Mecky Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 And keeping tight lipped about any cuts before the election was totally benevolent of Labour was it? How about getting Tony Blair to win the election only to hand over the rigns to Gordon even after stating he (Tony) would serve a full term? Or Thatcher to Major for matter, your point is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handypandy Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 There are many who believe the Lib/Dems shouldn't have accepted a coalition, they should just have voted on the issues they believed in, IMO they will be fortunate to end up with any council seats next election and the Tory ones will be greatly reduced - then in the next general election after the Tories have sorted out the mess they were left with the Labour Party will reap the benefit as they come to power signed.......Mystic Peg What you have highlighted is exactly why the voting system is a farce. Cabinet seats should be allocated pro rata with the seats per party. A full coalition if you will. Ban the lobbyists and scrap the whips. It would never happen of course...much too democratic and no room for vested interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 What definition of "Earn" are you using? I interpret it as meaning "Meriting adn Deserving" of something, which if used also by yourself would leave it open to personal opinion as to whether or not you are earning what you are paid. People earn what their employers are willing to pay them for a contracted type of emoloyment - whether the left wingers like it or not, the fact remains that some people are paid a lot more than others, because their skills and experience are worth a lot more to an employer. Some people aren't even worth minimum wage. Socialism fails to understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellieB Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 What definition of "Earn" are you using? I interpret it as meaning "Meriting adn Deserving" of something, which if used also by yourself would leave it open to personal opinion as to whether or not you are earning what you are paid. I am paid what I earn as I am self-employed. What is your excuse? Are you working? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellieB Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 Sorry KellieB but council housing has always been subsidised. I understand the point you're trying to make but you cloud the issue by the fact that you wanted social mobility, presumably knowing that as you bettered yourself (admirably enough) and earned more, you would have to pay the level of taxes which people on a higher income do. Most would agree that all our governments could have spent the taxpayers money more wisely and there are shocking examples of this around us but, someone has to pay into the kitty to run everything and it is fair that the better off pay more than the poor so the social mobility that you are rightly proud to achieve carries the drawback of demanding more in taxes from you. This was always going to be the result as you seem to acknowledge regarding the students of the future so it seems you wanted to better yourself but still pay a poor person's rate of tax. As for attacking the police, the vast majority of the student protesters were not involved in violence - like footballs fans, a small minority of violent people get the majority a bad name. I never said I had a problem with putting back into the system hence my reluctance to go on the streets and attack the police. I think that my 50% rate of tax pays for an awful lot.... I'm not a millionaire.... unlike Red Ed who protests against it and went through the same system as me but gets to spread his wealth in ways he doesn't pay a fraction of what you or I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellieB Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 Unless you went to the University of Buckingham which is the only private University in the UK the state massively subsidised your University education, just as it has always provided or subsidised your previous education, your healthcare, your childhood housing... You might like to think that you got where you are due to your own efforts with no help from the state and that consequently you owe society nothing and that anyone askign you contribute something is "hypocritical and corrupt" but that simply isn't the case. Everybody in our society business types included benefit massively from having a strong state which efficiently provides services healthcare, education, the rule of law, transport infrastructure... that businesses are utterly dependent upon. Socialism may well be hypocritical but no more so than you. People can sometimes become hypocritical like yourself. I was never and could never become a student of the future, I was a student of the past and yet I am set to pay a 50% tax on all my earnings (in case you have no idea what that means its 50p taken away from every £1.00 I earn) plus NI contributions on top. Are you paying that level for your education in tax? The real losers here are the people who never attended a university or struggled through a socialist regime to climb the ladder and end up paying the same in tax as the rest of us for having ambition and aspiration but no university education. Socialism fights for social mobility and when those people in their own camp achieve it, they become the enemy. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellieB Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 Personally I'd have kept the natural monopolies in state ownership for the obvious reason that the free market & all the benefits that can bring simply can't function in those areas. And they would have ended up like Northern Ireland water. I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellieB Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 Not at all, I'm not making a personal attack and not taking anything personally. I am not an out and out socialst nor right wing. Like the majority of folk in this country, I'm about straight down the middle. The country should be run as a profitable enterprise but with a vigorous social conscience. There will always be a small minority of people who cannot be trusted to get off their backsides and fend for themselves and clearly they are a problem that needs to be addressed. They are the cancer of society. Then there are the people who may need some encouragement to fend for themselves, who may not have the education or the confidence that others enjoy and therefore get tarred with the same brush as the idlers. Then of course there are genuine cases, for whom work is not immediately available or is impossible through no fault of their own. These people still need the dignity of an income, short or long term, as their circumstances necessitate. Workers with families, at the bottom of the pay scale, for the foreseeable future, will require some form of subsidy because 'lead in' pay rates are not realistic when you set them against what it actually costs to live. Other than the above, I have no problem at all with whatever pay the individual can negotiate. If a sportsman can make £10m a year....good luck to him.....If a businessman/ woman can make £100m a year then good luck to them. The only thing I ask, is that when they are earning these super incomes...... please dont begrudge the rest of us enough to live on. What is your view on getting the idling or cancers of society (as you call them) back into work instead of costing the taxpayer a fortune to subsidise them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellieB Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 Just this one part of your post shows how wrong you are. If your parents' council housing wasn't subsidised then why was the private sector so much more expensive? Given that you fail to understand this economic fact casts doubt on the other points you attempt to make. At that time council rents were high and public sector pay was low.... the unions sorted that one out quite a few years later and now we have a position where the average job for job in pay scale is that the public sector earn an average 8% above the private sector and enjoy gilt edged pensions (index linked) when the private sector can't afford a pension and its all paid for by the private sector.... who else pays for it max?.... the socialist/ Marxist Labour party out of their own kind pockets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellieB Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 People earn what their employers are willing to pay them for a contracted type of emoloyment - whether the left wingers like it or not, the fact remains that some people are paid a lot more than others, because their skills and experience are worth a lot more to an employer. Some people aren't even worth minimum wage. Socialism fails to understand this. Well said. These so called (socialists) lard arses do confuse me as well. Well, actually.... not when we have socialist benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.