Every time that the constituency boundaries are revised there is always a charge of bias. Whilst I do not doubt that any revisions made by the Tories would favour them, the same would hold true for any revisions that Labour made. It is a peculiarity of our non-uniform constituancies and our first past the post system that even when a party wins by a 'landslide' they can fail to get more votes than the raw total cast nationally for their opponents.
The term "Gerrymandering" (redrawing of district boundaries for political advantage) was coined about 200 years ago , I think. It's probably being going on for as long as so-called "democracy" itself.
How did she win then? votes in certain areas count more? Think that is how Obama won the last one, think ROmney was actually 51% but Obama won the states that mattered.
In every election of maggie's there were a majority of people of adult age living in the country that did NOT vote for Maggies, than those that actually DID. When you look at the raw figures it was a minority of Tory and Maggie sycophants that won her all the elections becuase of good old first past the post system. You remember how disgusting the Tories fought the AV v FPTP referendum against their mates in the Coalition? They knew they were fighting again as if AV or PR replaced FPTP it would be the end of a Tory majority Government for a very long time (would be nearly always a Coalition but Lab would have a much better chance of getting a full majority than the Tories but it wouldn't be easy though).
So does the sweat from a man's brow belong to him, the government, God, or everyone? No one will see it the same.
Sociailism is the best model as it reigns greed and Individualism thru unvetted Capitalism in check. It makes sure that those at the top do not exploit those at the bottom as was the cas in the Victorian era for example. It makes sure that even those at the bottom, who no fault of their own are born into disadvantage and/or poverty, get at least a minimum amount of support and opportunity given to them so as they have some chance of going out there and making something of themselves as compared to those who are born, through no graft of their own, into huge wealth and are given every opportunity in life from the start. A good example of this was the furore about unpaid student Internships in the service sector like Financial Coty careers, where rich kids' parents were buying them an opportunity to get into an illustrious company that would at least guarantee them an opportunity to become rich and successful. Their parents could also afford to keep and subsidise their kids whilst they took part in these unpaid Internships in the City, which kids from poor backgrounds just couldn't afford to do. Its exactly the same with the Bullingdon Boy's Club with Politics. If no Socialism was applied like we have here, then Capitalism and the rich would take the piss even more than they now. Every child deserves to have a full education, receive healthcare, and to not live in poverty without them having only their parents to provide all that when they haven't had the life opportunities to be able to do so. Without Socialism and instead Pure Capitalism, there is no guarantee these things would be provided to those who can't pay for it. If every person was born unto this world with the exact same level of opportunity as each other, financially as well as biologically/psychologically, then we wouldn't need Socialism. The truth of the situation is that each child is born into completely different circumstances and where some are born into wealth and everything they'll ever need, others are born into poverty with little opportunity without Socialism. A lack of Socialism and a 'me, me, me, I'm alright Jack coz I'm rich' society is why things like the Russian Revolution happened and led to the birth of Communism which was far too extreme in the other direction.
What an utter load of tosh! Debt was necessary because after all the privatisation of the countries assets under previous Tory administration there was nothing in the coffers and nothing coming in due to the UK having no industry or export. It raises the question, where did all the cash go from the privatisations?
You do realise the country had gone cap in hand to the IMF in the 70's. the country was a shambles. As to privatisation they also had no choice. The infrastructure of the power network was so badly maintained under our high spending socialist government it would have bankrupted the government to fix it, same with the phone network. So it was sold off so private money could sort out the huge investment needed to drag the country out the dark ages.. My reference on this is a friend who is very high up at Npower. We still pay high prices because of the huge investment required. Government is wasteful always has been always will be. Companies can't be wasteful and inefficient as they go out of business.
Typical short-sighted claptrap! You really should do some homework. Wilson was forced to go to the IMF because of the disastrous economic position left to him by the previous Heath government (Conservative). Interestingly the problem was created by the 'markets' who decided that the £ had been over-valued during the Heath period and mounted a sustained attack upon it rather than any problems with unions. Don't really give a damn who your Npower friend is but he, like you, is taking a very myopic viewpoint. The ONLY reason why our utilities suffered an investment deficit was because governments of both persuasions played politics with their funding levels. This deficit was greatly exacerbated by the Thatcher government as a deliberate policy to create the robbery that she finally implemented. As for companies not being able to be wasteful. I would laugh but then it would be really bad manners to do so when somebody is making such childish statements.
It"s a farcical statement to say we only pay high prices because of investment needed and I suspect you know more about profit making than you're actually letting on. As for the idea that governments are always wasteful and the assertion you make many times that state funding gives us nothing the private sector wouldn't it's completely wrong. Would a man have walked on the moon without state funding? Computers? Would we have the internet without state funding? Silicone chips? GPS? Touch screens for phones? All delivered through state funding (often defence budgets).
Energy companies are making record profits. The idea of competition in the industry is a farce. All these different "suppliers" are just middle men who do nothing but add to the cost, and the public still needs to pay for government regulation (to limit somewhat their natural tendency to price gouge due to the non-existent competition) and infrastructure development (npower wants £330 billion from the government).
Simply put, the private sector has to provide a service and generate profits for its owners or shareholders. If one of those needs to be sacrificed, guess which one it is? This isn't the end of the world if we're talking about luxuries, but for essential services it's just plain wrong.
The private sector will only take upon itself activities that will produce a profit. Hence, left to their own devices, none of our privatised utilities would even contemplate providing a service to those sectors of the market where a profit could not (or not enough profit) made. That is unless the government steps in with a public subsidy.
The ultimate capitalist failure is healthcare. It will never be more profitable to treat people than to leave them suffering or to die. So in the US doctors are paid massive bonuses by insurance companies to come up with reasons to deny treatment. A nationalised system is essential. Even if it is slightly inefficient, the private version requires so much regulation and oversight to counteract the corrupting influence of greed that society doesn't save anything.
