Comrade Corbyn

Boris786 posted:

It is implicit in your statement that something has changed and this free loader person is new/ more prevalent? I do not see that. 

 

I think increasingly people have become more dependent on the state. 

The Strat (Fender) posted:

the state will provide and the guy next door will pay the tax to support me to the point where people can go through life almost devoid of any personal responsibility.  

If we take out of this particular discussion the very small number of people who are able to work but refuse to, you have to look at society and the way society and the country has changed to provide an explanation.

I was going to write something much longer, but it’s twenty past midnight and my mind isn’t focussed enough, so to summarise we used to live in a country where for the most part anyone who worked a full time job from the lowest to the highest paid was able to provide a modest but decent standard of life for their family without excessive (financial) support from the governement.  This is no longer the case and the so called “living wage” is insufficient.

Boris786 posted:

The Corbyn story is a non story in my book.

 

Obviously you can have whatever you want in your book, after all its your book.

But some of us would like to know why the Leader of the Opposition and possible future PM met with a top Eastern European spy ay the height of the cold war?

And just as importantly what was discussed at these meetings?

Simples

thebigfredc posted:

Boris786 posted:

The Corbyn story is a non story in my book.

 

Obviously you can have whatever you want in your book, after all its your book.

But some of us would like to know why the Leader of the Opposition and possible future PM met with a top Eastern European spy ay the height of the cold war?

And just as importantly what was discussed at these meetings?

Simples

This could be a never ending story. There are a lot of things I would like to know and I am not going to and one of them might well be how many spies I have met.

Simples.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Boris786 posted:

It is implicit in your statement that something has changed and this free loader person is new/ more prevalent? I do not see that. 

 

I think increasingly people have become more dependent on the state. 

I do not. You could expand and explain that statement. It seems to me the state is shrinking and has certainly done so from the 1970s to the present day.

And then you would need to understand why people have become more dependent. Cause and effect?

MDS posted:

Getting back to Corbyn and the frosty exchanges at PMQs, perhaps his plan for retaliatory action against Russia, which 'fits' with his policy agenda, will be to take Chelsea FC into public ownership 

If only. Despite their (relatively) poor performance selling the squad might bring in a few shekels.....

Eloise posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

the state will provide and the guy next door will pay the tax to support me to the point where people can go through life almost devoid of any personal responsibility.  

If we take out of this particular discussion the very small number of people who are able to work but refuse to, you have to look at society and the way society and the country has changed to provide an explanation.

I was going to write something much longer, but it’s twenty past midnight and my mind isn’t focussed enough, so to summarise we used to live in a country where for the most part anyone who worked a full time job from the lowest to the highest paid was able to provide a modest but decent standard of life for their family without excessive (financial) support from the governement.  This is no longer the case and the so called “living wage” is insufficient.

Indeed there is a time for sleep isn’t there. 

My posion is this.   I’m politically liberal in both the economic and social sense (Iif im aligned with a party it’s the Liberal Democrat’s) but for a liberal society to function there has to be a clear recognition of noth collective and individual responsibility and it's with regard to the latter that I think we have gone wrong.  

My brother’s company runs a mentoring scheme not only with regard to career development but also life in general and a few weeks ago he met with a lady in her 20s typically a single Mum of 2 children by different fathers, and living on a modest salary in social housing.   She had gone to considerable lengths to prepare by bringing along her monthly budget.  2 things came to my brother’s attention.  Firstly a £40 per month telephone subscription.  He took the wider view on this, living with 2 children and working she wouldn’t be getting out much, no landline phone her phone was therefore pretty essential.   He then noticed a £70per month Sky/BT sports subscription and when he challenged on this she said she had this because her boyfriend like to come at the weekend and watch the football. The boy friend it turns out was not parent of either child. It went on.  She then shared her Tesco bill £20 a week on beer, yes for the boyfriend.   Now I make no moral judgement about her family situation people choose how to live.  

But, I was struck by the irony of the Sky/BT Sports subscription. Left or right leaning we all recognise that there is extreme wealth but here was a case of someone buying an expensive TV subscription to in effect keep her boyfriend on side and in so doing was directly contributing to the extreme wealth of premiership footballers and no doubt other top sports people.   I wonder how many other people pay say £50 for a ticket to say watch Chelsea and then claim they can't afford swimming lessons for their children?

I don’t under estimate for one moment the pressures of raising a family but I do think we have lost sight of reality and how to prioritise.

Regards,

Lindsay 

Lindsay,

My wife always remarks that people will find money for the things they like, be it exotic holidays, IPhone 10s or Sky Sports.

She's right of course and I am as guilty as charged regarding this hi-fi hobby which we all share on the forum.

So I too find it difficult to pass judgement but admit to feeling galled when I see somebody, I know to be unemployed, going in the betting shop or buying fags at the offie.

Ray 

Am getting a little concerned for some of the postings of regular members of this board in almost Bercow fashion. I read Fender's posting above and could not disagree with anything. Similarly, it was fascinating reading the postings on taxation as to who and how much classes of people should be taxed. After a few ideological utterances, quite a few of you dipped into the reality of who is actually paying the most tax in this country and whether this is truly proportionate or not. The reality, to me, seemed to drift to a conclusion that the rich do pay a significant proportion of income tax at least, and through spending power also probably pay a large amount of indirect tax as well. 

Unless you are a committed adherent to the Gordon Brown book of economics, whereby he wanted us to give him all our earnings and he would generously leave us with pocket money, the likelihood is that earnings will be disproportionate or unequal as that is the way almost all societies everywhere have effectively operated since mankind started bartering. Where the State tries too hard to massage inequalities to provide support for those unwilling or incapable of working effectively to support themselves this becomes open to corruption, fecklessness and indolence as exemplified by Fender's post above. 

The balance between individuals' social responsibilities and the State's responsibility to the individual need to be kept in some form of coherent balance if we are to have a sustainable society at all. Someone posted about the difference between welfare in the 70s versus today and concluded it wasn't that different. Well, my perception of state aid or welfare in the 70s was that receiving it had a stigma attached as well as  a presumption that you should get back on your own feet as quickly as possible. Welfare was not proudly considered as a lifelong career or right. Today's social consciences do not tolerate this thinking and so we expand the armies and scope of entitlement that cost us so much in taxation and social cohesion. 

(I was out to lunch yesterday, which may not surprise many of you)

Of course there are many in society who are genuinely having a hard-time for any number of reasons and who will be prioritising sensibly and as best they can.   We all need to be careful when it comes to making judgements - I respect that.   

Lindsay makes some really interesting points. Of course it is ridiculous that a woman in the position mentioned should be spending £40 on a phone contract and £70 on the Sky subscription. My Giffgaff contact gives me unlimited minutes and 3GB of download for £10, and you can get unlimited download for £20. But some people are not that bright, and sadly the education system does little to teach people about budgeting. It’s difficult to understand people’s lives and easy to make judgements. Perhaps her previous relationships have been difficult and that she is desperate to hang on to her boyfriend. Who knows? But if he’d leave her were it not for Sky she’d ultimately be better without him. And he can buy his own beer. 

My wife works in a school in one of the largest housing estates in the UK and some of the stories she hears would  send shivers down the spine of the comfortable middle classes. When I go out canvassing, some of the tales I hear are horrifying. So it’s perhaps not surprising that people buy some fags or place some bets just to get a moment’s relief from their daily lives. 

The real issue is the we live in a rich country but one with extreme disparities in income and wealth, and that the gap seems to be widening. It’s one of the biggest challenges facing society. How do we help people to help themselves? 

We're only a pawn in their game.

TOBYJUG posted:

Blame the machines.    We are all looking at them.     Owners of the machines have all lobbied so that you have to pay to look at them, rather than have them supply us with an abundance of luxury.

Yep TobyJug, I was just sitting in my Faraday cage thinking the self same. ????

Hungryhalibut posted:

Lindsay makes some really interesting points. Of course it is ridiculous that a woman in the position mentioned should be spending £40 on a phone contract and £70 on the Sky subscription. My Giffgaff contact gives me unlimited minutes and 3GB of download for £10, and you can get unlimited download for £20. But some people are not that bright, and sadly the education system does little to teach people about budgeting. It’s difficult to understand people’s lives and easy to make judgements. Perhaps her previous relationships have been difficult and that she is desperate to hang on to her boyfriend. Who knows? But if he’d leave her were it not for Sky she’d ultimately be better without him. And he can buy his own beer. 

My wife works in a school in one of the largest housing estates in the UK and some of the stories she hears would  send shivers down the spine of the comfortable middle classes. When I go out canvassing, some of the tales I hear are horrifying. So it’s perhaps not surprising that people buy some fags or place some bets just to get a moment’s relief from their daily lives. 

The real issue is the we live in a rich country but one with extreme disparities in income and wealth, and that the gap seems to be widening. It’s one of the biggest challenges facing society. How do we help people to help themselves? 

In my view, much of our malaise is due to poor education. Were our schools [ignoring faith schools] to adopt, via a 'traditional' curriculum that was present some 40 odd years ago, then our primary school children would have a better grasp of maths and english. And in their secondary school years, and expand and hone those learnt skills so that they leave with good standing for employment. And it wouldn't be a bad idea to re-introduce cookery classes either. Perhaps children could at least know how to cook a decent meal at low cost, rather than eating rubbish from their local Mc Donalds or fried chicken joint.

My accountant is Chinese. His children are schooled far more than their english counterparts, regularly working long after the 3.30 school closing time, including some weekends. That is their work ethic and he has said to me more than once that other countries [China] look at our education system with amazement.

thebigfredc posted:

Well as you asked HH.

We could start by not giving out free bus passes, heating allowances and TV licences to people who have more than sufficient economic means to need not be given patronising handouts by the State but just happen to have reached an arbitrary age.

Similarly,  universal child benefit is madness.

I wouldn't mind seeing the demise of that uniquely 20th century institution the BBC too.

Finally, a couple of hundred less MPs and giving out about 650 P45s to the denisens of the House of Lords would at least be a start.

Ray

Demise of BBC, surely you jest?  Its the only institution left which for me gives quality without the interference of odious advertisements.  I think the Americans in the US would dearly love a television station where one could watch a programme from start to finish without any interruptions of 'messages'.  Like Bruce Springsteen sang in his song '57 cannels and nothin on' is so aptly put...!

Romi posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Well as you asked HH.

We could start by not giving out free bus passes, heating allowances and TV licences to people who have more than sufficient economic means to need not be given patronising handouts by the State but just happen to have reached an arbitrary age.

Similarly,  universal child benefit is madness.

I wouldn't mind seeing the demise of that uniquely 20th century institution the BBC too.

Finally, a couple of hundred less MPs and giving out about 650 P45s to the denisens of the House of Lords would at least be a start.

Ray

Demise of BBC, surely you jest?  Its the only institution left which for me gives quality without the interference of odious advertisements.  I think the Americans in the US would dearly love a television station where one could watch a programme from start to finish without any interruptions of 'messages'.  Like Bruce Springsteen sang in his song '57 cannels and nothin on' is so aptly put...!

The world envies the BBC, it's the best broadcaster in the world bar none. The likes of Murdoch and the other media moguls would obviously like to see its demise, which is why they keep publishing anti-BBC tripe in their odious little rags, and we'll end up with something as hideous as American TV, which is virtually unwatchable.

The BBC makes some great TV and radio programmes no doubt but not always.

My comments came at the end of a day when I had been enduring the R2 banalities of Ken Bruce and Steve Wright at work. Bring back capital punishment for any DJ singing over the end of songs.

I then happened upon the moribund event that is the One Show in the evening and thought to myself this is such middle of the road pap and what's worse I am paying for it.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

The BBC makes some great TV and radio programmes no doubt but not always.

My comments came at the end of a day when I had been enduring the R2 banalities of Ken Bruce and Steve Wright at work. Bring back capital punishment for any DJ singing over the end of songs.

I then happened upon the moribund event that is the One Show in the evening and thought to myself this is such middle of the road pap and what's worse I am paying for it.

Ray

 

As far as radio is concerned Ken Bruce is the only one worth the money. The guy is amusing, has wide musical taste and presents with a deceptively simple style. He is one of the few real deals. And before anyone gets prissy about his My scal taste, he is as comfortable with anything from brass bands to classical. Give him a break.

Resurrection posted:

thebigfredc posted:

The BBC makes some great TV and radio programmes no doubt but not always.

My comments came at the end of a day when I had been enduring the R2 banalities of Ken Bruce and Steve Wright at work. Bring back capital punishment for any DJ singing over the end of songs.

I then happened upon the moribund event that is the One Show in the evening and thought to myself this is such middle of the road pap and what's worse I am paying for it.

Ray

 

As far as radio is concerned Ken Bruce is the only one worth the money. The guy is amusing, has wide musical taste and presents with a deceptively simple style. He is one of the few real deals. And before anyone gets prissy about his My scal taste, he is as comfortable with anything from brass bands to classical. Give him a break.

Of course that should have been "musical taste" and not the garbage that predictive text mangled.

Resurrection posted:

thebigfredc posted:

The BBC makes some great TV and radio programmes no doubt but not always.

My comments came at the end of a day when I had been enduring the R2 banalities of Ken Bruce and Steve Wright at work. Bring back capital punishment for any DJ singing over the end of songs.

I then happened upon the moribund event that is the One Show in the evening and thought to myself this is such middle of the road pap and what's worse I am paying for it.

Ray

 

As far as radio is concerned Ken Bruce is the only one worth the money. The guy is amusing, has wide musical taste and presents with a deceptively simple style. He is one of the few real deals. And before anyone gets prissy about his My scal taste, he is as comfortable with anything from brass bands to classical. Give him a break.

My favourite bit is when he struggles with trying to make the tedious guests in Popmaster seem entertaining.

He may well be a nice guy but he should have retired years ago to give a younger person a chance and his £600k wages are a joke.

Kan Bruce £600K????  I trust Jeremy Corbyn will pit a stop to that!

if he saved up he could have Statement amplifiers

thebigfredc posted:

Resurrection posted:

thebigfredc posted:

The BBC makes some great TV and radio programmes no doubt but not always.

My comments came at the end of a day when I had been enduring the R2 banalities of Ken Bruce and Steve Wright at work. Bring back capital punishment for any DJ singing over the end of songs.

I then happened upon the moribund event that is the One Show in the evening and thought to myself this is such middle of the road pap and what's worse I am paying for it.

Ray

 

As far as radio is concerned Ken Bruce is the only one worth the money. The guy is amusing, has wide musical taste and presents with a deceptively simple style. He is one of the few real deals. And before anyone gets prissy about his My scal taste, he is as comfortable with anything from brass bands to classical. Give him a break.

My favourite bit is when he struggles with trying to make the tedious guests in Popmaster seem entertaining.

He may well be a nice guy but he should have retired years ago to give a younger person a chance and his £600k wages are a joke.

My bad....Ken Bruce only gets £300k a year.

Steve Wright gets a cool half a million for talking over the ends of records and other inanities.

Good to see the Governors of the BBC have the licence payers interests at heart.

The only thing negative thing I can imagine about the BBC that one will still find well off Labour Hampstead hypocrites.  (People who enthuse about the social welfare, but drive expensive cars and send their children to private schools).  I don't know whats worse a snobby posh Tory or one off the above, I think on a good day I would shoot both of them with positive contempt!

Romi posted:

The only thing negative thing I can imagine about the BBC that one will still find well off Labour Hampstead hypocrites.  (People who enthuse about the social welfare, but drive expensive cars and send their children to private schools).  I don't know whats worse a snobby posh Tory or one off the above, I think on a good day I would shoot both of them with positive contempt!

Be careful what weapon you use in that narrow corridor between left and right as a shotgun might just catch everyone! ????

thebigfredc posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Resurrection posted:

thebigfredc posted:

The BBC makes some great TV and radio programmes no doubt but not always.

My comments came at the end of a day when I had been enduring the R2 banalities of Ken Bruce and Steve Wright at work. Bring back capital punishment for any DJ singing over the end of songs.

I then happened upon the moribund event that is the One Show in the evening and thought to myself this is such middle of the road pap and what's worse I am paying for it.

Ray

 

As far as radio is concerned Ken Bruce is the only one worth the money. The guy is amusing, has wide musical taste and presents with a deceptively simple style. He is one of the few real deals. And before anyone gets prissy about his My scal taste, he is as comfortable with anything from brass bands to classical. Give him a break.

My favourite bit is when he struggles with trying to make the tedious guests in Popmaster seem entertaining.

He may well be a nice guy but he should have retired years ago to give a younger person a chance and his £600k wages are a joke.

My bad....Ken Bruce only gets £300k a year.

Steve Wright gets a cool half a million for talking over the ends of records and other inanities.

Good to see the Governors of the BBC have the licence payers interests at heart.

I do not like Steve Wright at all but I do not need to listen to him. And plenty of people do seem to like him, including some bright people in my household. 

These pay rates do not seem out of line with the market (seem to be lower). 

Overall, I am pretty happy with the BBC offering and I believe that it being in the public sector allows it to cover a wider spectrum of content than the private.