The Truth About The State Pension

bendix

I think The Economist would be tickled pink to hear itself called an ultra-capitalist magazine, regurgitating extreme mantras. This is the same magazine which endorsed Barack Obama back in November. But, hey, you know best mark.

You did the same yesterday when I quoted from the Times, completely ignoring the fact that until last night it's publisher had spent the last ten years supporting New Labour.

Ahhhh well . .. . .rats and sinking ships spring to mind.

bendix

And just to add to that, i think you will find that the Conservative Party is effectively in the middle ground at the moment on public sector issues. Labour - or at least its lameduck leader has finally begrudgingly accepted cuts are needed. The Tories are in the middle, making a case for cuts without going into specifics for - in my view - shallow political reasons. It is the Lib Dems who have moved from the left of Labour five years ago, to having become the party of the right, advocating the most 'savage' (their word, not mine) cuts to wasteful public sector spending.

I wish the Tories would be more forthright about their plans - perhaps they will be revealed at Conference. They are, however, to be congratulated for starting the whole debate. It was a brave political move, and they got it just right, because they showed that the vast majority of the public support paring back the public sector. Something which must be very worrying for marklv and his ilk.

Harry_Powell

marklv wrote: »

I still remember the accursed day in 1975 when that witch beat Ted Heath and Willie Whitelaw to the leadership of the Tory Party, and then proceeded to destroy everything that British conservatism had been about, turning it into an extremist capitalist party on American lines.

If you're 41 as you claim, this would mean you were aged 7 during "the accursed day in 1975". I'm surprised you were interested in politics at that tender age, though it would explain a lot.

I love your useage of words like "accursed", it proves increasingly that you're just taking the p*** on this forum. I wish you'd go and post in the Arms, Discussion Time or the Economy board, they embrace fruitloops.

marklv

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

The Tories were so bad that they were democratically elected for 4 sucessive terms - something which the present Labour Party will not replicate (thank god).

The Tories demonstrated how a modern political party can fool an entire nation, with the help of an effective advertising agency like Saatchi & Saatchi. I was never fooled.

marklv

Harry_Powell wrote: »

If you're 41 as you claim, this would mean you were aged 7 during "the accursed day in 1975". I'm surprised you were interested in politics at that tender age, though it would explain a lot.

I love your useage of words like "accursed", it proves increasingly that you're just taking the p*** on this forum. I wish you'd go and post in the Arms, Discussion Time or the Economy board, they embrace fruitloops.

I was 8 years old, not 7. And I did watch TV (not much else to do in the 1970s other than read). I also recall my old man saying that the "Women's Institute had taken over the Conservative Party" - by God was he right.

Old_Slaphead

marklv wrote: »

The Tories demonstrated how a modern political party can fool an entire nation, with the help of an effective advertising agency like Saatchi & Saatchi. I was never fooled.

Mmm - so you think the entire nation are fools and you're the only one who's not - you're not Gordon Brown by any chance are you ?

I can't believe it - fooled for 17 years by a couple of advertising men in stripey suits - you've no idea how daft I feel!

bendix

marklv is typical really of the public sector 'we know best' mentality. He says the Tories fooled the nation, either completely ignoring that they won and maintained power legitimately and significantly enriched whole swarthes of population by turning the UK into a property and share-owning democracy, something Labour had failed to do previously.

When Labour finally caught on, it produced New Labour of course, a kind of Thatcherism Lite.

Brown in his Chancellor days was a neo-Thatcherite, believing in deregulation, marketforces etc. Sadly, he reversed his position a few years ago and went on a spending spree which has created meaningless non-productive deparments and roles for people like marklv.

Thankfully, people have now realised that its unsustainable. Not just the people, but all the political parties too. Rather humorously, the only people who haven't caught on are those in those jobs themselves.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

marklv is typical really of the public sector 'we know best' mentality. He says the Tories fooled the nation, either completely ignoring that they won and maintained power legitimately and significantly enriched whole swarthes of population by turning the UK into a property and share-owning democracy, something Labour had failed to do previously.

Property owning democracy? Yes, it made many people in council homes rich, and that is one of the main reasons Thatcher won in 1987. I call it a kind of bribery, because by drastically reducing the available state housing stock it created homelessness for many people who were longer able to be housed by local authorities. The irony is that most of these former council homes are still priced well below equivalent properties that have always been private: once a council house, always a council house. And as for the privatisation shares, many of those who bought did so to make a quick buck from the opening issue, while those who kept the shares lost out as the market fell.

bendix wrote: »

When Labour finally caught on, it produced New Labour of course, a kind of Thatcherism Lite.

Brown in his Chancellor days was a neo-Thatcherite, believing in deregulation, marketforces etc. Sadly, he reversed his position a few years ago and went on a spending spree which has created meaningless non-productive deparments and roles for people like marklv.

Thankfully, people have now realised that its unsustainable. Not just the people, but all the political parties too. Rather humorously, the only people who haven't caught on are those in those jobs themselves.

Very amusing. Blair was certainly an admirer of Thatcher and a Tory in labour-liberal clothing. It's true that Brown was also of that ilk for a while, but never as keenly as 'smiling Tony'. The so-called spending spree created jobs - is that such a bad thing? I'm sure you would love to live a country with 7 million unemployed but with lower income tax, so fat cats like yourself can sit back and laugh all the way to the bank while millions rot in misery. What a nice person you are.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

Property owning democracy? Yes, it made many people in council homes rich, and that is one of the main reasons Thatcher won in 1987. I call it a kind of bribery, because by drastically reducing the available state housing stock it created homelessness for many people who were longer able to be housed by local authorities. The irony is that most of these former council homes are still priced well below equivalent properties that have always been private: once a council house, always a council house. And as for the privatisation shares, many of those who bought did so to make a quick buck from the opening issue, while those who kept the shares lost out as the market fell.



Very amusing. Blair was certainly an admirer of Thatcher and a Tory in labour-liberal clothing. It's true that Brown was also of that ilk for a while, but never as keenly as 'smiling Tony'. The so-called spending spree created jobs - is that such a bad thing? I'm sure you would love to live a country with 7 million unemployed but with lower income tax, so fat cats like yourself can sit back and laugh all the way to the bank while millions rot in misery. What a nice person you are.

People do not have a god-given right to have jobs. If they produce nothing, have no skills that people want to buy and don't have the werewithal to develop businesses that people are intersted in, then - you're right - they should be unemployed. Sadly, all the investment in the public sector has done is take a lot of dross off the dole and place it in meaningless roles just for the sake of massaging the unemployment figures.

The days of full employment are over. Changing demographics, shifting geo-economic trends and similar developments mean those days will never return.

You talk about 7 million unemployed. Belief me, pal, we're at that level today. 2.7 official unemployed. Add in the 2.5 on incapacity benefit. Top up with those who aren't on the register or who are temporarily in non-job training schemes designed to manipulate the figures, and you'll see us reaching 7 million easily. If not, more.

Labour isn't working.

It will be even more soon, when the much needed scalpel is taken to the public sector too. It is a national disgrace that public sector jobs wages have grown while the private sector - which lives in the real world where you only keep your job if you add to the bottom line - are reducing.

Noone - NOONE - can argue that that is sustainable. Not even self-interested try-hards like you.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

People do not have a god-given right to have jobs. If they produce nothing, have no skills that people want to buy and don't have the werewithal to develop businesses that people are intersted in, then - you're right - they should be unemployed. Sadly, all the investment in the public sector has done is take a lot of dross off the dole and place it in meaningless roles just for the sake of massaging the unemployment figures.

The days of full employment are over. Changing demographics, shifting geo-economic trends and similar developments mean those days will never return.

(Empty rhetoric edited out)

I'm sad to read your rant. Not angry, but sad - very sad. You reduce human beings to mere soulless automatons that have to 'produce' something in order to exist. Your words could come from the mouth of Satan himself.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you because I can see that you place no value in humanity. Everything in the world has to be 'profitable' in your eyes in order for it to have value. People like you will one day destroy the planet - this is what worries me the most. May God help us.