So. Who's going first with evidence, then?
No need. I'm right.
Like, that was ever in doubt anyway... 🙄
Only as long as TJ says so...
Why hasn't he been on this thread anyway? Or is he on some kind of self-imposed ban from [i]this kind of thing[/i]?
Junkyard - i'm allowed my opinion based on experience if its all the same to you. Obviously i could wittle on about the drop in the number of prosecutions over the past ten years, but there is of course other stats which can paint a different picture.
Why hasn't he been on this thread anyway? Or is he on some kind of self-imposed ban from this kind of thing
Has anyone checked that he's taken the milk in and collected his copy of People's Friend from the newsagents as usual? - perhaps someone could go around and shout through the letterbox?
Isn't it [s]Socialist[/s] Liberal ideologies that have brought us free healthcare, education and stuff like that?
FTFY
1905 Unemployed Workmen Act: labour exchanges.
1906 Education Act: free school meals. 1907 School Medical Service.
1908 Old Age Pensions: these were non-contributory.
1909 Labour exchanges.
1911 National Insurance Act: this covered health and unemployment.
All under Liberal Governments of Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith
of course you are entitled to your opinion but I only wished to check whether your opinion was valid based on the evidence- does that sound a daft thing to do?.
I have no fact or opinion on your statement other than your opinion so far has no facts - I an not searching for an argument tbh
Re the socialist principles it is an interesting mixed picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report
Has anyone checked that he's taken the milk in
Difficult to say; apparently this demented old hag was seen loitering outside his flat earlier:
[img] 
[/img]
Wunundred!
What's this about a beverage report? I had some nice beer with Bullheart on Tuesday night...
All under Liberal Governments of Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith
Which will explain why many trade unions, such as the N.U.M., sponsored the Liberal Party then. Of course all that changed when the trade unions realise that the Liberal Party couldn't be trusted and that they needed to form their own political party to represent them in parliament.
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.
So are you claiming Lloyd George was a socialist now Ernie?
Yes.
He just din't want to admit it.
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.
Stop pretending to be an idiot Zulu-Eleven, and stop treating me like one........you know I can't be arsed with that sort of bollox. You know exactly what I meant.
No Ernie - Socialist principles have nothing to do with this.
The very ethos of socialism, its defining characteristic, is a belief in [b]an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively[/b] - this has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of national insurance/health systems, schooling or support systems, its been one of the long standing misrepresentations and deliberate confusion of what socialism means (by both sides of the political debate)
Hardly anyone today, from anything but the extreme left to the far right, regards Socialism in the traditional sense of government ownership and operation of the means of production as either feasible or desirable. Those who profess "socialism" today mean by it a welfare state - its not the same thing, and to claim it is provides succour to the idiotic diehards trots like Bob Crow and Fred who think that true socialism is the way forward!
Don't play the idiot yourself Ernie - you know that "Socialism" and "Socialist principles" are not the be all and end all of a social (small s) welfare system, and you also know damn well what Socialism, by definition, means, and that it is central to Marxist theory that Socialism is just an inherent transitional stage on the road to communism.
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 ****ing 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.
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/there-havent-been-any-massive-rows-on-here-for-a-while ]Mission accomplished[/url]
🙂
This is brilliant.
[Munches peanut butter on toast]
Yes.He just din't want to admit it.
He didn't murder a large portion of the population. No labour camps. No re-education. Not even covert surveillance. Clearly not a socialist.
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:
[img] 
[/img]
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.
[img] 
[/img]
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...
[b]*Enough now Elf. Medication time*[/b]
Coming nursey....
[img] 
[/img]
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]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.[/i]
......... 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 :
[url= http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/ ]Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing “socialism”[/url]
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[b] socialist principles[/b], 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 : [i]"Love how the Liberals who introduced these policies are suddenly socialists"[/i] with this :
[b]"Who said they were socialists then ? ...........I think you'll find that no one did
Presumably you missed this bit ?
[i]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.[/i]
......... there's a clue in there."[/b]
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 [b][i]"the liberal party of today is the same as the liberal party of the early 20th century?"[/i][/b] 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......
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sacked-tube-driver-wins-job-fight-2279989.html ]Sacked Tube driver wins job fight[/url]
Quote :
[i]"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."[/i]
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.
