Europeans thank Tory Britain
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
Why still blame Thatcher when we had 13 years of Labour being in charge? Admit it, it's not just Margaret Thatcher and her government to blame for this situation. What did Tony B, Liar do about it?( apart from line his own pockets) Did Gordon Brown even try to do something, anything? No, they did sweet FA about it,, and clowns like you still blame Thatcher.
Perhaps those that do use planes and trains help make your life better? Or perhaps Roger lives in a cave - with Hawkeye.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
So what you're saying is that for 13yrs New Labour just carried on with Thatcher's policies? Nice of them.
No dear, at no time have I said that Labour sold public assets for 13 years. Though they might have done.
However AFAIK neither did they put up taxes to gather enough money to buy them back.
Is that what you want?
Are there some prestigious homes in your area that used to be a mental asylum or hospital?
However AFAIK neither did they put up taxes to gather enough money to buy them back.
Is that what you want?
Are there some prestigious homes in your area that used to be a mental asylum or hospital?
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
As it happens, yes there are. One I used to work in (when newly qualified) is now, one such prestigious housing scheme. (and has been for the last 16 yrs) All that is left of the hospital is the main hospital building, which couldn't be knocked down and is now a complex of studio apartments and flats. Of course it was never a "mental asylum" but was in fact a hospital for the treatment of patients with mental problems. When I started there, there were a lot of patients who's only medical problem (from their past) was the fact that they'd been unmarried and had a baby, or had the misfortune to be born with Downs Syndrome or another birth defect. Some had been there since the late 40's early 50's, but had become institutionalised. Families had all but forgotten them. Of course, when "Care in the Community " kicked in (mid to late 90's) and the hospital closed, many found they couldn't look after themselves in the community and so a whole new industry was built up around these people.
Perhaps many blame Thatcher and her policies for the present state of the NHS, but I still maintain Labour had 13 yrs in power and failed to do anything about anything. (apart from lead us into a war about oil,,, at a higher cost than this country could afford)
D
Doggit
Didn't Gordon sell off our gold assets a the bottom of the gold price; and as Labour are famous for tax and spend policies, I don;t think they failed to raise enough tax to buy back the railways.
Unfortunately, every government sell of the countries assets, simply because they are more accountants than businessmen.
Now I was under the impression that we owned the railways, and just sold the franchise to the highest bidder, wasn't a franchise revoked a few years ago due to mismanagement. If this is the case, then all we need to do, is not put the franchises out to tender next time they're up for renewal. Of course, because politicians aren't businessmen, it's far easier for the various governments to pass the buck of running things properly onto other inept companies. Belboz's assumptions are completely correct, if the government ran the railways, we wouldn't be handing part of the subsidy we give them, to the bosses and shareholders salary, but there is an absolute certainty to the railways being run by the government, and that is that the unions would be on continual strike again, as demonstrated by the southern rail dispute being a political one, with safety being used purely as an excuse.
I know that one
When the govt sold the gold, the price had been languishing and dropping in real value for many years.
In Jan 1980 it was £297/oz
In Jan 2005 it was £226/oz
Having not risen at any point in 25 years above £313, which was a short lived high.
Furthermore, inflation had reduced the value of the pound, so the drop in real value was even worse.
Two easy questions:
Is that what you call a good investment? Would the money not have been better invested in something that would grow and provide benefit to the country?
and if you claim that you knew better...
Why didn't you invest all your money in gold, then? Why aren't you a gold millionaire?
With the benefit of hindsight, I can see as well as you can that it turned out to be a sad choice, for Britain and the other countries which also reduced their gold reserves. But if you tell me that in 2000 you knew what would happen, I don't believe you.
D
Doggit
You've made a good point about the price JD, but the salient points were that all chancellors sell off assets, and Labour always raises taxes. Gold is seen by good investors as a way of protecting your assets, not as a profit maker; it's only the brokers that make a real profit on gold.
And your first question is eminently sensible; assets should be used to make economies grow, not be sold off to balance the books.
And your first question is eminently sensible; assets should be used to make economies grow, not be sold off to balance the books.
"Labour always raises taxes"
I'm sure that's an electioneering slogan by the conversatives.
That doesn't mean it's true.
Sadly the Thatcher sell-offs were not recorded in the accounts as "income," nor were they invested. They were subtracted from the government spending figures to give the impression the country was doing well. So in subsequent years, once the golden eggs had stopped, there was a huge and sudden gap in the income:expenditure balance.
In the sense that Privatisation was a scheme to transfer money from the pockets of the citizens into the accounts of the government, it had the same effect as taxation. The amount of assets in the country did not change. If you had bought, and kept, BT or Railtrack shares, you could well be regretting it now.
I'm sure that's an electioneering slogan by the conversatives.
That doesn't mean it's true.
Sadly the Thatcher sell-offs were not recorded in the accounts as "income," nor were they invested. They were subtracted from the government spending figures to give the impression the country was doing well. So in subsequent years, once the golden eggs had stopped, there was a huge and sudden gap in the income:expenditure balance.
In the sense that Privatisation was a scheme to transfer money from the pockets of the citizens into the accounts of the government, it had the same effect as taxation. The amount of assets in the country did not change. If you had bought, and kept, BT or Railtrack shares, you could well be regretting it now.
Last edited:
D
Doggit
I'm old enough to have gone through a lot of governments, and unfortunately, labour raise the taxes and spend money to make the economy grow, and then conservatives drop them and creates austerity, but neither knows how to run an economy. Labour raise the taxes for the richest, and conservatives lower them for the richest, and it's always the middle income people that take the biggest hit, because although the top earners are paying the most overall tax (and they can well afford to) it's the MIPs that can't afford to take the hit so easily. It would be nice if whoever is appointed as chancellor, has at least a degree in economics, rather than a just a good soundbite manner. I still say Guy Fawkes had the right idea.
Is it evident on here? Apart from a bit of tinkering it looks fairly stable.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IUj_AGJS5WywibuptGr4lZVP9M0QCTvkZQ0Q_Pp9CHw/edit#gid=1
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
