i'm just a working class spanner man. I understand Socialist's and Capitalist's and what they stand for!
That's a really interesting point. It means that parties now adopt policies that they think will be popular, or avoid policies that they think will be unpopular. So they don't adopt policies they believe in, but try to curry favour with the electorate. Now surely, the whole point of wanting to govern is to implement policies that are spawned from a philosophical viewpoint. if you don't have a philosophical viewpoint, why should anyone vote for you? That's in many respects what annoys the electorate now. Parties are all beige in slightly different shades. Final Maggie comment, no matter how much I loathed her, at least she had integrity. You wouldn't find her fiddling her expenses or trying to get the state to buy her a second home on the quiet. That ought to be table stakes for a public leader, but as we all know, it's now a rarity.
I started my working life in 1976 as an apprentice at British Leyland. In the mid to late 1970's, there were many strikes at the Longbridge factory. The apprentices were told by our training officers that we were not represented by the Unions, and if we did not turn up for work, we would not be paid. They told us that if we wore our apprentices overalls, the distinctive colour would mean we could avoid any problems. Unfortunately, that is not how it panned out. I crossed picket lines , and was kicked, punched, spat on (I was 17 years old), and many of those dishing out the violence did not even work for the company. I try to take a balanced view of most things. The miners plight in the 1980's came to a head with Thatchers stance, but was many years in the making. ( Check out Monty Finiston and his cohorts business planning in the 1970's , very poor!). The issues relating to the miners strike at the time divided communities and even families, so it is not as simple as a some folk's make out. Happy to discuss further as always. Regards, SH.
Within most democratic political parties there is a tension between those who want to preserve the purity of their principles (even at the expense of remaining forever in opposition, and thus not actually achieving anything), and those whose priority is to get into power so they can make a real difference (even at the expense of trimming their policies to appeal to the electorate). Parties often sway from one side of that debate to the other every ten years or so, as you may have noticed. In any case once an opposition party gets into government, it always has to modify its wishful thinking in the light of the tough realities it faces (e.g. recently LibDems, and SNP in Scotland).
MT had a very wealthy husband who had made his fortune in the oil business, so she had little need of her salary or expenses. Some politicians are independently wealthy, and look down with lofty disdain on those other politicians who depend on the money they earn to live on and to support their families. IMHO being independently wealthy is not a qualification for political office nor a sign of "integrity", and needing to make money to live on is not a disqualification.
Wow glid. I consider you to be one of the more reasonable members of this forum but I'm not sure this post from you is characteristic To me the parable was about the psychology, not the maths. I noted in the parable that the tenth man never spoke a word and the only thing we really learn about him, apart from being beaten up by the other nine, was that he was quite happy with the arrangement and drank there every day. To me the parable goes further, in that when the tenth man is no longer to pay his share, the remaining nine can't pull together half of the bill. The reality is that when you tax the rich highly, they pay their tax elsewhere. They can afford to and it's actually quite cheap and easy to do with an HMRC registered business. I have used them when contracting in the UK and I am not rich. Would you accept people who earned less than you telling you what you should spend the money you've earned on? And I think that implicitly suggesting that their kids shouldn't have to do anything in life is drawing a long bow. Do you not want to better your children's lives? Aren't you overlooking the many of those parents who hold back the money until their child is old enough and has had enough education to handle having money responsibly? I have socialist leanings and this is a complex issue for me to explain my view on. I pay a lot of tax and I don't begrudge paying it. I know many people who earn a lot more than me who don't mind paying tax either. Middle and high income earners can lean left however I don't believe that I should taxed excessively because I've worked hard to get into the middle band nor that I should be told what I should spend my money on. For what it's worth I consider myself to be a middle income earner. Here's a table showing Australia's current income tax brackets. This is why I consider myself to be a middle income earner. [TABLE] [TR] [TD][TABLE] [TR] [TD]Taxable income [/TD] [TD="width: 340"]Tax on this income [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 160"]0 - $18,200 [/TD] [TD="width: 340"]Nil [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 160"]$18,201 - $37,000 [/TD] [TD="width: 340"]19c for each $1 over $18,200 [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 160"]$37,001 - $80,000 [/TD] [TD="width: 340"]$3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000 [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 160"]$80,001 - $180,000 [/TD] [TD="width: 340"]$17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 160"]$180,001 and over [/TD] [TD="width: 340"]$54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] . Some hardline views on high income earners there.
It's true that without the work from the loads of other people the value wouldn't be created. It's also true that the loads of people wouldn't be able to create that value without the vision, leadership and management of the top of the tree. It's a symbiotic relationship but one that is conceived and orchestrated by the top and all benefit because of it.
Tony, I said I didn't know whether I'm Left or Right. I didn't say I had no interest at all in politics :wink:
If "all benefit" then no one has anything to complain about. In the real world though, all do not benefit - not by a long way.
If only that were true: I don't begrudge or envy those who've started their own business using their own money,have treated their workforce fairly and have become wealthy as a result.Nor those who have worked hard and come up with new designs or invention. I do however have issues with those that become wealthy playing with other peoples,or the taxpayers, money:Bankers,Pension Fund Managers,NHS Executives etc.It seems that these groups are protected from any negative consequence of their actions,still receiving their bonuses/pensions even though they often make the wrong decisions Also that have inherited wealth ,especially if it comes with a grand title and it's advantages.Just because their forebears licked the arses of royalty/Parliament,or grabbed the land before we all miraculously became,"civilised",the common man is supposed to hold them in some high regard? Not many of the above have any special talent that is of value to humanity.The ability to shuffle other peoples money/preside over public sector monopolies/lord it over managers who collect the rents on vast estates etc, wouldn't cut any ice if they were marooned on a desert island.They'd be first in the pot. There may well be one or two of them that have a genuine desire to improve the lot of the rest of us,but I doubt it. Personally,I believe in a concept called,"enough" If you've got a reasonably decent standard of living,you and your family are reasonably well provided for,and you've got a few quid stashed away to leave your kids when you shuffle off,then you've probably got,"enough" If you've got a few million,then you've definitely got,"enough" I don't admire people who just keep working when they've got untold riches already,(the likes of Bob Diamond),or those who keep demanding higher and higher salaries because,"thats what they could earn in the Private Sector". I appreciate that one persons, "enough",will differ from anothers. But frankly,some of the salaries these people,"earn",are obscene. Bring on the revolution.....they'll be first against the wall...
Seems Mr R you inbox is full. So here you go what I was going to send in a pm. I wont be back on this thread or many others. So... I've been avoiding all the politics because some, you being one of the worst, cant describe behaviour but instead target people. Was told to check out some posts you made and I have. Whats with the insults then? Point somewhere where I have insulted anyonewho hasn't had a dig first. My posts are always considered to make it clear they are my views and everyone is entitled t theirs. Be amazed if there are any. and I'm no keyboard warrior. Assume you will be at the ducati trackday? Look forward to catching up then. Steve Klee says you're a decent bloke. You don't come across that way, more an arrogant 'my way or the highway' wanker who has no time for those with less knowledge or difference of opinion. Don't bother replying will be deleted, but sure we'll meet at a meet sometime when you can tell me what a prick I am.
Nice one. A very considered response which makes your TWAT reply seem an intelligent action. I congratulate you on your left wing bully boy picket type response. You are very much encroaching upon my territory as COCK (in a very defamatory sense) of the forum. Damn your short tempered working class demeanour.
Don't drag me into this Steve R is a decent bloke and i class Him as a very good mate! Face to face sharing a beer or coffee or whatever.........! On the forum is different! don't we all talk shit!! FFS chill out
