| Loving Burnham's visions and promises 14:55 - Sep 29 with 24445 views | NthQldITFC |
To paraphrase: "I may have to pay a political price, but I'm going to do these things that our country needs."
Cue the usual, fossilised cynicism from both sides of the spectrum, but I have a good feeling about this bloke.
It won't be possible to achieve everything, but I'd rather someone took a political risk and gave it a bloody good go - there's no point pissing around with an eye on five years time, we need some fundamental change based on all of us, first of all, providing a solid, social base, and developing responsibly from there where possible. |  |
| |  |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:35 - Oct 1 with 917 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:11 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
This is what I like about your posts. Informative and balanced. Barber is a good example of why you shouldn’t let lawyers be chancellor…..
We’ll agree on the issues of the justice system.
I’ll go back to the original point which is the blaming of thatcher, 40 years on, is such a thin argument for the state we are in today. |
You appreciate that the justice system issues are the result of years of underfunding by the previous governments? |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:39 - Oct 1 with 887 views | mellowblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:59 - Oct 1 by Ryorry |
“You are kind of missing the point that Thatcherism has little to do with economic issues today”.
I totally disagree with you. The impact of privatisation in driving up prices for consumers whilst reducing services couldn’t be clearer; the impact of homelessness and the housing crisis that she started couldn’t be clearer.
Above all, you are missing the point that her teaching a whole generation that selfishness, greed and entitlement were not only legitimate as a modus operandi for life, but desirable, was a toxic philosophy that has passed on to the next generation, and affects every aspect of society today, from economic policy to health, housing, food supply/security, transport, infrastructure, the state of high streets, pubs closing, social ‘feel’ etc etc.
I accept your point about the withdrawal of free milk though! |
I accept what you say and did agree that policies agreed then resonate and impact now, but we were talking in the narrow context of the state economy rather than social ills derived from policy decisions.
Public housing sounded a noble initiative at the time, to allow people to own their own homes. Though really it was more about seducing the deficit/funding tax cuts. One thing it did achieve, at least where I live is to stop snobbish demonizing of council estates, because in fact they became mixed public/ private housing areas. Relying on private investment to take up the house-building slack was hopeful at best. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:42 - Oct 1 with 880 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:27 - Oct 1 by Mullet |
Absolute nonsense - not only has the effects of 40 years ago shaped today, but the ideological shift, greed, social decay etc are all being compounded by people who think she was right. |
Delivered with the usual balanced consideration.
Greed didn’t exist before Thatcher. That’s why the miners wanted a 30% pay rise. Social decay shown by the living conditions of many of the poor in substandard housing and the like in the 1970s wasn’t an issue either. The industrial decline didn’t begin with thatcher either.
It’s not really a case of defenders v aggressors, it’s more an attempt to look back on history with a more critical eye |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:45 - Oct 1 with 869 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:35 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
You appreciate that the justice system issues are the result of years of underfunding by the previous governments? |
Of course. One of many reasons they were booted out. Issues caused by new labour compounded by Conservative governments | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:52 - Oct 1 with 840 views | Mullet |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:42 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
Delivered with the usual balanced consideration.
Greed didn’t exist before Thatcher. That’s why the miners wanted a 30% pay rise. Social decay shown by the living conditions of many of the poor in substandard housing and the like in the 1970s wasn’t an issue either. The industrial decline didn’t begin with thatcher either.
It’s not really a case of defenders v aggressors, it’s more an attempt to look back on history with a more critical eye |
I appreciate you trying again, but you’re not very good at this. None of that was said you’ve just made it up.
Something you mistakenly got very much on your high horse about I seem to remember. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:53 - Oct 1 with 848 views | Blueschev |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:42 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
Delivered with the usual balanced consideration.
Greed didn’t exist before Thatcher. That’s why the miners wanted a 30% pay rise. Social decay shown by the living conditions of many of the poor in substandard housing and the like in the 1970s wasn’t an issue either. The industrial decline didn’t begin with thatcher either.
It’s not really a case of defenders v aggressors, it’s more an attempt to look back on history with a more critical eye |
It wasn't greed. Inflation was above 20% and miners had seen their relative wages continually fall. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:55 - Oct 1 with 840 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:45 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
Of course. One of many reasons they were booted out. Issues caused by new labour compounded by Conservative governments |
New labour didn't cut justice budgets for 14 years. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:56 - Oct 1 with 838 views | J2BLUE |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:11 - Oct 1 by giant_stow |
"For all the talk of fairness to those who paid in, where is the fairness to the young of today, who are funding state pensions for the retired, yet are unlikely to receive one when they retire, and if it does exist at a much higher age. The longer we maintain the current Ponzi scheme, the longer the young get shafted."
So bang on.
And I type as a turkey voting for Christmas here (no private pension, no prospect of a private pension, aged 52), but this is about fairness to the young who will never have the live the generations above did. |
You're self employed aren't you? It must be a lot harder when you're not automatically enrolled by an employer. It would probably make sense to give the self employed some sort of tax break to help people get started. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:58 - Oct 1 with 831 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:59 - Oct 1 by Ryorry |
“You are kind of missing the point that Thatcherism has little to do with economic issues today”.
I totally disagree with you. The impact of privatisation in driving up prices for consumers whilst reducing services couldn’t be clearer; the impact of homelessness and the housing crisis that she started couldn’t be clearer.
Above all, you are missing the point that her teaching a whole generation that selfishness, greed and entitlement were not only legitimate as a modus operandi for life, but desirable, was a toxic philosophy that has passed on to the next generation, and affects every aspect of society today, from economic policy to health, housing, food supply/security, transport, infrastructure, the state of high streets, pubs closing, social ‘feel’ etc etc.
I accept your point about the withdrawal of free milk though! |
But harsh to blame thatcher, given her government built more council homes than all subsequent governments put together!
Thatcher ~ 500,000
New Labour <10,000
2010-2024 ~8,000
2024-today ~ 2,000
Where is this preaching of selfishness that you refer to? No public records and in fact many speeches to the contrary.
The list of ills you list and the bottom and attributing them all to thatcher is quite extraordinary. She must have been quite the politician. My own personal view of conservatism is that individual autonomy leads to better outcomes on average than blaming the government for all ills. Accepting it’s not perfect of course. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:59 - Oct 1 with 822 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:55 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
New labour didn't cut justice budgets for 14 years. |
No, but they created the demand side of the problem | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:06 - Oct 1 with 784 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:59 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
No, but they created the demand side of the problem |
What a bizarre assertion. There has been decline in crime since the mid 90s peak prior to new labour. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:08 - Oct 1 with 777 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:58 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
But harsh to blame thatcher, given her government built more council homes than all subsequent governments put together!
Thatcher ~ 500,000
New Labour <10,000
2010-2024 ~8,000
2024-today ~ 2,000
Where is this preaching of selfishness that you refer to? No public records and in fact many speeches to the contrary.
The list of ills you list and the bottom and attributing them all to thatcher is quite extraordinary. She must have been quite the politician. My own personal view of conservatism is that individual autonomy leads to better outcomes on average than blaming the government for all ills. Accepting it’s not perfect of course. |
Err. About 1.4 million sold under thatcher. So a net total of - 900000... [Post edited 1 Oct 13:08]
| |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:08 - Oct 1 with 776 views | Radlett_blue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:35 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
You appreciate that the justice system issues are the result of years of underfunding by the previous governments? |
Most of your ills seems to be considered a result of "underfunding". That's possible, so let's have a huge hike in income tax & stop underfunding the NHS, defence, educations, justice, social housing etc etc etc. However, the people won;t vote for that, so our politicians muddle along, without grasping any nettles. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:09 - Oct 1 with 768 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:08 - Oct 1 by Radlett_blue |
Most of your ills seems to be considered a result of "underfunding". That's possible, so let's have a huge hike in income tax & stop underfunding the NHS, defence, educations, justice, social housing etc etc etc. However, the people won;t vote for that, so our politicians muddle along, without grasping any nettles. |
Indeed. Unfortunately demographics have changed the equation. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:11 - Oct 1 with 754 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:52 - Oct 1 by Mullet |
I appreciate you trying again, but you’re not very good at this. None of that was said you’ve just made it up.
Something you mistakenly got very much on your high horse about I seem to remember. |
I’m probably not as good at it as I’d like to be at this and certainly some levels below you.
It’s ironic to accuse someone else of being on a 'high horse' when your original post began by sweeping aside counter-arguments as 'absolute nonsense' and diagnosing decades of macroeconomic history as simple moral failure.
You raised 'greed' and 'social decay' as structural consequences of Thatcherism. Pointing out the actual living conditions, labour demands, and industrial trajectory of the pre-Thatcher era is directly relevant to that claim. If the history doesn't back up the rhetoric, that's a problem with the narrative, not the person pointing it out. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:25 - Oct 1 with 698 views | Ryorry |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:58 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
But harsh to blame thatcher, given her government built more council homes than all subsequent governments put together!
Thatcher ~ 500,000
New Labour <10,000
2010-2024 ~8,000
2024-today ~ 2,000
Where is this preaching of selfishness that you refer to? No public records and in fact many speeches to the contrary.
The list of ills you list and the bottom and attributing them all to thatcher is quite extraordinary. She must have been quite the politician. My own personal view of conservatism is that individual autonomy leads to better outcomes on average than blaming the government for all ills. Accepting it’s not perfect of course. |
"My own personal view"
You've inadvertantly hit the nail exactly on the head (and appear unable, unwilling or both, to understand broader pictures). |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:34 - Oct 1 with 670 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:25 - Oct 1 by Ryorry |
"My own personal view"
You've inadvertantly hit the nail exactly on the head (and appear unable, unwilling or both, to understand broader pictures). |
Are yes, freedom to express personal views. Exactly what Marxists don’t like.
And the confusion of personal autonomy and selfishness as being independent. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:37 - Oct 1 with 656 views | DJR |
Interesting snippet from the Guardian.
Burnham claimed Brexit had led to more immigrants to the UK wanting to settle permanently.
Speaking to GB News, he said:
One thing that I want to convey here is Brexit has changed the nature of immigration to this country because in the past, when we were in the European Union … what we had was a more revolving door form of migration, where people would come here in their younger years. Many people did from Eastern Europe … They’d maybe spend you know a few years here in their mid to late 20s, and then go home and start a family, and that was a very common form of immigration.
Now, immigration is more likely to be a permanent settlement, where people are coming on a visa to work here. And then we saw obviously the Boris wave and the changes that came through in that in that period. So it’s changed the nature of immigration. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:44 - Oct 1 with 629 views | mellowblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:08 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
Err. About 1.4 million sold under thatcher. So a net total of - 900000... [Post edited 1 Oct 13:08]
|
Putting aside the rights or wrongs of "right to buy" what irked me about council house sales was the hugely below market price they were (and for decades more) sold at. Went far further than a nice little discount. Labour made no attempt to reverse that decision when in office, almost as if they agreed with it. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:09 - Oct 1 with 577 views | itfcjoe |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:37 - Oct 1 by DJR |
Interesting snippet from the Guardian.
Burnham claimed Brexit had led to more immigrants to the UK wanting to settle permanently.
Speaking to GB News, he said:
One thing that I want to convey here is Brexit has changed the nature of immigration to this country because in the past, when we were in the European Union … what we had was a more revolving door form of migration, where people would come here in their younger years. Many people did from Eastern Europe … They’d maybe spend you know a few years here in their mid to late 20s, and then go home and start a family, and that was a very common form of immigration.
Now, immigration is more likely to be a permanent settlement, where people are coming on a visa to work here. And then we saw obviously the Boris wave and the changes that came through in that in that period. So it’s changed the nature of immigration. |
The harder you make it to get somewhere, the stickier the immigration will always be - it's common sense |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:09 - Oct 1 with 573 views | giant_stow |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:56 - Oct 1 by J2BLUE |
You're self employed aren't you? It must be a lot harder when you're not automatically enrolled by an employer. It would probably make sense to give the self employed some sort of tax break to help people get started. |
Yeah i am. My problem is low earnings really - I'm a stay at home / work from home dad and a carer to my own dad before that. This has always limited things, so there's not much spare money for pensions.
sorry - woe is me and all that. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:10 - Oct 1 with 570 views | noggin |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:19 - Oct 1 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
The UK produces a fraction of the volumes of Norway, and whilst the UK has blocked new licences and fields, Norway has granted permission for Arctic exploration which is pretty deplorable and puts them up there with Russia in doing so.
And for your information the UK production is taxed at windfall rates of 78pc so the taxpayer DO benefit receiving far more of the profits than shareholders, with none of the enormous Capex that state ownership would require. UK is probably a better model in that regard.
Would also add that Equinor isn’t wholly state owned so there is shareholder benefit for the external /private investment, one of the reasons Norway has more billionaires per head than the UK.
[Post edited 1 Oct 7:48]
|
Oh right, so the British people are benefiting from global warming too. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:28 - Oct 1 with 533 views | Mullet |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:11 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
I’m probably not as good at it as I’d like to be at this and certainly some levels below you.
It’s ironic to accuse someone else of being on a 'high horse' when your original post began by sweeping aside counter-arguments as 'absolute nonsense' and diagnosing decades of macroeconomic history as simple moral failure.
You raised 'greed' and 'social decay' as structural consequences of Thatcherism. Pointing out the actual living conditions, labour demands, and industrial trajectory of the pre-Thatcher era is directly relevant to that claim. If the history doesn't back up the rhetoric, that's a problem with the narrative, not the person pointing it out. |
So what came before is relevant then but not now? How interesting.
Again, your attempt to drag everything into semantics is a typical right wing playbook cop out. You tried it last time and defended some horrible views, you’re doing it now and just looking silly. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 14:41 - Oct 1 with 515 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 13:08 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart |
Err. About 1.4 million sold under thatcher. So a net total of - 900000... [Post edited 1 Oct 13:08]
|
Err indeed. 1.3m people given the opportunity to own their own home. Over 1,00,000 people into social new homes. Net gain in homes of 400k. If only that had kept on going. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
