BoyBlue_1985
Well-Known Member
waspish said:
Including all our gold at 1/16th of its current price and gave back all the money that was rightly ours from Europe
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is there anything the tories won't sell?
- Thread starter Swales lives
- Start date
Including all our gold at 1/16th of its current price and gave back all the money that was rightly ours from Europe
brooklandsblue2.0
Well-Known Member
BoyBlue_1985 said:waspish said:Gordon brown sold anything he could!
Including all our gold at 1/16th of its current price and gave back all the money that was rightly ours from Europe
Shhh, you may only bash the tories on any political threads.....its da rules.
PJMCC1UK
Well-Known Member
1st it was Labour who started the sales of the forests. They did it in private and they did it without a clause keeping the public access.
Secondly the Forestry Commission owns 2 million acres of forest it not only makes the rules for all the other commercial timber producers in this country but even has 50% of the market. Yet last year and in the years before it has made a loss.
They lost £75million last year. Of OUR money. The taxpayer foots the bill. And yet timber prices were up last year.
How does anyone who has 50% of the market lose that much money.
It is outdated and unfair that they exist in this way. It's a beauracratic mess.No accountability whatsoever, people in cushy jobs who think they are untouchable. A Commission set up to make sure we had enough timber for pit props if we ever went to war. It was set up in 1919.
By all means there is a need for the Forestry Commission to exist in a regulatory capacity. But it is time to make money from 50% of the market.
The Tories have written clauses for public access. It's just typical Labour scaremongering again. If they are sold they would be developed at a better standard.
Secondly the Forestry Commission owns 2 million acres of forest it not only makes the rules for all the other commercial timber producers in this country but even has 50% of the market. Yet last year and in the years before it has made a loss.
They lost £75million last year. Of OUR money. The taxpayer foots the bill. And yet timber prices were up last year.
How does anyone who has 50% of the market lose that much money.
It is outdated and unfair that they exist in this way. It's a beauracratic mess.No accountability whatsoever, people in cushy jobs who think they are untouchable. A Commission set up to make sure we had enough timber for pit props if we ever went to war. It was set up in 1919.
By all means there is a need for the Forestry Commission to exist in a regulatory capacity. But it is time to make money from 50% of the market.
The Tories have written clauses for public access. It's just typical Labour scaremongering again. If they are sold they would be developed at a better standard.
brooklandsblue2.0
Well-Known Member
PJMCC1UK said:!st it was Labour who started the sales of the forests. They did it in private and they did it without a clause keeping the public access.
secondly the Forestry Commission owns 2 million acres of forest it not only makes the rules for all the other commercial timber producers in this country but even has 50% of the market. Year last year and in the years before it has made a loss.
They lost £75million last year. Of OUR money. The taxpayer foots the bill. And yet timeber prices were up last year.
How does anyone who has 50% of the market lose that much money.
It is outdated and unfair that they exist in this way. It's a beauracratic mess.No accountability whatsoever, people in cushy jobs who think they are untouchable. A Commission set up to make sure we had enough timber for pit props if we ever went to war. It was set up in 1919.
By all means there is a need for the Forestry Commission to exist in a regulatory capacity. But it is time to make money from 50% of the market.
The Tories have written clauses for public access. It's just typical Labour scaremongering again. If they are sold they would be developed at a better standard.
Oh dear...... looks like I was correct...again. Where is the OP now calling me names?! Priceless.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE[/youtube]
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
I can't believe you are defending the decision to privatise rail, Glen. I imagine it's because you made money, but you should understand that 99% of the people in this country lost out.
Unlike privatising rail and most other utilities, the Tories have, with this decision, attacked the beauty and heritage of this country. Yes, New Labour did leave our finances in a mess (and I'm glad they got kicked out), but this, if carried out, would prove that they really are soulless bastards.
Unlike privatising rail and most other utilities, the Tories have, with this decision, attacked the beauty and heritage of this country. Yes, New Labour did leave our finances in a mess (and I'm glad they got kicked out), but this, if carried out, would prove that they really are soulless bastards.
glen quagmire
Well-Known Member
nashark said:I can't believe you are defending the decision to privatise rail, Glen. I imagine it's because you made money, but you should understand that 99% of the people in this country lost out.
Unlike privatising rail and most other utilities, the Tories have, with this decision, attacked the beauty and heritage of this country. Yes, New Labour did leave our finances in a mess (and I'm glad they got kicked out), but this, if carried out, would prove that they really are soulless bastards.
Mate, i have made a fantastic living, directly from the privatising of the rail network. For a numpty class clown who left school with no gcse's, to be able to own his own home, take as many holidays as the school holiday programme allows, and be able to buy what i want when i want, (within reason) is all good by me. Oh and i'm not a poncy broker or analyst, but a grafter who started out 12 years or so ago, digging out sleepers and shovelling shit, untill i was recognised as a better delegator!
PJMCC1UK
Well-Known Member
How the hell does it nashark?
Elaborate. If they sell to timber producers then these producers have an obligation to themselves to create and maintain a number of decent woodlands. And there are also millionaires who do own and most probably will purchase new forests wilkl also create and maintain diverse forests that will in turn support diverse wildlife.
Now take into account the fact that the Forestry Commission has and continues to dictate to people what they can grow.
They also ripped up some natural woodlands and instead planted straight rows of conifers. How is that protecting the diversity and natural beauty. Planting rows of the same tree in precision position. The tree grows were the seed falls.
Elaborate. If they sell to timber producers then these producers have an obligation to themselves to create and maintain a number of decent woodlands. And there are also millionaires who do own and most probably will purchase new forests wilkl also create and maintain diverse forests that will in turn support diverse wildlife.
Now take into account the fact that the Forestry Commission has and continues to dictate to people what they can grow.
They also ripped up some natural woodlands and instead planted straight rows of conifers. How is that protecting the diversity and natural beauty. Planting rows of the same tree in precision position. The tree grows were the seed falls.
brooklandsblue2.0
Well-Known Member
glen quagmire said:nashark said:I can't believe you are defending the decision to privatise rail, Glen. I imagine it's because you made money, but you should understand that 99% of the people in this country lost out.
Unlike privatising rail and most other utilities, the Tories have, with this decision, attacked the beauty and heritage of this country. Yes, New Labour did leave our finances in a mess (and I'm glad they got kicked out), but this, if carried out, would prove that they really are soulless bastards.
Mate, i have made a fantastic living, directly from the privatising of the rail network. For a numpty class clown who left school with no gcse's, to be able to own his own home, take as many holidays as the school holiday programme allows, and be able to buy what i want when i want, (within reason) is all good by me. Oh and i'm not a poncy broker or analyst, but a grafter who started out 12 years or so ago, digging out sleepers and shovelling shit, untill i was recognised as a better delegator!
THIS. Well done that man.
BTH
Well-Known Member
I notice that the usual, boorish Tories who, unlike out in the real world, fester like a cancerous growth on here and who think that the privatisation of the railways was such a good thing, have neglected to mention that Railtrack went bust a decade ago. I've still not worked out how what was effectively a monopoly could even go bust!
The Tories' privatisation of railways didn't work; their deregulation of buses (outside London, natch) didn't work. In short, privatisation simply doesn't work - unless of course you think that selling off the nation's assets abroad or to a cartel is a really good thing. However, one thing you can say with some accuracy about the Tories is that they never, ever learn from their past mistakes. Ergo, here we go again.
And, of course, privatisation is only privatisation to a limited extent, given the huge subsidies many of the firms involved in public transport are still sponging off the taxpayers: they are capitalists in profit, but socialists in debit.
The Tories' privatisation of railways didn't work; their deregulation of buses (outside London, natch) didn't work. In short, privatisation simply doesn't work - unless of course you think that selling off the nation's assets abroad or to a cartel is a really good thing. However, one thing you can say with some accuracy about the Tories is that they never, ever learn from their past mistakes. Ergo, here we go again.
And, of course, privatisation is only privatisation to a limited extent, given the huge subsidies many of the firms involved in public transport are still sponging off the taxpayers: they are capitalists in profit, but socialists in debit.
i kne albert davy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 10,684
Not that there was much left after Thatchers crowd had finished.waspish said:Gordon brown sold anything he could!