idiotic diehards trots like Bob Crow and Fred
You've got trots of the gob. I love the way you get all worked up. You ought to see someone about your issues. You never know it may help you.
People who can, pay into a system that benefits those who need.
Socialism.
Nowt wrong with that, in my onion. Only an idiotic diehard Thatcherite would argue against it being a fair and socially beneficial system, and pure dog eat dog survival of the fittest I'm alright Jack Capitalism is the way forward...
Only, thats not the definition of Socialism, is it Fred?
You're talking bollox Zulu-Eleven, but I'm sure you know that, and you're just trying to provoke a reaction.
Only, thats not the definition of Socialism, is it Fred?
Is there any depth of pettiness to which you won't travel in order to argue with ernie & effin? I know what they mean. You do too. Everybody does. Stop **** up the thread. Katie Hopkins was on TV a while ago - you might be able to find it on iPlayer. Have a thomas-the-tank while you listen to her. It might relax you a bit.
This is brilliant.
[Munches peanut butter on toast]
Yes.He just din't want to admit it.
Just ignore him now Ernie. It works for me. Otherwise he'll just bang on and on and on and on and it gets very very boring. Argument's done now anyway.
Flashy's another one:
Mission accomplished
Don't worry. You know we'll be having lots of fun on here in the hopefully not-too-distant future. 
(Gives dancing shoes another polish. Puts champagne on ice....)
Tick tock, tick tock...
No - I'll reiterate my original point and state that free education, healthcare and social welfare is NOT SOCIALIST - If you want to argue the point on this I really suggest you go and actually research socialism and the socialist system.
"People who can, pay into a system that benefits those who need" is not Socialism - Its just another way of looking after your 'down and outs' - and older than civilisation itself, in past times we did it through the church - "alms for the poor" The Hospital of St Cross was founded in the 1130´s by Bishop Henry of Blois for `thirteen poor men, feeble and so reduced in strength that they can scarcely or not at all support themselves without other aid'
Or are you now claiming that 'Socialism' was founded in the twelfth century by one of the richest and most powerful men in England?
Otherwise he'll just bang on and on and on and on and it gets very very boring.
But you're OK to do it?
Nooooo, don't stop.
To be fair, I can see both sides, though the distinction between liberal and Socialist is not subtle, Socialism is entirely concerned with management of the economy whereas Liberalism is about open minded progressiveness and concern for human rights.
The NHS was the product of both but I think you will have to look pretty hard for a right winger who would actually want to abolish the NHS.
Though, P. J. O'Rourke once said, 'If you think health care is expensive now, you wait till it's free!'.
But you're OK to do it?
Yes.
But the difference is, I'm actually interesting and everybody likes me. 
The NHS was the product of both but I think you will have to look pretty hard for a right winger who would actually want to abolish the NHS.
I'm not so sure with what's happening:
I am really hacked off with Labour for the ID card/war crap that Bliar gave us but I have to vote in an hour and I ain't going for the Tories...
I think you will have to look pretty hard for a right winger who would actually want to abolish the NHS.
If Zulu's watching, cover your eyes in case this causes spontaneous ejaculation.
Shesh... go away for a bike ride and Zulu steals my thunder!
Love how the Liberals who introduced these policies are suddenly socialists.They did it to ensure the newly enfranchised working class would vote for them....School meals act, introduced after 33% of recruits were unfit for service in the Boer war,thus making the government worried they would struggle to control the empire. Workman's act,worried about the slowing of the UK manufacturing economy compared to upstarts like Germany.All pure dead socialist.
Ernie,so what you have said,quite correctly, is that the Liberals were not socialist enough,so the unions started their own socialist party? How does that help the argument that the new reforms were socialist?
Ooh, that's a face you could never tire of smacking with a cricket bat with 6" nails driven through it and a bicycle chain...
*Enough now Elf. Medication time*
Coming nursey....
They are not abolishing the NHS, they are still desperate to hang onto the power to administer our cash, they just don't want to do the logistical bit, you know, the bit that requires time and dedication and not just free holidays.
C'mon then Fred, Ernie - are you going to explain to me how King AEthelstan, founder of the first known Almshouse in York in nine hundred and something, was a Socialist? And how all the lords of the manor, princes and bishops who founded them were really secret lefties?
No, I'm watching the footie.
Love how the Liberals who introduced these policies are suddenly socialists.
Who said they were socialists then ? ...........I think you'll find that no one did 
Presumably you missed this bit ?
I wouldn't claim that George Bush was a socialist, but I would certainly claim that he implemented socialist principles towards the end of his tenure as US president ........ and in a very big way too.
......... there's a clue in there.
As it happens, I have known members/supporters of the Liberal/LibDem Party (including in my family) to staunchly and proudly claim to be socialist.
So GEORGE BUSH implemented a system of central control of the means of production and distribution of wealth? Cripes! What else did I miss?
The Rapture?
Just for you Woppit, because you apparently missed what happened a couple of years back :
Ernie,so what you have said,quite correctly, is that the Liberals were not socialist enough,so the unions started their own socialist party? How does that help the argument that the new reforms were socialist?
As Elfie points out, free healthcare, education and stuff like that, are socialist principles, which have nothing to do with free-market capitalism - in fact they are in complete contradiction to free-market capitalism
I'm quite sociable.
Thank you JY, I couldn't be arsed,even by Ernies standards that was poor.Ernie,as least Fred is entertaining,if you are going to be snotty,at least try and remember what you have posted previously
Coming soon Ernie's book. "The Black Death,making room for Socialism."
As it happens, I have known members/supporters of the Liberal/LibDem Party (including in my family) to staunchly and proudly claim to be socialist
Really? So the liberal party of today is the same as the liberal party of the early 20th century?
I am going to the Higher markers meeting in Stirling today,if you like I could ask Larry Cheyne and Simon Wood on the motives for Liberal reforms,but you would have to trust my answer,research their political motivation behind their answers etc,and I don't want to make you any more strident,at least not on a Friday.
Elfinsafety - Member
The Rapture?
I hope you pay more attention to the subject of your marking when you are being paid duckman, than you do when you read posts on here.
I have already dealt with your false claim : "Love how the Liberals who introduced these policies are suddenly socialists" with this :
"Who said they were socialists then ? ...........I think you'll find that no one did
Presumably you missed this bit ?
I wouldn't claim that George Bush was a socialist, but I would certainly claim that he implemented socialist principles towards the end of his tenure as US president ........ and in a very big way too.
......... there's a clue in there."
Maybe now you've read it twice (you did read the first time didn't you?) you can figure out what that means ?
As a very loosely connected side note, on which you've jumped with glee, I did indeed comment that I have known members of the Liberal/LibDem Party who consider themselves to be socialists (I could have just as easily commented about Liberal/LibDem Party members who consider themselves to be free-marketeers) Does that mean I am claiming that "the liberal party of today is the same as the liberal party of the early 20th century?" No of course it doesn't (btw, a marking tip - Liberal Party is written with capital letters) For a start the Liberal Party of the early 20th century was arguably more radical and left-wing than today. But I don't doubt for a minute that there were many in the Liberal Party then, who considered themselves to be socialists, specially those within the trade unions such as the N.U.M., and before the Labour Party was formed and became an electoral success.
And since you are obviously struggling with your political history duckman, and your understanding of terms such as "socialist principle", let me give you the example of John Maynard Keynes, to help further your understanding of the point which is being made.
Very few people would argue that Keynesian economic policies don't embrace the socialist principles of "government intervention" in supply and demand (go on, tell me that you do). And yet John Maynard Keynes was not a socialist, in fact he was quite dismissive of socialism. He was of course a member of the Liberal Party.
Have a nice day at your higher markers meeting in Stirling today duckman. Although if nothing else, I'm sure you've learnt a thing or two today
So, basically Ernie - you're saying that "socialist principles" are a convenient tagline to hang onto anything that socialists wish to adopt as an "ideal" despite them fundamentally having nothing to do with Socialism whatsoever?
Again - Socialism is, by definition, the concept of economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively. nothing more, nothing less!
Welfare, free healthcare, education - all predated Socialism by hundreds if not thousands of years, primarily led by the Church, (not just Christian) it would be more accurate to title them "principles of humanity"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sacked-tube-driver-wins-job-fight-2279989.html
good on the union i say. there is not many left where the members are prepared to put what they believe to be justice behind self interest.
Meanwhile back on topic......
Sacked Tube driver wins job fight
Quote :
"One of the London Underground drivers whose sacking sparked a planned series of Tube strikes has won his claim of unfair dismissal.
Bakerloo Line driver Eamonn Lynch took his case to an employment tribunal, claiming his dismissal was based on his trade union activities."
Although I don't understand why the Independent refers to it as "wins job fight", a tribunal's ruling that someone was unfairly dismissed does not give them their job back.
And I don't suppose that the manger(s) responsible for sacking someone unfairly because of their trade union activities will be disciplined by TFL. So even though it's a good result in a tribunal which is nearly always stacked in the employers favour, it's a fairly shallow victory.
EDIT : Due to the time spent reading the article I hadn't seen ianv's post. Although the point concerning that it's a 'shallow victory' still stands.
As usual, they went nuclear with a strike without letting the existing process (tribunal) run it's course:
disputes involving individuals should be dealt with through the mechanisms established for that purpose.
While that process takes its course, there remains no reason whatsoever for the RMT leadership to seek to disrupt Londoners by threatening strike action.
which seems a reasonable thing to say and do.
Whilst the tribunal has made a finding of unfair dismissal, it has also found that on August 9 2010 Mr Lynch breached an established and significant safety rule and was in part culpable or blameworthy for his actions.
So not quite as innocent of anything as painted by several people. I say the tribunal has shown it has value rather than the strike threat.
Elfinsafety - Member
The Rapture?
Outstanding. 
Good on the employee for winning his case which shows the value of a Union but also due process. Suspect he may have won as the employer did not follow appropriate disciplinary procudres, rather than he should not have been disciplined or sacked?
Thank you JY, I couldn't be arsed,
Superb Ernie,some of your best work there.I love how you are self important enough to describe my statement that the early 20th century reforms were not driven by the primary idea of improving peoples lives as "false claims." Good use of bold type and quotation as well.Wrong as well,but at least you are consistent in that respect. JMK as a point,dear oh dear.
BTW; I don't give a shit about WHO introduced the policies,I just did it to get you and Fred to bite, you did.(as usual)Off now,I will look forward to your reply,as your one-eyed view of history keeps me amused.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
