Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: jucyberry on August 03, 2010, 08:59:16 pm
-
So , there we have it.. maggies devil spawn and his new idea for the new millenium..last century that woman took valuable housing stock out of circulation by encouraging people to buy, Now that thing in number 10 seems to be intent on removing the one small piece of security the poorer members of society have.. their homes.
How many pensioners will have watched him oozing over the screen tonight and seen oblique threat to remove them from their homes... Because oh the crime of it, they are old...
Or because maybe, just maybe a family has been lucky enough to have a change for the good in earnings...
What part of this is my home don't the tories get? surely the very fact that there is still over two million council houses left might tell him that these two million cannot f**king afford to buy?
and how are they going to know that life is on the up? are they going to demand to see bank statements to prove we the council tennants are still part of the poor and undeserving?
So, he is saying that this will only apply to new tennant, what a load of bullshit.. when has a tory ever meant what it said, or said what it means? If this goes through you watch, People like my mother will be bullied out of the home she has been in for nearly sixty years.. that she has paid rent on... Ohhhhhhh I am so mad I could scream right now.
-
Rigoglioso wrote:
jucyberry wrote:
So , there we have it.. maggies devil spawn.
Be still my aching sides!
You're young cocker. You're not old enough to remember. Some of us here are and do.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Rigoglioso wrote:
jucyberry wrote:
So , there we have it.. maggies devil spawn.
Be still my aching sides!
You're young cocker. You're not old enough to remember. Some of us here are and do.
Change the f**king record old man
-
Let no-one say the art of sophisticated political rhetoric is dead eh?
-
jucyberry wrote:
So , there we have it.. maggies devil spawn and his new idea for the new millenium..last century that woman took valuable housing stock out of circulation by encouraging people to buy, Now that thing in number 10 seems to be intent on removing the one small piece of security the poorer members of society have.. their homes.
How many pensioners will have watched him oozing over the screen tonight and seen oblique threat to remove them from their homes... Because oh the crime of it, they are old...
Or because maybe, just maybe a family has been lucky enough to have a change for the good in earnings...
What part of this is my home don't the tories get? surely the very fact that there is still over two million council houses left might tell him that these two million cannot fcuking afford to buy?
and how are they going to know that life is on the up? are they going to demand to see bank statements to prove we the council tennants are still part of the poor and undeserving?
So, he is saying that this will only apply to new tennant, what a load of bullshit.. when has a tory ever meant what it said, or said what it means? If this goes through you watch, People like my mother will be bullied out of the home she has been in for nearly sixty years.. that she has paid rent on... Ohhhhhhh I am so mad I could scream right now.
There is one word there that screams out. TENNANT. Not owner. If a family works hard and gets in a better financial position then well done, the council house did its job, now give it to the next worthy TENNANT.
-
i must get this off me chest when i left school apprenticships
were like gold dust and jobs were as rare as rocking horse shite.
at school you had appointments with a officer who would addvice
how to apply for a job,the thing the moslty drummed into you was first impressions and it was a upmost to wear slacks,shoes,shirt,tie for any interview
look smart
after leaving school i soon was voting for the first time and
did not know that much about politics,all i did know was 'first impressions' count as that was drummed into me at school.
so it came to my vote the choice was conserative or labour,libs
were never in the race goinmg on media etc etc.
the conservatives all were wearing suits with a blue scheme of shirts and ties and nice shoes,they looked the part.
then there was labour,when i say labour 'micheal foot'
fcuk me i had seen better turned out scousers.
i could not get me head round it after what had been drummed into me at school,labour wanted my vote to put a scruff bag
running the ship.
i voted for conservative without really looking into either partys policys just went on first impressions.
but for sure i never voted again for any party as allways a case of to evils
-
Ok your Mums 85 your 67 pretty reasonable I would say, Mum dies youve never married and always lived at home you're out on your arse sunshine, it occasionally happens now, it'll happen a damn site more often
Hmmmnn I know who I think needs to get a life.........
However thats not to say there aren't some abuse's to the present system. oh and by the way many economists say the deficit the government is trying so hard to get rid of would have been halved by 2014 by doing..... absolutly nothing carrying on as was.
Is there a Western Country that does not have a deficit?
Shame memories are not passed down the line genetically :unsure:
-
Reality check...In general tennants who do well generally buy with this right to buy scheme., they don't move on, and around here I dont think I know of anyone who has got a good job yet stayed a tennant...
Tennants need homes too you know. I guess the average tennant should leave their home and go live under a bush freeing up these 2 million houses...Where are they supposed to go? Perhaps that magical place in tory land where there are all these jobs just waiting to be filled in the big shake up to come.
I am sorry if that sounds a trifle immature, but I might be a TENNANT, but this is my home.
and at the risk of being pendantic, as mr Frost has already questioned in a lower thread, how can people who havent got big deposits or spotless financial records ever supposed to take this leap into the unknown?
So I ask again are these people expected to squat under a bush?
-
I like squating under a bush but i'm probably on the wrong forum for that one.
-
oslorovers wrote:
i must get this off me chest when i left school apprenticships
were like gold dust and jobs were as rare as rocking horse shite.
at school you had appointments with a officer who would addvice
how to apply for a job,the thing the moslty drummed into you was first impressions and it was a upmost to wear slacks,shoes,shirt,tie for any interview
look smart
after leaving school i soon was voting for the first time and
did not know that much about politics,all i did know was 'first impressions' count as that was drummed into me at school.
so it came to my vote the choice was conserative or labour,libs
were never in the race goinmg on media etc etc.
the conservatives all were wearing suits with a blue scheme of shirts and ties and nice shoes,they looked the part.
then there was labour,when i say labour 'micheal foot'
fcuk me i had seen better turned out scousers.
i could not get me head round it after what had been drummed into me at school,labour wanted my vote to put a scruff bag
running the ship.
i voted for conservative without really looking into either partys policys just went on first impressions.
but for sure i never voted again for any party as allways a case of to evils
And THAT, Oslo, is a prime example of the turning point, when folk stopped engaging with issues in politics and started idly being told what to do by the Tabloid press.
1. Michael Foot was one of THE finest, most intelligent and most honorable political men of his, or any other generation. He was one of very, very few UK politicians who had actively campaigned against Hitler in the mid 1930s. As a young rising politician, he put his political career at risk by aggressively speaking out against the policy that the Tory Government were following, of appeasing Hitler and giving him what he wanted. Who was right there, eh?
2. The infamous \"Donkey Jacket\" issue, when he (according to legend) turned up at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday wearing labourer's gear is a total fabrication by The Sun and their like. He was wearing a suit and tie and a big overcoat in the cold weather. As if it f**king well mattered anyway. But he was an old man. He had wild hair. He wasn't well groomed. He was an easy target for idle t**ts to laugh at when directed to do so by The Sun.
You want to choose your politicians on how well they dress? Well you've got the sort of leader you deserve now in Nick Clegg - he scrubs up well and looks honest on telly. And he's a total non-entity at the highest level of politics, intellectually and by experience.
3. Thank f**k we didn't have this press running the country during WWII. Winston Churchill was generally half-cut and looked like he'd been buggered by a big dog while being dragged through a hedge backwards. If The Sun had been in charge back then, we'd have had some well groomed non-entity in charge instead.
-
Quite bizarre idea - So much Council housing has been lost in recent years through Right to Buy, perhaps it is time a think about reversing that idea then consider a new building programme ...... not all these tenants will be expecting to progress into better jobs and to rent in the private sector.
Security of tenure must be protected ...... has that been \"promised\" ?
-
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly has been proposed?
-
MrFrost wrote:
Forgive my ignorance
You're forgiven. Can we ask you to keep schtum as part of that deal?
-
Did anybody honestly expect anything else by voting in the Tories? They'll always look after those with money, they'll always favour the upper classes. When talk was of the Conservatives getting into power I marvelled at how long these peoples memories had lasted. So they attempt to ease the pain of the opposing voters by making sure the Lib Dems are in the coalition; Nick Clegg is being used as the monkey to Cameron's organ grinder and we all saw it coming to one degree or another.
However, that being said and done. They say you don't know how good you've got it until it's taken away from you. Labour for the next election? I think the way things are already turning, I'd think it to be likely. Furthermore, I hope it happens before we're plunged back into the class war.
-
Clarkz wrote:
Did anybody honestly expect anything else by voting in the Tories? They'll always look after those with money, they'll always favour the upper classes. When talk was of the Conservatives getting into power I marvelled at how long these peoples memories had lasted. So they attempt to ease the pain of the opposing voters by making sure the Lib Dems are in the coalition; Nick Clegg is being used as the monkey to Cameron's organ grinder and we all saw it coming to one degree or another.
However, that being said and done. They say you don't know how good you've got it until it's taken away from you. Labour for the next election? I think the way things are already turning, I'd think it to be likely. Furthermore, I hope it happens before we're plunged back into the class war.
We're back IN the Class War already. Just like we always are when this lot are in power.
They've cut the funding for 22 school refurbishments in Donny. Which will cut building jobs in the area as well as meaning that Donny kids will be taught in Portakabins. They've cut funding for world-leading manufacturing in Sheffield.
Yet today, they announced that they will set up a commission to ensure that farmers get a \"fair\" price from the supermarkets for their produce.
Funny int it? The pits had to prove that they were able to survive in a competitive market, or were shut down and to f**king hell with the consequences for folk round here. But when that same competitive market means that farmers start to suffer, the market must be wrong and should be correct by a Government commission.
Same old Tories. Always looking after their own.
-
BST think you need to re read me post again before you jump all over us like a rash,the parts that go
'first impressions' was drummed into us
'was my first vote' hence wet behind the ears a tad green.
'my lack of political knowlodge'
thinking about it it was just not mr foot that was badly turned
out as the whole of the labour party was a rite mixed bag of odds and ends,just did not look professional.
if the labour party had been suited and booted like the conservatives, then i guess i would have took me vote a lot more serious.
-
oslorovers wrote:
thinking about it it was just not mr foot that was badly turned
out as the whole of the labour party was a rite mixed bag of odds and ends,just did not look professional.
if the labour party had been suited and booted like the conservatives, then i guess i would have took me vote a lot more serious.
You're not really selling this one to me Oslo. We're from the same generation. I also came of age around that time. But I f**king well did NOT vote for the Tories because they had nice ties. I voted against them because I looked at what they did to the area that I love.
Tell me why the Labour Party's policies didn't appeal to you at the time and I'm more than happy to accept that.
Tell me that you made your decision on the quality of the shoes the politicians were wearing, and I'm leaning towards the Chinese approach, where they think we are f**king stupid for giving the vote to people who have no concept of political issues.
-
Rigoglioso wrote:
I do find it amusing, BST, how you think everyone who doesn't vote Labour or
like Labour's policies is either uneducated or doesn't understand politics!
Not at all pal. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have been Tory voters. But they understood exactly what it was that the Tory party was wanting to achieve. What I despair of is people who choose their political allegiance with little understanding of the poltical philosophy or history underpinning the party they vote for.
I've yet to read anything you've written on here that gives any indication that you are in the first category. Prove me wrong.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:They've cut the funding for 22 school refurbishments in Donny. Which will cut building jobs in the area as well as meaning that Donny kids will be taught in Portakabins. They've cut funding for world-leading manufacturing in Sheffield.[/quote]
The redevelopment of schools was a great time-bomb left behind by Labour to make sure the new government would be scuppered by public opinion form the outset. When their own ministers leave messages for the newcomers saying \"Sorry, there's no money left\" it makes me wonder how THEY would have funded these ambitious projects. Likewise the Forgemasters loan, which would surely hae been kept on if there was any profit to be made for the exchequer. Without looking at tie books I can only assume that the plug was pulled because it was another sub-prime risk of the ilk that got us into the mire in the first place.
By the way, 1. I don't blame Labour for the tricks, they are in the business of party politics and they have damaged a competitor; 2. I wuold be saying the same thing if it had been an outgoing Tory government leaving these untenable promises hanging. I was rather hoping that a coalition would lead to a blunting of the party political edge and a subsequent focus on what's best for the country rather than the party. So far I've been disappointed.
-
Mike_F wrote:
When their own ministers leave messages for the newcomers saying \"Sorry, there's no money left\"
That's going to go down as one of the out-of-context quotes of history int it?
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment left by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to his successor. It is precisely what the CST is supposed to say to all the other Departments when they ask for bigger funds.
Quite typical of this incoming bunch that they seize on this and publicise it as some sort of \"confession\".
As for what Labour would have done, they had already announced a pretty drastic cut in public expenditure. Labour's proposed cutbacks were at about the rate of reduction that you would normally expect in our economy as we come out of recession. What this lot have done is to stick 50% MORE cuts on top of that. Purely for ideological reasons. Because they strongly and violently disagree with the state being involved in the economy and society. Which, when we come round full circle, is the reason they want to squeeze people out of council housing. Because, for ideological reasons, they believe that the state should not provide housing for any bu the most destitute (which they will define).
And by the way, the last thing Labour has done id to \"damage a competitor\". If they'd REALLY wanted to damage the incoming Tory Govt, they'd have taken on the policies that Cameron and Osbourne wanted in 2008, cutting back Govt spending just as we were tipping in a horrific recession, and not bailing out the banks. Then Cameron's mob really WOULD have had a shit tip to dig us out of. As it is, Labour's management of the recession has left us well placed to emerge with strong growth, as the latest growth figure show.
-
BST i did not take the time to look at ANY of the 3
partys policys,as i said i was NOT into politics AT ALL.
i just left school and FIRST IMPRESSIONS was drummed into me
by the job officer at school when having interviews.
i did not even read the newspapers,only the back pages for the sport,saw ALL party members via the tv and as i said i went on
FIRST IMPRESSIONS.
when it came to me vote i knew doncaster was staunch labour,me olde man told us bascially.
went into the booth at local school and was in there for a few mins fealing nervous as never voted before and was in two minds.
LABOUR, due to me dads pet talks,but alarm bells in me body was ringing due to way they was turned out and mr foot with his unkept hair and brown duffel coat,i could not picture that FIRST IMPRESSION running the country.
CONSERVATIVES,for me they looked the part FIRST IMPRESSIONS,
where shall i put me X,thinking what me old man had said i was going towards labour but then FIRST IMPRESSIONS kicked in
and i went with conservative,FOR THAT REASON ONLY.
i never voted since for my thinking on whatever party got in,and i never complained about what party got in and their
policys just let them get on with it.....if you dont vote you
cant complain i belive.
can you now smell the coffee BST?
-
oslorovers wrote:
BST i did not take the time to look at ANY of the 3
partys policys,as i said i was NOT into politics AT ALL.
i just left school and FIRST IMPRESSIONS was drummed into me
by the job officer at school when having interviews.
i did not even read the newspapers,only the back pages for the sport,saw ALL party members via the tv and as i said i went on
FIRST IMPRESSIONS.
when it came to me vote i knew doncaster was staunch labour,me olde man told us bascially.
went into the booth at local school and was in there for a few mins fealing nervous as never voted before and was in two minds.
LABOUR, due to me dads pet talks,but alarm bells in me body was ringing due to way they was turned out and mr foot with his unkept hair and brown duffel coat,i could not picture that FIRST IMPRESSION running the country.
CONSERVATIVES,for me they looked the part FIRST IMPRESSIONS,
where shall i put me X,thinking what me old man had said i was going towards labour but then FIRST IMPRESSIONS kicked in
and i went with conservative,FOR THAT REASON ONLY.
i never voted since for my thinking on whatever party got in,and i never complained about what party got in and their
policys just let them get on with it.....if you dont vote you
cant complain i belive.
can you now smell the coffee BST?
Oslo. You're still saying nothing to convince me that the Chinese aren't right.
-
well BST i could be like ANY politician form the past or
future and try my best to pull some wool over yer eyes
and tell you whatyou want to hear or what i want you to belive
but if iam honest with yers fella i have n'owt to hide or gain form telling you any different from 'how it was for me'.
as i said politics is not me strong point,so may i ask what part do the chinese play in this? you have lost me on that one.
iam trying to think why a below middle of the road school leaver,was not worried about lack of work oppertunitys,me old man did all that worrying for us,as in me would take a great interest in politics
when in the borough of doncaster there was beer,fanny and rovers
its obvious which road i took wrong or right
-
The Chinese believe that choosing your political leaders is a far too important job to leave to people who have no interest in or connection with the whole issue. Maybe they are right?
I fail to see why there was a choice to make between ale/women and being politically aware. You think I made a choice to be interested in one and not the other?
-
jucyberry wrote:
So , there we have it.. maggies devil spawn and his new idea for the new millenium..last century that woman took valuable housing stock out of circulation by encouraging people to buy, Now that thing in number 10 seems to be intent on removing the one small piece of security the poorer members of society have.. their homes.
How many pensioners will have watched him oozing over the screen tonight and seen oblique threat to remove them from their homes... Because oh the crime of it, they are old...
Or because maybe, just maybe a family has been lucky enough to have a change for the good in earnings...
What part of this is my home don't the tories get? surely the very fact that there is still over two million council houses left might tell him that these two million cannot fcuking afford to buy?
and how are they going to know that life is on the up? are they going to demand to see bank statements to prove we the council tennants are still part of the poor and undeserving?
So, he is saying that this will only apply to new tennant, what a load of bullshit.. when has a tory ever meant what it said, or said what it means? If this goes through you watch, People like my mother will be bullied out of the home she has been in for nearly sixty years.. that she has paid rent on... Ohhhhhhh I am so mad I could scream right now.
Cameron is only pissed off because he`s only got a short Tenure in his council house in Downing Street, maybe he should move out of there seeing as he`s got a decent job and give No. 10 up to someone more needy ;)
-
BST i was far from trying to second guess what choice you took
on leaving school ale/women or political awareness.
only trying to point out my total lack in political awareness
or interest in politics when i left school.
if i had took politics far more serious i would have put a lot
more thought into my first vote,of which its would be fair to say it would not have been my last vote.
iam only trying to get across to you 'how it was for me' of which you seem to be having slight problems taking them FACTS on board.
its starting to hit me that maybe you are trying a bit of
'FISHING' whilst not having a liecence is the only deffence i can come up with for yers.
if the case must point out i have very broad shoulders and thick skinned to suit,cast elsewhere fella no bites round this neck of the woods.
-
oslorovers wrote:
BST i was far from trying to second guess what choice you took
on leaving school ale/women or political awareness.
only trying to point out my total lack in political awareness
or interest in politics when i left school.
if i had took politics far more serious i would have put a lot
more thought into my first vote,of which its would be fair to say it would not have been my last vote.
iam only trying to get across to you 'how it was for me' of which you seem to be having slight problems taking them FACTS on board.
its starting to hit me that maybe you are trying a bit of
'FISHING' whilst not having a liecence is the only deffence i can come up with for yers.
if the case must point out i have very broad shoulders and thick skinned to suit,cast elsewhere fella no bites round this neck of the woods.
You've got the wrong end if the stick mate. There's no fishing going on and nowt personal either. I'm just genuinely disappointed in folk who choose to opt out of one of the most important decisions that we can make as citizens of a free country. The culture that we have developed of deciding who our leader will be based on how they look on telly, or even worse, not even giving a damn about it, is a deep long term problem for us.
-
The trouble is Billy, the majority of us middles-class folk don't really see much difference whoever is in power. We're the ones who pay the most taxes and create the most business so it's only natural that the sitting government use us as cash cows, whether that's the Tories cutting taxes for the mega-rich whilst increasing VAT, fuel duty etc. or the Labour Party screwing more from us so that they can give it to those who didn't try at school and think the state owes them a living (I know these are generalisations but it's the underlying theme).
Either way it's us working folk who pay the most and are entitled to the least. Try getting help with your mortgage if you're made redundant. No f**king chance. Had you never lifted a finger and done nothing but take from the state you would be more entitled to housing benefit and the like. I know, I was out of work for a few months about five years ago and it was bloody hard! That situation would be the same under any government but at least the reforms the current lot are thinking about would be fairer on those who work for a living.
-
It's interesting that you consider yourself to be middle class Mike. On what criteria have you reached that decision? I don't have any formal qualifications to speak of and do a manual job which is mundane and low paid. I was last unemployed over 15 years ago therefore I have paid taxes like you. I think it's too easy to fall back on outdated stereotypes. I really don't buy this \"oh but what about the poor middle classes\" routine. Nothing personal obviously, Michael. :)
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
The Chinese believe that choosing your political leaders is a far too important job to leave to people who have no interest in or connection with the whole issue. Maybe they are right?
Communist sympathiser Billy?
I bet the majority of Chinese people would love the chance to choose their political leaders.
-
i_ateallthepies wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
The Chinese believe that choosing your political leaders is a far too important job to leave to people who have no interest in or connection with the whole issue. Maybe they are right?
Communist sympathiser Billy?
I bet the majority of Chinese people would love the chance to choose their political leaders.
Irony mate. Irony.
Or, rather, a spur for discussion. After all, isn't democracy undervalued when so many people take pride in either their ignorance of politics, or their cynical \" they're all in it for themselves\" attitude. What's the point of democracy if millions of people decide to vote for Nick Clegg because ge looked good on telly and remembered people's names?
-
this is where we have done full cirlce and are now back to
my first point about my first vote BST.
'my vote went on my first impressions'
and the first impression i was getting from mr foot, wrong or right was going right against what i just had been taught
at school.
to put it as basic as possible,they told you at school again and again to look smart for any job interview,as the first impressions could be your make or break.
then i go to vote and with the above still in mind i could just not picture mr foot or labour running the country,it was going against what i had been told at school.
the choicde for me came down to my first impressions.
was i wrong,well if i knew then what i know today i be honest
and say i would not vote conserative and at the same time i would not vote labour or liberal.
maybe if i lived in china i might be begging to be able to vote that is a fair point,but i dont and as mike-f said whoever is in its the choice of two evils.
my policy then for the record is not to vote,that suits me
and what other people do is their choice,but if you dont vote
then from my book you cant really complain about what the government is doing or not since you waved that action due to your lack of vote.
true to my word i have never complained about how the country is run and who,i might have a opinion and maybe
one day i will feal the need to vote.
i watched and listened to all partys in the last election daily, and if i was back in the uk i still feal i would have passed on my right to vote.
-
Billy wrote
\"Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have been Tory voters. But they understood exactly what it was that the Tory party was wanting to achieve. What I despair of is people who choose their political allegiance with little understanding of the poltical philosophy or history underpinning the party they vote for.
I've yet to read anything you've written on here that gives any indication that you are in the first category. Prove me wrong\".
Hear bloody hear - to all of that. I have Tory voting friends. One of my three best mates is a Tory Councillor and a failed candidate for election on the Tory ticket. He is my partner in a housing paratnership. But he knows what he stands for and why. I don't agree with him, but then, he doesn't agree with me. But one thing is for sure, he understands full well just who he represents and why. So at least he's honest. Unlike the many, manay folk, on here and elsewhere, who can't be arsed to find out even the basics before they spout off rubbish inherited with their genes. God gave us all a brain. It's supposed to be used occasionally. The conclusions you come to with that use are your business. You can be to the right of Attila the Hun for all I care - but fcuking well think about why you take that position and what you stand for! That way you can at least demonstrate some intellectual honesty and explain what your objectives, hopes and reasons are. Through reasoned logic you might actually persuade some folk to agree with you. But the intellectual masturbation that, Rigo, I'm afraid you have displayed every single time you have ever contributed to a political discussion will never convince anybody.
Cheers
BobG
-
BobG wrote:
Billy wrote
\"Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have been Tory voters. But they understood exactly what it was that the Tory party was wanting to achieve. What I despair of is people who choose their political allegiance with little understanding of the poltical philosophy or history underpinning the party they vote for.
I've yet to read anything you've written on here that gives any indication that you are in the first category. Prove me wrong\".
Hear bloody hear - to all of that. I have Tory voting friends. One of my three best mates is a Tory Councillor and a failed candidate for election on the Tory ticket. He is my partner in a housing paratnership. But he knows what he stands for and why. I don't agree with him, but then, he doesn't agree with me. But one thing is for sure, he understands full well just who he represents and why. So at least he's honest. Unlike the many, manay folk, on here and elsewhere, who can't be arsed to find out even the basics before they spout off rubbish inherited with their genes. God gave us all a brain. It's supposed to be used occasionally. The conclusions you come to with that use are your business. You can be to the right of Attila the Hun for all I care - but fcuking well think about why you take that position and what you stand for! That way you can at least demonstrate some intellectual honesty and explain what your objectives, hopes and reasons are. Through reasoned logic you might actually persuade some folk to agree with you. But the intellectual masturbation that, Rigo, I'm afraid you have displayed every single time you have ever contributed to a political discussion will never convince anybody.
Cheers
BobG
In the same argument Bob, would you say alot of the Labour voters also just spout crap or do they have better political knowledge, or is voting Labour because of what the Tories did round here a good enough reason?
Or should voters only be people with an in depth knowledge of politics?
God did give us all a brain, and I use it. Maybe politics isn't my bag, however you are obviously clued up on it Bob.
-
I think the majority in this country have limited knowledge on political or social issues, and I include myself on this. With limited knowledge you tend to just consider your own needs, as that is the easiest option.
To have great knowledge is to have great power.
As an aside, I would never dream or hear of anyone calling me middle class. I am working class. I was brought up working class. I have by far an improved lifestyle than I was brought up with, but I am still working class. IMO I would say all on here are and most of this country are bar the 5% upper class and an unknown percentage of the under working class.
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
I think the majority in this country have limited knowledge on political or social issues, and I include myself on this. With limited knowledge you tend to just consider your own needs, as that is the easiest option.
To have great knowledge is to have great power.
As an aside, I would never dream or hear of anyone calling me middle class. I am working class. I was brought up working class. I have by far an improved lifestyle than I was brought up with, but I am still working class. IMO I would say all on here are and most of this country are bar the 5% upper class and an unknown percentage of the under working class.
When you started standing upright and ventured out of your caves, and seeing how the Posh people lived in Stainy?
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
As an aside, I would never dream or hear of anyone calling me middle class. I am working class. I was brought up working class. I have by far an improved lifestyle than I was brought up with, but I am still working class. IMO I would say all on here are and most of this country are bar the 5% upper class and an unknown percentage of the under working class.
It's also interesting that you Cussy consider yourself working class even though most folk would probably think of you as middle class. (I know who are but I don't think we've met) Do you think that your class is fixed by your ancestry and therefore \"social mobility\" doesn't exist? My family is traditionally working class and I do a job that fits in to that. However, I have many friends who have top professional careers but I'm able to maintain those friendships even though my social status is low. Therefore what defines class and does it still exist in our globalised society?
-
Sheepskin Stu wrote:
It's interesting that you consider yourself to be middle class Mike. On what criteria have you reached that decision? I don't have any formal qualifications to speak of and do a manual job which is mundane and low paid. I was last unemployed over 15 years ago therefore I have paid taxes like you. I think it's too easy to fall back on outdated stereotypes. I really don't buy this \"oh but what about the poor middle classes\" routine. Nothing personal obviously, Michael. :)
When pushed to declare what class I assume myself to be in I have always thought of myself as lower middle class. When I was a kid, money was very tight with my Mum not working until I was about six and even then only part-time for many years but we had our own (mortgaged) house whilst a lot of my schoolfriends were from the council estate over the road. If they were working class then I was evidently not quite the same (although no better or worse for it). They were invariably the ones with the shiny new bikes, Nike trainers and top-end Scalextrics which my family could never afford due to the mortgage and car (Cortina 1.6GL) expenses. I suppose a bit of that envy from my early formative years has shaped my core values to this day.
When I was studying for my A-Levels at Danum and an influx of better-heeled teens from places like Barnborough, High Melton and the like turned up at my school I went through a period of reverse snobbery - probably feeling my territory threatened by their airs and graces and I considered myself more working class than middle class but it was only a phase really. Since then I slept and drank my way through university and have ended up in a string of reasonably senior sales roles that I ought to have achieved more in had I a better work ethic. I have never come anywhere close to fulfilling my potential and therefore don't earn anywhere near what I probably ought to. This is mostly due to my predominantly laid-back character. I don't have a problem with this though as I truly believe that we live in a meritocratic society and if I had the inclination to pull my finger out I could achieve a lot more. But I can't be arsed and I'm generally happy so why rock the boat?!
I now realise that I have digressed from the point somewhat but this has been quite cathartic so thank you for prompting me, Stu. Much love. B)
-
Sheepskin Stu wrote:
I have many friends who have top professional careers but I'm able to maintain those friendships even though my social status is low.
Are you Baldrick?
Sorry, I though we were playing Guess Who!
-
BobG wrote:
Billy wrote
\"Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have been Tory voters. But they understood exactly what it was that the Tory party was wanting to achieve. What I despair of is people who choose their political allegiance with little understanding of the poltical philosophy or history underpinning the party they vote for.
I've yet to read anything you've written on here that gives any indication that you are in the first category. Prove me wrong\".
Hear bloody hear - to all of that. I have Tory voting friends. One of my three best mates is a Tory Councillor and a failed candidate for election on the Tory ticket. He is my partner in a housing paratnership. But he knows what he stands for and why. I don't agree with him, but then, he doesn't agree with me. But one thing is for sure, he understands full well just who he represents and why. So at least he's honest. Unlike the many, manay folk, on here and elsewhere, who can't be arsed to find out even the basics before they spout off rubbish inherited with their genes. God gave us all a brain. It's supposed to be used occasionally. The conclusions you come to with that use are your business. You can be to the right of Attila the Hun for all I care - but fcuking well think about why you take that position and what you stand for! That way you can at least demonstrate some intellectual honesty and explain what your objectives, hopes and reasons are. Through reasoned logic you might actually persuade some folk to agree with you. But the intellectual masturbation that, Rigo, I'm afraid you have displayed every single time you have ever contributed to a political discussion will never convince anybody.
Cheers
BobG
Gotcha!
I were only joking when I said I had some Tory mates. I wouldn't pass one without throttling the t**t. I was just doing it to smoke out the appeasers in a typically inter-necine leftist way. That's YOU down in the little red book for a bullet on Day 1 of Year Zero Bob!
But seriously folks, one of the things I love about this forum is that it's a 21st Century cyber version of Denaby Miners' Welfare. When I were a callow youth, if I spouted some ill-thought out comment about the world, some grizzled old pitman would rip me apart with a rapier of worldly-wise wit, sarcasm and vernacular philosophy. And a great benefit to my moral and intellectual development it was too. I vividly remember waxing lyrical about the first Space Shuttle launch one Sunday dinner time in the tap side, only for one old lag to mutter into his beer, \"Aye! Grand in it? An warra bart them poor buggers in India what's got no snap?\" As succinct a comment on geo-political strategic issues as you'd here in the debating room of the Oxford Union.
One of the side effects of Maggie's industrial policy is that we have a bigger division these days between the young gobshites and the old lags who have been round the block a few times. There's thankfully a few on here who help in a little way to redress the balance.
-
Mike_F wrote:
the mortgage and car (Cortina 1.6GL) expenses.
Middle Class?
Jesus wept, you'd have been looked at as coming from the landed gentry when I were at school!
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:I vividly remember waxing lyrical about the first Space Shuttle launch one Sunday dinner time in the tap side, only for one old lag to mutter into his beer, \"Aye! Grand in it? An warra bart them poor buggers in India what's got no snap?\" As succinct a comment on geo-political strategic issues as you'd here in the debating room of the Oxford Union.[/quote]
One man's succint comment on geo-political strategic issues is another man's cantankerous, irrelevant and counter-constructive moan.
What's that you're doing there, Mr. Shakespeare, writing another sodding play for folk to gawp at. Methinks your time would be more wisely invested in producing discourse on the propensity of the moors to use religion as a tool for radicalisation!
-
I thought this was an interesting take on meritocracy (from David Mitchell, of That Mitchell and Webb Look, writing in The Observer), especially as it doesn't just conform to the stereotype that if you earn a good salary in the public sector you are stealing a living.
Who's the richest person in the world?\" That's a question I often asked as a small child. Do children ask that because so many of the stories they get read involve gold? Maybe it's peculiar to my generation who were learning our times tables as Thatcher came to power. Or maybe I was an unusually mercenary little shit. I don't think so, though. In the good times, we admire people with money; in the bad, we resent them, but they're always interesting.
I wanted the richest person in the world to be the Queen. It suited my juvenile sense of fairy-tale hierarchy. To a child's mind, a world where a nerdy American in a jumper and glasses or a podgy Saudi in a sheet can outspend the posh lady in the big gold coach wearing the big gold hat has gone mad.
Similarly, small children might expect the answer to the question: \"Who gets paid the most?\" to be: \"The prime minister.\" The prime minister is in charge so it might seem logical that \"the prime minister's salary\" means the same as \"the most amount of money imaginable\" and that anyone being paid more than that is an evil usurper of the Queen's treasure. In stories, such villains, grand viziers and the like, get punished. They're humiliated and made to give the money back. A child might even contemplate, in moments of post-sugar binge viciousness, chopping their heads off.
But small children are idiots. As each human foetus sloshes into the world, wailing and weeing, unable to walk, crawl, speak or even sit – a helpless lump of ignorant self-interest – society takes a deep breath because, in just 18 years' time, that blob will be allowed to vote. The professionals whose job it is to get them up to speed are called teachers and last week we learned that one of them is paid more than the prime minister.
It's a credit to the children and parents at Mark Elms's school that they still don't want to chop his head off. In general, they seem to think that he's very good at his job and deserves the money. You don't expect primary-school headmasters to be paid that much but he's brilliant and, to borrow a phrase from the private sector, you get what you pay for. But that's not everyone's view. Many are disgusted by the news that, contrary to our expectations, at least one teacher has a high salary.
How deeply depressing. This isn't some risibly job-titled council functionary – a \"deputy manager of procurement services\", a \"bureaucracy maximisation taskforce co-chair\" or a \"litter tsar\", one of those people responsible for all the \"waste\" we're asked to believe that the previous administration encouraged in direct defiance of its own interests. This guy runs a primary school in a grim area that was as crap as you'd expect when he took it over and has got vastly better under his leadership, to the immense benefit of his hundreds of pupils and their families. Why can't we treat him like the high-flyer his CV proclaims him to be?
I think most people are comfortable with the idea that if you're a brilliant doctor, surgeon or barrister, you'll get quite rich – nearly as rich as a second-rate management consultant or an inept banker. But the fact that we react so differently to a teacher's pay approaching that level gives the lie to our vociferous assertions that we think teaching is an important job. We don't think it's important, we think it's badly paid. And when we discover an instance where it isn't, it makes us angry, not glad.
It even makes the unions representing other teachers angry because, apparently despairing of ever seriously improving their own members' pay, they've focused on dragging headteachers down into the same under-remunerated swamp. One example is cited of a teacher's career that has involved success, fulfilment and money – a beacon of hope to talented graduates with a vocation to teach but who fear it would leave them absurdly less well-off than their peers in other jobs – and the very unions representing that profession want it snuffed out, so that teaching remains the preserve of the self-sacrificing or the mediocre.
The government agrees because this is the public sector which, according to Tory orthodoxy, is inevitably inefficient. The country must live within its means and so can't pay public sector wastrels at the same rate as their private sector equivalents, even though the main cause of those means becoming so straitened was the credit crisis-induced recession, a disaster brought on by monumental private sector inefficiency – if inefficiency is a sufficient word to cover that thoughtless spiral of hedonistic incompetence for which no proportionate retribution has been exacted.
Nevertheless, to this government, the private sector is automatically better. To suggest otherwise is heresy. That's why they're restructuring the NHS, in a way that will encourage more private enterprise, three weeks after the Commonwealth Fund declared it the most efficient health service out of the seven it had studied – that's ahead of Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, all systems with more private sector involvement. The NHS might well be, in terms of the results it delivers with the money it gets, the most efficient health service on earth. And yet the Tories are convinced that hasty and sweeping organisational reforms will make it even more so.
Meanwhile, paying higher salaries to get more able employees is, in their view, a technique that only works in the private sector. They've arbitrarily decided that it's a scandal if any public servant is paid more than the prime minister. But the prime minister's salary has always been incredibly low considering the importance of the job. To most prime ministers, the pay is irrelevant; they don't have much time to spend it and they know they can rake it in with a book deal and a lecture tour as soon as they resign.
I don't know if the country can afford to pay hard-working and well-motivated primary-school headteachers, who also work in the community to help other schools, £180,000 a year (which is roughly what he got after backpay for the previous year and employers' pension contributions are taken away). But I hope so and I'm pleased that Mark Elms has been well paid for doing a good job. The fact that so many felt otherwise is a sign of how hysterical with envy some people, and a lot of news reporting, have become.
-
Well now Mr Sheepskin Stu.
I define myself working class not through family lines, but through what I am and do. The main point for me and how I define working class, is in the title ie I work therefore I am working class.
Now some may say, well they earn by far more than me and live a better lifestyle, but in essence they work, be they doctors, lawyers, businessmen.........they all have to work to keep themselves and/or family in that lifestyle. If they did not work, then they would not have their lifestyle, whatever that may be.
There are, as said, approx 5% who do not have to work and live via inheritance, usually via a title.
This is very much a Marxist theory of mine, I have you know.
I'm particularly interested in this middle class theory, as I hold the opinion that there is no such thing as middle class. I will however, except there is an upper working class and sub working class.......but not a middle class. Each to their own though.
-
Cool :)
BobG
-
Cussy, I do see more social strata than Working, Middle or Upper class in our society but sometimes it's simpler when making a general point to use one of the broad bandings. I have always had a problem with the idle wastrels being referred to as \"working\" class when they wouldn't dream of doing any work. What would you classify these folk as?
-
As I said mate, I see:
5-10% Upper Class
Approx 20% Upper working class
Approx 60% Working class
Approx 10 Sub working class
There is no middle class in my world, as said.
The under working class (or most of them), have an ability to work, can work, should work.........but it's things beyond their control that may be preventing them. Hence, they should be deemed in the working class bracket. Obviously, just my opinion like.