dsmith

Tiggers

*sigh* My use of services has nothing to do with the size of my house. Has a lot to do with the area that house is in - ad therefore where I live.

To reduce it to to a hopelessly simplistic example. I produce no more rubbish in a small house than a big house. The cost of rubbish collection/disposal can and will vary depending where I live.

tiggers

Mart,

With all due respect your post is motivated only by you thinking of yourself (a product of the Thatcher regieme unfortunately) and not by what is good for society as a whole.

Best regards,

tiggers.

[Edited by tiggers - 1/28/2004 12:54:35 PM]

andrew6321

labour...tories....same people behind both parties pulling the strings.

can't believe people even bother to argue which is the better party as they are just two different fronts for the same backroom power-brokers.

It all starts to make sense once you realise that....

SJ_Skyline

I agree that the whole Thatcher era should by no means be viewed through rose tinted glasses. Many people lost their jobs and the country was changed, if you take the net effect I think it was for the better.

It is thankfully unheard of nowadays that trade unions have so much power as they did in the 70s. (Hospital porters deciding who gets treatment?)

I think Blair is pretty much finished. You can see when a politician has had it and it is just a question of how quickly they slide and how much damage they do on the way down. When you add together the broken election promises, the blatant U-turns on policy and fighting a war that the public didn't want and the country couldn't afford. What positive points have the government achieved?

tiggers

Deano,

It is you who are being simplistic with this argument about refuse collection.

Let's look at an example. If you had two kids and I had none yet we lived side my side in the same type of house I would pay as much as you for my council tax or poll tax (which system doesn't matter here).

I could object as part of my council tax goes towards education which your kids and hence you would be taking advantage of, but I wouldn't. Therefore why should I pay as much as you - hardly seems fair does it.

Oh hang on a minute - that situation benefits you whereas the situation you are talking about doesn't - do we see a pattern emerging here.

I'll say it again - in a democracy like ours those better off should contribute more to help those less well off. I believe this is the right way to be - you, however may not agree. That's no problem as maybe I'm wrong and you're right - who knows!

tiggers.

Scooby96

Didnt one of the labour back benchers say (just prior to the vote)something like "we've not delivered on education.... a total misrepresentation of the original labour manifesto...."

paulr

Except that if you look at the detail you'll realise that is not 100% true.Take pensioner income and my dad for example.

Tories
Scrapped the link with earnings,meaning lower state pensions.

Labour
Introduced the minimum income guarantee and linked its increase with earnings not inflation.Also introduced the winter fuel allowance,around £200 tax free.
Mt dad would be a fool to vote Tory as he is a low income pensioner.

tiggers

SJ,

I disagree with you on Thatcher. I think what she has done to the social fabric of this country will have far more long term damaging effects than any removal of union power etc., but that's only my opinion.

tiggers.

dsmith

I agree. its called "Income Tax" and/or "NI". A clearly defined tax based on income and designed to do just that.

I'm also entirely in favour of those with children paying more to help pay for their children's education rather than the reverse situation at the moment where those with Children pay less tax - but I'm realistic enough to know that that isnt going to happen

tiggers

Then be realistic enough to realise that the poll tax ain't coming back!!!

tiggers.

akshay67

Very interesting quote coming from someone who usually spouts extreme right-wing diatribe.

Do you think they should 'get done' for war crimes for what they did or just because you hate them?

PS: this thread wouldn't be out of place in the CWE forum

andrew6321

paulr - I never said that the parties' policies were the same...just that the people behind them are....

SJ_Skyline

Tiggers,

Cheers - social thats the word I was looking for!!

I was trying to say that she had changed the fundamental social makeup of the country. Gone were the days of "a job for life" now this can be viewed in one of two ways: You are a carrier of colleagues or you are being carried by colleagues and depending on which you are defines your viewpoint. Now that is a sweeping generalisation but from the people I know that were working in the 70s and 80s, the ones that were still working in the 90s were the ones that were capable and good at what they did. The ones that were no good at what they did, the ones that were carried by their colleagues were soon out of work. Yes there were numbers on both sides that lost jobs but the there was a trend.

I guess the bottom line arguement is - "was this a good thing?" again it depends on where you stand. As an employer then yes it is a good thing so that you can get the best people to fill your positions. As an employee, it depends - are you willing to work hard? The problem was with the transfer of power, wheras in the 70s the employee had power through the union. Now the employer has power over the employee. In the 70s the unions abused this power much like today some employers abuse this power.

They walk a mile in someone elses shoes before you judge. I have been an employee and an employer and to be honest I feel the current set-up with the employer having power to be the better in that disputes and disruption is kept local.

All IMHO of course!

tiggers

SJ,

I agree with much of what you have written. My problem is that in my opinion what Maggie did is made individuals think that being greedy, selfish and treading on people to reach a material goal was something to be proud of.

It is this mentality that drives a lot of the rhetoric about what's fair and not fair in our tax structures etc. today in my opinion.

tiggers.

SJ_Skyline

tiggers,

You are right, it is nothing to be proud of. I'll agree to disagree on some of your points

(After 3 edits I find myself going off on a tangent!)

So I'll go off to my meeting! nice to have a sensible discussion on this board without any mudslinging!!

SiPie

Silly argument ...

Johnny Lyden (Rotten) for PM

[Edited by SiPie - 1/28/2004 2:47:54 PM]

dsmith

??: Where did i say I thought it was ?

Anyway the current government has no ability or courage to push through anything like that sort of change at all - its all done in the small print. I have no problem with someone (such as yourself I gather) that fundamentally believes in "redistribution of wealth". I might not agree but that doesnt stop me understanding
it as a point of view.

My major problem is with a group of politicians who are clearly trying to acheive it by stealth and small print changes (e.g the NI changes that werent in the budget speech etc) but wont admit it and dont have the strength of conviction to stand up and say "this is what we believe - vote for it".

Deano

Diesel

In relation to Tiggers’ idealistic view of what could have been New Labour [particularly when compared to the often unsavoury ‘individualism’ legacy that Thatcher left] I must say I think they have failed & haven't delivered; I also find them arrogant and untrustworthy.

The tax burden has increased significantly and as covertly as possible, but without the resultant quality of life gains under this party. If I was told that I no longer have to pay to have my teeth fixed (for example) I would maybe start seeing the benefit from my increased tax burden and outrageous council tax. If they told me that if I lost my job the stste wouldn’t just sit back and watch me lose my house as their part of the deal in exchange for my 4 figure p.m. tax. This however will NEVER happen and I now know I face having to pay thousands for my daughters higher education. I took ‘free teeth’ and free college for granted when I was a pup... I could list many more cons and disappointments of course.

Bottom line (and tell me to push off there if it helps) is that the overall tax burden for someone like me would be the same if in Norway (about 50%). Norway however WORKS. UK has about 50,000,000 more tax paying people & in a smaller surface area, so why cant our country work too? Cue Spanish property TV programme Pants! At least Maggie let you keep a bigger part of yer hard earned, which, lets face it, was some consolation…

tiggers

Deano,

Yeah, but that applies to either party and that is the problem.

tiggers.

tiggers

Diesel,

Yes again I agree with some of what is being said, but this free college, free teeth thing is a bit rich.

Look at the free college claim. If it was all so wonderful under Mrs. T why then do I remember laughing at my fellow students celebrating their 'victory' having marched on parliament to protest about the abolition of the minimum grant and the introduction of tuition fees. Why was I laughing because Mrs. T. 'caved in' over the tuition fees which she had only proposed so that she could give it back as a concession to the 'victorious' students. She then carried on with ther reforms the year after anyway.

I'm not saying that makes everything the current government do right, but it does illustrate that the previous government no matter what Michael 'I'll say anything to get elected' Howard says still introduced the concept of many of the policies still being brought in today. As for stealth tax - take what the previous government did re. VAT, duty and petrol as the stealth tax benchmark.

You can't really win with either party - just don't wish Blair out too hard until you've seriously considered the alternative - it may be a case of better the devil you know.

tiggers.

gareth123

Cash out of the overvalued UK housing market and spend the money abroad. You'd be surprised at what the typical profit from selling an overvalued southern England house will let you buy. Buy, not get a mortgage on.

Either inflation's going to go insane or the housing market's going to tank. Neither will be very nice.

Oh, and the Poll Tax ruled. Discouraged poor people from voting!

Chip

Unemployment went up under Maggie I agree. But then again did we really need 10 men to do a 1 man job, ie British Leyland working practices. Times were changing very fast in the 80's with automation, computing and more efficient praxctises coming into place and the UK had fallen behind under Labour in the 70's.

We needed to catch up with the rest of the world and become more competitive as a nation .To do this major changes were needed of which many were achieved under the Thatcher Gov.

As for mortgages do ppl not know that interest rates can go up as well as down.

And finally the miners. Remember driving around years ago. You'd see that black smokey stuff coming out of those brick things on peoples roofs.This meant they had a coal fire. How often do you see them now. Not very.Theyve mostly got gas central heating. Much better I think.
Do you really want to see coal being burned in houses,power stations etc throwing out all the nasty substances that burning it creates. I doubt it.

Chip.

tiggers

Chip,

It's funny how high unemployment is always acceptable until it's you who are unemployed.

As for modernising and bringing us up to the standard of other countries Maggie chose instead to dismantle the British manufacturing industry and make manufacturing a 'dirty word'. Far better to concentrate on those nice service industries and import everything instead.

Which leads me on nicely to the subject of coal. You may find this hard to believe, but many of our power stations still use coal which we now have to import of course. The miner's strike was politically motivated and nothing else. Scargill was a fool who played into Maggie's hands, but that doesn't make what happened right.

As for mortgages, yes they can go up as well as down, but persuading everyone through years and years of lobbying, speeches etc. to buy their own property including council houses to then put the rates up to the highest value I can ever recall (15.4% I seem to remember) could be considered a tad unfair don't you think?

Still if that's the sort of politics that motivates you then who am I to say you are wrong.

tiggers.

Chip

Tiggers,

Remember these days do you or would you rather forget they existed. Still I suppose it was romantic eating your tea every night by candlelight was'nt it

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/1784/sw178413.htm

Chip.

ianmiller999

I have to agree on my paper round route there are three houses which have coal/wood fires. On a day when the wind strength is low, just one of those houses trouly make the air alot dirtier to breathe I cannot imagine how it would be if every house still had coal/wood fires.

tiggers

Chip,

AS mentioned before on this thread - I do remember those times. I also remember only too well the Thatcher years. The difference - no one on this post is wanting a return to the former, but they are to the latter.

So the point of your last post is?

tiggers

gareth123

A scary number of first-time-buyers who are new to the mortgage game, and haven't seen anything but fairly stable low rates, think a 0.5% rise in mortgage rates means their mortgage goes up by 0.5%, i.e. if they pay $100/month now they'll being paying $100.50/month after a 0.5% rise. I can't remember if that survey was done in the UK or the US (probably here ) but there's going to be a big wake-up call for a lot of financially overextended people at some point.

Chip

I dont think so!

But if they do, then it just goes to prove that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Chip.