I aslo thing the compulsory wearing of seatbelts is an infringement of human rights. I should have the choice of going through the windscreen if I want to.

Why are you blaming socialism for that ?

.

It was introduced by Margaret Thatcher. She was in the same political party as your hero Winston Churchill.

I aslo thing the compulsory wearing of seatbelts is an infringement of human rights.

Quick someone call Amnesty! 🙄

I need change and I don't mean just a change from the previous bunch of loosers. PR, coalitions, hell, lets go back to a full blown monarchy. Anything had got to be better than this. If something doesn't change we are really going to be in trouble for generations to come.

I don't support the Tories or Labour or the Lib Dems. I don't support any of them because I think for myself and not on the basis of some old ideology that has no place in a 21 century world.

I think for myself and not on the basis of some old ideology that has no place in a 21 century world.

But you think, quote : "full blown monarchy", isn't some old ideology that has no place in a 21 century world ?

How strange 😯

BTW mavisto, do you think Diana should have worn her seatbelt ?

hell, lets go back to a full blown monarchy

I don't support any of them because I think for myself and not on the basis of some old ideology that has no place in a 21 century world.

I wonder if I'm the first…

No. Ah well.

And to all of you dyed in the wool socialists. Here is a list of socialist countries.

Socialist CLICKY

Please emmigrate to one of them and see how you get on. I'll see you in a fortnight!!

BTW mavisto, do you think Diana should have worn her seatbelt ?

No,it should be her choice.

sorry, it was her choice.

Here is a list of socialist countries.Please emmigrate to one of them…

I'm off to Vancouver, in that Canada in a few months time. It has "Socialised healthcare". Bummer for me.

sorry, it was her choice.

Did you miss her ? ……………….. as someone who supports 'going back to a full blown monarchy' ?

BTW, you still haven't answered my question about wearing a seatbelt – why is it socialism ?

I'm off to Vancouver, in that Canada in a few months time. It has "Socialised healthcare". Bummer for me.

I'm so sorry for you. It's a Conservative government and the Liberals are in opposition.

Socialist != communism

Besides, why can't we stay here, not everyone in this country is a selfish bastard like you.

I'm so sorry for you. It's a Conservative government

But isn't free at the point of delivery healthcare inherently socialist (and therefore evil according to Americans)?

It's a Conservative government ……

Does that mean they have introduced compulsory seatbelt wearing in Canada ?

It was a Conservative government that introduced it into Britain. Did you know that ?

What do you think of that ?

BTW, you still haven't answered my question about wearing a seatbelt – why is it socialism ?

Ernie, my dissilusioned friend, I didn't say it had anything to do with socialism. I'm sick of intevening governments and that means ALL (DID YOU HEAR THAT, ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL). I never said it was a socialist policy because I knew it was a tory one. I just disagree with it.

Your problem ernie is that because I don't belive in your glorious view of socialism, you immediately jump the INCORRECT conclusion that I'm a Tory. How many times do I have to tell you that I'm NOT.

Just to confuse you, I would have voted for poor John Smith if he had survived because he seemed to be a man you could trust.

I'm so sorry for you. It's a Conservative government and the Liberals are in opposition.

It sure beats a Conservative government and the Neo libs in opposition, as you being the true Libertarian type would agree!

Anyway, don't be sorry, "Socialised healthcare" is one of the reasons I considered Canada worthy.

I didn't say it had anything to do with socialism.

You little fibber you :

mavisto – Member

Hadn't realised until tonight but I agree with Winston Churchill. I am totally sick of major government intervention in everything I do.

a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom.

mavisto – Member

And pray tell, what type of govt has been interfering in your private business? Do you consider nulabour "socialist"?

I didn't say interfering, I said intervening. For example, Taxing alcohol heavily to stop binge drinking. This has the effect of punishing the many for the actions of the few. It also means that the nice country pubs have to close because ordinary people that enjoy a quiet pint can't afford to drink in them.

Also, speed cameras. Attempt at mass control rather than actually catching the dangerous drivers.

I aslo think the compulsory wearing of seatbelts is an infringement of human rights. I should have the choice of going through the windscreen if I want to.

Dr Dolittle

I'd love to go to Canada myself. Always enjoyed visiting and felt that it's probably the only country I could settle in.

Ernie- please read your last post. Where do I mention socialism?

Ernie – That is from a totally different post answering a totally different question and a direct quote from Churchill.

That is from a totally different post answering a totally different question and a direct quote from Churchill.

One that you quoted, and suggested strongly you agreed with…

I also agreed with a minimum wage, so by that logic does that now mean I'm a socialist

I also agreed with a minimum wage, so by that logic does that now mean I'm a socialist

I suppose that depends on what minimum wage you think is apt.

No, the Channel Islands have finance ministers.

We do. I know one of them. He considers himself a socialist!

mavisto – so this :

"I aslo think the compulsory wearing of seatbelts is an infringement of human rights. I should have the choice of going through the windscreen if I want to."

Was an example of 'non-socialist' government interference, was it ?

So why the long quote from Churchill about "a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom" and you saying you agreed with it because you were 'totally sick of major government intervention in everything you do'. ?

Eh ? ……….. you really need to make yourself clearer mate.

Greed seems righteous until you fall on hard times. I don't think "capitalist ideals" means "personal greed". We need entrepreneurs and innovators to create wealth, but not greedy ones.

I feel a duty to protect those weaker than me and invest in a collective future, with all those share that sense of commitment. Those that lack this commitment, regardless of their wealth or poverty, are spongers of one sort or another IMO.

For example: those that refuse to work when they could; those that emigrate to avoid sharing some of their wealth; or blatantly cheat expenses paid for by my financial sacrifice.

A bit more on-topic this time…

There are inherent inefficiency in both top-down (more socialist) and bottom-up (mor capitalist) approaches to managing a country.

Look at large corporations to see how top-down management can dominate by bringing it's collective resources to bear. But these large corporations typically stifle or ignore innovation from within because those in the apparatchik cannot grasp its value. Small firms exist only by their innovation and respond rapidly, but are easily overwhelmed by mishaps. As companies grow they naturally become more centrally managed but the clever ones devolve authority better. So there is a tension between these forces.

I'd say I distrust governments that instinctively centralise authority.

i'd be happier if there was more equality around.

i don't like extravagant shows of wealth. i don't think money makes us happier. it just allows us to buy more to compensate for the potential of our true happiness.

i would rather live in a benevolent state. one that carries more emphasis on the mental wealth of its population as opposed to material wealth.

should people be allowed to earn, unchecked amounts of money? so much money that there isn't a chance in hell that they'll ever be able to spend more than 10% in their lifetime were they to live a modest life.

is it fair that there are people who work 40+ hours a week and still struggle to get by because they are paid a pittance wage?

isn't the hospital cleaner or the home-help carer of more value to society than the footballer or TV presenter? why shouldn't the carpenter or brick layer get paid the same as the bureaucratic pen pusher or the insurance broker?

i'd be happy to live in a system that allocates each job a worth to society and each gets paid accordingly.

but i also want the freedom to do what i want (within reason).

how easy is it to take over a government or set up a political party?

i'd be happy to live in a system that allocates each job a worth to society and each gets paid accordingly.

sounds so simple.
Cant think why it's never been done before…

"i'd be happy to live in a system that allocates each job a worth to society and each gets paid accordingly."

sounds so simple.
Cant think why it's never been done before…

What, you don't think that's how it works now ?

You don't think people are being paid according to 'their worth to society' ?

I have to say Stoner, this does come as a bit of a surprise to me.

So when was it exactly, that you lost all faith in the credibility of the free-market.
It must have come as something of a shock to you 😐

the free market doesnt set prices based on worth to society.

If it did we wouldnt need central government now, would we.

The freemarket in labour (when not being screwed with by the unions, natch) sets wage levels according to the supply and demand for skills, experience and relationships. Not the same thing.

To reflect worth would require a certain amount of qualitative comparison. And that would be inherently arbitrary and biased unless done by a massive committee…

the free market doesnt set prices based on worth to society.

And there was me thinking that investment advisers/economists/accountants received enormous salaries because the were of enormous value to society.

When in fact, they could be totally worthless to society.

So when the Tories say that top company directors, bankers, etc deserve their huge salaries because they are of great worth to society, they are in fact, talking complete bollox.

The real reason according to you, is simply because they can "get away with it"

Thank you for that important lesson Stoner …… I might bookmark it for future reference 8)

When in fact, they could be totally worthless to society.

So when the Tories say that top company directors, bankers, etc deserve their huge salaries because they are of great worth to society, they are in fact, talking complete bollox.

The real reason according to you, is simply because they can "get away with it"

Yes.

Thank you for that confirmation Stoner.

And I, can confirm that it has been bookmarked for future reference …………. I know that your endorsement will carry much weight 8)

They are using a conservative measure of "worth to society" based on the amount of wealth they create for themselves that might hypothetically trickle down to benefit everyone else, aren't they? 😉

no-one will believe you though.

We're like the magic circle…mustn't let the cat out of the bag you know.
😉

….

To be a little fairer to what Im saying, I dont believe salaries are remotely connected to societal worth in any meaningful way – not even public sector ones (anyone fancy making acomparative analysis between the worth of a policeman and a nurse and a fireman and a bin man etc etc). And Ive always said that many markets cant deliver societal benefit though free market movement (I repeat Im not a wholly free-market advocate and never have been, I thought you'd remembered that). Mainly because as a society we dont put the correct price on things through either ignorance, inertia, selfishness, or missing information/economic links (pollution).

Wages are, and should be set by the market.

The ultimate control and regulator of wages is when people refuse to do a job for the wage offered, a prime example here would be firefighters, yes, they do a valuable and important job, however there's still lots of applicants for every vacancy, ergo they are being offered enough money, if they were paid less, would people still do the job? thats the test of value to society and value to economy

Shovelling shit? well, if the pay is too low, people wont do it will they, they'll take less unpleasant jobs for the same money. simples!

Oh silly me, I forgot Stoner……………. since we both agree that the real reason is because they can "get away with it" Will you agree with me that perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to "get away with it" ?

.

………….I can see that we might be building powerful coalitions here 8)