Merged thread – Unelectable Corbyn and Let's not bomb ISIS

So no real data then, ok.

As I said, I’m not hiding anything. If you’re too lazy to use a search engine then that is your loss.

You don’t have a clue about teachers that much is clear.

So your argument is my ignorance, which is totally undermined by you being ignorant. A more prudent response would have been to ask what I know of teachers. My answer would have been that 3 of my best friends are teachers. They work damned hard, and work a lot of hours, I never suggested otherwise (one of them starts at 6.30, just so she can get a space on the photocopier). But their pay and conditions reflect the work they put in. When the teachers go on strike, my friends go shopping or spend time with their families, they don’t go and protest, because they aren’t bothered. They see it as extra holiday.

CharlieHunt

Will you be answering that charge that you are an ‘enabler of obscene money’? #324

I too would like to become such. What’s your secret ?

Ahem, selective memory at best. Yes not all were affected, Germany wasn’t particularly either, but the vast majority of the western world was.

Which kind of makes my point – the global crash was a failure in policy in many different countries – but not all.

Absolutely. Not sure that I’ve ever claimed it was all and exclusively the bankers fault. I am one after all. Yet you conveniently ignore the fact that politicians do not dream up de-regulation alone with no outside influence and the fact that the population will generally quite happily take something that makes them feel a bit wealthier without too many questions.

I don’t doubt that for a moment – however, these were bad policies, made, in our case, by a party who did not fully understand the market, even if it professed that it wanted to. It accepted promises made by industry without fully considering the implications – although the warnings were certainly there. It led to 110% mortgages, and all the rest of it – which promised so much – and so much tax, but could not deliver.

That’s a funny position for an obvious socialist to take. Generally speaking, the discussion of NHS affordability is considered blasphemy by the left.

As with most of a partisan bent the idea that somebody doesn’t fit into a neat box is blasphemy. I do understand that it is a concept that is difficult for you to comprehend but I don’t self associate with a particular party or creed. I’ve never felt the need to be part of the (popular) gang.

My views on some things such as defence would likely make your head explode; I don’t want to upset your equilibrium too much at the moment so I won’t mention that I’d be dropping teeny tiny atomics over Syria and parts of Iraq today, oh whoops sorry, hope it hasn’t caused too much damage to your preconceived beliefs!

My friends cancer is being treated successfully, and is hopefully not terminal. But with the increased waiting time by using the lower tier German health service, who’s to say it couldn’t have become terminal.

Hope the treatment is successful.

I agree on that – the teachers at my childrens school work bloomin hard when the kids aren’t there, and they certainly don’t go home at 3.30 with the kids.

If you think today is any less feudal than centuries ago you are kidding yourself.

Are you serious? Do you have the slightest evidence to back that up?

Look at any UK tabloid from Yesterday and today, and use Google to look at the ongoing Union dispute RE: London Underground. The dispute that apparently has nothing to do with money, yet they have rejected an offer on the grounds of the pay increase…

We also have to suffer annual teachers strikes (who are paid handsomely, and get 50% more annual holiday than the UK average)

So no real data then, ok.
You don’t have a clue about teachers that much is clear.

Isn’t that what we have now? Admittedly it isn’t perfect but you make it sound like we live in feudal times!

If you think today is any less feudal than centuries ago you are kidding yourself.

I am always concerned at the lack of objectivity whenever I read references to ” the obscene amount of money”.

I suppose it’s only obscene for some if they haven’t got it.

Which is exactly the sort of comment I expect from an enabler of the system.
Obscene in the sense that nobody as an individual requires anywhere near such an amount to exist extremely comfortably.
To pursue the acquisition of even more post a certain point is obscene if perhaps perverse.

Management also act in a constructive and responsible manner.

I see nothing to indicate that on the whole, management don’t act in a responsible manner here.

Britain cannot afford the NHS in it’s current guise.
As you have introduced the topic I will comment. I do not know the nature of your friends cancer and it’s level of fatality but perhaps an assessment of the situation has meant the state funded medical services have concluded that the cost benefit of prolonging your friends life is not beneficial to the country. The person in question can afford to pay to prolong life but perhaps not reverse the situation. If that is the circumstances then the state funded regime is making the correct, albeit hard, choice in my opinion.
Perhaps the NHS should also be following similar guidelines?

That’s a funny position for an obvious socialist to take. Generally speaking, the discussion of NHS affordability is considered blasphemy by the left.

My friends cancer is being treated successfully, and is hopefully not terminal. But with the increased waiting time by using the lower tier German health service, who’s to say it couldn’t have become terminal.

Data please.

Look at any UK tabloid from Yesterday and today, and use Google to look at the ongoing Union dispute RE: London Underground. The dispute that apparently has nothing to do with money, yet they have rejected an offer on the grounds of the pay increase…

We also have to suffer annual teachers strikes (who are paid handsomely, and get 50% more annual holiday than the UK average)

I’m not sure that inflated property values is a great indicator of sustainable economy.
Then what was the / is the nature of those companies? What sustainable benefit to the country did or do those companies bring?

Why wouldn’t it be ?? Those inflated prices are still there. The prices themselves encourage companies to build -in a country that has had large scale immigration how would you expect to house those people without building?? As a by product of that the companies that build equipment -supply construction and sell the products that people want to furnish their houses gain.

…government should exist to serve all the people not merely act as a facilitator allowing those with independent wealth to make use of those without such means to retain the existing wealth and accumulate more of it.

Isn’t that what we have now? Admittedly it isn’t perfect but you make it sound like we live in feudal times!

I am always concerned at the lack of objectivity whenever I read references to ” the obscene amount of money”.

I suppose it’s only obscene for some if they haven’t got it.

Snafu- ‘The last Labour government was pathetic, not for the economic issues, but because it reflected the apathy and state of decline of Britain at the time’

Not sure what Britain you were looking at ! We had the longest prolonged period of house price growth in the last forty years ! Where exactly were you seeing the decline as plenty of companies over here were virtually printing money!

I’m not sure that inflated property values is a great indicator of sustainable economy.
Then what was the / is the nature of those companies? What sustainable benefit to the country did or do those companies bring?

Bruce – David Millliband would want the top Labour job for the reason that its what his father wanted! Whatever amount of money you earn or position you hold – if your driving ambition has always been for one job why would that ambition change!

Interestingly David is visiting Lesbos today in his role for IRC – I wager he stops off in London on the way back to the U.S for a chat with ‘New Labour’ !

Rather than use % try looking at what those % actually represent in numbers.

Using % neatly hides the obscene amount of money held by and flowing to the top %.

Once people start to see the actual figures rather than expressing them as % there is very little opportunity for pretence that the system is in anyway anything other than one designed to ensure those with obscene amounts of wealth a) retain it and b) continue to accumulate it.

People in the “middle class” who are relatively well off with a degree of disposable income and an aspiration to become one of the wealthy are mere enablers of the system with little to no ability to actually realise their aspirations.

Well, perhaps something more of an explanation than ‘there is no jam tomorrow’ may help?

From your post above are we to assume that retaining wealth and accumulating wealth (while paying a hefty tax bill) are something to be frowned-upon? Or something that government should put a stop to?

Glad you picked up on the above post.
No is the simple answer.
The more detailed one is government should exist to serve all the people not merely act as a facilitator allowing those with independent wealth to make use of those without such means to retain the existing wealth and accumulate more of it.

Snafu- ‘The last Labour government was pathetic, not for the economic issues, but because it reflected the apathy and state of decline of Britain at the time’

Not sure what Britain you were looking at ! We had the longest prolonged period of house price growth in the last forty years ! Where exactly were you seeing the decline as plenty of companies over here were virtually printing money!

Firstly, the crash wasn’t a global phenomenon. Australia and Canada were little affected, so it can easily be argued that appropriate positioning by the government of the day could have averted at least some of the fallout from it.

Ahem, selective memory at best. Yes not all were affected, Germany wasn’t particularly either, but the vast majority of the western world was.

Neither was it all the fault of the bankers – as is repeatedly trumpeted by the ignorant. It WAS a failure in regulation caused by poor policy making, and by greed of all types – corporate, political and personal.

Absolutely. Not sure that I’ve ever claimed it was all and exclusively the bankers fault. I am one after all. Yet you conveniently ignore the fact that politicians do not dream up de-regulation alone with no outside influence and the fact that the population will generally quite happily take something that makes them feel a bit wealthier without too many questions.

Well, perhaps something more of an explanation than ‘there is no jam tomorrow’ may help?

From your post above are we to assume that retaining wealth and accumulating wealth (while paying a hefty tax bill) are something to be frowned-upon? Or something that government should put a stop to?

Agreed, you said ‘obscene’ amounts of wealth, but what counts as obscene? And are you really sure that ‘the system’ isn’t designed to do anything other than this?