You really believe this stuff - goodness me all of the downsides and no of the up sides!!

Are you putting the likes of Alan Stanford and Kenneth Lay in the same bracket as Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussain seriously?

Society has - sadly for you - thrown out the notion that we should be equal regardless of intellect, desire, work ethic, ability you see this is where your mantra is just hyperbole - sad very sad indeed.

You will never stop privilege you will never stop inequality. Even in a socialist regime the structure of power still exists. The bosses are still more equal than the rest. We are not all born the same - I assume you can't run like Bolt or are as intelligent as or have the business ability of Bill Gates? Of course in your world Gates is the enemy and should never have been allowed to use his talent, intellect and hard work to accumulate such a huge fortune. You need to find a way of encouraging/accommodating the benefits people like Gates bring within the confines of a workable society. You think how much tax his company has paid of the years and how that has been redistributed to those less fortunate than him. The money he has donated to challenging causes to the betterment of society. For every Abramovic there is a Bill Gates pity you are so blinkered you fail to acknowledge that the world isn't all run by greedy egomaniacs!!

LOL indeed and you can count the number of political conversations on the fingers of one foot!
It's just a nice handy label to chuck around to avoid answering questions.

If you think that you are an even bigger idiot than I had you down as. No one who works hard and earns their money is the enemy, as long as they pay their fair share of taxes while doing so then bloody good luck to them. I for one have a lifestyle I am happy with and am in no way jealous of anyone who earns more.

It's Sal: the thinking man's gift that simply keeps on giving

Bill Gates is at least the third straw man you've introduced into this debate so far.

I'm still wondering why you do it, apart from some compulsion to say "look over there" and not engage in debate at all

Ah, right - so you're still in your teens.





Strange, I don't remember ever mentioning "Pol Pot", "Idi Amin" or "Saddam Hussain". Obfuscation? I think so.

But whilst we're on the subject of such - where do you think certainly the latter two would be without the pipeline of bribes, materiel and training offered in exchange for resource rights?



LOL - don't feel sad on my part. Are you sure you're having this conversation with me - or some kind of fantasy me which exists solely in your own head? Who's mentioned anything about "enforced equality"?



See - there you go again. Who's mentioned anything about "stopping inequality"? The issue here is your assertion that anyone who takes umbrage with the manifold injustices of the corporate sector hasn't a leg to stand on and must only be "jealous". I take it that since you've been careful to avoid returning to that silly claim and have instead resorted to straw man weaving (as well as exposing your woody for capitalism) you'd rather not make an even bigger fool of yourself.

I see Iain Duncan Smith has successfully ended child poverty in the UK within a month of the new government coming into office

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33347511 Seems the Tories now want to end sickness benefit.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33347511 Seems the Tories now want to end sickness benefit.

The problem with welfare is that it creates a class of people that are dependent on the state. So, essentially it's the states way of bribing voters.
When the welfare state was set up, only people over the age of 70 were given a weekly payment. This made the welfare system very cheap, because the life expectancy in Britain at the time was 48.
However, although cutting benefits will decrease government spending it doesn't address the real issue of private debt (mortgage payments, credit cards, student loans, bank loans etc). If the public is paying down debt it's inevitable sovereign debt will increase as the government tries to circulate the money into the economy that isn't being circulated as the public is saving in order to pay their debt.

We're the most indebted nation in the developed world, our total debt is 900% of GDP, and most of that is private debt-not government debt. Debts that can't be repaid, won't be repaid, and either we have to default and go bankrupt, or a significant proportion of the debt will have to be written off.
IMO, the initial bailout that was given to the banks, should have gone to the public in order to pay down their own debt, thus giving the money to the banks in the form of debt repayments, and giving the public more disposable income, to save, or spend within the economy.
Unfortunately, because of the nature of our political system, no Politian is willing to stand up to the Ponzi scheme running-oligarchs in the financial sector. They're just happy to keep the bubble inflated long enough so the 5hit doesn't hit the fan while they're in office.

Edit:

Just to add, the UK's current (trade account) is also far more concerning than is portrayed by the government and the media. Our economy will never be able to recover if we don't start producing more than we consume, there needs to be a reindustrialisation of Britain.

I'd be thoroughly embarassed, as a government, to talk about more welfare cuts when the current situation has already led to a neccessity for foodbanks.

Shame on them.

They're more interested in getting dividends for shareholders, than sorting out the root cause of any social problems.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33376467Don't you even dare to criticise government policies, otherwise we'll withold funding[/url

The goal is the Thirdworldisation of the Britain with employees begging for jobs offering similar terms and conditions as you'd find in one of Russell Brand's sweatshops.

I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic. Sheeple meekly sitting by watching rights and benefits their forefathers literally gave their blood to win trickle away - forever lost. Do people seriously believe they'll see them return once we fight our way out of debt? But then if you're dumb enough to think debt is some kind of statistical irregularity in markets rather than an economic weapon there's no point in further discussion.

Until people stop watching TV, think for themselves and take forceful action they deserve everything they get.

There was a necessity for foodbanks way before the nasty, nasty Tories got into power. Still, the simple solution would be to ban them completely then we'll go back to the halycon days of the early 2000's when everyone had enough money to spend on food, booze and ciggies.
Which other charities would you also like to see banned? Macmillan, perhaps.

Why not simply type WAAAAAAHHHHH....Tories, it'll save time.

People will stop watching TV when this Thirdworldisation eventually happens. Carry on taking the pills.

What is your opinion of foodbanks ?

Are they a necessary charitable effort in emergency situations, or do you believe that they are all politically motivated hence the reason why they have multiplied several fold under the current incumbents ?

Quote ="BobbyD"There was a necessity for foodbanks way before the nasty, nasty Tories got into power. Still, the simple solution would be to ban them completely then we'll go back to the halycon days of the early 2000's when everyone had enough money to spend on food, booze and ciggies. Which other charities would you also like to see banned? Macmillan, perhaps. Why not simply type WAAAAAAHHHHH....Tories, it'll save time.'" You are totally correct, people did use foodbanks before the Tories, all 25, 899 of them. What you can't seem to grasp is the number of people who find it necessary to use them SINCE the Coalition/Tories have been in power, 1, 084, 604 of them. Any idea why there has been such a big jump in the space of 6 years? And please don't say if its there it will be used, you have to be referred to use a foodbank and show proof of income etc. www.trusselltrust.org/stats

Quote ="BobbyD"There was a necessity for foodbanks way before the nasty, nasty Tories got into power. Still, the simple solution would be to ban them completely then we'll go back to the halycon days of the early 2000's when everyone had enough money to spend on food, booze and ciggies. Which other charities would you also like to see banned? Macmillan, perhaps. Why not simply type WAAAAAAHHHHH....Tories, it'll save time.'" You are totally correct, people did use foodbanks before the Tories, all 25, 899 of them. What you can't seem to grasp is the number of people who find it necessary to use them SINCE the Coalition/Tories have been in power, 1, 084, 604 of them. Any idea why there has been such a big jump in the space of 6 years? And please don't say if its there it will be used, you have to be referred to use a foodbank and show proof of income etc. www.trusselltrust.org/stats

I have no problem with them whatsoever. It'd be great if they weren't needed, but then it'd be great if no charities were needed. Perhaps they should get a teddy bear mascot with an eye patch and call it Pudsey, then they may be acceptable.

Quote ="Hull White Star"You are totally correct, people did use foodbanks before the Tories, all 25, 899 of them. What you can't seem to grasp is the number of people who find it necessary to use them SINCE the Coalition/Tories have been in power, 1, 084, 604 of them. Any idea why there has been such a big jump in the space of 6 years? And please don't say if its there it will be used, you have to be referred to use a foodbank and show proof of income etc. www.trusselltrust.org/stats'" Then where was your moral indignation at their growth under Labour? Or did you vote for them and hope no one notices the spineless hypocrisy? On this 1m+ number, there's this from full fact that explains it https://fullfact.org/live/2014/apr/food ... oecd-31584 Quote the government points to OECD research which shows that the proportion of people in the UK who reported not having enough money to buy food fell from 9.8% in 2007 to 8.1% in 2012. The average proportion of people unable to pay for food increased over the same period across both the OECD group of nations and the EU.'" https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/ ... mber-40853 Quote The increase in supply doesn’t necessarily reflect an increased demand for emergency food. There may have been people in need of emergency food in the past who wouldn’t have shown up in the Trust’s figures because there was no Trussell Trust food bank nearby.'" Oh, there it is as well, the "proof of income, people going through cupboards etc etc" to get a voucher. Utter, utter rubbish. Why would they bother? Perhaps the journo who managed to get a voucher was the only person to get away with it? Do you know what a Crisis Loan is, sorry, was? Well, here's some lovely figures for your rose tinted, Labour spectacles. In 2008, 984,200 people applied for a "Crisis Loan", 817,800 were granted, and you have the brass neck to slag off the Tories. The hypocrisy of the Labour voter is spectacular.

Quote ="Hull White Star"You are totally correct, people did use foodbanks before the Tories, all 25, 899 of them. What you can't seem to grasp is the number of people who find it necessary to use them SINCE the Coalition/Tories have been in power, 1, 084, 604 of them. Any idea why there has been such a big jump in the space of 6 years? And please don't say if its there it will be used, you have to be referred to use a foodbank and show proof of income etc. www.trusselltrust.org/stats'" Then where was your moral indignation at their growth under Labour? Or did you vote for them and hope no one notices the spineless hypocrisy? On this 1m+ number, there's this from full fact that explains it https://fullfact.org/live/2014/apr/food ... oecd-31584 Quote the government points to OECD research which shows that the proportion of people in the UK who reported not having enough money to buy food fell from 9.8% in 2007 to 8.1% in 2012. The average proportion of people unable to pay for food increased over the same period across both the OECD group of nations and the EU.'" https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/ ... mber-40853 Quote The increase in supply doesn’t necessarily reflect an increased demand for emergency food. There may have been people in need of emergency food in the past who wouldn’t have shown up in the Trust’s figures because there was no Trussell Trust food bank nearby.'" Oh, there it is as well, the "proof of income, people going through cupboards etc etc" to get a voucher. Utter, utter rubbish. Why would they bother? Perhaps the journo who managed to get a voucher was the only person to get away with it? Do you know what a Crisis Loan is, sorry, was? Well, here's some lovely figures for your rose tinted, Labour spectacles. In 2008, 984,200 people applied for a "Crisis Loan", 817,800 were granted, and you have the brass neck to slag off the Tories. The hypocrisy of the Labour voter is spectacular.

Jesus H. Christ! When will people stop thinking the entirety of political thought is represented by this completely bogus "Left" - "Right", "Labour", "Tory" false dichotomy? You'd think after all we've witnessed over the past thirty years with Labour, the Tories and now the Lib-Dems not just ruthlessly carving up the welfare state, the education system, the NHS etc. but also helping to facilitate the biggest tax-haven for corporate wealth (both in the UK and spread across a network of British dominions in the Caribbean as well as the Channel Islands) in existence, the penny would finally drop.

As long as people continue to believe that the limits of their political responsibilities are represented marking an occasional "X" on some polling ballot - the winner of which represents neither "Conservatism" as it was once defined nor "Labour" but instead is really an abstract, ideologically flexible subset of a SINGLE PARTY in Parliament - their impoverishment will carry on unabated.

I mean, seriously - Cameron (I won't say the "Tories" because such policy reforms are radically un-Conservative) has now "leaked" the idea of charging for visits to the doctor's surgery. Are people so DUMB that they think such charges will remain fixed for eternity - rather than being ratcheted up along the lines of prescription charges so that in essence the NHS is no longer free?

And anyone who seriously believes New New Labour is going to come riding in on a white horse to put right everything those Nasty Tories have tampered with in four years needs his head examining.

Quote ="BobbyD"Then where was your moral indignation at their growth under Labour? Or did you vote for them and hope no one notices the spineless hypocrisy? On this 1m+ number, there's this from full fact that explains it https://fullfact.org/live/2014/apr/food ... oecd-31584 https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/ ... mber-40853 Oh, there it is as well, the "proof of income, people going through cupboards etc etc" to get a voucher. Utter, utter rubbish. Why would they bother? Perhaps the journo who managed to get a voucher was the only person to get away with it? Do you know what a Crisis Loan is, sorry, was? Well, here's some lovely figures for your rose tinted, Labour spectacles. In 2008, 984,200 people applied for a "Crisis Loan", 817,800 were granted, and you have the brass neck to slag off the Tories. The hypocrisy of the Labour voter is spectacular.'" I don't know what your point is about crisis loans is but you know full well there is no crisis loan anymore, that safety net was actually taken away by your beloved Tories and people are having to wait weeks rather than days for the new Budgeting Loan. Whats your feeling about the proposed changes to ESA and Carers Allowance for the sick and disabled? Have we not bore the brunt of the cuts already with the changes to the ILF, ESA and PIP or is it a case of kicking a man whilst he's down?

Quote ="BobbyD"Then where was your moral indignation at their growth under Labour? Or did you vote for them and hope no one notices the spineless hypocrisy? On this 1m+ number, there's this from full fact that explains it https://fullfact.org/live/2014/apr/food ... oecd-31584 https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/ ... mber-40853 Oh, there it is as well, the "proof of income, people going through cupboards etc etc" to get a voucher. Utter, utter rubbish. Why would they bother? Perhaps the journo who managed to get a voucher was the only person to get away with it? Do you know what a Crisis Loan is, sorry, was? Well, here's some lovely figures for your rose tinted, Labour spectacles. In 2008, 984,200 people applied for a "Crisis Loan", 817,800 were granted, and you have the brass neck to slag off the Tories. The hypocrisy of the Labour voter is spectacular.'" I don't know what your point is about crisis loans is but you know full well there is no crisis loan anymore, that safety net was actually taken away by your beloved Tories and people are having to wait weeks rather than days for the new Budgeting Loan. Whats your feeling about the proposed changes to ESA and Carers Allowance for the sick and disabled? Have we not bore the brunt of the cuts already with the changes to the ILF, ESA and PIP or is it a case of kicking a man whilst he's down?

Those could have been my very thoughts, regular readers may recall the phrase "football supporter politics", well its the funneling of thoughts into "left" and "right" that simply maintains the system where any party in government lines its members pockets for the future regardless of rhetoric or pretend political theories - there is no "left" or "right" in the current pair of parties who are the only ones likely to ever hold power and you have to go back forty years to understand what "left" and "right" really means.

My point about the crisis loans is this as you're clearly incapable of joining the dots, or unwilling.
Your bleating about the 1m+ foodbank use is, in your blinkered eyes, a catastrophe, yet you don't want to think about the almost same number in crisis under your beloved party.
No idea, about the other stuff, you're going to say it's very, very bad based on your own prejudices. You should come up with some figures, ideally from the Guardian or Morning Star to show how terrible the Tories are.

I remember Rachel Reeves saying the Labour party will be tougher on those on welfare than the Tories, so my conscience is clear, I made sure Labour didn't get in to screw the poorest in society. Did you?

It's debatable whether ideology was ever as important as we are led to believe. I tend to think people have their own needs and desires which are inflexible. Rather than conforming to the tenets of ideology they'd much rather prefer seeking out an ideology which is sync with their own requirements - or selecting those tenets of an ideology which they like whilst ignoring all others.

A prime example would be those politicians who for years have espoused the virtues of "Free Market" capitalism. What they really mean is free markets are GOOD when the economics suit them. But should some foreign competitor attempt to flood the market with cheap imports and they're screaming for the imposition of trade tariffs like a child who's filled his diapers.

This is the reason I have [isome [/isympathy for the likes of Milton Friedmann. Since I can remember he's been the object of a concerted hate campaign by the anti-globalist brigade. And they do have a point - of sorts. But if these idiots actually bothered to read or listen to Friedmann they'd know he was hopping mad about the mis-application of his economic methodology for DECADES.

No, not prejudices Bobby, but [iexperience [/i. No one better to be able to give an account of the truth than those who are experiencing what is happening. With what Cameron is going to do with the Disabled, I'd say they were [ialready [/i
screwing the poor in society.

My conscience is very clear because I'm not a turkey that voted for Christmas.

I agree, and economists like Hyman Minsky, Augusto Graziani, and Steve Keen have seen these flaws, and have been the voice of reason against the Chicago (or neo-classical) school of economic theory for decades, but obviously as their attempts to educate the political and financial powers that be fell on deaf ears. Which is what you would expect when the principles of that economic theory have made those same political and financial powers that be all the more wealthy, and all the more powerful.