Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

'I wonder everyday which policies they are going to back down on'.

Must be a real hoot in your household.
2517

"You look pensive dear".

"Yes, I am wondering what policies the coalition are going to back down on. Any chance of a duck".

LOL

Well I hope he keeps his weak end away from the poor duck!

Hil,

You might lend him some of you Viagra.

Lov'a duck cor blimey Fred's on a duck diet or is he ducking a diet and carrying on with his working class diet of a pie & pint and singing along to " Keep the red flag flying high"

I have been told he keep's a picture of Gordon Brown under his pillow and kisses it good night .

Pucker up for Fred

Hi Haystack,

I presume your comment, "I don't think the complaining about the previous government is wearing thin at all", was a reply to lefty Fred.
I fully agree. People appear to forget that Labour were blaming the previous Conservative Government for everything that had gone wrong even after 13 years and as far as the eve of the last election.
Note.....I don't see Fred's posts as he is on my ignore list.

It is especially rich when the Conservative with Ken Clarke as Chancellor, left a very strong economy. It was that economy that made it possible for Labour to spend and spend. When they ran out of money they taxed and spent and then borrowed and spent. Now we are left with their mess.

Maggie's and Ken strong economy was built on a dying infrastructure and social unrest.

The seeds for further social unrest, reduction in equal opportunities, failure of reasonable standards of medical and social care (representative of an advanced society), inequalities in educational opportunities are being resown by this naive inadequate bunch, who form the present tory "government".

(How many of the cabinet made tax avoiding arrangements for the good of the country before the election. Mind we are all in the mess together. The only thing is the mess seems to be getting bigger day by day.)

It will be interesting to watch the political ramifications of Cameron and Cleggs conniving in party realignments.

Fred
Tax avoiding arrangements are perfectly legal and most people would do them if they were in a position to do so. It is just sensible tax planning. Don't you think plenty of Labour supporters do the same?

Maggie had lots of good strategies including the reduction of the power of the unions. Before she arrived, the UK had a terrible reputation for goods produced here. The real unrest was comingfrom the unions and all the strikes prior to Maggie's government due to a succession of weak Labour governments.

The only social unrest was the problems over the Community charge and that was largely whipped up by the Labour party and the unions. It is still ther fairest system and I would like it back. Rates being paid according to the number of working age people in the household. Is it fair for a lone widow to pay the same rates as a household of five working adults?

Remember the winter of discontent , when body's were piling up waiting to be buried and the Labour PM on holiday flying back saying crises what crises.

And who remembers the car workers and dockers who seemed to be on strike every week

Hays.

There are degrees to which I wouldn't go in tax avoidance, even if the action was legal. (I am amused by family and friends who suggest that I should avail myself of some loopholes.) As you suggest many who consider themselves socialists, but many are true blues who I enjoy teasing.)

I think a question of morality comes into the issue, or perhaps the degree of personal greed, into avoiding a tax debt to society. and I would think it reasonable to consider how much one receives or benefit from a healthy harmonious society.

(The constant drive to obsessionally accumulate more property or plastic goods does not have much appeal to me.) (But i do collect kitchen gadgets, much to my family's amusement.)


Both morality and greed are difficult to define. For e.g, look at what some of the Israelis are doing to the Arabs etc. in Gaza and West Bank etc.. The Israelis will argue, their actions are legal and legitimate, but many of their actions I feel are barbaric, inhumane and immoral.

--------

I will accept there was a period and lunacy within the unions prior to Maggie and the leadership abuse their power, partially due to unrealistic ideology and dubious expectancies.

But there was also lousy management and abuses of the "workforce" by some employers.

Many companies had good working relationships with their employees
and their businesses prospered.

Part of the industrial disharmony, misdirections and mutual "abuses" occurred under the Heath government and provoked many of the problems which to place later. (Check back and look at some of the abuses in the "building" and "financial" markets at that time. His problems were not only due to the ME oil crisis.)

Under Maggie's inspired regime, there was irrational smashing of the industrial manufacturing base of the country. Reforms were necessary the rate at which it occurred was not to the long term benefit of the country.

Slower less confrontational approach might have been difficult but would have achieved a better outcome for all.

She was also responsible for the over dependence on the city and financial services.

She made greed legitimate and raised it to iconic levels.

(Also, in the opinion of many, she was responsible an unnecessary war and subsequent murder, when she gave the "order" to unnecessarily sink the Belgrano.

Strong government is not harsh shrieking, posturing, military slogans and flying outdated flags.

Compared with the achievements of other post war governments, if judged against the periods they were in, I think history will judge her
partially responsible for many of the social problems we now have.


The only social unrest was the problems over the Community charge and that was largely whipped up by the Labour party and the unions.



To "whip up a crowd" you need a feeling in the "crowd" of being abused. (This feeling and response may be be disproportionate to the insult.) Also, postwar the "masses" were no longer prepared to dock their caps to their "betters", or those who thought they were "their betters". The "masses" were prepared to object to being abused, or used by those who thoughtlessly, thought that because of their privileged positions they had a right to do so. (Often the "rights" were "birth rights" and not based on ability)


To be honest. I thought the reaction to council rates was crazy and I am not sure how it got whipped up into such an issue, but guess it seemed as a standard bearer for other unfairness at the time and being harangue by a demented woman.

Have a stronger weakend.

Haystack

A single person has a 25% discount off their council tax. The poll tax was unmanageable and the rich living in large houses paid the same tax .

What about the poor living in large houses. The advantage of the community tax was that you paid more according to your consumption. More people in the household would pay for more services (it wasn't a poll tax, it was a tax on the number of working age people).

It is interesting to see that China is achieving its growth due to supply side policies. These policies were first used widely by Maggie Thatcher. The coalition is beginnnning to use these policies once again.

I gather from reading the thread that squelched Fred is still posting. I would have thought that he had by now sold all his investments and redistributed all the wealth to the baby factory chavs and foreigners in our midst and so would have no need to visit a website for the hard working who spend their time trying to make money and pay taxes. I paid my CGT bill last week and that was enough to keep several lazy wasters in the style that they have become accustomed but certainly do not deserve.

TIM.

Be careful with your betting, or you and you family might become one of the "lazy wasters" dependent on the social services.

Every bet you have may have increasing losses.

Sorry, you are obviously too bright for that to happen to you.

Ummm

This-is-me,

Well said. Spot on.

Much more brighter then you with your silly childish remark's

Why don't you for once just answer the question .

" I would have thought that he had by now sold all his investments and redistributed all the wealth "

Aid,

when body's were piling up waiting to be buried

Names and their meanings......Fred, "elf or magical counsel; peaceful ruler".

Nothing personal, but I do wish he would just magically elf away (was going to put a different word than away, but don't want to upset MoneyAm).

But seriously. Why is anyone even bothering to reply to him.
I have always enjoyed well thought out, well worded discussions/augments but all Fred's posts are designed to wind people up.