~
Does the fact that Labour pored money into public services like health (close to collapse in 1997 according to independent assessors, the King Foundation, education, Surestart and the police back it up? ~
Didn't make much difference on the whole though did it, they just essentially wasted billions, fire police, nhs squandered the lot for the most part, services still shit etc etc.
~Does the fact that the number of children in poverty was cut by a quarter in the ten years between 1997 and 2007.~
One of the things measuring child poverty is does a child have access to a mobile phone, hardly a poverty line item, and agains just figures twisted to justify money wasted. In real poverty terms it made no difference at all.
I'm not saying the other side are any better but please stop rimming the labour government.
In addition, their 'pledge' to make sure everyone has 2mg broadband as its a 'human right'
O fuck off human right my arsehole, breathing now thats a human right, clean water yes, broadband I think the fuck not.
The rich part 3
-
andy at handiwork
- Posts: 4113
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The rich part 3
Trotsky was indeed removed from the records, but I think you'll find the guy who gets 'disappeared' in that photo is Yezhov, chief torturer and executioner during the 'Terror' of 1937-9, and referred to by Stalin as 'his blackberry'.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Justincyder
"Didn't make much difference on the whole though did it, they just essentially wasted billions, fire police, nhs squandered the lot for the most part, services still shit etc etc."
Thats your opinion. You're wrong.
The independent Kings Foundation stated that the NHS was on the point of collapse in 1997 and that there had been huge improvements e.g. much shorter waiting times and treatment for cancer.
There have been substantial reductions in crime under the Labour government.
"I'm not saying the other side are any better but please stop rimming the labour government."
This is an ignorant, misinformed and incorrect statement. I have frequently criticised the Labour government over the Iraq war, the failure to tax the rich and close down tax avoidance loopholes, their failure to introduce transitional restricitions on the number of people who could come in from new EU countries eg. Poland etc etc.
Now that isnt to say that money was wasted. But you appear to totally miss the point of the message that you are responding to. Jim stated that the Labour party were the greatest supporter of the rich. This is not the case as anyone can see on the back of the expenditure on public services. Whether that money was spent well is a completely different argument.
IF you want to see what a government that wholeheartedly supports the rich above everything else looks like, read about Thatcher.
Cheers
D
Thats your opinion. You're wrong.
The independent Kings Foundation stated that the NHS was on the point of collapse in 1997 and that there had been huge improvements e.g. much shorter waiting times and treatment for cancer.
There have been substantial reductions in crime under the Labour government.
"I'm not saying the other side are any better but please stop rimming the labour government."
This is an ignorant, misinformed and incorrect statement. I have frequently criticised the Labour government over the Iraq war, the failure to tax the rich and close down tax avoidance loopholes, their failure to introduce transitional restricitions on the number of people who could come in from new EU countries eg. Poland etc etc.
Now that isnt to say that money was wasted. But you appear to totally miss the point of the message that you are responding to. Jim stated that the Labour party were the greatest supporter of the rich. This is not the case as anyone can see on the back of the expenditure on public services. Whether that money was spent well is a completely different argument.
IF you want to see what a government that wholeheartedly supports the rich above everything else looks like, read about Thatcher.
Cheers
D
-
justincyder
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Justincyder
But its also only your opinion, I have seen at first hand and been affected by thousands of pounds pissed up a wall in the services as has my partner who is in the NHS, oh I daresay some projects have been successful but isn't that true of ANY government.
My point being that NL is and was no different that any other governent. It had some success's but it sure as hell fucked up in a big way too. Again like any government.
I probably had lost sight of the original point Jim was making about NL being the biggest fan of the rich. I think any government whether they like to or not will be a fan of the rich as thats where most of their cash comes from. The money Government gets in from income tax is so pitiful compared to the amount brought in by corporate tax, is virtually insignificant.
Sure they have to pretend to us common folk that actually they like us more because thats where the majority of votes come from, but its purely lip service and anyone who imagines otherwise is dellusional.
Fair point if you've been critical of them I can't remember unfortunately ever post I read I was merely referencing this one.
And as much as we allay to not liking the rich, ultimately it is the rich whether you like it or not that contribute the most in taxes,providing employment to the economy etc etc ( setting aside the public sector naturally.)
If you did not have rich people or allowed people to aspire to be rich then entrepeneurism would die out, people wouldn't start companies, employ people, pay tax, pay their pensions.
And the Government can only spend so much money because don't forget its not THEIR money they're spending its ours and the rich peoples.
oh I know many of them dodge tax as you're about to say, but its no different harping on about that than other people picking on the 'benefit scroungers' I rather imagine there are plenty of rich folk who have worked their way to where they are without fiddling the system.
I've said it before and I'll mention it again, take all the real serious fraudulent repeat offending benefit scroungers AND the few tax dodging rich bastards and deal with them as harshly as human rights will allow.
And we have also become obsessed by the 'bankers' who have somehow become the only representation of rich people which is a total nonsense. you mention rich person on here and someone will invariably go - bloody bankers.
They're a tiny percentage and whilst they've alot to answer for it doesn't justify a constant attack on the 'rich'
My point being that NL is and was no different that any other governent. It had some success's but it sure as hell fucked up in a big way too. Again like any government.
I probably had lost sight of the original point Jim was making about NL being the biggest fan of the rich. I think any government whether they like to or not will be a fan of the rich as thats where most of their cash comes from. The money Government gets in from income tax is so pitiful compared to the amount brought in by corporate tax, is virtually insignificant.
Sure they have to pretend to us common folk that actually they like us more because thats where the majority of votes come from, but its purely lip service and anyone who imagines otherwise is dellusional.
Fair point if you've been critical of them I can't remember unfortunately ever post I read I was merely referencing this one.
And as much as we allay to not liking the rich, ultimately it is the rich whether you like it or not that contribute the most in taxes,providing employment to the economy etc etc ( setting aside the public sector naturally.)
If you did not have rich people or allowed people to aspire to be rich then entrepeneurism would die out, people wouldn't start companies, employ people, pay tax, pay their pensions.
And the Government can only spend so much money because don't forget its not THEIR money they're spending its ours and the rich peoples.
oh I know many of them dodge tax as you're about to say, but its no different harping on about that than other people picking on the 'benefit scroungers' I rather imagine there are plenty of rich folk who have worked their way to where they are without fiddling the system.
I've said it before and I'll mention it again, take all the real serious fraudulent repeat offending benefit scroungers AND the few tax dodging rich bastards and deal with them as harshly as human rights will allow.
And we have also become obsessed by the 'bankers' who have somehow become the only representation of rich people which is a total nonsense. you mention rich person on here and someone will invariably go - bloody bankers.
They're a tiny percentage and whilst they've alot to answer for it doesn't justify a constant attack on the 'rich'
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Justincyder
"But its also only your opinion, I have seen at first hand and been affected by thousands of pounds pissed up a wall in the services as has my partner who is in the NHS, oh I daresay some projects have been successful but isn't that true of ANY government."
Of course it is just my opinion. But at least when I give my opinion I reference some independent survey e.g the King Foundation report on the NHS or the governments own departmental enquiry which shows that benefit fraud is a mere fraction of the money lost to tax avoidance and tax evasion. Okay, you can prove anything with statistics but I would place more credence on an independent survey than the "I know a fella down the pub" which is what passes for a fact to support an entire generalisation with many that post on this forum.
"My point being that NL is and was no different that any other governent. It had some success's but it sure as hell fucked up in a big way too. Again like any government."
To say that a government has successes and failures is stating the obvious and there is no point in commenting.
"Sure they have to pretend to us common folk that actually they like us more because thats where the majority of votes come from, but its purely lip service and anyone who imagines otherwise is dellusional."
You imply that there is no difference between the parties here. I will give you the same test that I give others who say this on the forum. Everyone, I repeat everyone, has failed to reply like the empty bag of wind they actually are.
Read the link below and then put up a list of all the legislation that Thatcher brought in which helped the poor and the less well off.
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i ... ply_221516
My comments on the rich were a tad tongue in cheek. Personally I have no problem with someone being rich provided they pay all their taxes, dont go in for avoidance/evasion and treat their employees with respect by giving them a living wage as a minimum. My blast against the rich was a mirror image of Porn Historians The Poor thread which moronically follows the overwhelming view perpetrated in the media these days that anyone who is on benefits is a useless cunt.
Cheers
D
Of course it is just my opinion. But at least when I give my opinion I reference some independent survey e.g the King Foundation report on the NHS or the governments own departmental enquiry which shows that benefit fraud is a mere fraction of the money lost to tax avoidance and tax evasion. Okay, you can prove anything with statistics but I would place more credence on an independent survey than the "I know a fella down the pub" which is what passes for a fact to support an entire generalisation with many that post on this forum.
"My point being that NL is and was no different that any other governent. It had some success's but it sure as hell fucked up in a big way too. Again like any government."
To say that a government has successes and failures is stating the obvious and there is no point in commenting.
"Sure they have to pretend to us common folk that actually they like us more because thats where the majority of votes come from, but its purely lip service and anyone who imagines otherwise is dellusional."
You imply that there is no difference between the parties here. I will give you the same test that I give others who say this on the forum. Everyone, I repeat everyone, has failed to reply like the empty bag of wind they actually are.
Read the link below and then put up a list of all the legislation that Thatcher brought in which helped the poor and the less well off.
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i ... ply_221516
My comments on the rich were a tad tongue in cheek. Personally I have no problem with someone being rich provided they pay all their taxes, dont go in for avoidance/evasion and treat their employees with respect by giving them a living wage as a minimum. My blast against the rich was a mirror image of Porn Historians The Poor thread which moronically follows the overwhelming view perpetrated in the media these days that anyone who is on benefits is a useless cunt.
Cheers
D
-
justincyder
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Justincyder
Quote
My comments on the rich were a tad tongue in cheek. Personally I have no problem with someone being rich provided they pay all their taxes, dont go in for avoidance/evasion and treat their employees with respect by giving them a living wage as a minimum. My blast against the rich was a mirror image of Porn Historians The Poor thread which moronically follows the overwhelming view perpetrated in the media these days that anyone who is on benefits is a useless cunt.
- Well on that old chap we can agree, as I say, take everyone who cheats society as a whole be they rich or poor and deal with them equally harshly.
I'll have a look at that link in due course.
My comments on the rich were a tad tongue in cheek. Personally I have no problem with someone being rich provided they pay all their taxes, dont go in for avoidance/evasion and treat their employees with respect by giving them a living wage as a minimum. My blast against the rich was a mirror image of Porn Historians The Poor thread which moronically follows the overwhelming view perpetrated in the media these days that anyone who is on benefits is a useless cunt.
- Well on that old chap we can agree, as I say, take everyone who cheats society as a whole be they rich or poor and deal with them equally harshly.
I'll have a look at that link in due course.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Porn Historian
Okay, point taken. I apologise if I have misconstrued your view.
Cheers
D
Cheers
D