BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 07:22 PM

It's also the case that, on this very day and in this very thread, I've fundamentally disagreed with Dave, and, in the recent past, I've disagreed with Raggytash about Jim, and Raggytash has vehemently disagreed with Jim, and Jim has disagreed with me, and I've vehemently disagreed with pfr about pornography. Sometimes, the red haze may quite likely have prevented you from spotting these things. Funny that, innit, Iains...? One can be bloody robust (as we are with each other) without being bloody uncivil. Give it a whirl. We're all patient men.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 06:26 PM

Iains, I don't think Jim has posted on this thread at all and I cannot see where Steve has referred to anyone by anything other than their Mudcat moniker. We need to stick to the present and not dredge up any old grudges if we are to make any progress in anything. Surely that is what you and I have just been discussing quite civilly? I cannot understand how 'chastising' someone for something they have not done helps anyone nor how two such wrongs would make a right anyway. And D the G is not that annoying but I would prefer DtG. Let's not get too sidetracked on trivia though.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 05:46 PM

Raggytash: My name is Iains simply because someone else was already using Iain back around 2000. Inanes and mental midget are frequent constructions I see, usually accompanied by further insults. There are only about 5 of them that insult regularly;
Sauce for the goose and all that. And by the way. Do you live in a glass house?

You should note that the liberal left are by far the biggest offenders.
Anyone regarded as supporting brexit is regularly vilified on here.
Turning the other cheek means that both cheeks end up stinging. This is not the attribute of a sensible man.

If I was to see you chastise shaw or jimmie as well I might well be swayed by your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 04:37 PM

Hmm......... Iains, just an idea for you to think about, and I know I'm possibly not the best person to say this.

Throughout this thread people have managed to address each other by their given name or pseudonym.

The one exception has been yourself. For example, referring to Dave the Gnome as "Gnome" and then when he explained his reason for using his particular pseudonym suggesting you use DtG, a reasonable request I would have thought, however you then posted D the G, not a huge matter but I would suggest slightly irritating.

You compound the matter by referring to Steve Shaw as "Shaw" totally unnecessary and frankly in my opinion quite childish.

This section of Mudcat has improved dramatically recently, please let us try and maintain that improvement.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 02:37 PM

With very few exceptions, in any democracy the electoral roll must be open to everyone above the age determined by law (I'd make it 16 myself, but hey). If you are obliged to be in the income tax system, to pay council tax, or even to be called up to fight, you must be allowed the vote. In apartheid Rhodesia and South Africa all manner of "qualification barriers" were put in place in order to make sure that only the "right" people got to vote (in other words, mostly not blacks).

Right-wingers such as yourself have always opposed political education in schools for fear of leftie teachers indoctrinating the poor little dears. Taking that stance then suggesting a minimum qualification is, er, incongruous, to put it kindly. Maybe we should have GCSE = one vote, 'A' Level = two votes, degree = three votes, PhD = four votes, Eton = ten votes... We all know that you Tories recognise that the least privileged and the most disadvantaged people In society (the ones least likely to pass your GCSE) are the ones who traditionally turn into Labour voters. So nice try but no cigar.

If we want a politically-literate electorate we need proper political education, not some namby-pamby version wrapped up as "civics" or similar. Failing to be robust about this is a denial of basic democratic rights. Of course, a knowledgeable electorate would produce perceived drawbacks for a certain right-wing mindset...,

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 02:04 PM

No-one said it would be easy, Iains. You have hit on a universal truism though.

this can only happen when they are not at each others throats.

This is true not only of industrial relations and business but of life in general. Maybe if we were not all at each other's throats so often these threads may have a more sucesfull conclusion than the inevitable closure :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 12:59 PM

Shaw if you really want a pissing contest just remember you have hurled plentiful insults around indiscriminately and they are all archived.
My list would be way bigger than yours!
The moderators will do whatever THEY deem to be necessary.

D the G the history of the trade unions in the UK does not make for happy reading. I can agree that workers and management are best qualified to create a successful business, but this can only happen when they are not at each others throats. The evolution of unions in the UK seems to have created a different beast when compared to Germany, but recent times in Germany have seen a decline in numbers and a more confrontational attitude develop. My knowledge of unions is skeletal-the closest I have come to such an organisation is a chartered society. It is very different both in form and function.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/31/germany-trade-unions-model-disaster
We seem to have moved from the massive confrontations seen around the 70's.Is this due to emasculation of the unions or better arbitration? or both? It would make for far happier industrial relations if both sides learnt to collaborate and more stringent procedures for grievance resolution were in place

" If we have 600 and odd members of parliament beholden to no-one but their constituents and a system where their vote on any given issue is publicly displayed I think we would find that they soon begin to take heed of what the electorate say."
That would seem a stunning idea to me!
Perhaps the electorate should require more to be franchised than simple passing a specified birthday and residence qualification.
You need qualifications for any trade or profession and increasingly need to participate in a "continual professional development" program to retain the right to practise.

Perhaps a GCSE or equivalennt in civics should be required to be entered on the elctoral roll. Possibly to be revalidated at 70.
.
Lost days due to strikes damage both industries and the economy.
It is at present a complete fantasy to believe politicians, workers and managers/owners can work together, yet after several hundred years of industrialisation you would think such a "triumvirate" would be working seamlessly together. To generate efficiency if nothing else.
There are no easy answers and all sides of the equation must share the guilt.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 09:22 AM

One reason the whips have so much power is that they studiously collect all the dirt on their MPs and use the threat of disclosure to keep them in line.

In local politics in this part of the Westcountry most of the councillors are "independents" though it isn't too hard to see that they are generally right-wing and would align themselves with the Tories when push comes to shove. An ostensibly non-party system would, I fear, produce a similar reversion to type. We'd also have candidates without a party machine behind them who would be too poor to afford an effective election campaign. Could push the country more to the right...

As for electing people to comply with our wishes, well I vote for the candidate who is more in line with my way of thinking than the others (though for years I've actually been prioritising keeping the Tories out). After that I expect him or her to become more expert than I am in matters politic and I don't necessarily expect them to comply with my wishes. If they don't to an intolerable degree I can vote them out next time. Far better if they act with integrity in what they judge to be the best interests of the country (even if it means putting me taxes up...)

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 08:20 AM

You suggested that the present system of government was not working Iains and I suggested an alternative. You can see flaws in the alternative and stated what they were but did not tell us how you would go about fixing it. Criticism is easy. Coming up with potential solutions is harder but what we should be aiming at.

I disagree with your analysis though. If we have 600 and odd members of parliament beholden to no-one but their constituents and a system where their vote on any given issue is publicly displayed I think we would find that they soon begin to take heed of what the electorate say. Or they would feel it in how the electorate vote next time! Talking of which - No general elections. I would have an election of 1/4 of the house every year so no MP can stay longer than 4 years without a vote. I would also introduce a system where any seat can be brought to another poll by popular demand. But we are now getting to fine detail before the major changes so I should stop!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 06:13 AM

Fair warning to you, Iains. I'm cataloguing all your recent petty rudeness and insults and the whole lot will go off to the mods unless you cease and desist forthwith and start to act like a normal, flawed human being.

.....................................................................................................

As for the £350 million per week for the NHS, the question you say you can't answer, well forgive me for reminding you that your side did answer it during the referendum campaign. You told us it was coming from all that money that we would no longer send to the EU. All I'm doing is asking for an update. So when does it start to roll into the NHS coffers? March 19 next year? Hmm?

"You would end up with a rudderless ship on a stormy sea, with a final destination changing by the minute."

Which is precisely where we are now,

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 05:20 AM

Lewis Carroll of 'Alice' fame also wrote 'Sylvie and Bruno' and 'Sylvie and Bruno (Concluded)'. On the whole they are terrible stories, but they have their moments. The first contains Peter and Paul where Peter is impoverished but is given a loan by Paul. However, the interest rate is extortionate and the money is never actually paid in the first place.

I think the political message is entirely accidental.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 05:19 AM

"My plan to resolve this situation (in the mythical land of Gnome) is to abolish party politics."
If you achieved such a situation divides would still occur between opposing points of view. I suspect that instead of a ruling party an endless hamstrung coalition of opposites and appeasers would result.
You would end up with a rudderless ship on a stormy sea, with a final destination changing by the minute. I cannot see this as being any kind of improvement on the present party politics, or perhaps you viewed the previous coalition as a resounding success?

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 05:04 AM

The more sensible among us realize that Peter has to be robbed to pay Paul

I think everyone knows that we have to pay for everything, Iains, but when Peter is a multi million pound corporation like Amazon and Paul is the sick and needy it is hardly a robbery is it. Just think of it as enforced philantropy.

You have already agreed that the "unfettered capitalism" lining the pockets of the few at the expense of the many is a bad thing. Your solution is to change the political structure. Mine would include changing the way these companies are run. It is here where representatives of the workers can do better. Instead of having an 'us and them' union/management war how about cooperation with workers representatives, shareholders and management at board level. The concience of the company can be provided by labour and the commercial acumen by capitalists.

I don't believe attack is the best way to get disputes resolved. Either in commerce or here! There is a better way and compromise is a two way thing.



DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 04:38 AM

"And Iains. Where's our ?350 million per week for the NHS? "

Well I know I am an extremely clever little shit but I am afraid I cannot answer your question. Also let us be realistic. Now matter how I responded you would immediately attack it. So go away and fight with a vacuum instead.
The argument has to be about money you stupid boy. How else is your socialist dream supposed to be funded? Manna from Heaven perhaps?
The more sensible among us realize that Peter has to be robbed to pay Paul and the resulting argument is ongoing and the compromise achieved satisfies no one. That is an unfortunate fact of life. As also is the fact that the resultant bill has to be paid if not now, then in the future.
    Perhaps you share that utopian Celtic belief that debt can be transferred to the next life before settlement? A socialist lala land no doubt!

"If economics is all about money and nothing else, Iains and Tory-style, then I don't want to know."
Economics definition:
the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.
What a funny little fellow you are shaw. Your warblings clearly demonstrate that you do not know about economics and you clearly state that you do not want to know- Yet to continue to chitter on as though you have a minimum of a PhD in the subject! Deluded or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 04:21 AM

Novella? F***ing spill chucker.

The Nigella thread.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 18 - 04:20 AM

The Novella thread is far more fun, Steve. But, yes, the pot needs to get bigger as well as spending wisely. As far as I am concerned the best way to do that is to collect what is due from those companies who are paying far too little. Others will disagree.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 08:10 PM

"The public purse is a finite resource"

Why, of course. But the Tory philosophy makes it a damn sight more "finite" than it ought to be. Instead of properly funding the health service, training our own doctors and nurses, giving adequate funding to the education system, sorting out the crisis in the care of the elderly and disabled, making sure that our bins are emptied every week, that our streets are kept clean and our potholes filled, and making sure we have enough policemen, we'd rather give the money needed for those things to wealthy shareholders (who make money sitting on their fat arses - talk about a benefits lifestyle - where have I heard THAT before!), or to billionaires who put all their money into tax-free overseas havens, or to non-doms, or to multinational corporations who demand low corporation tax under threat of moving out (in other words, holding the country to ransom - where have I heard THAT before!)

If economics is all about money and nothing else, Iains and Tory-style, then I don't want to know. I want the government to work for the people, not look after one class of spivs and to hell with all the non-Tory-voting rest.

John Seymour, he of all those self-sufficiency books, a bit of a right-winger who had little time for the welfare state, wrote a great little book called Bring Me My Bow in which he decried the Tory-style ideology of economics for the entrepreneurial few (that is, the ripoff merchants), as well as the economy of scale. He had the gall to try to include human happiness in economics. How dare he, Iains! A damn good read.

And Iains. Where's our ?350 million per week for the NHS?

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 06:07 PM

I agree Iains (Feel free to cut it down to DtG BTW. I do :-) )

One point I have made over and over again in many political threads here and elsewhere is underlined by your statement The party whips and lobbyists would appear to have far more control over those elected than those that elected them. My plan to resolve this situation (in the mythical land of Gnome) is to abolish party politics. Remove the party whips and make sure each elected representative votes on issues according to their own conscience and the wishes of their electorate. There would still be alliances and tactical voting of course but wouldn't it be much better if the people that we elect actualy did what we wanted?

There is still my reservation about those who think they can run a country being barking mad and therefore not fit to do the job. I am still working on how to resolve that one...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 04:51 PM

D the G. You highlight the opposing polarities and the need to seek a middle ground. We all want to retain the "Socialist" aspects of Heath, Education, Pensions, etc. in order to nurture a cradle to grave "caring society". The problem arises when trying to fund it. It has to be from the profits of capitalism. As you point out, unfettered capitalism takes no prisoners and left to itself can generate obscene profits for a favoured few. These few can fund vast armies of taxation specialists to make a mockery of tax legislation in many countries, As a result they retain most of their profits. Politicians seem unable or incapable of challenging this state of affairs. Short of a revolution, politicians are the only group able to legislate to change this situation. First the conversation must be initiated by the electorate. Some believe in the ethical purchase of goods, I would prefer to see the concept applied (with great publicity and intensity) to the selection of all politicians.
We need to be far more discriminating in choosing our representatives, and have vastly increased powers to fire them when they disregard their electorate. There is little point in having representatives that do not represent you! The party whips and lobbyists would appear to have far more control over those elected than those that elected them. In a rational world, this is a most bizarre state of affairs and must be rectified.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 03:40 PM

Well, thank you for agreeing Iains but I must point out that my name is not gnome. My name is Dave. The tag 'the Gnome' was one I used in self deprecation and to differentiate myself from the many other Daves on here. If you find Dave the Gnome too long to type I suggest you do what I do and use the initials DtG. Now, back to the show.

The public purse is a finite resource and not all decisions on expanding or curtailing expenditure turn out to be the right ones. The problem is finding a way to make the correct decisions.

There you have the fundamental economic problem. How to fill unlimited needs with finite resources. It is the problem that has perplexed politicians and economists alike probably from the dawn of time. It can never be solved of course but we can look back on past mistakes and try to tweak things to make them better. At the start of the 20th century workers rights were non existant. By the 1960s that had been tweaked but that resulted in too much power going to the trade unions and that power was widely abused. The swing of power then went to finance and we have seen the result of derestricting the banks.

This is, as I am sure you will appreciate, an over simplification but in our lifetimes we have seen too much emphasis on both sides of the economic balance, labour in the 60s and 70s, capital in the 80s and 90s and a mish mash of policies that have made policies all look alike since!

I do not have the answers but it is obviously time to try something else. Responsible capitalism? Limited socialism? Probably a compromise between the two. Whatever it is though should not involve the running down of our excellent health service nor should it entail increasing profits only to line the pockets of the few. It will not happen in my lifetime but hopefully, before long, the people that hold the real power will see that the greed that has created today's divisions between haves and have nots is no good for anyone.

We can but hope.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 03:12 PM

"Those dealing in absolutes in the cases are fooling no-one but themselves."

Well I feel I have to agree with you there gnome. The public purse is a finite resource and not all decisions on expanding or curtailing expenditure turn out to be the right ones. The problem is finding a way to make the correct decisions. Politicians do not deliberately make bad decisions. Economic and social factors mold decisions but the mechanisms to evaluate unintended consequences do not really exist.
Closing uneconomic pits saved government money and preserved the health of ex-miners but was enough done to provide alternative training and employment in these areas? The answer would have to be a resounding no.
You could also argue that the damage done to communities can still be seen today. All sides of the political spectrum were at fault for this state of affairs.

Wilson's white heat of technology speech back in 1963 outlined a series of proposals that had much merit. But looking back, just how much of it came to fruition, and for those items that did, what happened subsequently, and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 01:21 PM

There are Benefits in propping up ailing companies. Not the least of which being keeping people in work. Faced with a decision of putting money into keeping wages paid, an industry alive and all the ancilliary jobs going or putting thousands out of work, paying benefits and hoping for a recovery, which would you do?I

I realise of course that this is as much a false dilemma as Keith Joseph's and the sensible approach will be a compromise. Those dealing in absolutes in the cases are fooling no-one but themselves.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 12:53 PM

Wielding the scalpel put millions out of work or on bogus "incapacity benefit" (Thatcher's way of massaging the unemployment figures down) and destroyed whole communities. No future for millions of young people. Running a country is not just about economics. That's the Tory way. It's about looking after all the people. The Tories are interested only in the rich and in people who vote Tory. 'Twas ever thus.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 12:28 PM

But what does public funding of steelmaking, coalmining, car manufacturing achieve? An increasingly expensive, inefficient, uncompetitive liability generating an ever increasing debt that those industries could never, ever hope to repay.
Your socialist pie in the sky dream was a nightmare reality until politicians got sensible and wielded the scalpel.

Only a fool would dispute public funding for health and education and other social necessities.
Only a fool would tip public funding into subsidizing a bottomless pit of archaic industries. The only part the unions played in the story was to exacerbate an already hopeless situation.British management won no prizes over the same period of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 11:20 AM

Keith Joseph was barking mad. Job security "propped up" by public funding is what creates a healthy teaching profession, a good NHS fit for purpose backed by a strong medical profession, adequate public services and care for the elderly and disabled. It should also be the foundation of pharmaceutical and energy industries and of public transport, none of which should ever be run for the benefit of shareholders. And maintaining industries is more than just about money and profits. It's about maintaining and supporting communities of PEOPLE. The trouble with the Tory mindset is that it's purely about money, except for an hour's hymnsinging and standing up for Jesus of a Sunday morning. Tasty little signs of an economy in malaise, not that the fat cats would notice or give a damn about them, are ever-growing class sizes, ever-longer patient waiting lists, ever-longer waits at A&E, more food banks, more homelessness, increasing child poverty, even bloody potholes all over the roads. The Tories' not-so-secret weapon for keeping the plebs in line is to rob them of their job security - oops, sorry, I mean create a "flexible labour market," one of the most obscene euphemisms since someone invented "collateral damage" for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. Well look where it's getting us: just about the worst growth and productivity figures of any major economy. There were never jobs for life, just as there was never a benefits lifestyle. These pejoratives were inventions intended to soften us up for bringing in harsh and unfair economic policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 09:52 AM

The working population must choose between narrow illusory job security in one place propped up by public funds or the real job security based on a prosperous dynamic economy.

False dilemma at its best. Considering the author's closeness to Margaret Thatcher it does not surprise me in the least though. To re-quote a much more down to earth writer from earlier in the thread,

somewhere in the middle lies common sense

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 08:41 AM

"We didn't ditch our big industries because they were uncompetitive. We ditched them because most of the workers didn't vote Tory and kept being annoying by demanding fair pay and conditions,"

Thank God your teaching career did not include economics.

As Keith Joseph succinctly stated:The working population must choose between narrow illusory job security in one place propped up by public funds or the real job security based on a prosperous dynamic economy."

Also compared to both France and Germany, at that time, the UK unions had far more freedom to create havoc. (and they did!)

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 06:55 AM

It's an excellent argument for staying in the EU because the EU insists on workers' rights, decent working conditions and fair pay. A model to aspire to, sure enough, not always achieved, nonetheless a model for how we should want the countries we trade with to behave. Seems to me that being "competitive" to some people means being ruthlessly exploitative. So let's ditch the EU and trade more with countries that are more "competitive" because they use child labour, force people to work in dangerous conditions, pay them next to nothing, deny them the rights that we take for granted...we can always turn an expedient blind eye, and, anyway, the poor have always got Poundland and Primark. Now lessee where they buy their goods from...

We didn't ditch our big industries because they were uncompetitive. We ditched them because most of the workers didn't vote Tory and kept being annoying by demanding fair pay and conditions, and, anyway, let's have an economy based on the activities of unregulated City spivs who made themselves and a select few filthy rich and the cheerleaders for me-first, and well, if those non-doms and other mega-rich offshore tax-evaders want to hold the country to ransom (now where have I heard that before...), we can always treat them gently...

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 06:48 AM

So, what you seem to be saying is that the only way to attract these companies is to turn a blind eye to their tax avoidance? Do we really want to encourage a culture where big companies feel that they should not contribute anything to the countries in which they make vast profits? I don't! This greed culture has generated vast inequalities and it should not be allowed to continue unchecked. A number of large companies and very wealthy people are beginning to see it as well. Have a look at the article from the Business Insider I linked to earlier if you don't believe me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Stanron
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 06:06 AM

Dave the Gnome wrote: So, it's OK that these big corporations pay little or no tax while the NHS is in crisis due to lack of funding? Do you not think that rather than clamp down on people allegedly misusing disability payments the governments efforts would be better spent in closing these massive tax loopholes?

Perhaps that is the wrong question. What if they decide to work from abroad and not employ any people in this country? That would result in a fall in our tax intake and less money available for the NHS.

It's the government who makes these kinds of choices and we vote them in or out as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 05:55 AM

So, it's OK that these big corporations pay little or no tax while the NHS is in crisis due to lack of funding? Do you not think that rather than clamp down on people allegedly misusing disability payments the governments efforts would be better spent in closing these massive tax loopholes?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Stanron
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 05:51 AM

Dave the Gnome wrote: How about rich companies like Shell, Vodafone, Lloyds Bank, Amazon etc. etc. They pay no, or very little, corporation tax. Well, apart from what they spend to line the pockets of their pet MPs...

Their employees, who live in this country, will pay income tax here and will pay 20% vat on stuff they buy here. They will pay fuel duty and booze duty too.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 05:00 AM

but the idea that the rich pay no taxes is ludicrous

It is indeed. How about rich companies like Shell, Vodafone, Lloyds Bank, Amazon etc. etc. They pay no, or very little, corporation tax. Well, apart from what they spend to line the pockets of their pet MPs...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Stanron
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 03:27 AM

Big Al Whittle wrote: Thatcher and every tory government since has stuck to the right wing gospel that fuck all needs doing except seeing the market forces have free rein and that the rich pay no taxes.

i can see that you and Stanron probably go along with that. Terrifying you've both got the vote really.

I do think that governments who interfere with market prices create more economic damage than benefit but the idea that the rich pay no taxes is ludicrous. The rich may well spend a smaller percentage of their overall wealth on tax than the poorer person but they far spend more in total. Just in vat the tax on a roller or bmw will be more than I will spend in total this year, and that's before they pay for fuel, plus fuel tax, or the wages of a chauffeur (which would include his income tax too).

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 02:47 AM

somewhere in the middle lies common sense

Spot on, Al. There are those on here that cannot see that though. Hence these continual circular arguments.

Iains. You only quote one part of my earlier post. Why is that I wonder? (See previous sentence)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jan 18 - 02:40 AM

not really an anti brexit argument, Steve. There are powerful arguments, but that ain't one.

yes iains - loony left have a lot to answer for. so does laissez faire right wing half understood economic theories.

somewhere in the middle lies common sense, much maligned pragmatism. Thatcher and every tory government since has stuck to the right wing gospel that fuck all needs doing except seeing the market forces have free rein and that the rich pay no taxes.

i can see that you and Stanron probably go along with that. Terrifying you've both got the vote really...

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 18 - 09:41 PM

Not really what, Al?

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Jan 18 - 06:36 PM

Not really Steve.

The only problem with Brexit is that the people carrying it out represent constituencies where the school boy economics of THatxher, Lawson. Lamont, Waters never really drew blood.

Preparations for reorganisation after Brexit should be the biggest filip to an economy since FDR repealed prohibition.

Spanish factory ships should have their marching orders. Marine biologists should be working the optimum number of fishes our coasts could sustain. Ship builders and environmental experts should be working on the optimum size fishing boats. Licences to use them applied for.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jan 18 - 06:01 PM

"Anyone who thinks that all the worlds problems will be solved just by making more profit is living in a fantasy world that has proven to be false for the last 40 years."

Conversely any fool that thinks a business can be run continually at a loss requires instant certification and incarceration.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 18 - 05:23 PM

And yet some of the richest people in the world are starting to agree that they were being too greedy for their own good. As I keep trying to explain, economics is not just about make more profit for the few. Don't take my word for it though. Try that bastion of the loony left, Business Insider.

This is an article from nearly 5 years ago and it has got worse since. Anyone who thinks that all the worlds problems will be solved just by making more profit is living in a fantasy world that has proven to be false for the last 40 years.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 18 - 05:19 PM

You've just made an excellent argument for our staying in the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jan 18 - 05:10 PM

"Better than before we decimated British industry,"
These were the same structural changes occurring both in Europe and the US. Heavy industry changed in response to more competitive regimes in SE Asia. Uneconomic sectors closed, the efficient sectors produced more value with less workforce.
You make the usual mistake the left of blaming government for the decline of many industrial areas. Perhaps you feel countries such as India, China and Korea(to name but a few)should remain in the stone age so Britain could continue in it's inefficient ways. You are a 21st century Luddite who wants to play Canute with the industrial output of more competitive countries. To preserve the status quo you would need expensive subsidies and a market for uncompetitive goods, In the real world both such options run out of road rapidly. Being competitive is a swear word to the trendy left. No winners are allowed for school sports and everyone lives in la la land. The loony left has a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Jan 18 - 04:05 PM

I suppose really its all a question of perspective. Stanron, you seem to think the economic heath of the nation is very good at this precise moment.

Better than when we had less than a million unemployed, before they started fiddling the figures. Better than before we decimated British industry, without making alternative plans.Family life collapsed in all the heavy industry areas, Heavy drugs became the alternative economy in those places. England became full of displaced persons living on the streets And add to that middle class indifference to the effect on the labour market thousands of economic migrants and the death of the fishing industry which had stretched around the entire coast of our country. Add a half a dozen pointless wars with no after care and counselling for the wounded soldiers, and bereaved families.


yeh! highly satisfactory! You really need to be an incendiary red hot lefty to think all is not as it should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Stanron
Date: 04 Jan 18 - 11:10 AM

Raggytash wrote: His perspective on the 80's is at a considerable variance to mine.

I presumed it would be. My experience puts me in agreement with his view. At 1:30 this afternoon I watched another program in this series with, this time, Harriet Harman. Although I don't agree with her politics the interview was interesting and informative. Incidentally later on today there is a program called Turning Points, also on the BBC Parliament channel. This one will be about the 2008 financial crash. What I like about these programs is that they are not adversarial or politically biased. Other interesting programs on the Parliament channel are lectures from the Speaker's house. MP's give lectures on previous members of note and other subjects. There's one early this morning at 01:25. Sarah Wollaston MP delivers a lecture in the Speaker's House on the future of the NHS. If I'm still up I might catch it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Jan 18 - 08:56 AM

Well Stanron, I too watched the whole programme, I think Lawson only stated what I would have imagined he would say.

His perspective on the 80's is at a considerable variance to mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jan 18 - 06:08 PM

The 1980s were good years for conservative rich white people. It was an age of the right wing, all over the world.
Kinda sounds like the present time, doesn't it?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 18 - 05:49 PM

One jib at at time at our age, please, John...

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jan 18 - 05:21 PM

I like the cut of Nigella's jibs too...

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 18 - 08:12 AM

I've just watched the whole thing and what Raggytash said was exactly what struck me too. He was completely delusional about the 80s, which was a horrible decade for many working class communities. The conversation steered clear of the damaging deregulation of the City which took place on his watch, the government-by-spiv mindset of which helped to leave us the legacy of the crash in 2008 (no thanks either to Blair and Brown, before I get accused of being tribal). There's not much doubt that Thatcher became more and more autocratic as time went on, but his attitude to that sounded more like sour grapes in that he wasn't being allowed to have the influence that his massive, granitic ego demanded.

We needn't dwell on his ridiculous stance on climate change. Thoroughly irresponsible that a man with his influence can spout the kind of ignorance that can only help to threaten the planet by giving succour to vested interests in the fossil fuel industries.

He was often hesitant and was confused over dates. He got the year of Thatcher's premiership wrong and he didn't seem to know the decade in which the UK joined the EEC. We could indulge him in excusing all that as elderly-bloke stuff, but we shouldn't excuse anything from a man who seems determined to carry on having such a baleful influence. I have five of Nigella's books and I like the cut of her jib. We had her pasta with lentils to soak up the booze on New Year's Eve.

Subject: RE: BS: Conversations - Nigel Lawson (Political)
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Jan 18 - 07:56 AM

The other interpretation is that during the eighties measures were put in place that changed the UK from the 'sick man' of Europe to one of it's two strongest economies. Or are you saying that this didn't happen?

Don't forget what our lot was in the 1970's. The 3 day week, 20+% inflation and an aweful lot of damaging industrial action.