Reply to: Brown's speech

[DodgyAgent]

Oi Dodgy, get back on that bloody phone!

I'm on, I'm on, I'm on

some managers these days are so demanding

[HarryPearce]

rich people are strange individuals who crave power and attention that wealth gives them, which is fine just let them get on with it, leave them alone and do not try and kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

They also do not commit crimes, behave in an anti social manner or do anything else objectionable (though a lot of people hate them just because they are rich)

The problem that I seee is that money is now too important in our lives. In order for us to live in peace, for our kids to have a good education, to travel to work, go on holiday we are too dependent upon making money

The blame for the ills of society lies with the govt and the socialists and their self serving vested interests being pandered to. Show me a monopoly and I will show you the cause of problems. Instead of blaming the problems of society on the true culprits (those who so shoddily and scandalously waste our tax), we choose as always to blame those who create the wealth for not giving us more.

DA,

Much true in what you say, but I think the rich are as prone to committing crime as the rest of us, and in indeed in many cases more so eg the sudden rise of wealth in previously communist society. Above all what you say about the role that money plays in life today is too true, but remember it is the love of money that is the root of all evil not money per se.

As for blame I remember the supposeldy shortest letter ever written to the Times on a subject of what is wrong with the world. It was from George Bernard Shaw and ran

Sir,

I am yours sincerely
George Bernard Shaw

[DBA_bloke]

The good that the rich do in society is that they create and sustain the wealth that society needs to pay for education, health etc etc. These people are ...

Who are you? And what have you done to Dodgy?

[Churchill]

Oi Dodgy, get back on that bloody phone!

[DodgyAgent]

The Rich

DA,

Must ask therefore why do the uber-rich fail to do good in society in proportion to their wealth.

Relatively little is accomplished by wealth which survives death. Indeed, it would seem to have an effect in inverse proportion. Think of scientists such a Flemming, Curie, Einstein, or politicans such as Shaftesbury, John Newton, or those who in the Armed Servies paid the ultimate sacrifce.

Very few of these, even with a Nobel Prize under their belt, were wealthy though several were comfortable. Wealth is only one gift that life can bestow but not not the greatest and not even in the top three I suspect.

The individual acts in his or her own short term interest, society is ranged against such to prefer the long term. The two hold each together in their contradiction with neither outdoing the other. An interesting evolutionary mechanism, akin to altruism. The reason why so many people hate margaret Thatcher is that she was the one who freed our markets from the clutches of socialism, trade unions and govt interference, and in so doing enabled so many people to become rich

Nick

The good that the rich do in society is that they create and sustain the wealth that society needs to pay for education, health etc etc. These people are not great people, they are simply good at making money just as you are good at writing computer programs or I am good at conning contractors out of their hard earned cash .

rich people are strange individuals who crave power and attention that wealth gives them, which is fine just let them get on with it, leave them alone and do not try and kill the goose that lays the golden egg. You, me the cleaner or anyone else is as likely to make other inventions or do other things that do good in society. (I believe that we are all driven by self interest, some of it is manifested by people who are overtly helping the less fortunate as much as those who are greedy and ruthless).

It is interesting how the rich are so blamed for so many ills of society when their positive contributions so outweigh their negatives. many of them are now setting up charities of their own and contributing more than the average Joe in the street to helping the lesser off in society. They also do not commit crimes, behave in an anti social manner or do anything else objectionable (though a lot of people hate them just because they are rich)

The problem that I seee is that money is now too important in our lives. In order for us to live in peace, for our kids to have a good education, to travel to work, go on holiday we are too dependent upon making money (private health, education, living in a crime free area-all these now cost money).

The blame for the ills of society lies with the govt and the socialists and their self serving vested interests being pandered to. Show me a monopoly and I will show you the cause of problems. Instead of blaming the problems of society on the true culprits (those who so shoddily and scandalously waste our tax), we choose as always to blame those who create the wealth for not giving us more.

[DBA_bloke]

You are quite right, a private monopoly is as bad as a public monopoly.

Dodgy: That made perfect sense! I must be ill or something!

[HarryPearce]

The left can sneer all they like at the rich city bankers, the huge private companies and the wealthy entrepreneurs, but it is not these people who are committing crimes, letting in criminals to the UK or delivering shockingly appalling public services. In fact on the contrary it is these people and institutions given their freedoms who have created the huge amounts of wealth that has been so squandered by the liberal left on attempts to undermine and destroy the good things about this country.

DA,

Must ask therefore why do the uber-rich fail to do good in society in proportion to their wealth.

Relatively little is accomplished by wealth which survives death. Indeed, it would seem to have an effect in inverse proportion. Think of scientists such a Flemming, Curie, Einstein, or politicans such as Shaftesbury, John Newton, or those who in the Armed Servies paid the ultimate sacrifce.

Very few of these, even with a Nobel Prize under their belt, were wealthy though several were comfortable. Wealth is only one gift that life can bestow but not not the greatest and not even in the top three I suspect.

The individual acts in his or her own short term interest, society is ranged against such to prefer the long term. The two hold each together in their contradiction with neither outdoing the other. An interesting evolutionary mechanism, akin to altruism.

Nick

[Troll]

Oh dear, and 10 new eco-towns. Ecologically efficient like fifty 15-storey blocks of flats?

Whatever these towns will be like, I bet he doesn't have one built in his constituency.

Do you think Building Developers are Labour donors by chance?

[wendigo100]

Oh dear, and 10 new eco-towns. Ecologically efficient like fifty 15-storey blocks of flats?

Whatever these towns will be like, I bet he doesn't have one built in his constituency.

[vetran]

Oh and tax the MGB's (anyone with a salary greater than £25K) to pay for it plus subsidise British and now Polish baby factories.

Strange how this new Broom is sweeping through our pockets with the same efficiency and selling our assets with the usual incompetence. Embassy anyone?

[wendigo100]

Gordon Brown is promising to waste even more money in a vain attempt to put right what his government has fecked up over the past ten years.

There. That just about sums it up.

[DodgyAgent]

So... is this spin ... ?

It is up there (or down depending on whether you are an aussie or a pom) with Shane Warne

[Troll]

So... is this spin ... ?

Gordon Brown has promised to double the number of "eco-towns" to be built across the UK from five to 10.

The prime minister told the Labour conference in Bournemouth that a positive response to the project had encouraged him to expand it.

This showed "imagination", he said, adding that eco-towns would help the government meet housebuilding targets.

In May, Mr Brown promised communities of up to 100,000 low-carbon and carbon-neutral homes would be built.

'Every region'

Mr Brown told the Labour conference: "For the first time in nearly half a century we will show the imagination to build new towns - eco-towns with low and zero-carbon homes.

"And today, because of the responses we have received, we are announcing that instead of just five new eco-towns we will now aim for ten - building thousands of new homes in every region of the country."

[xoggoth]

The merit of "Me first" is that it is part of what is natural and instinctive and what is natural and instinctive works.

It is not the whole of it and human society also has a natural empathy that impels to us to care for those less fortunate who we feel to be deserving. Personally, I have no problem with sharing some of the wealth I have with those I feel are deserving, if a street cleaner will only put in the effort I do, why should he not have decent healthcare? it is not his fault that he does not have the IQ to get an IT contract. (Even the crap sort that I get, rant!)

The problem with the welfare state is that it disassociates effort from reward and the leftist rights culture completely disassociates rights from duties and obligations.

Yes, I am perfectly aware that that is simplistic, that we are all the products of what made us. Perhaps a lazy or criminal type is not necessarily any more to blame for what he is than someone who is disabled, it is simply a disability of the personality, something from the liberal left I would also not agree with.

But maybe in society, if we are to evolve and not go backwards under a baggage of sentiment, we have to look at what is practical and what we can afford to do. In any village there is only room for so many idiots.

[DodgyAgent]

So, on the point I made about Compulsory Competitive Tendering of cleaning services in the NHS, either:

You don't think it was Thatcher's fault.

or

You think it was a good thing.

or

You don't know or care.


On the wider points, I think most of my points where I've mentioned Thatcher have been about the decline in society, particularly the 'me first' culture we now have and people not caring about others anymore. Your point about reminding people who have prospered from Thatcher's reforms is well made and I think demonstrates my position. I may well be significantly better off, but I'm not the only person who counts.

And as for getting 'well beaten', it's not a 'right or wrong' debate. You can't prove Thatcher was good or bad, it's a matter of opinion.

PS - have you voted for me yet as sexiest babe? You love it really.

The decline in society is nothing to do with a "me me" mentality. The left have used this argument because they do nott like the concept of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Property ownership, freedom from Unions gave many people the right to take control of their own lives. The leftie middle classes did not like it because they were stripped of a "poor" or "working class" element of society who they could feel sorry for. They also snobbishly beilieved that the poor and working classes of Britain would not know how to handle their freedoms.

No the decline in society is thanks to the fightback from the left who still control all the institutions in which decline is epidemic. i.e the welfare state, the poor inefficient schools, the social services the health service. These are the sections of society where decline is rife, the very parts of society that are prevented from the "rights" to individual freedoms and responsibilities.

The left can sneer all they like at the rich city bankers, the huge private companies and the wealthy entrepreneurs, but it is not these people who are committing crimes, letting in criminals to the UK or delivering shockingly appalling public services. In fact on the contrary it is these people and institutions given their freedoms who have created the huge amounts of wealth that has been so squandered by the liberal left on attempts to undermine and destroy the good things about this country.