OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Geoff Parkstone]

" Unless people can understand that a fairer world means a little more giving and a lot less taking"

An interesting philosophy and one which, if I am honest, I dont share with you. I basically have little interest in fairness achieved by taking from the doers and giving to the not doers, or whichever variant of that expression one uses. I work damned hard for the money I make (well, apart from today, maybe) and Im buggered if I want to see huge chunks of it taken away through tax and given to people who cannot be bothered to get off their arses, preferring to sit in their council flats all day watching TV, smoking fags and getting banjoed on cheap strong cider. OK that's may be an extreme, some may prefer cannabis as an anti depressant of choice, but.....

More reasonably put, I believe reward should be related to effort and investment of time, energy and yes, perhaps money, in your own income and future. Whether that be a finance graduate working in finance, a nursing graduate in the NHS or a binman doing a long dirty shift clearing up trash. Each has a value in society and a reward that should be appropriate to that value. At the moment some of that value is bent out of shape, and needs straightening out: eg a hedge fund manager earning millions in bonuses is perfidious but equally supporting people who contribute nothing of value to society is equally wrong.

Does that make me a mean spirited, cold hearted *******? I dont think so, but you may disagree! Oddly I was talking to my son, just recently he is now no longer a student, when he was very pro Corbyn (as he promised free higher education). Now he basically says that his vote is for sale to whoever offers him the best options and deal: promise to abolish outstanding student loans he would support you whole heartedly. Giving bigger tax credits to working mums - not interested. Gender based pay equality - not if it costs me. Free broadband - not worth bothering just to save 30 quid a month......

Beyond the idealists (many of whom probably are financially secure enough in retirement now to vote on principle, not personal gain) do you know anyone who does not vote without self interest at their core? Certainly adherents of the two major parteis seem to

[ramAnag]

Well I think we’d all agree that your a ‘mean spirited cold hearted *******’, Parky , but you make a fair point and your second paragraph certainly resonates with me.

It’s not entirely fair of you to caricature all the ‘have nots’ in the way you havethough, imo, although there are undoubtedly a proportion who fit that description.

This though is where society is at it’s least fair. People who are caught, or born into, the world of poor housing and low wages seem to have little chance to escape these days. You say you ‘work damned hard’ for what you have. I have no reason to doubt it but you were probably blessed with good parents and intelligence. It is not so ‘easy’ for others without those two prerequisites to be quite so aspirational and there are plenty of unscrupulous employers around these days who will take advantage of the desperate.

To that extent...and in the broader World picture...that is why I think Swale is right with his suggestion of the need for ‘a little more giving and a lot less taking.’

[MadAmster]

I agree with the sentiments of the last 2 posts. I find myself in the camp of not minding, one iota, giving to help those who CAN'T help themselves. Same goes for funding education for all so that we all have at least a chance of getting comewhere. What I do object to is paying money in taxes for those who WON'T help themselves.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Please explain how there can be more giving and less taking? In order to give, there must be someone to take, and vica versa. Thus there will always be as much giving as taking in any "world order". It a simple mathematical certainty of equilibrium.

So you must mean a little more giving by A and a little more taking by B.

Who defines A and B?

[mistaram]

[QUOTE=Geoff Parkstone;39366074]" Unless people can understand that a fairer world means a little more giving and a lot less taking"

An interesting philosophy and one which, if I am honest, I dont share with you. I basically have little interest in fairness achieved by taking from the doers and giving to the not doers, or whichever variant of that expression one uses. I work damned hard for the money I make (well, apart from today, maybe) and Im buggered if I want to see huge chunks of it taken away through tax and given to people who cannot be bothered to get off their arses, preferring to sit in their council flats all day watching TV, smoking fags and getting banjoed on cheap strong cider. OK that's may be an extreme, some may prefer cannabis as an anti depressant of choice, but.....

More reasonably put, I believe reward should be related to effort and investment of time, energy and yes, perhaps money, in your own income and future. Whether that be a finance graduate working in finance, a nursing graduate in the NHS or a binman doing a long dirty shift clearing up trash. Each has a value in society and a reward that should be appropriate to that value. At the moment some of that value is bent out of shape, and needs straightening out: eg a hedge fund manager earning millions in bonuses is perfidious but equally supporting people who contribute nothing of value to society is equally wrong.

Does that make me a mean spirited, cold hearted *******? I dont think so, but you may disagree! Oddly I was talking to my son, just recently he is now no longer a student, when he was very pro Corbyn (as he promised free higher education). Now he basically says that his vote is for sale to whoever offers him the best options and deal: promise to abolish outstanding student loans he would support you whole heartedly. Giving bigger tax credits to working mums - not interested. Gender based pay equality - not if it costs me. Free broadband - not worth bothering just to save 30 quid a month......

Beyond the idealists (many of whom probably are financially secure enough in retirement now to vote on principle, not personal gain) do you know anyone who does not vote without self interest at their core? Certainly adherents of the two major parteis seem to[/Q

Gosh Geoff never took you to be a cold hearty ,selfish Tory ,but you sure sound like one Hope your not one of those who think 2million people are using foodbanks through choice . Or 455,000 people sleep rough every night Of course there are a tiny minority who cheat the system ,all ways has and always will But if your
worried about "huge chunks of your money being taken away through tax " you perhaps should be venting your feelings at the reel culprits ,the tax avoiders both big and small that's where a lot of the treasury money is lost Now what happened to those Panama Papers probably in the long grass somewhere

[mistaram]

I tend to agree with you Mista, that public services should be in public ownership - thus water, power definitely should be. Mail and telecomms have been compromised and cannot really return to public ownership: yes, you could renationalise the "old fashioned" parts of mail and phones, but not all the logistics and telecomms companies, so you would simply get selection against the state owned sector if you did, which by definition would quickly become even more bureaucratised and unable to react to change as they were when previously nationalised.

Rail is an interesting one; in theory it could and maybe should be nationalised again, but at a fair price, not at a Corbyn style basement bargain steal prices. Sure, the original privatisations were not correctly priced, leaving money on the table, but two wrongs don't make a right - and, to a large extent, most of the public utility companies are effectively in public investment via workplace and personal pension funds: a rapidly growing source of long term cheap internal funding for the nation. Avoidance of foreign ownership of our public utility companies is also desirable but how can you stop it? The capital provided by those overseas companies is important, and we live in a globalised economy. To suggest that foreign investment should be stopped makes you sound like a hardcore Brexiteer!!

But its no good look back with rose tinted glasses to the land of milk and honey 50s, 60s, 70s. Consider the destruction of the rail services under public ownership by Beeching Report. Balance sheets have to balance whoever owns it. The whole of the rail service in the southeast is barely fit for purpose in terms of capacity to move people to and from work. The irony, of course, is that when the grand infrastructural improvement plans come into effect (if ever), they wont be needed as everyone will be home working! So maybe the current state of the service is waiting for work practices to catch up.

Instead we piss away trillions on the madcap HS2 scheme, which is trying to facilitate a political end of regional development by making it quicker to get north, but in reality will make it easier for even more people to commute to London from further away up the Birmingham line. It doesnt matter who "owns" the railways, when massive capital budgets are wasted on such projects

Geoff the rail one is very interesting ,take the debarkle with the East Coast line . National Express were running it They lost money every for nine years In 2009 they told the government we can no longer afford to run So it was Nationalised from 2009-14 it made over £1billion for the treasury By 2014 the Torys wanted to get their hands on a going concern ,put it out to tender and Brandon ran it for three years and lost money every year He sold out NErailways there still running it and losing money Well done Mr Grayling peerage on its way

[Geoff Parkstone]

Mista: the good old network southeast that used to run my line (now taken over by Thameslink) ran it so abysmally under its franchise agreement, blamed performance on not having money to invest and also constant operating losses, that they were threatened with having the franchise taken away at renewal every year for about 5 years. They basically laughed at these fines since they knew the government could not give the franchise to anyone else because the issues were so bad that no-one else would take it on!

AND - the service was still better under network southeast than under the predecessor nationalised British Rail.

BUT lets not heap all the blame on the privatised franchise holders for ****ing up the railway system. Lets also look at the rail unions who were constantly on and off strike for several years (and still are on southwest trains) about the evolution of "smart trains" and one man operator trains. They have, via protectionism for their members, sought to block any form of technological improvement in the rail industry. Opportunities to improve services, reliability and cut costs to the passenger have been blocked at every opportunity by the rail unions, who have the ability to cause unlimited damage to individual passengers and the economy. Technological advances have put people out of work across the country ever since mechanisation and computerisation as far back as the Victorian age - but the rail unions still cripple services with regular disputes about their job protection. In some ways I feel sorry for the rail industry, trying to swim with a broken arm.

[ramAnag]

Please explain how there can be more giving and less taking? In order to give, there must be someone to take, and vica versa. Thus there will always be as much giving as taking in any "world order". It a simple mathematical certainty of equilibrium.

So you must mean a little more giving by A and a little more taking by B.

Who defines A and B?

Assuming you’re asking me for clarification and ignoring the fact that you are leading the discussion off into the murky world of semantics, I suppose A equals those who have a surfeit of wealth and B equals those who are in most serious need.

To that extent it’s a question of the redistribution of wealth...a controversial issue which I assume, professionally speaking, you may be fundamentally opposed to.

Is there not something seriously wrong with a World where a proportion lives in the lap of luxury while others starve, where relatively ordinary footballers earn more in a week than essential public sector workers earn in three or four years, where bankers continue to earn ‘fat cat’ salaries having been bailed out a decade ago by the taxpayer and where wealth is perpetuated by those with the most benefiting from the greatest educational, social and medical advantages while those with the least continue to struggle?

So who defines A and B? Well common sense and common decency, but of course the power to change things resides with those who will be most resistant to it and who will probably deride the above sentiments as ‘communist’.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Well a world as you define there isn't a meritocracy but rather more socialist than communist. I cannot justify your footballer earning more than a nurse etc. Its a function of scarce resource high demand footballocracy.

However before you go too far on your levelling down of wealth, remember that a comfortably off retired, professional class, homeowner Is (globally) probably in the top 0.01%ile of wealth. So be prepared to lose 80+% of that wealth and income to help ISIS refugees or starving Africans. Still keen?

[Geoff Parkstone]

"To that extent it’s a question of the redistribution of wealth...a controversial issue which I assume, professionally speaking, you may be fundamentally opposed to."

Not at all opposed in fact. Like Swale and Brexit I could spend the rest of my working life earning good money helping people get round it!!! 😉😉