Message for the current (and any subsequent) Governments

[Scoobos]

when the day comes that you need a social system for something your wealth cannot buy, you will be personally affected and change your opinion.

I think the heart of having "socialist views" but its not black and white DA - is that you care about the people you live alongside...

My worry with the super rich is that to become super rich you have to be quite selfless, there are exceptions, such as philantropists like Bill Gates, but the majority become so driven and single minded wealth generators that theres simply not enough to go around.

Lets say, in your view that everything is private, and everyone reaches this mythical "100% success" - theres not enough money to go around - you'd still have 5% owning everything and telling people like us to spin for it.

Unfortunately, wealth breeds Greed in many cases..

far better for being privately owned as are academies - is a total falsehood. The thing with private schools is they control intake so you dont get a fair demographic. I think this is key and also a reason why people who are born into this situation cannot comprehend the need for socialism or any form of social cohesion.

You only feel like a winner because you are winning from a starting tee much closer to the hole. Although this is a generalisation, a lot of far right people have never had to build weath from zero or negative, like many other members of our country.

No matter how rich or successful you are , there are things money cannot buy - community , self worth , happiness and mental health.

[DodgyAgent]

when the day comes that you need a social system for something your wealth cannot buy, you will be personally affected and change your opinion.

I think the heart of having "socialist views" but its not black and white DA - is that you care about the people you live alongside...

My worry with the super rich is that to become super rich you have to be quite selfless, there are exceptions, such as philantropists like Bill Gates, but the majority become so driven and single minded wealth generators that theres simply not enough to go around.

Lets say, in your view that everything is private, and everyone reaches this mythical "100% success" - theres not enough money to go around - you'd still have 5% owning everything and telling people like us to spin for it.

Unfortunately, wealth breeds Greed in many cases..

far better for being privately owned as are academies - is a total falsehood. The thing with private schools is they control intake so you dont get a fair demographic. I think this is key and also a reason why people who are born into this situation cannot comprehend the need for socialism or any form of social cohesion.

You only feel like a winner because you are winning from a starting tee much closer to the hole. Although this is a generalisation, a lot of far right people have never had to build weath from zero or negative, like many other members of our country.

No matter how rich or successful you are , there are things money cannot buy - community , self worth , happiness and mental health.

Like you I believe that it is most unhealthy that so much is owned by so few but that is another debate. Our envy and dislike of the rich is pathetic. If people are insecure selfish and want to be rich then let them. Forget them appreciate the wealth they create and the jobs they generate and forget them. The taxpayers do their bit what we should be focussing on is what is being done with taxpayers money. One big problem with the rich is that there are not enough of them and they also give huge amounts of their money away to charity.

I am not saying everything should be privatised and driven by a profit motive, I am saying that public services should be so good that people dont need to be rich. That someone earning £25k a year can live in a nice area in a nice house enjoy top quality healthcare and be able to send their kids to fantastic schools.

If we began with kids by building new schools with new sports facilities everywhere reducing class sizes and making all teachers far more accountable. Each school was run under license and parents and guardians could choose whichever school they wanted with vouchers. We usually have a choice of three supermarkets from which to buy our food why not the same with schools?

The knock on effect would be that crime and unemployment would fall, people would become healthier and be aspirational. We wouldnt need to spend so much money on public services (which is why socialists don't like ideas like this) and then we can move on and deal with the issue of too much being owned by too few!

[Old Greg]

Is it so immature of me to demand that our public sector work their nuts off and deliver services of the very highest quality? Does growing up mean that we just give the state a ticket to deliver whatever it wants to deliver?
Do you buy accountancy services and just shrug your shoulders when they get it wrong, charge you a fortune and land you with a higher than necessary tax bill?
If you bother to read carefully what I say you will see that I want EVERY child to be educated to the highest standards that are delivered by the very best private (or state) schools. I believe hugely in social mobility and I beleive that the dead hand of socialism is what holds people back.
It is no coincidence that the top jobs the top sportsmen are from private/grammar schools yet only 7% of people go them.
People who grow up within the dependency sphere of the state have little chance.
You guys are only interested in protecting a system that in terms of what it delivers is in reality totally unacceptable. You blame the rich for essentially not giving more of their money away when the money they do give is so utterly squandered. You sneer at posh public schools as if you want to remove them to ensure that everyone has a sh*t education. I prefer to to turn this the other way round and send every child to a top public or state school.

You say you dont like the system that exists yet you offer no alternative other than to make everyone poor. You call me immature. The quid pro quo of having rich people is letting them become rich otherwise how else would wealth be created? If business and enterprise did not exist then what would everyone do? Fight is probably the answer.

i challenged some young guy selling Socialist worker magazine a few months ago. He came out with all your concerns but when I asked him what people should do with themselves he said that everyone should be building hospitals.
In his world no one would be allowed to be rich or run a business or "exploit" another human being by employing them. What he said was that we should all be building hospitals. to which I replied great. What fun I would go to school then Uni, build a hospital and then die in it. If that's being mature I'll keep my shorts on.

Do you think that my point was that being right wing made you immature?

[DodgyAgent]

Do you think that my point was that being right wing made you immature?

No I assumed that you thought my views made me immature.I am challenging the premise that socialism is virtuous it is not. It is stifling and destructive the best that can be said of it is that it is well meaning.If being mature means that I should not challenge your views then immature I will be.

[Scoobos]

I'm pleased that we've got past the insults bad into debate. I class myself as a democratic liberal by the way not sure what socialist means to you, but when you say you want people on 25k to live in good housing , good healthcare and good schools , you are talking about social.spending. No way can a private sytem provide that at an affordable costs under the current ruleset.

Nowhere in the world does this happen. Correct me if you can.

To achieve that, given that the average house price is 250k , healthcare is soooo expensive, and a small school budget is 1 mil per year with less than 200 kids.

macroeconomics is not as simple as saying leave it to market forces, market forces want PROFIT only , its a myth they care about efficiency or any code of moral responsibility. I fight strongly because dismantling is cheap andgives instant returns, but rebuilding a socialonfrastructure comes at great cost.

[Old Greg]

No I assumed that you thought my views made me immature.

I am resisting slipping back into thinking that right wingers are stupid.

The point I was making is that it's worth engaging constructively with people of different views. To do otherwise demonstrates immaturity.

As it is it's barely worth arguing with you as you set up these grotesque straw men and then take delight in showing how they make people like me essentially bad. It doesn't much bother me what you think of me, but you're missing out on the rich tapestry of life.

[Old Greg]

I'm pleased that we've got past the insults bad into debate. I class myself as a democratic liberal by the way not sure what socialist means to you, but when you say you want people on 25k to live in good housing , good healthcare and good schools , you are talking about social.spending. No way can a private sytem provide that at an affordable costs under the current ruleset.

Nowhere in the world does this happen. Correct me if you can.

To achieve that, given that the average house price is 250k , healthcare is soooo expensive, and a small school budget is 1 mil per year with less than 200 kids.

macroeconomics is not as simple as saying leave it to market forces, market forces want PROFIT only , its a myth they care about efficiency or any code of moral responsibility. I fight strongly because dismantling is cheap andgives instant returns, but rebuilding a socialonfrastructure comes at great cost.

F###ing liberal.

[DodgyAgent]

I am resisting slipping back into thinking that right wingers are stupid.

The point I was making is that it's worth engaging constructively with people of different views. To do otherwise demonstrates immaturity.

As it is it's barely worth arguing with you as you set up these grotesque straw men and then take delight in showing how they make people like me essentially bad. It doesn't much bother me what you think of me, but you're missing out on the rich tapestry of life.

In my view people like you support a system of public works that is self serving and inefficient. People like me take the view that the public sector should deliver services of the highest quality. You seem intent on diverting the question on to something else that bears no relevance to my central point.

And just because you think you care you therefore believe that you have the moral integrity that gives you licence to call people with alternative views stupid

So let me ask you this

Firstly do you think the delivery of public services is of a supremely high standard?
Secondly do you think it should be of an extremely high standard?

You see I think I care a damned site more than you do because unlike you I dont turn a blind eye to the activities of the institutions that are supposed to help the poor.

[EternalOptimist]

I am resisting slipping back into thinking that right wingers are stupid.

The point I was making is that it's worth engaging constructively with people of different views. To do otherwise demonstrates immaturity.

As it is it's barely worth arguing with you as you set up these grotesque straw men and then take delight in showing how they make people like me essentially bad. It doesn't much bother me what you think of me, but you're missing out on the rich tapestry of life.

You are wrong.
I see lots of people who take, take take.
I see lots of people who think there is a bottomless pit of wealth that its their right to draw from
I see lots of people who simply do not make the connection between benefits and other peoples efforts

I think that some of this is what burns the right wingers. it burns

I'm not @rsed personally, I am not particularly political, but I am having to deal with one of the takers right now
and I dont see no rich fckng tapestry. I see vindictive stupidity and entitlement

[DodgyAgent]

I'm pleased that we've got past the insults bad into debate. I class myself as a democratic liberal by the way not sure what socialist means to you, but when you say you want people on 25k to live in good housing , good healthcare and good schools , you are talking about social.spending. No way can a private sytem provide that at an affordable costs under the current ruleset.

Nowhere in the world does this happen. Correct me if you can.

To achieve that, given that the average house price is 250k , healthcare is soooo expensive, and a small school budget is 1 mil per year with less than 200 kids.

macroeconomics is not as simple as saying leave it to market forces, market forces want PROFIT only , its a myth they care about efficiency or any code of moral responsibility. I fight strongly because dismantling is cheap andgives instant returns, but rebuilding a socialonfrastructure comes at great cost.

Read my lips

I HAVE NOT SAID THAT EVERYTHING SHOULD BE PRIVATISED!!!!!!!!!!!!