The Conservative Party

[halfmist]

Bit precious aren't you. Are you proud of being a tedious bore who talks about money all the time?

We are all precious even you to me. There you are it’s quite easy to be polite. I wouldn’t expect you to look back at my previous posts and waste your valuable time but I think you will find the time money is mentioned it’s usually in response to a question.about it.

 

[west didsblue]

No problem. There are enough on here who to follow me close enough, being in a bit of a minority on the politics thread. I have even had some asking where do I live. I am looking forward to that Didsbury chap east or west, left or right not sure where he is from,going on a quiz show with Halfmist as his specialist subject.
I am genuinely flattered he took the trouble seeing as I am such a non entity, to go back and read my past posts.

Don’t be so hard on yourself.
Posters like you are actually quite memorable. The combination of smug self satisfaction, delusions of superiority, boastfulness and disdain for anyone who struggles to make a living makes you almost unique on here. You could be Boris Johnson’s lost twin without the outward superficial charm.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

We are all precious even you to me. There you are it’s quite easy to be polite. I wouldn’t expect you to look back at my previous posts and waste your valuable time but I think you will find the time money is mentioned it’s usually in response to a question.about it.

I find you to be quite a pathetic character to be honest, like the kids at school who boasted endlessly about things to impress people but in trying so hard to do so came across as desperate.

 

[halfmist]

I find you to be quite a pathetic character to be honest, like the kids at school who boasted endlessly about things to impress people but in trying so hard to do so came across as desperate.

I take it you don’t work for the Police as a profiler. Just curious as to why I would be desperate. Desperate for what , to get a like on the politics thread.?

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

If you recall post the Toxteth riots she was urged by some in her cabinet to oversee the managed decline of Liverpool - and they destroyed steel in the north too

That’s about right for Thatcher unemployment was the cause it began in London then Toxteth and Moss Side, heavy industry, the docks had been decimated by her. The only people that mattered to her was the money men it’s still the same the North gets nothing

 

[Vic]

I think it had two "benefits" from the current governments perspective: one venal as you point out but the other one more ideological. In effect if you get to a critical mass of academies in a particular area you essentially kill the LEA or at least make it increasingly irrelevant and it's role significantly smaller, so you get to dismantle the state that you despise so much and better still you get to you get to remove local autonomy and continue to centralise power.

That's the bit that distresses me the most, kids educations being chucked under the bus in pursuit of policies which have bugger all to do with education. Blair wasn't the originator as Thatcher had thought up CTCs earlier, but new labour thought they were being clever and their cack-handed implementation allowed subsequent tory governments to absolutely take the piss.

LAs still have the responsibility for school improvement - but no powers to deal with underperforming academies. And can't open new LA schools so have to rely on academy trusts wanting to open schools, so the number of children not getting first choice of schools is up, and some children getting places a long way from home.

 

[halfmist]

Don’t be so hard on yourself.
Posters like you are actually quite memorable. The combination of smug self satisfaction, delusions of superiority, boastfulness and disdain for anyone who struggles to make a living makes you almost unique on here. You could be Boris Johnson’s lost twin without the outward superficial charm.

You see you can say nice things when you make the effort. I would have thought with that biography Norman Tebbit . I can’t be arsed looking back, there are so many Didsbury’s on here was it you I asked for just 1 example of where I had mocked the unfortunate. As you said I did it constantly it should be easy for you to provide just one example surely

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I take it you don’t work for the Police as a profiler. Just curious as to why I would be desperate. Desperate for what , to get a like on the politics thread.?

It’s baffling, but yet here you still are posting pages and pages of blowing smoke up your own arse. I doubt the kids at school knew who they were trying to impress by the end either.

I have a friend that does this kind of tedious talk about money as a young adult but he's a black African born kid adopted as a toddler by rich white snobs so obviously has an inbuilt need to over do it, not sure you have an excuse.

 

[threespires]

LAs still have the responsibility for school improvement - but no powers to deal with underperforming academies. And can't open new LA schools so have to rely on academy trusts wanting to open schools, so the number of children not getting first choice of schools is up, and some children getting places a long way from home.

Re. that first point it's adjacent to another feature of recent governments, privatise the profit but socialise the risk, leave a small rump of the state to deal with the shit you don't want to deal with. Letting 'the market' deal with everything doesn't include being accountable for and cleaning up it's own mess. Back to schools, I have never found anyone who has been able to give me a sound educational rationale for those reforms, because there isn't one it has nothing to do with educating our children. The matra around 'choice' is utterly laughable.

 

[west didsblue]

You see you can say nice things when you make the effort. I would have thought with that biography Norman Tebbit . I can’t be arsed looking back, there are so many Didsbury’s on here was it you I asked for just 1 example of where I had mocked the unfortunate. As you said I did it constantly it should be easy for you to provide just one example surely

No problem if you prefer to be compared to Norman Tebbit rather than Boris Johnson. Neither is a particularly good look.

 

[halfmist]

That’s about right for Thatcher unemployment was the cause it began in London then Toxteth and Moss Side, heavy industry, the docks had been decimated by her. The only people that mattered to her was the money men it’s still the same the North gets nothing

The steel industry was already in a bad way
I remember on some of my first jobs going over to Sheffield to do audits, these were at private companies which just couldn’t compete on quality and price against overseas companies.
They were losing massive amounts of money and closed shortly after. If no one buys what you’re making no matter who is in power there is a problem.
If my memory serves me correctly wasn’t there a major problem with the Liverpool dockers not accepting containerisation of its port. They were insisting every single washing machine etc had to be unloaded individually and theft was rife.
We demand cheap goods and with a lot of products they now have to be produced overseas.

 

[Vic]

Re. that first point it's adjacent to another feature of recent governments, privatise the profit but socialise the risk, leave a small rump of the state to deal with the shit you don't want to deal with. Letting 'the market' deal with everything doesn't include being accountable for and cleaning up it's own mess. Back to schools, I have never found anyone who has been able to give me a sound educational rationale for those reforms, because there isn't one it has nothing to do with educating our children. The matra around 'choice' is utterly laughable.

Correct. And the "freedom" to pay teachers what you like was supposed to mean academies were paying for the best. Round our way, the "elite" academy is paying less for younger teachers.

 

[threespires]

Her and Reagan have a lot to answer for.

Their economic and social policies still hurt everyone who isn't rich.

Trickle down economic policies of the Reaganomics type are pretty much discredited I think, with literally no examples of it having worked and plenty to show it has the opposite of the claimed effects. Doesn't seem to stop politicians trying to implement them to this day which suggests their intent has very little to do with growing or improving the economy.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Ahh right, it must be down to my poor education. Personally I think it’s quite an affectionate term, it has more of a ring to it than Tory scum.

You don’t fool me.

Money talks, wealth whispers.

 

[halfmist]

You don’t fool me.

Money talks, wealth whispers.

Well I like to learn something every day and that’s a new saying.. Not quite sure how it works in practice, it’s sometimes hard to hide.

 

[halfmist]

Trickle down economic policies of the Reaganomics type are pretty much discredited I think, with literally no examples of it having worked and plenty to show it has the opposite of the claimed effects Doesn't seem to stop politicians trying to implement them to this day which suggests their intent has very little to do with growing or improving the economy.

Would you say perhaps the 10 richest people in the US have followed Reagonomics in the creation of wealth for themselves and indirectly for their country.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Well I like to learn something every day and that’s a new saying.. Not quite sure how it works in practice, it’s sometimes hard to hide.

It’s not a new saying, it’s an old saying. There are plenty of people on this forum with high incomes and assets. Some on this thread. But they have more class than to boast about it because that would be shallow, needy and crass.

That’s the meaning of the saying. If you really had wealth you would have heard it.

I see you.

 

[threespires]

Would you say perhaps the 10 richest people in the US have followed Reagonomics in the creation of wealth for themselves and indirectly for their country.

Well I can't speak for those individuals and the effect they've each had but I think the most comprehensive studies including one that covered pretty much everywhere that has tried it, including the US, over a 20 year period concluded that it didn't have the intended effect, the expectations about reinvestment and growth and job creation just don't materialise and what you actually get is increased wealth disparity. I can't remember which state is the poster child for trying aggressive corporate and HNWI etc tax cuts and it screwing themselves over completely, might be Kansas, I'll look it up. I think the conclusions of most of the studies are that if you raise the income of the lower and middle classes this has the most beneficial effect/stimulus in terms of economic growth.

I think one of the issues with the Laffer Curve which is often thrown into this conversation is that it's taken as an article of faith when in reality it was something literally written on a napkin and it's use is so time and place context sensitive as to render it almost meaningless. I do think one of the reasons Reagonomics wasn't dismissed out of hand was because it did actually help him control the inflationary pressures the US economy was under so it seemed to have some value, in reality I think there was a lot of other things in play and a lot of smoke and mirrors - for instance he tripled federal debt in the process which certainly wasn't one of the intended outcomes of his policies.

 

[halfmist]

It’s not a new saying, it’s an old saying. There are plenty of people on this forum with high incomes and assets. Some on this thread. But they have more class than to boast about it because that would be shallow, needy and crass.

That’s the meaning of the saying. If you really had wealth you would have heard it.

I see you.

I am afraid you’re now talking in riddles. If they are wealthy why would they be needy.? “If you really had wealth you would have heard it”. You have no idea of anyone’s income or wealth so why say it. I think we had best leave it there. No need for you to answer.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I am afraid you’re now talking in riddles. If they are wealthy why would they be needy.? “If you really had wealth you would have heard it”. You have no idea of anyone’s income or wealth so why say it. I think we had best leave it there. No need for you to answer.

Money talks. Wealth whispers.