Green Goose

Here's one that sticks in the memory. http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/Public%20Album/green_zpsywemnn4g.png

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on, May saying she'll 'rip up the human > rights act' is just ridiculous politicking and has > no bearing on what's happened. How about properly > funding the security services as a start Good of you to raise the issue of security services. Here's a little press cutting from November 2016. Is this what we can expect if JC and Mcdonnell get in? John McDonnell, Labour's shadow chancellor, called for MI5 and the UK's armed police force to be scrapped in a controversial campaign letter. It demands that special police squads - like those that hunt terror suspects - be disbanded, as well as the Monarchy and the House of Lords. The letter, organised by The Socialist Network as part of their ?Socialist Campaign For a Labour Victory? was also signed by a group of Labour-supporting unions. In a tweet accompanying a picture of him holding the list of demands Labour's shadow chancellor said the campaign: "Is important for ensuring a clear program of socialist demands on a Labour government". http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/Public%20Album/odonnel_zpsjwmttowk.jpg

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't get me wrong Quids, I'm not saying Corbyn > wasn't an utter twat to do what he did - but I > regard May's cosying up to the Saudis as just as > bad, indeed worse as she's giving Britain's > imprimatur to the pretty heinous wrongs of the > Saudi regime. The thing about realpolitik is that > it removes any moral dimension and also has a > habit of biting one in the arse when the winds > shift: it was realpolitik to sell arms to both the > Iranians and Iraqis during the 1980s and that > didn't work out so well, did it? Reality means we sometimes have to hold our noses when we do business with vile regimes. The Al Yamanah deal with the Saudis back in the 80's was worth around ?43 Billion and kept huge swathes of UK industry working. It is still expected to pull in a further ?40Bn in support, training , spares etc. The chances of getting more are slim however because BAE was charged in USA courts of "illegal accounting" in relation to this deal. In other words giving kickbacks. This expose means the Saudis will not place new orders with the UK because they were embarassed -even though the reality is that every arms deal involves kickbacks and uses middlemen. Been there and seen it. Now, would you believe it but just a couple of weeks ago Trump visits Saudi and signs deals arms deals worth $300 Billion. Nice one, but very similar to the way that Capital Hill eviscerated BP over the Macondo spillage. Politics and business are deeply intertwined.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > with internment you only create guerrilla > academies which these type of people would love to > have. Some prisons have this facility for > extremists already & it is very difficult to > interrupt this effect. The only effective method > is to remove them from the UK entirely - revoke > their right to stay in the UK & deport them to > wherever they came from - if they weren't born in > the UK. Pass emergency laws & temporarily > derogate from the Human Rights conventions for > particular purposes. If they have were born in the > UK have them commit to a contract & relocate them > in some secure manner. > > Difficult problem but has to be approached with a > robust solution - otherwise other Manchesters & > London Bridges await us for the future. I agree - robust action is needed urgently. We have been so very naive and tolerant. Love and Christian prayers for peace just do not cut any ice with Islamic terrorists. They are bullies. These Jihadis are deranged terrorists and they work on fear and our inertia. They recognise only two things Allah and force. Therefor we have to use FORCEFULL measures against them. Such action include:--- 1. Declare a state of emergency, now. 2. Have an armed soldier accompany each policeman on patrol. Hence police numbers are effectively doubled. 3. Derogate the Human Rights legislation which the terrorists have exploited for the last 20years and which has made HR lawyers rich. 4. Stop all young muslim males of UK origin from returning to the UK after being away in a muslim country. 5. Stop all young muslim males from going overseas - unless they emigrate permanently. 6. Deport any who are on the watch list if they are of foreign origin. 7. Set up a detainment camp on Lundy Island for the others on the watch list. If they want to leave Lundy then let them go to a muslim country of their choice, after they agree to have a small crescent tatoo on each of their forearms. I know it will incense the Libs and it will take ploitical fortitude. it is the only course of action which will avoid a disaster and it has to be done quickly otherwise we will have an ever-growing problem on our hands.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course even when talking about terrorism - this > guy was known > > Why wasn't he watched Our liberal democracy only allows us to lock up convicted offenders. The police can be alerted about countless dangerous Jihadis but until one of them breaks the law then there is not much they can do. If its just a matter of having hate DVDs the they get a warning slap on the wrist. The Liberals and Labour Luvvies have campaigned for years against strong measures on terrorists. Corbyn is a prime example of never blaming terrorism on the terrorists. He even got pally with them - from the IRA tho' to the PLO and a ragbag of other killers. Blair and Brown allowed Abu Hamza to spread his poison outside Finsbury mosque for years and did nothing about it. Same with Choudry. These recent incidents are just the very first indications of what is to come. Strong and decisive measures need to be taken NOW at the very first signs of potential trouble. Deportation, isolation and ultimately.......... You speculate. When we get a car bomb every day and London, Manchester, B'ham etc start to look like Beirut, it will be too late.

Looking for a local professional who is at ease with detail on Tenants in Common ownership, and considerations in relation to decedents their benficiaries and appointment of trustees. Any recommendations?

karen s Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ignorance is bliss lol. > "America is a classless society", not to mention > your other quotes lol. .. You obviously have not > heard of the Ghettos then you must be living with > blinkers on lol. > Instead of watching the football try watching > something a bit more educational. You are getting confused between class and wealth. There's plenty wealthy people out there with very little class. And seeing as you have mentioned football that is a sector where there's a lot of wealthy players who got where they are by dedication to training and honing their skills.

Pato, You have said that with a great deal of passion. I can fully understand, joining the EU has been spectactularly beneficial for Spain over many years and even today Spain is a net beficiary when contributions are compared to receipts. After Germany, the UK is the next largest contributor to the EU finances. On net terms we lose out by billions every year. On balance the majority of the people in the UK decided that the EU just was not worth the cost and they voted to leave. It was not just a matter of money but more a matter of sovereignty. In 1974 Britain joined a Common Market, not a political, economic, montary and judicial union with ever closer political integration that will result in a federal system. The UK is a great trading nation with a strong sense of individuality and independence. Germany and France had been at war over the last 2 centuries. That influenced their thinking in terms of forming the original common market alliance as a means of avoiding future conflicts. The UK came to the assistance of Europe during two world wars but we do not see any sense in loosing our independence and soveignty for the sake of further integration in Europe. Spain was on the margins of Europe for many years due to Franco's fascist orientation but once he was gone, Spain was totally transformed by joining the EU. We have been diminished by it. It has cost us money. Please respect our right to vote the way we want.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > Your last sentence seems a bit muddled. > > This from a chap who gave us the sentence > "Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the > prime motivation." Sorry teacher but my old arthritic fingers are not so good at touch typing as they used to be. For "nor" read "not" and for "altruisma and" read altruism and". Kindly don't be too intolerant of age-related considerations. Please Teacher, but didn't you promise not to respond to any of my posts just two days ago. Never mind, many politicos break promises, so welcome back. > I meant I would assume that those of you on the > right would see rich philanthropists as justifying > a position that the wealthy can be relied on to do > their bit for humanity. Clear now? You assume incorrectly. Philanthropists don't have to justify their actions or give reasons. But the Left see that wealth (however it is achieved) should be heavily taxed, as the solution to all society's ills and to assuage their own ingrained resentments. That is until they get on the gravy train as MPs or whatever then they insist on having all the trimmings like private education for their kids > Was Al Capone a leftie then? No, Capone was only chosen as an example of what happens if you don't pay your taxes - even though you've been untouchable in all other respects. > It's true, the rich tend to be rightwing as that > political side tend to favour them, and so > proportionately one would expect those in a > position to be philanthropists on a notable scale > to be more of the right. There are contradictions everywhere as you prove when you went on to counter your own assertion, as follows.. > Amongst current > "mega-philanthropists" Bill Gates is notable for > his Democratic party leanings, as is the > vehemently anti-Trump Warren Buffet.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It never fails to amuse that those on the right > refuse to believe that there is such a thing as > philanthropy which is undertaken for no ulterior > motive. Judging everyone by their own "what's > mine is mine and I shouldn't have to share and I > don't think I should even have to pay a reasonable > amount of tax" standard I guess. One would have > thought that rich philanthropists would be a > justification of their worldview rather than > otherwise, but it seems not. We were discussing donations to political parties. So a bit of a knee jerk there by you. Philanthropy has no link whatsoever with donations to political parties. There are not too many genuine philanthropists in comparison with other donors. On the other hand the vast majority of philanthropic donors have been committed capitalists with a right wing bent. And I can't think of one who objected to paying tax. It was Al Capone who didn't pay his taxes. Your last sentence seems a bit muddled.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alan Medic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Should wealth be redistributed is an interesting > question. Those > > who say it should are probably not wealthy. > > This is simply not the case. If it were then the > Labour Party would not have any wealthy > supporters. Quite a few, if not most, donors to political parties do not do so for altusitic motives. No, they do so because they want to secure some influence on policy (like a certain mr Ecclestone) or they want to get a knighthood or peerage. Plus of course it is tax deductable. Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the prime motivation. Believe me.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which, presumably, might be why I wrote 'Do not > confuse Lenin with Stalin'? (patronising git that > I am). Never have but both had a lot in common when it came to employing force and terror tactics. Lenin set up the Cheka and used brutality on the population as a whole so as to protect the Party. Stalin used Terror against members of own party and against Politburo so as to further his ambitions. Not forgetting the 20 million he killed as mentioned earlier. Mao achieved about the same headcount if you count the deaths through famine caused by failure of his agriculatural policies. Very similar to where Stalin went wrong.

pato Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone already did it few months ago.. i d like > to remind you the story with the EU and UK as lots > of people have short memory.. > > UK: Can we join? > EU: nope.. > UK: Go on, pls > EU: ok then > UK: We want a rebate.. > EU: here is Your rebate He Pato, you told us onlyy half the story. Here's the full version... UK: Go on, pls ECM: OK then UK: You are ripping us off. We want a refund. ECM: here is your ?rebate? EU: We changed our name to European Union UK: OK EU: We want an exchange rate mechanism. UK: Sorry but that would have major problems (for UK, Greece, Italy, Spain.) EU: OK you can opt out. EU: We want a common currency. UK: Sorry, but that will have problems because you don?t control spending in each country. EU: OK, you can opt out. EU: We want open borders across Europe. UK: Bad idea. Not keen on that. EU: OK you can opt out. EU: Come for a jolly to Lisbon and sign this new agreement. Gordon Brown: I daren?t tell the UK about this. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/52947/Sold-out-to-Europe-Brown-makes-Queen-sign-away-our-sovereignty EU: Your legal system is no longer sovereign. We have supremacy on legal matters. UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: We have new rights to social security, housing assistance, health care and environmental protection UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: We now national employment policies, and laws dictating workers' social security and social protection rights and working conditions. UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: Our unelected commission will propose all new legislation. UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: We have an economic crisis in Greece. We will impose our power to apply austerity. UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: We will have ever closer union i.e. more powers to Brussels. UK: David Cameron keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: The UK military will come under Brussels control. Bugger NATO. UK: David Cameron keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: You must pay more money to fund Brussels corruption and our gravy train. UK: David Cameron keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: The Euro is going pear shaped. Can we have more money? UK: Sorry, but I have got to let the UK have a referendum. The natives are rebelling! EU: If they vote out, then you can swing it on a second referendum. We?ve done that before. UK: OK sounds good. We will have a vote. EU: They voted out. Quelle surprise! EU: We will make you sorry, ?pour encourage les autres? UK: Sounds like Hotel California.. ?You can check out, but you can never leave.?

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Take the value of your house, subtract building > cost equals land value. Apply initial rate of > 0.85% rising to 3%, so typically ?500,000 for ED > but let's be be generous and say ?400,000 = ?3,500 > for first year rising to ?12,000 pa . Sounds > sensible, eh? Happy with that, Helen Hayes, and > subsequent collapse of housing market? Is Corbyn > mad or just seriously deluded? Let's just be kind and say that he does not have a clue about economics and market forces. He wants to hit the property owners but he forgets about the fct that they also own the properies that tenants live in. He hasn't realised that rents would have to go up to compensate. On the day his launched his Party's new policy on childcare, he didn't have a clue on what it would cost. Just like Diane Abbott's 10,000 fantasy policemen. And 3,00 extra firemen and 20,000 teachers. They are happy though because the Magic Monet Tree will be like the golden Goose and provide the where-with-all to do it. Plus of course pay for nationalising the rail companies, National Grid, the Water, Gas and Electricity providers. Plus pay for the University fees. I could go on but the list is far too long. He is seriously deluded.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the Tory narrative of course. If you work > hard then you can succeed. If you work hard you > might succeed. If your born in a certain time and > place and have a few lucky breaks professionally > you can succeed with little effort. It's not a > level playing field and there is a lot if luck > involved in diced. The idea of our living in a > meritocracy is nonsense. It has never been a level playing field and it can never be made into a level field by social engineering and handouts. The migrants I mentioned ( and myself included) overcame the life chances that were handed out. The harder I studied the easier it got. As American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said ??.. ?I?m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.? I found that too. Plus, when I started out as a humble apprentice, I was given one real valuable piece of free advice and that was?. ? If you see some task or item of work being done by someone else and you think you can do it better or faster, then go to your boss and say that you?d like to take it on and add it to your job?. It certainly always worked for me. Also if you register an interest in taking on the next level of responsibility up the greasy pole then it sticks in Management?s mind and the next time vacancy comes up or there is a re-organisation, you are already ahead of the game. Now I fully appreciate that is anathema to union diehards (who believe in demarcation and other such hindrances to progress) and possibly yourself as I imagine you are a vehemently caring and benevolent Socialist ?albeit a rather na?ve one. But it is the way to overcome the perceived vagaries of life?s chances. It?s what you make of it yourself. The meritocracy we live in allows this to happen. Been there and done it.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The idea that people 'get what they deserve' is > hopelessly naive and ignores the fact that your > life chances, if you grow up on an estate in a > deprived area of wales say, are hugely limited > compared to the kid who goes to a private school > in the SE. I have worked with plenty of pretty > slow, rather lazy, but successful people. On most > objective measures I could consider myself to be > reasonably successful, but I don't for one minute > think there aren't smarter or harder working > people out there who are struggling to get by. > This is the problem with the Conservative > perspective. No, I did not mention the word ?deserve?. It?s about what a person makes of it. I do agree that life?s chances can be a factor ? but not an insurmountable barrier. I see lots of people who have emigrated here and to the USA where they have arrived penniless, with a language barrier to other prejudices to overcome. They have overcome life chances and pulled themselves up to become hugely successful. Look at the Ugandan Asians for example. The deprived from Wales can be just as mobile as those who migrate here. It was only in places such as the USSR where you did not have the right to move to a different part of the country or even emigrate for that matter. So, I don?t go along with the inherent prejudice that often leads to resentment agaist achievement just because one grows up in a deprived area. I came from a deprived area that is a match for the Welsh valleys any day and I reckon I did OK. I went to a State school and didn?t go to university either. Plus my accent could have been construed as a barrier but my view was, "what the hell", it?s what I put into the job that counts. Resentment towards those who have achieved more than others is a very quaint British characteristic. The Aussies encapsulated it with their labelling of the Brits as Whinging Poms. They are of the view that those who couldn?t/didn?t make a go of it in the UK and then didn?t make a go of it in Oz that they were rightly labelled as Whinging Poms. Australia (and the particularly the US) don?t have quite such a benevolent security system and that prompts some Poms to bitch about it. As to your last sentence, what I would say is that perspective is an entirely subjective aspect and I would imagine, you would never be a Conservative. Ipso facto you could never know what the Conservative perspective is. You are just reinforcing your inherent political prejudice. Most people don't change their political orientation and those who do do so in later lfe when they have had the benefit of hindsight. It might even happen to you one day.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I question the idea that we live in a meritocracy > where only the brightest and most hard working > succeed (and by implication that the poor are > somehow mentally or morally deficient and / or > lazy and fecklessness). Also the US is classless? > Hmmm. Yes, I think it's fair to say that this is a > naive worldview. You naturally will infer whatever you want from my use of the word meritocracy. I didn?t mention laziness of fecklessness ? you did; but certainly these characteristics aren?t going to do any one any good unless the lives under an extremely benevolent system in a country that can afford - that is it without having to borrow to fund the budget deficit. In the UK the class barriers started to disintegrate with WW1 and continued to steadily disappear in subsequent decades. So come the 1980?s and after the Big Bang, jobs in the City (the last bastion of class) for example were opened up to bright, numerate traders irrespective of their backgrounds. In the past virtually all such jobs in the City had been allocated by virtue of ?connections? and the old school tie. Certainly today, anyone with a STEM degree can get a well paid job in any sector without having to break down any class barriers. It is useful not to confuse ?class? with ?wealth? and assume they are the linked. Also please do not confuse academic attainment with class. The legacy of the class barriers of the past are still imprinted in the Socialist psyche and exaggerated and exploited by all those of a left-wing disposition. As an illustration, in the UK, when someone drives past in a flashy new gold coloured Bently convertible, some will say ?there goes a filthy, exploitative, capitalist b*st*rd?. Whereas in the USA, when the flashy pink Cadillac convertible rolls by, many will say ?my, he?s done well, good on him, he?s living the American dream. One day I?m gonna have a car just like him?. I?ve been to the States several times and worked with Americans and I can assure you from first hand experience there is no class barriers there. They take you as they find you. They are characterised by their positive, can-do attitude. In many ways, this is attitude is shared with the Australians who are well known for referring to us a whinging Poms. Who is it that are the whingers? The grafters or your feckless.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > By the way, in response to your nonsense above, I > cycled and walked everywhere I needed to go today, > I don't have a TV, I have a wind-up alarm clock, I > use a broom not a vacuum cleaner, What about the car that you mentioned in a previous post? Or is it a magic carpet that is carbon-neutral?

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now you blame the > workers for what happened. But monetarists would > not (read Friedman - 'inflation is always and > everywhere a monetary phenomenon' NOT a union > problem). You are wrong on inflation. When the Labour govt got in in 1974 it increased miners' wages by 35% immediately after the February 1974 election. In February 1975, a further increase of 35% was awarded. That certainly drove inflation. > > you cannot see that > May is a protectionist, reactionary, and > completely out-of-touch do-gooder (no intervention > uncalled for, for I am in the right). Her actual > policies are not at all Conservative. I will surprise you by agreeing. She is not well nd not up to the job. The Tory party will topple her before the end of June, no matter what the election result. > > BTW, in response to your picture, if you were to > look at Althusser's "Lenin and Philosophy" you > would learn something (he condescends, snivelling; > but you would). Do not confuse Lenin with Stalin, > do not think the Soviet Union was socialist (he > lectures; well he does). I've been to the USSR as it used to be and done business there. Seen it and researched it. Did you ever see it in the flesh under communism? I agree that Lenin and Stalin were rather different. Lenin wasn't too deranged and didn't kill too many of his own people but Stalin did it for around 20,000,000. Yes, 20 Million, not to mention the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians etc etc. The worst was what he did to his fellow Russians who had been taken prisoner by Germany and who therefor became tainted by exposure to Western culture. Roosevelt was naive enough to agrre to let Stalin have them back in return for the Americans who were liberated from German POW camps by the Russians. Many of the Russian POWs committed suicde rather than return to Russia becaus they knew what was in store. Interesting also is the fact that when Russia liberated the American and British prisoners from German POW camps, they held on to them for months as bargaining chips. Also they would not allow them to be repatriated directly to the west but instead via the Black Sea ports to Turkey annd Iran and then on to the UK. I could write a book on Stalin but it wouldn't make pretty reading.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I question the idea that we live in a meritocracy > where only the brightest and most hard working > succeed (and by implication that the poor are > somehow mentally or morally deficient and / or > lazy and fecklessness). Also the US is classless? > Hmmm. Yes, I think it's fair to say that this is a > naive worldview. Time out please, I'm watching Champions League final!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow, that is an incredibly naive post. OK, elucidate! Counter the logic. I'd love to hear it.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah OK. Democracy itself is at peril if Labour > get in. 🙄 Possibly, but investment, industry, utilities, savings and services are in severe danger. Not to mention the tax burden. Sterling exchange rate will slump immediately and then steadily deteriorate as the national debt soars. Foreign inward investment will cease and there will be a flight of capital to overseas markets. The UK will be stuffed if the unholy alliance of the extreme Labour left and Len McLusky's lot get the levers of power. There will be a repeat of the 70's "Brain Drain" where our brightest and most productive fled overseas rather than be taxed to death by a Labour govt. Industrial strife will return with avengeance. I've been there, seen it, smelled it, felyt it and suffered under it. It stinks. I certainly dont want to see it again. I for one will certainly switch my investments to foreign businesses and with it the tax I pay. But maybe you are too young to remember the 70's and the 3 day week?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're perfectly entitled to your views, but if > you think he's going to usher in a communist > regime, well I think your mistaken (to put it > kindly). Here's a little profile I came across earlier. JC has just drafted in Andrew Murray to bolster his team Murray has been a member of the Communist Party for 40 years. He is an outspoken apologist for the Soviet Union ?even once suggesting that brutal dictator Joseph Stalin had been unfairly maligned ? and expressing 'solidarity' with North Korea, the most repressive dictatorship on Earth.Murray joined the communist party aged 18, in 1976, and after school, he decided on a career in journalism and worked for - where else? - the Soviet state-owned Novosti news agency. He then graduated to the Morning Star - house journal of the British Communist Party. Some of the articles he has written for blogs have now mysteriously disappeared. But even those that remain provide a startling insight into his politics. He also wrote: 'We need urgently to raise the level of our Leninist education. Everything we are talking about, the imperialist crisis, inter-imperialist conflict, war, political strategy and tactics, are Leninist issues. We need to do far more to study Marxism-Leninism.' In another Morning Star article written days after September 11 attacks in America, Murray described them as 'landmarks in world history'. He added: 'Imperialism is the terrorism of the powerful, breeding night and day the revenge of the weak.' In 2006 Murray gave the annual 'Marx oration' at Karl Marx's grave in Highgate Cemetery, north London - in which he railed against the 'world war' he said was being waged by the West against countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria and North Korea, who were being 'threatened' by Western powers.. JC just needs a few more like Murray around him and he will soon have even more in common with Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin et al

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Conservatives are constantly quoting that we need > the businesses & the wealthy as job creators which > is a total bunch of B@##ocks. > > The corollary is also true - the corporations & > the wealthy need us as their consumers & couldn't > operate their businesses without well trained, > well educated workers at all levels. Without us, > the likes of Branson might as well retire > permanently to Necker & grow some vegetable & > raise chickens. > > Wealth is mainly the produce of the land, labour & > technology of all society. > > Land would have little or no value without the > consumption of the produce therefrom & produce > would have no value without consumption. > > The wealthy corporations & individuals need us as > much & possibly more than we need them. Of course > risk & enterprise need to be rewarded in order to > provide incentive but there needs to be a balance > in the distribution of the annual proceeds of > economic activity so a country can prosper & its > people live with dignity & security. > > This idea is anathema to the Toryboy concept of > society - they want, even need an underclass to > propagate their ideal of living & will fight dirty > to achieve that. They have always promoted the > concept of the upper class that have had more > political power than those of lower classes due to > their abundance of resources and influence & they > intend to keep it that way - this is their core > driver. This is just a warped and simplistic interpretation of the realities of the meritocray we live in. It is not just a meritocracy in the UK alone. It is worldwide and the UK has to compete on a worldwide basis with other countries. Take a look at the USA.It is totally classless and those that have ability coupled to the willingness to work, will succeed. Look at Singapore - no land, no resources but highly successful. You are just digging up the class divide that ceased to exist years ago - in the same way that you are regugitating the politics of envy.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We need immigrants, as they do jobs the native > workers do not want to do, like pick fruit and veg > in the fields, drive buses and trains, sweep the > streets, empty the bins, nurse the sick in > hospitals etc. Without these people doing the jobs > they do, parts of this country would quickly grind > to a halt. Who did these jobs before the willing foreign workers arrived?