Theresa May

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
citizensm1th said:
yes nothing to do with may being totally inept.
That's funny! Leading up to the election the common thought was how Th. May was so far in the lead (according to virtually every poll available that she could do no wrong. Do you have any conception of what your 'totally inept' actually means?

Of course she made mistakes, as did everyone else. The manifesto was the biggest, with Corbyn's manifesto resembling a child's letter to Santa. The 'totally inept' criticism is better and more accurately aimed at those idiots who voted for him! That doesn't make her 'totally inept' so to laud a terrorist sympathiser, someone who is as far as you can get from a safe pair of hands with our national security, in my view is hardly indicative of a mature mind. Apart from anything else, just have a glance at those incompetent revolutionaries around him and study not only their mental acuity but the barely concealed ambitions for the continued well being of the country. It used to be called sedition.

citizensm1th

8,371 posts

136 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
citizensm1th said:
yes nothing to do with may being totally inept.
That's funny! Leading up to the election the common thought was how Th. May was so far in the lead (according to virtually every poll available that she could do no wrong. Do you have any conception of what your 'totally inept' actually means?

More than you by the looks of it,as you said she took a lead in to the campaign that suggested she would destroy labour and end up with a majority of 100-150 seats

she ended up loosing her majority in the house ,that is inept by any metric

If as you state labour's manifesto was so rubbish in comparison to the torys
she should have romped home comfortably .

the very fact they didnt means the torys ran a inept campaign so who is to blame for that the party or saint teresa?

its reported that the campaign was run by saint teresa and a very close inner circle
care to tell us it was not?

oh and for what it is worth before you or anyone else go off accusing me of being a labour stooge i voted tory in the last election

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
I worked long & hard plus made sacrifices to acquire my wealth. I don't want it 'redistributed' to those who didn't work as hard & make the sacrifices I did.
You think that 'ordinary' employed people don't work hard and long?

I worked all but three days a month, I worked long hours. I made sacrifices but had I had one more child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. I also risked my health, and am now paying the penalty. I got beaten a few times. So can you see why I feel your post is patronising?

Income is not directly proportional to how hard or long one works. Perhaps redistribution of wealth is one way of redressing the balance.




Carl_Manchester

12,102 posts

261 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
Zod said:
What a load of nonsense!

Share buybacks are principally about where capital is best employed.

Should it sit on corporate balance sheets earning low returns for investors and not contributing to the development of the economy or should it be returned to investors who can decide how to employ that capital more efficiently?
The problem with share buybacks, lets not forget they were illegal until 1982, is when the shareholders are the executives.

When the shareholders are the executives, there is a clear conflict of interest here between the company and the executives that are supposed to be serving it. These days executives are paid mostly in stock so you can see why this is a growing problem.

Last year alone in the USA $1.8 Trillion USD were used in share buybacks when company wages for lower-wage workers and company investment are not at the levels they should be. Executives are pumping stock prices in the short term not only to trigger their own pay bonuses but also ensuring that the stock can be sold by them at elevated levels.

Another argument is as the investment levels die off, because the cash is going into share-buybacks, so does the company. A good reference in my field for this type of behaviour is CSC and HP. There are many more !

I believe that the 1982 de-regulation of share-buybacks should be reversed, company investment and pay levels will be boosted as a result. This is not a socialist policy to reverse this decision, it is just common sense.

Zod said:
It seems that what you actually want is a move to an environment where jobs are protected by the government, just when Macron in France is looking tentatively at moving to curb such protections because of their stifling effect on the French economy.
No, that is not what I want. What I want is a clear strategy from the Conservatives to deal with the impending implosion of lower-wage jobs. Basic wage is not job protection, its about stopping social unrest from a sudden drop in available jobs in a given market e.g. driving jobs. As it stands Labour and the Greens have been allowed to seize too much mindset from people in lower-wage jobs, this will become more difficult as lower-wage job availability starts to bite.

Zod said:
As for the peak oil scaremongering, that has been going on for years. With fracking and alternative fuels, there is little reason for concern about it (yes, I know you will find hundreds of articles about peak oil on the internet).
Peak oil is not just about peak production, it is also about peak demand. When demand collapses, it will be sudden and sooner than the Conservatives expect. It will not only blow a small hole in the public purse through lost tax fuel revenue (£28bn), it will also be part of a wider re-alignment of jobs and associated industries due to the introduction of driver-less cars.

In 2016, the max range of an electric car is approx. 230-250miles on a single charge, as battery capacity doubles approx 7 years, in 2023 those cars will be doing more like 500 miles on a single charge.

Just to put that into context for the conservatives, mass-market delivery trucks and lorries arrive in the next couple of years, driverless consumer road cars arrive in approx 2021 (source: CEO Toyota) with 3rd generation electric cars approx 2023.

Unless the government implodes post brexit in 2019 (likely IMO), the next UK General election is in 2022, unemployment from driving jobs and other AI affected jobs will just be starting to bite at that time, what will the Tories do in the next 3 years will allow them to re-position themselves politically to offer a solution like a public consultancy on a basic wage in the next manifesto for implementation in the one after that (2027). That is the easy part, the hard part will be convincing businesses and vested corporate interests that we need to re-write UK Corporate tax law to pay for it.

The Conservatives are simply not prepared to take on UK corporates on this issue when the balance is so tightly wound because of Brexit. For this reason, there is a good chance therefore that the next government (2022) will be a Labour one as the Tories will need time to collapse and rebuild with a new approach which tackles the issues above for 2027.





bitchstewie

50,767 posts

209 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
The Corbyn Miracle. The myths abound and multiply about his sincerity, his grasp of the popular mood, his appeal to 'ordinary people'. All of it complete rubbish, put about not by his 'ordinary' supporters but those behind him who actively seek to destabilise to bring about their stupid student grade socialism and who are ignorant of his well-documented past. The failure of the conservatives to maintain their overall majority, let alone increase it, was entirely due to the large increase in the young vote. No bad thing in itself, a widening democracy, but typically student activist led and largely immature minds. A contributing factor was of course the complacency of many conservative voters who thought they had no need to vote. Let's not run away with the Messiah fantasy, these anomalies of a bright new dawn fizzle out as you grow older. That's 'grow older and wiser'.
Do you think that the crap bland uninspiring manifesto offering absolutely nothing of any interest might have had anything to do with it?

This thread is about Theresa May and whilst I fully agree that a few minutes digging into Corbyn's past throws up plenty to be concerned about, and whilst I think the last minute student fees policy was nothing short of a bribe, if you're 18-24 what were you being offered during the campaign by anyone else other than 8 weeks of "strong and stable"?

Blaming it all on young voters and suggesting complacency caused many people not to vote seems a little like burying your head in the sand.

98elise

26,366 posts

160 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Rovinghawk said:
I worked long & hard plus made sacrifices to acquire my wealth. I don't want it 'redistributed' to those who didn't work as hard & make the sacrifices I did.
You think that 'ordinary' employed people don't work hard and long?

I worked all but three days a month, I worked long hours. I made sacrifices but had I had one more child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. I also risked my health, and am now paying the penalty. I got beaten a few times. So can you see why I feel your post is patronising?

Income is not directly proportional to how hard or long one works. Perhaps redistribution of wealth is one way of redressing the balance.
If wealth is what you want then why not do whatever pays well? Why does the fact that someone has done it mean it should be taken?

I would be considered reasonably wealthy, certainly better than average (but probably not in PH terms). The majority of that has been because I saved and invested towards my future. I've changed careers 3 times and started 2 businesses to get to where I am now.

I could have just taken expensive holidays or bought nice cars, but I chose to build for my future (and that if my kids). I'm about to pick up the newest car I've ever owned, a 2007 C Class for my 65 mile commute.

I didn't do that so someone else can "redistribute" it for me. If someone else wants my wealth why can't they put their house/savings on the line and start their own business?

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
98elise said:
Derek Smith said:
Rovinghawk said:
I worked long & hard plus made sacrifices to acquire my wealth. I don't want it 'redistributed' to those who didn't work as hard & make the sacrifices I did.
You think that 'ordinary' employed people don't work hard and long?

I worked all but three days a month, I worked long hours. I made sacrifices but had I had one more child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. I also risked my health, and am now paying the penalty. I got beaten a few times. So can you see why I feel your post is patronising?

Income is not directly proportional to how hard or long one works. Perhaps redistribution of wealth is one way of redressing the balance.
If wealth is what you want then why not do whatever pays well? Why does the fact that someone has done it mean it should be taken?

I would be considered reasonably wealthy, certainly better than average (but probably not in PH terms). The majority of that has been because I saved and invested towards my future. I've changed careers 3 times and started 2 businesses to get to where I am now.

I could have just taken expensive holidays or bought nice cars, but I chose to build for my future (and that if my kids). I'm about to pick up the newest car I've ever owned, a 2007 C Class for my 65 mile commute.

I didn't do that some someone else can "redistribute" it for me. If someone else wants my wealth why can't they put their house/savings on the line and start their own business?
As I said in my post, just working long and hard does not mean that a person gets more money. In fact, those at the bottom often work much longer hours.

Rh seemed to be suggesting that his money was just reward. I took issue, mainly with the patronising attitude.

I went on a course for business management that was run by a chap who'd been bankrupted twice, the theory being that he's learned his lessons. He used almost the same phrases to praise himself, effort, hours, risks and a few more. Yet he didn't tell us what his creditors felt about his hard work.

I sold my car, my TV and went on camping holidays in the UK. I walked everywhere. We had no central heating. We struggled. All the time I was putting in the hours, the days and taking risks. I was poor. If my parents hadn't given us food parcels I don't know what we would have done.

OT: I used to have a 2007 C Class, a CLK. Don't go for it. My 2006 Focus is a much better car, more comfortable and much more reliable.


sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
You think that 'ordinary' employed people don't work hard and long?

I worked all but three days a month, I worked long hours. I made sacrifices but had I had one more child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. I also risked my health, and am now paying the penalty. I got beaten a few times. So can you see why I feel your post is patronising?

Income is not directly proportional to how hard or long one works. Perhaps redistribution of wealth is one way of redressing the balance.
Some people focus too much on income and fail to acknowledge other benefits received which represent a massive redistribution from other people!

mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
sidicks said:
Derek Smith said:
You think that 'ordinary' employed people don't work hard and long?

I worked all but three days a month, I worked long hours. I made sacrifices but had I had one more child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. I also risked my health, and am now paying the penalty. I got beaten a few times. So can you see why I feel your post is patronising?

Income is not directly proportional to how hard or long one works. Perhaps redistribution of wealth is one way of redressing the balance.
Such as...
Some people focus too much on income and fail to acknowledge other benefits received which represent a massive redistribution from other people!

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
sidicks said:
Some people focus too much on income and fail to acknowledge other benefits received which represent a massive redistribution from other people!
Let's put it another way for those whose jealousy tends to cloud logic.

The claim was a sort of I took a [qualified] risk and so I deserve more money.

My point is that such people deserve no more money than those who work just as hard, maybe harder, who took greater risks. If they do get more money, then so be it. I'm not moaning (unlike you of course) but neither am I supporting the expectation of greater rewards for some over others.

It seems strange that on a forum where the criticism of those at the bottom is that they have a sense of entitlement . . . need I go on?

My job was so damned well paid that most forces could not get enough recruits. No one was stopping you from applying. No one was stopping you working all the hours going just to scrape by, No one was stopping you from working 25 days out of 28 just to make end meet, getting kicked, spat on, punches and having things thrown at you for the brilliant reward of a pension that you get to enjoy when you have no knees, a back that doesn't bend and ears that don't hear all because of work. But no. So much easier to moan all the time and change threads to the old, old moan.

Made sacrifices, I ask you. There are many, many people who make sacrifices daily and for a pittance.

As I say, a sense of entitlement being defended by someone who is jealous. Is this what PH has become?


Tryke3

1,609 posts

93 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I worked long & hard plus made sacrifices to acquire my wealth. I don't want it 'redistributed' to those who didn't work as hard & make the sacrifices I did.
Nice bit generalisation there, you sure that it would happen like that ?

andy_s

19,397 posts

258 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
sidicks said:
Some people focus too much on income and fail to acknowledge other benefits received which represent a massive redistribution from other people!
If you're talking property price it's hardly the fault of people that bought houses to live in, is it?

768

13,600 posts

95 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Has it?

How old am I?

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
andy_s said:
If you're talking property price it's hardly the fault of people that bought houses to live in, is it?
I'm not talking about property prices.

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Let's put it another way for those whose jealousy tends to cloud logic.

The claim was a sort of I took a [qualified] risk and so I deserve more money.

My point is that such people deserve no more money than those who work just as hard, maybe harder, who took greater risks. If they do get more money, then so be it. I'm not moaning (unlike you of course) but neither am I supporting the expectation of greater rewards for some over others.

It seems strange that on a forum where the criticism of those at the bottom is that they have a sense of entitlement . . . need I go on?

My job was so damned well paid that most forces could not get enough recruits. No one was stopping you from applying. No one was stopping you working all the hours going just to scrape by, No one was stopping you from working 25 days out of 28 just to make end meet, getting kicked, spat on, punches and having things thrown at you for the brilliant reward of a pension that you get to enjoy when you have no knees, a back that doesn't bend and ears that don't hear all because of work. But no. So much easier to moan all the time and change threads to the old, old moan.
No one was forcing you to apply either. To read your posts you'd think that a) you never wanted to be a police officer, b) you were qualified to do anything you wanted and c) you purely did the job as a 'sacrifice' for the good of others.

Of course, in practice, most people tend to choose the jobs that appeal to them and which align with their qualifications.

Derek Smith said:
Made sacrifices, I ask you. There are many, many people who make sacrifices daily and for a pittance.

As I say, a sense of entitlement being defended by someone who is jealous. Is this what PH has become?
Jealous of you? rofl

Just fed up of your constant bleating about how hard done by you are!

Indeed, I've agreed that people like you probably deserve your gold-plated pensions, however it's frustrating that you appear not to recognise the cost / value of that benefit!


Edited by sidicks on Saturday 24th June 17:23

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not old nor bitter.

Please explain how, unlike some, I've 'lined my pockets at the expense of the following generations'?


citizensm1th

8,371 posts

136 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
sidicks said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not old nor bitter.

Please explain how, unlike some, I've 'lined my pockets at the expense of the following generations'?
if your not old and bitter he was not talking about you was he

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
citizensm1th said:
if your not old and bitter he was not talking about you was he
He was responding to Derek's comment on my post - apparently, according to him, most people on NP&E are like this - are you included in that?

As ever it's, a vague accusation which can't be substantiated.

citizensm1th

8,371 posts

136 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
sidicks said:
citizensm1th said:
if your not old and bitter he was not talking about you was he
He was responding to Derek's comment on my post. As ever it's, a vague accusation which can't be substantiated.
i took it they were both talking about rovinghawk ,so it might be your sense of entitlement talking

Randy Winkman

16,013 posts

188 months

Saturday 24th June 2017
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
clap

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED