+ Visit Rotherham United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 18 of 26 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 254

Thread: O/T The Price Of Coal 1977 BBC Drama

  1. #171
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,310
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    I read it, raging and am happy for anyone else to. I posted the link for that purpose and to show that Monty was 'doing a Monty' and misrepresenting it.

    I can't recall ever asserting that 'the Conservatives have a better record on the economy' in such general terms, but I've kind of grown used to being misrepresented and misquoted. I can only assume that it's easier than actually dealing with what I do say?

    For the record, after the IMF had imposed some fiscal discipline upon it, I think the Callaghan government was showing promise and it would have been interesting to see what it could have achieved had the unions not secured it's defeat in 1979. I also think that the Brown government reacted quickly and we'll to the 2008 crash, albeit they (like every other government had failed to forsee it.

    Did you read the stuff that you copied and pasted, by the way? It is based upon the last period of Labour government i.e. the Labour Party that posters such as animal, Exile and MMM will tell you were not real Labour, but were instead a neoliberal (whatever that means) extension of Thatcherism. I always find it amusing when Labour supporters try to cherry pick that era when, as Corbyn's pick for Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, recently put it in a radio interview, the party is 'under new management now'

    You must be encouraged to see how the lowest 10% of earners have done under the Tories by the way? Or maybe not given that it shoots a Labour fox.

    Back to Labour, what do you make of their policy of seizing 10% of every decent sized public company? Nobody seems to want to talk about it (MMM denies knowing about it). It gives the lie to the suggestion that there is anything moderate or middle of the road about the current Labour set up, doesn't it?

    So you're reading from that research that the lowest 10% of earners have done well under the ppost 2010 government? Despite the report saying that "This is probably partly thanks to the influence of the Living Wage Foundation, rather than purely because of government policy" and concluding that on historical economic performance "within the context of the rest of the graph, the Conservative’s record is marred by the large increases in inequality in previous years". Do you really want to put that forward as the report suggesting that the conservatives are doing well on this??

    Yes, was aware it was all about post 79 governments. This report goes further back in comparing economic performance of all governments from the 1956 onwards:

    http://www.primeeconomics.org/articl...os059pp0w7gnpe

    It concluded that:

    On this basis, we may conclude that, over many decades, Labour governments have a good claim to be more fiscally conservative than Conservative ones. They have over time maintained a significantly lower average level of annual deficits – whether current budget, or overall budget deficits.

    In terms of investment spending, and we make this point more in sorrow than joy, Labour governments have on average achieved lower levels than Conservative ones, which may be seen as being more "fiscally conservative".

    In the whole period since 1956, there have been only 8 years on which an overall budget surplus has been achieved – and 4 of these were under Labour governments, 3 of them being the largest surpluses as a percentage of GDP.

    Regarding current budget surpluses (of which there have been a few more), 6 out of the top 10 (in terms of scale) were under Labour governments.

    On levels of public spending (which we do not see as truly being an indicator of fiscal conservatism), the Thatcher Conservative government runs neck and neck with the Wilson-Callaghan one in terms of any 5 year period. Her government for a long period substantially outspent (as a percentage of GDP) the Blair-Brown Labour government.

    And if the aim of a reasonably prudent (i.e. conservative) fiscal policy is to at least avoid mass unemployment, then the record of Labour governments since 1970 is far better than that of the Thatcher-Major government which oversaw extraordinarily high levels of unemployment - despite being the beneficiaries of North Sea Oil and Gas as they came on stream in large quantities.


    You might be interested in the table of economic data (from the Office for National Statistics) used for the report here:

    https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...+from+1956.pdf



    Interestingly, this report was obviously compiled to dispel the myth that Conservatives are better with public finances: that the manage the finances in a more responsible manner, and that Labour are historically all about spending at the expense of the economy.
    Interestingly the report finds itself "saddened" that whilst it successfully disproves this myth, in fact shows that Labour governments historically (from 1956) actually perform better than the conservatives, it shows that over time, Labour governments actually spend LESS on investment! I found this a real eye opener!

    In short, from 1956, there is very little to call between Labour and Conservatives on economic performance.


    As to the 10% "seizing" - I think it's an interesting concept in addressing the problem of relatively poor UK productivity, and like the idea of giving workers a stake in their company, although less about additional revenues going to the exchequer - which I think will give the tories and the press enough 'ammo' to deflect from the potential good effect that giving workers a stake in their company, and portray it purely as a 'hit the rich' scheme. Labour have to anticipate this argument coming, and sell the idea of such a scheme as a possible boost to UK productivity as well as building a bond between workers and their employers, a shared mutual target to aim for that both benefit from. I note that you haven't really mentioned how this scheme might improve productivity, focusing instead on a one dimensional tabloidic "they're hitting the rich" response.

  2. #172
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    25,063
    CEO's and other high level management have received shares as part of their salary and performance history for decades .

    I've had the chance several times to own shares in a company I worked for in Huddersfield , I had to pay for them if I wanted them but there was a discount .

    I remember Abbey National giving away a hundred shares to savers and mortgage customers when it was floated in the late 80's , can't remember anybody saying anything negative about that .

    As it says on the tin , " For The Many Not The Few "

  3. #173
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by millmoormagic View Post
    Indeed, Tailgate rippers were of the legendary types, even among fellow miners, i doff my cap sir...
    Thank you for that, he would have been chuffed..i forgot to add..he died from lung disease due to coal dust...

  4. #174
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,118
    FAO Cam and Frog. It's unusual of me to say this but I really must ask that you ban KerrAvon from the site. It's intolerable that he repeatedly calls me a liar. The quotes I gave were verbatim. I extracted them not to distort but merely for brevity. Raging gives longer extracts which show that Kerr's claim that I was "doing a Monty" is another lie. I will simply ignore this blowhard in future but you really ought to get rid - he's not a Miller and is constantly insulting and provocative hiding as always behind anonimity.

  5. #175
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    24,672
    I will second that. Please at easy check that he is not a multi on a wind up because he bears all the hallmarks for me ie respectable profession but the amount of time he spends on here suggests he is not in that profession, at all, the lack of interest in the millers, lack ofrespect for members of this board, inconsistent arguments and hiding behind anonymity, defending outrageous and offensive opinions of others. I could go on...Ellis d was a pal of mine and miss him, it just doesn't add up.
    Last edited by rolymiller; 21-10-2018 at 02:00 PM.

  6. #176
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,310
    I don't think Kerr is a multi. I don't think he's a wind up merchant and has conviction in the points he puts across.

    My only real issue with him is lack of imagination and unwillingness to look beyond the status quo - to on the surface pretend not to subscribe to the post Thatcher conservative, neo-liberal politics yet question and pick holes in any alternatives put forward. And, crucially, when questioned on his own politics, on what his own personal solutions to many problems we face, refuses to answer (God knows I've tried!).

  7. #177
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,287
    I think it's his raison d'etre to pick holes in just about anything that is posted
    Name me any post that this is not the case ,you'll be hard pressed

    @Kerr
    "Very interesting reading Kerr - I can only hope that you were hoping that no one would read the detail. If these are your key counter arguments to back up your continued stance that the Conservatives have a better record on the economy, then the conclusions of your report simply don't back you up in ANY key economic area."

    Doesn't seem to be in keeping with your "conviction" assertion Raginpup & I think you are being overly kind

  8. #178
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Exiletyke View Post
    I think it's his raison d'etre to pick holes in just about anything that is posted
    Name me any post that this is not the case ,you'll be hard pressed

    @Kerr
    "Very interesting reading Kerr - I can only hope that you were hoping that no one would read the detail. If these are your key counter arguments to back up your continued stance that the Conservatives have a better record on the economy, then the conclusions of your report simply don't back you up in ANY key economic area."

    Doesn't seem to be in keeping with your "conviction" assertion Raginpup & I think you are being overly kind
    I agree that it's his 'thing' to pick holes in arguments, and in itself I don't have any problem at all in that. We all stuck our neck out to give opinions in O/t threads and have to take any counter arguments on the chin. Kerr certainly doesn't need or want me to defend him here but I welcome having my arguments picked apart by anyone. They sometimes hold together! (shurrup!). But he isn't a multi and shouldn't be banned simply for being absurdly dogged to the point of obsession. It's his own time.

    At heart, I think that Kerr just wants things to stay as they are, moderate market force capitalism. Could be worse in either direction, my only problem is a lack of his own ideas towards solutions to the many ills that he acknowledges within that system.

  9. #179
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,287
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    I agree that it's his 'thing' to pick holes in arguments, and in itself I don't have any problem at all in that. We all stuck our neck out to give opinions in O/t threads and have to take any counter arguments on the chin. Kerr certainly doesn't need or want me to defend him here but I welcome having my arguments picked apart by anyone. They sometimes hold together! (shurrup!). But he isn't a multi and shouldn't be banned simply for being absurdly dogged to the point of obsession. It's his own time.

    At heart, I think that Kerr just wants things to stay as they are, moderate market force capitalism. Could be worse in either direction, my only problem is a lack of his own ideas towards solutions to the many ills that he acknowledges within that system.


    Yes but he'll even pick holes when there are no holes to be picked, just to be contrary
    He could start an argument in a phonebox
    I'd go along with the lack of his own ideas, illustrated by the lack of threads he's started, ever. 2 in total ever, which I think speaks volumes

  10. #180
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    24,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Exiletyke View Post
    Yes but he'll even pick holes when there are no holes to be picked, just to be contrary
    He could start an argument in a phonebox
    I'd go along with the lack of his own ideas, illustrated by the lack of threads he's started, ever. 2 in total ever, which I think speaks volumes
    I too smell a rat...If he wants to pick holes in Labour policies fair enough if he then denies he is a tory then why not criticise tory policies as well.The other thing is his so called profession. Just as the kempo habit of giving out medical advice on here is not professional if you are a doctor neither is arguing and winding up football fans about politics if you are lawyer. You wouldn't have the time or inclination to do it whatever your political views. You also would not admit to your profession as a lawyer on here because your views would reflect on the legal system of this country showing in this case political bias.
    Last edited by rolymiller; 21-10-2018 at 05:38 PM.

Page 18 of 26 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •