It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialist conspiracy for state control of housing

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Interest rates (set by the Bank of England) are predicted to rise again in 2007. House prices are surging way ahead of the normal 3 x the average salary. Stamp duty remains fixed at 1% between 125,000 and 250,000 pounds regardless of the house price surge (average house prices across the UK are now in the 175,000 bracket). All this information can easily be found across the internet, so I haven't linked to it.

The question is...

Are some further left wing elements within the labour party attempting to gain state control of the housing market by deliberately aiming to price houses above peoples means, and therefore forcing many back to council housing?

Here is a link to a new initiative by the Labour government which allows you to buy part of a house, while the state (us) buys the rest.

www.mortgagesorter.co.uk...

With the recent large increases in public sector jobs, the housing situation, state interference in several aspects of our lives (speed cameras which record number plates, council inspections of property for tax assessment, impending Labour ID card plans costing billions just to start up, being told that a multi-cultural United Kingdom is the only way forward, tax rates overtaking most left leaning European countries)...

Is Labour covertly following the far left wing policy of control and collectivisation whilst providing dis-information to the electorate that it is in fact slightly centre-right?

How long before they attempt to gain control of industry and agriculture?




posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Welcome to the board boyg2004.



Originally posted by boyg2004
Are some further left wing elements within the labour party attempting to gain state control of the housing market by deliberately aiming to price houses above peoples means, and therefore forcing many back to council housing?


- If you honestly think that the phenomenon of first-time buyers having trouble getting on the housing ladder is something new or (in some unspecified way) a manufacture of (unnamed) people in the current Labour Gov (despite them doing all they can to successfully maintain stability in the economy and keep employment at a record high etc etc) then you really haven't been paying attention to the history of the British housing market, eh?

What council housing, for a start?

Thanks to Thatcher & Major's sell-offs and almost 2 decades of their enormous reduction in state funded housing construction 'council housing' has to all intents and purposes disappeared.

IIRC they have largely been sold off to private housing trusts and the like.

Despite a very modest rise in the numbers of homes built by the state during these current Labour years this is one hang-over from the tory years that is still making an impact because a lack of 'social housing' is contributing (mightily) to an overall housing shortage which in turn is sustaining and indeed driving house prices ever higher.

Supply (and a lack of it) and demand, pure and simple.


Here is a link to a new initiative by the Labour government which allows you to buy part of a house, while the state (us) buys the rest.

www.mortgagesorter.co.uk...


- You are completely wrong, sorry but no it isn't, at all.

'Co-ownership' as we call it in Northern Ireland pre-dates this Labour Government by 2 decades and was operated under their almost 20yrs of continuous tory Gov from 1979 - 1997.

I'm afraid you'll just have to look elsewhere for your 'socialist conspiracy' and reds under this Labour Gov's beds.



Co-Ownership has been running very successfully since 1978 and has helped more than 19,000 households to purchase the homes of their choice through shared ownership.

Purchasers take as large a share as they can afford to start with – 40%, 50%, 62.5% or 75%. They can then increase that share at any time ('staircasing').


www.co-ownership.org...


Is Labour covertly following the far left wing policy of control and collectivisation whilst providing dis-information to the electorate that it is in fact slightly centre-right?

How long before they attempt to gain control of industry and agriculture?


- Well, OK, we're all entitled to our take on events and our own opinions but I have to say that if you honestly see anything "far left" about this Labour Gov and (Tory?) Blair then you are in about as small a minority as it is possible to be in.

Even 'Dave' Cameron, the present tory leader, has given up trying to paint Blair as especially 'left-wing'.
In fact he now compliments much of what Labour and Tony Blair have done (including Labour's investing in what were the post 1997 tory Gov's legacy of clapped out and desperately under-funded Public Services.....hence the increases in staffing - which includes Drs and nursing staff, not much sign of a 'red dawn' there)!

Do let us know tho, cos I'd be fascinated to see how this imminent nationalisation you imagine happening is going to work out.


Sorry matey but this sounds like some sort of ghastly (and typically poorly informed) right-wing nonsense from the Daily Mail.

Wishing everyone a happy, peaceful and prosperous new year



[edit on 29-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   


- Well, OK, we're all entitled to our take on events and our own opinions but I have to say that if you honestly see anything "far left" about this Labour Gov and (Tory?) Blair then you are in about as small a minority as it is possible to be in.


two words... John Reid

en.wikipedia.org...

'I used to be a communist' he said.

I really can't see every last far left ideology being dropped by him. This guy is likely to challenge Gordon Brown for Labour leadership, by the way.

Incidentally, I live in a council house bought from the local authority. I managed to get in there before they raised the threshold to five years residency instead of three before you can buy. There are bucketloads of them around my area if you want one. The problem is... the local Labour government neglects what is their love. There are estates which must be bulldozed due to locals refusing to live in them.





Do let us know tho, cos I'd be fascinated to see how this imminent nationalisation you imagine happening is going to work out.



It's not going to work out. It is in motion. 'New' Labour is only a re-branding attempt to distance itself from the largest economic disaster in recent British history in the 1970's, whereby Labour considered options as wild as nationalisation.

I am currently paying ridiculous taxes to substain people who refuse to go to work. My neighbour, who does not work, has a 42" widescreen TV. He can afford this due to his wife working whilst claiming tax credits. This is immoral. He is fit and healthy. If this is socialism in action, whereby a classless society is being created, then I want no part of it. The idle shouldn't be prompted backed to work a-la new-deal. They should be forced a-la hard LABOUR.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Oh. Thanks for the welcome. I've been reading ATS and Politics@ATS and it's great.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004
two words... John Reid

en.wikipedia.org...

'I used to be a communist' he said.


- and so what?
Lots of people "used" to be lots of things.....and I'd far rather a straight-talking plain speaking man who is honest and open about his past, as Dr John Reid is, than one who is not.

In Dr John Reid's case tho we not only have free access to his record and what he "used" to say but we have the benefit of seeing and hearing from him in his several years in this Gov.
Sorry and I realise it doesn't help with the innuendo and conspiracy but there's not been a 'communist' ideal in sight.

If you're going to use someone's personal ancient history (which they're quite open about) to attack them and yet ignore the several years of things he has done in recent times that seems to me to be especially lame and weak.
(and the facts of his time in senior Gov posts are there for all to see, his days as SoS for NI were not characterised by any particular 'communistic' behaviour, nor were his days as SoS for Health and certainly not now as Home Secretary)


I really can't see every last far left ideology being dropped by him.


- Well besides personal prejudice and your own 'belief' in this what grounds do you have for claiming this?

Which of his actions, specifically, in this Gov strike have ever struck you as especially 'communist'?


This guy is likely to challenge Gordon Brown for Labour leadership, by the way.


- Indeed he may challenge Gordon Brown.

...and if he does so he will lose, heavily.

Gordon Brown will win any leadership contest by a mile.

If you honestly imagine otherwise then you plainly know nothing about the Labour party today and it's general party membership.

For they are the people who will select GB (not those shadowy 'left-wing Labour MPs' - that seem to excite you so much - who have obviously spent the time since may 1997 and the election of this Labour Gov being almost entirely silent and invisible, as far as the substantive policies and actions of this Labour Gov are concerned) when the time comes......if there even is a contest; this itself being open to question due to Brown's obvious and huge lead amongst the party membership.


There are bucketloads of them around my area if you want one.


- ....and?
I didn't say all British council housing had ceased to exist.
There are still many 'Northern Ireland Housing Executive' (council) houses nearby to me too.
It does vary across the country.

But nevertheless the fact still stands that nationally across the UK the public housing stock has been in severe decline since the early 1980's due to a huge fall in construction numbers and the policies of selling them off (both to private individuals and collectively to things like private 'Housing Trusts' or agencies).


Local authority housing grew after World War I; 2 million houses were built before 1939, over 4 million more after the war. Initially, council housing was intended for the "working classes". The main justification for its development after 1919 was the provision of housing for general needs, but after 1930, it became focused on people displaced after slum clearance. The stigma of council housing probably dates from this period: council estates were built in locations where they would not adversely affect the values of owner-occupied property.

After World War II, references to the 'working classes' were removed. The replacement of the housing stock, particularly through clearances, became council housing's main role, with mass building. The subsidies favoured industrial, high-rise building, though this was often more expensive than the alternatives. Quantity was more important than quality. (3)

Housing policy changed after 1970, when political support for council housing was withdrawn by the Conservatives. In the 1970s and 80s, council housing acquired a more residual role, and is now more concerned with welfare issues and special needs. General subsidies have been progressively withdrawn; for most tenants they have been replaced by Housing Benefit. The sale of council housing to tenants, and mass transfers of stock to Registered Social Landlords, have reduced the numbers. (4) As the role of council housing has diminished, Housing Associations have been encouraged to take over the limited opportunities for development.

www2.rgu.ac.uk...

- The truth is that it is actually the result of the post 1980 tory housing policies that we have a large housing shortage which has resulted in ever rising prices.

If you really want a conspiracy on housing then try this......

The tory party stopped public housing construction so as to create a shortage of housing and therefore promote the myth of increasing wealth amongst home owners and particularly the middle classes who already aspired to and desired (or had) home ownership - but it's all relative and it's not like you can ever sell up and cash in on these 'monopoly money' prices and go and live in a tent is it?

It also had the added benefit that (along side changes the tory party made to social security) when you got too old to look after yourself the tory state took it all off you anyways and forced the sale of your property to pay towards your residential/nursing home care.

The point of the policy of council house sell-offs as far as the working classes were concerned was at least three-fold,
it was extremely useful in cowing the then militant unionised working classes over the very long term by putting pressure on them to keep on servicing their mortgages to maintain a roof over their heads;
it encouraged a more self-centred and less communal outlook amongst the working classes
and it also helped break up communities as the children of what had been previously council house tenants were forced to relocate elsewhere as the council housing stock vanished.

(At least this one is generally consistent within itself as well as being consistent with some of the public statements, attitudes and actions of some of the senior tory politicians around at the time....Westminster gerrymandering scandal anyone?.)


It's not going to work out. It is in motion. 'New' Labour is only a re-branding attempt to distance itself from the largest economic disaster in recent British history in the 1970's, whereby Labour considered options as wild as nationalisation.


- What "1970's disaster" are you talking about and which consequent "wild" nationalisation(s) are you referring to, specifically?

Where and what are, precisely, these things are you saying is "in motion"?

(cos from the World Bank to the IMF to the OECD the UK economy under this Gov has been repeatedly praised as well managed)


I am currently paying ridiculous taxes to substain people who refuse to go to work.


- Oh dear.


(btw your sweeping disdainful claim, that this Gov's record of reducing British unemployment enormously and ensuring that we now have record employment by measures which include the working family tax credits, is just "socialism in action" is rather funny if somewhat confused and sad......are you claiming that our current record UK employment and low unemployment is something one might only describe as "socialism in action"!?
How does that one work?
)


Lets go back to first principles.

You began this thread by trying to make connections to insinuate that the present Gov was engineering the rise in house prices in some way.

(You also seemed a little confused about the impact and inter-relation between interest rates - set by the, since 1997, independent, and not at all 'left-wing', Bank of England - and house prices.
Rises in interest rates effect the mortgage payments existing home owners have to pay but they also ought to moderate the rises in house prices.
The independent BoE is most certainly not run by these unnamed and nefarious 'left-wing Labour MPs you dream of.)

You then said this might be some sort of attempt to force people to go into publicly funded housing via what you seemed to believe was a new shared ownership scheme set up by this Labour Gov.

I've clearly informed you of the factual errors of those claims and the total implausibility of your theory.

Now you're reduced to simply making a series of 'scattergun' and various vague groundless claims along with a personal anecdote!

Some comment about Dr John Reid (and what you imagine he might try to do, some day, in your opinion) along with vague claims about the Labour Gov in the 1970's and then you round it off with some 'Daily Mail-esque' anecdotal complaints about 'some people' you claim to know (all about)....

.....and to cap it all you end by stating that your own little solution to some of the country's ills is some sort of fascist prison state where those people who you think deserving of it are "forced" to do "hard labour".
Oh dear indeed.


Well peace and goodwill and a happy new year to you too.

Here's hoping it never you or yours on the end of someone's sweeping, aggressive and brutal judgements, huh?


You'll excuse the vast majority of this nation (as it actually is, not the Telegraph or Daily Mail fantasy version) if we don't take your er, 'advice'?



Oh. Thanks for the welcome. I've been reading ATS and Politics@ATS and it's great.


- You're welcome.

(but I'd try and stay on topic a little harder if I were you - if you want to debate whether there are some workshy people around then by all means but that wasn't the premise of your thread)


[edit on 30-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
i'm really glad I was able to touch a nerve.


But you'll never convince me otherwise. Writing long answers only serves to confuse the writer and readers.

John Reid is a self confessed ex-communist. If I was a self confessed homosexual in my twenties (and i'm not), would you believe me when I said I only like women now?

If I was a self confessed member of Combat18 in my twenties (and i'm not), would you believe that I never harboured a right-wing agenda into my thirties?

This man is a government cabinet member with influence at the point of decision making.

Now be a dear and admit you were wrong about the statement you made regarding the present Labour government...




but I have to say that if you honestly see anything "far left" about this Labour Gov and (Tory?) Blair then you are in about as small a minority as it is possible to be in.


I see it loud and clear, captain.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
And so it comes full circle. To have a conspiracy about government reclamation of the housing market, we must have committed socialists in place. There is. Back to the point.

Are you saying that co-ownership of housing by the state does not represent a socialist ideal?

Are you saying that the government could not have increased the interest rates quicker to avert a boom-bust (remember that old tory problem) happening again?

Or are we seeing a deliberate avenue into more power to the state through holding every household in the nation to ransom through dictated rent rates as well as being punished for being successful and educated through the coucil tax system.

Incidentally, I did not see anything in the ATS terms and conditions which forbade the use of the Daily Mail for quotes. Nor the Gaurdian.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004
i'm really glad I was able to touch a nerve.


- No, don't flatter yourself, you didn't: it's called adult debate.

I obviously made the mistake of thinking you had come here to discuss an issue seriously.

My mistake.


But you'll never convince me otherwise.


- Then why come to a public debating board?

This is a discussion and debating forum it's not for simply making silly curt statements of one's personal beliefs/ideology.

Why bother if all you can do the moment someone starts discussing what you've posted is run away claiming your not open to discussion?



Writing long answers only serves to confuse the writer and readers.


- No.
Doing people the courtesy of responding to their ideas and comments as well as providing pertinent facts and data on the matter is something one might find and expect in serious debate.

Quite clearly you are not interested in that.

So why are you here?


John Reid is a self confessed ex-communist.


- Like I said, and so what?

He has been in this Gov for years (long after that period in his life) and all without doing anything particularly 'left-wing', 'far left' or 'communist;.


If I was a self confessed homosexual in my twenties (and i'm not), would you believe me when I said I only like women now?
If I was a self confessed member of Combat18 in my twenties (and i'm not), would you believe that I never harboured a right-wing agenda into my thirties


- I could care less either way and in Dr. John Reid's case that's exactly how the electorate and the Labour party feel about it.

He was a communist at 26 and is now almost 60yrs old........so just what relevance would your own 30's be to this point?

(I believe he has also publicly admitted to believing in Father Christmas at one point in his life.....Oooooooh what is that likely to mean to his pending communist 'class war'?
)

.... but your choices of 'examples' are, er, 'interesting' - if somewhat predictable.



Now be a dear and admit you were wrong about the statement you made regarding the present Labour government...


- Perhaps you'd care to explain which "far left" actions (ie actual policies) that have you so excited, cos I, along with tory leader Cameron, don't see it.

If you can point out some "far left" actions and policies then (if true) I'll happily acknowledge them.

I'll wait but not be holding my breath on that one.



I see it loud and clear, captain.


- .....and yet you just can't seem to give a single specific example.


Are you saying that co-ownership of housing by the state does not represent a socialist ideal?


- Yes.

(btw, do you happen to know what "socialism" actually is?

BTW I'm talking about the factual version of what socialism really is, not the tory/Daily Mail fantasy version of just labelling anything they don't like as 'socialist'.
)

1) It's nothing new (contrary to your original claim)
2) It's a mechanism intended primarily to help first time buyers and extend the private ownership of property.
3) It has been operated (and adjusted/refined) for many more years by tory govs compared to Labour (since 1978).


Are you saying that the government could not have increased the interest rates quicker to avert a boom-bust (remember that old tory problem) happening again?


- You might want to check into that business of the Bank of England being independent again.

.....and if you really want to compare the management of the economy and the interest rate record and that of "boom and bust" between the last tory Gov and this current Labour one then be my guest
(on another thread).


Or are we seeing a deliberate avenue into more power to the state through holding every household in the nation to ransom through dictated rent rates as well as being punished for being successful and educated through the coucil tax system.


- Well I guess when your original point has been busted by the facts then this kind of general speculative complaint is all you have left, huh?

"Rent rates" are neither "dictated" nor the preserve of this Gov.

Council tax rates have a lot to do with local Gov (which residents elect).

But let's face it, if all you have got left is to bitch about council tax rates
(which however annoying they might be are hardly the be-all and end-all of British taxation)
then I suggest you just admit defeat here and just be honest enough to start a thread complaining about the levels of council taxation.


Incidentally, I did not see anything in the ATS terms and conditions which forbade the use of the Daily Mail for quotes.


- No but generally we do encourage people to credit their quotations and admit the source for their material.

.....and relying on single sources (particularly ones as so obviously slanted like the Daily Mail) isn't exactly the height of credibility.

You were welcomed here originally in the hope that you might add to the quality of our political debate here, sadly it looks like you are working to an entirely different agenda of your own.



[edit on 30-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Ok, smink. I'm glad I posted on this forum. Because speaking with yourself has been a real eye opener. You talk of my agenda. My agenda is the best for my family and I. I have not revealed my political preference as yet, but I may.

May I gather from your fervent dismissal of this conpiracy theory that you are DEFENDING this government, its actions, its policies, its general behavior toward the electorate, and the political leanings of John Reid?

Do you really expect the people who read this forum to accept that he still doesn't hold some communist beliefs close to him. Do you expect people to contribute to this forum when your own contribution is nothing other than that of somebody who goes over a document robotically picking fault on people for being so stupid as not to know every last detail of every political exchange ever?

I must forgive myself for showing an interest in politics, kind sir. Do you treat everyone with such contempt, or just the ones who have good grammar and can spell properly?


We must all give fantistic answers to you, we owe it to the people of the forum to provide substantiation to the argument but not you.




Like I said, and so what?


Great explanation, Cap.

I'm not here to wind you up. I'm here to seriously discuss a conspiracy I see unfolding before my eyes. That's a C O N S P I R A C Y. Something which, due to the nature of the word, sometimes cannot be backed up with the sort of evidence which could put OJ Simpson down.

Answer me this, please. If the housing price boom is just a matter of supply v demand, all due to your accusation of neglect by the torys... why don't Labour simply build more council houses (and i'm not going to call the housing an official name when I don't need to, Cap). It's in their blood, so why?

Because they will build them when the s**t hits. Pronto.

OR... They will stop the bulldozing of the estates neglected by the big bad Torys and force average Joe from the recently closed down Plc to reduce his level to the slums from whence he came.

But I digress...

I know that the government gave autonomy to the Bank of England to consider interest rates. You really insulted me there. That hit a nerve with me. Disrespectful. However, if you seriously believe that Gordon Brown cannot waltz into the board meeting and TELL them that rates go up or go down then you are as naive as you are long-winded. Un-constitutional or not, it happens. To think the government has no say, cannot exhibit political pressure to its own end or, indeed, cannot take the privelege away at the drop of a hat is retarded.

Finally...



sadly it looks like you are working to an entirely different agenda of your own.


also...



No but generally we do encourage people to credit their quotations and admit the source for their material.


Could you please tell me what this agenda may be, and I must encourage you to credit your quotation and admit the source of material, Captain.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Furthermore, having actually finally read your entire series of replies, I find it is full of self-opinionated rubbish.




Some comment about Dr John Reid (and what you imagine he might try to do, some day, in your opinion) along with vague claims about the Labour Gov in the 1970's and then you round it off with some 'Daily Mail-esque' anecdotal complaints about 'some people' you claim to know (all about)....


1. I KNOW John Reid was a Communist and have subsantial evidence to back it up. You do not think he is, and you have no evidence other than 'your opinion' to give this meat. Back it up with facts, Cap, or don't talk.

2. My 'Vague' claim is that in the 1970's, just prior to a new Tory power in '78 is that British interest rates were around 15%. The economy was in tatters, and the country was on the brink of bankruptcy. Disprove that.

3. What is 'Daily Mail-esque'. Is it an opinion of the people? Is it an ideology? Is it an opinion of you? Sureley not. Opinions must be backed up with links to obscure websites according to our neutral 'expert'. You seem to have a dislike of the Daily Mail. I know the political leaning of this paper. Would you care to share with this forum exactly WHY you dislike it so much?

4. My anecdotal complaints are a reflection of my life. Is it not the prerogative of the electorate to take his complaints to public debate? Or would you prefer that it was handled behind closed doors?



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004
May I gather from your fervent dismissal of this conpiracy theory that you are DEFENDING this government, its actions, its policies, its general behavior toward the electorate, and the political leanings of John Reid?


- Actually if you just read what I originally said you'd find that I hadn't "defended" anybody.

All I have done is deconstruct & demolish your little theory (that you started this thread with) by introducing some facts which you were clearly unaware of.

I gave facts showing that co-ownership is neither new nor the product of this Gov's policies & commented that the means and mechanisms that extend private home ownership can hardly be called 'socialist'.

Quite frankly it's a laughable concept (provided one has a basic grasp of what 'socialism' actually means).


Do you really expect the people who read this forum to accept that he still doesn't hold some communist beliefs close to him.


- I think most people will look at his record in Gov.

I think 'most people' will be more concerned with his record & actions in his 50's & onward & not be obsessing about what he was when he was in his 20's.

As his electorate & the Labour party continue to repeatedly indicate.


Do you expect people to contribute to this forum when your own contribution is nothing other than that of somebody who goes over a document robotically picking fault on people for being so stupid as not to know every last detail of every political exchange ever?


- If what you mean by that is that I should just ignore glarring factual errors and/or that we here at PTS should just accept or encourage obvious ignorance of the facts of the matter(s) at hand then no, sorry but that's just not going to happen here.


I must forgive myself for showing an interest in politics, kind sir. Do you treat everyone with such contempt, or just the ones who have good grammar and can spell properly?


- Perhaps you shouldn't take it so personally when the history & facts turn out not to be what you imagined?

(BTW I'd suggest you use a spell-checker cos your spelling is nothing to brag about.)


We must all give fantistic answers to you, we owe it to the people of the forum to provide substantiation to the argument but not you.


- The idea is that you present the board with reasonably well thought out ideas & views.....& either debate & defend them, or not.
You can't very well just sit there & complain if others contribute contrary facts & disagree.

You are, of course, at liberty to disagree and/or point out where I have erred (hopefully with referenced facts & not just your own opinions).
But you can also expect people (myself included) to respond to what you write.


I'm here to seriously discuss a conspiracy I see unfolding before my eyes. That's a C O N S P I R A C Y.


- This is the UK politics forum, not a conspiracy forum.

Your input is welcome but you ought to back it up with facts & not just hunches or personal prejudices & keep within the Terms & conditions.

The truth is that your original ideas do not concur with the facts.


Answer me this, please. If the housing price boom is just a matter of supply v demand, all due to your accusation of neglect by the torys...


- As I showed, this is no 'theory' or mere "accusation", it's a fact that during their almost 20yrs in office the tory party cut back enormously on council house construction & either sold off large parts of what there was left to private individuals or transferred properties to agencies & housing trusts.

They're the facts of the matter. Not a mere opinion.


why don't Labour simply build more council houses (and i'm not going to call the housing an official name when I don't need to, Cap). It's in their blood, so why?


- First of all they have built more council property but only modestly
& again it usually isn't in the old 'council' style it is usually to semi-autonomous trusts or agencies; secondly until the public vote for the necessary tax increases to produce this outcome you aren't going to see much happen.

It's tough & all but there's the truth of why they don't.

It's cos people don't want to pay for them enough.


OR... They will stop the bulldozing of the estates neglected by the big bad Torys and force average Joe from the recently closed down Plc to reduce his level to the slums from whence he came.


- Eh?!
Actually you'll find that with the population drift southwards council properties have been demolished in northern counties.

That is a matter of supply & demand.

Too much supply up north & not enough demand.


I know that the government gave autonomy to the Bank of England to consider interest rates. You really insulted me there. That hit a nerve with me. Disrespectful. However, if you seriously believe that Gordon Brown cannot waltz into the board meeting and TELL them that rates go up or go down then you are as naive as you are long-winded.


- Not only is this a rather juvenile little piece of abuse but it is also wholly wrong, unsubstantiated & purely your own opinion.

You might care to know that the deliberations of the MPC (Monetary Policy Committee) are made public each month with their decision on interest rates movements.

The Chancellor cannot 'just lean on the MPC' as it would rapidly be made public - as members of the MPC would publicly resign in protest - & that would destroy the international financial credibility of the Gov and the entire 'independence' of the MPC & the BoE .


Un-constitutional or not, it happens. To think the government has no say, cannot exhibit political pressure to its own end or, indeed, cannot take the privelege away at the drop of a hat is retarded.


- More abuse.


Could you please tell me what this agenda may be


- My point was that comments like your "you'll never convince me otherwise" do not illustrate a willingness to debate.


I must encourage you to credit your quotation and admit the source of material, Captain.


- My quotes are properly referenced & acknowledged.


Furthermore, having actually finally read your entire series of replies, I find it is full of self-opinionated rubbish.


- Oh dear, back to the personal abuse.

You might care to read the Terms & conditions that kind of nonsense isn't tolerated around here.


1. I KNOW John Reid was a Communist and have subsantial evidence to back it up. You do not think he is, and you have no evidence other than 'your opinion' to give this meat.


- Wrong.

I have never questioned whether Dr John Reid used to be a communist.

I even provided a Wiki link showing his career, the age he was back then (26) & the age he is now (59).


2. My 'Vague' claim is that in the 1970's, just prior to a new Tory power in '78 is that British interest rates were around 15%. The economy was in tatters, and the country was on the brink of bankruptcy. Disprove that.


- Again if you look the truth is that I have never claimed the country was not facing economic difficulties in those days.

The price of oil has just trebled.
There was also the small matter of a full scale global recession on the back of this.

Not exactly matters that the UK Gov of the time could do very much about.

Nice try on the interest rates. But no.

Just so that all can clearly see the record of those events, here are the Bank of England interest rates from 1970 to 2006.

No, the then Lab Gov's single month peak at 15% (7/10/76 - 22/11/76) is not indicative of how interest rates were during the whole of the 1974 - 79 period.

The (post may '79, actually) tory record of years of sustained high interest rates is also there for all to see.
14% on 13/06/79 rising to 17% on 15/11, continuing at 17% all the way until falling to 16% on 3/7/1980.....

.....& on it went month upon month with rates continually above 12%....& even as late into this so-called tory economic 'miracle' as 6/10/89 they were peaking at 14.857%.

& you've still managed to avoid giving the slightest indication of what way & with what actual policies this current Labour Gov has nationalisations etc "in motion".


3. What is 'Daily Mail-esque'.


- Most British people here are well aware of the lumpen right-wing spin the Daily Mail inevitably puts on almost every story they touch.


Opinions must be backed up with links to obscure websites according to our neutral 'expert'.


- Er, the BBC is an 'obscure' website, is it?
Or do you mean Wiki?
Or was it the official co-ownership web-site that proved for a fact that it began in NI in 1978 that you have a problem with (cos you didn't know of it)?

- & who said I was 'neutral'?
I'm here to try to provoke & sustain a decent standard of informed debate here & frankly it's a lot easier with some people than others.

I'm also entitled to my own views as much as anyone - perhaps the difference is that I can back my comments & views up with references & links?


My anecdotal complaints are a reflection of my life. Is it not the prerogative of the electorate to take his complaints to public debate? Or would you prefer that it was handled behind closed doors?


- No-one denied you the chance to make your claims & comments.

The thing is that anecdotal 'evidence' alone is rarely of much value to anybody anywhere.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
The Labour party does have a socialist agenda.

en.wikipedia.org...

From wiki...



Party electoral manifestos have not contained the term socialism since 1992, although when Clause 4 was abolished the words "the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party" were added to the party's constitution.


You cannot disagree with their description of themselves.

My opinion on this statement, and I'm really not bothered whether you like unsubstantiated opinions or not, is that a healthy political system requires a swing from the right to the left throughout the years. Only then can you take the best efforts from each side. So while New Labour is centre left at the moment, once the worst parts from the right have been pushed away then they will return to a more traditional form of left.

I assume (dangerous word on this forum) that your repeated accusation that I may not know much about what socialism actually is can be quelled by this link below from wiki about socialist versions from the 1970's. You can read them all if you want, but what it links to is several takes on what socialism is according to the OPINIONS of the people subscribing to socialism in very different times, places and circumstances.

Contemporary Socialism

And here's theSocialist Commandments

To back up my secondary theory that New Labour will revert ot Old Labour is it affiliations...

en.wikipedia.org...



In the United Kingdom the governing Labour Party describes itself as a socialist political party and is a member of the socialist organisation, Socialist International. The Party was set up by trade-unionists, revolutionary and reformist socialists such as the SDF and the socialist Fabian Society.


m'kay.

So Labour as a whole is not socialist - wrong
So Labour doesn't harbour left-wing ideals within itself - wrong
So council housing (and therefore co-ownership) isn't socialist - wrong




In complete contrast to a socialist policy New Labour is hell bent on worsening the housing crisis. They are attempting to systematically sell off what remains of council housing.


from ... Socialist Party manifesto

In summary my theory is...

Labour are harbouring left-wing elements within their cabinet whose agenda it is to drive house prices up by creating a supply/demand crisis in council housing by refusing to build the necessary amount of houses. This will work in unison with the deliberate upward trend of interest rates by pressure being exerted on the Bank of England by the government. The remaining private houses will be priced outwith the reach of the working classes. Labour will then embark on a heroic nationwide coucil house building programme which will present them with a situation whereby they have control of the masses on a personal level.




posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004
The Labour party does have a socialist agenda.


- And just what has this opinion got to do with your original claims?
Your original claims were about "further left" & "far left" policies & MPs.


You cannot disagree with their description of themselves.


- Er, yes I can.

It might come as something of a shock for you but the British Labour party do not own the definition of 'socialist' or 'socialism'.


My opinion on this statement, and I'm really not bothered whether you like unsubstantiated opinions or not


- It's got nothing to do with anyone "liking" them or not its got everything to do with mere opinions holding zero weight when held against a referenced and actual fact.

,

New Labour is centre left at the moment, once the worst parts from the right have been pushed away then they will return to a more traditional form of left.


- Pure personal guess-work, prejudice & mere opinion.

BTW you are also just choosing to ignore the changes Labour has made to it's procedures and practise with these claims.


I assume (dangerous word on this forum) that your repeated accusation that I may not know much about what socialism actually is can be quelled by this link


- You can throw as many links in as you like but that does not indicate any actual understanding on your part.

The fact remains that 'socialism' is built around the concept of common ownership of property & the means of production (ie the means to create wealth).

Your original claim (which you now avoid) was that a mechanism & financial product (co-ownership) who's entire purpose & reason for being is the expansion, easement & aid to expanding the ownership of private property is somehow 'socialist' and "far left".

In the light of the truth of what socialism is this is not only utterly wrong & inappropriate but so wide of the mark as to be downright laughable.


To back up my secondary theory that New Labour will revert ot Old Labour is it affiliations


- Sorry but that doesn't 'back up' anything.

Since when did a list of mere affiliations 'prove' anything?

How is this imagined 'change back to old Labour' supposed to just happen given the changes to the party mechanisms and procedures btw, hmmm?

The British Labour party is, like many European centre and centre-left parties today a social democrat party, not a particularly socialist party, as their policies clearly show and despite whatever label they may apply to themselves.


m'kay.


- Oh dear.



So Labour as a whole is not socialist - wrong


- Labour won't be taking the means of production or property into public ownership any time soon.

.....and since when was this debate over what they call themselves?

You original claims centred around your mythical "further left" & "far left" MP's, policies and housing.


So Labour doesn't harbour left-wing ideals within itself - wrong


- Oh dear; so it's no longer "far left" but some vague & supposedly scary "left-wing ideals" now is it?

What an absurd & laughable shift in your comment.

How could anyone seriously try and make something of or be shocked at the idea that Labour, a centrist/centre-left party, holds some "left-wing ideals"?!



So council housing (and therefore co-ownership) isn't socialist - wrong


- Oh really?
You claim it's by definition just a "socialist" thing?
So what about when it isn't Labour building them, huh?


Churchill’s last government succeeded in building 300,000 housing units in its first year

www.winstonchurchill.org...

- Churchill a 'socialist' eh, you really don't know your British political history very well, do you?
Shall I do 'Macmillan the tory socialist' for you too or Heath?


When co-ownership was running during the '79-97 Thatcher & Major tory period were they just being 'socialist' too?



Labour are harbouring left-wing elements within their cabinet


- So, you continue to run away from your original "far left" comments & now rely on implied scary "left-wing elements" in a centrist/centre-left party!?

Oh dear.



whose agenda it is to drive house prices up by creating a supply/demand crisis in council housing by refusing to build the necessary amount of houses.


- To claim the housing problems began with Labour is just grossly mistaken as I have repeatedly proven -


the number of public houses built went down to 35,000 in 1990 from 170,000 in the mid-1970s, with most of these built by housing associations rather than councils

en.wikipedia.org...

- In fact rather than being reduced to relying on Marxist comment & literature
(isn't it funny how they become credible only when they're attacking Labour
)
the truth of housing since 1997 is quite different -


We are well on our way to meeting our objective of 2 million new homeowners since 1997.

After 160,000 hew homes built last year there are now an additional 1.8 million homeowners – possible because of low mortgage rates.

But Government must also help balance supply and demand. Our priority, as barker recommended, has been: first, new laws to speed up planning; and second, to release more public sector land now and in the future, to build 100,000 more houses.

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk...


This will work in unison with the deliberate upward trend of interest rates by pressure being exerted on the Bank of England by the government.


- Pure personal opinion & guesswork utterly at odds with reality.

The international financial markets operate on a 'confidence' basis, if Blair, Brown or the Labour party lied about BoE independence and tried to interfere in their operations they'd fast run into serious trouble.

There is no sign of interest rates reaching the levels of the 1970's Lab Gov nor climbing even higher and being sustained at the greater heights reached under the last tory Gov.

Quite the opposite in fact
(& btw just in case you're wondering, there's a world of difference in quoting the Guardian reporting on an official report here & the quoting & relying on mere editorial comment from the likes of the Daily Mail or Telegraph) -


Dec 2006: The IMF, in its annual health-check, has just described his management of the economy as "impressive" - not a word it bandies around - and added that the outlook was for "continued strong and stable growth (of 2.75% for 2007 and 2008) with a return of inflation to target".

politics.guardian.co.uk...


UK hailed as the new Goldilocks economy
· Britain is neither too hot nor too cold, says OECD
· Rich nations club revises growth forecast up to 2.8%
September 6, 2006

politics.guardian.co.uk...


11 Dec 2006 :By granting the Bank of England operational independence, he was able to provide a guarantee to financial markets and to the electorate of lasting financial stability. Central banks may get things wrong from time to time, but at least the errors are those of judgement, rather than political expediency.

So far, the policy has been a resounding success: inflation has been remarkably stable in recent years, and the amplitude of the British economic cycle has been dampened. "No more boom and bust" might make a suitable epitaph for Gordon Brown's years at No 11
Stephen King s managing director of economics at HSBC

news.independent.co.uk...


The remaining private houses will be priced outwith the reach of the working classes.


- The price of private housing is hardly in the Gov's direct control
(although the 1997 onwards period of low & stable interest rates along with additional 'social housing' & more people in work in the UK than ever before ought to help people).


Labour will then embark on a heroic nationwide council house building programme which will present them with a situation whereby they have control of the masses on a personal level.


- More pure guesswork & mere opinion, without even a shred of anything remotely concrete to back it up.

So, when's this meant to happen?
(cos with the lead times involved in what would have to be a truly massive program that means 2009/10 and in time for the next general election has been missed already).

When the tory party are in power do they "control the masses on a personal level" too? Whatever that's meant to actually mean in any sane practical manner?
It's a risible notion.

Or how about public housing elsewhere in the world, shared or co-ownership is hardly confined to the UK you know.....or perhaps it's more likely you don't?


You're clearly trying to select and make facts fit your pet theory and have been totally busted by the facts.

You even went as far as selecting & stretching a point to an outright lie
(when you claimed "My 'Vague' claim is that in the 1970's...is that British interest rates were around 15%"
They were 15% for just over a single month, not during the whole of Labour's time in the 1970's - as I was able to prove.

Is your arrogant disdain for others so enormous that you imagine others won't know or can't find the truth and the facts.....

......particularly when it is you that has been repeatedly shown to be ignorant of the basic political and economic facts and are so heavily reliant upon your own mere person opinions and prejudices?

Troll on if you must but you'll be doing it from now on alone I suspect.



[edit on 2-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   


there's a world of difference in quoting the Guardian reporting on an official report here & the quoting & relying on mere editorial comment from the likes of the Daily Mail or Telegraph


Did I quote the Daily Mail on Politics @ ATS?

I find it interesting that you're so defensive about the Gaurdian. So if its ok to slander the Daily Mail, then lets have a look at some opinions of the Gaurdian.

Gaurdian Columnist
Socialist

Political stance of the Gaurdian
Socialist

workersliberty
Socialist

All left wing views. And if workers liberty is close to centre then you lose credibility.

So, according to the statement you made at the top of the page, comments from the right, in the obvious instance of the Daily Mail, are not gladly accepted or particularly believed here on Politics @ ATS?


That seems a bit biased. It also seems like you are here to slander and belittle what is not your political beliefs rather than debate openly. Perhaps if you could open your mind to the possibility rather than close it to the prospect then you could begin to understand where my theory has origins.


It also seems you are contradicting yourself at every given turn...



You can throw as many links in as you like but that does not indicate any actual understanding on your part.




Your input is welcome but you ought to back it up with facts & not just hunches or personal prejudices & keep within the Terms & conditions.


So I need to back it up with facts, but you won't believe I'll understand them when I actually do. To me, that shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of everybody else on this forum. Your answer to this, of course, will be that I am supposing what everybody else is thinking. But if you say that, isn't that what you are doing?

So back to the point of the original post. I'm here to fight my corner on the theory in hand, and that is that what I believe to be a cabinet containing people with FAR-LEFT political ideals are working to reclaim the housing market as part of a socialist agenda.

You say coucil housing is not a socialist policy.

I say here's a link from the Communist Party of Britain

You say, so what. Labour describe themselves as socialist, which isn't far left. I say socialism and communism are one in the same.

socialism and communism

and here's a quote from the above link...



Communism, also known as “scientific socialism”, like the latter name points out, is derived from socialism.


In my opinion, and i believe I have as much right to an opinion as a hallowed Gaurdian reader, this government is in a transition. It HAD to come to the centre ground to win the General election. It HAD to stay there to keep them in power. It now MUST go left to appease the factions which pay for it. Centre-right policies will come out in force again whenever the next general election comes around, but they will make the swing to their natural position if left in power long enough.

And that position has already been linked to enough.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
furthermore...

John Prescott



he also said that the spirit of "fighting class" should be brought back to the Labour Party



A former ship's steward and trade union activist

----------
Jack Straw



During his time at Leeds he was elected president of the students' union with the support of the Broad Left, a coalition including Liberal, Socialist and the Communist Societies.

----------

Margaret Beckett



Out of Parliament, and now Margaret Beckett, she won election to Labour's National Executive Committee in 1980, and supported left-winger Tony Benn for the Labour deputy leadership in 1981 against Denis Healey.


Want to see what Tony Benn was all about?

Tony Benn



The term "Bennite", generally understood to mean someone of a radical but democratic left-wing position



He publicly supported Sinn Féin and the reunification of Ireland

one that should hold particular interest to yourself.


In a keynote speech to the Labour Party Conference of 1980 Benn outlined what he envisaged the next Labour government would do. "Within days" a Labour government would grant powers to nationalise industries, control capital and implement industrial democracy; "within weeks" all powers from Brussels would be returned to Westminster and then they would abolish the House of Lords by the creation of a thousand peers and then by abolishing the peerage. Benn received a tumultuous applause from the audience.


AND THIS ONE !!!!!!! Why, it deserves a forum all to itself. Let me hear you take this one apart. It's statements like this that the left would bury under a heap of propaganda.

Tony Benn on Blairites

I'll quote it in case the link doesn't work...



"It's very interesting to me that some ex-communists in the Labour party have been able to shift from Stalin to Blair and it hasn't been much of a shift...The shift from Stalin to Blair is a minor adjustment."


----------

I don't need to mention Red John Reid.

----------

Want me to keep going? I've done LOADS of research on the political background of the cabinet. So. You're quote...



Well, OK, we're all entitled to our take on events and our own opinions but I have to say that if you honestly see anything "far left" about this Labour Gov and (Tory?) Blair then you are in about as small a minority as it is possible to be in.


And that's just the cabinet. Would you like me to have a look over the party on a broad scale?

Your counter-arguments are falling apart at the seams. Come back to me when you have a credible look at my theory. While you're away... do some research on the Labour Party, as you seem really lax on the subject.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
one more for your scrap-book. Is the Observer or the spectator good enough for this forum? Or do you want a hand written letter from Director of MIT?




The influence of the Communist Party on New Labour has been neglected. One day it will be an important subject for a dissertation or PhD by a university graduate. It is not merely the case that a significant number of figures in the Government machine - John Reid, David Triesman, Peter Mandelson, Charlie Whelan to name a few - belonged to the Communist Party of Great Britain in all its King Street grandeur.





Many others - Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn among them - were connected in one way or another with the obscure sub-Marxist organisations that abounded in the 1970s, doing their best to tear down capitalism. Even those, like Jack Straw, who had no Marxist sympathies at all, were obliged to come to terms with communist methods and adversaries in the shadowy internecine struggles of the 1970s and 1980s. It is these methods - as opposed to the now despised Marxist dogma about ownership of the means of production - that have endured to influence the Blair Government. Millbank admittedly borrowed its technology - rebuttal units, the Excalibur computer etc - from the United States. But the obsessive secrecy, centralisation and intolerance of dissent which were such overwhelming characteristics of the Millbank operation reek of the CPGB.


No far-left elements, eh? Total rubbish.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Cor, what a load of words.....

.....and everyone of them a total jettisoning and avoidance of your original claims and 'theory'.
So long topic!


All that talk about what people "used to be" and yet I see there's still absolutely no sign of you demonstrating those supposedly "far left elements" and supposedly 'ex-communist' or even the more vague 'ex-communist linked' MPs (even, shock horror some senior Cabinet members) actually implementing anything that could be remotely described as a substantive "far left" policy in this Gov's program.

Nothing "far left" has actually happened, there are no "far left" actual policies to be seen this is purely a very transperent and worthless 'smear by association' from long long ago (in Dr John Reid's case well over 30yrs ago).
Labour's been almost 10yrs in power so what's keeping them?
Except, of course, for the small but pertinent fact that the entire basic premise you've based this upon is complete garbage.
indeed.

BTW here's one of Thatcher's closest advisers who also "used" to be a communist when he was younger, ooooooooooh.
How scary, huh?

Alfred Sherman, a one-time communist who later became a close adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Thatcher close advisor was communist

That's the thing about young and foolish zealot behaviour, most of them grow out of it.
Harold Macmillan (ex-tory PM, creator of huge numbers of council properties and, according to you, 'socialist' because of it)
had it down right, this might interest you, or not -

It has been said that there is no fool like an old fool, except a young fool.
But the young fool has first to grow up to be an old fool to realize what a damn fool he was when he was a young fool.

www.answers.com...

As for the likes of the Mail and Telegraph?
They have a POV they're entitled to.
Just like you or anyone else.

I was merely pointing out that quoting their editorial opinion was different to my Guardian quotes where they were reporting (and directly quoting) an official (credible) international report
(in this case the IMF & OECD).
You seem unable to appreciate that or the difference.
Interesting too how you rush to label a statement of the facts of the matter "defensive"?
Yeah right, you wish.


As for what other people's opinions are about the Labour party?
Pppppfffhhhh, well, you know what they say about opinions.

Excuse me if I don't quite see that as substitute, 'proof' or any kind of concrete example of your imagined "far left" actual Gov policies.

You began this thread with an ignorance of the basic facts upon which you have built this 'theory' -

1) you claimed that co-ownership was something new, when it is not - as I have proved.

2) you claimed that the 'financial product' (that co-ownership is) was created by this Labour Gov, which is absolutely not true as I have proved

3) you have claimed that a financial mechanism whose sole purpose is to assist the creation of even more privately owned residential property in the UK was in someway "socialist" as well as a sign of a "far left" plot!
That one's hilarious btw
and

4) that the provision of housing (and in particularly public housing, which the Gov has a responsibility for and can do something about) has been cut by this Gov to manipulate the housing market - when it has not, as I have proved....in fact, further, I have proved that the biggest and most sustained reduction in public housing provision, post war, was under Thatcher and Major's tory Govs.

You compounded that ignorance with ignorant & mere personal opinions about the workings of the international finance markets and their relationship with the MPC, H.M. Treasury and the Gov
(with your day-dreams that the MPC can be 'got at' by the Gov and still function with credibility in the international financial world).

You repeatedly clutch at an ignorant fantasy version of British political and economic history skewed away from any credible version of reality to fit your out-dated notions of "socialism", the "far left" and the Labour party - with the laughable concept that public housing is and has always been something "socialist" (even under successive tory Gov.s - including, what was left of it, under Thatcher's and the post Thatcher Major Gov)
and in your last effort you've unearthed some writer for a communist publication who has said something you agree with as if that settles or proves the matter.

Most amusing - if somewhat embarrassingly sad.

Each time the facts of British economic and political history are raised you merely run away from the point to move on to complain about something else
(and now here you've merely resorted to a long moan about your view of the Labour party and reproduced some other people's views of it that you happen to agree with).
It's not exactly a 'weight of evidence' for your original claims.


You have also been caught out clearly attempted to cherry-pick facts to the point of lying
(your claim about the level of interest rates under the 1970's Lab Gov).

You're all out of anything substantive and on topic.

You latest post is simply at heart a long whine that boils down to complaining that you have encountered someone with a command of the facts you are demonstrably and sadly lacking
and that you have not been left alone to promote your little 'political theory' unchallenged.

Well tough luck matey, not around here, not if it's based upon ignorance and is not in accord with the political and economic historical facts.

I have never (and, of course, would never) claim to know everything in relation to British political and economic history but sadly for you in this particular instance you have met someone who knows enough of how things really were, and are, to provide the facts to tear your, clearly incorrect, biased and politically motivated, little 'theory' to shreds.

I'm sorry you've obviously taken it so hard, it's nothing personal
(you're only 2d text on a screen to me afterall) but
the idea of the FSME is to challenge, encourage debate, provide the facts (irrespective of my own views) so that debates are not conducted in ignorance and
above all else to try and ensure that they do not propagate and add to the appalling levels of ignorance so clearly out there, in some places.


That's why busting an ignorant, utterly wrong and totally biased view is always such a pleasure.

Contrary views are always welcome here and personal opinion too, of course.
But the obviously blinkered, dishonest selection, distortion, abuse and manipulation of the facts to promote a particular political slant and mere baseless opinion will always get 'attention' and challenged.

The whole point is to provide the facts and help provide a sound factual basis to debate and discuss (as best as we can), the reality (as best as we know it) of British politics, past and present here.


[edit on 3-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I'm really sorry Smink, but your pathetic attempts to take my theory apart are rather embarrassing. Nearly as embarrassing as your smiley count.

The Labour party is full of committed socialists as well as ex-communists. I've proven this again and again. Your rather cringe-worthy attempt to say that it all happened years ago is nothing more than an attempt to bury your head in the sand to the viewpoint of others.

Also, don't insinuate that i'm a fool. Were I to call you a blinkered left-wing idiot then you would report me to the forum moderators. But I don't think that of you.



this might interest you, or not -

It has been said that there is no fool like an old fool, except a young fool.
But the young fool has first to grow up to be an old fool to realize what a damn fool he was when he was a young fool.


perhaps you need to read up on the Terms and Conditions as that sort of abuse is not tolerated around here. Take it elsewhere or don't post.

A little more respect for the opinions of others would probably go down well...



As for what other people's opinions are about the Labour party? Pppppfffhhhh, well, you know what they say about opinions.


What is it that they say, then?



I'll take us back to civility now, if that's ok with you...



I have proved that the biggest and most sustained reduction in public housing provision, post war, was under Thatcher and Major's tory Govs.


Of course it is. It's been clear tory policy. It is not, however, socialist policy. As I have proven.

End of thread. I can't debate with somebody not open to the opinions of others.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Time I jumped in

Glad to have you join this forum, boyg2004 and I do hope you’ll enjoy your time here. In your own words: ” Writing long answers only serves to confuse the writer and readers.” so I’ll do my best to keep this short for you to understand.

The Labour Party, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are now different parties. For many people this is hard to understand, because of the assumed intrinsic nature of the three parties. However, the Socialist Workers Party was formed in 1950 because the Labour Party did not (and still does not) support the Workers. The Communist Party was actually founded in 1920 (because of a divide in the Labour Party) and the Labour Party was founded in roughly 1900.

Unfortunately, people with very little understanding of Socialism, Communism and the Labour Movement decide to group all three parties together. This is in fact what you are doing. When you claim: ” I say socialism and communism are one in the same.” you are in fact wrong.

Socialism has its route in the works of people such as Robert Owen.
Communism has its route in the works of people such as Frederich Engels.

There’s an important reason as to why Marx is not mentioned. Marxism was the theory that linked both Communism and Socialism together. In his words; you needed Socialism to happen before Communism could happen. This link then get merged to more than it should have ever been. Many socialists want nothing to do with Communism. If a Socialist state was to happen, they would be more than happy for it to stay in such a way.

Furthermore, you idea about council housing was a socialist idea is actually flawed. You neglect to look at the history of Council Housing but I have no problem doing that for you here. Council Housing came about in the 1800’s, it came about because of the “two up, two down, back-to-back” housing that had began to exist when the transition between an agricultural society and an industrial society. Many rich businessmen such as Saltaire (1853), Bournville (1879) began to build their own Villages to house their workers. They did not do it for the sake of the workers, but for the sake of their business. They needed the work force fit and healthy so they could produce more goods, they would have less time off and so on and so fourth. It was never a socialist idea but was a Capitalist idea to exploit the workforce ever more. Council Housing has always been about control – if you control the housing, you control the people. It has nothing to do with Socialism and many eminant socialists disagree with Council Housing.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Thanks for the welcome Odium.

Ok. What I love most abouts these forums is that the debate and arguments provoke thought, counter-claims, and most of all demand learning to understand and debate properly.

Nobody knows everything, but most endeavour to learn or research as much as we can about a subject when presented with counter-claims.

I have a rudimentary understanding of socialism, and can accept from your information that council housing is not a socialist nor communist invention. It is in fact capitalist. More knowledge is good knowledge. I can also understand that tory lines of thinking would create a situation whereby they want to sell off these houses.

So it is not a socialist creation, but could be used as a tool to control if council housing was universal. So there now opens up the possibility that this government, rather than just any government or a socialist/communist government, is manufacturing the collapse of the housing market because they desire control. This seems more consistent with the present 'big brother' administration.

Incidentally, does anybody know if the current doubling of house prices in some areas in such a short space of time (4-5 years) has precedent?

Thanks for the reply. It has opened me to change my thoughts from a Socialist conspiracy to a governmental conspiracy. But with politicians so willing to make the jump from communists to socialists to social democrats I still think radical ideology must follow their thinking to some extent.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join