We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council Pay Freeze
Comments
-
lostinrates wrote: ». I used it more for stuff like that in Italy becauseit was very near pne of my flats, so easy to walk there and bring home.
How many flats did you have
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Accept it doesn't happen in every situation where it should - I have seen some very incompetent staff protected by management and the like, however in experience it does happen. Look at failing social services departments and the like.Originally Posted by CluelessJockQuote:
Originally Posted by lemonjelly
If they care about their business, no. Best qualified person should get the job.
Exactly, but it is their choice. I would add that best qualified does not necessarily mean the individual with the best academic achievements.
Agreed, experience, motivation, successes acheived and many other factors count here. Regarding it being their choice, they'll have to deal with the consequences.
Quote:
Sir Jack Hayward put his son in charge of WWFC not so long ago. The club was mismanaged, and in the end the son was sacked, & I believe Sir Jack was suing him over allegations of impropriety.
And the point is?? An example of when putting your own in place, rather than a suitably qualified person can go horribly wrong. So wrong that father & son face each other in court.
Quote:
Your arguement is preservation of the status quo, and implies that by engaging in hard work & acheiving qualifications is a waste of time as business owners will only look after their own
Total fabrication, where did I say that? My point is that there is a huge difference between private and public funding. That said business owners are entitled to look after their own if that's what they choose to do, not that I would suggest it's a recipe for success.
By implication of what you say, companies and the like would just be constantly inherited (unless buyouts occur). My point here more than anything is that it should be the best person who gets the job. If any private business has an equal opps policy, no they cannot just appoint who they like. (Actually, more likely they will just work out a way to do what they like).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonjelly
Tosh!Failing departments get restructured and retrained to allow them to fulfil the purpose they are there for. Negligent or incompetant staff are removed.
You really are dillusional if you believe that.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
-
-
lemonjelly wrote: »No offence taken. :cool:
I was trying to say that when not personal, you debate the points well, eloquently, and it does make for good debate.
I like the debate. That is what we're here for isn't it?
I just think that personalising issues helps no-one. & I also think that it detracts from the debate. A person can be enjoying a debate up to the point where it appears the other party brings personal insults in to it. It also gives the impression the other party is struggling to back up their view, so there are no winners.
Regarding being cordial/chummy etc, no need for that. I believe there is a need for manners though, even on a fora. (More in relation to some of the posts earlier on this thread).
Given that our pesonal experience very much influences the points we argue I struggle to understand why reference to said experience should be found offensive. By personalising experience it helps an understanding of the points being made.
We all have a choice of whether to be offended or not, it is not solely down to another party to offend0 -
CluelessJock wrote: »Given that our pesonal experience very much influences the points we argue I struggle to understand why reference to said experience should be found offensive. By personalising experience it helps an understanding of the points being made.
We all have a choice of whether to be offended or not, it is not solely down to another party to offend
The foundations, premises, conclusions and logic of an arguement aren't personal. Facts aren't personal.
Staements about experience relevant to debate is fine.
Personal statements/attacks are not relevant and detract from the debate.
A person knows the intent of a comment they are about to make, and the potential impact it may have.We all have a choice of whether to be offended or not, it is not solely down to another party to offend
Ludicrous statement in the extreme! Being offended is an instinctive response. Can we choose not to be embarrassed? Can we choose not to laugh? Can we choose not to cry?It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
Far too simplistic, again. To say it was caused by the withdrawal of credit is like saying WW1 was caused by the assassination of some random archduke in yugoslavia.
Why was credit withdrawn swiftly? What caused that? What forces drove the forces which drove the forces etc etc? If you think a handful of bank executives have the power to bring the world into a recession, you're deluded.
.
Withdrawal of credit was reaction to the destruction of capital on bank balance sheets as a result of the US sub-prime catastrophe. The decisions to invest in products that they barely understood was who's fault
BTW a are you saying that the removal of credit and the subsequent reduction in purchasing power and liquidity wasn't the major prime contributory factor to this almost depression 'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »Accept it doesn't happen in every situation where it should - I have seen some very incompetent staff protected by management and the like, however in experience it does happen. Look at failing social services departments and the like.
It's pretty extreme when kids have to die before action is taken. Maybe not the best example you could have given.........but then you don't have too many examples to choose from0 -
Two points.
1) I am completely against govenment bail-outs of private organisations. They should have been allowed to fail, irrespective of the wider economic implications. To do anything else is fundamentally at odds with capitalism.
2) Having said that, there is a difference between the Daily Mail use of the word bailout, and the government taking an investment in such organisations, which is EXACTLY what happened with the banks here in the UK. Bailout implies throwing public money at a problem, whereas even you will hardly have failed to notice that the government actually injected (rightly or wrongly) capital into these companies in exchange for equity. In most cases, they have made a huge profit in the process.
I wasn't just talking about bailouts. I was talking about money given to the car industry, money given to the aircraft industry recently. Obviously money given to banks. Money given in terms of grants to private business. Money given in terms of employee training and enrolement.
To pretend the private sector gets no money from the public purse is silly, or severely uneducated. One of the two. And this isn't a subject I'm educated in the slightest on, but it's going on all around us.
"Government investment has saved x amount of jobs" is a term were hearing a lot at the moment. Thats money from the public purse going to the private sector.*Sigh*
Let me guess, lemonjelly. Lower middlemanagement in some dreary West Midlands council office?
Looks like lemon got there before me, so the insults have started. Is there any need? You made a statement. Others refuted it. Theres no need to go to a personal level.0 -
lemonjelly wrote:Ludicrous statement in the extreme! Being offended is an instinctive response. Can we choose not to be embarrassed? Can we choose not to laugh? Can we choose not to cry?
Absolutley we can choose not to be offended, embarrassed, laugh or cry. Just as we choose how to react to any other event.0
we lived in the one with the nearby lidl for about nine months, then had another one - not near lidl 
- for about a year. Before those two we had a few different corporate lets while looking and trying out different zones of the city. This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards