Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Donald Trump. Leg End or Bell End?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hubble
    replied
    Going back to Thatcher - because I know you'd all love to - this is from an article that absolutely epitomises my objections to privatisation and Thatcherism. It's about the massive sell off of publicly owned land that started under her tenure, and has a direct impact on the lack of housing today, and so much more:

    Read it and weep, fellow British citizens:


    Over the past 12 months, the issue of privatisation has surged back into the news and the public consciousness in Britain. Driven by mounting concerns about profiteering and mismanagement at privatised enterprises, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party has made the renationalisation of key utilities and the railways a central plank of its agenda for a future Labour administration. And then, of course, there is Carillion, a stark, rotting symbol of everything that has gone wrong with the privatisation of local public services, and which has prompted Corbyn’s recent call for a rebirth of municipal socialism.

    Yet in all the proliferating discussion about the rights and wrongs of the history of privatisation in Britain – both from those determined to row back against the neoliberal tide and those convinced that renationalisation is the wrong answer – Britain’s biggest privatisation of all never merits a mention. This is partly because so few people are aware that it has even taken place, and partly because it has never been properly studied. What is this mega-privatisation? The privatisation of land.

    Some activists have hinted at it. Last October, for instance, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), a progressive thinktank, called in this newspaper for the government to stop selling public land. But the NEF’s is solely a present-day story, picturing land privatisation as a new phenomenon. It gives no sense of the fact that this has been occurring on a massive scale for fully 39 years, since the day that Margaret Thatcher entered Downing Street. During that period, all types of public land have been targeted, held by local and central government alike. And while disposals have generally been heaviest under Tory and Tory-led administrations, they definitely did not abate under New Labour; indeed the NHS estate, in particular, was ravaged during the Blair years.
    All told, around 2 million hectares of public land have been privatised during the past four decades. This amounts to an eye-watering 10% of the entire British land mass, and about half of all the land that was owned by public bodies when Thatcher assumed power. How much is the land that has been privatised in Britain worth? It is impossible to say for sure. But my conservative estimate, explained in my forthcoming book on this historic privatisation, called The New Enclosure, is somewhere in the region of 400bn in today’s prices. This dwarfs the value of all of Britain’s other, better known, and often bitterly contested, privatisations.

    The article goes on to say:

    It is difficult to overstate the significance of this colossal land privatisation, and the manifold damages to the social and economic fabric of the nation that have been caused. Those damages are apparent especially in relation to the other issue currently on everyone’s minds in Britain alongside privatisation – housing, and the nation’s acute housing crisis. Selling public land to private-sector developers, who have long been the biggest buyers of government land, was supposed to have helped alleviate Britain’s housing problems, but it has done nothing of the sort.

    Full article:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/08/biggest-privatisation-land-margaret-thatcher-britain-housing-crisis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Mcleod
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluehoop View Post
    Love that Kev - that could almost be May's moment, like the one where the Falklands conflict changed Thatcher's tenure forever
    Hes so right eh Blue mate.
    Think we need the Moog in charge to get anything remotely close to what Farage speaks of though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluehoop
    replied
    Love that Kev - that could almost be May's moment, like the one where the Falklands conflict changed Thatcher's tenure forever

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Mcleod
    replied
    Oh and apologies in advance Tarbs, i aint doing this to wind you up i swear.
    This one minute speech on Brexit from the British legend was just ohhhhhh for me.

    https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...love-actually/

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Mcleod
    replied
    Earn 150k a year and are worth tens to fifties of millions. Makes you wnder why they bother eh mate.

    If Trump is crooked do you not think it would of come out by now, with the whole world against him and so much of the states conspiring to get him impeached.
    Shame lads banter about crumpet dont carry that punishment yet eh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tarbie
    replied
    Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
    Clinton emails were well spicy last night.
    If you ever need more proof of the failure of democracy, you need look no further than the 2 options in the last US election, and the 2 options in the last UK election. Both Clinton and Trump are crooked as hell (despite what some on this thread seem to think about Trump). Then in the UK we have Theresa May (and I'll don my tin hat again), who I think is just a nasty piece of work. Or Jezza Corbyn, a beardy old Lefty who has been kicking around the political world for decades without being taken seriously until the last 5 or 6 years.

    The whole system is massively flawed. The idea of 1 man or woman being responsible for the social and economic wellbeing of nations like the US or the UK is hugely unrealistic in this modern age with the internet, ever expanding populations, and an increasingly informed general public.

    It's also unrealistic for anyone capable of the job really wanting it. The PM last year took home less than 150k GBP after benefits/bonuses etc. In other words, less than pretty much every CEO on the planet. In return they get to be scrutinised very publicly, every hour of every day, by pretty much everyone in the country.
    Last edited by Tarbie; 08-02-2018, 08:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Mcleod
    replied
    Clinton emails were well spicy last night.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fraggy
    replied
    Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
    That's the man Kev.
    Handsome, approachable and admits to inhaling.
    My beef is that it took me over 2 years to prove to Canadian immigration that I can actually speak English, and multiple hoops had to be jumped through and many shackles parted with before I got my dual citizenship.
    During my swearing in ceremony, there was 80+ of us, but only a handful who could actually speak English or French.
    Also, since Mr.Trudeau's amazing gesture at bringing in refugees via the fast track system, gun and knife crime looks to have escalated; maybe a coincidence?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Mcleod
    replied
    Originally posted by Fraggy View Post
    Jeems, I live in Canada, so I was referring to the nice guy that is Justin Trudeau.
    Only thing of note that I am behind with Justin, is the legalization of marijuana
    https://youtu.be/LVYlUjRwATw

    Leave a comment:


  • Stanley
    replied
    Hubble, BrightonR, here's the thing: When has this country ever had a PM who's divided opinion to such extremes as Thatcher did? She must have surely had something about her to achieve that? But what the #### do I know? I hear both sides of the argument and I always get them both. Some say she was our greatest Prime Minister since Churchill and they even want to build a statue of her in Parliament Square. Speaking of Churchill, I watched The Darkest Hour last night and Gary Oldman portrayed him superbly. It was a great film too. I think the reasons why we get the comparisons between Thatcher and Churchill is because both of them were incredibly strong characters who had the unwavering courage of their convictions in the face of monumental pressures and adversities, and always remained true to these convictions. They were also both natural born leaders. Overall I'd put Churchill slightly above Thatcher though, as the former had a bit more of the common touch about him, he was a better listener and more naturally compassionate. It was incredible to realise that in his true 'darkest hour' the only people that never lost faith in him were the king of England, his secretary, his wife and the general public. Whilst all of Parliament including most of his own party, had done.

    Leave a comment:


  • 72bus
    replied
    hubble u talk a lot of sense mate , thatcher was a wicked lady and a maniac

    Leave a comment:


  • Hubble
    replied
    Originally posted by brightonr View Post
    You’re making no sense Hubble. What have subsidies to rail companies got to do with overpriced housing?

    And the Tory’s stopped being Tory’s when they forced out the only decent leader they’ve had since we were in short trousers.
    I'm talking about privatisation. As for overpriced housing, yes, taking millions of homes out of public ownership has ####ed the housing market to the benefit of the wealthy, to the detriment of everyone else.

    Leave a comment:


  • brightonr
    replied
    Originally posted by Hubble View Post
    Yes Brightonian, in other words Labour simply continued the Tories dire policies. Blairite Labour was basically Tory-Lite.

    I'm no fan of the Labour party either mate. They're all shysters as far as I'm concerned. Between them they have ####ed up this country good and proper. It could have been so different if any of them had both vision, pragmatism and a genuine will to help the British people, not the global elite.

    Oh, and your views on the huge subsidies handed out to the failing rail companies? The fact that most of our country is now foreign owned? Hmmm.


    You’re making no sense Hubble. What have subsidies to rail companies got to do with overpriced housing?

    And the Tory’s stopped being Tory’s when they forced out the only decent leader they’ve had since we were in short trousers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hubble
    replied
    Originally posted by brightonr View Post
    Hubble,
    Sorry, but you don’t half talk some b0110cks.

    The state of today’s housing problems are nothing other than a combination of a failure of governments of both sides to replenish housing stock when necessary and a complete and utter mismanagement of the financial services sector between 1997 and 2010. And to be totally balanced, the Tory’s handling of the mess they inherited.
    Yes Brightonian, in other words Labour simply continued the Tories dire policies. Blairite Labour was basically Tory-Lite.

    I'm no fan of the Labour party either mate. They're all shysters as far as I'm concerned. Between them they have ####ed up this country good and proper. It could have been so different if any of them had both vision, pragmatism and a genuine will to help the British people, not the global elite.

    Oh, and your views on the huge subsidies handed out to the failing rail companies? The fact that most of our country is now foreign owned? And how about Carilion? Epitomises exactly what I'm talking about.
    Last edited by Hubble; 03-02-2018, 04:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • brightonr
    replied
    Hubble,
    Sorry, but you don’t half talk some b0110cks.

    The state of today’s housing problems are nothing other than a combination of a failure of governments of both sides to replenish housing stock when necessary and a complete and utter mismanagement of the financial services sector between 1997 and 2010. And to be totally balanced, the Tory’s handling of the mess they inherited.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X