Metropol

barcode wrote: Why waste money of well Rich people with Child benefit, I bet have of them dont even cash it.

They don't have to - it now goes straight into their bank accounts.
But in the old days, even the richest used to file into the Post Office every week, not a moment later than they had to. Believe me - I was the one on the other side dishing out the money, and I couldn't believe their urgency.

Gavin Scott wrote:

barcode wrote:I dont want anything nationalised industries back either, its just people WANT job back, and well the last time we had full employment was with the nationalised industries.

That's rather specious reasoning.

Read this: http://www.labour-history.org.uk/suppor ... oyment.pdf

It may be specious, but many people do believe in that, Coal mining are were destroyed. you cant blame people for wanting to go back to happy times, Saying that West Germany who also had a Right wing government at the time in 80's Subadise there coal by 3x time as the UK, so did't ours do this.

also I take it were the same boat as keep Scottish Water Nationalised?

And Here is Tommy broadcast

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 636770.stm

barcode wrote:And Here is Tommy broadcast

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 636770.stm

I had to change channels last night when this started. Its absolutely dreadful.

Not really forced propaganda this as I ordered it, but the Liberal Democrats manifesto came today. One policy I noted was that they want to reform the National Lottery by taxing you on gross profits (i.e. your winnings) instead of the ticket.

Hopefully the Labour and Conservative manifestos I ordered come through soon. I did order them last week and all.

The manifestos will hopefully add to my final voting decision.

Gavin Scott wrote:

barcode wrote:And Here is Tommy broadcast

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 636770.stm

I had to change channels last night when this started. Its absolutely dreadful.

Oh my god, it gets even worse as it goes on and he gets redder and redder in the face. The use of comic sans is particular skillful.

I appear to be drowning in Conservative leaflets compared to the other parties. The tory candidate who's replacing the retiring Sir Michael Lord has so far sent me 8 leaflets either direct mail or hand delivered. That has been countered by one each for Labour, Green and the New Party. Both the Green and New Party leaflets arrived at the same time, interesting considering their rather differing views. The New Party leaflet also seems to contain some big errors such as naming the wrong constituency with the candidate quoted as wanting to 'win Ipswich' when the constituency is Central Suffolk.

So far nothing from UKIP or the LibDems.

Although, considering the last result and the local elections it's a pretty safe conservative seat so I'm suprised to have anything other than the tory candidate.

I've only had a single Labour communication so far, while Paul Kenny generally quite agreeable, there is no real mention of new jobs - which is all I am bothered about at the moment. The LD candidate I emailed never got back to me, the Con candidate has told me he will post his to me to make sure it arrives.

Gavin Scott wrote:I don't think the wealthiest should gain tax credits for their children particularly. They could argue of course that they've paid into the system and expect the same benefits as the less well off. But then I don't agree with tory policy that married couples should gain tax breaks simply because they decide to couple up. More than 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce - so what's the point of this?

In both the cases above, I think there should be a fair approach to things.

I agree on both points.

Gavin Scott wrote:Yes chie - FAIR. That's not something to be sneered at, is it? You know what the opposite of "fair" is? Quite why you would sit there and say that the alternative to a fair society is better - well, that just makes my head spin.

There are 7 billion people on this planet Gavin, there are simply too many people for everyone to have a high standard of living. So instead of pushing everyone up to the same level, the only option to make society 'fair' is to pull those who have a high standard of living down. Consequently you end up with a society in which everyone is equally unhappy, as opposed to one in which at least a modest percentage of the species are well off, able to achieve their aspirations, happy and live a long and healthy life.

So yes, I'm against the concept of fairness on that basis.

Imagine you have two children. One of them has a balloon. The other child wants a balloon too, but you can't afford another one. So, in the name of fairness, you pop the balloon. Now neither of them has a balloon and both children are 'equal' again.

Now wouldn't you rather at least one of your children have a balloon than neither of them? That's what I'm getting at here, but on a nationwide / global scale.

But to take the analogy further - you might choose to steal a balloon from someone who has an abundance of balloons, ie. the person who makes them (the wealth creator, if you will). So imagine if everyone did that - the person would simply stop making balloons (creating wealth) because there's no point in making them if other people are just going to take them off you. The result is a society completely destitute of balloons and, again, everyone is equally unhappy.


Well it made sense in my head!

I think there are enough balloons for everyone.

What an odd thing to say.

But there aren't though, are there?

Of course, any logical thinking person would only have one child in the first place if they knew they could only afford one balloon, and that brings us full circle to the root of the whole problem: overpopulation.

Too many people are too preoccupied with their rights at the expense of their obligations.