Which otherise would have been funded by taxes. The inability of your
intellec to grasp basic points never fails to amaze.
I know, I've ben thinking that is an apt description of Tony Benn for
year. 'Wanker' is another way of putting it.
No argument there.
Preying for it eh? I s'pose that goes with them being "hawk's" har har!
I know you are of the opinion that left-right politucs isn't dead, but
believe me, it sure smells that way.
I can't see an ounce of difference between Maggie Thatcher and Tiny
Bliar when it comes to out and out self delusion and egomania.
That's fair enough - I was not actually referring to you, but to
various politicians and city pundits who come on breakfast time TV and
make sweeping statements about how wonderful it is to have low
employment. Stated by people who have never had to suffer the
indignity of unemployment. I don't think that applies to you as you
have commented that others within your family have been through this.
I remember the days when I had a nice comfy 9-5 job with a major
employer, never having had the experience I refer to. In those days I
was a "smarmy git" who thought that those nasty unemployed people
ought to get off their backside and find work. Little did I know what
the system they were working with offered!
So when I first got made redundant (1995) I automatically believed
that I just had to go down the job centre and sign on, and everything
would be okay. I learnt very quickly that unemployment benefit and
being treated sympathetically were not part of the unemployment scene,
instead it was assumed by the job centre that I was unemployed because
I wanted to be, and that it was all my fault that I was asking for
money to which I had previously believed I was entitled to. My fault
entirely I suppose - I honestly didn't realise that the money I
thought I could expect actually came out of the personal accounts of
job centre staff.
I don't have sympathy for those within the system that know how to
bleed it dry and who live off the system. But I do have sympathy for
those who find themselves out of work through no reasonable fault of
their own. They are treated very harshly by the job centre, at a time
when their world is turned upside down trying to cope with financial
demands they can no longer meet.
Replying to the email address given by my news reader
will result in your own email address being instantly
added to my anti-spam database! If you really want to
contact me try changing the prefix in the given email
address to my newsgroup posting name.....
I suppose that the hard-nosed decision by those in power is that they should
make it difficult to get unemployment benefit, because they assume that this
will put off those who plan to 'sponge' off the system. However it isn't
quite that simple, and I guess that those who are determined to make a
living off others will be able to find a way to do that; while those who are
genuinely in need are likely to be damaged by the experience of asking for
help, and are likely to give up.
Precisely. The system is, and mostly always has been, broken.
If you aree interested in something a bit more radical try reading
'Instead of the dole' by Hermione Parker. She is/was an academic who
proposed that the most efficient way to organise social security was
simjply to give every man woman and child who are genuine residents a
'citizens income' ..not *quite* enough to live on, but almost. Then any
income is simply taxes at - say - the 40% rate above that. The total tax
take doesn't alter, but the poverty traps are eliminated, as are all
means tests. It also can subsidise low paid work so there is no need of
a minimum wage either. It also entirely dispenses with a huge
bureaucracy that is engaged in working out whether or not someone is
entitled to payments or not, thereby reducing the cost still
further..bit of course it will throw loads of social security staff out
of work but heck, its a crap job and they can always do plumbing. Or
live off their citizens income.
Like the idea of also giving people copons for PRIVATE education and
health, and thereby eliminating aother huge bureacracy that adds nothing
to education or health care, and actually gibves people a real choice as
consumers, it is of course anathema to both parties, since it
essentially decreases their power base, and the size of what they
manage. And gives power - in teh form of cash and coupons - back to teh
And that is the last thing they want, isn't it? To give up power.
Jeremy Paxmans book is really fascinatiing. Do you know, teh majority of
pliticians - those who pontficate and pronounce on all weighty matters,
have done nothing more exciting than being school teachers or sochul
wurkahs? Even teh labour party has almost zero members from trades or
manual work, and even the conservatives have almost zero members from
top industrial management? They are all career politicians, and, a
Jeremy points out the majoriy *arte earning more as MP's than they have,
in any other job they have held*.
In short, its not about selecteing teh best and most skilled and lettng
them have a crack at making sane descision, its a normal huerarchy of
brown nosing career people, each greedy to get to the top and get their
noises in the trough.
Its not the Lords that wants reforming, its the Commons.
This old idea that top industrial management only support the Tories. Get
real please. During Thatcher many top industrialist supported Labour and
SDLP policies. Many would keep shut as if you showed your true colours the
gates would close on you and your company. A bad time for freedom under the
Churchill was a career political. he crossed the house twice in order to be
where the power was. Today he would be in the Labour party.
Both, with the Lords totally getting rid of all hereditary and religious
peers. The seat of government should be in a more central location in the
UK, instead of the bottom right hand corner, with a parliament building(s)
totally capable of running a modern government. For e.g., each member
should have their own office and the chamber semi -circular with space for
everyone. the current old chapel can't even accommodate all the MPs and is
formed like cockpit which creates a rather farcical chamber and atmosphere.
The financial centre and government are all in one location, which is not
good for good government. Power is then centred in one spot, as in the UK,
which has the press, finance and government all centred. The ignorance of
the UK regions by the London national press is too plain to see. Many top
countries split these up in separate cities. We have a lot to learn from
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003
Because in the final analyisis they are just as stupid and venal as the
average labour career politician. They usually display slightly more low
cunning, and slightly more appreciation of te goose and golden egg
I have never voted tory or labour in my entire life by the way.
Oh indeed. Howver it works only when the vast mass of ignorant peasants
finally realise how much they have been lied to and select a new liar.
One lone genius is better served in helping them, not adding to their
No, thats right. The developments that lead to atom bombs and
microelectronics were all done by workers committees and teh great
wurking clarrs right?
Not a lone genius in sight.
Ditto the jet engine, the steam engine, etc. etc.
Lets re-write history for IMM...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.