Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
-Right to buy, induced the few to cash-in on their tenancy and bring one property at a time into the house-sales market, their initial saving being swallowed up with their next house purchase, and lessening public housing stock considerably. One transient benefit for those who took this up and a continuous benefit for 'agents' and those connected to the eternal rise in house prices.
-Share ownership, the right to buy that which was yours anyway, to the continuing benefit of 'agents' as above.
-Free enterprise, matching gullibility with greed.
-Universal suffrage, as it is so good of Starbucks to pay something, so it is good of a government to do what is commonly demanded.
-Grammar schools, anything but educate every child to a high level.
Nobody can suspect they are 'inferior' until they are told they are.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Your hatred of property ownership, freedom, free enterprise and individualism - has always been clear Tom. You and the old Soviet Union would be well matched and you can keep it.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
As ever Barry, the truth lies in what you do not say.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Do you actually recognise the truth behind all your airy fairy words Tom?
What about the pride and self-respect of ownership people get?
What about social mobility? Aspiration, achievement, self-improvement, leaving something for your children?
What about creating wealth and prosperity for yourself and your family?
What about the enterprise that ultimately is what provides all we have?
What about being responsible for yourself, your own actions, providing for your own family?
None of this seems to mean anything to you. All you want is an equality of mediocrity - the lowest common denominator and everyone having to fall into little boxes that you say is right.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
no where near correct barry
just whilst some get millions
and others dont know where next meal coming from
thats the unfairness
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I completely agree with those aspirations that Barry mentions above. The only thing that I think should have happened was that when people were allowed to buy their own council house (my parents included in this), there should have been a program of social/council house building, but even labour stopped that.
When I was soon to be married in 1973, my Dad said to me "don't buy your own place get a council place and they'll pay all your bills". I thought this was a terrible thing to say and needless to say, I ignored his advice and then bought my own (first) home - or started to.
It was my Mum who, through her hard-work and saving, was able to buy their first home - a flat, for cash (£11,000). It was the best decision she ever made.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith and that will always be the case. Fairness does not exist in your definition of it and never will.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Roger, you are quite correct and entirely misguided in what you say on RTB.
The aspiration is not to own a home of one's own, but to attain the lowest rung upon the property ladder and to again aspire to climb up.
If one is to be sold the idea ever, and eternal, increases in house 'value' one needs to hear that there is a growing and ever-present housing shortage, and an innate aspiration within all those coming after you to also attain the lowest rung...and so it is said to continue ad infinitum.
I hold New Labour in no higher regard than I do the Conservatives. The transformation of both is all but complete.
"Money is all" is the commonality of both major Political Partys, the Pyramid Scheme of life-in-debt, has replaced the aged tenet of earning before spending.
All with but a vague promise, to prime the pump.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
It will be a Friday perhaps next week, next year or in a few years time but it will happen on a Friday. A run on the banks, that is.
Keep your ear near to the ground and try to spot the signs. We are doomed.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
indeed philip, what the country and economy needs is someone with a proven track record of fiscal responsibility, cool under pressure, good communicator, strong interpersonal skills and respected on both sides of the house. will run those qualities through my computer and see who comes up.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The British Economy is something of a blame game, it seems...
"
EU and broadband
SIR - Your interview with Maria Miller, Culture Secretary (Technology, November 22) implied a slow approval procedure by the European Commission with regard to the Broadband UK scheme.
The scheme was notified to the Commission in January 2012, to check compliance with EU state aid rules. We asked the UK authorities for the information needed to carry out our assessment in February 2012.
Only after seven months did we receive a complete response from the UK, and only then could we complete our analysis. The final decision was taken on November 20.
Although I did meet Maria Miller, on November 8, at her request, we started our internal adoption procedure well before this and the decision was taken on the date initially foreseen.
Politicians should avoid red tape, but in this case Brussels bureaucrats worked faster than their London colleagues.
Joaquín Almunia
Vice President, European Commission
Brussels, Belgium "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9728059/The-Chancellor-is-cleaning-up-after-13-years-of-wasteful-Labour-spending.htmlIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
This begs the question why we need approval from Brussels for a scheme with purely domestic implications. Surely the principle of subsidiarity should apply here.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barry/roger,i have been told by a much wiser person than you two [2] money is the root of all evil,it allso breeds comptemt,greed and trying to get above your station,[by kissing a lot of butt].
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I think that you'll find that it is the love of money that is the root of all evil rather than money itself Brian
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
works both ways for me neil.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
neither are actually true - hitler, stlain, the wests, peter sutcliffe, jmmy savile all spring immediately to mind as individuals that committed evil deeds wthout any financial gain.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,883
Tom #128 "The aspiration is not to own a home of one's own, but to attain the lowest rung upon the property ladder and to again aspire to climb up."
Not true for the majority of those I know who bought their council houses as we did and still live in them. We bought ours so we could update and have longed for double glazing and central heating and change it to our taste. We lived there for about another 15yrs until my husband was made redundant from the ferries.then we moved to the pub and my daughter moved back into the house freeing up her council home to others on the list.
I sold the house when my husband died to buy a larger one so my daughter and grandchildren could live with me which has worked out brilliantly for all of us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
depends which way you look at howard,just because somthing is not mentiond dosent mean it didnt exsist.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
If...equality...
"The isolated man can supply but a very small portion of his
wants; all his power lies in association, and in the intelligent
combination of universal effort. The division and co-operation
of labour multiply the quantity and the variety of products; the
individuality of functions improves their quality.
There is not a man, then, but lives upon the products of several
thousand different industries; not a labourer but receives from
society at large the things which he consumes, and, with these,
the power to reproduce. Who, indeed, would venture the
assertion, "I produce, by my own effort, all that I consume; I
need the aid of no one else"? The farmer, whom the early
economists regarded as the only real producer--the farmer,
housed, furnished, clothed, fed, and assisted by the mason, the
carpenter, the tailor, the miller, the baker, the butcher, the
grocer, the blacksmith, &c.,--the farmer, I say, can he boast
that he produces by his own unaided effort?
The various articles of consumption are given to each by
all; consequently, the production of each involves the
production of all. One product cannot exist without another; an
isolated industry is an impossible thing. What would be the
harvest of the farmer, if others did not manufacture for him
barns, wagons, ploughs, clothes, &c.? Where would be the
savant without the publisher; the printer without the
typecaster and the machinist; and these, in their turn, without a
multitude of other industries? . . . Let us not prolong this
catalogue--so easy to extend--lest we be accused of uttering
commonplaces. All industries are united by mutual relations in a
single group; all productions do reciprocal service as means and
end; all varieties of talent are but a series of changes from the
inferior to the superior.
Now, this undisputed and indisputable fact of the general
participation in every species of product makes all individual
productions common; so that every product, coming from the hands
of the producer, is mortgaged in advance by society. The
producer himself is entitled to only that portion of his product,
which is expressed by a fraction whose denominator is equal to
the number of individuals of which society is composed. It is
true that in return this same producer has a share in all the
products of others, so that he has a claim upon all, just as all
have a claim upon him; but is it not clear that this reciprocity
of mortgages, far from authorizing property, destroys even
possession? The labourer is not even possessor of his product;
scarcely has he finished it, when society claims it.
"But," it will be answered, "even if that is so--even if the
product does not belong to the producer--still society gives each
labourer an equivalent for his product; and this equivalent, this
salary, this reward, this allowance, becomes his property. Do
you deny that this property is legitimate? And if the
labourer, instead of consuming his entire wages, chooses to
economize,--who dare question his right to do so?"
The labourer is not even proprietor of the price of his labour, and
cannot absolutely control its disposition. Let us not be blinded
by a spurious justice. That which is given the labourer in
exchange for his product is not given him as a reward for past
labour, but to provide for and secure future labour. We consume
before we produce. The labourer may say at the end of the day, "I
have paid yesterday's expenses; to-morrow I shall pay those of
today." At every moment of his life, the member of society is in
debt; he dies with the debt unpaid:--how is it possible for him
to accumulate?
They talk of economy--it is the proprietor's hobby. Under a
system of equality, all economy which does not aim at subsequent
reproduction or enjoyment is impossible--why? Because the thing
saved, since it cannot be converted into capital, has no object,
and is without a FINAL CAUSE."
From; What Is Property? By P-J Proudhon (1809-Dec.19th 1864)
This book is freely available from archive.org
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
