By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This is what really throws me. You ask why should Scotland be ruled by the Tories when there is only one Tory MP in Scotland. A valid argument you want Scotland itself to decide who governs it. However then you rather patronisingly go on to say it will leave the English people "stuck" with a Tory Government. Are the English people not capable of deciding who they want to govern them
Obviously not - we got a Tory government
But back to the sub-thread on the use of "you know whose" name, if you re-read my post I did say "Different people will set up the line in a different order, and will set their markers in different places", and so I agree that where people sit within a group Is personal, but I did try to make the selection of who is in the group as impersonal as possible by using the words "if you could line up the world, past and present" and thereby including everyone.
By your own criteria, you are also making a comparison by saying that in your opinion they should not ever be considered in the same group.
The bottom line is I never introduced the name, I commented on another posters use (who also did not make any direct comparisons) and then merely used it in the same manner as the original poster, namely as a marker for the extremes of behavior. I can only assume therefore that your criticism of my using the name and not there's is due to the fact they are more supportive of MT than my anti-stance.
PS notice how I have carefully avoided repeating the name again in case anyone only reads that one word!
That was exactly my point. The poor got richer, but not as fast as the rich did. So everyone was better off, so of course her opponents immediately went about changing the definition of poverty to being a % of median income rather than about how much money they actually had.
I suppose that's the beauty of socialism, the misery is shared out equally so no one can complain about inequality.
You say that was exactly your point, but I don't know what your point is. If my wages go up, but at a slower rate than inflation by your definition would I be better off? -I might have more money, but I could afford less food.
So what was the definition of poverty before her opponents changed it, and do you have any figures to show how that definition varied during her years in power?
That was exactly my point. The poor got richer, but not as fast as the rich did. So everyone was better off, so of course her opponents immediately went about changing the definition of poverty to being a % of median income rather than about how much money they actually had.
I suppose that's the beauty of socialism, the misery is shared out equally so no one can complain about inequality.
Poverty has always been defined in terms of relation to overall wealth, not as an absolute. Incomes are always rising - so it has to be defined in relative terms. Otherwise we could just say: There was poverty in the 1930s, however incomes are much higher now, so there is no longer poverty. You remind me of my small boy, who reckons there can't be poverty in Africa because there are also five-star hotels.
The group consisting of World Leaders and the group consisting of human males are groups based on a factual identity for want of a better phrase. The group of people that you or I would celebrate over their deaths is a purely personal group. You compare X and Y and consider they sit together one side of the line I might compare X and Y and consider they sit either side of the line it really is a simple as that but we are still making a comparison.
Nothing Cliff wrote could be considered comparing anyone with anyone else, he was merely grouping them. You assess an individual on their own merits as to whether you like them or not.
This is what really throws me. You ask why should Scotland be ruled by the Tories when there is only one Tory MP in Scotland. A valid argument you want Scotland itself to decide who governs it. However then you rather patronisingly go on to say it will leave the English people "stuck" with a Tory Government. Are the English people not capable of deciding who they want to govern them
I am sure English people can make their own choice but the reality is that since the war,without the votes from Wales & Scotland we would never have had a Labour Government. In other words we would always have had Conservative Governments for over 60 years! You might think this is a good thing, I certainly dont as it leads to a dreadful compacency among voters in addition to having the same politics al the time. 60 years of looking after the better off at the expense of the poor seems unhealthy at best.
But back to the sub-thread on the use of "you know whose" name, if you re-read my post I did say "Different people will set up the line in a different order, and will set their markers in different places", and so I agree that where people sit within a group Is personal, but I did try to make the selection of who is in the group as impersonal as possible by using the words "if you could line up the world, past and present" and thereby including everyone.
By your own criteria, you are also making a comparison by saying that in your opinion they should not ever be considered in the same group.
The bottom line is I never introduced the name, I commented on another posters use (who also did not make any direct comparisons) and then merely used it in the same manner as the original poster, namely as a marker for the extremes of behavior. I can only assume therefore that your criticism of my using the name and not there's is due to the fact they are more supportive of MT than my anti-stance.
PS notice how I have carefully avoided repeating the name again in case anyone only reads that one word!
I am sure English people can make their own choice but the reality is that since the war,without the votes from Wales & Scotland we would never have had a Labour Government. In other words we would always have had Conservative Governments for over 60 years! You might think this is a good thing, I certainly dont as it leads to a dreadful compacency among voters in addition to having the same politics al the time. 60 years of looking after the better off at the expense of the poor seems unhealthy at best.
I take it you are against independence for Scotland so you can carry on looking after us.
People keep saying how great Thatcher made the country when her own children do not live here!
Here's something that it took me literally *years and years* to realise...
Because Thatcher & co dressed up in the Union Jack the Tories appeared to be the most patriotic party.
But the truth is that they do not give a monkeys about Britain! If production is more profitable abroad, it will be moved abroad. If a British worker can't be profitably employed he is no more use than a used condom and will be tossed aside.
The only time patriotism is wheeled out is when some war needs to be fought. Then 'we're all in it together'. (Having said that modern patriotism is quite muted compared to Thatcher's time, because these days it no longer matters if the population supports Britain's role as US sidekick - those wars will be fought anyway).
Does that mean that I am arguing for 'real patriotism'? Hell no! There are no 'national solutions' to international problems. The employers think in international terms and do not care about the nation. Why should we?
Here's something that it took me literally *years and years* to realise...
Because Thatcher & co dressed up in the Union Jack the Tories appeared to be the most patriotic party.
But the truth is that they do not give a monkeys about Britain! If production is more profitable abroad, it will be moved abroad. If a British worker can't be profitably employed he is no more use than a used condom and will be tossed aside.
The only time patriotism is wheeled out is when some war needs to be fought. Then 'we're all in it together'. (Having said that modern patriotism is quite muted compared to Thatcher's time, because these days it no longer matters if the population supports Britain's role as US sidekick - those wars will be fought anyway).
Does that mean that I am arguing for 'real patriotism'? Hell no! There are no 'national solutions' to international problems. The employers think in international terms and do not care about the nation. Why should we?
Here's something that it took me literally *years and years* to realise...
Because Thatcher & co dressed up in the Union Jack the Tories appeared to be the most patriotic party.
But the truth is that they do not give a monkeys about Britain! If production is more profitable abroad, it will be moved abroad. If a British worker can't be profitably employed he is no more use than a used condom and will be tossed aside.
The only time patriotism is wheeled out is when some war needs to be fought. Then 'we're all in it together'. (Having said that modern patriotism is quite muted compared to Thatcher's time, because these days it no longer matters if the population supports Britain's role as US sidekick - those wars will be fought anyway).
Does that mean that I am arguing for 'real patriotism'? Hell no! There are no 'national solutions' to international problems. The employers think in international terms and do not care about the nation. Why should we?
How long should a British worker be unprofitably employed before he's tossed aside? Do you boycott cinemas that got rid of their pianists? Do you never buy foreign goods if there is a British-made alternative? Why presume it's employers that started this "disloyalty"? Maybe it was their customers, and maybe they had good reason.
I am sure English people can make their own choice but the reality is that since the war,without the votes from Wales & Scotland we would never have had a Labour Government. In other words we would always have had Conservative Governments for over 60 years! You might think this is a good thing, I certainly dont as it leads to a dreadful compacency among voters in addition to having the same politics al the time. 60 years of looking after the better off at the expense of the poor seems unhealthy at best.
Can we please then not only let the scots have their independence but the welsh also? By your logic not only do we have the scots to blame for Gordon Brown but Blair as well ... Please please let the English vote on Scottish independence as that will allow us to take some revenge
Here's something that it took me literally *years and years* to realise...
Because Thatcher & co dressed up in the Union Jack the Tories appeared to be the most patriotic party.
But the truth is that they do not give a monkeys about Britain! If production is more profitable abroad, it will be moved abroad. If a British worker can't be profitably employed he is no more use than a used condom and will be tossed aside.
The only time patriotism is wheeled out is when some war needs to be fought. Then 'we're all in it together'. (Having said that modern patriotism is quite muted compared to Thatcher's time, because these days it no longer matters if the population supports Britain's role as US sidekick - those wars will be fought anyway).
Does that mean that I am arguing for 'real patriotism'? Hell no! There are no 'national solutions' to international problems. The employers think in international terms and do not care about the nation. Why should we?
So you think the Tories under Thatcher were really not patriotic. You clearly feel that patriotism is not for you. So your only argument is that Thatcher pretended to be patriotic. By the way, unless I have missed it, nobody has explained to me why the Poll Tax was such a device of the devil.
So you think the Tories under Thatcher were really not patriotic. You clearly feel that patriotism is not for you. So your only argument is that Thatcher pretended to be patriotic. By the way, unless I have missed it, nobody has explained to me why the Poll Tax was such a device of the devil.
"If someone robs your house, you don’t say: “I disagreed with the burglar’s policy, of tying me to a chair. But I did admire his convictions.” " - perfect.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
"If someone robs your house, you don’t say: “I disagreed with the burglar’s policy, of tying me to a chair. But I did admire his convictions.” " - perfect.
Cheers for that.But then you know it's all a scam if she's endorsing it eh?The wily old cow recognised there was a fortune to be made from Global Warming.
So you think the Tories under Thatcher were really not patriotic. You clearly feel that patriotism is not for you. So your only argument is that Thatcher pretended to be patriotic. By the way, unless I have missed it, nobody has explained to me why the Poll Tax was such a device of the devil.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
The poll tax. A totally justified tax to make everybody pay rather than those qualifying on an arbitrary basis. I'd bring it in tomoro.
Currently residing in Pinner, Centre of the Universe.
The poll tax. A totally justified tax to make everybody pay rather than those qualifying on an arbitrary basis. I'd bring it in tomoro.
John and Pom,
I'll try. Isn't a basic tenet of taxation that it be equitable, and that it therefore be structured based on the relative ability to pay?
VAT and the Poll Tax were charged with being inherently inequitable as they are/were aimed at disposable income, in their cases weekly shopping and rent/mortgages. As those with lower incomes spend a greater amount of their disposable incomes than those with higher incomes, this hits them not just equally but harder.
On the other end of the scale is inheritance tax, which is clearly a tax on wealth and nothing else.
In between is what's held by most economists I've read as the most equitable tax of all - income tax.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Tell me, was it only miners who were screwed over by Thatcher? No, of course it wasn't.
What about those in their twenties who were born to parents thrown on the scrapheap by Thatcher? Who grew up in communities that have still not recovered from her policies?
But that's okay, you borrowed a funny picture from someone else and posted it on a forum. Well done you.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
