Evil Goblin Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 BTW, LDV. I noticed that you didn't produce any realistic suggestions on an alternative course of action. Or are you just another whinger loke OMF and Gladys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Well, LDV, we are in no doubt (if anyone ever was) which side of the Left/Right divide you belong on! So, the State must be responsible for everything, people must always be rescued from the consequences of their behaviour? As Scrooge said, "I'll retire to Bedlam"! The State were most certainly responsible for the closure of the mines but as for the consequences of their behaviour they didn't give a toss. The Government of the day are there to look out for the welfare of ALL of their citizens and not just those who vote for them, sorry and all that. Thatcher was unique in that she would look out for the best interests of those who voted for her and the rest could go hang. Power for power's sake. The only plus side of her rotting in hell is the way she'll be there with her bessie mate and well-known mass murderer August Pinochet - a quite revolting individual. Little wonder they got on like a house on fire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 The State were most certainly responsible for the closure of the mines but as for the consequences of their behaviour they didn't give a toss. The Government of the day are there to look out for the welfare of ALL of their citizens and not just those who vote for them, sorry and all that. Thatcher was unique in that she would look out for the best interests of those who voted for her and the rest could go hang. Power for power's sake. The only plus side of her rotting in hell is the way she'll be there with her bessie mate and well-known mass murderer August Pinochet - a quite revolting individual. Little wonder they got on like a house on fire... Sorry, PK, I didn't realise you had personal knowledge of Thatch and Pinochet so as to be able to say what you do about them. Fortunately, "class-warrior" dinosaurs such as yourself are gradually disappearing, relics of a bygone age! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Before I forget, PK, I note that any reasonable alternative policy that should have been followed in the early 80s has not been forthcoming from either of yourself, Gladys or OMF. Easy to carp, isn't it? Bit harder to actually "put your money where your mouth is". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Fortunately, "class-warrior" dinosaurs such as yourself are gradually disappearing, relics of a bygone age! Fortunately, the taxes - are - bad ideological and doctrinaire right has also been largely discredited. European style consensus politics won the argument. Hurrah for common sense and muddling through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Fortunately, "class-warrior" dinosaurs such as yourself are gradually disappearing, relics of a bygone age! Fortunately, the taxes - are - bad ideological and doctrinaire right has also been largely discredited. European style consensus politics won the argument. Hurrah for common sense and muddling through. Typically, in your alactrity to abuse those with whom you disagree, you over-simplify things. It is not taxes which are bad (although all taxation is immoral) - it is UNNECESSARILY HIGH taxation which is bad. If levels of taxation were perceived as reasonable and that Governments did not squander so much, very few people would be inclined to either avoid or evade them. The problem is that Labour politicians are (and always have been) to keen to spend other peoples' money for them by creating a Client Socialist State. And what maked you think that European Politics is so consensual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Sorry, PK, I didn't realise you had personal knowledge of Thatch and Pinochet so as to be able to say what you do about them. Fortunately, "class-warrior" dinosaurs such as yourself are gradually disappearing, relics of a bygone age! No need to apologise to me for your ignorance. But then you are probably being deliberately obtuse because like Thatcher's deliberate destruction of mining communities her very well publicised admiration for Pinochet says it all about her : "Pinochet dies at 91, mourned by Thatcher" - full Torygraph piece here. "class-warrior" - what a particularly stupid comment as these days the vast majority of the UK are what was once termed "middle class". Before I forget, PK, I note that any reasonable alternative policy that should have been followed in the early 80s has not been forthcoming from either of yourself, Gladys or OMF. Easy to carp, isn't it? Bit harder to actually "put your money where your mouth is". Thanks to the tory de-regulation we are ALL having to "put our money where her mouth was". Trade Union reform could have been legislated without destroying the mining communities. It's not exactly rocket science. But reform was not on Thatcher's agenda. Revenge was. End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 "class-warrior" - what a particularly stupid comment as these days the vast majority of the UK are what was once termed "middle class". It is you who is being deliberately obtuse or just plain stupid! The point of this is that the reason you quote is the very reason why people who think like you and OMF are dinosaurs. I notice that you, like Gladys, OMF, etc. do not come up with any sensible ideas as to how the Government might have done other than it did. Until then, you are just a carping old whinger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I didn't think you could muster a defence. BYEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samadhiworld Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Manx Radio UK government tightens pressure on the Isle of Man Gordon Brown has written to the Manx government and to their Channel Islands counterparts, telling them further moves must be made over tax and banking secrecy. It will come as a disappointment to Tony Brown, Allan Bell et al after the Isle of Man was put on the OECD white list last week, but not as a suprise. I wonder what they are threatening this time? Perhaps the following copy email to Alistair Darling, enclosing e-mail sent to G20 countries, will be of interest? For the attention of Alastair Darling Congratulations to both you and Gordon Brown for hosting a very good and successful G20 meeting! One of the outcomes was the decision to "name and shame" tax havens that didn't conform to transparancy, etc. standards. (As you are aware, President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkle were particularly keen on this.) You will see from the copy email below, sent to G20 countries, that the Isle of Man government has been exposed for poor governance, as defined by the O.E.C.D. on its web site. The "protectionist tendencies" by the BBC and UK national newspapers towards the Isle of Man government has also been exposed. On 2nd May 2008, for example, I faxed all national newspapers that Sir Fred Goodwin was knowingly sponsoring censored "Manx Radio News": not a word was printed. If they had done so, perhaps the tax payer could have been saved £billions? When evaluating the Isle of Man's "status" as a tax haven/"offshore financial centre", do take into account the media censorship, ministerial malpractice, etc documented at www.oldestparliament.org On a "positive note", you could announce that your government is going to involve citizens in the political process locally by promoting the implementation and growth of Internet Community Systems. Politicians can not cope with the increasingly diverse demands from an increasingly Internet-savvy electorate. With Internet Community Systems, however, politicians would know exactly what were the priorities of his constituents from the community's e-Forum... Perhaps, also, you could encourage Messrs Thomas and Lyons to fulfill their public duty by responding to the question: "WHY is the BBC protecting the Isle of Man government?" (See below) Their reply, this e-mail, and any response you chose to make will also be published on www.oldestparliament.org for the governments and citizens of G20 countries to view... Samadhi! (Inner Peace) Joe Rooney ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Rooney To: BBC North West News Desk! ; Gordon Burns ; Peter Horrocks Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:25 AM Subject: Fw: G20 Meeting, 2nd April While I await responses from Mr Mark Thomas, Director General, and Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman, BBC Trust (see below) you may be interested in reporting the contents of the e-mail, below, to countries attending the forthcoming G20 meeting? Samadhi! (Inner Peace) Joe Rooney ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Rooney To: Nations attending G20 Meeting Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:39 AM Subject: G20 Meeting, 2nd April The forthcoming G20 meeting on 2nd April will address the global financial crises. President Obama, and latterly, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Britain, have stated their intention to deal with offshore financial centres that hold $billions in deposits by corporations and individuals. www.oldestparliament.org documents censorship, ministerial malpractice and poor governance on the Isle of Man since 1999. To save reading 500+ documents, you may care to read a “Cross Roads” letter sent to each member of the Tynwald Parliament? This attempts to summarise some of the failings of the Isle of Man government. (See: http://www.oldestparliament.org/html/crossroads12.html ) When the Isle of Man’s poor governance was highlighted to the leaders of UK political parties over the years, they remained “silent”. (For example see correspondence to David Cameron, Conservative Party leader at: http://www.oldestparliament.org/html/david_cameron.html ) The UK’s national newspapers refuse to report negatively on the Isle of Man despite having been given overwhelming evidence of censorship and poor governance. See: http://www.oldestparliament.org/html/natio...newspapers.html Similarly, the BBC’s Director General and the BBC Trust’s Chairman have each failed to respond to the question: “Why is the BBC protecting the Isle of Man government?” See:http://www.oldestparliament.org/html/bbc.html When Royal Bank of Scotland knowingly sponsored censored “Manx Radio News” 200+ financial institutions worldwide were informed and RBS’s share price, coincidentally, collapsed. (See: http://www.oldestparliament.org/html/royal...f_scotland.html ) When the Isle of Man’s poor governance was brought to the attention of the O,E.C.D., it was ignored. (See: http://www.oldestparliament.org/html/o_e_c_d_.html A small offshore centre, that behaves in the way documented at www.oldestparliament.org, is a PERFECT place for citizens of your country to deposit their monies! Perhaps you could remind Mr Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister, why he should now act on his promise to “deal with” the offshore financial centre on his “door step”? Samadhi! (Inner Peace) Joe Rooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Samadhi! (Inner Peace)Joe Rooney ????????????????? Is Joe a reincarnation of Mickey the miniature mobster or is it Wayne trying to sound intellectual to impress the WAGS? Maybe it's Salford in a new life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 This isn't relevent to the thread title, but has some relevence to the current debate about Maggie etc. What Messrs Darling and Brown are planning is worse than anything Maggie threw at the public services - the cuts will be brutal and I imagine will create alot of unrest. Try Polly Toynbee - The full horror of what is to come is laid out in the budget red book. The chancellor ended with talk of a "confident and successful Britain", but the numbers tell another story. By 2011 cuts will be savage, with spending forecast to grow by 0.7% instead of the 1.1% predicted last year, and capital spending halved. These will be harsher cuts than any in living memory - yes, worse even than in the Thatcher 1980s. Only schools, the NHS and overseas aid are to be spared, while everything else will be plunged into darkness. It hardly bears thinking about what these numbers will do to the old and disabled, children in care, children's centres or prisons. Councils will be left with shrivelled budgets to meet soaring demands from more old people and more deprived children. After the years of plenty, public servants have no experience in how to manage the coming famine. In the late 1970s the UK dug itself into one terrible hole - and Maggie stopped the digging and changed course. There is no doubt that was unbelievably painful, and caused huge amounts of disruption to proud and long-standing communities, but the sad fact is those communities were predicated on industries that relied on subsidies and were unsustainable. Manufacturing industrial output went up during the Thatcher years and the economy turned itself round. Maggie paid down debt, said no to subsidies, and insisted on living within our means. That lesson has been forgotten in a society which has got used to Gordon Brown's never never. The no-more-boom-and-bust malarky came directly out of borrowing through the economic cycle - it was predicated on the assumption of borrowing to get yourself out of trouble - but it didn't get us out of trouble it just compounded the problem to be paid when the pyramid collapsed. Its now collapsed - and Brown is having to learn the lesson Maggie had learnt from Heath and Wilson and Callahan - Maggie learned from their experiences and said no. It hurt no doubt, but Brown didn't learn from experience and now has to face cuts far worse than those Maggie had to put us through. Back in the 70s it was segments of the population which were creating the problems - mainly mass unionized nationalized inefficient industry - the pits and steel mills and dockyards bore the brunt of the pain. Nowadays everyone has been lulled into a high debt, subsidized, low saving Never-Never land - and Brown's and Darling's solution - another generation of debt to be paid off. Scares the willies out of me. Maggie in the 80s made Britain live within its means. That lesson has been progressively forgotten. The whole country is now going to have to remember it once again. Its going to hurt, and many people will hate the medicine Brown is dispensing as much as their parents hated the medicine Maggie gave. I am pretty firmly of the opinion that Maggie's medicine worked. I'm sceptical Brown's will - but its going to hurt just as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Maggie destroyed whole communities. Think Brown and Darling are going to do the same? Also Maggie precipitated their destruction out of revenge whereas Brown and Darling are trying to lift UK PLC out of the wreckage of the de-regulated (by Maggie and her ilk) banking system. It may be me but the two scenarios look rather different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 When you are prime minister you have to make decisions for the whole country not segements of it which are unsustainable, rely on subsidies, and have brought the entire country to its knees in the past in order to demand increased subsidies. The country was far far better placed when Maggie left office than when she went in. Major about equal, Nulabour - far far worse. NuLabour has been in 15 years - but you are blaming a Tory administration from the 1980s and early 1990s - its 2009 for pete's sake. If it was so wrong why did Brown carry on and on and on with the policies? Couldn't face down the vested interests? Should have taken a lesson from Maggies book then ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 When you are prime minister you have to make decisions for the whole country not segements of it which are unsustainable, rely on subsidies, and have brought the entire country to its knees in the past in order to demand increased subsidies. But surely as Prime Minister you have a moral duty to care for the welfare of ALL of your citizens and not just those who vote for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.