UKIP - merged threads

[Dead-Eyed Duck]

The difficulty of course is that public 'funded' enterprises tend not to be efficient. There are tiers, levels, and multiplicities of quangoes and committees that are supposedly there to monitor that the public money (ours) is well spent, and this includes the pay levels of those at the bottom.

 

Human nature being what it is (for some) these committee members are never poorly paid - unlike the tiers below them that are pay restricted by the tiers above them (hope that this makes sense).

 

I see that the following has recently been revealed relative to the NHS:-

 

The top paid executive of a Foundation Trust last year received £1.25 million (yes, that's right - paid for by you and me!). With a pension pot worth £2.39 million.

 

50 such executives were paid more than £400,000 last year.

 

And just a mere 598 were paid more than £100,000 last year.

 

Now let me say that I don't know what the 'proper' rate for the job is, but I think that the above may illustrate my point.

 

I suppose the nationalised coal mines could not be compared to the NHS, nor the railways, or police, or the fire service, but I bet my pension that if someone was to dig deep enough then similar examples could be found.

 

Anything that is linked to politics somehow always has a whiff of suspicion about it. And don't get me going about how the top notchers are always paid 'The going rate for their jobs', as the such rate always seems to be determined by independent bodies that are not truly independent.

[AVB]

So electricity supply and gas distribution when in public hands did not make a profit then? public services are that needed services be it from the guy sweeping the street to the nurse bandaging your wound, or the fireman attending your personal nightmare ( do we want to be concentrating on him not draining govt coffers whilst your kids are trapped in the back room of a burning house).

 

Should we be looking at making a profit out of these or considering them a drain when we do need them? and should we not be using the services that can and DID generate income to support and maintain each other efficiently and cost effectively? rather than going into the back pocket of shareholders,the majority of which take up to 80% of the wealth generated straight out of the country much better in my opinion, to plough it back in to public services.

 

 

 

KW

I agree. The challenge is how we maintain efficiency and cost effectiveness? There have been many examples in the past where state owned industries have become bloated and inefficient. I don't have the answer.

[grrclark]

So electricity supply and gas distribution when in public hands did not make a profit then? public services are that needed services be it from the guy sweeping the street to the nurse bandaging your wound, or the fireman attending your personal nightmare ( do we want to be concentrating on him not draining govt coffers whilst your kids are trapped in the back room of a burning house).

 

Should we be looking at making a profit out of these or considering them a drain when we do need them? and should we not be using the services that can and DID generate income to support and maintain each other efficiently and cost effectively? rather than going into the back pocket of shareholders,the majority of which take up to 80% of the wealth generated straight out of the country much better in my opinion, to plough it back in to public services.

 

I believe the days of an outright majority and 2 party politics are now gone they will never return thank god,a good working coalition or a vote by vote consensus will in my opinion be far more representative for us , rather than one of two parties pushing their own undemocratic self serving policies and prejudices on the majority who did not want or elect them in the first place.

 

 

KW

You are arguing a completely different point to my post. Using emotional rhetoric also doesn't contribute anything to reasoned debate, it is just contrived tripe.

 

I didn't say public services were bad, i have never said that. What i said is that public services are not wealth generating, they are redistributive. Not saying that is wrong either in every instance, it is just a statement of fact.

 

At a macroeconomic level public services see a finite pool of cash redistributed with a diminishing return.

 

Some services are essential and highly valued, no problem with that. I am suggesting that to maintain a public service by way of subsidy only can be counter productive.

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

[kdubya]

You are arguing a completely different point to my post. Using emotional rhetoric also doesn't contribute anything to reasoned debate, it is just contrived tripe.

Tripe? now now the thought of the SNP and labour is starting to panic you lets put it another way, to keep the mines open meant we had to divert resource from elsewhere, Thatcher the old crow decided she would not do that, she could like some on here not recognise that in some walks of life to provide something you need may have a cost.

 

So in her bigoted hell bent hatred of the miners she shut pits , yes pits that may have needed subsidy to keep going (not all did) she threw many many hard working proud men on the dole, the same hard men whose income provided for not only their direct families, but the social infrastructure of the area in which they lived,the result men receiving dole with no return for that payment, shops and support industry shutting down and putting more on the dole, again with no return whatsoever for that support, and then the dole figures fiddled

 

And what happened oh that's right we imported coal from abroad coal that actually cost more to bring to the surface , but subsidised by their countries , countries led by politicians that were not hell bent in a single aim of destroying unions and the working man, but actually recognised that it may be cheaper in the long run to keep men in work economies going and people happy for less than the cost of throwing them on the scrap heap, and the resultant destruction of communities.

 

Yes good sound economics from the old **** still if you want them great, I dont and it seems neither does the majority of the country.so lets sing along to the cons , bye bye baby baby bye bye. ( wearing a tam and with turned up tartan strides)

 

 

 

 

KW

[grrclark]

Yep tripe and nothing to with Labour and SNP, just plain and simple old fashioned tripe.

 

Seeking to subvert a discussion isn't debate, it isn't even reasonable.

 

It may be bye bye to DC in number 10, personally I think that is the wrong thing just now, but others will and can disagree, i have no issue with that.

 

There is always money to be made regardless of who is in power and what particular flavour their politics, I will always make money, i adapt and change and as I said before, i'm progressive.

 

My belief that The Conservatives should be in power for a second term is not selfish self interest, it is I think in the interest of the greatest amount of people in the country and that is what I strive for, to do the best you can for the most amount of folk, i am not polarised to any end of the spectrum.

 

If i was selfish and self interested I would have voted Yes in the referendum campaign, it would have been the poorer outcome for Scotland, but I would have made a fortune.

Edited April 22, 2015 by grrclark

[Fisherman Mike]

That's it then......the countries plight is all down to the sinking of the Belgrano... simples.

 

and I thought we were just trying to safeguard a little bit of England...how silly of me...

 

 

 

 

 

[Dead-Eyed Duck]

Tripe? now now the thought of the SNP and labour is starting to panic you lets put it another way, to keep the mines open meant we had to divert resource from elsewhere, Thatcher the old crow decided she would not do that, she could like some on here not recognise that in some walks of life to provide something you need may have a cost.

 

So in her bigoted hell bent hatred of the miners she shut pits , yes pits that may have needed subsidy to keep going (not all did) she threw many many hard working proud men on the dole, the same hard men whose income provided for not only their direct families, but the social infrastructure of the area in which they lived,the result men receiving dole with no return for that payment, shops and support industry shutting down and putting more on the dole, again with no return whatsoever for that support, and then the dole figures fiddled

 

And what happened oh that's right we imported coal from abroad coal that actually cost more to bring to the surface , but subsidised by their countries , countries led by politicians that were not hell bent in a single aim of destroying unions and the working man, but actually recognised that it may be cheaper in the long run to keep men in work economies going and people happy for less than the cost of throwing them on the scrap heap, and the resultant destruction of communities.

 

Yes good sound economics from the old **** still if you want them great, I dont and it seems neither does the majority of the country.so lets sing along to the cons , bye bye baby baby bye bye. ( wearing a tam and with turned up tartan strides)

 

 

 

 

KW

 

What sentimental garbage..

 

So I should have paid the cost of keeping those hardworking miners (not that I disagree with them being hardworking) in a job - I think not.

 

Were they the police, or NHS, or fire brigade (the infrastructure that we all pay our taxes for) then I would agree, but you are on a losing wicket.

 

Nobody paid me to do my job in private industry apart from my employers, and I wouldn't expect them to. I changed jobs 7 times in my career to find better wages and to escape sinking ships.

 

Not only that, but going back to the coal industry I suspect that even the proud miners wouldn't want me to keep them permanently in a job.

 

They were in an industry that was possibly under-invested, and that was not their fault. The fact that they were subject to 'unfair' competition from foreign imports - well that's the wicked way of the world, and the UK industry has done a fair bit of the same to the rest of the world. A bit like shops are closing down now because unthinking (?) Joe Public prefers to buy cheaper on line, and then bemoans the fact that shops are closing down and their is less choice.

 

Socialism - God save me from some of the nuttier aspects. I do believe in 'donating' to the underprivileged in the form of taxes if it is not their fault, and quite right too. Ditto for those that are temporarily down on their luck due to no fault of their own. But to expect me to do the same to an inefficient, industry full of obsolete practices - sorry.

[kdubya]

That's it then......the countries plight is all down to the sinking of the Belgrano... simples.

 

and I thought we were just trying to safeguard a little bit of England...how silly of me...

 

 

 

 

 

you should see a shrink FM they can help you even now in your fully ignorant rabid stage.

 

KW

[Fisherman Mike]

you should see a shrink FM they can help you even now in your fully ignorant rabid stage.

 

KW

Ha ! exposed for the contradictory and hypocritical bigot you are ..... game set and match to me I'm afraid...take it like a man.... at least I could respect you for it.

[Vince Green]

There is a long held belief, espescially in South Wales that Maggie closed the mines. She most certainly did not, the mines closed because the Electricity Generating Board could buy coal cheaper from Poland. It was an accountant's decision, even though it was an incredibly bad one.

 

That decision has meant millions of pounds leaving the country every year never to return. Coal from Yorkshire, Wales or wherever was only costing money that was moving around the country from one budget to another. As far as the country was concerned no money left these shores.

 

Instead we have paid thousands of ex miners to live on the dole when they could have been shovelling coal for their money all these years.

[digger]

As coal is such a valuable fuel and the mines only needed subsidising I'm sure they will be opened up soon... oh, hang on. Jobs for life subsidised by tax payers are thankfully a thing of the past. One man's rabid hatred of Maggie - she's to blame for the Falklands war, wouldn't throw money at the pits. funny how I'm sure Nige would prob do the same re the Falklands

[islandgun]

 

What sentimental garbage..

 

So I should have paid the cost of keeping those hardworking miners (not that I disagree with them being hardworking) in a job - I think not.

 

Were they the police, or NHS, or fire brigade (the infrastructure that we all pay our taxes for) then I would agree, but you are on a losing wicket.

 

Nobody paid me to do my job in private industry apart from my employers, and I wouldn't expect them to. I changed jobs 7 times in my career to find better wages and to escape sinking ships.

 

Not only that, but going back to the coal industry I suspect that even the proud miners wouldn't want me to keep them permanently in a job.

 

They were in an industry that was possibly under-invested, and that was not their fault. The fact that they were subject to 'unfair' competition from foreign imports - well that's the wicked way of the world, and the UK industry has done a fair bit of the same to the rest of the world. A bit like shops are closing down now because unthinking (?) Joe Public prefers to buy cheaper on line, and then bemoans the fact that shops are closing down and their is less choice.

 

Socialism - God save me from some of the nuttier aspects. I do believe in 'donating' to the underprivileged in the form of taxes if it is not their fault, and quite right too. Ditto for those that are temporarily down on their luck due to no fault of their own. But to expect me to do the same to an inefficient, industry full of obsolete practices - sorry.

Industry, including the supermarkets that have replaced small shops are being subsidised at the moment with low wages and working tax credits and no doubt direct financial deals that joe public may not be privy too, Thatcher wanted to break the unions foremost, which she achieved via the miners, judicious investment could have saved many mines and kept the money in Britain, but what this has to do with voting UKIP Im not sure, so i leave it too you

[kdubya]

Ha ! exposed for the contradictory and hypocritical bigot you are ..... game set and match to me I'm afraid...take it like a man.... at least I could respect you for it.

exposed come on sunshine, you had your last word, which was not your last word, so your word means nowt.

 

Anyway how can a bigot be hypocritical? you got me with that one.

 

KW

Edited April 22, 2015 by kdubya

[keg]

So electricity supply and gas distribution when in public hands did not make a profit then? public services are that needed services be it from the guy sweeping the street to the nurse bandaging your wound, or the fireman attending your personal nightmare ( do we want to be concentrating on him not draining govt coffers whilst your kids are trapped in the back room of a burning house).

 

Should we be looking at making a profit out of these or considering them a drain when we do need them? and should we not be using the services that can and DID generate income to support and maintain each other efficiently and cost effectively? rather than going into the back pocket of shareholders,the majority of which take up to 80% of the wealth generated straight out of the country much better in my opinion, to plough it back in to public services.

 

I believe the days of an outright majority and 2 party politics are now gone they will never return thank god,a good working coalition or a vote by vote consensus will in my opinion be far more representative for us , rather than one of two parties pushing their own undemocratic self serving policies and prejudices on the majority who did not want or elect them in the first place.

 

 

KW

Having been dictated to by the unions ( or their leaders) i can fully understand why they were privatised. It was a reaction from decades of the tail wagging the dog.

 

If you want your street sweepers, nurses and firemen then you can have them, you can subsidise industry but you can't afford to do both and neither should you.

 

On coal i have seen this from both sides. The company my wife used to work for used to audit the coal board and as I have stated on here before, the subsidies were eyewatering, even back in the 1980s.

 

All my uncles and 2 cousins were either face or surface workers and were paid handsomely, even the surface guys. It's a dirty dangerous job and i have no issue with that.

 

Millions have been poured into coalfield regeneration and some have done well but other just do not want change. I can only comment on S Yorks as that is where the family is.

 

By it's nature, public sector is not cost effective, all that is being asked is for people to be more flexible.

 

 

Sadly KW, you are blinkered about Maggie. Completely irrational, and although i find myself liking you sometimes and even agreeing now and again, Some of your posts are so far out ...

 

Maggie was what the country needed, i dread to think where we would be now without her, god rest her soul.

 

Your loss, our entertainment.

 

FBU are up in arms about pension changes for example, private sector had everything changed so why not the public sector.

exposed come on sunshine, you had your last word, which was not your last word, so your word means nowt.

 

Anyway how can a bigot be hypocritical? you got me with that one.

 

KW

Same as anyone can be. Let me explain.

 

Man claims to detest non whites to his workmates but happy to say wine and dine with said non whites if it means for example, a raise at work.

[chrisjh]

latest signs show UKIP is going to be wiped out looking like they will be about as relative as the Greens

[timmytree]

Into the 38th page and I've finally made a momentous decision. Regardless of politics, parties or pundits, I'm not going to bother reading another thread where FM has made a contribution. Total ****.

[keg]

That's up to you but it's a free world and the thread has not been locked yet so at least we are all playing well together

[keg]

latest signs show UKIP is going to be wiped out looking like they will be about as relative as the Greens

Having just heard the dappy Doris in Sheffield today, i am convinced she is an alien from another planet.

 

Then i read this:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32384397

 

£12.00 an hour minimum wage, abolish private schools because they are elitist ( and Scargill isn't of course!)

 

Wonder how we will pay for it all..

[poontang]

latest signs show UKIP is going to be wiped out looking like they will be about as relative as the Greens

 

Not sure where you're getting your information from but the all the polls are showing UKIP support between 13% - 15%. A slight drop from the beginning of the year I'll grant you, but still more than the Lib Dems and Greens support combined.

 

Hardly a wipeout.

 

The fact is, with just two weeks until polling day NOBODY knows what's going to happen. The only thing that does seem certain is that there will be some surprises when the count gets underway.

Edited April 23, 2015 by poontang

[Dead-Eyed Duck]

Having just heard the dappy Doris in Sheffield today, i am convinced she is an alien from another planet.

 

Then i read this:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32384397

 

£12.00 an hour minimum wage, abolish private schools because they are elitist ( and Scargill isn't of course!)

 

Wonder how we will pay for it all..

 

Ah, reading that brought back happy memories of true socialists like Arfer, Tony Blair and Wedgie Benn.

 

Happy to lead from the front and tax the undeserving rich so that they left this fair isle.

 

All had an answer to everything, and they were very keen to speak for the honest poor whilst they themselves were sitting on a pile of loot earned by the sweat of their brows.

 

They did speak about everything, simply because the poor honest man did not have the education or wit to speak for themselves, and could not be trusted to make any decision that affected their future.

 

It must have been difficult for them not to move to socialist utopias such as those lead by Stalin and chairman Mao. However, they did have the moral fibre to stay in the UK afflicted by the stench of capitalism, and to try and effect change and bring us all down to the level of the poor honest working man.

 

Where's that large glass of malt so that I can reflect further?

Edited April 23, 2015 by Dead-Eyed Duck

[TIGHTCHOKE]

 

Ah, reading that brought back happy memories of true socialists like Arfer, Tony Blair and Wedgie Benn.

 

Happy to lead from the front and tax the undeserving rich so that they left this fair isle.

 

All had an answer to everything, and they were very keen to speak for the honest poor whilst they themselves were sitting on a pile of loot earned by the sweat of their brows.

 

They did speak about everything, simply because the poor honest man did not have the education or wit to speak for themselves, and could not be trusted to make any decision that affected their future.

 

It must have been difficult for them not to move to socialist utopias such as those lead by Stalin and chairman Mao. However, they did have the moral fibre to stay in the UK afflicted by the stench of capitalism, and to try and effect change and bring us all down to the level of the poor honest working man.

 

Where's that large glass of malt so that I can reflect further?

 

Drinking at this time of the day is not good for you!

 

How can you call Bliar a TRUE SOCIALIST? He invented NEW LABOUR and became a CAPITALIST!

[keg]

 

Ah, reading that brought back happy memories of true socialists like Arfer, Tony Blair and Wedgie Benn.

 

Happy to lead from the front and tax the undeserving rich so that they left this fair isle.

 

All had an answer to everything, and they were very keen to speak for the honest poor whilst they themselves were sitting on a pile of loot earned by the sweat of their brows.

 

They did speak about everything, simply because the poor honest man did not have the education or wit to speak for themselves, and could not be trusted to make any decision that affected their future.

 

It must have been difficult for them not to move to socialist utopias such as those lead by Stalin and chairman Mao. However, they did have the moral fibre to stay in the UK afflicted by the stench of capitalism, and to try and effect change and bring us all down to the level of the poor honest working man.

 

Where's that large glass of malt so that I can reflect further?

I like the cut of your jib sir!

 

I find it hilarious that Wedgie gave up hit title but not his money.

[Fisherman Mike]

Into the 38th page and I've finally made a momentous decision. Regardless of politics, parties or pundits, I'm not going to bother reading another thread where FM has made a contribution. Total ****.

Cider intoxication?

 

Mods please don't lock the thread down because Timotei has called me a total ****....I don't want to press charges and forgive him his deficiencies...He's from Somerset

Edited April 23, 2015 by Fisherman Mike

[Fisherman Mike]

That's up to you but it's a free world and the thread has not been locked yet so at least we are all playing well together

Quite...I'm sure KW and the other Kippers are pretty thick skinned...im here representing the minority being bullied, too shy or feeble to stand up to the nasty boys in the playground....Shouldnt worry about Timotei he's from Somerset...Strong in arm and thick in head...Us Cotswold boys have to put them in place now and again for stealing our sheep....you wouldnt believe what they do to them !

Edited April 23, 2015 by Fisherman Mike

[Fisherman Mike]

I like the cut of your jib sir!

 

I find it hilarious that Wedgie gave up hit title but not his money.

Yes that always amused me too...had the pleasure of conversing with Wedgie once in a hotel in Bath..he was an extremely articulate and intelligent orator..I think he would of made a very good PM of any denomination.

 

Sadly apart from the late John Smith and perhaps Will Hague we have had no real Statesmen in politics for many years. All of the current crop are an insipid lot.