http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...uses-to-ban-Margaret-Thatcher-death-song.html Hahahahahahahah!!!!!! Even if the Beeb capitulates and doesn't play it now, the object of the exercise is acheived - ****ing anal Tories getting themselves in a twizz! I'm at the hospital on Wednesday, but God I hope that, in our free and democratic country ( lest we forget), some brave souls will don Munchkin outfits and line the route of the cortege on the way to St Pauls. Now, it'd be ****in' ACE if someone could go out overnight and paint the route yellow - but Plod will be out surveying the route for days and'll probably nick them for 'terrorism' if they did that. Shades of that guy who was arrested during the Olympics for not smiling: if anyone in London dares not wail and cry on Wednesday they'll be spending the day in the cells for 'security' reasons.
Frankie Boyle If N Korea lob a nuke at Thatcher's funeral they should get just about every **** in Britain
1/10 for originality. Theoretically Money can only be produced as a result of Labour. Therefore it is a debatable point as to who the Money actually belongs. If we take that idea a little further then it can be argued that as Capitalism basis its philosophy upon ownership rights and Proudhon has already postulated that property is theft then Capitalism is also theft. Hence who's money - certainly not the capitalist robbers.
Well socialism worked a treat eh Dave? The 70''s was a bundle of joy and made this country great. Labour didn't close more mines than thatcher 270 I think the previous government closed. And socialism clearly works as Russia and china still practice left wing politics. Oh hang on they don't. I'm not suggesting capitalism is perfect but to intimate socialism is better is clearly misguided. The only good thing socialism gave us is the NHS. That really is it.
That depends on your definition of socialism/socialists. I'd argue socialism/socialist principles gave each and every one of us the vote, freedom from slavery, got rid of workhouses and improved working conditions for every one of us, Dave and Saints pension etc etc. Having socialist principles doesn't mean you work hard for no reward, it means ALL those who work hard get a fair share. Take a man like William Hesketh Lever for instance. A man who could be described as a capitalist AND a socialist. A man who earned a lot of money and grew his company into what is still a global brand a hundred years later and yet had the principles to treat his workers well. He also had the principles to campaign tirelessly in parliament for the introduction of the state pension. Next time you see some old duffer moaning about loony lefties steal his pension and see how he copes (only joking Thought Police). Just for the record you shouldn't confuse the communist states of Russia and China as truly socialialist states. They were just dictatorships under a certain banner. Fair to say Stalin wasn't really interested in the welfare of all eh
But the true principles of communism was extreme socialism. Making everyone equal an all that. I'm not suggesting that pensions and social welfare are bad things. What I am suggesting is that thatcher did what needed to be done. I like the fact that thatcher made our country an easier place to do business as it meant anyone with hopes and aspirations for themselves were able to make something of themselves . . Our country under socialism had bred a feeling of no responsibility for themselves. Too many people expected the government to sort their problems out. Rather than take responsibility for it themselves. I do not believe she tuned manufacturing or mining. Mining was already on its way out as proven by labour closing double the number of mines. As to manufacturing all she did was remove the red tape, made it easier for companies to trade but unfortunately that new t these very companies were exposed to market forces and unfortunately other countries were able to do it better and more economically. Something we all benefit from. I just think people focus too much on what they perceive to be bad when intact it was a self perpetuating situation a d was unavoidable. Or should tax payers money been continually used to prop up business for the sake of a few thousand jobs?? I assume mos people hate the fact we have propped up banks? At least the cover men t has had most of it back..
Had most of it back? You're joking right? We don't all benefit though do we Sweats that's the whole point. Capitalist economies mean the top 1% benefit constantly and the rest can go **** themselves (ourselves) when times are hard. Thatcher may well have made it easier to do business in places like Londons financial district but you try running a business where I grew up when 40% of your prospective customers had no work or regular income to spend on anything. There is one massive problem with the greed and self serving ethos of modern capitalism and I'll butcher a quote from Gandhi to try and explain it: "The world has plenty enough resources to sustain every mans need but not enough to sustain every mans greed".
this made me chuckle; THE UK TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: - The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving). The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving). The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving). The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving). The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving). And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10″ “Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me” “That’s true” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor”. The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important –they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill. And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier." David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics
I have so many good memories of the 70's and whilst there were some aspects of life then that could have been improved it was nowhere near as bad as the media try and make out. So you'll probably point to the Winter of Discontent as an indicator of the social and economic condition of the nation. Well go back over the previous 20 years and you'll see an almost unbroken chain of piss-poor management, lack of investment and the development of tax-havens for the rich. It's no wonder that we ended up in a position where the unions tried to protect their members wages during continuous rampant inflation that had its birth during the "You've never had it so good" Tory policies of the 60's.
All well and good...until you take into account the pub across the road where rich man decides that he doesn't like smelly poor people so he buys the pub, banishes poor people to the gutter and invents his own version of said tax system where in reality he actually pays **** all whilst telling the world if they don't like it he'll just shut the pub and bugger off elsewhere.
Capitalists claim that the philosophy itself sponsors competition and that the very competition promotes choice and invention and low prices. Well how can the capitalists answer the charge that firms move towards monopoly and oligopoly that have exactly the opposite outcomes?
