Tories in Crisis !! Could Widdecombe and Clarke do better ???

[Grimble Gromble]

After the recent polll slide from the Conservatives where Cameron MAY soon be responsable for snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory, this now begs the question........

"Do you think the Tories may fair better by now dropping the "Eton TWO" and plumming for an unusual partnership in Widdecombe and Clarke to take the reigns" ????

[Major Sinic]

After the recent polll slide from the Conservatives where Cameron MAY soon be responsable for snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory, this now begs the question........

"Do you think the Tories may fair better by now dropping the "Eton TWO" and plumming for an unusual partnership in Widdecombe and Clarke to take the reigns" ????

The short answer is no. I assume by your sound bite, the 'Eton TWO' you are referring to are David Cameron and George Osborne. If so you are incorrect, in that whilst David Cameron did go to Eton, George Osborne in fact went to St. Pauls, one of the country's most socially progressive public schools. In each case they both had outstanding educations, far superior to anything that state secondary education has to offer, followed by an Oxford university education, and which they are willing to use for the benefit of the country, rather than personal gain.

Ken Clarke is of course an experienced and successful ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer who no doubt has much to offer within a prospective Conservative government. However it would be politically ill judged, to say the least, to dispense with George Osborne at this stage, particularly as his economic judgment is becoming increasingly accepted by a growing number of established institutions including the European Commission, the IMF and Mervyn King, Governor of the BoE. Whilst he may be inexperienced he is intelligent, educated and increasingly economically credible.

Anne Widdecombe has the reputation for being probably one of the most honest MPs in Westminster, along with a few others including Labour's Kate Hoey, not that this is a particularly demanding criteria for comparison. Other than that I think she rides rather on the right of the modern centrist Conservative Party, and would not be on anyone's short list for high office.

PS Did you mean reins? or by reigns were you suggesting even higher office?

[Grimble Gromble]

Anne Widdecombe has the reputation for being probably one of the most honest MPs in Westminster, along with a few others including Labour's Kate Hoey, not that this is a particularly demanding criteria for comparison. Other than that I think she rides rather on the right of the modern centrist Conservative Party, and would not be on anyone's short list for high office.

Well, maybe one of the overiding factors to the Tory slide is down to honesty or lack of it !! As you say "Widdecombe has a reputation in being one of the most honest MPs there are", where I think she would dominate with Clarke as her partner. It's the voter, the Current Tory leaders have to convince and the ETON one and ST P one ain't doing it.

[Expounder]

The short answer is no. I assume by your sound bite, the 'Eton TWO' you are referring to are David Cameron and George Osborne. If so you are incorrect, in that whilst David Cameron did go to Eton, George Osborne in fact went to St. Pauls, one of the country's most socially progressive public schools. In each case they both had outstanding educations, far superior to anything that state secondary education has to offer, followed by an Oxford university education, and which they are willing to use for the benefit of the country, rather than personal gain.

I would suggest both of their "outstanding educations" would be a handicap after the boys will be boys antics these Hooray Henrys got up to at their seat of education.The whole of their lives they've been cut off and cocooned from the real world never wanting for a thing. Their work experience was fleeting and token before they joined the Tory party. Their education did not include the real challenges of working life or the deprivation of being jobless, or even associating with any ordinary people in their working day lives.

They are both ill equipped to make judgements affecting the lives of ordinary people, they would only view Britain as a monopoly board when making financial decisions affecting the lives of millions with John Majors view "if it don't hurt it don't work". I doubt given the opportunity to resolve the present crisis they would succeed without first throwing the country into a double dip recession, and, or, doubling the unemployment figures, creating a repeat of the 30s prolonged recession.

Ken Clarke is of course an experienced and successful ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer who no doubt has much to offer within a prospective Conservative government. However it would be politically ill judged, to say the least, to dispense with George Osborne at this stage, particularly as his economic judgment is becoming increasingly accepted by a growing number of established institutions including the European Commission, the IMF and Mervyn King, Governor of the BoE. Whilst he may be inexperienced he is intelligent, educated and increasingly economically credible.

Your repeated remark that Osbourne is "educated" is an indication of your snobbish contempt for anyone not attending a public school as uneducated. I see you live in the shires and your avatar is pro hunting so I can excuse you for a lot of what you write as you seem to be as far away from reality as Cameron and Osbourne.

Anne Widdecombe has the reputation for being probably one of the most honest MPs in Westminster, along with a few others including Labour's Kate Hoey, not that this is a particularly demanding criteria for comparison. Other than that I think she rides rather on the right of the modern centrist Conservative Party, and would not be on anyone's short list for high office.

PS Did you mean reins? or by reigns were you suggesting even higher office?

Ann Widdecombe is a waffler and could not be considered in the same class as Ken Clark who in spite of his politics is honest but is surrounded by young ultra right Tory Turks who don't know the meaning of the word and is being used to present an acceptable face of conservatism.

[Major Sinic]

I would suggest both of their "outstanding educations" would be a handicap after the boys will be boys antics these Hooray Henrys got up to at their seat of education.The whole of their lives they've been cut off and cocooned from the real world never wanting for a thing. Their work experience was token before they joined the Tory party. Their education did not include the real challenges of working life or the deprivation of being jobless, or even associating with any ordinary people in their working day lives.

Just that, boyish antics!! No more! Unlike Straw who led a band of left wing thugs at university, illegally occupying public buildings and assaulting a Tory MP's wife, or Hain who has a criminal conviction for criminal damage. You really shouldn't believe your own rhetoric. Just because someone is either born into a comfortable background, or earns one does not necessarily mean they are out of touch with real life. Many of us are 'ordinary' people

They are both ill equipped to make judgements affecting the lives of ordinary people, they would only view Britain as a monopoly board when making financial decisions affecting the lives of millions with John Majors view "if it don't hurt it don't work". I doubt given the opportunity to resolve the present crisis they would succeed without first throwing the country into a double dip recession, and, or, doubling the unemployment figures, creating a repeat of the 30s prolonged recession.

You can hardly be suggesting that Blair, Brown, Harman et al have anything in common with 'ordinary people'. I certainly think that Cameron is far more in touch with the electorate than Brown has ever been, and this is borne out by public opinion. Every time we have a Labour government we end up on the brink of bankruptcy, and the Tories have to administer unpleasant economic medicine to rescue us. If Labour win the election in May the IMF will be governing us economically within twelve months. If the Tories win we will at least retain a good chance of managing ourselves out of the mess Labour have , as usual, lumbered us in.

Your repeated remark that Osbourne is "educated" is an indication of your snobbish contempt for anyone not attending a public school as uneducated. I see you live in the shires and your avatar is pro hunting so I can excuse you for a lot of what you write as you seem to be as far away from reality as Cameron and Osbourne.

There are many fine, educated minds that have been through a state education. That they have done so reflects well on them, but certainly not on the state educational system which is a centre of profligacy and under achievement. I only have contempt for bigots and fools. So you do not think that a man with a first class degree from one of the finest universities in the world is educated? Yes I live in the shires, I hunt and shoot, I had a public school education and my son is currently at public school, and I worked damn hard and made a fair amount of money to sustain it, creating many hundreds of jobs for 'ordinary' people in the process. There are different real lives to living in some drossy London suburb. Live with it. Most of the lower socio-economic groups have no grasp of what 'real life' is all about, you I suspect included.

Ann Widdecombe is a waffler and could not be considered in the same class as Ken Clark who in spite of his politics is honest but is surrounded by young ultra right Tory Turks who don't know the meaning of the word and is being used to present an acceptable face of conservatism.

[/QUOTE]I stated that she had a reputation for honesty. She is erudite and to the point, hardly a waffler.

The Conservative party is a right of centre moderate democratic party with a belief in encouraging individual opportunity and reward, and an unambiguous commitment to state welfare supplied to those who need it and representing value to the taxpayer. There is nothing 'ultra right wing' about the present Conservative Party. Indeed a number of economic and taxation policiesof your blindly loved, but fatally flawed, Labour Party are more right wing than the Tories.

[Expounder]

Just that, boyish antics!! No more! Unlike Straw who led a band of left wing thugs at university, illegally occupying public buildings and assaulting a Tory MP's wife, or Hain who has a criminal conviction for criminal damage. You really shouldn't believe your own rhetoric. Just because someone is either born into a comfortable background, or earns one does not necessarily mean they are out of touch with real life. Many of us are 'ordinary' people

We've already been down this road. Hain's criminal conviction is a badge of honor which was a political act against apartheid which delayed a cricket match. Straw, organiser of a student protest, one of the hundreds that have been organised over the years by many student leaders.

Cameroon's was anti social behaviour in public with the Bullingdon mob who used to get drunk and spew up and make a nuisance of them selves.. I believe that Boris was even responsible for smashing a window and legging it. I suppose you were witness to on occasions to similar behaviour at your public school.

Not quite the same comparison between the two would you say?. Principled actions on one hand and loutish behaviour on the other.

You can hardly be suggesting that Blair, Brown, Harman et al have anything in common with 'ordinary people'. I certainly think that Cameron is far more in touch with the electorate than Brown has ever been, and this is borne out by public opinion. Every time we have a Labour government we end up on the brink of bankruptcy, and the Tories have to administer unpleasant economic medicine to rescue us. If Labour win the election in May the IMF will be governing us economically within twelve months. If th e Tories win we will at least retain a good chance of managing ourselves out of the mess Labour have , as usual, lumbered us in.

Major, whatever happens on election day the Tories bricking it at this moment in time. They were so cock sure year ago and now they are at panic stations. As I said to Albion on this forum a year ago, Wilson said "a week is a long time in politics".

There are many fine, educated minds that have been through a state education. That they have done so reflects well on them, but certainly not on the state educational system which is a centre of profligacy and under achievement. I only have contempt for bigots and fools. So you do not think that a man with a first class degree from one of the finest universities in the world is educated? Yes I live in the shires, I hunt and shoot, I had a public school education and my son is currently at public school, and I worked damn hard and made a fair amount of money to sustain it, creating many hundreds of jobs for 'ordinary' people in the process. There are different real lives to living in some drossy London suburb. Live with it. Most of the lower socio-economic groups have no grasp of what 'real life' is all about, you I suspect included.

Your last sentence confirms exactly what I've been saying all along, and reflects the true Tory disdain and loathing towards ordinary people it took long enough for you to admit it. I rest my case, this is exactly why I am opposing a return of a Tory government. Your sheltered existence proves your total ignorance of the great unwashed which puts you the same category as honest Dave and educated George.

I stated that she had a reputation for honesty. She is erudite and to the point, hardly a waffler.
The Conservative party is a right of centre moderate democratic party with a belief in encouraging individual opportunity and reward, and an unambiguous commitment to state welfare supplied to those who need it and representing value to the taxpayer. There is nothing 'ultra right wing' about the present Conservative Party. Indeed a number of economic and taxation policies of your blindly loved, but fatally flawed, Labour Party are more right wing than the Tories.

I wonder Dave didn't send a representative to the commemoration held in Latvia for the Latvian Nazi WW2 brigade I'm sure they must of invited him as he is such a staunch ally.

[Major Sinic]

We've already been down this road. Hain's criminal conviction is a badge of honor which was a political act against apartheid which delayed a cricket match. Straw, organiser of a student protest, one of the hundreds that have been organised over the years by many student leaders.

Cameroon's was anti social behaviour in public with the Bullingdon mob who used to get drunk and spew up and make a nuisance of them selves.. I believe that Boris was even responsible for smashing a window and legging it. I suppose you were witness to on occasions to similar behaviour at your public school.

Not quite the same comparison between the two would you say?. Principled actions on one hand and loutish behaviour on the other.

I think that if we both came out from behind our normal point scoring default positions, we might just manage to agree that young men in their teens or early twenties have the exuberance of youth and perhaps a tad too much testosterone. In the scheme of things Cameron and Osborne, Straw and Hain committed little more than regrettable misdemeanors.

Major, whatever happens on election day the Tories bricking it at this moment in time. They were so cock sure year ago and now they are at panic stations. As I said to Albion on this forum a year ago, Wilson said "a week is a long time in politics".

Absolutely true, and it won't be over until the fat lady sings.

Your last sentence confirms exactly what I've been saying all along, and reflects the true Tory disdain and loathing towards ordinary people it took long enough for you to admit it. I rest my case, this is exactly why I am opposing a return of a Tory government. Your sheltered existence proves your total ignorance of the great unwashed which puts you the same category as honest Dave and educated George.

I've got news for you Expounder. The vast majority of the 35/40 people in every 100 who will vote Tory are 'real' and, to all but their adoring families, 'ordinary'. Cameron, Osborne, Hague and Clark understand the feelings of the electorate at least as well as Brown, Harman, Balls and Mandelson, you may be sure. Your 'bete noire', Margaret Thatcher, came from a much poorer and less privileged background than Blair, Brown or Harman. I have no disdain or loathing for anyone because of their class, colour, religion or political persuasion. Neither have I had a sheltered upbringing, indeed quite the opposite, and on the basis of your posts I am a far more tolerant cove than you, with your inverted snobbery and politics of envy. Being poor, inadequately educated and unemployed does not make someone any more 'real' or any better than someone who is wealthy, well educated and in work. It sure as hell doesn't qualify them to be a government minister!!

I wonder Dave didn't send a representative to the commemoration held in Latvia for the Latvian Nazi WW2 brigade I'm sure they must of invited him as he is such a staunch ally.

[/QUOTE]So that is your final cheap shot. Guilt by association. A number of Catholic priests are guilty of pedophilia, so by your mental process, all Christians are pedophiles.

[petra]

It is quite appalling to see someone being attacked for having had good quality education (rather than for their proposed policies). Britain is the only country I know of where people are being penalized for wanting the best possible education for their children. Is semi-literacy now supposed to be worn as a badge of honor? A country that doesn't believe in quality education has no future (and as unfortunate as it is, much of UK state education doesn't meet the quality criteria anymore). As for the whole 'elitism' nonsense... what is so wrong with excellence? Politicians need to be judged on their policies, everything else is just PC nonsense.



The issue with the Tories is that they're not a conservative party. The problem is, the appeal of statism (and current 'progressive' socialism) is simply too great, to our political elites as well as the majority of the electorate. The cancer of entitlement, welfare dependency, and irresponsibility has engulfed the country long ago, and only a prolonged period of severe pain (which will inevitably come after the next crisis) will eventually get the society back to true values.



In the meantime, neither Brown nor Cameron will change anything, for neither of them has the vision and courage, nor is the population ready for the necessary change.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

We've already been down this road. Hain's criminal conviction is a badge of honor which was a political act against apartheid which delayed a cricket match. Straw, organiser of a student protest, one of the hundreds that have been organised over the years by many student leaders.
Cameroon's was anti social behaviour in public with the Bullingdon mob who used to get drunk and spew up and make a nuisance of them selves.. I believe that Boris was even responsible for smashing a window and legging it. I suppose you were witness to on occasions to similar behaviour at your public school.
Not quite the same comparison between the two would you say?. Principled actions on one hand and loutish behaviour on the other.

Hi,

not wishing to get too bound up in discourse on your respective private griefs now that it is clear that The Party system has so clearly failed us and the economic illiteracy of the present Government has so irrefutably destroyed our economy and membership of the malign and clearly vile and unprincipled EU has, supported directly by the LibLabCon & indirectly by EUkip, led to the destruction of our industrial agricultural diversity and undisputed power as a world exporter.

Let us look at the simplistic point you made on which you found your contention:

We've already been down this road. Hain's criminal conviction is a badge of honor which was a political act against apartheid which delayed a cricket match.

No sir - not true. It was a desparate cry for recognition by a young lad who had together with Barbara his sister been virtually abandoned by his parents, who very like him were self seeking and foolish. Pietre Haine was all but brought up by his parent's maid, in exploitation of the incredibly low wages commanded by domestic staff in Johanesburg's privilleged Northern Suburbs.

His book 'Proportional Misrepresentation' was a defence of The First Past The post voting system and beyond that he has rarely said or done much that was either honest or intelligent.

His latest conviction was when Junior Minister of employment he was responsible for steering into being the damaging concept of a minimum wage which has so greatly aided the influx of immigrants under Nu Labour, in compliance with their masters in Brussels who dictate ALL laws that Labour has EVER had involvement in.

Haine was taken to Court by the revenue authorities and found guilty of swindling the benefit structure and paying a full time employee in his office £17 per week for a full time job whilst making up the balance from petty cash which was being stolen and unaccounted SO AS NOT TO EFFECT HER BENEFITS.

His next offence which he wriggled out of on a technicality was trying to rip off the Labour Party by spending a great deal of Union money on his attempt to gain control of the Labour Party.

The man is a rather sordid and singularly self centred scheister. He is also attributed by many for having dishonestly manipulated the results in the Devolution scam in Wales to ensure a YES vote when the electorate were clearly in favour of a no vote with huge areas of irregularity and outright dishonesty on the part of the Labour party in FIXING the result against the interests of Democracy. Such that every device available was used to ensure NO recount, no accounting for 6,000 votes that went missing, the late delivery of a ballot box in Neath to the count into which it would have been impossible to stuff another vote.

I believe that it is not unreasonable to describe Haine as a sad and vile fraud, without morality or ethics.

Straw, organiser of a student protest, one of the hundreds that have been organised over the years by many student leaders.

Responsible for the violent destruction of the medieval stained glass windows in the Senate House Cambridge from which criminal action his escape was aided, together with Tariq Ali by the Australian Communist Patricia Hewitt.

Subsequently as a protege of the outspoken and dangerous Communist Barbara Castle he was sent to Chile where he participated in trying to orchestrate a Communist uprising before returning to carry out a reorganise the neo Communist takeover of the London East polytech which was then largely controlled by an emigre who had fled the Warsaw Ghetto and had been domicile in Belgium and was rescued and given succour by Britain a Marxist Professor by the name of Milliband!

You may have missed his criminal behaviour in the office of Home Secretary where in his attempts to cover up the criminal behaviour of his brother Michael, after whom he named his own son who wasconvicted of drug dealing (well no - the case was dropped because of who his Father was!!! Typical Labour exploitation of privilege!). Brother Michael's criminality was attempted to be covered-up but the fact that he had been sexually abusing his young son became known despite the orchestration of a cover-up by Jack Straw, which led to the assault of Jack's 16 year old daughter and an 'inappropriate' sexual offence against a 16 year old family friend!

Despite a rigid 'D' notice effect in the media I was able eventually to get the story published by Mohammed Al Fayed who at the time owned the magazine Punch.

Cameroon's was anti social behaviour in public with the Bullingdon mob who used to get drunk and spew up and make a nuisance of them selves.

Indeed - how wicked - University students having too much to drink some 20 years ago - do you see this as in some way consequential?

My word they 'made a nuisance of themselves'.

I believe that Boris was even responsible for smashing a window and legging it.

& how exactly do you equate this on the scale of criminality and anti social behaviour with the two examples YOU chose of the grubby little Haine with several criminal convictions and having set out to cheat the Labour Party, the electorl process and the Benefits structure.

Or the undeniable criminality and clearly dishonest behaviour of Jack Straw.

In the balance you choose to offer an allegation on hear say of a broken window by a drunken student some 20 years ago.

You don't feel you are making rather a fool of yourself with such a poor substantiation of your rather unpleasant prejudice that seems never to be grounded in fact - merely some rather imature pretence at hard done by. Had it occured to you that you may indeed have been hard done by due to your personal intolerances and prejudices.

Could it be a self inflicted condition.

I suppose you were witness to on occasions to similar behaviour at your public school.

No but I do remember after I left school a crowd of us had been in the Bells & then the Cobbler and at closing time we decided to have a party at my place which was a house just off Sloan Square, in Cliveden Place, where admission would be a beleasher beacon top!! 23 of us were arrested with an orange thingy each!! The police agreed one specimen charge and they then came to the party too!

The following morning (much hungover) a police car arrived and gave me a lift to Court - for my heinous crime, with the stipe having trouble not to smile and Marilyn stuffed under a bench in the public gallery stiffling her mirth with a handkerchief to the detriment of her bladder I was fined 5/- and charged 5/- costs set aside if we, to the satisfaction of the police, replaced the tops that day. Under the supervision of a crew of some 10 off duty police, who carried the step ladders, we visited every pub in the area for refreshment - I understand comatose would be the best description of Sunday!

Not quite the same comparison between the two would you say?. Principled actions on one hand and loutish behaviour on the other.

I am happy to say our prank did not devolve to loutish behaviour and was well worth 10/-. Relative to the sordid behaviour and involvement in criminality of your chosen heroes I just have this feeling acting foolishly is a part of growing up.

I fear, as is so often the case - Yet again you have failed to let your mean minded prejudice shine beyond dimly and damagingly to your own cause.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't your other hero Mandelson guilty of serial mortgage fraud? Also didn't he abuse his position to sodomise a young Brazilian student who had over stayed his visa having been passed around the House of Commons, correct me if I am wrong was he not photographed by Charlie Pyecraft in an undeclared car given him by a wealthy minister and driven by an official chaeuffeur outside a nightclub frequented by like minded perverts?

As I recall another doyen of the squeaky clean Labour party was of course having an affair with a married woman at the Government's expense. Similarly wasn't the doyen of the old left Robin Cook in some difficulty over taking his mistress on government funded trips abroad when representing these United Kingdoms.

Then of course there was Cherrie Booth's son Ewan who was found too drunk for the police to handle without an ambulance, in a gutter in Leicester Square. The excuse was he was with his school friends celebrating the end of exams - a lie dreamed up by Tony Blair when eventually they found him, not as he claimed in his office writing a speech but having an intimate dinner for two with his chum Lord Levy I understand. His wife proved more difficult to locate as she was not answering her mobile at her home at Cliveden and rather embarrassingly she was eventually tracked down to a villa in Portugal with a 'friend' and her latest child Leo. To cover up the indescretion I understand she was somewhat unceremoniously extricated and put on an Air Force fast jet, whilst her Mother was charged with the duties of bringing young Leo home!

You may by all means speculate as to the relationship with her friend!

It is understood that it took Cherrie Blair's daughter a little longer to find out the details and it is thought that was the reason for her attempted suicide - but it must also have been difficult for her living with a liar guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity with the personal responsibility of some 1.4 million deaths on his hands, together with others including of course Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, john Presscot and known associates!

Would you care for me to continue or do you accept the lack of wisdom of throwing stones from the inside of a glass house!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Expounder]

Hi,

not wishing to get too bound up in discourse on your respective private griefs now that it is clear that The Party system has so clearly failed us and the economic illiteracy of the present Government has so irrefutably destroyed our economy and membership of the malign and clearly vile and unprincipled EU has, supported directly by the LibLabCon & indirectly by EUkip, led to the destruction of our industrial agricultural diversity and undisputed power as a world exporter.

Let us look at the simplistic point you made on which you found your contention:



No sir - not true. It was a desparate cry for recognition by a young lad who had together with Barbara his sister been virtually abandoned by his parents, who very like him were self seeking and foolish. Pietre Haine was all but brought up by his parent's maid, in exploitation of the incredibly low wages commanded by domestic staff in Johanesburg's privilleged Northern Suburbs.

His book 'Proportional Misrepresentation' was a defence of The First Past The post voting system and beyond that he has rarely said or done much that was either honest or intelligent.

His latest conviction was when Junior Minister of employment he was responsible for steering into being the damaging concept of a minimum wage which has so greatly aided the influx of immigrants under Nu Labour, in compliance with their masters in Brussels who dictate ALL laws that Labour has EVER had involvement in.

Haine was taken to Court by the revenue authorities and found guilty of swindling the benefit structure and paying a full time employee in his office £17 per week for a full time job whilst making up the balance from petty cash which was being stolen and unaccounted SO AS NOT TO EFFECT HER BENEFITS.

His next offence which he wriggled out of on a technicality was trying to rip off the Labour Party by spending a great deal of Union money on his attempt to gain control of the Labour Party.

The man is a rather sordid and singularly self centred scheister. He is also attributed by many for having dishonestly manipulated the results in the Devolution scam in Wales to ensure a YES vote when the electorate were clearly in favour of a no vote with huge areas of irregularity and outright dishonesty on the part of the Labour party in FIXING the result against the interests of Democracy. Such that every device available was used to ensure NO recount, no accounting for 6,000 votes that went missing, the late delivery of a ballot box in Neath to the count into which it would have been impossible to stuff another vote.

I believe that it is not unreasonable to describe Haine as a sad and vile fraud, without morality or ethics.



Responsible for the violent destruction of the medieval stained glass windows in the Senate House Cambridge from which criminal action his escape was aided, together with Tariq Ali by the Australian Communist Patricia Hewitt.

Subsequently as a protege of the outspoken and dangerous Communist Barbara Castle he was sent to Chile where he participated in trying to orchestrate a Communist uprising before returning to carry out a reorganise the neo Communist takeover of the London East polytech which was then largely controlled by an emigre who had fled the Warsaw Ghetto and had been domicile in Belgium and was rescued and given succour by Britain a Marxist Professor by the name of Milliband!

You may have missed his criminal behaviour in the office of Home Secretary where in his attempts to cover up the criminal behaviour of his brother Michael, after whom he named his own son who wasconvicted of drug dealing (well no - the case was dropped because of who his Father was!!! Typical Labour exploitation of privilege!). Brother Michael's criminality was attempted to be covered-up but the fact that he had been sexually abusing his young son became known despite the orchestration of a cover-up by Jack Straw, which led to the assault of Jack's 16 year old daughter and an 'inappropriate' sexual offence against a 16 year old family friend!

Despite a rigid 'D' notice effect in the media I was able eventually to get the story published by Mohammed Al Fayed who at the time owned the magazine Punch.



Indeed - how wicked - University students having too much to drink some 20 years ago - do you see this as in some way consequential?

My word they 'made a nuisance of themselves'.



& how exactly do you equate this on the scale of criminality and anti social behaviour with the two examples YOU chose of the grubby little Haine with several criminal convictions and having set out to cheat the Labour Party, the electorl process and the Benefits structure.

Or the undeniable criminality and clearly dishonest behaviour of Jack Straw.

In the balance you choose to offer an allegation on hear say of a broken window by a drunken student some 20 years ago.

You don't feel you are making rather a fool of yourself with such a poor substantiation of your rather unpleasant prejudice that seems never to be grounded in fact - merely some rather imature pretence at hard done by. Had it occured to you that you may indeed have been hard done by due to your personal intolerances and prejudices.

Could it be a self inflicted condition.



No but I do remember after I left school a crowd of us had been in the Bells & then the Cobbler and at closing time we decided to have a party at my place which was a house just off Sloan Square, in Cliveden Place, where admission would be a beleasher beacon top!! 23 of us were arrested with an orange thingy each!! The police agreed one specimen charge and they then came to the party too!

The following morning (much hungover) a police car arrived and gave me a lift to Court - for my heinous crime, with the stipe having trouble not to smile and Marilyn stuffed under a bench in the public gallery stiffling her mirth with a handkerchief to the detriment of her bladder I was fined 5/- and charged 5/- costs set aside if we, to the satisfaction of the police, replaced the tops that day. Under the supervision of a crew of some 10 off duty police, who carried the step ladders, we visited every pub in the area for refreshment - I understand comatose would be the best description of Sunday!



I am happy to say our prank did not devolve to loutish behaviour and was well worth 10/-. Relative to the sordid behaviour and involvement in criminality of your chosen heroes I just have this feeling acting foolishly is a part of growing up.

I fear, as is so often the case - Yet again you have failed to let your mean minded prejudice shine beyond dimly and damagingly to your own cause.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't your other hero Mandelson guilty of serial mortgage fraud? Also didn't he abuse his position to sodomise a young Brazilian student who had over stayed his visa having been passed around the House of Commons, correct me if I am wrong was he not photographed by Charlie Pyecraft in an undeclared car given him by a wealthy minister and driven by an official chaeuffeur outside a nightclub frequented by like minded perverts?

As I recall another doyen of the squeaky clean Labour party was of course having an affair with a married woman at the Government's expense. Similarly wasn't the doyen of the old left Robin Cook in some difficulty over taking his mistress on government funded trips abroad when representing these United Kingdoms.

Then of course there was Cherrie Booth's son Ewan who was found too drunk for the police to handle without an ambulance, in a gutter in Leicester Square. The excuse was he was with his school friends celebrating the end of exams - a lie dreamed up by Tony Blair when eventually they found him, not as he claimed in his office writing a speech but having an intimate dinner for two with his chum Lord Levy I understand. His wife proved more difficult to locate as she was not answering her mobile at her home at Cliveden and rather embarrassingly she was eventually tracked down to a villa in Portugal with a 'friend' and her latest child Leo. To cover up the indescretion I understand she was somewhat unceremoniously extricated and put on an Air Force fast jet, whilst her Mother was charged with the duties of bringing young Leo home!

You may by all means speculate as to the relationship with her friend!

It is understood that it took Cherrie Blair's daughter a little longer to find out the details and it is thought that was the reason for her attempted suicide - but it must also have been difficult for her living with a liar guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity with the personal responsibility of some 1.4 million deaths on his hands, together with others including of course Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, john Presscot and known associates!

Would you care for me to continue or do you accept the lack of wisdom of throwing stones from the inside of a glass house!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

When it comes to sleaze and dishonesty look no further than the Tory record. There have been problems in both main parties but nothing to touch the grubby record of your friends the honorable elite of the toe rag party. If were going to have a competition on whose the worst, the Tories win hands down not to mention Prime Minister John Major knocking off Edwina Curry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1485089.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2524727.stm

Disgraced Aitken returns to Tory fold - Free Online Library

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2286008.stm


Tory Sleaze at We’re British, Innit

Tory sleaze chief David Curry quits over '£30,000 love nest expenses' | Mail Online

Blog - Richard Corbett: Tory sleaze

How sleaze came back to haunt the Tories | Politics | The Observer


Sleazy lover « ToryScum.com

I do appreciate no party on earth can be perfect and will have its mavericks but Labour would have to go a long way to beat some of the dishonest outragious low stunts pulled by some the honerable members on the Tory benches.

[Expounder]

It is quite appalling to see someone being attacked for having had good quality education (rather than for their proposed policies). Britain is the only country I know of where people are being penalized for wanting the best possible education for their children. Is semi-literacy now supposed to be worn as a badge of honor? A country that doesn't believe in quality education has no future (and as unfortunate as it is, much of UK state education doesn't meet the quality criteria anymore). As for the whole 'elitism' nonsense... what is so wrong with excellence? Politicians need to be judged on their policies, everything else is just PC nonsense.



The issue with the Tories is that they're not a conservative party. The problem is, the appeal of statism (and current 'progressive' socialism) is simply too great, to our political elites as well as the majority of the electorate. The cancer of entitlement, welfare dependency, and irresponsibility has engulfed the country long ago, and only a prolonged period of severe pain (which will inevitably come after the next crisis) will eventually get the society back to true values.



In the meantime, neither Brown nor Cameron will change anything, for neither of them has the vision and courage, nor is the population ready for the necessary change.

A rather negative post I'm afraid, we await your reply to enlighten us how we might find the answers in finding a partyof saints, and the answer to a problem that's been with the world since the first human, that is................................................ ......How can we change human nature ensuring every one we elect is perfect?

You will get your wish of severe pain if Cameron is elected, you find it in Osbournes budget Immediately After the election which he won't disclose before, for fear of ruining the party's chances.

[Major Sinic]

When it comes to sleaze and dishonesty look no further than the Tory record. There have been problems in both main parties but nothing to touch the grubby record of your friends the honorable elite of the toe rag party. If were going to have a competition on whose the worst, the Tories win hands down.

BBC News | UK POLITICS | Profile: Neil Hamilton

Disgraced Aitken returns to Tory fold - Free Online Library

Tory Sleaze at We’re British, Innit

Tory sleaze chief David Curry quits over '£30,000 love nest expenses' | Mail Online

Blog - Richard Corbett: Tory sleaze

How sleaze came back to haunt the Tories | Politics | The Observer


Sleazy lover « ToryScum.com

I do appreciate no party on earth can be perfect and will have its mavericks but Labour would have to go a long way to beat some of the dishonest outragious low stunts pulled by some the honerable members on the Tory benches.

I am not surprised that you have little to say in response to that verbal annihilation of your position. I am sure you don't really mean to imply that the unacceptable aspects of Tory politicians, justifies the corrupt, immoral and at least as unacceptable practices of Labour politicians; it just comes over that way.

I almost feel sorry for you because I don't really think you are a bad old boy.

[Expounder]

I am not surprised that you have little to say in response to that verbal annihilation of your position. I am sure you don't really mean to imply that the unacceptable aspects of Tory politicians, justifies the corrupt, immoral and at least as unacceptable practices of Labour politicians; it just comes over that way.

I almost feel sorry for you because I don't really think you are a bad old boy.

Major what would be the point of not using the available Tory sleaze links to answer your Labour sleaze allegations.

All I am doing is pointing via official history that if you want to start slinging mud it can be returned tenfold without me having to spend time rehashing it.

I think We both agree that there are mavericks and shady characters in all political parties as there are mavericks and criminals in the general population and all walks of life from which MPs are drawn. But I would say on average the Tory party has more than it's fair share.

Be that as it may, getting back to party policies why has Osbourne said he would announce his budget for the next five years within 50 days of winning the election and not before? Where is Cameron's transparency in this act.

We are back to the old argument, that Labour for all it's faults still represents the lower orders and the Tories represent the financial elite in society whilst paying lip service to the general electorate and hoping to win by default. But Cameron's been twigged, and his fresh face from a year ago in beginning to look jaded like his "policies" which he changes as often as his shirt.

All I am pleased about is that according to the polls it's not going to be rout for Labour as it looked like a year ago. A year ago the bookies would have given long odds on a hung parliament or a slender Tory majority, today I think you'd be lucky to get even money.

Your continual reference to my age won't do you any favours as you seem to imply that age is a factor in what you consider to be is my irrational opposition to the Tory party. The Tory party remains the party of the rich and powerful and is a natural enemy of P.A.Y.E working people.

[Major Sinic]

Major what would be the point of not using the available Tory sleaze links to answer your Labour sleaze allegations.

All I am doing is pointing via official history that if you want to start slinging mud it can be returned tenfold without me having to spend time rehashing it.

I think We both agree that there are mavericks and shady characters in all political parties as there are mavericks and criminals in the general population and all walks of life from which MPs are drawn. But I would say on average the Tory party has more than it's fair share.

Be that as it may, getting back to party policies why has Osbourne said he would announce his budget for the next five years within 50 days of winning the election and not before? Where is Cameron's transparency in this act.

We are back to the old argument, that Labour for all it's faults still represents the lower orders and the Tories represent the financial elite in society whilst paying lip service to the general electorate and hoping to win by default. But Cameron's been twigged, and his fresh face from a year ago in beginning to look jaded like his "policies" which he changes as often as his shirt.

All I am pleased about is that according to the polls it's not going to be rout for Labour as it looked like a year ago. A year ago the bookies would have given long odds on a hung parliament or a slender Tory majority, today I think you'd be lucky to get even money.

Your continual reference to my age won't do you any favours as you seem to imply that age is a factor in what you consider to be is my irrational opposition to the Tory party. The Tory party remains the party of the rich and powerful and is a natural enemy of P.A.Y.E working people.

I am not going to respond in detail to this post, beyond expressing the view that the political classes, irrespective of political persuasion, have in general betrayed the people of this country in recent years through their amorality, dishonesty, corruption, hubris, obfuscation and incompetence. Despite the public shaming of members of both the Commons and the Lords, there are still examples of political pond life whose arrogance knows no bounds, and until evasion of public responsibility and duty, and abuse of public office are punishable by a law with teeth, I see little sign of an improvement.

You should not take my gentle pokes at your advanced years as anything other than a little teasing. I am no spring chicken myself and with the state of my ticker, I don't anticipate matching your longevity.

[Expounder]

I am not going to respond in detail to this post, beyond expressing the view that the political classes, irrespective of political persuasion, have in general betrayed the people of this country in recent years through their amorality, dishonesty, corruption, hubris, obfuscation and incompetence. Despite the public shaming of members of both the Commons and the Lords, there are still examples of political pond life whose arrogance knows no bounds, and until evasion of public responsibility and duty, and abuse of public office are punishable by a law with teeth, I see little sign of an improvement.

Thats life major, let any one without sin cast the first stone. That includes you and me.

You should not take my gentle pokes at your advanced years as anything other than a little teasing. I am no spring chicken myself and with the state of my ticker, I don't anticipate matching your longevity.

We'll call it a draw then till after the election.......................................... ..........

[petra]

A rather negative post I'm afraid, we await your reply to enlighten us how we might find the answers in finding a partyof saints, and the answer to a problem that's been with the world since the first human, that is................................................ ......How can we change human nature ensuring every one we elect is perfect?

You will get your wish of severe pain if Cameron is elected, you find it in Osbournes budget Immediately After the election which he won't disclose before, for fear of ruining the party's chances.

It would appear you haven't gotten my point from my earlier post. We don't need a party of saints and there will of course never be such. What we do need is to go back to the solid traditional values of self-reliance, responsibility, hard work (not to mention morality which we've also reneged on long ago). The poison is not embodied by any particular politician but our culture of welfarism and state-dependency, irresponsibility and laziness, the concept of getting something for nothing... which a very significant portion of the population has happily embraced at the expense of a fast shrinking minority.

However, looking at your signature, I don't expect you to understand it.

By the way, there is no such thing as "fortunate" and "unfortunate", everyone is responsible for his/her own life (and if there was in fact such a thing, it would certainly appear that it's the "unfortunate" who are fully exploiting the "fortunate"). Just as the concepts of "equality" and "fairness for all" - which you undoubtedly believe in - are nothing but marxist nonsense fed to the masses eager to blame someone or something else for their "misfortune".

[Expounder]

It would appear you haven't gotten my point from my earlier post. We don't need a party of saints and there will of course never be such. What we do need is to go back to the solid traditional values of self-reliance, responsibility, hard work (not to mention morality which we've also reneged on long ago). The poison is not embodied by any particular politician but our culture of welfarism and state-dependency, irresponsibility and laziness, the concept of getting something for nothing... which a very significant portion of the population has happily embraced at the expense of a fast shrinking minority.

However, looking at your signature, I don't expect you to understand it.

By the way, there is no such thing as "fortunate" and "unfortunate", everyone is responsible for his/her own life (and if there was in fact such a thing, it would certainly appear that it's the "unfortunate" who are fully exploiting the "fortunate"). Just as the concepts of "equality" and "fairness for all" - which you undoubtedly believe in - are nothing but marxist nonsense fed to the masses eager to blame someone or something else for their "misfortune".

I think that the multitude of the work force made redundant my the last Tory administration through no fault of their own would have considered themselves very unfortunate. This single act by an uncaring arrogant government that put no measures in place for new job creation for thousands of these "unfortunates" who were left to rot on the dole, was primarily responsible for creating the benefits culture we have today.

From the tone of your post you're like all Tories....................................supercil ious, self interested, mean and uncaring. I feel that fairness is a concept which is alien to people like yourself who only start to scream about "fairness" for yourself when in problematic times asked to fork up a small amount for the common good.

I've lived a long time and in all my years I found Tory Ideology of greed and the mentality of callousness nauseating. One doesn't have to be a Marxist to believe in fairness, but just a decent human being.

[Opinionated]

mBy the way, there is no such thing as "fortunate" and "unfortunate", everyone is responsible for his/her own life (and if there was in fact such a thing, it would certainly appear that it's the "unfortunate" who are fully exploiting the "fortunate").

Yeah ok! So someone born with a disability is not "unfortunate", we are in fact all born with exactly the same capabilities and the only thing keeping me from being the world's top neuro surgeon is my laziness? I really hope nothing bad happens to wipe out all your good fortune because you would be in for a huge shock!

Just as the concepts of "equality" and "fairness for all" - which you undoubtedly believe in - are nothing but marxist nonsense fed to the masses eager to blame someone or something else for their "misfortune".

I suggest you read some Socrates, who grappled with whether those concepts could translate into real terms some 23 centuries (I think) before Marx.

[Midas]

Yeah ok! So someone born with a disability is not "unfortunate", we are in fact all born with exactly the same capabilities and the only thing keeping me from being the world's top neuro surgeon is my laziness? I really hope nothing bad happens to wipe out all your good fortune because you would be in for a huge shock!

I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that's what Petra implied, or at least it's not how I interpreted it. She said "everyone is responsible for his/her own life", which is quite true, and barring those relatively few people who are born with a disability so severe as to limit any potential they might otherwise have had, at birth we all have pretty much the same opportunity to learn and progress through life. Obviously the outcome of that process varies hugely from person to person and is within the limitations of our individual intelligence and capability, however there are millions of people out there who fail to reach that potential for many reasons, including laziness and lack of drive and incentive. Many of these people, who I suspect are the one's that Petra described as 'unfortunate' do indeed exploit the 'fortunate', i.e., those who have succeeded better in life, by way of demanding they're looked after, paid for by the taxes of those who have succeeded. OK, there are many genuine cases of hardship for no fault of those concerned, however there are many, many more people who do exploit the system and do the minimum they need, encouraged greatly by the prevailing socialist viewpoint.

[Opinionated]

[QUOTE]

I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that's what Petra implied, or at least it's not how I interpreted it. She said "everyone is responsible for his/her own life", which is quite true, and barring those relatively few people who are born with a disability so severe as to limit any potential they might otherwise have had, at birth we all have pretty much the same opportunity to learn and progress through life.

Yeah, I was taking a hard line for the sake of argument, however it's just not true that everyone has the same opportunity to "learn and progress through life", life isn't fair, there's no equality of opportunity. Right from the beginning a child's life and opportunities are limited (or otherwise) by virtue of who their parents are, now I'm all for equality of opportunity but I fail to see how we can provide that without a welfare state. You're the first to admit that your good fortune was in part to being in the right place at the right time, now that doesn't in any way diminish the achievement but there is always the possibility that it could have gone totally the other way.

Obviously the outcome of that process varies hugely from person to person and is within the limitations of our individual intelligence and capability, however there are millions of people out there who fail to reach that potential for many reasons, including laziness and lack of drive and incentive.

OK I'll give you that one, but I don't think there are that many people who have consciously made a choice to be lazy, more often than not they have been worn down by a series of knock backs (sadly often starting with experiences in school), I think you'd find a visit to your local job centre a real eye opener!

Many of these people, who I suspect are the one's that Petra described as 'unfortunate' do indeed exploit the 'fortunate', i.e., those who have succeeded better in life, by way of demanding they're looked after, paid for by the taxes of those who have succeeded. OK, there are many genuine cases of hardship for no fault of those concerned, however there are many, many more people who do exploit the system and do the minimum they need, encouraged greatly by the prevailing socialist viewpoint.

Believe me it's not good for the soul to be dependent on the state, I know first hand, but pulling the rug away from these people and allowing them to sink or swim is not humane and I will never agree with it. Maybe I'm old fashioned, maybe I'm a bleeding heart but I always think it pays to say to yourself "there but for the grace of God go I". You'll be happy going into the centre of Birmingham when it becomes one great big cardboard city will you? Or maybe you'll expect those churches you're so fond of to fund poor houses to keep the people out of sight?

[Midas]

Yeah, I was taking a hard line for the sake of argument, however it's just not true that everyone has the same opportunity to "learn and progress through life", life isn't fair, there's no equality of opportunity. Right from the beginning a child's life and opportunities are limited (or otherwise) by virtue of who their parents are, now I'm all for equality of opportunity but I fail to see how we can provide that without a welfare state. You're the first to admit that your good fortune was in part to being in the right place at the right time, now that doesn't in any way diminish the achievement but there is always the possibility that it could have gone totally the other way.

OK, I'll agree that the progress of a child is often dictated to by their parents, however you can't use that argument to say that everyone doesn't have the same opportunities to learn and progress. Regardless of who their parents are or how much money they have, exactly the same educational facilities by way of infants, junior and secondary schools, then colleges and universities, are available to everyone. Private schools comprise of a very small minority, but even there there are plenty of facilities for poorer children to attend by way of grants, scholarships and bursaries. It's basically down to what each child has inside him/her which dictates how well they'll ultimately do in life; if they lack drive and ambition they'll achieve less than others of a similar intelligence regardless of any other factors.

Yes, I'll agree that my own situation was down in part to luck - the good fortune to have Maggie Thatcher as PM, creating the economic climate for people to succeed financially helped enormously - but it was also down to sheer hard work and determination. I also accept that my own success has reflected on my children; they wouldn't otherwise have been able to go to good private schools for all of their secondary education, however they attended state junior schools and their subsequent employment progression has been far more down to their own innate abilities and determination to succeed than simply the fact that 'they went to private school'.

Believe me it's not good for the soul to be dependent on the state, I know first hand, but pulling the rug away from these people and allowing them to sink or swim is not humane and I will never agree with it. Maybe I'm old fashioned, maybe I'm a bleeding heart but I always think it pays to say to yourself "there but for the grace of God go I". You'll be happy going into the centre of Birmingham when it becomes one great big cardboard city will you? Or maybe you'll expect those churches you're so fond of to fund poor houses to keep the people out of sight?

I'm sure it's not, however there must be millions of people out there who would get out and find work and who would succeed if there was no, or only a very basic, welfare system. I accept that suddenly pulling the rug from under people is not the way to go, however proper education aimed in part at changing people's attitudes and not making them think they can be dependent on others if things go wrong - in other words encouraging self-reliance and getting them away from the socialist view of the state will provide - coupled with a phased reduction in the welfare state so that it does become very basic (plus a fairer tax system), would eventually result in a far more productive and ultimately happier society. I hope that's what the Tories will aim for.

[Expounder]

OK, I'll agree that the progress of a child is often dictated to by their parents, however you can't use that argument to say that everyone doesn't have the same opportunities to learn and progress. Regardless of who their parents are or how much money they have, exactly the same educational facilities by way of infants, junior and secondary schools, then colleges and universities, are available to everyone. Private schools comprise of a very small minority, but even there there are plenty of facilities for poorer children to attend by way of grants, scholarships and bursaries. It's basically down to what each child has inside him/her which dictates how well they'll ultimately do in life; if they lack drive and ambition they'll achieve less than others of a similar intelligence regardless of any other factors.

Yes, I'll agree that my own situation was down in part to luck - the good fortune to have Maggie Thatcher as PM, creating the economic climate for people to succeed financially helped enormously - but it was also down to sheer hard work and determination. I also accept that my own success has reflected on my children; they wouldn't otherwise have been able to go to good private schools for all of their secondary education, however they attended state junior schools and their subsequent employment progression has been far more down to their own innate abilities and determination to succeed than simply the fact that 'they went to private school'.



I'm sure it's not, however there must be millions of people out there who would get out and find work and who would succeed if there was no, or only a very basic, welfare system. I accept that suddenly pulling the rug from under people is not the way to go, however proper education aimed in part at changing people's attitudes and not making them think they can be dependent on others if things go wrong - in other words encouraging self-reliance and getting them away from the socialist view of the state will provide - coupled with a phased reduction in the welfare state so that it does become very basic (plus a fairer tax system), would eventually result in a far more productive and ultimately happier society. I hope that's what the Tories will aim for.

Your argument is about as logical as the argument in favour of communism, there will always be the haves and the have nots. You talk as though every one can attain the level of affluency as yourself [whatever that may be] . In order for the "haves" to exist their have to be the have nots who must remain on lower rungs of the ladder in order to maintain the affluence of the haves.

As you go down that ladder, income,decreases ,and those at the bottom are at the mercy of the vagaries of the capitalist system and live a life in many cases of penury. These are the people who have no control over their economic circumstances in relation to income except to continue to work for subsistence wages at the mercy of the hire and fire at will policy attitude of employers.

The 80s and 90s come to mind when hundreds of thousands were thrown on the human scrap heap and given no government help to retrain and redirect their skills. A government which had the same callous attitude as yourself and the rest of the Tory set. Is not surprising being left to rot and encouraged to live on state benefits for years, many fell into the routine of state dependence.This, a monster once created, will take many years to eradicate.

The elite, and people like you depend on people on the bottom rungs to maintain your affluent way of life from which you can pontificate upon the lower orders inability to climb the greasy pole of dog eat dog, when their affluence in most cases were handed to them on a plate.

Yes, there are a few working class upstarts who climbed the pole, most using unscrupulous means by treading on the faces of those who knew no other way than to work honestly and live simple uncomplicated lives.They [these upstarts] are in a very small minority who followed the despicable morals and methods of those people who now seek power in government.

[Opinionated]

OK, I'll agree that the progress of a child is often dictated to by their parents, however you can't use that argument to say that everyone doesn't have the same opportunities to learn and progress. Regardless of who their parents are or how much money they have, exactly the same educational facilities by way of infants, junior and secondary schools, then colleges and universities, are available to everyone.

I'm not denying that actually, I was considering more that if your parents are "broken" (for want of a better word and for whatever reason) then they are far less likely to provide the basic support system required for you to make the most of your potential, right from sending a child to school having had a decent breakfast through to ensuring they have done their homework and even giving them the basic attitude that education is a good thing and it is important to try and reach your full potential.

Private schools comprise of a very small minority, but even there there are plenty of facilities for poorer children to attend by way of grants, scholarships and bursaries. It's basically down to what each child has inside him/her which dictates how well they'll ultimately do in life; if they lack drive and ambition they'll achieve less than others of a similar intelligence regardless of any other factors.
Yes, I'll agree that my own situation was down in part to luck - the good fortune to have Maggie Thatcher as PM, creating the economic climate for people to succeed financially helped enormously - but it was also down to sheer hard work and determination.

I'm sure it was and we've talked before about how one defines success being crucial to your argument. I will (grudgingly) accept that Thatcher was good for you and for those like you with a business mind and the ability to take advantage of the opportunities. She was not however good for the vast majority whose talents lay in other areas, those whose lives and careers were geared towards the stability of working with their hands or in the older non professions. Not everyone can be a millionaire, hell not everyone wants to be, most people want a stable job they can go to every day (preferably one which gives them some fulfilment) which pays enough for them to provide for their families. I happen to think that in an ideal world that would be a basic human right.

I also accept that my own success has reflected on my children; they wouldn't otherwise have been able to go to good private schools for all of their secondary education, however they attended state junior schools and their subsequent employment progression has been far more down to their own innate abilities and determination to succeed than simply the fact that 'they went to private school'.

The fact you paid for their secondary education is (or at least should be) irrelevant, I'm pretty sure seeing as both you and your first wife were well educated and had careers they would have taken that example and translated it into their own lives - just as you took the encouragement from your parents and as a result made the most of the opportunities given by a grammar school education and a free University one.

I'm sure it's not, however there must be millions of people out there who would get out and find work and who would succeed if there was no, or only a very basic, welfare system.

millions? I very much doubt that - that sounds very much like a Daily Mail estimation to me (must be true then).

I accept that suddenly pulling the rug from under people is not the way to go, however proper education aimed in part at changing people's attitudes and not making them think they can be dependent on others if things go wrong - in other words encouraging self-reliance and getting them away from the socialist view of the state will provide

Now here we can actually agree to some extent - education is the key! And until University fees are abolished, and education is provided to make children feel good about their non academic abilities if that is where they shine, there will be a huge block to those from poorer families utilising what opportunities there are.

- coupled with a phased reduction in the welfare state so that it does become very basic (plus a fairer tax system), would eventually result in a far more productive and ultimately happier society. I hope that's what the Tories will aim for.

Fairer tax hey? Like stopping you hide most of yours off shore? But I will accept (nay encourage) the idea that a working society is a happier one!

[Midas]

Your argument is about as logical as the argument in favour of communism, there will always be the haves and the have nots. You talk as though every one can attain the level of affluency as yourself [whatever that may be] . In order for the "haves" to exist their have to be the have nots who must remain on lower rungs of the ladder in order to maintain the affluence of the haves.

As you go down that ladder, income,decreases ,and those at the bottom are at the mercy of the vagaries of the capitalist system and live a life in many cases of penury. These are the people who have no control over their economic circumstances in relation to income except to continue to work for subsistence wages at the mercy of the hire and fire at will policy attitude of employers.

I believe fully in the maxim of everyone according to their ability; it's human nature. Of course there'll always be people on every rung of the ladder, something which socialism seems to ignore in its attempts to make everyone equal, and there'll always be people with more than others, most of them due to their own drive and initiative, having no desire to stay at the bottom of that ladder. It's rarely in an employer's interest to simply hire and fire, but if employees can't be bothered to work hard or show some initiative they're not a great deal of use, and that attitude is down to themselves and to themselves alone, unfortunately encouraged by socialism. Far too many people simply muddle along through life doing as little as they can get away with; why, with that attitude, should they expect others to look after them?

The elite, and people like you depend on people on the bottom rungs to maintain your affluent way of life from which you can pontificate upon the lower orders inability to climb the greasy pole of dog eat dog, when their affluence in most cases were handed to them on a plate.

Of course people at the top depend on people lower down the ladder, but conversely those at the bottom of the ladder, for whatever reason, also depend on those at the top for their continued income. There are very few businesses these days who won't actively encourage talent and ability regardless of where it's found in the organisation; if people choose not to avail themselves of the opportunities to better themselves which are open to everyone, and are content to stay where they are, often bemoaning the fact that "no-one cares about them" (often a euphemism for "can't be bothered myself") at the same time, that's hardly the fault of their employers is it?

Yes, there are a few working class upstarts who climbed the pole, most using unscrupulous means by treading on the faces of those who knew no other way than to work honestly and live simple uncomplicated lives.They [these upstarts] are in a very small minority who followed the despicable morals and methods of those people who now seek power in government.

I'd dispute your comment of "...a few working class upstarts who climbed the pole, most using unscrupulous means...". Upstarts are they, betraying 'the socialist cause' to make a better life for themselves and their families? I know of many people who've come from perfectly normal working or middle class backgrounds, myself included, who've used their initiative and seized what opportunities they can to better themselves in life and done it by totally ethical means; that's hardly being unscrupulous, that's making the most of what abilities they were born with. You somehow seem to think that the very fact of trying to improve your lot in life makes you a traitor, completely forgetting that a) it's human nature and b) it's those very same people who provide the vast majority of employment and most of the tax revenues and cash flow in the country. Without them we'd all be sunk.

[Midas]

I'm not denying that actually, I was considering more that if your parents are "broken" (for want of a better word and for whatever reason) then they are far less likely to provide the basic support system required for you to make the most of your potential, right from sending a child to school having had a decent breakfast through to ensuring they have done their homework and even giving them the basic attitude that education is a good thing and it is important to try and reach your full potential.

I can't deny that's a considerable factor, and it can be a bit of a vicious circle with 'poor' parents producing 'poor' children, who in turn produce further 'poor' children...... However that still doesn't change the potential in all of us, which more than anything is what we use to achieve our goals. Look in any list of the top earners and performers in any society, and a significant number of them came from far less than ideal social or educational backgrounds. What I would say though, and changing the tack somewhat, is that the socialist 'everyone is equal' philosophy is perhaps the worst way to change that, making people believe that the state will provide and that if they fall by the wayside there'll be something there to support them. For many, those who don't have as much drive and determination as others, it takes away a significant amount of the need to succeed, for themselves if for no-one else; to quote Jon Huntsman, one of America's self-made billionaires, "Through adversity, we come face to face with who we really are and what really counts."

I'm sure it was and we've talked before about how one defines success being crucial to your argument. I will (grudgingly) accept that Thatcher was good for you and for those like you with a business mind and the ability to take advantage of the opportunities. She was not however good for the vast majority whose talents lay in other areas, those whose lives and careers were geared towards the stability of working with their hands or in the older non professions. Not everyone can be a millionaire, hell not everyone wants to be, most people want a stable job they can go to every day (preferably one which gives them some fulfilment) which pays enough for them to provide for their families. I happen to think that in an ideal world that would be a basic human right.

I quite accept that Maggie had her faults, and that perhaps concentrating on getting those who could do, to do, and so hasten the end of the abysmal economic situation this country inherited from the previous Labour government, to the neglect of other areas of reform, was one of them. If she hadn't become so intransigent and had been given a much longer period to enable her plans to work their way right through the economic and social 'divide' I'm certain we be seeing massive differences to this country now. Such reforms can't be hurried and need at least a generation of political stability to start to show their results, and today's adversarial political system is not geared up to do that.

But you're right in that not everyone wants to be a millionaire, but what everyone deserves is the freedom to try to be able to be one if they so choose, and a socialist government and dependency culture which tries to level people and removes drive and determination will never achieve that.

The fact you paid for their secondary education is (or at least should be) irrelevant, I'm pretty sure seeing as both you and your first wife were well educated and had careers they would have taken that example and translated it into their own lives - just as you took the encouragement from your parents and as a result made the most of the opportunities given by a grammar school education and a free University one.

I can't disagree with you there. Both our parents instilled the value of self-reliance and hard work on us, and we in turn passed it on to our children, and all of us have tried to do our best to succeed in our respective fields of endeavour. That should be the way that every single parent should be with their children; remove most of the safety net that encourages the lazy and the feckless and the can't be bothered and it might start to have a positive impact on our society.

millions? I very much doubt that - that sounds very much like a Daily Mail estimation to me (must be true then).

I don't have the figures to hand, but if the huge number of people who voluntarily withdrew incapacity benefit claims when the government rightly started to introduce mandatory medical checks (something approaching 50% I seem to recall) is anything to go by, there are still huge numbers of people out their claiming benefit who know that they're not really entitled to it, but milk the system anyway.

Now here we can actually agree to some extent - education is the key! And until University fees are abolished, and education is provided to make children feel good about their non academic abilities if that is where they shine, there will be a huge block to those from poorer families utilising what opportunities there are.

Yes, I think I've said before that education should be the number one priority of any government. But part of that education should be encouraging the right social attitudes and developing self-reliance and competitiveness in our kids, those very things that the welfare state seeks to take away.

Fairer tax hey? Like stopping you hide most of yours off shore? But I will accept (nay encourage) the idea that a working society is a happier one!

That's a bit below the belt! You know full well that my financial arrangements are 100% within the law, but since you brought it up, tell me; what legal or moral right do you think a government has to tax money which is not owned by an entity registered in this country, is not held in this country, which is not managed from this country and which is not invested in this country?

But to me a fairer tax system is one which has a threshold high enough to remove the need for all 'working benefits', ensuring that those on or below average income keep virtually all the rewards of their work, and is low enough at the top end so as not to act as any disincentive for people to earn as much as they can without having to find loopholes to avoid paying tax. All that can only be achieved by a lean and efficient government and civil service, and that will never be found to the left of centre!

[Opinionated]

I can't deny that's a considerable factor, and it can be a bit of a vicious circle with 'poor' parents producing 'poor' children, who in turn produce further 'poor' children......

So how to break the cycle?

However that still doesn't change the potential in all of us, which more than anything is what we use to achieve our goals.

Yes - but you have to believe you've got potential in the first place. We are now into, what, the fourth generation of children born into an atmosphere of hopelessness caused by their great grandparents being left out of Maggie's marvellous revolution? For them it must feel hopeless (and really not wishing to steal sound bites from Obama) I don't see how pulling the financial rug from under people will provide hope, or in fact anything other than panic and resentment, we'd see far more crime.

Look in any list of the top earners and performers in any society, and a significant number of them came from far less than ideal social or educational backgrounds. What I would say though, and changing the tack somewhat, is that the socialist 'everyone is equal' philosophy is perhaps the worst way to change that, making people believe that the state will provide and that if they fall by the wayside there'll be something there to support them. For many, those who don't have as much drive and determination as others, it takes away a significant amount of the need to succeed, for themselves if for no-one else; to quote Jon Huntsman, one of America's self-made billionaires, "Through adversity, we come face to face with who we really are and what really counts."

Yes but they are a rare breed and before the welfare state they were an even rarer thing.

I quite accept that Maggie had her faults, and that perhaps concentrating on getting those who could do, to do, and so hasten the end of the abysmal economic situation this country inherited from the previous Labour government, to the neglect of other areas of reform, was one of them. If she hadn't become so intransigent and had been given a much longer period to enable her plans to work their way right through the economic and social 'divide' I'm certain we be seeing massive differences to this country now. Such reforms can't be hurried and need at least a generation of political stability to start to show their results, and today's adversarial political system is not geared up to do that.

I feel violently ill at that thought! That long in power is not good for democracy and not good for the country (no matter left or right leaning), she didn't care about the people of Britain she had her vision and considered ordinary people got in her way. Say what you like about NuLab (and I frequently do) the number of people committing suicide under their watch for financial reasons is not as high now as it was at the height of negative equity and unemployment at the end of her run.

I can't disagree with you there. Both our parents instilled the value of self-reliance and hard work on us, and we in turn passed it on to our children, and all of us have tried to do our best to succeed in our respective fields of endeavour. That should be the way that every single parent should be with their children; remove most of the safety net that encourages the lazy and the feckless and the can't be bothered and it might start to have a positive impact on our society.

Why do you think that cutting them off is suddenly going to make those who are "lazy and feckless" making a positive contribution, would it not seem more likely they would just resort to crime? Then what of the children who are getting precious little by way of decent example as it is?

I don't have the figures to hand, but if the huge number of people who voluntarily withdrew incapacity benefit claims when the government rightly started to introduce mandatory medical checks (something approaching 50% I seem to recall) is anything to go by, there are still huge numbers of people out their claiming benefit who know that they're not really entitled to it, but milk the system anyway.

I can tell you that getting everything one is entitled to is no easy task, endless forms and interviews. I really fail to see how that many people could be committing fraud.

Yes, I think I've said before that education should be the number one priority of any government. But part of that education should be encouraging the right social attitudes and developing self-reliance and competitiveness in our kids, those very things that the welfare state seeks to take away.

That sounds like teaching ideology to me, I'd far rather that was balanced with encouragement to be kind and charitable and feel a responsibility to your fellow man. Ultimately though education should be about expanding the horizons and introducing experiences children otherwise wouldn't be able to have so ultimately they can make up their own mind about what contribution they want to make.

That's a bit below the belt!

Mmmmm, but you're such an easy target

You know full well that my financial arrangements are 100% within the law, but since you brought it up, tell me; what legal or moral right do you think a government has to tax money which is not owned by an entity registered in this country, is not held in this country, which is not managed from this country and which is not invested in this country?

Yes I know it's legal and yes I think you should be able to keep it, but how much money does any one person need? Personal moral stance, and without judgement on your personal situation, because you live here and you are lucky to be one of the 'haves' - part of your social contract should be to help where you can the 'have nots'. But we're going to have to agree to disagree there (again).

But to me a fairer tax system is one which has a threshold high enough to remove the need for all 'working benefits', ensuring that those on or below average income keep virtually all the rewards of their work,

I agree with that part certainly, beyond NI of course, which is important so that certain public services remain in the hands of the people.

and is low enough at the top end so as not to act as any disincentive for people to earn as much as they can without having to find loopholes to avoid paying tax. All that can only be achieved by a lean and efficient government and civil service, and that will never be found to the left of centre!

So you don't feel the need to put something back in payment for your good fortune? Wouldn't that cause a huge deficit and create more social problems?

[Midas]

So how to break the cycle?

Far better education, the instilling of pride and competitiveness in our kids and a reduction of the dependence on benefits and the something for nothing culture. For a start.

Yes - but you have to believe you've got potential in the first place. We are now into, what, the fourth generation of children born into an atmosphere of hopelessness caused by their great grandparents being left out of Maggie's marvellous revolution? For them it must feel hopeless (and really not wishing to steal sound bites from Obama) I don't see how pulling the financial rug from under people will provide hope, or in fact anything other than panic and resentment, we'd see far more crime.

Sorry, I just can't buy that. Maggie did a huge amount for this country and gave the average working person the opportunity to make something of their lives, lifting the wealth of the whole population at the same time (OK, I accept the gap between rich and poor widened, but poverty became much more a perceived problem than an actual one). To keep using that as an excuse for people today is little more than a cop-out, a false justification for not having to blame nearly fifteen years of subsequent socialism. But I didn't say "pull the rug from under people", I said "...reforms can't be hurried and need at least a generation of political stability to start to show their results".

Yes but they are a rare breed and before the welfare state they were an even rarer thing.

I'd deny that, the welfare state simply disincentivises many people with more marginal drive and ambition who might otherwise make something of their lives if they had to get out and earn a living. But you can't go comparing today with what we had over 60 years ago in totally different times.

Why do you think that cutting them off is suddenly going to make those who are "lazy and feckless" making a positive contribution, would it not seem more likely they would just resort to crime? Then what of the children who are getting precious little by way of decent example as it is?

See what I said above - "...reforms can't be hurried and need at least a generation of political stability to start to show their results". But the culture of dependency and something for nothing has to be broken if people, and the country, are to achieve anything.

I can tell you that getting everything one is entitled to is no easy task, endless forms and interviews. I really fail to see how that many people could be committing fraud.

The statistics speak for themselves. My first ex-wife, now a quite senior civil servant, has spent several decades working in various government departments dealing with benefit fraud of different types and to loosely quote her, "it's become endemic in our society and has increased dramatically over the last decade or so, far more than released figures would indicate."

That sounds like teaching ideology to me, I'd far rather that was balanced with encouragement to be kind and charitable and feel a responsibility to your fellow man. Ultimately though education should be about expanding the horizons and introducing experiences children otherwise wouldn't be able to have so ultimately they can make up their own mind about what contribution they want to make.

You seriously think it's ideology to teach kids to be competitive and self-reliant??? I never said anything about not teaching humanity and social responsibility to go along side it though.

Yes I know it's legal and yes I think you should be able to keep it, but how much money does any one person need? Personal moral stance, and without judgement on your personal situation, because you live here and you are lucky to be one of the 'haves' - part of your social contract should be to help where you can the 'have nots'. But we're going to have to agree to disagree there (again).

Pure personal wealth is hardly the point; every penny that's earned helps create employment which in turn increases revenues and cash flow, and every penny spent into the economy does exactly the same. We certainly are going to disagree on a 'social contract'! Whilst there are indeed many people who are in the unfortunate position of temporarily having to claim benefits, which is where a basic welfare system comes in, and which as you know is something I support, this should be temporary and people should be given every encouragement to get out and work rather than sit back and rely on long term unemployment benefits, housing benefits, council tax benefits... goodness knows how many other types there are, until something they actually feel like doing comes along.

So you don't feel the need to put something back in payment for your good fortune? Wouldn't that cause a huge deficit and create more social problems?

My "good fortune" has, in general, been despite the best efforts of government and society rather than because of it. Over the years I've paid more than what should be a 'fair share'; if people in general keep choosing to ignore the realities of increasing inefficiency and wastefulness and don't demand a more realistic approach to the whole system of government, especially the tax and welfare systems, you'll simply see more and more of the people who you seem to think should keep paying out for the have-nots opting out and leaving the country, taking their money and often the jobs it creates, with them.

[Opinionated]

Far better education, the instilling of pride and competitiveness in our kids and a reduction of the dependence on benefits and the something for nothing culture. For a start.

Damn you and your somewhat reasonable conservatism (or should that be damn my weird yet predominantly middle class upbringing). I agree, with the proviso that those who are not as capable receive a high level of praise and encouragement to be the best they can despite their own limits.

Sorry, I just can't buy that. Maggie did a huge amount for this country and gave the average working person the opportunity to make something of their lives, lifting the wealth of the whole population at the same time (OK, I accept the gap between rich and poor widened, but poverty became much more a perceived problem than an actual one).

well sure poverty is relative and thanks to the welfare state's safety net no-one regardless of status or income need starve or go without healthcare (unlike in Africa etc.). Could you define the "average working person" for me? It seemed to me at the time, and still does even in retrospect, that the average working person was exactly who she targeted to take the brunt of her social revolution as she set about dismantling our industrial base (in what seems little more than a vindictive attack on the unions); I am not saying that some dismantling wasn't necessary or that much of it hadn't become unproductive however the emphasis on bulldozing away with it without a serious plan for retraining and perhaps the odd national project to create employment in strategic areas was extremely cruel.
Her legacy includes the selling off of council houses which has contributed to the housing shortage and the rocketing prices of the past 20 years. Selling off public services, leading to a dangerous and bankrupt railway, dirty hospitals and unhealthy school meals. Selling off BT, which created a private monopoly, still largely intact. The great shareholding, home owning age was a mirage.She encouraged the idea of social mobility to such an extent that it has contributed to the break down of families and in turn caused many many social problems, then again there's no such thing as society is there?
She threw the poor in this country to the wolves, unleashed an era of greed epitomised by former ministers ending up on the boards of utilities they helped privatise, broke records for unemployment, doubled VAT, destroyed the coal-mining towns and brought in the poll tax. And managed to do it all whilst sitting down to tea with despots!

To keep using that as an excuse for people today is little more than a cop-out, a false justification for not having to blame nearly fifteen years of subsequent socialism. But I didn't say "pull the rug from under people", I said "...reforms can't be hurried and need at least a generation of political stability to start to show their results".

It is not socialism we have seen with new Labour, it is nothing more than an attempt to continue with Thatcher's ideals whilst at most trying to bring a little bit of conscience into it! I'd agree we need a new consensus in the country and probably one that meets the hard line we both take in this debate somewhere in the middle.

I'd deny that, the welfare state simply disincentivises many people with more marginal drive and ambition who might otherwise make something of their lives if they had to get out and earn a living. But you can't go comparing today with what we had over 60 years ago in totally different times.

OK personal argument time, for one reason or another I currently find myself one of those reviled single Mothers the state is keeping, along with my child. Now this is not a situation I am happy with and it is one I am determined will end, but I can tell you I am extremely grateful for every penny in tax you have paid, that both my Grandfathers paid till the day they died and my family continues to pay. That is how I wish you could see it a bit more, "I am lucky enough to be self sufficient therefore I am potentially providing a temporary safety net if not for myself then for a friend or relation should they need it". I fully intend in the future to pay it all back by providing the safety net for someone else once I am able to move into the world of work.
That is how it should work of course and I think we agree (as long as we don't get into the health care bit) that it should always be that way, it is also what the architects of the welfare state had in mind. However, things are far more complicated these days, there are precious few jobs for life and it will require major investment in retraining, maybe even psychological help, if we are to encourage that attitude to become more widespread.

See what I said above - "...reforms can't be hurried and need at least a generation of political stability to start to show their results". But the culture of dependency and something for nothing has to be broken if people, and the country, are to achieve anything.
The statistics speak for themselves. My first ex-wife, now a quite senior civil servant, has spent several decades working in various government departments dealing with benefit fraud of different types and to loosely quote her, "it's become endemic in our society and has increased dramatically over the last decade or so, far more than released figures would indicate."

OK I agree, but it's going to be very expensive to do it with a conscience and that is why it hasn't been done, far easier just to keep dolling out money and forgetting we have fundamentally failed a whole section of society.

You seriously think it's ideology to teach kids to be competitive and self-reliant??? I never said anything about not teaching humanity and social responsibility to go along side it though.

I think it's borderline if it teaches them they should be winners at any cost. Although that whole sports day thing does annoy me, I think there are many important lessons to be learnt from losing as well as winning and the whole "winning with grace" thing was very much lost in the eighties (who was doing her social revolution then I wonder...).

Pure personal wealth is hardly the point; every penny that's earned helps create employment which in turn increases revenues and cash flow, and every penny spent into the economy does exactly the same.

OK but in a caring society (and I believe equality is actually about levelling the playing field rather than pure redistribution at the end) it is going to cost more than just what can be generated by business taxes.

We certainly are going to disagree on a 'social contract'!

Even though you accept that you (would) benefit personally from a well educated (to their potential) society, from the men who collect the rubbish being happy to walk the seven steps extra to get the recycling bin off your drive, to the specialist you see about your tennis elbow at the Bupa clinic? OK taking the topic of spending away from the specific benefit discussion, but it's all part of it; in basic terms tax buys your place in society.

Whilst there are indeed many people who are in the unfortunate position of temporarily having to claim benefits, which is where a basic welfare system comes in, and which as you know is something I support, this should be temporary and people should be given every encouragement to get out and work rather than sit back and rely on long term unemployment benefits, housing benefits, council tax benefits... goodness knows how many other types there are, until something they actually feel like doing comes along.

I agree (see above).

My "good fortune" has, in general, been despite the best efforts of government and society rather than because of it. Over the years I've paid more than what should be a 'fair share'; if people in general keep choosing to ignore the realities of increasing inefficiency and wastefulness and don't demand a more realistic approach to the whole system of government, especially the tax and welfare systems, you'll simply see more and more of the people who you seem to think should keep paying out for the have-nots opting out and leaving the country, taking their money and often the jobs it creates, with them.

OK this comes down once again to a business brain/ social worker brain clash in attitude. I can see what you mean and why you think it, but I can't help but empathise with those more at the other end of the realities.

[Expounder]

I believe fully in the maxim of everyone according to their ability; it's human nature. Of course there'll always be people on every rung of the ladder, something which socialism seems to ignore in its attempts to make everyone equal, and there'll always be people with more than others, most of them due to their own drive and initiative, having no desire to stay at the bottom of that ladder. It's rarely in an employer's interest to simply hire and fire, but if employees can't be bothered to work hard or show some initiative they're not a great deal of use, and that attitude is down to themselves and to themselves alone, unfortunately encouraged by socialism. Far too many people simply muddle along through life doing as little as they can get away with; why, with that attitude, should they expect others to look after them?

As far as I am aware the word socialism hasn't entered the equation in my posts. This is a red herring, a catch all phrase for Tories when they want to avoid addressing particular awkward issues raised by political opposition. Similar to the reds under the beds in American politics.

It seems you think that the reason that millions [who work for employers] and are made redundant is that they are simply lazy "muddling along doing as little as they can get away with" and are lazy to boot . This is a typical stereotyping of workers by people who don't work for a living, who just invest, and sit on their butts waiting for the money to roll in created by the efforts of the said workers.

The whole point is when capitalism periodically fails [which is does as sure as night follows day] and mass sackings take place. Workers are the innocent victims of flawed system and are forced on to benefits. On the other hand the financiers and the elite who have grown rich through efforts the wealth creators may lose a proportion of their wealth,however, can continue to live their affluent lifestyles and survive until the next the economy begins to grow again.

Of course people at the top depend on people lower down the ladder, but conversely those at the bottom of the ladder, for whatever reason, also depend on those at the top for their continued income.

See my above comment there's the rub,for people made redundant because of a capialist induced recession can't depend on any income other than benefits, but employers, while squeezed, can survive on the proceeds of the wealth created by said employees.

There are very few businesses these days who won't actively encourage talent and ability regardless of where it's found in the organisation; if people choose not to avail themselves of the opportunities to better themselves which are open to everyone, and are content to stay where they are, often bemoaning the fact that "no-one cares about them" (often a euphemism for "can't be bothered myself") at the same time, that's hardly the fault of their employers is it?

There you go again stereotyping and maligning all workers, the majority who are sacked because of the dubious, sometimes criminal activities of industrialists, financiers, and bankers when the system breaks down. You are a member of this last group and don't see a problem with this because the effect on you is minimal. A workers [who are willing to work] after losing their jobs face losing their houses and often their marriages because of the impossible financial pressures forced upon them.
.

I'd dispute your comment of "...a few working class upstarts who climbed the pole, most using unscrupulous means...". Upstarts are they, betraying 'the socialist cause' to make a better life for themselves and their families? I know of many people who've come from perfectly normal working or middle class backgrounds, myself included, who've used their initiative and seized what opportunities they can to better themselves in life and done it by totally ethical means; that's hardly being unscrupulous, that's making the most of what abilities they were born with. You somehow seem to think that the very fact of trying to improve your lot in life makes you a traitor, completely forgetting that a) it's human nature and b) it's those very same people who provide the vast majority of employment and most of the tax revenues and cash flow in the country. Without them we'd all be sunk.

Midas, your cavalier attitude to all workers in general makes you a selfish callous uncaring waster with a warped and disparaging opinion of all people who work for a living. Not once have you recognised the pain being inflicted on ordinary people by this last world financial crisis brought about by greed and criminality of your friends the class you propagate and defend.

To me, capitalism and the markets are not a problem and can operate as far as I'm concerned, but they have to be brought to heel by world wide state intervention to avoid a future financial armageddon the like of which we are witnessing.

Did we learn from history? The 1929 crash and and the 1937 policies which stifled the recovery sending the world economy back into recession seems not. Cameron and Osbourne don't seem to have studied economic history at in their respective public schools. That's why they look like a pair of Hooray Henry chancers.

[Midas]

It seems you think that the reason that millions [who work for employers] and are made redundant is that they are simply lazy "muddling along doing as little as they can get away with" and are lazy to boot . This is a typical stereotyping of workers by people who don't work for a living, who just invest, and sit on their butts waiting for the money to roll in created by the efforts of the said workers.

Up to the end of last year I was Chairman of a company with several hundred employees, and prior to that I ran my own business with approaching a hundred employees for many years, so I am very well versed in what makes a good employee or a bad employee; I don't need to resort to stereotypes, I've seen it with my own eyes often enough. You also seem to ignore the fact that investing is the key to any business, large or small. Where do you think the money to capitalise a business comes from, thin air? If anyone risks their own money, or even money they themselves have borrowed but are liable for, they warrant an extra rate of return to compensate for that risk regardless of whether they actively participate or not.

The whole point is when capitalism periodically fails [which is does as sure as night follows day] and mass sackings take place. Workers are the innocent victims of flawed system and are forced on to benefits. On the other hand the financiers and the elite who have grown rich through efforts the wealth creators may lose a proportion of their wealth,however, can continue to live their affluent lifestyles and survive until the next the economy begins to grow again.

Unlike socialist systems which never fail eh, then when they have, revert to a capitalist system to get them back on their feet? Labour is a commodity like any other and it's up to the individual to either settle for a routine job working for someone else and be paid according to their skill or lack of skill, or to take the risk and better their financial situation either by working for themselves under better and more flexible terms or by setting up their own business and employing others to work for them. In either case, whatever money they accumulate is their reward for that risk and effort, and if times become hard, it's only right they should try to retain of much of it as they can - wouldn't you?

There you go again stereotyping and maligning all workers, the majority who are sacked because of the dubious, sometimes criminal activities of industrialists, financiers, and bankers when the system breaks down. You are a member of this last group and don't see a problem with this because the effect on you is minimal. A workers [who are willing to work] after losing their jobs face losing their houses and often their marriages because of the impossible financial pressures forced upon them.

Where in saying that have I maligned or stereotyped workers? It's plain fact.

Midas, your cavalier attitude to all workers in general makes you a selfish callous uncaring waster with a warped and disparaging opinion of all people who work for a living. Not once have you recognised the pain being inflicted on ordinary people by this last world financial crisis brought about by greed and criminality of your friends the class you propagate and defend.

I resent that gross slur Expounder. I am very well aware that it's been the many people who've worked for me over the last 30 or so years who have been responsible for getting me to where I am today, and I'd pretty much guarantee that if you were to ask any of them whether I had been a good employer or not, you'd be told that I was. Yes, I've made a great deal of money on their backs, but every one of them who showed loyalty or initiative was rewarded accordingly, but there was nothing stopping each and any one of them from doing what I did and seizing an opportunity to better themselves away from the normal 9 to 5 grind. Given that you don't know me or any of my friends, I also resent the fact that you class them as being greedy or as being criminals; I'd have thought better of you than that! All it does is reveal your bitterness at not having achieved anything in your own life.

[Expounder]

Up to the end of last year I was Chairman of a company with several hundred employees, and prior to that I ran my own business with approaching a hundred employees for many years, so I am very well versed in what makes a good employee or a bad employee; I don't need to resort to stereotypes, I've seen it with my own eyes often enough. You also seem to ignore the fact that investing is the key to any business, large or small. Where do you think the money to capitalise a business comes from, thin air? If anyone risks their own money, or even money they themselves have borrowed but are liable for, they warrant an extra rate of return to compensate for that risk regardless of whether they actively participate or not.



Unlike socialist systems which never fail eh, then when they have, revert to a capitalist system to get them back on their feet? Labour is a commodity like any other and it's up to the individual to either settle for a routine job working for someone else and be paid according to their skill or lack of skill, or to take the risk and better their financial situation either by working for themselves under better and more flexible terms or by setting up their own business and employing others to work for them. In either case, whatever money they accumulate is their reward for that risk and effort, and if times become hard, it's only right they should try to retain of much of it as they can - wouldn't you?

You are using the socialist red herring again. I am not comparing a socialist state with a capitalist one, but you insist on doing so You do so to avoid the question of sacked workers who have in many cases have given a lifetimes loyalty to the company or firm that has been forced to sack them because of the breakdown of the economic system. If they remain jobless and on benefits whilst seeking work are they also lazy unmotivated freeloaders?

You quote your own companies as an example of benign capitalism and I am sure the there many benevolent and well meaning bosses in the world. However, their companies are also subject to the vagaries and pit falls of capitalism they too have to sack lifetime loyal employees a point you seem to want to avoid addressing in your effort to defend the ideology of the free market. It seems your answer is for each of them to start their own business and become bosses, a land of Chiefs, and no Indians, get real.

I resent that gross slur Expounder. I am [I]very well aware that it's been the many people who've worked for me over the last 30 or so years who have been responsible for getting me to where I am today, and I'd pretty much guarantee that if you were to ask any of them whether I had been a good employer or not, you'd be told that I was. Yes, I've made a great deal of money on their backs, but every one of them who showed loyalty or initiative was rewarded accordingly, but there was nothing stopping each and any one of them from doing what I did and seizing an opportunity to better themselves away from the normal 9 to 5 grind. Given that you don't know me or any of my friends, I also resent the fact that you class them as being greedy or as being criminals; I'd have thought better of you than that! All it does is reveal your bitterness at not having achieved anything in your own life.

Believe me Midas I'm not bitter, I like millions of others had no business acumen or desire to become an employer, and I accept [which I have done many times on this forum] that capitalism and the markets serve a purpose, but should not be left to run riot in the hands of disreputable bankers and financial dealers [gamblers] who act purely for maximum personal financial gain at any cost.

We are on different sides of the fence in fixed positions so really there is no point of spending any more time and effort restating monotonous arguments. To me your Ideology is the enemy' the Ideology of unfettered greed which drives the engine room of uncivilised free market capitalism.

I would like to congratulate Opinionated on her excellent eloquent post in which really nails you and people like you. You live on a different planet to the vast majority of the population.

[Major Sinic]

The latter part of this thread has developed into a quality debate, with the two main 'protagonists' Midas and Opinionated trading valid point for valid point. Whilst on balance, I find myself identifying and agreeing with Midas' position, if anyone could reinforce even further my belief in social responsibility it would be Opinionated.

[Midas]

The latter part of this thread has developed into a quality debate, with the two main 'protagonists' Midas and Opinionated trading valid point for valid point. Whilst on balance, I find myself identifying and agreeing with Midas' position, if anyone could reinforce even further my belief in social responsibility it would be Opinionated.

I can't really argue with that too much, in theory at least, and the trading points aspect is one reason why I've not pursued the discussion as it simply gets too long and unwieldy, which in turn puts many people off reading it.

What I would say though is that in order for there to be any effective and lasting social responsibility in society, it has to really develop from within society itself once it's economically stable, but for that to happen we need two things to happen. Firstly we need stability in government, and our current system - not just the voting system but the whole structure of government - needs to change in order that we can have long term plans for the country devised and implemented, not just short term plans which are more concerned with party politics and vote catching than what's best for everyone. Secondly we need to move away from socialism and the views that the government will provide and that all people are equal and move to a society and economy where those who are able to perform and lead are given just lightly regulated free reign and those who are less able to do find their own natural place within the hierarchy of society, but are supported where necessary. As I've said before, this alone will take time because you can't just whip the rug from under people's feet, but it has to be done otherwise this country will eventually end up bankrupt, both economically and socially.

Socialism might appeal to those who take a more emotional and 'people oriented' approach to life, but in reality it'll never work for three simple reasons. Firstly socialism assumes that all people are equal whereas in reality they're anything but, on almost every level you care to examine. Secondly a socialist society is one which tried to dominate by the use of external force and coercion, whereas our fundamental human nature is to resist that and maintain our free will and choice. Finally socialism relies on the use of money taken from the (financial) top end of society in order to support its bottom end, yet those very people who are being forced to provide are the very people who are the least likely to accede to the dictates of government, and a point will be reached when we simply run out of money, something we're already dangerously close to doing.

A happy and content society is one where government is light and directed solely to the task of bettering the country as a whole, not to controlling the people within it, and that bettering can only come from and economically stable and acquisitive society which has positive growth, where education and training encourage self-reliance and personal achievement, and where social and financial responsibility comes from within society itself. The socialist approach is just not that, and whilst I have grave doubts that under the present system whether the Tories can do much better - they'll be saddled with so many problems and have far too little time to resolve them - at least their policies of giving people the opportunity to try to better themselves financially and socially by self-reliance are far superior to those of Labour, which are little more than simply keeping people permanently in debt and in serfdom to the state.