Are the left wing less tolerant of the views of others?
Discussion
alock said:
crankedup said:
My feeling is that we all know of people who made money from the scheme, and yet now we are short of social housing. Short sighted and selfish policy introduced by Thatcher has contributed to this housing shortage.
If we hadn't sold the houses, under what criteria would you kick the tenants out to free up the houses for 'social' housing' use? 
Don't you go using your hoity-toity fancy intellectual "arithmetic" nonsense in this debate. If you once had ten council houses and five of them are now private rentals, if you hadn't sold them you would now have fifteen houses.
Smollet said:
DoubleByte said:
crankedup said:
Tell me why Thatchers 'Poll Tax' was a good policy and that Government had swathes of the public out on the streets demonstrating. The tax had to be abandoned such was its complete unfairness.
Tell me why it is unfair for people to actually pay their bit?
voyds9 said:
crankedup said:
Perfect example of intolerance! You disagree with me on the issues, as do many others. Its the difference between your politics and mine along with other 'alternative pov'.
Tell me that Thatcher's 'Right to Buy council houses' has turned out well, and why. And then tell those that cannot find a home to live in that is affordable to them.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-52312160.html £50k 5 mins walk from the centre of town. Now if it was a bad idea why didn't Labour repeal it and start a massive rebuild.Tell me that Thatcher's 'Right to Buy council houses' has turned out well, and why. And then tell those that cannot find a home to live in that is affordable to them.
crankedup said:
Tell me why it was a good idea to shut coalmines, discard swathes of families affected by Thatchers policy. And now we import the stuff from China!
You would have thought if they were so profitable then all these UK businessmen would be reopening them.There was significant amounts of money thrown at regenerating these areas but the miners want to bemoan the loss of a living rather than take up nthe chance of a new one.
And Labour closed more pits than the Tories
crankedup said:
Tell me why Thatchers 'Poll Tax' was a good policy and that Government had swathes of the public out on the streets demonstrating. The tax had to be abandoned such was its complete unfairness.
Because you paid for what you used. Are you saying the people who we should be listening to are the ones who destroyed central London and were denounced by the Labour part and Militant Tendency
crankedup said:
Tell me why the Tory part of the last coalition Government thought it a good idea to shut down REMCO, casting aside all those that worked in this business.
Did you mean Remploy. I thought it was wrong to close it. But they may have been an agent in their own demise. One of my customers was a disabled worker for them, his disability was diabetes.crankedup said:
Tell me why Thatcher deregulated the City and look where that led us.
If you mean the recent crash, you know she left office in 1990.Don't forget Gordon Brown said 2 important things regarding this. 1) he had ended boom and bust, 2) no-one could have foreseen the collapse (shortly before he blamed the banks for not seeing it)
crankedup said:
Until I hear balanced arguments to these questions my POV won't be shifting. The Right of Politics can be just as damaging as the Left imo.
Labour did not repeal the 'Right to buy' as it was a popular policy and seen to be helping the working people. Just as short sighted as the Tories, plenty of young peeps now would no doubt be very happy to pay the council rent money for a home.
Yes I did mean REMPLOY, Terrible injustice imo and the Left see it as another example of picking on the least able to defend themselves perhaps.
Thatcher did leave office in 1990 as you mention, her policies, or at least those that I mention were long term policies that have taken decades to unwind with disastrous consequences. I do agree that Labour should have considered repealing the act, but likely it had gone down the road to far. Put another way the cat was out of the bag.
As Turbobloke mentioned the past 50 years of Governments have resulted in a complete and utter codge-up imo with disastrous decisions made seemingly with consideration of the long term outcome, although that is easy for me to say with hindsight.
As for the Poll Tax, it would be impossible to administrate, it took no account of countryside folk who have little or no facilities beyond the most basic. The U.K. has always based direct tax upon the ability to pay, Poll tax moved away from this important criteria.
For me the Tories remain the nasty party concerned with the bottom line only, however Labour are always far to loose and easy spending our money! In summary neither party win my vote.
Randy Winkman said:
Here's a bit of right-wing hate. And rather than tell me that sort of stuff is actually left-wing, why not go and tell them they are a bunch of lefties. See what they say.
And I know they are a tiny minority, but so are the examples others have chosen to show left-wing hatred. I mean, who the heck would deface a memorial?
Since you ask, how about the son of David Gilmore. Young Gilmore enjoyed/enjoys a privileged upbringing courtesy of his multi millionaire father, yet insulted a Memorial.And I know they are a tiny minority, but so are the examples others have chosen to show left-wing hatred. I mean, who the heck would deface a memorial?
Disgusting behaviour in any normal decent persons thinking.
Smollet said:
crankedup said:
City deregulation has led to the ultimate catastrophic meltdown in the banking system
.
If the FSA set up by Gordon Brown to regulate the financial institutions had done its job then the problem would've been far less. However Brown was so obsessed with the tax revenue generated from the City they turned a blind eye to the casino antics of the banks. .
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
More threads on Corbyn than any other topic over the past five years already. All the same just the thread title changes, whingefest with a dose of 'we hate Lefties' thrown in for good measure.
No hate I've seen, just data and other evidence showing the success of left wing attempts to ruin the country. Which was and is remarkably well-tolerated, all things considered.turbobloke said:
Smollet said:
crankedup said:
City deregulation has led to the ultimate catastrophic meltdown in the banking system
.
If the FSA set up by Gordon Brown to regulate the financial institutions had done its job then the problem would've been far less. However Brown was so obsessed with the tax revenue generated from the City they turned a blind eye to the casino antics of the banks. .
He and other lefties should be more tolerant of successful businesses and high earning individuals, if not for them yet another generation of UK workers would be 'tolerating' and paying for the foolishness of Labour's borrow-to-spunk errors.
alock said:
crankedup said:
My feeling is that we all know of people who made money from the scheme, and yet now we are short of social housing. Short sighted and selfish policy introduced by Thatcher has contributed to this housing shortage.
If we hadn't sold the houses, under what criteria would you kick the tenants out to free up the houses for 'social' housing' use? In the World that Thatcher seemed to strive for it would seem that those tenants who 'made good' in the open competitive society would wish to 'move up' the housing ladder of their own free will. For each individual betterment was available for all. Not all would go along with such motives but judging by the sales of the former housing stock, many have and continue to do so.
The 'sell off' was made even worse by the central Government diktat to the local Councils, that they will ring fence all proceeds from the house sales and not spend it building more housing stock!
crankedup said:
The 'sell off' was made even worse by the central Government diktat to the local Councils, that they will ring fence all proceeds from the house sales and not spend it building more housing stock!
Bizarrely we are in agreement on this point. I never could see any logic behind that decision.crankedup said:
alock said:
crankedup said:
My feeling is that we all know of people who made money from the scheme, and yet now we are short of social housing. Short sighted and selfish policy introduced by Thatcher has contributed to this housing shortage.
If we hadn't sold the houses, under what criteria would you kick the tenants out to free up the houses for 'social' housing' use? otolith said:
alock said:
crankedup said:
My feeling is that we all know of people who made money from the scheme, and yet now we are short of social housing. Short sighted and selfish policy introduced by Thatcher has contributed to this housing shortage.
If we hadn't sold the houses, under what criteria would you kick the tenants out to free up the houses for 'social' housing' use? Don't you go using your hoity-toity fancy intellectual "arithmetic" nonsense in this debate. If you once had ten council houses and five of them are now private rentals, if you hadn't sold them you would now have fifteen houses.
crankedup said:
Shame that so many young people can't afford to by those ten ex council houses, and if they were still available to rent from the council maybe that would be ten families housed in a proper house rather then B&B.
But the waiting list would be ten places longer, because the ten families currently living in the ten ex-council houses would now need council houses too. You haven't thought this through.crankedup said:
Shame that so many young people can't afford to by those ten ex council houses, and if they were still available to rent from the council maybe that would be ten families housed in a proper house rather then B&B.
Unless these 10 houses are actually standing empty, this is total nonsense; or do their current inhabitants in some way deserve a place to live less than your hypothetical families?Einion Yrth said:
crankedup said:
The 'sell off' was made even worse by the central Government diktat to the local Councils, that they will ring fence all proceeds from the house sales and not spend it building more housing stock!
Bizarrely we are in agreement on this point. I never could see any logic behind that decision.crankedup said:
This is ridiculous, whilst we speak are not the Tories spending cash up North, re-balancing the economy. The Northern Powerhouse!
The difference being they're trying to spend it on rebuilding the economy whereas Brown was just giving it away on creating non jobs in the civil service. Manufacturing declined with him at the helm .http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c257da6-dfab-11de-98ca-...
Edited by Smollet on Monday 14th September 14:46
crankedup said:
Smollet said:
DoubleByte said:
crankedup said:
Tell me why Thatchers 'Poll Tax' was a good policy and that Government had swathes of the public out on the streets demonstrating. The tax had to be abandoned such was its complete unfairness.
Tell me why it is unfair for people to actually pay their bit?In Defence of Marxism said:
People took to the streets to demonstrate in London and Glasgow organised by the All Britain Anti Poll Tax Federation (in which the Militant Tendency was playing a leading role).
It was the largest protest seen this century. Its effect has shaken the Tory government to its foundations. The ten million strong campaign of mass non-payment, led by the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, has the power to defeat Thatcher's tax and drive the Tories from office. That is our objective. We are determined to achieve it.
That diatribe is positively Scargillian.It was the largest protest seen this century. Its effect has shaken the Tory government to its foundations. The ten million strong campaign of mass non-payment, led by the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, has the power to defeat Thatcher's tax and drive the Tories from office. That is our objective. We are determined to achieve it.
In Defence of Marxism also said:
The poll tax, totally rejected and despised by more than 80 percent of the population, is doomed. It is seen by the vast majority as a blatant class tax. It ruthlessly takes from the poor and gives generously to the rich. It puts the billionaire royal family (except the Queen who pays nothing) on the same level as the low paid.
In July 1988, Militant predicted mass non-payment by Scottish workers, "an irresistible force that could bring the government to its knees.
That unfailing combination of accuracy and logic won the day In July 1988, Militant predicted mass non-payment by Scottish workers, "an irresistible force that could bring the government to its knees.
but the government remained and Scargillism failed for the second time.IDoM did get around to families at one point, but these families were interviewed rather than being catapulted onto the streets by political indignation.
In Defence of Marxism said:
Minnie Adam, a 70-year-old widow from Glasgow, says: "It's not that I won't pay. I just can't pay. I've honestly thought about killing myself because of the worry."
Norman Say, a 54-year-old farm worker from West Oxfordshire, now faces a £2,400 poll tax demand because he and his wife Mary still have four grown-up sons living at home. His old rates bill was £418.60. Mr Say has never voted in an election because he says that he doesn't understand politics; if he did vote, however, it would not be for Mrs Thatcher. His mistrust is based chiefly on the knowledge that he is doing all he can to support his large family. He does an early-morning paper round to supplement his £97 per week farm wages - and can do no more to meet this extra bill.
It was some while ago but I recall reading that there were rebates of up to 80% for the unemployed and low earners so Norman should have had a rebate as well as contributions from his employed or unemployed sons, taking 'his' demand to well below £2400 and closer to £500. It's not as though six adults make less demand on a range of local services than one or two adults whether employed or not. The government of the day had also pledged to spend £1bn phasing in the tax, equivalent to over £3bn today. Norman Say, a 54-year-old farm worker from West Oxfordshire, now faces a £2,400 poll tax demand because he and his wife Mary still have four grown-up sons living at home. His old rates bill was £418.60. Mr Say has never voted in an election because he says that he doesn't understand politics; if he did vote, however, it would not be for Mrs Thatcher. His mistrust is based chiefly on the knowledge that he is doing all he can to support his large family. He does an early-morning paper round to supplement his £97 per week farm wages - and can do no more to meet this extra bill.
Even then, the Marxists were unhappy with Labour.
In Defence of Marxism said:
Three times, Labour's Executive Committee decided against organising a demonstration against the poll tax because of the cost and for fear "it would he taken over by the Militant Tendency!" This is a scandalous abdication of responsibility.
To maintain a statesmanlike image, Neil Kinnock and the other leaders have attempted to ingratiate themselves with the Tory press by denouncing mass non-payment and slavishly accepting unjust laws. "Wait until 1992 for a new Labour government!" they cry as if it was simply a case of people being impatient, and "It is against the law".
1992 and a Labour win, not quite as it happens.To maintain a statesmanlike image, Neil Kinnock and the other leaders have attempted to ingratiate themselves with the Tory press by denouncing mass non-payment and slavishly accepting unjust laws. "Wait until 1992 for a new Labour government!" they cry as if it was simply a case of people being impatient, and "It is against the law".
The poll tax was abandoned and an analysis of how this came about from a paper in The National Tax Journal of 1991 is below.
Paper by Dr Peter Smith of the University of York said:
The architects of the poll tax believed that the enhancement of accountability would lead to increased allocative responsibility (in terms local councils).
Yet this proposition was not tested before implementation, even though such tests could have been undertaken. Even if one views such ex ante tests with suspicion, at the very least it would have been prudent to have exposed the electorate gently to the full rigours of an accountable tax system by means of pilot schemes and gradual phasing in of the reforms.
It might then have been possible to test whether the accountability arguments were sustained. The evidence that does exist suggests that they would not have been (sustained).
And here we are in 2015 tolerating an envy tax on property values for the funding of local services which takes insufficient account of the service users and allied costs in any one occupied property. The lessons are there, history isn't always bunk.Yet this proposition was not tested before implementation, even though such tests could have been undertaken. Even if one views such ex ante tests with suspicion, at the very least it would have been prudent to have exposed the electorate gently to the full rigours of an accountable tax system by means of pilot schemes and gradual phasing in of the reforms.
It might then have been possible to test whether the accountability arguments were sustained. The evidence that does exist suggests that they would not have been (sustained).
Einion Yrth said:
crankedup said:
Shame that so many young people can't afford to by those ten ex council houses, and if they were still available to rent from the council maybe that would be ten families housed in a proper house rather then B&B.
Unless these 10 houses are actually standing empty, this is total nonsense; or do their current inhabitants in some way deserve a place to live less than your hypothetical families?Smollet said:
crankedup said:
This is ridiculous, whilst we speak are not the Tories spending cash up North, re-balancing the economy. The Northern Powerhouse!
The difference being they're trying to spend it on rebuilding the economy whereas Brown was just giving it away on creating non jobs in the civil service. crankedup said:
Interesting question, based upon the much publicised Late Bob Crow housing methinks.
In the World that Thatcher seemed to strive for it would seem that those tenants who 'made good' in the open competitive society would wish to 'move up' the housing ladder of their own free will. For each individual betterment was available for all. Not all would go along with such motives but judging by the sales of the former housing stock, many have and continue to do so.
Did you not see the left's reaction to the nicknamed 'bedroom tax'? The theory behind the legislation was to free up usable properties as 'social housing'. Exactly the same benefit you are stating council houses solve. The same people would stop them working as a concept. In the World that Thatcher seemed to strive for it would seem that those tenants who 'made good' in the open competitive society would wish to 'move up' the housing ladder of their own free will. For each individual betterment was available for all. Not all would go along with such motives but judging by the sales of the former housing stock, many have and continue to do so.
Huge numbers of people do not willingly give up on a good thing. They fight it and complain they are being kicked out of their family home. The council house concept only works if there is a high turn over of tenants who are moved around based on need.
alock said:
crankedup said:
Interesting question, based upon the much publicised Late Bob Crow housing methinks.
In the World that Thatcher seemed to strive for it would seem that those tenants who 'made good' in the open competitive society would wish to 'move up' the housing ladder of their own free will. For each individual betterment was available for all. Not all would go along with such motives but judging by the sales of the former housing stock, many have and continue to do so.
Did you not see the left's reaction to the nicknamed 'bedroom tax'? The theory behind the legislation was to free up usable properties as 'social housing'. Exactly the same benefit you are stating council houses solve. The same people would stop them working as a concept. In the World that Thatcher seemed to strive for it would seem that those tenants who 'made good' in the open competitive society would wish to 'move up' the housing ladder of their own free will. For each individual betterment was available for all. Not all would go along with such motives but judging by the sales of the former housing stock, many have and continue to do so.
Huge numbers of people do not willingly give up on a good thing. They fight it and complain they are being kicked out of their family home. The council house concept only works if there is a high turn over of tenants who are moved around based on need.
The problem is that there isn't sufficient smaller social housing stock for people to move to. Even now, much of the new stock being built is 3 or 4 bedroom.
If it had initially only applied to new tenants and, perhaps, applied to existing ones in 5 years time (to allow for construction of new properties), then the outcry would have been considerably smaller I think.
otolith said:
crankedup said:
Shame that so many young people can't afford to by those ten ex council houses, and if they were still available to rent from the council maybe that would be ten families housed in a proper house rather then B&B.
But the waiting list would be ten places longer, because the ten families currently living in the ten ex-council houses would now need council houses too. You haven't thought this through.Scenario A:
There is a council house. The nasty witch sells it to the tenant. The following year someone else needs a council house and there isn't one.
Scenario B:
There is a council house. The following year someone else needs a council house and the only one has a tenant in it.
Does it really need explaining, again, that the only thing that changes the outcome is building another council house? She might have prevented councils using the proceeds to build more, but if there had been no sales and no sale proceeds there wouldn't have been any building in any event. Why is this so difficult? In any event I don't think Thatcher has prevented anyone building any more for the last 25 years has she?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff