Politics

[Christmas Tree 4815]

We must be fair to everyone – even the rich

 

Prosperity masked deep social divisions. As the cuts bite, the fractures will widen unless the pain is shared

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle7125822.ece

 

 

For all their muttering about jobs forgone and policies traded away, many Tory backbenchers think that David Cameron has played a blinder. They know that “Lib-Con cuts” won’t have the same deadly ring as “Tory cuts” would have had in the coming age of austerity. Many Labour MPs hope that the coalition will kill the Liberal Democrats for the same reason. But they are seeing things only through the prism of their tribe.

 

I may be naively optimistic, but it seems to me that what has happened is much bigger. Before the election, the greatest risk to Britain’s future was that politicians would keep shuffling Gordon Brown’s A4 lists of vague “efficiency savings” until foreign investors lost patience and drove interest rates sky high.

 

What we have most desperately needed is a leader who will make courageous decisions to balance the books. We also need a leader who can convince us that the pain will be shared as equally as possible. Mr Cameron is the man to do the first, Nick Clegg the man for the second job. There is now a chance to bring the country through recession more united than divided, even to reshape the State.

 

“Fair play” may have come to seem a quaint notion, the predictable mainstay of Britishness studies. But it remains deeply emotive for many of us. A widespread and corrosive feeling has developed in this country that other people are getting away with things. There has been a growing disconnection for many years between Labour governments that talked fervently about fairness while constructing a world in which peaceful protesters were assumed to be terrorists, parents were suspected of child abuse, criminals were let off lightly and people feared that the police would put them in court for defending themselves. In which people who worked in finance were making like bandits and public officials were taking huge payoffs to move from job to job, while the hard-working middle found itself paying for a benefits system that is wide open to fraud and has trapped people in dependency.

 

On the purely financial question, the problem with “cuts” is that each little group suspects that it will be hit harder than the others. So it is important that the deal being hammered out by the coalition already has many of the hallmarks of a fair settlement. It will freeze public sector pay, raise the retirement age, overhaul the welfare system and tax banks. It aims radically to transform and improve schools, which will be critical to increasing opportunity.

 

There is a surprising absence of green taxes on pollution. But the coalition will move towards the Liberal Democrat desire to raise to £10,000 the threshold at which income tax is payable . This is sensible: it is an outrage that the richest fifth of people in this country pay less as a proportion of income tax than the poorest fifth. But the devil will be in the detail. Raising the tax threshold must not take priority over reducing the deficit; the better-off can only be squeezed so much.

 

It’s a delicate balancing act. George Osborne knows that there is still a widespread view that rich bankers should take all the pain, because they caused so much. But he also knows that Britain cannot afford to be hostile to enterprise.

 

One evening last month at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in London, Swiss government officials were mounting a canapé pitch to persuade 200 financiers of the merits of moving to Geneva. If the British Government gains a reputation for imposing arbitrary taxes on unpopular businesses we will lose entrepreneurs in all sorts of sectors, not just hedge funds. Like any group, the rich need to pay their share as part of a fair deal.

 

Some will choose fondue and to keep more of their cash. But if they were only focused on the cash, many would have left already. I have met many entrepreneurs and financiers who are deeply concerned about inequality in this country. They recognise that poverty impoverishes us all. Those people are as frustrated by the ineptitude of the State as they are by high taxes.

 

I have never met an entrepreneur who didn’t believe in people, their common sense and their capacity to invent and develop. For 13 years we have had a party in power that was fundamentally pessimistic about people, believing them incapable of taking the right decisions. Eventually, the belief that the State knew best led to sustained attacks on civil liberties, and too many directives and targets for public services, which were totally counter-productive.

 

Revulsion against this command- and-control mentality offers potential for a much deeper alliance between Conservatives and Liberals than might at first appear. In The Liberal Moment, a booklet he wrote for Demos last year, Mr Clegg argued that “progressive conservatism” was impossible (as well as an oxymoron), because Conservatives are cautious about the unintended consequences of change and reluctant to change the social pecking order.

 

But I wonder. What has been striking in the past few years is that most radical ideas for tackling poverty and inequality have come from what the media likes to call the Centre Right. free from the dead hand of the State. The Conservatives have become passionate about solving Britain’s social crisis, not just its economic crisis, and see the two as linked.

 

Philip Blond, the thinker who describes himself as a new Tory, has argued persuasively that people need a stake in what they do. When the profitable Vestas wind turbine factory in the Isle of Wight was threatened with closure by its Danish parent, Blond raged against rules that appeared to prevent the workers from taking control through a management buyout. This has strong echoes of Mr Cameron’s concept of the Big Society, which would roll back the State and unleash entrepreneurialism in the public and private sector.

 

The division of Left and Right makes less and less sense. The widest gulf is now between the defenders of the people and the promoters of the State.

 

When an overwhelming majority of people in Britain agree with the phrase “people who play by the rules get a raw deal”, it is time to understand that fairness is not simply a matter of employing outreach workers to ensure equal access to public services.

 

The recession has broken open deep frustrations about immigration, the welfare state and inequality, which had been masked by prosperity. Austerity measures could exacerbate those divisions. We need the rich and business to drive growth. We need to put the poor on a road where they can contribute. We need to grit our teeth and share the pain.

 

 

This does seem to be the way we are headed and its hard to know how this will play out 20 or 30 years down the line. The parties will only get closer and closer, politically and voting will be reduced to a sort of x factor politics, if not already.

 

Labour and Conservatives have moved too close to the centre and I cant really see either party moving back to old stomping grounds.

 

Im also unsure whether this makes governments better or worse ie the fact that we are not reeling policies from the left to the right, more tinkering on the edges.

 

With regard to the defecit and planned cuts etc.... a commentator on the above article left this little story which I found amusing.

 

 

 

Let us suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

 

The fifth would pay £1.

 

The sixth would pay £3.

 

The seventh would pay £7.

 

The eighth would pay £12.

 

The ninth would pay £18.

 

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

 

So, that's what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20." Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free: but what about the other six men - the paying customers?

 

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

 

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

 

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).

 

The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).

 

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).

 

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).

 

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

 

 

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

 

 

"I only got a pound out of the £20," declared the sixth man.

 

He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"

 

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only two?

 

The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.

 

"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth [richest] man and beat him up.

 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

 

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. However, tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and..........

[spongebob toonpants 4122]

you are an idiot

[Renton 21973]

That story just about sums up Mr 'I know about politics' Christmas Tree.

 

Its as old as him and about as funny as well.

[Christmas Tree 4815]

That story just about sums up Mr 'I know about politics' Christmas Tree.

 

Its as old as him and about as funny as well.

 

 

Saw this and thought of you

 

 

 

 

Why not use it as your avatar

[Craig 6700]

Politics, like religion is inherently biggoted. Everyone has beliefs and it's extremely rare for a person's views to be swayed.

 

A particular government could preside over the worst administration in history and still a large proportion of their supporters would still refuse to vote for their direct opposition - even in the face of cold, hard realism that the opposition would offer a better prospect.

 

I think they're also blinkered to any positives that their opposition bring in. Take Thatcher for instance. Now there's a bitch I personally couldn't and still can't stand and will be one of those with a grin on my face when she does peg it. But I'm not blinkered to believe that absolutely everything she did was shit and nothing was any good. Poll tax was undoubtedly her undoing but lets not forget the huge numbers of ex-council tennants who now own their home thanks to her.

 

Same can be said of Brown as well. He fucked up on things but there's other things we surely have to thank him for.

 

I have issue with what appears to be this new buzz phrase 'progessive party'. Referring specifically to a comment I think I heard Alistair Campbell make this week when he said Labour and not the Conservatives were a 'progressive party'. Which ever party or leader has been in power in history has 'progressed' this country and it's fair to say that over the length of most government administrations of the past, the country has evolved to something different to when they came to power.

 

The arguments about politics are fruitless. We make statements about what we believe in rather than argue that one of us is right and the other is wrong - or at least, that's how we should be conducting ourselves.

[Renton 21973]

I don't accept that the term 'progressive' is a buzz word at all. The first definition I Googled stated that Progressive means 'Favoring improvement, change, progress, or reform, especially in a political context; -- used of people. Contrasted with conservative'.

 

Note the last bit, the Conservatives cannot be termed progressive by definition.

 

Labour has historically always been progressive, bringing in institutions like the Welfare state and the NHS, and in general supporting the rights of minority groups, such as gay rights (there are plenty of homophobes left in the tory party like Chris Grayling, for instance). In general, the Conservatives have tried to slow or block significant change, as their name suggests. This might not always be a bad thing but its perfectly fair to acknowledge there is a difference in philosophy between the two major parties - if not then perhap the tories should change their name.

 

It all ties in with the Conservatives being the party that supports inherited privilege as well. They want to keep the status quo or even reverse back to previous times where the landed gentry ruled us. Just self preservation really, to keep the oiks in their place. It's not always that straight forward of course, Thatcher was something else entirely, very possibly the spawn of satan. BUt my point stands I think.

[Phil 6]

Let us suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

 

The fifth would pay £1.

 

The sixth would pay £3.

 

The seventh would pay £7.

 

The eighth would pay £12.

 

The ninth would pay £18.

 

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

 

So, that's what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20." Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free: but what about the other six men - the paying customers?

 

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

 

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

 

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).

 

The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).

 

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).

 

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).

 

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

 

 

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

 

 

"I only got a pound out of the £20," declared the sixth man.

 

He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"

 

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only two?

 

The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.

 

"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth [richest] man and beat him up.

 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

 

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. However, tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and..........

 

 

You see the answer should be that if everyone is happy with their ratio, the spare cash should be put into a jolly boys outting pot (e.g. an olympic games, update broadband to 1GB etc..). It can be then used if required to offset a credit crunch or bail out rover

 

This is quite an old quote. It should really be updated to reflect our current situation, which is the bill gets put up £20 (i.e. to service our £42 billion debt interest) and the first 7 guys vote 8, 9 and 10 (10 being business) to pay it so 10 f**ks off to India, leaving Gordon to look silly and Labourites who never understood the system in the first place to blame economic conditions.

[Christmas Tree 4815]

I don't accept that the term 'progressive' is a buzz word at all. The first definition I Googled stated that Progressive means 'Favoring improvement, change, progress, or reform, especially in a political context; -- used of people. Contrasted with conservative'.

 

Note the last bit, the Conservatives cannot be termed progressive by definition.

 

Labour has historically always been progressive, bringing in institutions like the Welfare state and the NHS, and in general supporting the rights of minority groups, such as gay rights (there are plenty of homophobes left in the tory party like Chris Grayling, for instance). In general, the Conservatives have tried to slow or block significant change, as their name suggests. This might not always be a bad thing but its perfectly fair to acknowledge there is a difference in philosophy between the two major parties - if not then perhap the tories should change their name.

 

It all ties in with the Conservatives being the party that supports inherited privilege as well. They want to reverse back to previous times where the landed gentry ruled us. Just self preservation really, to keep the oiks in their place. It's not always that straight forward of course, Thatcher was something else entirely, very possibly the spawn of satan. BUt my point stands I think.

 

 

Linky

[Christmas Tree 4815]

Let us suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

 

The fifth would pay £1.

 

The sixth would pay £3.

 

The seventh would pay £7.

 

The eighth would pay £12.

 

The ninth would pay £18.

 

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

 

So, that's what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20." Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free: but what about the other six men - the paying customers?

 

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

 

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

 

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).

 

The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).

 

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).

 

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).

 

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

 

 

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

 

 

"I only got a pound out of the £20," declared the sixth man.

 

He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"

 

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only two?

 

The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.

 

"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth [richest] man and beat him up.

 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

 

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. However, tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and..........

 

 

You see the answer should be that if everyone is happy with their ratio, the spare cash should be put into a jolly boys outting pot (e.g. an olympic games, update broadband to 1GB etc..). It can be then used if required to offset a credit crunch or bail out rover

 

This is quite an old quote. It should really be updated to reflect our current situation, which is the bill gets put up £20 (i.e. to service our £42 billion debt interest) and the first 7 guys vote 8, 9 and 10 (10 being business) to pay it so 10 f**ks off to India, leaving Gordon to look silly and Labourites who never understood the system in the first place to blame economic conditions.

 

 

Very Good

[Christmas Tree 4815]

Came across this 22 year old speech today..... Who'd have thought it!

 

For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.

 

Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some[fo 4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s—though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain!

 

The second matter under discussion is the discovery by the British Antarctic Survey of a large hole in the ozone layer which protects life from ultra-violet radiation. We don't know the full implications of the ozone hole nor how it may interact with the greenhouse effect. Nevertheless it was common sense to support a worldwide agreement in Montreal last year to halve world consumption of chlorofluorocarbons by the end of the century. As the sole measure to limit ozone depletion, this may be insufficient but it is a start in reducing the pace of change while we continue the detailed study of the problem on which our (the British) Stratospheric Ozone Review Group is about to report.

 

The third matter is acid deposition which has affected soils, lakes and trees downwind from industrial centres. Extensive action is being taken to cut down emission of sulphur and nitrogen oxides from power stations at great but necessary expense.

 

In studying the system of the earth and its atmosphere we have no laboratory in which to carry out controlled experiments. We have to rely on observations of natural systems. We need to identify particular areas of research which will help to establish cause and effect. We need to consider in more detail the likely effects of change within precise timescales. And to consider the wider implications for policy—for energy production, for fuel efficiency, for reforestation. This is no small task, for the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide alone is of the order of three billion tonnes. And half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution remains in the atmosphere. We have an extensive research programme at our meteorological office and we provide one of the world's four centres for the study of climatic change. We must ensure that what we do is founded on good science to establish cause and effect.

 

In the past when we have identified forms of pollution, we have shown our capacity to act effectively. The great London Smogs are now only a nightmare of the past. We have cut airborne lead by 50 per cent. We are spending £4 billion on cleansing the Mersey Basin alone;[fo 5] and the Thames now has the cleanest metropolitan estuary in the world. Even though this kind of action may cost a lot, I believe it to be money well and necessarily spent because the health of the economy and the health of our environment are totally dependent upon each other.

 

The Government espouses the concept of sustainable economic development. Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 0700 28 September 1988

 

Stable prosperity can be achieved throughout the world provided the environment is nutured and safeguarded.

Protecting this balance of nature is therefore one of the great challenges of the late Twentieth Century

[Renton 21973]

You see the answer should be that if everyone is happy with their ratio, the spare cash should be put into a jolly boys outting pot (e.g. an olympic games, update broadband to 1GB etc..). It can be then used if required to offset a credit crunch or bail out rover

 

This is quite an old quote. It should really be updated to reflect our current situation, which is the bill gets put up £20 (i.e. to service our £42 billion debt interest) and the first 7 guys vote 8, 9 and 10 (10 being business) to pay it so 10 f**ks off to India, leaving Gordon to look silly and Labourites who never understood the system in the first place to blame economic conditions.

 

In general businesses has moved to India so they can use cheap employment, rather than avoid UK taxes, wouldn't you agree? So how would you stem this, by reducing the national wage to that of an average Indian? Please enlighten me.

 

Under the last Labour government taxes have been very competitive with the rest of the Western world, whatever the Daily Mail might tell you. Also, didn't the Conservatives plan to levy non-doms as part of their manifesto? Not that I am necessarily against this, but it leaves your argument in as much tatters as your understanding of your payslip.

 

Edit: check out this link which shows that far from being overtaxed in this country, we are way below the Western average and all thing considered we are taxed less than the USA.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Renton

[Renton 21973]

Came across this 22 year old speech today..... Who'd have thought it!

 

For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.

 

Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some[fo 4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s—though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain!

 

The second matter under discussion is the discovery by the British Antarctic Survey of a large hole in the ozone layer which protects life from ultra-violet radiation. We don't know the full implications of the ozone hole nor how it may interact with the greenhouse effect. Nevertheless it was common sense to support a worldwide agreement in Montreal last year to halve world consumption of chlorofluorocarbons by the end of the century. As the sole measure to limit ozone depletion, this may be insufficient but it is a start in reducing the pace of change while we continue the detailed study of the problem on which our (the British) Stratospheric Ozone Review Group is about to report.

 

The third matter is acid deposition which has affected soils, lakes and trees downwind from industrial centres. Extensive action is being taken to cut down emission of sulphur and nitrogen oxides from power stations at great but necessary expense.

 

In studying the system of the earth and its atmosphere we have no laboratory in which to carry out controlled experiments. We have to rely on observations of natural systems. We need to identify particular areas of research which will help to establish cause and effect. We need to consider in more detail the likely effects of change within precise timescales. And to consider the wider implications for policy—for energy production, for fuel efficiency, for reforestation. This is no small task, for the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide alone is of the order of three billion tonnes. And half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution remains in the atmosphere. We have an extensive research programme at our meteorological office and we provide one of the world's four centres for the study of climatic change. We must ensure that what we do is founded on good science to establish cause and effect.

 

In the past when we have identified forms of pollution, we have shown our capacity to act effectively. The great London Smogs are now only a nightmare of the past. We have cut airborne lead by 50 per cent. We are spending £4 billion on cleansing the Mersey Basin alone;[fo 5] and the Thames now has the cleanest metropolitan estuary in the world. Even though this kind of action may cost a lot, I believe it to be money well and necessarily spent because the health of the economy and the health of our environment are totally dependent upon each other.

 

The Government espouses the concept of sustainable economic development. Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 0700 28 September 1988

 

Stable prosperity can be achieved throughout the world provided the environment is nutured and safeguarded.

Protecting this balance of nature is therefore one of the great challenges of the late Twentieth Century

 

What is the relevance of this particular cut and paste then Chistmas Tree?

[Christmas Tree 4815]

Just quite surprised that Thatcher ( or any world leader ) was banging on about climate change 22 years ago.

 

Not a party political point btw, just interesting given the timespan. Most would think of climate change as a very recent thing with that vice president bloke whose name escapes me.

[Phil 6]

You see the answer should be that if everyone is happy with their ratio, the spare cash should be put into a jolly boys outting pot (e.g. an Olympic games, update broadband to 1GB etc..). It can be then used if required to offset a credit crunch or bail out rover

 

This is quite an old quote. It should really be updated to reflect our current situation, which is the bill gets put up £20 (i.e. to service our £42 billion debt interest) and the first 7 guys vote 8, 9 and 10 (10 being business) to pay it so 10 f**ks off to India, leaving Gordon to look silly and Labourites who never understood the system in the first place to blame economic conditions.

 

In general businesses has moved to India so they can use cheap employment, rather than avoid UK taxes, wouldn't you agree? So how would you stem this, by reducing the national wage to that of an average Indian? Please enlighten me.

 

Under the last Labour government taxes have been very competitive with the rest of the Western world, whatever the Daily Mail might tell you. Also, didn't the Conservatives plan to levy non-doms as part of their manifesto? Not that I am necessarily against this, but it leaves your argument in as much tatters as your understanding of your payslip.

 

 

Your fine with the 9 guys and a business sector goes to the pub, but not the reference to India.

 

Feel free to change it to '10 goes out of business because the state bailed out banks wont lend any money at less than 18% APR'

 

 

 

Regarding outsource, the issue has never been solely about cost savings. We are losing businesses because they have no reason to stay. I mentioned increasing the broadband speed to 1GB. This would create a media sector businesses would flock too.

[Renton 21973]

You see the answer should be that if everyone is happy with their ratio, the spare cash should be put into a jolly boys outting pot (e.g. an Olympic games, update broadband to 1GB etc..). It can be then used if required to offset a credit crunch or bail out rover

 

This is quite an old quote. It should really be updated to reflect our current situation, which is the bill gets put up £20 (i.e. to service our £42 billion debt interest) and the first 7 guys vote 8, 9 and 10 (10 being business) to pay it so 10 f**ks off to India, leaving Gordon to look silly and Labourites who never understood the system in the first place to blame economic conditions.

 

In general businesses has moved to India so they can use cheap employment, rather than avoid UK taxes, wouldn't you agree? So how would you stem this, by reducing the national wage to that of an average Indian? Please enlighten me.

 

Under the last Labour government taxes have been very competitive with the rest of the Western world, whatever the Daily Mail might tell you. Also, didn't the Conservatives plan to levy non-doms as part of their manifesto? Not that I am necessarily against this, but it leaves your argument in as much tatters as your understanding of your payslip.

 

 

Your fine with the 9 guys and a business sector goes to the pub, but not the reference to India.

 

Feel free to change it to '10 goes out of business because the state bailed out banks wont lend any money at less than 18% APR'

 

 

 

Regarding outsource, the issue has never been solely about cost savings. We are losing businesses because they have no reason to stay. I mentioned increasing the broadband speed to 1GB. This would create a media sector businesses would flock too.

 

What? Are you seriously using this story as any kind of useful analogy? Why don't you give me some proper facts instead. Anyway, your chosen party is in power now so any problems are solved, aren't they?

[Phil 6]

You see the answer should be that if everyone is happy with their ratio, the spare cash should be put into a jolly boys outting pot (e.g. an Olympic games, update broadband to 1GB etc..). It can be then used if required to offset a credit crunch or bail out rover

 

This is quite an old quote. It should really be updated to reflect our current situation, which is the bill gets put up £20 (i.e. to service our £42 billion debt interest) and the first 7 guys vote 8, 9 and 10 (10 being business) to pay it so 10 f**ks off to India, leaving Gordon to look silly and Labourites who never understood the system in the first place to blame economic conditions.

 

In general businesses has moved to India so they can use cheap employment, rather than avoid UK taxes, wouldn't you agree? So how would you stem this, by reducing the national wage to that of an average Indian? Please enlighten me.

 

Under the last Labour government taxes have been very competitive with the rest of the Western world, whatever the Daily Mail might tell you. Also, didn't the Conservatives plan to levy non-doms as part of their manifesto? Not that I am necessarily against this, but it leaves your argument in as much tatters as your understanding of your payslip.

 

 

Your fine with the 9 guys and a business sector goes to the pub, but not the reference to India.

 

Feel free to change it to '10 goes out of business because the state bailed out banks wont lend any money at less than 18% APR'

 

 

 

Regarding outsource, the issue has never been solely about cost savings. We are losing businesses because they have no reason to stay. I mentioned increasing the broadband speed to 1GB. This would create a media sector businesses would flock too.

 

What? Are you seriously using this story as any kind of useful analogy? Why don't you give me some proper facts instead. Anyway, your chosen party is in power now so any problems are solved, aren't they?

 

Here's a fact. Labour spent more on debt interest last year than the entire police force. Explain that logic please.

[Renton 21973]

You see the answer should be that if everyone is happy with their ratio, the spare cash should be put into a jolly boys outting pot (e.g. an Olympic games, update broadband to 1GB etc..). It can be then used if required to offset a credit crunch or bail out rover

 

This is quite an old quote. It should really be updated to reflect our current situation, which is the bill gets put up £20 (i.e. to service our £42 billion debt interest) and the first 7 guys vote 8, 9 and 10 (10 being business) to pay it so 10 f**ks off to India, leaving Gordon to look silly and Labourites who never understood the system in the first place to blame economic conditions.

 

In general businesses has moved to India so they can use cheap employment, rather than avoid UK taxes, wouldn't you agree? So how would you stem this, by reducing the national wage to that of an average Indian? Please enlighten me.

 

Under the last Labour government taxes have been very competitive with the rest of the Western world, whatever the Daily Mail might tell you. Also, didn't the Conservatives plan to levy non-doms as part of their manifesto? Not that I am necessarily against this, but it leaves your argument in as much tatters as your understanding of your payslip.

 

 

Your fine with the 9 guys and a business sector goes to the pub, but not the reference to India.

 

Feel free to change it to '10 goes out of business because the state bailed out banks wont lend any money at less than 18% APR'

 

 

 

Regarding outsource, the issue has never been solely about cost savings. We are losing businesses because they have no reason to stay. I mentioned increasing the broadband speed to 1GB. This would create a media sector businesses would flock too.

 

What? Are you seriously using this story as any kind of useful analogy? Why don't you give me some proper facts instead. Anyway, your chosen party is in power now so any problems are solved, aren't they?

 

Here's a fact. Labour spent more on debt interest last year than the entire police force. Explain that logic please.

 

Global recession. Next.

[NJS 4410]

but lets not forget the huge numbers of ex-council tennants who now own their home thanks to her.

 

Absolutely diabolical policy.

 

Blatant bribe as she thought homeowner = Tory, assets sold for a fraction of their worth, revenues ring-fenced so drastic shortage of social housing which has led to house price inflation which has caused probably 2 major recessions ans still results in millions struggling to find somewhere decent to live.

 

But a few thousand people made a tidy sum so of course it was good.

[NJS 4410]

Here's a fact. Labour spent more on debt interest last year than the entire police force. Explain that logic please.

 

Bank collapse would have caused more civil unrest and cost more than a few fat sweaty coppers claiming overtime?

[Phil 6]

You see the answer should be that if everyone is happy with their ratio, the spare cash should be put into a jolly boys outting pot (e.g. an Olympic games, update broadband to 1GB etc..). It can be then used if required to offset a credit crunch or bail out rover

 

This is quite an old quote. It should really be updated to reflect our current situation, which is the bill gets put up £20 (i.e. to service our £42 billion debt interest) and the first 7 guys vote 8, 9 and 10 (10 being business) to pay it so 10 f**ks off to India, leaving Gordon to look silly and Labourites who never understood the system in the first place to blame economic conditions.

 

In general businesses has moved to India so they can use cheap employment, rather than avoid UK taxes, wouldn't you agree? So how would you stem this, by reducing the national wage to that of an average Indian? Please enlighten me.

 

Under the last Labour government taxes have been very competitive with the rest of the Western world, whatever the Daily Mail might tell you. Also, didn't the Conservatives plan to levy non-doms as part of their manifesto? Not that I am necessarily against this, but it leaves your argument in as much tatters as your understanding of your payslip.

 

 

Your fine with the 9 guys and a business sector goes to the pub, but not the reference to India.

 

Feel free to change it to '10 goes out of business because the state bailed out banks wont lend any money at less than 18% APR'

 

 

 

Regarding outsource, the issue has never been solely about cost savings. We are losing businesses because they have no reason to stay. I mentioned increasing the broadband speed to 1GB. This would create a media sector businesses would flock too.

 

What? Are you seriously using this story as any kind of useful analogy? Why don't you give me some proper facts instead. Anyway, your chosen party is in power now so any problems are solved, aren't they?

 

Here's a fact. Labour spent more on debt interest last year than the entire police force. Explain that logic please.

 

Global recession. Next.

 

 

Did you read my alternate analogy?

[Phil 6]

Here's a fact. Labour spent more on debt interest last year than the entire police force. Explain that logic please.

 

Bank collapse would have caused more civil unrest and cost more than a few fat sweaty coppers claiming overtime?

 

Everyone was covered upto £50k, there'd have been no civil unrest.

 

Do you think they'd have all collapsed?

 

 

I said in the other thread I'd have setup a national bank, which would give the government the ability to inject money into small businesses on a regional level and give mortgages out to first time buyers.

[NJS 4410]

Here's a fact. Labour spent more on debt interest last year than the entire police force. Explain that logic please.

 

Bank collapse would have caused more civil unrest and cost more than a few fat sweaty coppers claiming overtime?

 

Everyone was covered upto £50k, there'd have been no civil unrest.

 

Do you think they'd have all collapsed?

 

 

I said in the other thread I'd have setup a national bank, which would give the government the ability to inject money into small businesses on a regional level and give mortgages out to first time buyers.

 

The surprising thing that came out of the NR thing was just how inadequate the 50k thing would have been for thousands, if not millions of people. Also simple failure of the cash machine network would have caused chaos. They wouldn't all have collapsed at once but Lloyds and RBS would have started a domino effect.

 

 

I agree with you about a national bank (funnily enough Tony Benn created one but the Bitch sold it off) but that's a policy for anytime and wouldn't have solved an immediate crisis of that size.

[Craig 6700]

I don't accept that the term 'progressive' is a buzz word at all. The first definition I Googled stated that Progressive means 'Favoring improvement, change, progress, or reform, especially in a political context; -- used of people. Contrasted with conservative'.

 

Note the last bit, the Conservatives cannot be termed progressive by definition.

 

Labour has historically always been progressive, bringing in institutions like the Welfare state and the NHS, and in general supporting the rights of minority groups, such as gay rights (there are plenty of homophobes left in the tory party like Chris Grayling, for instance). In general, the Conservatives have tried to slow or block significant change, as their name suggests. This might not always be a bad thing but its perfectly fair to acknowledge there is a difference in philosophy between the two major parties - if not then perhap the tories should change their name.

 

It all ties in with the Conservatives being the party that supports inherited privilege as well. They want to keep the status quo or even reverse back to previous times where the landed gentry ruled us. Just self preservation really, to keep the oiks in their place. It's not always that straight forward of course, Thatcher was something else entirely, very possibly the spawn of satan. BUt my point stands I think.

 

Does indeed. I accept most of what you say. Like I said, no-one is right or wrong, just of differing opinion. Without it, there'd be no change and we'd all be pretty stagnated.

[Craig 6700]

but lets not forget the huge numbers of ex-council tennants who now own their home thanks to her.

 

Absolutely diabolical policy.

 

Blatant bribe as she thought homeowner = Tory, assets sold for a fraction of their worth, revenues ring-fenced so drastic shortage of social housing which has led to house price inflation which has caused probably 2 major recessions ans still results in millions struggling to find somewhere decent to live.

 

But a few thousand people made a tidy sum so of course it was good.

 

But at the time, those in social housing jumped at the chance to own.

 

Also, apart from first-time buyers, I don't remember too many complaining when the value of property soared under the Labour administration.

[Christmas Tree 4815]

Seems a good first move from George Osbourne to make government forecasting independant so that politicians can't fiddle the figures in the future.