|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Compassionate Conservatives
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
OK, so this is getting ridiculous.
We started with the Dubs Amendment being cancelled - which already has it's own Hell thread. On that thread we picked up some more examples of how much MPs from the Conservative Party care about people.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Pauline Latham MP ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
There are no words to express how despicable this woman is.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
we also have Philip Davies also in the running for the position of Bastard of the Year. Though it's a very large field with lots of Conservative MPs in the running.
Now, we're certainly needing a dedicated thread.
George Freeman MP deciding that seriously ill people don't deserve payments to help seriously ill people live independently.
[ 26. February 2017, 20:16: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Compassion Conservative, as a group, is an oxymoron.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm missing something truly massive. I just can't compute why anyone who is working on an average wage, (occasionally to regularly) sick, has a youngster under 18 or a close relative over about 70 would vote Tory. It makes absolutely no sense.
Somehow the Tories have managed to capture an audience for their policies beyond the wealthy arsewipes who want to avoid paying tax by offering a platform of reduced wages, reduced benefits, reduced NHS, reduced social security payments if you are sick, reduced working protections, reduced legal aid. And about the only things that they're offering on the other hand is slightly reduced tax (although even that seems to be a debatable thing for the vast majority of workers) and the widely-used loophole to avoid paying so much NI.
For some reason I can't fathom, people seem intent on voting for policies and politicians who will inevitably hurt them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
They've convinced people it's the fault of Europe and Schroedinger's Immigrant. They convince the working poor that the unemployed are all scroungers and it's their fault. They then convince them that Labour and the Lib-Dems are on the side of Europe, Schroedinger's Immigrant, and the workshy. Old tricks, aided and abetted by the popular press. It's like the joke about the banker, the asylum seeker and the plate of biscuits.
[ 27. February 2017, 07:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I suspect what is happening is that a high proportion of those who might benefit most from an anti-Tory platform are not voting. Which leaves a number of above-average earners who balance their modest gains from voting Tory against all those "scroungers" below who aren't "pulling their weight".
It is said that the Nuclear Power workers in Copeland were decisive in the Tory win last week. It seems unlikely that this employer single-handedly has more workers than all the others. And it also seems highly unlikely that Tory promises on protecting nuclear power will save the workers and their families from other Tory policies. But somehow the Tories have been able to wave the threat of job losses to these (presumably) fairly well-paid workers in the area and that's been enough to decide the by-election.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is said that the Nuclear Power workers in Copeland were decisive in the Tory win last week. It seems unlikely that this employer single-handedly has more workers than all the others.
According to Wikipedia there are about 10,000 people directly employed by Sellafield Nuclear Plant, with a further 7,500 directly employed by BAE Systems building nuclear submarines for the Royal Navy. Figures for indirect employment are less easy to get hold of, but it's not a particularly massive leap to say that an awful lot of shops, restaurants, etc. in the area are reliant on those workers staying employed, not to mention the local businesses that must exist to supply the plant and dockyard.
So that's 17,500 directly employed in nuclear industries, with probably several thousands of others dependent on them in turn. The total electorate of the Copeland constituency is about 62,500, and the turnout last week was 31,889 - not bad for a by-election.
From those figures, I think it's very likely that the nuclear industries were a decisive factor in the by-election.
quote:
And it also seems highly unlikely that Tory promises on protecting nuclear power will save the workers and their families from other Tory policies.
If I had to choose between the possibility of a slightly better NHS or the strong likelihood of losing my job, I'd choose to keep my job every single time. And so would you, I'd wager.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm missing something truly massive. I just can't compute why anyone who is working on an average wage, (occasionally to regularly) sick, has a youngster under 18 or a close relative over about 70 would vote Tory. It makes absolutely no sense.
It is indeed difficult if you are not in the particular situation. Personally, I think it has to do with an implicit promise to kind of rewind to the past. I suppose that if you're in poor health and on the basis of rudimentary education have little future of escaping poverty (one reason why national lottos are popular too, as they enable people to buy the hope of possible change), then you might be happy to follow a promise, however dubious, of a supposed return to modest prosperity and dignity. Combine this with the fact that there are immigrants who are indeed getting ahead of native groups, then you also get to add a portion of envy to the mix. It is maybe not rational to vote for a right-wing charlatan, but it is nevertheless understandable, given the bleak outlook and loss of dignity in many peoples' lives.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm missing something truly massive. I just can't compute why anyone who is working on an average wage, (occasionally to regularly) sick, has a youngster under 18 or a close relative over about 70 would vote Tory. It makes absolutely no sense.
Perhaps it is because everyone (except those on the Ship of course - it would be too painful for them to question their political stances) has seen that despite regular Labour administrations since the Second World War, they have not actually managed to make things better for that group of people. Or indeed many other groups of people.
Even the Conservative Party has managed to elect two women leaders, both of whom became Prime Minister. How many from the left? The glass ceiling remains unbroken on the mysogynistic left.
Most people live in the real world - again the lefties on the ship are exempt from that - in which money has to be earnt by people who don't rely on taxes for their wages.
They recognise that the wealth creation parts of the economy need to be protected and allowed to flourish otherwise they will no earn anything.
It is a pretty simple idea really but like most simple ideas some people find it very hard to grasp. Socialists mainly and the young who don't think things through very well.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the interesting aspects of compassionate Conservatism is that quite often, they don't need to be. I mean, that there can a benefit from appearing tough-minded. Hence, attacks on 'scroungers' have been popular, ditto deporting people, I suppose. Cuts to disabled benefits also.
So the right wing don't need to be compassionate, or appear to be. I suppose there is the danger of a backlash, if they are too cruel. But historically, cruelty can become institutionalized.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If I had to choose between the possibility of a slightly better NHS or the strong likelihood of losing my job, I'd choose to keep my job every single time. And so would you, I'd wager.
You'd lose.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Perhaps it is because everyone (except those on the Ship of course - it would be too painful for them to question their political stances) has seen that despite regular Labour administrations since the Second World War, they have not actually managed to make things better for that group of people. Or indeed many other groups of people.
You really are a total prick. That is all crap.
quote:
Even the Conservative Party has managed to elect two women leaders, both of whom became Prime Minister. How many from the left? The glass ceiling remains unbroken on the mysogynistic left.
Those two thoughts have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The Labour movement and party has made lives better since the war and have not elected women leaders. The Tories have made things worse and have had women leaders.
quote:
Most people live in the real world - again the lefties on the ship are exempt from that - in which money has to be earnt by people who don't rely on taxes for their wages.
I'm in the real world. I appreciate that someone has to earn the tax - which at present is largely the low paid migrants, because the Tory-supporting wealthy bastards look for any opportunity to avoid paying tax. Funny that.
quote:
They recognise that the wealth creation parts of the economy need to be protected and allowed to flourish otherwise they will no earn anything.
And wtf is that supposed to mean?
quote:
It is a pretty simple idea really but like most simple ideas some people find it very hard to grasp. Socialists mainly and the young who don't think things through very well.
Yeah. Like that Marx fella, he didn't stop to think about the nature of Capital at all, did he? Socialist bastard, writing down a couple of random thoughts on the back of a fag-packet without doing any proper thinking-through.
Or that Nye Bevan, he never stopped to think what the impact of an NHS might be, did he.
The one thing that binds all Socialist reformers is the lack of thinking-things-through.
Yeah, whatever.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Perhaps it is because everyone (except those on the Ship of course - it would be too painful for them to question their political stances) has seen that despite regular Labour administrations since the Second World War, they have not actually managed to make things better for that group of people. Or indeed many other groups of people.
You really are a total prick. That is all crap.
Well done. Nicely missed the point there. No explanation for why Labour’s administration haven’t resulted in hover-boots and a life of leisure with robots waiting on us all, of course but then again I really didn’t expect one. Why hasn’t Labour done better?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Even the Conservative Party has managed to elect two women leaders, both of whom became Prime Minister. How many from the left? The glass ceiling remains unbroken on the mysogynistic left.
Those two thoughts have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The Labour movement and party has made lives better since the war and have not elected women leaders. The Tories have made things worse and have had women leaders.
Well I guess the feminist movement never happened in your part of the world. In my part of the world the men in the Consrvative Party looked to the best person to do the job and elected them into a position to do it.
I suspect the Labour Party looked at women and asked them to fetch a cloth if something needed dusting.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Most people live in the real world - again the lefties on the ship are exempt from that - in which money has to be earnt by people who don't rely on taxes for their wages.
I'm in the real world. I appreciate that someone has to earn the tax - which at present is largely the low paid migrants, because the Tory-supporting wealthy bastards look for any opportunity to avoid paying tax. Funny that.
Then explain why it is Conservative Governments who have actually closed more of those loopeholes than any Labour Government ever did. Look at the naming and shaming policies and the closing of tax-havens.
It’s probably so they can try to recover the tax all those wealthy Labour politicians and supporters from Tony Blair’s Governments salted away.
At least I can honestly say I never voted for him. The shame of those who did must be terrible.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
They recognise that the wealth creation parts of the economy need to be protected and allowed to flourish otherwise they will no earn anything.
And wtf is that supposed to mean?
Well they are simple word and a few minutes with a dictionary should help, or if you have one, perhaps talk to a friend with an IQ greater than his or her shoe size.
If you are really struggling I suppose one ought to help you.
Governments don’t create wealth. They don’t make money. They only take money from people who do make money. These businesses are called wealth-creators.
If you take too much money from wealth-crating companies, or call them nasty names like capitalistic pigs, they will most likely move away from your country and employ people in another country.
That means Governments cannot take taxes from those people who used to work for the wealth-creating company. They don’t have wages anymore.
So most people who work for wealth-creating companies have enough awareness of their position, that they want governments to make it a good, nice, happy place for those businesses. That way they will keep their jobs and live better lives than if the business was in another country.
Does that help to clarify things? If there are any confusing – or “big” – words, please ask a friend.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It is a pretty simple idea really but like most simple ideas some people find it very hard to grasp. Socialists mainly and the young who don't think things through very well.
Yeah. Like that Marx fella, he didn't stop to think about the nature of Capital at all, did he? Socialist bastard, writing down a couple of random thoughts on the back of a fag-packet without doing any proper thinking-through.
Or that Nye Bevan, he never stopped to think what the impact of an NHS might be, did he.
The one thing that binds all Socialist reformers is the lack of thinking-things-through.
Yeah, whatever.
Jo Rowling spent a lot of time thinking about magic, but neither it nor Hogwarts exist. Marx was wrong. His ideas were shown to be dodgy a few years after he had stopped fiddling with the maid (there’s that lefty misogyny again) and wrote down his errant nonsense. One of his basic premises was that employees would become poorer. They didn’t and later revisions missed out those tables entirely.
I’m not an expert but I would assume that sort of massaging of data would get you disqualified from any serious economic debate.
So all you have is one decent thing to make things better. The creation of the NHS.
Which brings me back to my original point. Labour has had many administrations since the war and they have accomplished so very little.
They have failed time and time again to do anything to make things better to any kind of average person except that once.
Failure after failure.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well done. Nicely missed the point there. No explanation for why Labour’s administration haven’t resulted in hover-boots and a life of leisure with robots waiting on us all, of course but then again I really didn’t expect one. Why hasn’t Labour done better?
Yeah, why haven't Labour produced hoverboots. That's exactly the question people are asking.
quote:
Well I guess the feminist movement never happened in your part of the world. In my part of the world the men in the Consrvative Party looked to the best person to do the job and elected them into a position to do it.
And yeah, she's doing such a fucking great job.
quote:
I suspect the Labour Party looked at women and asked them to fetch a cloth if something needed dusting.
Fuck off.
quote:
Then explain why it is Conservative Governments who have actually closed more of those loopeholes than any Labour Government ever did. Look at the naming and shaming policies and the closing of tax-havens.
Bullshit. Arsebandit.
quote:
It’s probably so they can try to recover the tax all those wealthy Labour politicians and supporters from Tony Blair’s Governments salted away.
Yeah, because all those industrialists throughout the last 60 years have primarily been supporters of the Labour party and the agenda of improving the lot of working people rather than the Tory party which was only interested in assisting them to feather their own bottom line.
Yeah, that's exactly what's happened.
quote:
At least I can honestly say I never voted for him. The shame of those who did must be terrible.
I'm surprised you can say anything. Your own fist must be thrust so far down your throat that I'm surprised any noise comes out at all.
quote:
Well they are simple word and a few minutes with a dictionary should help, or if you have one, perhaps talk to a friend with an IQ greater than his or her shoe size.
Yeah. I should have a book on my shelf which will help. It is called "Deciphering the nonsense posted by mindless trolls on bulletin boards".
quote:
If you are really struggling I suppose one ought to help you.
Fuck off. Given your obvious inability to spell or write more than two coherent words, nobody is ever going to be asking you for any help on that score.
quote:
Governments don’t create wealth. They don’t make money. They only take money from people who do make money. These businesses are called wealth-creators.
And how do you think they're creating wealth, oh fount of all economic wisdom? Magic?
I'm bored of replying to all your other nonsense. Go play with the traffic, thickboy
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I suspect the Labour Party looked at women and asked them to fetch a cloth if something needed dusting.
I suggest you go and talk to Kezia Dugdale (you know, Labour Party leader). She may push you through that glass ceiling from above. If you're lucky there will still be an NHS to treat the lacerations you'll receive from the broken glass.
quote:
Governments don’t create wealth. They don’t make money.
Bollocks.
Governments investment in the economy is a vital role, one that this government has been miserable at - slowing recovery from recession and stifling private enterprise. Governments invest in infrastructure - roads, rail, utilities etc. And, they invest in training and education, regulation, research and development, security and policing so that business can operate freely, healthcare and housing so that workers are fit and healthy, and also direct investment in some industries that are considered national priorities. All of which allows the entire economy to grow.
Now, go and crawl back under your rock. Join the other scumbag Tories wallowing in your sub-human priorities and convictions.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Governments don’t create wealth. They don’t make money.
Keynes thought that governments do create wealth. For thirty years after the Second World War both Labour and Conservative governments worked to Keynes' theory. Result: living standards for everyone in the country steadily rose.
Then the Conservatives under Thatcher adopted your theory. And Labour went along with it because nobody would vote for them otherwise. Result: the rich got filthy rich and living standards for everyone else stagnated.
You've complained that you and people like you are no longer getting better off on other threads. The point at which that happened to the general population of this country is the point at which the political classes switched from the Attlee paradigm to the Thatcher paradigm.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
deano: quote:
Governments don’t create wealth. They don’t make money.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Tell that to the Royal Mint. The government is the ONLY agency in the UK that has the legal right to make money.
Everyone else is just moving it around.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
deano: quote:
Governments don’t create wealth. They don’t make money.
Tell that to the Royal Mint. The government is the ONLY agency in the UK that has the legal right to make money.
Everyone else is just moving it around.
The Bank of England might have a thing or two to say about that...
But presumably the point is that these institutions aren't increasing the money supply (except for, say, stuff like QE)?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Anglican't: quote:
But presumably the point is that these institutions aren't increasing the money supply...
That may have been deano's original point (if he had a point beyond spewing random bile) but what he *actually said* was that the government didn't make money. This is demonstrably false; the only reason why the monetary system works is because we have governments and the rule of law backing it. Otherwise anybody could set up a counterfeiting operation in their kitchen and commerce would grind to a halt.
Incidentally, the reason why I said the Royal Mint and not the Bank of England is that the Mint is still a government agency, whereas the Bank is (theoretically at least) independent. The Mint issues coins, the Bank issues notes.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I’m working at the moment, creating wealth for the private company who is my current client.
But just to answer Doc Tor’s wash of verbal diarrhoea, his blah actually confirms my point. All of those things he listed have not been seen by the average person, or even the below average person described in the OP, as benefiting them.
If they had been seen as benefits then Labour would have been in power continuously since 1945. Clearly that has not been the case.
This means the OP’s hypothetical person thinks…
1) They are okay but we’d have got them from a Conservative Government anyway sooner or later
2) They are not worth as much as Labour thinks they are to me
3) Frankly I’d rather cut down the list and have more money in my pocket to spend on me and mine as I see fit
So again I say that Labour has failed to improve the lives of those average people mentioned in the OP. If they had they would have been in power more. They have not, and most likely that list of doc’s is not viewed as anything to write home about and if some of them had been shelved and more money put into the pockets of the Labour voters, they might have had more electoral success against us evil Nazi’s in the Conservative Party. Quite how we have the time to get elected in between gassing all and sundry and using children in our workhouses is beyond me, especially when Labour is so lovely and sweet (not counting the misogyny of course).
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bullshit. Arsebandit.
A touch of the old homophobia there, eh, mr. cheesy?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
You are right, I was not aware that this was a homophobic slur. My apologies.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But just to answer Doc Tor’s wash of verbal diarrhoea, his blah actually confirms my point. All of those things he listed have not been seen by the average person, or even the below average person described in the OP, as benefiting them.
Those were just the things from 1997-
So, let's get this straight. Your 'average person'
isn't old
isn't young
doesn't have kids
doesn't work
never goes to the beach or walk by a river
isn't Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish
isn't gay
loves blood sports
hates public education
never gets ill
lives in castle
and
doesn't breathe
All was looking good, until we got to the last one, eh Deano, you massive cockwomble.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
1) They are okay but we’d have got them from a Conservative Government anyway sooner or later
And while I'm on (and apparently have immunity from flood control)
Every good thing about this country was wrested, sometimes by force, from the Tories. What's happening now is all the good things are being taken away. And we'll (more likely my children) take it back again.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I'm not sure how deano can say that the Tories would eventually have given us various good things. They tend to be the ones who close them down.
Although, you have to also credit the old Liberals, who did bring in various stuff, e.g. pensions, in fact, you could describe Lloyd George as the founder of the welfare state. The Tories tend to chop it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The UK is a shit-poor one-country case example to use to make this case. None of your gov'ts have had the capacity to to set independent economic policies for at least 100 years.
The conservative way is to protect property and capital, while minimizing taxes and avoiding spreading any goodness that money could bring to the less fortunate.
We saw things going far better for the general populace before ~1980, when the general global decision succumbed to the lower taxes on business, and promised lower taxes for everyone. While the wealthy experienced the greatest benefit, companies did even better, and laws and regulations allowed the shielding of money from tax. The average taxpayer had some window dressing tax cuts, nothing more. No single economy has been able to resist this. Such that Canada, UK or Australia etc cannot up their tax rates if they are competing with the various iterations of Reaganomnics we've experienced ever since.
I have mentioned before that I am a small business owner, and have been for 35 years. The tax system has greatly benefitted me financially, but I have seen the progressive cuts to basic welfare state services over time, and the moves toward privatization. What privatization does is allows costs to rise as companies take profit, degrades service, and costs the citizen consumer of the service more. All the while gov'ts can deflect blame for rising costs and degrade standard of living onto companies, pretending outrage and inquiry. Basically tinkering.
I react rather strongly to people who use wording like "wealth creation". That's nonsense. Wealth is merely money, in an accumulated form. The purpose of gov't and society is to balance aspects which incentivise people to work and make money, and those aspects which improve life for the community members. Wealth creation means profit taking and, if you follow the likes of wealth and business advisors, it means trying to screw others over to take profit, and not being a part of a community at all where you care in the least about the individuals. All the while, fooling them into thanking you for doing it.
My experience as a small business owner and partner in two other companies, is that most people who say they are in business aren't really. They are insulated from having to meet a payroll and from worry about the month to month issues. People like self-employed professionals with no or limited overhead costs and company structure. FWIW, I pay more in tax by several times, what the average wage earner makes income. I know business and how it operates.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I'm not sure how deano can say that the Tories would eventually have given us various good things. They tend to be the ones who close them down.
Although, you have to also credit the old Liberals, who did bring in various stuff, e.g. pensions, in fact, you could describe Lloyd George as the founder of the welfare state. The Tories tend to chop it.
Just on an interesting side tangent, it's often forgotten that the Labour party's factional infighting meant that it was the last of the 3 main parties to promise in its 1945 manifesto to implement the Beveridge report.
The Tories and the Liberals both pledged to set up the NHS while Labour was fighting with itself about whether the welfare state wasn't something that could wait as the main priority should be nationalisation of industry. I mean, well done to Mr Attlee for winning the argument in his own party, but the provisions of Beveridge would have happened pretty well regardless of who was in office.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
