How will you vote?

[bustedflush]

I suggest the epithet Corbyn (destroyer of the once-proud Labour Party) is most apt.

'Destroyer of the once-proud Labour Party'?! Over 150,000 people joined the Labour Party during the election campaign , with more joining every day.
I'm sure a lot of the Glastonbury revellers will be signing up too.

Reminds me of the 1980's when the NF would try and recruit members at football matches.

I suggest you Corbyn supporters have a good read of the top link here - none of this hasn't been in the national press, but it shows some pretty startling early Labour stuff clearly some haven't forgotten.

https://labour25.com/2011/06/19/war-her ... -labour25/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... andal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... unist-hero" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... n-trotsky/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some to counteract the continual nonsense the Gradinua and 'Independent' seem to favour.

[bustedflush]

No, it owes it to free world trade, a colossal pool of cheap labour, lack of the costs of a welfare state/NHS etc. and freedom to own and create wealth. In other words a Communist state that eventually realized that the consequences of their philosophy were starvation, famine, a select privileged few and lack of progression.

It owes it all to capitalism ? How does that square with the fact that the state in China owns around 65% of the nations assets via State owned enterprises ? It's a mixed economy.

Further, massive improvements in living standards post 1949 were evident in China way before it opened up the door to its enterprise zones in what, 1978 - that is, if indicators such as infant mortality rates are to be believed. Indeed, even the growth in GDP in China since 1978 has been largely following the trend in the growth first established post 1949, if slightly accelerated.


Can't find figures for that which is state owned in the UK - but from what I've gleened from my albeit limited reading on the matter, it has to be less than 5%. Apart from the MOD, most of what we own (as a nation) appears to be loss making The Govt gave all the good stuff away to Wall street you see - you can thank Thatcher derugulating the market in the 80's for that - the Americans must have thought that all their Christmases had come at once.
Christ, nowadays even the French and Chinese state sector are soon going to be supplying us with our electricity FFS - how crazy does this need to get ?

No - over here when you elect a Govt. you aren't electing proprietors or caretakers of the nations assets - they are owned by the new Duke of Westminster, global equity management firms and foreign SOE's - you are voting for someone who tinkers with the tax rates. That being the case you could almost argue that we have not democracy, but the myth of democracy.
The Labour Party are in the process of reversing this trend away from democracy.


BTW - you should explain to the Chinese how it is that they have "realised the consequences of their philosophy" - because if its Marx's theories that you refer to, last I heard he was still a compulsory part of the curriculum

And far more than this mythical 1% got significantly better.. with reductions in income tax, right-buy-houses and flogging-off the lame-duck industries that were the laughing stock of Europe.

I thought you were the economics graduate ? You know full well that the rich have gotten richer in this country - even post 2008. Why do you say the 1% is mythical ? Britain's richest 1% own as much as poorest 55% of population
On a global scale the wealth of richest 1% is equal to other 99% of the world population

Its obscene - in a world where 783 million people do not have access to clean water and almost 2.5 billion do not have access to adequate sanitation.

Corbyn is a Marxist, and very dangerous.

Lame MacArthyist fear mongering.
Corbyn is for the many, not the few.

Its you who is dangerous - you are for the few, not the many.

Rich have got richer? Yes, and so have the so-called 'poor' but the convenient case of 'relativity' always seems to be referred to.... If you showed the house, food, TV, cars, devices and stuff owned by a benefits family now to a working man in 1945 his eyes would pop out. He would say, "if these are 'poor' why are they so fat?"

783 million live without fresh water - and how much UK 'aid' do they get to spend on weapons while this happens?

China, improving since 1949-1978!!!!! tell that to TENS OF MILLIONS starved or worked to death by your friend Mao. Google '1976 China' if you need reminding of the joys of communism.

Naturally Marx is still part of the curriculum, as with all bully-boy regimes it's a case of 'do as we say, not as we do'. I'm sure he's still pretty big in N.Korea too, but for the ruling class..?

Also check out your facts as regards the USA - in the 1980's the UK was the second biggest 'creditor nation' on Earth after Japan. That means we had huge ownership of foreign companies and interests compared to the reverse. Holiday Inns? Colt Rifles? Crocker Bank? Verizon Corp? Bradley Tanks/ Fighting Vehicles? Heckler and Koch? Mannesmann in Germany? AMOCO? All owned or merged into UK businesses.

It's great to debate with persons carefully selecting facts, because they immediately provide the next round of ammunition to shoot them with....

[baldrick]

Some to counteract the continual nonsense the Gradinua and 'Independent' seem to favour.

even the Torygraph recognises Corbyn's growing popularity
Corbyn mania grips Glastonbury Festival as thousands turn out to listen to Labour leader speak on stage
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... ands-turn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Spedley]

https://labour25.com/2011/06/19/war-her ... -labour25/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Same story from a less bias source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14215425 .

[jetblack]

If you showed the house, food, TV, cars, devices and stuff owned by a benefits family now to a working man in 1945 his eyes would pop out.

Of course - but how free are we ? How much do we have the right to self determination ? Cos you can own as many smartphones as you want, but if you aren't free ...?

Morover, none of the advances you mention ie. tellies,cars and ipads, none are down to capitalism - they are down to the advancement of human knowledge over time, and the accompanying technological advance. They would have occurred whatever the prevailing economic paradigm - what makes you think that you can lay claim to them ?

Today we eat worse than 1945 - we are in more debt - and we are more unequal (the last time the best-off took as big a share of all income as they do today was in 1940(two years before the publication of the Beveridge Report).

Its injustice buddy - cut it how you want, but I'd say that in general people are getting tired of bending over and taking it. No use telling them that they've never had it so good - you've never had it so good, you can say that much - but how about those in high rise blocks in Kensington, or Camden, or Sheffield for eg ? Those nurses using food banks ? The indebted unemployed graduate living at home till they are 42 ? The postman with f****d knees, nothing left after he's paid for the basics, looking forward to an old age robbed of the pension he'd worked for ?

783 million live without fresh water - and how much UK 'aid' do they get to spend on weapons while this happens?

Yep - lets blame the poverty of those without, not on those that are devising complex and subversive means by which to accumulate and hoard the wealth of this world, but on those without. Lets blame the poverty of the poor on the poor. Again, a very tired argument that goes back to Victorian times. Doesn't fool anyone these days. Its one step up from "...cos she was wearing a mini skirt"

in the 1980's the UK was the second biggest 'creditor nation' on Earth after Japan. That means we had huge ownership of foreign companies and interests compared to the reverse

When you say we who exactly are you referring to ? Not you and I - not the state. Then who ? Who was it had their hands in the global pie ?
Whatever, 30 years of Thatcherism soon put an end to that - we are now relying on French and Chinese state owned enterprises to provide our electricity (amongst other things), German SOE to provide our rail and Indian multi nationals to provide our steel. What next ? Brazil Inc. supplies our fresh air ? Hardly the centre of the empire today are we ? Far from it.

This is what happens when short term profits are put over prudent long term financial planning old son.

edit. for the love of Jesus - China's National Offshore Oil Corporation (a state owned enterprise, owned by the people of China), is now the largest supplier of oil from our very own North Sea reserves. You could not make this s**t up - and I haven't

[stan_lers]

Rich have got richer? Yes, and so have the so-called 'poor' but the convenient case of 'relativity' always seems to be referred to.... If you showed the house, food, TV, cars, devices and stuff owned by a benefits family now to a working man in 1945 his eyes would pop out. He would say, "if these are 'poor' why are they so fat?"

Of course it's relative - your wage is relative to the price of everything you buy. The UK has the worst wage growth in the developed world, while prices are going up. That means people are getting pay cuts year on year.

The world is obviously very different from 1945. TVs, phones and cars are all pretty much essential for modern life. Mobile phones especially always get brought up, people even say refugees can't be that desperate if they own a mobile phone. Nevermind that you can get a smartphone for £20, or that they're practically as essential as a bank card in modern society. You can't communicate, apply for jobs, manage bills, manage finances etc without a phone today.

You're also ignoring the fact that all those TVs, gadgets, cars, holidays and even houses, are all bought on credit. It's becoming increasingly common for people to effectively hire a car instead of ever owning one, and the same with houses as renting becomes the only choice. It basically sounds like you're saying that poor people should live in 20's style work houses, and that if they want something extravagant as a TV then they should shut up and stop complaining.

[fishtank]

"if these are 'poor' why are they so fat?"

The primary reason poorer people tend to be fatter is because unhealthy, fatty food is cheaper, If you've got £2 to spend you could buy a couple of heads of broccoli or a burger, fries and a coke or a frozen pizza.You need roughly 1500 calories per day and the broccoli will provide you with around 200 whereas the Happy Meal or pizza will pretty much cover it. The reason heavily processed foods are so cheap is because most of the constituent parts of junk food wheat, soyabeen and corn are heavily subsidised by government and farmed on an industrial scale that wasn't available in 1945.

What the guy from 1945 would be more likely to say is why is my government paying these farmers to grow these "cash crops" and turning it into MacMeals when they could be growing proper food and selling it much cheaper.

[bustedflush]

Yes, these devices TV's and other trappings are widely owned because they are AFFORDABLE to all, a consequence of efficient mass production and use of world trade to facilitate cheaper labour costs and material. How many of these would you have if the industries were state owned? Remember East Germany? Even simple things like basic cars were unaffordable to many, you might stretch to a cardboard Trabant or if really lucky a 2-stroke magic fart like the Wartburg Knight made of metal, while all the time casting envious eyes at the West. Yes, having these gadgets or owning these items means somebody somewhere is getting hugely rich, but it means you have workers and they have access to most of them. This argument is pointless in many ways as even your old hero Marx recognized that you needed capitalism to create any wealth FIRST before the workers could share it.

As for TBT's annoyance at me using the Marxist label, I thought he, me, and the rest of you understood that he founded his philosophy initially when most nations were ruled by dictators or monarchies, and later when democracies became prevalent altered his words to be less extreme and instead of revolution adjusted his theories and predictions to be implemented via peaceful means through this democratic medium. Unfortunately for him, no matter what people think, the majority of voters in these democracies are aware (despite injustices perceived and real) that in the long term they benefit more from freedom of capital than excessive state control and ownership. This is why far-left governments are seldom elected and when they are it tends to be in poorer economies or ones with huge natural resources to shield the real costs involved.

Now C*rbyn has already been to Grenfell to score points and has advocated seizure of private property, he has advocated nationalization and promised (unaffordable) state benevolence to the gullible. If this DOESN'T make him dangerous and divisive and yes, a Marxist in the modern-day definition of Marxism based on Marx's latter-day views then what else can I add?

As for food, I refer to the poster above who made the comment about diet being 'better in 1945'. Yes, it was because we had rationing! The country was on what amounted to little better than UN starvation rations with very limited fat and sugar. So yes, capitalism and may be to blame for the prevalence of cheap and what were once 'luxury' bad foods but it's also education - obesity tends to be more prevalent in poorer areas. I do concede that a good Stalinist regime would end this problem, a little state-imposed inefficiency and management and we'd all soon have waistlines like Stalin's Russians, Mao's Chinese and Kim Jong's North Koreans. OK, no internet, limited TV, no smart phones, no free radio or travel but the amount of currency coming into the country via Weightwatcher's prizes would surely make up for it.

P.S. To the other poster "All those TV's, houses, gadgets etc. are bought on credit.." A bit sweeping! So none of these items are ever bought cash, by anybody? Not the cheap TV's for 120 quid? Or smartphones with PAYT SIMs in boxes for 40 or 50 quid? Houses with inheritances or savings? I personally, aside from house purchase never use credit. If I ain't got the money, I do without - otherwise it's bad housekeeping and as you infer it isn't good for the household. Actually, taking your point one step further, you agree that government shouldn't borrow irresponsibly and spend money it can't afford to?

[Tman]

I suggest the epithet Corbyn (destroyer of the once-proud Labour Party) is most apt.

'Destroyer of the once-proud Labour Party'?! Over 150,000 people joined the Labour Party during the election campaign , with more joining every day.
I'm sure a lot of the Glastonbury revellers will be signing up too.

Maybe so, but then they whoop-whooped for Johnny Depp when he criticised Trump. The highly predictable kids' view of the world.
What Corbyn needs is a breakthrough to gain the votes of the "traditional" Labour voters like me and most I speak to who care enough to give an opinion. So far he hasn't made that leap, and a million fickle kids on FB aren't enough to build an electable party around.
A truer barometer isn't excitable bubble-existing teens at a festival, but voters in Scotland, who although disenchanted with the SNP's one trick pony view of politics, actually voted for the hated Tories rather than the Labour Party as most expected them to.
Clearly the solid labour country of Scotland can see through the little bearded fraud too...

[stan_lers]

P.S. To the other poster "All those TV's, houses, gadgets etc. are bought on credit.." A bit sweeping! So none of these items are ever bought cash, by anybody? Not the cheap TV's for 120 quid? Or smartphones with PAYT SIMs in boxes for 40 or 50 quid? Houses with inheritances or savings? I personally, aside from house purchase never use credit. If I ain't got the money, I do without - otherwise it's bad housekeeping and as you infer it isn't good for the household. Actually, taking your point one step further, you agree that government shouldn't borrow irresponsibly and spend money it can't afford to?

Don't move your own goalposts. You mentioned all those things being owned by a 'benefits family'. Those people aren't buying these things outright, they're getting them on finance. That's why people classed as poor can 'afford' these things. Also, government borrowing in and of itself isn't irresponsible at all. Banks only care that you can repay the interest, and we can. And why is Corbyn point-scoring by visiting Grenfell but not May? He's a senior politician, that's part of his job.

You keep going on about Corbyn being a Marxist and wanting to control the means of production, as if we'll have a situation like the USSR (which wasn't Marxist, at all) with everything made and sold by the state, including cars. You're crazy if you think Corbyn is actually suggesting that, and if he is then he's kept it very quiet. If you think the Labour manifesto is Marxist, then so are Germany, France, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Spain, India and Argentina. If you think his suggestion of increasing corporation tax is Marxist, there are 40 countries, including the US, with higher rates than his proposal.

You might also notice that the UK is richer than almost all of those countries, and yet people are saying his manifesto is unaffordable. What's the point of having a high GDP and being told that growth is the most important thing in the world if 95% of the population gets no benefit from it?

[jetblack]

Marx recognized that you needed capitalism to create any wealth FIRST before the workers could share it.

What ? No he didn't.

Marx argued that over time the free market produces a concentration of the wealth of a nation in the hands of the few - and that, therefore, the nations assets should be held by those that produce the wealth in the first place.
Of course, he was writing in a different time - before global capitalism, before the knowledge economy, before value could be transferred globally, instantaneously, at the click of a button.
But that the masses are being exploited and denied what is rightfully theirs there can be no doubt. More than that, they are being effectively enslaved by debt and the fiat based monetary system (where money is created as debt) - Greece is the prime example, but the same principles apply to many advanced industrialised societies as well as, of course, developing nations. As well as having an unemployment rate of 23%, Greece has a debt of 184% of GDP. Its paying $652 every second in interest. In other words, the Greeks are running to stand still - as will be the children and grandchildren of todays Greeks. (It should be noted also that the UK has one of the highest household debts in the world - private debt stands higher today than it was in 2007 - a ticking time bomb). Funnily enough, Greece is now having to sell off/privatise its own state owned assets and industries in order to try to alleviate the debt.
I suppose they should think themselves lucky - our Government sold off the family silver not through necessity, but for political ideological reasons - and now we don't have anything left to sell


Seems to me that Marx is a bit of a red herring here - because as Stan has pointed out just about every advanced industrialised country in the world has a greater proportion of state owned enterprises than we have here in the UK.

At the risk of repeating myself, the only question is the degree of the mix within the economy. No-one today is arguing for the outright control of the means of production by the state - not even the Chinese, but that point seems to have been lost - whilst only the Tories and Bustedflush are arguing that the economy/nations assets work better when 100% in private hands.

This is why far-left governments are seldom elected and when they are it tends to be in poorer economies or ones with huge natural resources to shield the real costs involved.

You are confusing the economic with the political - but nonetheless, would you say that Trump is left wing ? its just that he stood on a platform of anti globalisation and bringing jobs back to the US.

"“Today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.

For elections days come and go. But political and social revolutions that attempt to transform our society never end. For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have born the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of the country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs and, while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.”

Sounds pretty left wing to me - and he just got elected to the most powerful nation on Earth (China aside )




What is left wing ? Anyone who believes that more than 5% of the countries assets should be held in the hands of the state for the benefit of the people - and not in the hands of Goldman Sachs et al ? Must be a lot of left wing elected governments around then I'd say. Is a government that intervenes to produce £0.5 trillion new money and intervenes also to set the price of that money left wing ? Or uses taxpayers money to nationalise loss making banks ? Or that intervenes to subsidise foreign SOE's to the tune of £30 billion at Hinckley Point ? Or are we meant to overlook this ? Doesn't this count ? Is this not state intervention after all ?

Is the Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution Marxist also (the one that Blair did away with) ?

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Maoist perhaps ? Trotskyite ?

Or just common sense democratic socialism ? Taking back some control. For the many not the few.

[Tman]

It's clear why dear old jet is such a fan of Jezza....both have spent far too long navel-gazing and debating the intricacies and minutiae of Marxism to realise that most people just want a home and food on the table, as simple as that.
Dear old jet, were he to admit to reading this, would reply that that's what Marx recognised and advocated, except the Karl Marx version wouldn't accept the multitude of variations in human nature meant (and means) that Marxism and it's many subsequent variations is totally unworkable and therefore should have been discarded as a principle decades back.
As the old comedy skit from years back had it," workers, is it really all you want, a Spanish holiday every year, a nice car and a colour TV?" Answer "you mean there's more we can have?"
Always brings a wry smile when posters attempt to say how "bad" we've had it and capitalism is to blame, especially given how quickly the former Communist Bloc countries emptied and the populations ended up in the "down-trodden" economies of the West.
{Cue usual bollix about "ah, but they weren't true Communist/Marxist/Leninist/etc countries" as some sort of weak riposte}
Still, that old drum's been banged by some for so long that now it can't be anything other than force of habit.

[bustedflush]

Marx recognized that you needed capitalism to create any wealth FIRST before the workers could share it.

What ? No he didn't.

Marx argued that over time the free market produces a concentration of the wealth of a nation in the hands of the few - and that, therefore, the nations assets should be held by those that produce the wealth in the first place.
Of course, he was writing in a different time - before global capitalism, before the knowledge economy, before value could be transferred globally, instantaneously, at the click of a button.
But that the masses are being exploited and denied what is rightfully theirs there can be no doubt. More than that, they are being effectively enslaved by debt and the fiat based monetary system (where money is created as debt) - Greece is the prime example, but the same principles apply to many advanced industrialised societies as well as, of course, developing nations. As well as having an unemployment rate of 23%, Greece has a debt of 184% of GDP. Its paying $652 every second in interest. In other words, the Greeks are running to stand still - as will be the children and grandchildren of todays Greeks. (It should be noted also that the UK has one of the highest household debts in the world - private debt stands higher today than it was in 2007 - a ticking time bomb). Funnily enough, Greece is now having to sell off/privatise its own state owned assets and industries in order to try to alleviate the debt.
I suppose they should think themselves lucky - our Government sold off the family silver not through necessity, but for political ideological reasons - and now we don't have anything left to sell


Seems to me that Marx is a bit of a red herring here - because as Stan has pointed out just about every advanced industrialised country in the world has a greater proportion of state owned enterprises than we have here in the UK.

At the risk of repeating myself, the only question is the degree of the mix within the economy. No-one today is arguing for the outright control of the means of production by the state - not even the Chinese, but that point seems to have been lost - whilst only the Tories and Bustedflush are arguing that the economy/nations assets work better when 100% in private hands.

This is why far-left governments are seldom elected and when they are it tends to be in poorer economies or ones with huge natural resources to shield the real costs involved.

You are confusing the economic with the political - but nonetheless, would you say that Trump is left wing ? its just that he stood on a platform of anti globalisation and bringing jobs back to the US.

"“Today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.

For elections days come and go. But political and social revolutions that attempt to transform our society never end. For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have born the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of the country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs and, while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.”

Sounds pretty left wing to me - and he just got elected to the most powerful nation on Earth (China aside )




What is left wing ? Anyone who believes that more than 5% of the countries assets should be held in the hands of the state for the benefit of the people - and not in the hands of Goldman Sachs et al ? Must be a lot of left wing elected governments around then I'd say. Is a government that intervenes to produce £0.5 trillion new money and intervenes also to set the price of that money left wing ? Or uses taxpayers money to nationalise loss making banks ? Or that intervenes to subsidise foreign SOE's to the tune of £30 billion at Hinckley Point ? Or are we meant to overlook this ? Doesn't this count ? Is this not state intervention after all ?

Is the Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution Marxist also (the one that Blair did away with) ?

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Maoist perhaps ? Trotskyite ?

Or just common sense democratic socialism ? Taking back some control. For the many not the few.

Yes, he did! It's called often 'the Marxist Dialectic' which you have alluded to but deliberately missed the point that this concentrated wealth is created before you can have effective Marxism, and created by various forms of free market capitalism, which after all is the freedom to own and control wealth to whichever degree. In fact you just said exactly what I have - "the free market produces a concentration of wealth...blah..blah" His logic is basically that the rich create the pie via free market capitalism, and the workers don't get enough, so his ilk can seize control of it and redistribute it. Only the huge flaw is once that pie is seized and cut-up, it will only feed so many for so long and cease to grow. So you end up with the top Marxists being fed and watered while the rest starve, a privileged few owning the what's left of the proverbial pie. Exactly how you see modern Capitalist Britain.... the only difference is Marxism eats the pie and doesn't replenish it, Capitalism replenishes it. I don't need to tell you where to look for numerous examples of this in the old Eastern Bloc and Asia. QED.

As for Greece, you are right, it is a basket case economy. Two reasons, one is the huge borrowing combined with the laissez faire Greek attitude to paying taxes (the trigger) and the other and ongoing problem is the insane creation by the Eurocrap control freaks called the 'euro'. Now in the free market world of old, the Drachma would have utterly collapsed and become near worthless outside Greece. Quite quickly this would have led to massive increases in tourism, investment, property purchases, exports of Tobacco, olives, tomatoes and wine or whatever they produce most of. Like the water in the tank, the trough will have soon been settled by the peaks and evened out to some extent. But oh no! We have the situation where the idiotic over-valuation of the euro is killing Greece and has stifled it new and naturally very competitive position. The best thing they could have done is default, not borrow any more and rebuild based upon their new terms of trade. But no, they are now slaves to the German-funder CEB who are too frightened to see them export or sell with the competitive edge of their own currency. On thing that pillock El Gordo at least refused to get the UK into.

As for private industries, cast your mind back to the trash being spewed out by B.Leyland, the waiting list to get a GPO phone line installed, and the expense of it. Now look where you can get (in real terms very cheap) services installed to the time you want, the ever-increasing things offered like high-speed BB, TV and free phone packages etc. created and offered by PRIVATE enterprises in COMPETITION with each other and NO loss to the taxpayer if they mess up, and then compare the amount of jobs in those companies now with the old GPO. Are you saying things would have progressed so fast, with lower and lower prices, with quick innovations had there still been one provider in state control? Pull the other one.... So Branson, Murdoch and the Chairman of BT live in luxury and own a small Caribbean island or two - whoopee! Like I give a toss, they're no different from the government who also take a little bit off of a lot of people. Don't people start trying to disguise your envy as a perceived injustice. You can't take the advantages of free enterprise (whether working for one or buying well from one) and then whinge because someone like Branson, or Dyson or Bill Gates gets f*cking rich from it.

[jetblack]

Yes, he did! It's called often 'the Marxist Dialectic' ..

Thats a gross misunderstanding of Marx's historical materialism and dialectic. Not even a parody - you are describing something wholly different. I could explain but I can't be bothered. You need to have a re-read of Marx with the scales lifted from thine eyes old chap.

As for Greece, you are right, it is a basket case economy. Two reasons ....

1) the desperation of a nation to grow and develop, leading to 2) global finance capitalism (including the big players in the Eurozone) drip feeding them the opium of debt till they were hooked.

As for private industries.. the waiting list to get a GPO phone line installed, and the expense of it. Now look where you can get (in real terms very cheap) services installed to the time you want, the ever-increasing things offered like high-speed BB, TV and free phone packages etc. created and offered by PRIVATE enterprises in COMPETITION with each other and NO loss to the taxpayer if they mess up, and then compare the amount of jobs in those companies now with the old GPO.

I don't know where you live but where I live the picture you paint is completely unrecognisable. A friend of mine has just waited over 18 months to have a new phone line installed - and high speed broadband is but a dream - in fact, broadband of any description is a dream. Its a rural area you see. No profit in rural areas. BT eventually stumped up to lay several miles of new copper - which in itself tells you something about short term cost cutting, when fibre would have been the logical long term solution, albeit at greater short term cost.
Something similar will soon become apparent within our very own industry - because once the USO expires, now that we are being run for short term profit and not to provide a service to the nation, jobs like mine will slowly begin to disappear.
Its capitalism old chap - public service and jobs/employment go to the wall - its all about the dividend. Will you still be trying to convince me of the merits of the deregulated free market when I'm out of a job, looking forward to an old age in poverty cos the Bank of England have annihilated my pension just so the boys from Wall Street can claim another scalp ?





Tell you what I'll do Tman - I'll do you the service of granting you a reply so long as 1) you give me the opportunity to say something of merit and/or funny and 2) you are polite and civil. I might thereby have a positive influence upon your behaviour by offering both the stick and the carrot. No need to thank me.

As the old comedy skit from years back had it," workers, is it really all you want, a Spanish holiday every year, a nice car and a colour TV?" Answer "you mean there's more we can have?"

You know what William Blake said don't you Tman - you probably don't actually, but I'll tell you anyway. He said that if the fool would persist in their folly they would become wise.
Whilst it would seem that the UK as a nation is beginning to wise up, you yourself need to keep on persisting

[bustedflush]

Yes, he did! It's called often 'the Marxist Dialectic' ..

Thats a gross misunderstanding of Marx's historical materialism and dialectic. Not even a parody - you are describing something wholly different. I could explain but I can't be bothered. You need to have a re-read of Marx with the scales lifted from thine eyes old chap.

As for Greece, you are right, it is a basket case economy. Two reasons ....

1) the desperation of a nation to grow and develop, leading to 2) global finance capitalism (including the big players in the Eurozone) drip feeding them the opium of debt till they were hooked.

As for private industries.. the waiting list to get a GPO phone line installed, and the expense of it. Now look where you can get (in real terms very cheap) services installed to the time you want, the ever-increasing things offered like high-speed BB, TV and free phone packages etc. created and offered by PRIVATE enterprises in COMPETITION with each other and NO loss to the taxpayer if they mess up, and then compare the amount of jobs in those companies now with the old GPO.

I don't know where you live but where I live the picture you paint is completely unrecognisable. A friend of mine has just waited over 18 months to have a new phone line installed - and high speed broadband is but a dream - in fact, broadband of any description is a dream. Its a rural area you see. No profit in rural areas. BT eventually stumped up to lay several miles of new copper - which in itself tells you something about short term cost cutting, when fibre would have been the logical long term solution, albeit at greater short term cost.
Something similar will soon become apparent within our very own industry - because once the USO expires, now that we are being run for short term profit and not to provide a service to the nation, jobs like mine will slowly begin to disappear.
Its capitalism old chap - public service and jobs/employment go to the wall - its all about the dividend. Will you still be trying to convince me of the merits of the deregulated free market when I'm out of a job, looking forward to an old age in poverty cos the Bank of England have annihilated my pension just so the boys from Wall Street can claim another scalp ?





Tell you what I'll do Tman - I'll do you the service of granting you a reply so long as 1) you give me the opportunity to say something of merit and/or funny and 2) you are polite and civil. I might thereby have a positive influence upon your behaviour by offering both the stick and the carrot. No need to thank me.

As the old comedy skit from years back had it," workers, is it really all you want, a Spanish holiday every year, a nice car and a colour TV?" Answer "you mean there's more we can have?"

You know what William Blake said don't you Tman - you probably don't actually, but I'll tell you anyway. He said that if the fool would persist in their folly they would become wise.
Whilst it would seem that the UK as a nation is beginning to wise up, you yourself need to keep on persisting

And you and your fellow C*rbynites should remember Old Albert when you vote for him:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"