quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

But there is a problem with this. Not everyone and not every group wishes to make the effort to achieve social standing and if it were given them on a plate, those whom we find today to be unable or unwilling to achieve social standing, would within a short time revert to a position of social deprivation by default.

This is the crux of where we disagree. You are suggesting that there will always be an underclass which makes your claim further down the board that you believe in social provision completely meaningless. Why have social provision if you think social deprivation is inevitable? For my money, you're being inconsistent with your thought process.
 
Hmmm. Yes, there will always be an underclass. For this reason social provision will always be required. I see no inconsistency in that. There would be no point in social provision if there were no underclass. If there were no social provision, the underclass would fall into genuine poverty such as we see in Africa.

Social deprivation is a result of a lack of opportunity and social mobility, it is not inevitable. Look at the strides the working class have made in 200 years. The strides have been made through education, health, employment, enfranchisement etc. Provide these conditions and will people will thrive. Put simply, it is investment in people.
 
So, we the working classes have had these advantages growing for us for the last 200 years, with perhaps the last 50 being years when our advantages and opportunities have been at their best. So then, why is it that given such equal access for we, the underclasses, some have thrived whilst others have remained in the same position they were? No amount of money will change the fact that some will swim and some will sink. However much more of a hand up or headstart is given, some will swim and some will sink. And for many, if you gave them every advantage and opportunity in the world, they would still sink. How many more lottery winners must we see fritter their winnings away, or use them not to change their former lives but to increase their level of stupidity, before this will be understood? - some people are just too damned lazy and stupid to thrive, whatever is done for them.
 
We need more of it, not the neo-liberal economics we are seeing today which is helping Britain towards being the sick man of developed Europe in terms of crime, alcoholism, teenage pregnancy, alcohol-fuelled casual violence. Links will be provided on another post I am about to set up for you to get your teeth into.

No. No. No. It is the provision of a society in which someone else (the taxpayer) will pick up the bill for whatever stupidity anyone does, which is leading us to the situation of teenage pregnancy as a means of gaining housing. It is the growing wealth of those better able to compete and so earn more, but who lack any sane prospect of acquiring their own homes, which is leading to alcoholic over indulgence and the violence and mess which follows on from that. If it is the repressed underclasses who are drinking to excess on dole money or on minimum wage, then how can they possibly afford to do so, unless they are acquiring funds from less than legal sources I wonder?

Like it or not, we live in a competitive world - even if we were to have equality forced on us by perfect communist principles

LadyE, do me a favour, get this notion of Communism out of your head!!!!!! You've got the Seeks disease where you automatically think Communist or Socialist when a person says homelessness, poverty and lack of motivation can be tackled through progressive taxation and a fair distribution of wealth. It is not Communism!

I was using communism as an example of a situation where if it were applied properly, then everyone would be perfectly equal, but yet some would still rise and some fall, even in such a system. Human societies need hierarchical organisation in order to get things done - not everyone could be a commissar, so by default there would still be an underclass in that perfectly equal society.
 
Homelessnes is a serious problem and it is a blight on our society, there I will agree. But the reasons for homelessness are varied - of those sleeping on the streets, generally we find they are there out of choice, because they were evicted from whatever accomodation they had for some or another reason, or because they were unable to remain in their former accomodation for whatever reason. But there is a much larger group which is homeless - the 20 and 30 somethings still living with their parents, because house prices are ridiculously high - these are the same sort of people getting drunk and wrecking our town centres every weekend. We urgently need a widescale building programme to provide housing in this country, such that the supply is increased and the prices decreased. However this is never going to happen, because Mr and Mrs Average Voter are getting nominally rich from rising house prices and feeling good about life, but more importantly because Mr and Mrs Average Voter have so much credit stacked against the value of their homes, that should house prices fall, they and the whole country could be made bankrupt very quickly. By keeping supply under control, the economy can be run on credit from the finance industry, which seems to be all that is keeping it afloat these days, so it is essential to maintain the status quo as much as possible - build only those homes where the demand is so high that the values can be maintained.
 
I could also make a cheap shot here about the situation with regards to further immigration. If there are not enough homes for the people living here now, then where are the several million immigrants we apparently need to keep our economy going, going to live exactly? They certainly could not afford to buy - otherwise why comes here in the first place? Are they to be allocated specially built social housing funded from the taxes of those who cannot afford a home, and then given a right to buy those houses, whilst those here already are sleeping on their friend's couch? That should really improve community relations, I'm sure you would agree, and these are the sorts of reasons, arising from similar situations in the past and as are happening right now, that there is so much resentments and anger between people of all groups.
 
A personal example perhaps? I live in a one bedroom flat. Its mine, I own it. However it is now too small, because my children may not sleep in their same room according to local authority regulations. I cannot afford to buy a house, even if I sold the flat. I went on the housing list five years ago. There is a three bed house next door to me, which was formerly inhabited by an old man. He died about three years ago. The following week, the house was completely renovated - double glazing, central heating, etc etc - thousands of pounds. The month after, a family of asylum seekers were moved in. So here I am, paying vast amounts of tax into a system that treats me as a criminal with threats of fines and imprisonment if I hide a single penny of tax liability, whilst the tax I pay is used to fund a family which jumped the queue and is now living at my expense in a house which I needed, whilst I live in a tiny apartment. Sorry, I dont care how nasty it sounds, and I certainly wouldnt want that family living in a b&b or on the streets, but this situation is not acceptable - and it is repeated everywhere.

I would also like to know why, when I had exactly the same background and educational opportunites as those with whom I started school - the socially deprived masses, but I applied myself and was successful, (to the extent that I was the only working class child in the highest grade class at my high school, and bullied throughout by the middle class kids for being poor whilst those from whom I am drawn bullied me for being an achiever), and have gone on to build a successful life with a decent living - why I should have to feel in any way guilty about it, or be forced to pay for those who failed to apply themselves to subsidise their lives through benefits?

No one wants you to feel guilty, at least I certainly don't. It's not about owing people anying it's about giving people a hand. Without being dramatic, if you feel homelessness is not shameful and the fact that we're living off the fat of the land while others haven't got a pot to piss in then that's your call. When I see our Government spending my tax money on killing people who they claim want to kill us when we have some serious problems in this country it makes me sick to the stomach and even sicker when I read some of the stuff on here.

The Iraq war is a strategic blunder on a monumental scale, and our involvement an unforgiveable and perhaps criminal stupidity - of course. Otherwise see above. If all of the considerable tax money I pay was given to one of these people without a pot to piss in, what do you seriously think they would do with it? They would be broke within a week; drunk, with betting slips and lotto cards spilling out of their pockets, a brand new car minus insurance and road tax and enough empty MacDonalds containers to fill a skip. Any fat I live off, is fat I worked for, and I dont see why I should have to provide for people who basically are basically disinterested in taking a hand up, but very happy to live a life on hand outs.
 
I never had any form of hand up, apart from the exact same opportunities afforded everyone else from the working class; a state education. My family had nothing. I had to buy my own car and home, through my own efforts. When I started work, I had to hand over all my wages to my parents just to keep the home running. When I bought my car, it was with a bank loan I only got because I worked for the bank. When I bought my home, it was with no deposit because I had none. Dont keep telling me, that I have had it any better than others who started from the same place or that these people have been disadvantaged in some way. They are not able to compete - its that simple, for whatever reason. If I had spent my time like my peers did, with laziness and stupidity, wallowing in ignorance and in the sure knowledge of a council house and benefits, then that is where I'd be today. Given my position today, I cannot help but wonder if I might have been better off like them - they dont seem to lack for anything, and have all the time in the world to do as they please, whilst I work and pay the tax to keep them alive. People of my age NG, 38, and they have never worked a day in their lives - yet have a better house, and can afford cigarettes and booze like there's no tomorrow. Sure sounds like deprivation to me.

Now as it happens, I feel social provision is the mark of a civilised society and dont actually mind paying towards it. What I strongly object to however, is the way that some people and some groups treat this safety net as their absolute right to milk for all its worth,

There will always be people who abuse a system in any walk of life. It's the old tory argument that if you're poor it's your own fault because you don't want to work. Fuck's sake, we really need to evolve beyond this horseshit that our establishment has fed us for centuries in order to divert our attention away from the fact they are fleecing us!!!!! They're raking it in, we have a monarchy sat on a fortune, we have business directors swanning around on yachts/jets with the champagne parties and the rest of it, we have ridiculous fat-cat salaries, we have an ever-increasing wealth gap and we have serious social deprivation!
 
You already have your share of the wealth of the royal family on the way to you - GBP 0-03. It had to be shared with all the people of Canada, Australia, India etc as it could not be decided what of it had come from where.
 
People are poor, because they are unable to compete in the marketplace. What do you then suggest, that we alter the market to fit the people who cannot compete? That those who can and do compete should not have the benefit of their accomplishments but that these benefits should be distributed? I'm the boss of my firm - in that position I have responsibility for the payment of the taxes the business generates - if they are not paid, I can go to gaol for ten years. I also had to put my house up for finance for the business - if the business fails, then I am homeless. Why should I have such responsibility and liability, if I am then not to gain any advantage from it by comparison with those who work for me? This has ever been the case for every person who ventures into business - success or bankruptcy and personal disaster; the workers can go work elsewhere, but the bosses risk everything to get started. That some of them succeed in this gamble and become rich is not a bad thing, and as their businesses grow, these are the same people who provide employment to the workers to keep them from poverty and starvation. Take away too much of the benefits of success for the bosses, and I'm afraid they will not find the risk worth running, and then the workers will be out of work and starving. Right now, I think we have the balance about right in that.

The more you talk, the more you sound like the sort of outdated Socialist Worker distributor which led one M Thatcher into power by the backdoor NG. Class struggle is over, done and dusted, apart from a few minor cases perhaps. We now live in a meritocracy where one's ability to compete, rather than one's birthclass, is what determines success or failure. If some people are unable or unwilling to compete in a market, then whatever we do for them will be lost on them, and for these people we should provide a safety net, but never a means of living without any effort to try to contribute, and we should certainly find it totally inacceptable to allow them to do as they will, often undermining the very system which feeds and clothes them, and increasing the cost to the rest of us.
 
One other point. There are around a million people I believe, registered as unemployed and available for work. Why then, do we need immigration from Poland and the rest of eastern and central Europe? I have nothing against immigration if there is a genuine need and I like having different people here, but why am I paying tax to provide dole money to people, when there are clearly enough jobs out there to do? If beggars cannot be choosers, then how can there be social deprivation? Clearly the life on benefits is not that bad, if the jobs being taken by our new EU members' citizens are anything to go by?

E

Cultural and racial tension is caused by social deprivation. It is not going to go away simply by forcing everyone to swear some sort of oath to an establishment that is taking the piss! No amount of coercion towards obedience is going to force people to forget their social position - health and poverty issues are not magically going to disappear because some symbol appears in the form of a Queen/President or whatever. We have the biggest wealth gap in developed Europe and the highest rate of crime in developed Europe (links I have already provided). It is because relative social deprivation and poverty breeds frustration and anti-social behaviour.
 
British Muslims are simply treading the well worn path that British blacks and British whites have tread before them. For Oldham and Burnley read Toxteth and Brixton. Treat people like second class citizens and they will take it for so long and then they will strike back.
 
By the way, if I haven't made this clear I'd like to take the opportunity now..........BOLLOCKS TO THE QUEEN!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There is one crucial point being missed here. People who are treated as second class citizens will not feel loyalty to the state that is treating them as second class citizens. We had this discussion a month ago and I put up a series of links to point out that all the available research points towards ethnic groups being discriminated against in terms of housing, employment and policing. Links could quite easily be provided again.

You're right. There is a huge proportion of the population whom the state treats as second class citizens. They are called the middle classes - evil tax avoiding bastards who spend their time working for a living, and who should be treated as tax evaders and threatened with fines and imprisonment for it, until proven otherwise - in triplicate, and sometimes not even then. If any extra taxes are required, then these are the people who are looked to, to pay them. They carry the greatest burden in society, and since in any traditional society, such as you feel we suffer under, the bulk of the labour falls on the lowest classes, ergo the working middle classes must be the second class, possibly third class citizens. They are discriminated against in terms of freebies and handouts, made to pay for those who cant be bothered and also provide the wealth to those who need not be bothered.
 
My goodness. When will you understand, that we are already living in as much of a socialist utopia as circumstances will allow? Push any harder, and you will find the number of unemployed rising quickly as the slaves of our society, the middle classes, find that benefits are a better option than working, and the gentry, the big business owners, move elsewhere. Then you will have the socialist utopia alright, everyone reduced to poverty and no one any better off than anyone else.
 
As for discrimination. In housing - yes, it was on the news recently, that a new estate is being built in Manchester, designed for Muslims. I'm fairly sure that other ethnic groups will not be allocated these homes and if they were, they would not be welcome. From admittedly anecdotal evidence, it seems clear that this sort of scenario is being repeated everywhere, to take into account local sensibilities of whatever ghetto is in question. In my area, we have all the Irish in one place, the Muslims in another and so on - why? Did this happen by accident? I hardly think so. This sort of discrimination is what produces the ghettos and resentment and then deters integration and promotes the them and us mentality.
 
In policing - yes. Every police officer in the country has been through diversity training now, and is frightened to death of stopping and searching anyone not white. That gun crime, drug dealing, people trafficking and the like are so disproportionately populated by ethnic minorities means that of course, there is an apparently disproportionate amount of attention paid to them. Simple solution - either integrate, get jobs and get on with life, or if you prefer to live in a ghetto, then clean your patch up yourselves.
 
In employment - yes, but if you bring up your children without English and then send them to school, they will always be behind their peers and then suffer for that in the jobs market. Why is it that given most ethnic British employers dont know and dont care about the difference between Hindu, Sikh and Muslim, that the Hindus and Sikhs seem to do so well, but that Muslims make up the largest proportion of unemployed by ethnic group? There is a lack of interest in our system when it comes to the responsibilities it requires, from certain groups (not just Muslims), and thus these people are unable to and even unwilling to compete in the jobs market. This is why they are discriminated against - because they cant or wont do the job. Unfair or what?

LadyE, you buy into Britain because you feel part of it. You feel like you have opportunities i.e. the opportunities British whites enjoy. Now, when the first British blacks and Asians came to Britian they put up with the bigotry and discrimination because they were happy to be here at any expense. However, those born here took a different attitude - why should they be pushed around and take the worst housing and the worst jobs? Just as British blacks made a stand at Brixton, Toxteth etc it is exactly what British Muslims are doing at Oldham and Burnley. Treat people like shit for long enough and eventually they'll take the bait and start lashing out.

No. I buy into Britain because it is my responsibility to provide for me and mine, and not expect anyone else to foot the bill. The first waves of immigrants had the exact same attitude. I will repeat it, this nation is a collective activity for the mutual benefit of all and as such requires certain responsibilities from those who wish to enjoy those benefits. If someone is only able to get a job cleaning toilets, because they are unable to perform any other job because they failed to take advantage of the benefits in terms of education which their parents paid for through working and paying taxes, because they knew all along that someone else would pay for their housing, clothes and food, then that is their problem. That they then refuse the work available and for which they are suited is regrettably tantamount to theft of public funds by way of their claiming of benefits rather than taking the job. The longer we let this situation continue, the more people will live on benefits at the expense of workers. Its tough, but its life, and life in the UK is by no means tough for anyone - this is not 1806 and its not Romania. If people took advantage of all the benefits this country offers, instead of running them down, then perhaps they wouldnt be living as the repressed masses you seem to think exist, and which they certainly see themselves as. Perhaps a few months in rural Romania might change their minds on that.
 
As for opportunities, we also have to ask why it is that some people rise and some fall. There are equal opportunities for those ethnic to the UK and for those who came here. We see plenty of people like me, coming up from the working classes. We see plenty of immigrants, mainly Sikhs and Hindus it has to be said, coming up from the place they started in the UK. Again, it comes down to the fact that whilst some will take advantage of the opportunities in this country and take responsibility for themselves, others are unable or unwilling to do so, because after all someone else will pay. And this runs across all groups, albeit that some groups seem to be better represented in the former case rather than the latter, and vice versa.

If you want a society where communities respect each other then you have to invest in this society at the grass roots level i.e. in all areas. If the investment lacks balance then you'll create a society that lacks balance and groups will resent each other and the result will be racial tension and poor community relations.

Look, there has been investment after investment, billions of pounds have been thrown at this problem, and still we have the same or even a worse situation. It is the people themselves that we must change in the end. We already offer every possible opportunity and advantage to these people, we spend vast sums on making their lives better, and it all comes to nothing, because they lack the values and/or ability and/or interest in doing anything for themselves. If they have no aspiration to contribute and take responsibility for themselves, you could hand them whole exchequer and they'd still blow it. We have to start with the people, changing their attitudes so that they do take advantage of the opportunity. Merely creating the opportunity will cost a lot and result in little if any change. This is why we need a new settlement for our changed nation - so that people understand that they have a good deal already, but have certain responsibilities if they want the benefits of that deal.

When we get on this subject I'm always left scratching my head on the following:

People don't seem to mind that our money and hard work has propped up the monarchy for centuries. They are sat on more money than they could ever dream of knowing what to do with and they've done nothing for it apart from being born. Yet, whereas people don't seem to mind this, they begrudge paying a couple of quid tax to go towards helping someone or a family, living in relative poverty, get on their feet and make a good go of life. I can't understand this way of thinking.

What went on in the past is irrelevant. In the past we hanged people in public, why isnt there a campaign to stop that? Why? Because the situation has moved on and just as we no longer hang people in the street, we no longer find ourselves labouring night and day as slaves to some strictly enforced system of gentry and aristocracy and royalty. What counts now, what determines our class if such a thing exists, is our ability to compete in the market and gain income and wealth. You dont go to the golf club and see a sign saying "no peasants", but you do have to pay a sum to access it which discriminates on wealth grounds those who can join and those who cant. We live in a society where anyone, anyone, with the ability, aspiration and effort, can succeed. That some do not is not indicative of some cruel repressive regime, but of lack of ability, aspiration and effort.
 
I do not mind paying tax to give those who are struggling a hand up. As a comparatively wealthy person in my area of town, I have many friends who come to me for hand ups on a regular basis. But then there are many more who come to me for hand outs and these get nothing. Not because I'm a mean aristo who wont help the poor, but because I know full well anything I donate will not be used to improve their prospects, but will be smoked or pissed up the wall of a pub, and because I already paid tax to provide them with benefits equal to what is left of my salary after that tax, and to provide them with the healthcare and education system whereby they have the exact same opportunities which I had.
 
I will gladly buy stamps and envelopes, write and print off a CV on my PC with my ink and my paper, give a personal recommendation, and help with an application form and interview technique, give someone a lift to that interview and some money in their pocket just in case, even buy them some smart clothes and shoes - if they are honestly trying to make a go of it. But I am not prepared to pay for booze and fags for a wasted life I'm already paying for anyway.

I said the following in an earlier thread but didn't explain it fully:

I don't buy into this Britain that is happy to create an underclass. It is not for me and I have nothing in common with people who think like this. You may as well be from a different planet because although the border says we're English and the flag says we're English, in reality, we have nothing in common and we're from two different worlds.

The trouble is NG, there will always be an underclass. Its in the nature of any society. Its not possible or even worthwhile to try to fix it so that there isnt. If we all earned or were given 30k a year, then you'd find it would be worth nothing, because prices would all have to rise to adapt to providing this level of wealth. Its a perhaps regrettable state of affairs, but this is how things are. The system we have now is not perfect, but it is probably just about the right balance to ensure reward for effort, return on investment and sufficient tax revenues to provide equal opportunity and a common safety net.
 
Where it has gone wrong, is in engineering out any need to make any effort and rewarding indolence and ignorance and failing to ensure that everyone understands that there is no such thing as a free ride, and then permitting the indolent, ignorant and free ride brigade to believe they have it bad and that they system they rely on is somehow against them, when it is doing everything possible to provide them with what they need to succeed, and their failure is down solely to them.
 
E

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

British Muslims are simply treading the well worn path that British blacks and British whites have tread before them. For Oldham and Burnley read Toxteth and Brixton. Treat people like second class citizens and they will take it for so long and then they will strike back.
 
Who exactly is getting a raw deal? Those who sit around on their PS2 all day getting pissed at my expense in a 3 bed house with 12 children who are carbon copies of their parents, or those working every hour to provide the tax revenues to keep them in the life to which they are accustomed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

British Muslims are simply treading the well worn path that British blacks and British whites have tread before them. For Oldham and Burnley read Toxteth and Brixton. Treat people like second class citizens and they will take it for so long and then they will strike back.
 
Who exactly is getting a raw deal? Those who sit around on their PS2 all day getting pissed at my expense in a 3 bed house with 12 children who are carbon copies of their parents, or those working every hour to provide the tax revenues to keep them in the life to which they are accustomed?

HEY!!!!  I was born in Toxteth and it gets pretty much a raw deal. I still have family who live there. There is crap areas of the place but I've seen worse. At the time of the riots in the 80s my uncle used to work stacks of overtime because the company he worked for couldn't get workers and that was in the middle of a recession!! The fact is, social security made working a second best if you had children to look after and an ordinary job won't buy you enough dope for the week. There was a new council estate called by the locals Giro Row because no one on it worked. For all the money that was thrown at Toxteth, I can't say it did much good but I do like the place and I'm flying over in a couple of weeks time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen


BTW MC, when you come over, you couldnt bring my hubcaps back could you please? LOL! (only joking!)

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen


BTW MC, when you come over, you couldnt bring my hubcaps back could you please? LOL! (only joking!)

E

Toxteth still owes me a car!!!!!

The only way to regenerate areas is to entice educated people with money back into them who won't allow the area to degenerate because it is in their interest to keep their property prices up and spend their money locally so small businesses can thrive and create jobs. It's exactly what the council is doing where I live now and it is working. The last thing I want to see where I live is local socialist apparatiks putting into action the same old solutions that have failed time and again. Centrally controlled and allocated money doesn't work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

but dreaming of some socialist utopia to replace the one we have already is just a waste of time.
 
Why can't you see that progressive taxation to provide the means for a quality social welfare system is not Socialist or a utopia or Communist!!!!!!!!??

It is absolutely vital for a civilised society!

Socialism is an economic form of Government whereby the state takes control of economic resources and no one here is advocating that! Stop falling for the favourite line of The Sun in the 1980s that tax = Socialism!

You're collective argument is so weak that you come up with the age old reactionary cry of Socialism! It is not Socialism to suggest good, quality public services. Was West Germany Socialist in the 1980s? No, the country ran a thriving Capitalist economy but it provided good public services for its people.

If you insist on labelling progressive taxation and quality public services as Socialism then please don't waste my time!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Why can't you see that progressive taxation to provide the means for a quality social welfare system is not Socialist or a utopia or Communist!!!!!!!!??

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

What is being said on this thread is exactly what Thatcher and her Government said in the 80s and I mean word for word! You know why? Because, if they can fool people into thinking the poorest socio-economic groups in society are undeserving of any help then it will mean less public pressure on them to provide for people which will mean less Corporation Tax and business regulation which will mean more money for directors to piss up against the wall on yatchs/private jets etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

LadyEllen,

you say this:

but dreaming of some socialist utopia to replace the one we have already is just a waste of time.
 
and then you say this:

I fear my collective argument is not weak NG, but rather that it is much simpler for you to pick at my terminology, than to deal with what are strong points which disagree with your ideals.
 
Don't expect me to take your points seriously if you are going to make the leap from progressive taxation and quality social provision (which if you look back through my posts you'll realise that's everything I have said on this thread) to claiming I'm dreaming of a Socialist utopia.

Well I'm sorry NG, but this seems to be exactly what you are dreaming of. We have a Labour government that has rejigged the tax system and vastly increased investment in public services and increased welfare benefits, and yet this is not enough for you. So I ask, how else can your arguments be seen?

I have to be frank, Lady Ellen, not to cause offence, just being honest with this - if you think that because I argue for quality social provision that makes me a Socialist then how can you expect me to take your points seriously?

Hey, its not a bad thing being a Socialist with a capital S or even like me a socialist with a small s. I'm not arguing against quality social provision - my point is, that this particular agenda has been fulfilled as far as is economically possible, and that further provision is not only not viable but also not necessary. We already have quality social provision of all types - more is not required.
 
And not to cause offence, but I dont think youre taking anyone's points seriously, when it would seem that the rest of the posters disagree with you. Please, argue your point, give examples we can understand and some policy ideas that are real rather than vague aspirations.

You seem to have more time on your hands than me as you make long posts during the day. Believe me, I'm not ignoring your points - the fact is that during the day I can only make a quick post due to work so when I see this sort of leap in the dark regarding Socialist utopia I realise that the little time I have in the day is not well spent mulling over ill informed views.

Well, the thing is, I'm one of those evil company directors wielding a bullwhip over cowering wage slaves, (well, actually I subcontracted that out for lower cost, so as to have more time for CM). Not really - my employees are due to become sizeable shareholders in the near future, and they all receive a good salary and enjoy their work. My Czech guy is going home and has asked if he can still work for me in the Czech office - maybe that shows you where I'm coming from? My employees are personally loyal to me because I fully believe in them and in the principle that the workers should have a share in the profits of their work. I'll admit to being a peculiar socialist, but a socialist nonetheless - I just believe that given that everyone has had equal opportunity and advantage, then those who work and contribute to greater society should derive benefits, but those who dont work and contribute when they could, should not derive the same benefits. I dont suggest leaving people to starve on the streets, but I am firmly against inducements to indolence.
 
And the last thing you can accuse me of is being ill informed. My goodness, how much better informed could anyone be for this conversation? I came from the lowest part of the working classes, I went to a secondary modern school, I had no hand outs from parents and grandparents to get me ahead in life, I couldnt afford university even with the grant, I had to work hard for everything I have and I have lived the last sixteen years, except for a brief period away, in an area recognised as socially deprived. How the heck else anyone could be more qualified to comment on what you're saying, I dont know?

Socialism is an economic form of Government. The state takes full control of the nations economic capacity because it is deemed the Government is best placed to maximise wealth creation.

Yes, but the policies of such a government are socialist. One of their policies is the redistribution of wealth. Whether this policy is applied absolutely, as it would be in a pure system of socialism, to ensure equal distribution, or whether it is applied sensibly as in our case, to provide what is needed balanced against what it is possible to derive from the economy through the tax system, does not affect its nature as a socialist principle.

There is not a Socialist country that exists in Europe (possible exception of Belarus). What I have argued all the way through the thread is for a nation built on enterprise stimulated by private business with the Government fulfilling its regulatory role of ensuring that taxation and corporate financial regulation is used to create money for regeneration and public services such as health, education and housing to give people a chance to take part in this enterprise.

And this is what we have. But you seemed also to be suggesting that the current system we have is not doing this sufficiently, hence my supposition that you seemed to be asking to move into a more socialist system, especially combined with your call as I read it, to remove the wealth of those who happen to have achieved some degree of financial solvency through their own efforts or the efforts of their ancestors, and to see such people as repressive agents of some evil establishment, hell bent on keeping the poor down. It bugs me too, that some have nothing and others seem to have more than they could ever need, but thats past history and this is now. Its not going to happen and its better to deal in reality to organise our nation, to take responsible views on taxation, redistribution and social provision that will not cause more harm than good in the longer term.

Fat-cat salaries and the monarchy sat on a fortune is not creating wealth for Britain. It is taking money out of the economy which could be used for investment and growth and thus further the economic cycle.

I believe we had the experience of ridiculous tax rates for higher earners in the 70s and there was a brain drain going on as a result which robbed the country of its best and brightest and added to the woes of the times. I have no reason to believe the same thing would not happen again, if we repeated the same higher rate taxation. Some of these fat cats dont deserve what they get, but there are many who do, because of the improvements to the businesses they run that they have brought (and hence have increased the tax those businesses pay). We also live in an international labour market, and if UK corporations are not prepared to pay competitive salaries, then we will not have the best possible people running the businesses on which employment and widespread prosperity depend. Its the way things are, unless we want second rate business, a second rate economy, lower employment and less overall prosperity, with the great increase in bankruptcies, benefit dependence, homelessness and decline which such second rate performance would mean. In other words, exactly the reverse of the admirable aim to which you aspire.

There is an economic side to quality social provision as well as a social side. If you get people into work they have money to spend  in furthering the economy and their labour generates a return which is used for further investment to cause economic growth. Furthermore, if we, as a society, create an underclass who don't take part in the economy then they will always be a drain on the economy rather than contributing to economic growth.

True. But we cannot just create jobs with good salaries for people who cannot produce the quality of business which is required to afford such salaries and to keep a business running. We had overmanned industry in this country for years, and it didnt make for a wealthy nation, but rather for uncompetitive products and services which when exposed to the real marketplace, failed. I could take on a dozen people tomorrow and pay them a reasonable salary - well, for about three months before the business went bankrupt and they and the employees we actually need were all out of work again. I would have to raise our prices so much to afford all these unneeded people that I would be uncompetitive in the market. That is how it works, unfortunately. Its a competitive world, and if people cannot compete they fall by the wayside and end up taking advantage of the social safety net we provide. I would like to see full employment NG, and the benefits you rightly ascribe to it, but when we have a hard core of a million people in this country who will not do the jobs which are on offer, then how this can be brought about is a mystery. Meanwhile, we import hundreds of thousands of east Europeans to do those jobs, so they are there alright - its just that our own unemployed are either unable or unwilling to do those jobs. 

What is being said on this thread is exactly what Thatcher and her Government said in the 80s and I mean word for word! You know why? Because, if they can fool people into thinking the poorest socio-economic groups in society are undeserving of any help then it will mean less public pressure on them to provide for people which will mean less Corporation Tax and business regulation which will mean more money for directors to piss up against the wall on yatchs/private jets etc.

Rubbish I'm sorry. I'm all for a hand up. I'm just against extending a system which induces and rewards failure and indolence by giving endless handouts for years on end to people who are disinterested in contributing. Of course they deserve help, but I ask how much help do they need? Twenty years on the dole at age 38, does not suggest to me that they see it as help to achieve at all, but rather as a convenient lifestyle which is too comfortable to be of any long term benefit to anyone, payer or payee alike.

The words that spring to mind are hook, line and sinker.

Yes, and youre well and truly caught, it would seem!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

By the way, LadyE

Don't take any of this to heart, this is the way I flirt, I'm simply angling for that walk in the park