Are they serious ?

David

You said "Hardly the acts of a competant 'socialist', well leftish, government. Or ?"

Socialism died when James Gallaghan got booted out in 1979.

Regards

Mick

Doesn't the PM &/or SWMBO have a rather nice property portfolio? Charity begins at home.

Mick,
OK, the acts of a competent leftish government then.

Only two adjectives left. Probably easy to get rid of leftish as Labour, who I thought was voted in as an alternative to the money grabbing, look after number one attitudes promoted by the (right wing ?) Conservatives, seem to have taken that ground and some.

And when was competence a pre-requisite for a government ?

Why don't the British public wake up, it can't be that comfortable being held over a barrel and shafted.

Yours.

/dl

This reinforces my view that this government is deliberately bringing to an end the notion of one-family*-one-house regarding ownership.

*Unit of occupancy that usually (but not necessarily) refers to a couple with or without children.

The idea that a majority of homes are owned by those who actually live in them is terribly unfashionable in Blair's vision of a modern Britain.

David

The ideal that the labour party looked after the interests of the under priveledged is as dead as a Dodo.

Both parties recognise that the "poor" are a total pain in the ass and that all they do is drag standards down at everyone elses expense. Most of them are either dim or lazy and deserve what they get.

The free market economy is well and truely established and even hard line socialist such as Matthew now live in a trendy circles doing trendy jobs, living in nice flats in trendy areas.

When Blair came into power I owned one house, now I own four and soon expect to own a fifth.

Therefore I am a typical socialist whereas I was once a true blue Tory.

Basically we now have a society where effort and knowledge is being rewarded and returning to the old values that you have to work in order to eat.

This is why the UK economy is doing relatively well.

Regards

Mick

Mick said:

quote:

Basically we now have a society where effort and knowledge is being rewarded and returning to the old values that you have to work in order to eat.

Possibly quite so. The only difficulty I see here, is that the 'system' also ensures that some folks stay working poor, no matter how hard, or how long they work.

Additionaly, whether right or wrong, in a survival of the fitest paradigm, there will always be resentment from the 'under achievers' or 'underprivelidged' if you will.

Whereas in the past, when one had to work to eat, one had the Fagins, pickpockets and petty criminals who would enter one of your four houses and nick you Naim system, now you have your local terrorist, with a whole bucketful of resentful hatred, fueled by religious zealotry that makes a Naimite look like its in kindergarten.

And they WILL stick a bomb up yours in expression of their dissatisfaction, in no uncertain terms. Perhaps thats also a price that those of the 'priveledged' classes now have to expect to pay, in the free market rules, "I'm doing all right Jack, bugger you" society?

Sadly there is a price to pay for everything, and the excesses of capitalism, aka greed, begats no one any good in the long term, IMHO.

Perhaps the UK has a reasonable balance of things for now?

Time I guess will tell.

Cheers

Regards

John...

quote:

Originally posted by David Legge:
Having lived in Sweden for the past 15 years, I despair at what I see as greed driven increases in house prices in the UK.
(If anyone disagrees with that definition, please feel free to find another way of describing what has happened over the past, shall we say, 10 years as far as house prices are concerned.)

I see it slightly differently. Conditions arose that have allowed profiteering to happen, and I don't doubt that profiteering has exacerbated the problem, but the fundamental problems seem to be simply that (1) there isn't enough housing to meet demand and (2) the demand is in the wrong place. Solve these problem and the problem of profiteering by buying and selling property will solve itself.

I wonder what the practical difficulties are of building new, planned towns in less densely populated areas and giving employers the incentive to move to them?

quote:

Now, it seems, the government think it is about time to put more coal on the fire with their suggestions for allowing investment in second homes to be part of an individuals tax deductable personal pension planning. Whilst those without the wherewithall or nous are to be turned into trailer trash.

Hardly the acts of a competant 'socialist', well leftish, government. Or ?

The problem of profiteering through renting out property is one that, in principle, seems easy to solve: ban all domestic property rental except via the state at rates determined by the state, perhaps linked to the minimum wage. I wouldn't like to guess how difficult this might be in practice...

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
David

Both parties recognise that the "poor" are a total pain in the ass and that all they do is drag standards down at everyone elses expense. Most of them are either dim or lazy and deserve what they get.

Basically we now have a society where effort and knowledge is being rewarded and returning to the old values that you have to work in order to eat.

I am deeply worried by this "only what they deserve" attitude.

What is really lacking is reasonable balance between those who do the invaluable work without which society would collapse overnight. And those who do money-making jobs which nobody would give a toss about if they vanished overnight. There will always be more of the former than the latter.

Genetics ensures that only a few bubble to the top of the grey matter compost heap. Mostly its sheer luck, helped by being born of bright, educated parents. No matter how you apply yourself as an under-achiever in Mick's fairy-tale world you are up against the odds of succeeding.

Those who are born really bright are usually intelligent enough to realise that the attraction of wealth for its own sake is short on fun and severely lacking in intellectual reward. They then ignore wealth as status and get on with improving the knowledge base of the human race or trying to save it from itself. The rewards are usually personal respect shared with one's colleagues.

Many success stories are "right moments in history" when everything comes together. Would MS Gates have succeeded at any other point in history with his rather specialised abilities? I suppose he must have remarkable management skills as well as a overpowering drive to destroy others' hard work. But so does Bin Laden. Both are detested in equal measure.

I wasn't going to mention the "funnyhandshakegang". But it has obvious advantages from a networking point of view for lower-middle management and above. But is it actively negative against those who refuse to join? Perhaps it is truly essential to forward progress in those areas where it is most active? Offering a leg-up to those who lack the critical abilities to succeed without their help? Rather than deliberately holding back those with far greater ability but no wish to join a mafia-like "secret society" to succeed on their own terms. Perhaps Sir Mike Thrust can enlighten us on this aspect of reward for "services rendered"?

Finally we come down to brain-dead footballers, celebs and air-head supermodels who inhabit a high rung on the staircase of the tower of twisted values. Being able to play a children's game or wear a fur rug decoratively makes one worthy of great wealth does it? I'd prefer to reward a skilled nurse or doctor on an intensive care ward thanks all the same.

I suppose being a footballer is better than profiting from the slavery which built Britain and America's vast economic wealth at the expense of the third world. It raised titled personalities to a level of wealth undreamt of today. Except by supermarket chain store owners as they drag Africa, Asia and S.America down to a level of poverty and starvation which defies any description of natural justice. Is "genocide" too strong a word for their present behaviour?

What did these millions of poor farmers do to these multi-billionaires to warrant such a reward for their endless, back-breaking toil in the burning sun, fighting disease and drought at every turn? Disease which could be treated if it were not for the greed of multi-national drug company's patents. And drought as a result of global warming caused by gas-guzzling American's with air conditioners running on fossil fuel.

Being called "dim and lazy" seems just a trifle harsh coming from a middle-mangement post office clerk in a funny pinny.

Yes, the less well off are such a pain aren't they? Do we really need all these useless graduated in debt up to their necks, junior doctors, nurses and similar lay abouts?

HTK

You are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

Anyone who undergoes training is investing in terms of time and money. They will recoup those losses many times over in the fullness of time.

I am referring to those whose jobs require little training or intellect and hence earn low salaries. These people are frankly anachronisms in a modern value add economy and are of no interest to either the Tories or the New Labour Party. That is a political reality whether you like it or not.

In a free market, you get paid for what you can sell yourself for. That depends on your skills and how much they are in demand. It may be crude but it works.

New Labour seeks to embrace the higher achievers just as the Conservative do and that is because it makes political and economic sense and this was the question posed at the beginning of this thread.

Regards

Mick

quote:

These people are frankly anachronisms in a modern value add economy

Mick, you do baffle me at times. The country would grind to a halt without these 'anachronisms'.

John

All I am saying is that New Labour are not particularly concerned about them and to be honest, neither am I. That was Davids original question.

Of course they do needed jobs but I fail to understand their lack of drive that means their one and only life is going to be second rate.

Regards

Mick

Just been watching the excellent series 1 of Drop The Dead Donkey – now back in it’s full glory on DVD with subsequent seasons to follow. And there was me thinking that the Sally Smedley character was fictional.

I follow your logic exactly Mick (or is that Sally?)

quote:

Of course they do needed jobs but I fail to understand their lack of drive that means their one and only life is going to be second rate.

how so? Do you really not think it's possible to enjoy life without being (relatively) wealthy? There's plenty of people out there who've come to the realisation that working ridiculous hours to march up the corporate ladder is also not a great way to spend your life.

John

I suppose it is possible to be poor and happy but most of the whinging commes from those who cannot afford whatever.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
I suppose it is possible to be poor and happy but most of the whinging commes from those who cannot afford whatever.

that's only to be expected, there are more of 'them' after all. Happiness surveys, however, reveal a different picture in that wealth is no indicator of overall happiness.

John

Yes I believe you until the next whinger comes on moaning about how he can't afford whatever.

I think we have to agree to disagree on this one.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Yes I believe you until the next whinger comes on moaning about how he can't afford whatever.

Let me tell you, I'm really pissed off because I can't afford a 552...

quote:

Something is working...

Yes and why.......because we have rid ourselves of the outdated shackles of socialism.

The free market can be tough but it sorts out the men from the boys and the economy surges ahead.

Like Mike implied, you have never had it so good and I only wish I was 30 years younger because the opportunities are better than ever before.

Regards

Mick

Whereas, frankly, I wish I was forty years older (and therefore quite possibly having departed this mortal coil...) for exactly the reasons hereabove mentioned. Never has the standard of behaviour in society (manners, respect for other and helpfulness) been deteriorating faster. What will it be like in 40 years time? I hope NOT to see it. Fredrik

Fredrik

Please do not depress yourself. I can remember my Grandmother complaining about the deterioration of manners etc when I was about 6 or 7 years of age. I am now 56 by the way.

Times change and things go around in circles, they always have and no doubt always will.

Regards

Mick

Dear Mick,

This is reason enough. I am more than ten years younger than you, and I can easily remember a time when even priveleged people felt no need to lock cars or houses, when people could walk passed groups of young and not have to step into the bus-lane, and when indeed children could be given the freedom to go out after breakfast and return for lunch, while their parents felt a certainty that they WOULD come back largely in one piece.

It is easy to deride Blair, or even Thatcher come to that, but what these people do is refect what society at large thinks. I have my views (which are surely irrelevant in this instance as my view make NO difference), but somehow I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who sees real evedence that society (perhaps I really mean a large number of individual people as, as it is arguable that society as such does not exist) is becoming increasingly careless of the others, both in particular of the less able and successful, and more so perhaps in the serious decline in fundamental civility from basic manners in conversation to respect for that which is theirs, and their reasonable right to a civilised life themselves, even if it does impinge on all of us from time to time to consider well the consequences of our actions in our ever so inconsequential lives.

For example, I never smoke in the presence of non-smokers, or fail to filter at junctions, even though this looses me a few seconds of my life daily, simply being considerate. I find I am increasingly P*****g in the wind, and yet my upbringing will never allow me to join the rat race...

Does the concommitant lack of succes, finacially, make me one of the undeserving poor in youur shiny chromium plated new world? Or does it make me an old fashioned fool? Or, perhaps, a shining example of what ought to be the aim of the generality of people? I have no idea any more, but I do think I fit less an less well in this increasingly, I am alright Jack world. Hence my original post to which you answered.

Fredrik

Well said Fredrik!

Fredrik

The term "I am alright Jack" was penned in the 1950'as I believe it was the title of a film starring Peter Sellers about grabbing trade unionist. I do not think things are as bad as you perceive. There as always been crime, just as there as always been greed but it is no worse today than it ever was.

We do not. for instance, send young boys up chimneys, so things have improved in some respects.

Regards

Mick

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Fredrik

The term "I am alright Jack" was penned ...

---

Dear Mick, rarely would I be so direct, but I was not born yesterday and am not a cultural illiterate! I think some might see that opening phrase as being carelessly patronising, if it come from a less caring person! Fredrik

--------------

... I do not think things are as bad as you perceive. There as always been crime, just as there as always been greed but it is no worse today than it ever was. [MP].

---

Good for you, but I disagree. Fredrik

--------------

We do not. for instance, send young boys up chimneys, so things have improved in some respects. [MP].

---

Which rather tends to suggest that for the first nineteen hundred years of the Christian Era we were moving, if fitfully, towards a goal of decentcy and civilisation, reached a peak some time during the twentieth century (perhaps the defeat of Fascism may be the peak?), and are no falling headlong back into the primordial swamp. Sorry but there it is, and if you can't see it then I think we had better drop it before it goes too much further. If you can refrain from answering me, then I shall leave this as my last word on it, but if you do post again on it (to me) then I shall simply find you trying hard to defend something many here will see as indefensible.

Sincerely Fredrik