guy who advertises for mcdonalds, and they have undergone a massive overhaul. His office has been repeatedly surprised when ad ideas they have come up with, extolling the virtues of mcdonalds for sourcing their ingredients sustainably, have been rejected.

He informs me that mcdonalds are now sourcing their ingredients sustainably, but they are not shouting about it because they fear losing their main customer base, who like to boast "I can't afford to be ecological". Their instructions are to focus on thhe affordability of the food.

Crazy!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 23 May 08 - 05:24 PM

Don, I have no doubt you have been an excellent father and grandfather,instilling individuality in your family, just as I have tried to do.

We have both the strength, intellectually, financially and socially to see through the advertising con, but we should remember that there are millions without that strength through no fault of their own.

It is often a case of where they live, their educational chances or ability, social conditions etc.

The post by Lox was obviously heartfelt, the emotion in his/her writing was palpable...an excellent post.
I am sure no disrespect was intended to you and I took his light rebuke to you as being "tongue in cheek".

Regardless of how well you have performed as a parent, Capitalism and its M. O. are still a menace to humanity....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 24 May 08 - 03:04 AM

The problem we have is that the labour party has already led us in to poverty and still have a couple of years to make it even worse.
Brown has to take the majority of the blame. Yet there is nobody good enough to take over from him, if he resigned, even though IMHO he is aweful.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 24 May 08 - 04:55 AM

From: The Villan - PM
Date: 24 May 08 - 03:04 AM

The problem we have is that the labour party has already led us in to poverty




   Evidence please.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:20 AM

Well I, like a lot of other people are struggling to survive with all the infaltionary costs etc.

Maybe you are on enough dosh to not let it bother you. In which case you might not notice.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:32 AM

well for what its worth I think things have been better under labour.

More people have been working. And when that happens they collect more tax, and people have less interest in getting into the kind of mischief that causes social problems and makes life a misery for the rest of us.

I'm not in the Labour fan club. they could have done much better. But they do seem preferable the alternative.

I mean seriously do you want the tories back. do you want them cosying up to Paisley's lot causing all sorts of shit on the streets of Northern Ireland? All those idiot right wing intiatives that cost the taxpayers thousands - like the national curriculum (cos all teachers are left wing errorists) fund holding gp's ( working towards the situation they masterminded with dentists and half the people can't get on an NHS practitioners list). Huge rates of unemployment as 'unecomomic' businesses get weeded out with the help of the uncaring banks and financial institutions. For Chrissake if history teaches us anthing - business is GOOD - any kind of business is better business than unemployment. Thatcher went on making the same mistake for about 14 years that Wilson did with SET.

Its all one way traffic Les, screwing the very poorest and those with least economic clout in our society. It will happen again if you vote for them, and its no good whining if they your kid gets falls victim to drugs, gambling, or cheap booze - any of the things that are allowed to attack our children unregulated - because we don't believe in a nanny state.

You voted for it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:36 AM

>>You voted for it<<

For what Al

I voted for Tony Blair twice. I didn't vote for Brown, who I have never liked.

I voted for Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher.

Basically, I vote for the person I feel most fit to be in charge of the Government at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:37 AM

And I remember the Miners' strike in the early seventies. Being an apprentice, I wasn't allowed to strike so no strike pay and being in the Union, the NCB wasn't allowed to pay me.
I remember the power cuts and the bread shortages (Promised myself I'd learn to bake my own one day & did)
Harold Wilson was so tight with the Unions before he got elected that he couldn't control them once he got in.

I also remember my last trip home and seeing the results of the Common Market on almost every shelf in the shops.

Thatcher was bad, I know but I seriously doubt that any future party will ever be as bad again.
You've come a long way.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 May 08 - 06:05 AM

Well when I said you voted for it. what I meant was that after the Toxteth riots and the Handsworth riots, then the hunger strike business - even if she did get lucky in the Falklands - she obviously didn't give a bugger about the social consequences of her policies.

it was great that she stopped inflation, but by God was there a casualty list! In truth we're still picking the lead out of our society from those years. and some areas of society, we'll simply never get back. Degenerate gambling dens on every street corner, hard drugs freely available - it all came in the wake of dismantling the mining industry so carelessly.

have you ever checked out the pages of gamblers anonymous - in particular the slot machine addicts. Its a disease which is rampant in our society, and no one of any political party seems to give a bugger.

basically it happened when the manufacturing base of the country was whipped out from under the population, leaving a lot of idle hands and diretionless young folk.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 08 - 06:05 AM

Counter to what WLD believes to be the case:

Unemployment in UK according to the LSE - Between 1979 and 1983 it increased; between 1983 and 1986 it was on some sort of plateau and between 1986 and 1990 it decreased rapidly.

Over the same period in the UK Employment figure trends were as follows - Between 1979 and 1983 the number of people in employment fell, but between 1983 and 1989 the numbers of people in employment grew rapidly.

Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister throughout.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 May 08 - 07:18 AM

well all I can say is, it wasn't growing rapidly in Norh Notts till we got shut of the buggers. i'm well aware she took damn good care of the thirty odd per cent of the population who kept electing her.

that was another delightful aspect of those swine. they visited their depredations on parts of the country that weren't voing for them. like Scotland with the poll tax.

If you can't understand how she did so much to disunite this country - all I can say is, you must have sat very still in the same comfortable place, and covered your ears!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 May 08 - 07:44 AM

oh go and play wiv yer ballads.....

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 May 08 - 11:54 AM

that last throwaway remark was addressed to a Guest who called himself Francis Child.

His cryptic remark has been removed

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 24 May 08 - 12:31 PM

The Villan - PM
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:20 AM

Well I, like a lot of other people are struggling to survive with all the infaltionary costs etc.



As evidence that the Labour Government is leading us into poverty. that hardly begins to do, dear Villan.


Don,

   Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 23 May 08 - 05:13 AM

"If you all really think we don't know the importance of consuming to our society, and nobody has forced the point on us, tell us what you think the consequences would be if everyone no longer found mortgages, more clothes, cars, holidays, replacement kitchens, insurance, more food than for survival, drink, DIY, gardening stuff, the latest gadgets, if we no longer found them necessary for our happiness or satisfaction?"


If everyone did as you suggest, then shareholders of companies would have to accept a lower return on their investments, as they would not be able to switch their cash to more lucrative concerns.

Only if the reduction in consumption were partial, would the collapse that you hint at take place, as investors withdrew from the less lucrative investments.


if nothing else, your scenario for the consequences seems to me painfully inadequate, and hardly get going as an account of all the immediate and medium-term consequences.


   Ivor chuchkala

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 May 08 - 01:24 PM

Its a bit like that Keynes dictum - in the long run we're all dead.

i respect that we need consumerism - but there is a long term direction for our society.

Take a walk through most city centres there are casinos and every high street, there are dodgy looking fruit machine parlours.

thers no doubt gambling's immediate removal from the economy would be a problem - but is it right what's happening? And what's being done to our young people.

Surely at some point moral considerations must come into the picture. We can't go on hurting this number of people. Like I say - just put slot machine addiction UK Pages into Google - I think you will be shocked at the dimension of this problem.

Tell your local MP, and be amazed at the waves of indifference.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 08 - 06:35 PM

"but we should remember that there are millions without that strength through no fault of their own.

It is often a case of where they live, their educational chances or ability, social conditions etc." - Akenaton

The same old lame bloody excuses - Hey Akenaton, talking about disadvantaged backgrounds tell us where the fuck Carnegie came from. Tell us what he rose to.

He did not have a Welfare State to support him, he did not have benefits that he could rely on. Tell us Akenaton exactly what did he do? Tell us Akenaton why he could do it? Tell us Akenaton what is stopping the rest of you?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 May 08 - 07:59 PM

Hey teribus,

Do you know what most people do when they can't get work and have no support from some kind of social welfare?

They starve.

In the UK they don't.

Because there is a safety net.

It's called taking responsibility.

The resources don't exist on this planet to allow everyone to be a millionaire.

Only a very tiny percentage of people can ever know what that means.

Oh sorry, does your frame of reference not include anything beyond the borders of your own narrow existence?

Let them get on their bikes.

Sorry, but the idea that Everyone can be successful in the same way that a select few in the west have been is an illusion that requires one to be selective about ones examples.

The overwhelming picture is much less exciting.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 25 May 08 - 05:13 AM

Nice to see a bit of emotion from T.

Perhaps he is human after all, but I'm afraid his last post should be consigned to his already overflowing sewage system.

Of course, I agree that the out of control benefits system does nothing for the long term wellbeing of the poor.

But remember.... the benefits system is an integral part of Capitalism, without it you know very well Capitalism could not funtion.

During my lifetime, there have been successive govts of different political hues. They all had one thing in common....They were all attempting to make the Capitalist system work.

That system has now reached the end of the line as far as we are concerned.
WE need to take a long hard look at where we are going now and start to make preparations for our arrival.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 25 May 08 - 06:55 AM

Does anyone really know where we are going?

It seems there's no future for the human race as we've completely messed up this planet, lets just hope it's not too late to repair the damage! Don't hold your breath though, there's not much sign of the neccesary remedial action taking place so far, and time is rapidly running out!

There has to be a form of Worldwide Government to solve these apparently insurmountable problems, I suppose the nearest thing we've got to it so far is the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 08 - 07:02 AM

"Hey teribus,

Do you know what most people do when they can't get work and have no support from some kind of social welfare?

They starve."

Eh no Guest Lox, they do not starve, they do quite literally "get on their bikes" - they up and move to where there is work, that is what most people do.

In the UK there is a safety net that for far too many has become a bloody hammock, which they show absolutely no intention of ever climbing out of.

If you wish to be successful at anything the very first thing you have to do is to attempt to be successful at something, that calls for education, hard work and application - it does not drop out of the blue into the laps of those sitting on their fat arses feeling sorry for themselves and blaming everyone for their condition except themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 25 May 08 - 07:27 AM

Villan,
One more thing.

A reason you gave fro saying 'the government was dragging us into poverty' was


From: The Villan - PM
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:20 AM

Well I, like a lot of other people are struggling to survive with all the infaltionary costs etc.



Well, actually two things.

The prime minister is not your personal financial advisor, bank manager, or careers advisor.

Ditto a 'lot of other people'.

He's running the country i.e. trying to do the best for the country, just like Thatcher was, and rather a lot of people suffered then, too.

Just spend a short while imagining you are PM. Imagine what factors you take into account, and what information and sources you would have to have, in order to decide on your actions. And how much you would be in dilemmas where acting one way or another would equally lead to s o m e o n e suffering, and even not acting leading to someone suffering.

What do you do whereby whatever you do, there'll be losers?




The other thought is, if you are suffering financially, read Teribus's recent posts where he's telling us what to do if things aren't going well.


    best wishes, Villan


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:44 AM

Yeh, read Teribus, and tremble - for you are hearing the soul music that moves the tory party.

You got problems. Get off your fat arse and fix them yourself.

its the political orthodoxy over there in America - no compassion for the ones who don't maeke the American dream work.

If you want it over here - you may get it, sooner than you think.

Cameron looks like a successful man to me. great haircut.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:12 PM

And programme on BBC radio 4 now file on 4, about the causes of the current food price surges


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:50 PM

"But remember.... the benefits system is an integral part of Capitalism, without it you know very well Capitalism could not funtion."


Bloody clever these Capitalists, getting Socialists to set up a benefit system for them?


"What do you do whereby whatever you do, there'll be losers?"

SIMPLE! If you are Gordon Brown, you make sure that the losers are the poorest people with the least clout, and the winners are th larger nimber which you hope will vote for you as a result of their tax cut.

Poor Prime Minister? He certainly IS!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:22 PM

And this is what you do as an early act as new Mayor of London

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7419227.stm


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 08 - 02:07 PM

So when we DO answer your questions, and you don't like the answer, you change the subject.

Not much point in us responding then, IS THERE?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 May 08 - 02:17 PM

As I said teribus, try and see ouside your immediate field of vision.


The world is bigger than your back yard.

When people "CAN'T" get work, they do actually starve.

When people do not have access to resources they die.

In some cases they join up with bands of murderous thugs and get what they need by force.

Or perhaps you're saying we should make our country more like the third world.

Is that what you're saying teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 May 08 - 02:35 PM

Ivor.

I'm not sure whther to thank you for that information or not.

Thanks because it is better to be informed, no thanks because I would rather it wasn't true.

I am a single parent who has fought to make something of himself despite having to overconme the most horrendous obstacles on the way.

I have pretty much excaped the poverty trap now, with the result that my child is safe.

There is no way I could have done it if it hadn't been for the superb support that was provided by Lewisham council.

If I lived in teribus's ideal world, my daughter would have been in care long ago as I would have ended up homeless.

Charlie Chaplins "modern times" may have been funny, but I think we can be fairly confident he wasn't advocating that lifestyle. Perhaps even drawing attention to a social scandal that as a more evolved species we refuse to allow to happen again.

You'd like to think you've evolved wouldn't you teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 25 May 08 - 02:46 PM

Don

You and Teribus have not answered most of my questions, and I've already commented that one of your answers was barely the beginning of one.

I am quite aware of holding out on some of your and Teribus's questions, and the above is the reason why.

So you and I are in the same boat.

I have found the same thing elsewhere, i.e. good points going unresponded to.

So I'm giving a reason for not answering some for the moment.




    Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 25 May 08 - 03:13 PM

Meanwhile prog Channel 4 about future of planet - seems to be related to corporate activity.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 25 May 08 - 03:30 PM

Quote from prog via thera[pist James Hillman

"You can never get enough of what you don't need."


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 25 May 08 - 05:15 PM

That pillar of left wing politics, The Sunday Times, carries the following piece by SIMON JENKINS
In this article, Simon makes it clear that the days of "wine and roses" are over and that we must accept that cuts in energy use and consumption of scarce resources, signals the end of Capitalism as we know it.
"Travel must become a luxury."
"Living space and carbon fuels rationed."
"House prices soared not because of "need", need is not an economic concept, only demand"

Mr Jenkins is a bit of a favourite of mine, one of the few who tells the truth about where this mad economic system is taking us...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 May 08 - 05:23 AM

"Cameron looks like a successful man to me. great haircut. "

Great haircut indeed! No need to rub my nose in it, wld! LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 12:11 PM

That's boll***s, Ake

Some people HAVE to travel to EAT!!

I know, I'm one of them. And please don't tell me get a job nearer home. When you are 67 years old, you get a job where you CAN.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 01:11 PM

Sounds like its time to get on your bike ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 06:09 PM

Oh Don - if the system is so great, what were you saying about it on Sunday?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 06:23 PM

As far as I recall I was complaining about the complete balls-up of the current "Socialist" regime, who, in point of fact profess to be on YOUR side of the fence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 07:52 PM

Try starting from the fact that we haven't got a socialist regime - and ask yourself if you want more of the same or less of the same.

What has caused the situation you bewail is capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 08:04 PM

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

*********
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7(28%savings).

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

***************
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a pound out of the £20,' declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got £10!'

'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound, too.

It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two?

The wealthy get all the breaks'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.

'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

*********************

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics

Now ain't that the truth!!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:53 AM

That is supposed to indicate something? Who did the tenth man get his money from? The other nine of course. Doh!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:28 AM

Perhaps that's why Teribus has a Ph.D. and a chair of Economics.

Because he knows more about it than we do....DOH!

I like the way that was explained T. It has the ring of truth about it, and seems to reflect what we see in real life.

Nobody moans when the rich man pays 59% of the cost for all.

Everybody moans about him getting anything when there are benefits to be divided, in spite of the fact that he gets the smallest share, having paid the largest.

Everybody cries their eyes out if he is no longer around to foot the bill.

Amazing!

Then some bright spark suggests that he only has that money because he stole it from the others, who would, in fact, have nothing at all, if he did not generate the means of acquisition.


Until another system is invented, which works better, the destruction of Capitalism will simply mean everyone starves together.

THANK YOU, NO!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:44 AM

Don...Until population is reduced, production and consumption of energy brought to a sustainable level, Capitalism and other methods of "organising" humanity abolished, we will have no alternative other than to "all starve together"

There is no debate, the future is staring us in the face, the results of intensive farming have been a disaster and the brakes have had to be applied. The same will be true of the human livestock.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:33 PM

Ake, I have a great deal of respect for your opinions, but on this occasion you are way off beam.

The results of doing away with ""Capitalism and other methods of "organising" humanity"", will emphatically NOT cure the ills of humanity.

Only such methods of organisation stand between us and a world where a few ruthless, well armed thugs will take everthing they can reach, and the rest WILL starve.

Look at the situation in the Redneck states of the USA, where survivalists are already geared up to hijack anything they fancy.

They even have their own well drilled, and well equipped private armies.


All scaremongering aside, there is currently sufficient food on this planet to feed everybody, and all that is needed is redistribution.

But THAT requires exactly the kind of organisation you would destroy.

How does that make sense?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM

"a few ruthless, well armed thugs will take everthing they can reach, and the rest WILL starve." - Sounds like Capitalism to me.


"there is currently sufficient food on this planet to feed everybody, and all that is needed is redistribution" - Er, Don, Economics 101, capitalism provides it to those who can afford it, not to those who need it, and today we are seeing the consequence. I hesitate to draw again the parallel with your own complaints about life, but it is capitalism and its yoke upon "New Labour" (and your own demands for some types of conspicuous consumption) that cause your grief.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:09 PM

This has all gone very weird ...

I preferred the "3 men go into a bar" routine.

The 10 man format just isn't funny.

You can make any story about numbers fit your meaning and you can create illusions through all sorts of mathematical sleight of hand.

Here's an example that has no more bearing on reality than the one above but is hopefully a little more entertaining ...

three men want to spend the night in a hotel.

Their room costs 25 pounds

they each have a ten pound note

they club together to pay for the room.

The landlord owes them 5 pounds in change

But rather than try and split 5 pound three ways, he decides to take advantage of the situation.

And he gives them 3 pounds back instead

1 pound each

so they have now spent 27 pounds

and he keeps the remaining 2 pounds

Bringing the grand total up to 29 pounds

where has the missing pound gone?


This is merely an illusion but it serves to illustrate why there is no real argumentative merit in convoluted hypothetical analogies which can easily be invented to support any point of view thus serving as distractions from any genuine debate.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 10:56 AM

All scaremongering aside, there is currently sufficient food on this planet to feed everybody, and all that is needed is redistribution.

But THAT requires exactly the kind of organisation you would destroy.



And millions starve now, with the current undestroyed system.

Shurely shome mishtake.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: sapper82
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 04:37 PM

From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM

"a few ruthless, well armed thugs will take everthing they can reach, and the rest WILL starve." - Sounds like Capitalism to me.

Richard, Richard, Richard! You have just proved that you obviously know sod all about the system you claim to support!
That is EXACTLY what happened MANY MANY times in the former Socialist paradise of the USSR under Lennin and Stalin. The well armed Socialist thugs came, took the food and the peasants starved.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 04:48 PM

If the sort of prejudice Richard displays in this thread was directed towards a racial minority, he would be in breach of the law of the land.
By what right do you attack people on the grounds of their political orientation, before they have even started to do the job they have been elected to?
I am all in favour of condemning those who do wrong, but to condemn someone for their politics is prejudice in the extreme.

G

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 07:22 PM

More smoke and mirrors.

Ergo ... Richard you are clearly a racist QED (?!?!?!)

You fascist!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:39 AM

""I hesitate to draw again the parallel with your own complaints about life, but it is capitalism and its yoke upon "New Labour" (and your own demands for some types of conspicuous consumption) that cause your grief.""

Conspicuous consumption on a pay scale of £7 per hour? I don't think so. And before you make a complete fool of yourself, that pay is not as a result of Capitalism. I work for a CHARITY, which pays what it can afford, and at my age it is not easy to GET a job, never mind have a CHOICE of jobs.

""And millions starve now, with the current undestroyed system.

Shurely shome mishtake.""

No Ivor, I haven't been at the whisky, and sarcasm is indeed a pretty low form of wit.

When your car doesn't develop full power, do you put it in the crusher?

NO!! You tune it.

A system needs changing? Change it!

Capitalism is a commercial, not a political, construct.

The solution to the problems of starving humanity will, in fact must, be a political one. Only governments can alter national situations to produce the economic climate for poorer countries to trade for what they need,

When African leaders stop using aid money to buy guns, or feather their own nests, that change can be made.

I firmly believe that every person on this planet has some skill that can be exchanged for goods/services, and it is Capitalism which ultimately supplies the only market in which one can trade to get the best return, as opposed to being thrown a crust while the commissars eat caviar.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:32 PM

I think therein lies the heart of this disagreement.

A discussion that is cross purposes.

You clearly define capitalism as a commercial doctrine not a political one.

You also state that the problems of starving humanity are to be solved by political means.

So in your understanding these are two seperate and distinct contexts.

Yet to a "politician" who advocates a "capitalist ideology" they are not.

Equally, to someone like me who doesn't advocate a "capitalist ideology" they are not.

I see ecomomics and politics as indivisible.


And before we start blaming Africa for it's own misfortune and palming off responsibility for African poverty on it's leaders, we need to be honest and face up to western political and commercial abuse of Africa over the last 500 years or evn just 50 years depending on how broad a view you wish to take.

Either way, we can't take any honest pride in our business or political relations with Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 04:53 AM

Aye ...Thats about it...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 05:06 AM

Just how far back in history are some people prepared to go, to justify their beliefs, and/or prejudices?


G

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 05:41 AM

Justifying beliefs or prejudices is not my area.

If it is a concern of yours that's not my problem.

Your question shows you to be a little behind me in your thoughts.

I said: "or evn just 50 years depending on how broad a view you wish to take".

I should have added "... or narrow..."

My point being that you don't have to go back very far at all to see that Africa is still under the thumb of the west.

And as a little aside, Commerce did not award Mugabe his knighthood.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 05:47 AM

Aye Giok.

Deal with the problems of NOW. The past is over, and none of us in the "civilised" world have reason to be proud of it.

Politics and Economics are interlinked, NOT interchangeable!!

I repeat, governments must initiate change, and others must ensure the money supply needed to carry them out.

Governments do not, of themselves, have money. They acquire it by taxation, the vast majority of which comes, not from individuals, but from corporations.

But you must have capital to have that money available, or you get the USSR in the second half of the twentieth century.

Five year plan after ten year plan after five year plan, none of which work because there is not the cash available. The Commissars live high on the hog, while the populatio at large barely subsists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 05:48 AM

You cannot deal with, or solve today's problems by rehashing yesterday's mistakes.
It doesn't matter a fuck who gave what to whom, it matters that people are suffering and solutions need to be found.
It's like people squabbling over one piece of bread, as to who should have the moral gratification of giving it to the starving child.
The child doesn't care!!

G

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:21 AM

That last post is full of gross errors.

1. Capitalism is a political ideology that advocates allowing market forces to direct change and government intervention should be reduced.

This is a point of view that you clearly don't share or you wouldn't argue that governments should initiate change.

... interesting lack of understanding of market forces ...


2.Governments also make laws to inhibit the behaviour of their subjects.

This includes businesses and private individuals in equal measure.


3. Unethical business practice affects peoples lives in Africa right now - this minute - as we are chatting.


African instability IS - not WAS but IS the result of poverty.

Yet Africa is a continent rich with resources.

Most of Africas most valuable resources are owned by western companies and are therefore improving the lives of westerners.

A perfect example is Diamonds.

Ever seen what conditions in a Diamond mine are like?

Or how old many of the employees are?

Market forces won't help those kids.

Only a compassionate western foreign policy can, in which responsibility is accepted.

It is this knowledge that monsters like Mugabe are able to exploit to keep their grip on power.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:22 AM

I meant Don's though I believe I dealt with the point in Gioks post too.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:34 AM

This is only one example of African exploitation.

This has nothing to do with the past.

It is NOW!

So when you've finished trying to "justify your beliefs and prejudices" have a little think about the lad in the following picture.

diamond mines

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:53 AM

Just one question Lox.

Who, would you say, is in the perfect position to ensure that conditions improve in your diamond mine, and elsewhere in that country?

YEP!! GOT IT IN ONE.   The South African government, that's who.

BUT THEY DON'T.

My point, I believe. Governments MUST act.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 07:05 AM

Given a little less selective reading, you might have noticed that I have never said Capitalism is perfect.

I have in fact repeatedly said that it is IMO the best among the bad choices, and there is nobody on this thread who has even hinted at knowing a better alternative, unless anarchy is your bag.

I have also suggested several times that the way forward is to change, not to destroy, and I stand by that.

In spite of the pie-in-the-sky brigade's insistence that the world can run without capital, it cannot. And all the forms of government so far tried, have proved, whether by success or failure, that the only thing that has half a chance is labour and capital working together.

That's the bottom line, and until we eradicate this ridiculous hatred of the people who generate employment, by those who benefit from the earnings produced, we will never change the system to make it better.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 08:50 AM

The south African government doesn't have much control over Sierra Leone or Mozambique etc etc

... but that is a churlish response and doesn't tackle your point properly, merely giving me the feeling that I have scored some puerile point ...

The intelligent (and infuriating to have to spell out) response is that these countries are dependant on the corporations that exploit them in the same way that an abused child is dependant on their parents.

The leaders of exploited nations cannot just expel the companies exploiting them because they have no leverage. The corporations enjoy the advantages that corruption offers and support the corrupt regimes who hold on to power with fat inducements.

Like Shell in Nigeria, who have their own police force - the shell police (that is literal not metaphorical). If you were an Ogoni tribe member iin the 90's and complaining about leaky pipelines rendering your farmland infertile, you risked thiis bunch chopping you and the rest of your village up with machetes

Hand in hand, corporations and corrupt regimes destroy the land they exploit.

To add to this, the corporations enjoy the protection of their parent states eg in the case of de beers diamonds, the netherlands and the EU none of whom complain about the revenue.

And of course western arms manufacturers enjoy the profits of sales to these corrupt regimes to assist them to squash any dissent that may occur thus taking more of their money and helping them kill the people from whom the money has been taken.

The west must take responsibility for abuses that are current in Africa and the least we can do as individuals is be honest about it.

If we don't face up to it we will have no leg to stand on when china's commercial imperialism begins to wreak real havoc and we begin to moralize about them.

This is already beginning to happen.

Who has Mugab been getting his guns from?

For the record, what you are talking about isn't capitalism, you are talking about social democracy and on that point I am pretty much with you, though it is a broad concept.

The role of Government in my view is to ensure the enfranchisement of the common man.

Different people have different ideas about how to achieve that goal.

On one extreme you have people who believe that the government should butt out and let market forces do the job, and at the other end you have people who believe that the state should have a directorial role in the development of industry and commerce.

These days, these two extremes serve as useful concepts and landmarks in the development of our understanding of economics.

Neither is a serious political alternative on it's own, but neither can be ignored and it is nonsense to see this dicussion as being about what model we should discard and what has worked and what hasn't etc.

We are constantly evolving and growing (hopefully) and need to deal with the challenges we face.

But we can't deal with challenges we haven't faced up to.

The economy of the west depends on the subservient role played by the developing world.

We need to find a sensible controlled way of redressing this imbalance before the status quo collapses and the environment goes to pot.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 10:24 AM

"We need to find a sensible controlled way of redressing this imbalance before the status quo collapses and the environment goes to pot."

I was under the impression that I was saying much the same as this Lox, but the destruction of the Capitalist System, without having first some clue as to what will replace it, is neither sensible, nor controlled.

This has to be done with reason and compromise, or it is certain that what results will be much, much worse.

One good move towards a solution would be to give the UN much greater powers to set parameters, and the level of force needed to ensure that nobody overstepped those limits.
And all members of the UN should have equal say, with no vetos permitted. Majority rules...LIVE WITH IT! That should be the bottom line.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 11:19 AM

UN doesn't work, as Russia and others veto anything that seeks to cramp their spheres of influence.

G

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 04:00 PM

There are so many straw men in these arguments.

Don I made my sarcastic-free point because you don't explain and haven't explained how come capitalism does distribution - food, cement, ink, cars, vcomputers, paper , cosmetics - yet when it comes to food, all of a sudden governments have got to step when capiralism fails to deliver to the starving.

One straw man - nobody said or suggested that politics and economics were interchangeable; that's just misreading lox's post.


You can carry on saying capital and labour mus work together (in many ways they already do) after we've pointed out on what ways those two forces are in apparently irreconcileable opposition, one of many, many points you and teribus have simply ignored, or maybe don't have an answer for??

You both so 'forget the past'. I wish the right did when it keeps banging on about how everything went wrong with the 60s, or with things like the NHS.

"Those who forget their history will be condemned to repeat it."

It is impossible to deal with the humungous problems we have without grasping how we got here.m That's how the Imperialist Powers dealt with 'foreign parts' - never mind you history, we're going to divide it up with a 1-foot ruler.

I don't really think in the end these arguments are really at the lkevel of facts, theories, history ot knowledge. Alas.

It is no wonder that the punchline of the immortal Python Parrot sketch was, (talking of England/UK), "You've got to argue till your blue in the mouth if you want to get anything done in this country."


   Ivor


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 04:28 PM

Don, there is nobody saying that Capitalism can be destroyed overnight, but we should be making a start on dismantling it.

All the environmental damage which is now becoming evident, air and sea pollution, destruction of rain forest, starvation in Africa, brought about by organised overpopulation, can all be laid at Capitalism's door.
We need to start telling people the truth about our economic system.

There are also the social problems. Many people now see making money ...being successful....as the main goal in life. A society of haves and have nots cannot survive for long when the divide becomes so obscenely wide, in fact society seems to be in the process of disintegration right now, with gangs of feral youth terrorising whole areas of our cities.

Saying that we have nothing to replace Capitalism with is simply wrong.
The problem for the Capitalists is that any workable alternative will mean the beginning of the end....and not before time.

What makes Capitalism so utterly virulent, is that it is based not on need as Teribus says, but on demand and in most cases that demand is artificially created by Capitalism itself.
To satisfy that demand,we squander scarse resources, poison the water and air around us, create a moronic, vicious, uncaring society, while the real things of value in human life start to fade from memory.

Any alternative to the current system will of course mean huge changes to the way we live, and we should be under no illusions that we can continue doing as we do now and that a bit of tinkering can solve the problems. Change cannot take place until the Capitalists loosen their grip on our throats, but unlike the Communists, our leeches will adhere until until we rip them off with our bare hands.

If we are to survive as a species, it is not just the ideology of Capitalism which must be abandoned but the whole structure which has been constructed to support and service it.   The great cities, the technology, the financial institutions and ultimately all the funtions of "organised" government. It will be a long painful journey, but we have absolutely no alternative....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 05:49 PM

In my last post,

governments have got to step when

Should have read, "governments have got to step in when...."

You both so 'forget the past'

Should have read, "You both say 'forget the past'".


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 07:04 PM

""You can carry on saying capital and labour mus work together (in many ways they already do) after we've pointed out on what ways those two forces are in apparently irreconcileable opposition, one of many, many points you and teribus have simply ignored, or maybe don't have an answer for??""

Thanks for your permission. I have every intention of carrying on saying it.

Neither Teribus, nor myself have ignored the "apparently irreconcileable opposition". We have repeatedly stated that it will require compromise.

I will say again, there is a point where labour is getting the maximum pay for its work that Capital can cough up without going bankrupt. That point can never be found unless labour and Capital TOGETHER go looking for it.

""Saying that we have nothing to replace Capitalism with is simply wrong.""

If you go back through this thread you will find that the only alternatives suggested were as follows:-

1. Anarchy.

2. Dismantle everything, do away with all organisation, and go back to hunter/gatherer days. Or to put it another way, Anarchy.

You would think, would you not, that if there were a better system, that someone among all the haters of Capitalism on this thread, would be able to tell us what it is.


The only suggestion I am seeing is that we reverse the course of human evolution and revert to the primitive beginnings of humanity, and if that IS genuinely the only way for the human race to survive, then the whole damn thing has been a waste of time, and it isn't worth saving.

Fortunately, I will NEVER subscribe to that notion, because I truly believe that we are capable of better things, once we stop reacting out of hate, and envy to any who show greater talent, or ability, or intelligence.

In YOUR world of equals, WHO WILL DO THE DIRTY JOBS, when there is no incentive offered? WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF OTHERS, when it is easier to take one's own share and sit back?

Like it or not SOMEONE will have to organise, and manage, and that someone will seen as a boss, hated and envied. So there WILL have to be some incentive to take on the job, and here we go again.

Say after me, UTOPIA is fictional! UTOPIA doesn't work!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 01:43 AM

My point about distribution ignored.

It's the specifics of how capital and labout are irreconcileable that you continue to ignore e.g. the conflict between keeping down costs versus the need to raise wages to consume more to keep profits rising.

Et Cetera.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 03:32 AM

Don ...I don't need to repeat your words, I know there will never be a Utopia and that remark was unworthy of you.
I am talking about long term survival not Utopia.

Please explain how Capitalism can be made sustainable, when all the evidence suggests that it causes untold damage.
Surely compromise is unacceptable to Capitalism, any attempt to put the brakes on causes the Capitalist to withdraw and move on to easier pickings.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 04:56 AM

""My point about distribution ignored.

It's the specifics of how capital and labout are irreconcileable that you continue to ignore e.g. the conflict between keeping down costs versus the need to raise wages to consume more to keep profits rising.""

Not ignored, Auto!! Already answered.

In every equation there is an optimum balance point. Cost versus pay is an equation. Ergo:- solve the equation and you have the best available outcome for both sides.

""Surely compromise is unacceptable to Capitalism, any attempt to put the brakes on causes the Capitalist to withdraw and move on to easier pickings.""

In my lifetime, Ake, labour has never tried compromise as a way to achieve a better result.

A flat out demand for insupportable increases, coupled with demands for job demarcation, and pay differentials which meant everybody moved up a step but nobody was satisfied. That was the history of pay negotiations in the sixties and seventies, and if the boss refused to bankrupt the company by agreeing, then the labour force bankrupted it for him by strike action.

You see I DO have a long memory, too long for the comfort of some here, who might prefer to forget the days when a factory could be shut down for weeks because the wrong employee changed a light bulb.

There have, however, been many examples of (usually, but not always, small) companies where boss and workers HAVE negotiated compromise solutions which have led to those workers receiving more than the current union rate, and they have traditionally been vilified for it by the workforce at large, and been called traitors to their kind.

Much more sensible, IMHO, to have emulated them.


You can talk to me about Capitalist intransigence, but you need to recognise that intransigence has been, and still is, a two way street, and the meeting point IS in the middle of the road.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 05:56 PM

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,Albert
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 08:33 AM

I see in today's paper the Labour party are running scared. Harriet Harman, who is also leader of the Commons and the Party's chairman, said: "The BNP are a bigger threat than they have been before."

Labour is waging a campaign at local level to prevent the BNP from winning its first seats in the European Parliament.

In areas where there is heavy BNP activity, Labour is using the slogan, "fairness not fear", instead of its national banner "winning the fight for Britain's future".

She added "The party is focused on the BNP in this election in a way it hasn't been previously," she said.

You can't blame the British public for voting for the only party which appears to care for those who built this great country into what it is today only to see it flooded with every Tom, Dick and Harry walking into it and milking it for all it is worth.

She has a right to feel scared.