Can somebody explain

[Streetwalker]

You and a few others missing the point,how is the imposition of middle men and them using consumers money as theirs going down with customers money and us footing the bill again as opposed to the regional boards and quarterly bills,forget the nuclear bit privatisation of the the utilities was and is a disaster and yes I do blame her and Keith Joseph.

I agree privatisation of utilities has been a disaster and should return to public ownership . The current energy crisis might just force a re-think on that . Government can help though with regard us footing the bill with the removal of the UK from climate treaties ,carbon targets and enviromental levy's (which I believe add 20% to energy bills) . Knock another 5% off for VAT and at least some of the middle men wont have so much of our dosh to play with 

Never trust a Tory you said.

I dont , I was just maybe suggesting it wasnt all Maggies fault . It was the  Major government after all who sold the water and the electric . 

[cromwell]

Well as it turned out it was but Maggie backed nuclear power as the replacement which was eventually ditched due to costs by her predecessors . Even Blair tried to build nuclear power stations but was hijacked by the green lobby .  I think Maggie thought she was selling a dead pup to be honest but however you look at it you can't blame  someone who hasnt been in the captains chair for 30 years for todays problems . There have been plenty of chancers since who could have fixed it

You and a few others missing the point,how is the imposition of middle men and them using consumers money as theirs going down with customers money and us footing the bill again as opposed to the regional boards and quarterly bills,forget the nuclear bit privatisation of the the utilities was and is a disaster and yes I do blame her and Keith Joseph.

Never trust a Tory you said.

[Streetwalker]

So you think them snivelling and can't answer why Maggies sell off was and is a disaster.

Well as it turned out it was but Maggie backed nuclear power as the replacement which was eventually ditched due to costs by her predecessors . Even Blair tried to build nuclear power stations but was hijacked by the green lobby .  I think Maggie thought she was selling a dead pup to be honest but however you look at it you cant blame  someone who hasnt been in the captains chair for 30 years for todays problems . There have been plenty of chancers since who could have fixed it 

[srb7677]

It's amazing you can see my assumption when all I did was ask you a question. Strangely enough you have actually chosen to understood it, and the point being that socialism doesn't work because you can't separate them. Where as with capitalism it is so easy to separate the workers from the shirkers.

Have you ever considered adding a laughter button? Sometimes this place could do with it.


    

[Nick]

Any chance you might answer the rest of the question?

Would this be the question I answered Post #2 😉. 

[Nick]

Your default assumption is that they won't work. Those that genuinely refuse may well need a graduated kick up the arse. But the whole point is the difficulty in seperating those who won't from those who can't. Just assuming they are all lazy bastards as you do would leave people who can't work starving.

There is also the systemic problem of work not paying. Solve that, then get tough with anyone who still refuses to look for work.

It's amazing you can see my assumption when all I did was ask you a question. Strangely enough you have actually chosen to understood it, and the point being that socialism doesn't work because you can't separate them. Where as with capitalism it is so easy to separate the workers from the shirkers. 

[srb7677]

Another question I've asked you so many times before that you always dodge. As a socialist I take it you follow the values of looking after those that can't look after their selves? How do you differentiate between can't and won't? Because strangely enough won't is an anagram of nowt, and that's precisely what they'd get if I was PM.

Your default assumption is that they won't work. Those that genuinely refuse may well need a graduated kick up the arse. But the whole point is the difficulty in seperating those who won't from those who can't. Just assuming they are all lazy bastards as you do would leave people who cant work starving. 

There is also the systemic problem of work not paying. Solve that, then get tough with anyone who still refuses to look for work. 

[cromwell]

If someone refuses to work even if they can, but has no money, they are genuinely poor. Do you get the warm fuzzy feeling that you want to help them? Cause I don't. The sick is an entirely different situation and they should be helped, some caveats to that though.

Any chance you might answer the rest of the question? 

[Nick]

I don't object to supporting the poor and the sick, I just object to feeling sorry for the sniveling bastards.

Don't let them sucker you in Borky, the poor who would come under your snivelling barsteward heading don't deserve support, they're poor cause they are bone idle. India has eradicated this section from society by virtue of they got nothing if they did nothing hence their premature demise. Now pretty much everyone does something to help their own situation, the ones that can't are helped by charities but they certainly don't have SKY 📺, a fancy fridge from Brighthouse and an iPhone 13 on the never never from Carphone Warehouse. BTW, the system Labour governments worldwide helped create during their tenure that ultimately lead to the CREDIT CRASH in 2008, banks being urged to lend money to people who hadn't got a hope in hell of ever servicing the debt. 


People talk about the rich, the poor, the upper/middle/lower class and it means nothing, it should mean something. If you're in the less off end of society it should mean that top of the range iPhones, OLED TV's and such are out of reach but it doesn't . In reality it means you pay for them on tick therefore pay more in the end and are living life beyond your means, and when a crisis comes along like now masses of people are so loaded up with debt that they could barely afford before are doomed. It's not the guy on a 6 figure salary with his (£70K runaround 😂) thats at risk, it's the guy on £35K living the 6 figure lifestyle that suddenly finds the house he could just about afford on his 3% tracker mortgage has now done him in because his mortgage has doubled along with his energy bills. 

It's simple, you work your way up the ladder, you don't borrow your way up. 

[Nick]

Quite a lot of people actually if their convenient default assumption is that most of them are not genuine. Even if they are.

Another question I've asked you so many times before that you always dodge. As a socialist I take it you follow the values of looking after those that can't look after their selves? How do you differentiate between can't and won't? Because strangely enough won't is an anagram of nowt, and that's precisely what they'd get if I was PM. 

[Nick]

Who objects to supporting the genuinely poor or sick?

If someone refuses to work even if they can, but has no money, they are genuinely poor. Do you get the warm fuzzy feeling that you want to help them? Cause I don't. The sick is an entirely different situation and they should be helped, some caveats to that though.

[srb7677]

Its all about the question of what or who exactly is being bailed out.
My anger during the banking crash is that we did not specifically bail out the banks, but we bailed out the bankers that created the crash in the first place.

Any business bailout that saves the company assets, operations and employees is fine in principle, a bail out that principally benefits senior directors and shareholders is not.

If a business fails its the managers and owners who lose their shiirts and the public purse should simply protect the core operation and assets and put new managers and owners in place.

It has been so well stated in recent years that Western capitalism has become about privatising profit but nationalising loss
This is a total perversion of what the free market is really about and insulates the top percent from the real day to day risks that the smaller businessman has to take and accept.
This is not a sign of a meritocracy but a return to little more than feudalism.

For once I agree with you about something.

[cromwell]

Its all about the question of what or who exactly is being bailed out.
My anger during the banking crash is that we did not specifically bail out the banks, but we bailed out the bankers that created the crash in the first place.

Any business bailout that saves the company assets, operations and employees is fine in principle, a bail out that principally benefits senior directors and shareholders is not.

If a business fails its the managers and owners who lose their shiirts and the public purse should simply protect the core operation and assets and put new managers and owners in place.

It has been so well stated in recent years that Western capitalism has become about privatising profit but nationalising loss
This is a total perversion of what the free market is really about and insulates the top percent from the real day to day risks that the smaller businessman has to take and accept.
This is not a sign of a meritocracy but a return to little more than feudalism.

We agree,good post.

[Sampanviking]

Why there are objections for supporting the poorest people in society yet we the public are expected to pay for failed badly run companies?

Its all about the question of what or who exactly is being bailed out.
My anger during the banking crash is that we did not specifically bail out the banks, but we bailed out the bankers that created the crash in the first place.

Any business bailout that saves the company assets, operations and employees is fine in principle, a bail out that principally benefits senior directors and shareholders is not.

If a business fails its the managers and owners who lose their shiirts and the public purse should simply protect the core operation and assets and put new managers and owners in place.

It has been so well stated in recent years that Western capitalism has become about privatising profit but nationalising loss
This is a total perversion of what the free market is really about and insulates the top percent from the real day to day risks that the smaller businessman has to take and accept.
This is not a sign of a meritocracy but a return to little more than feudalism.

[cromwell]

I am terribly sorry Ollie, I keep forgetting that thinking is not your strong point.

I think think that one of the reasons the poor are poor is that instead of doing some something about being poor they prefer to snivel.

How the Divine Margaret comes into this I do not know, but you are a good lad and I will excuse your tendency to allow your thoughts to wander

Well I'm terribly sorry ......not that you cannot answer but because you choose not to think at all.

Probably because you don't want to for obvious reasons.