Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html en-gb 30 Wed 22 Oct 2014 23:58:28 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1328 1326. At 10:38am on 21 Jul 2010, The Ace Face wrote:Saying I'm wrong is one thing, but explaining your words with examples is another. Care to have a try? ---------------------------You were quoted having said that 'life is what you make it' wernt you?If so then I was agreeing with you since how good your life is, how motivated you are and how much effort your willing to make is based on your own perspective.Circumstances have a large effect on peoples lives but some people will make the best of a situation and others will sit and complain. Only one of them is happy with their life. Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:33:46 GMT+1 deanarabin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1327 I just can't grasp the idea in the form it seems to be pushed at us. Volunteering's fine in its way, where people make up their own minds that they want to help and can be found things to do which don't involve the commitments of paid employment. But what about the public services that are founded in legislation and REQUIRE things to be done in a certain way and to a certain standard by people who have to be trained? You can't run things like education, refuse disposal, or land use planning on untrained volunteers working in their spare time. The Special police model is only of limited applicability if you're building a Big Society big enough to win friends and influence people into thinking that volunteering can be used to make major change). Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:44:07 GMT+1 HeecheeRendezvous http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1326 How about subsidising people to take time off from work to volunteer. At universities Wednesday afternoon is often kept free for sports. Couldn't something similar happen in the workplace? The Tories could make it compulsory for employers to permit this. Of course, they won't because this is all about privatising everything that was ever good. Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:43:16 GMT+1 His Horse is Thunder http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1325 1311. At 09:21am on 21 Jul 2010, in_the_uk wrote:I recommend you seek help in the form of friends or a psychotherapist.Life is a mix of circumstance and perspective. You can have the best life in the world but the glass is always half empty. Or you can have a lot of unfortunate experiences yet see the glass half full.If all you see in your life is exploitation I think you need to be shown how wrong you are.Everybody is different and everyone is looking for something out of life. What are you looking for?-------------------------------Saying I'm wrong is one thing, but explaining your words with examples is another. Care to have a try? Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:38:57 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1324 1317. At 09:48am on 21 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote:In-the-uk:I believe you should be addressing Ace the Face. (Assuming, of course, that his post was not intended to be ironic.)----------------------I was agreeing that life is what you make it although the ruler of the world requires the right circumstances too. Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:38:42 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1323 · 1320. At 10:10am on 21 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote: Thatcher quotes me: "Is the government proposing that it get out of providing some services? I believe it is. And is the government proposing that these services (if actually required) could be provided through charities and other volunteer services? I believe that's true too.Is that advocating unpaid civil servants? No, it is not.############################ Of course it is"OK. I'll play.Does this mean that if I help an old lady across the road, I'm an unpaid civil servant? After all, I did perform a public service, and I wasn't paid for it.(Which reminds me: I still need to have your address for the invoice I need to send you for that unpaid debt.)############################################ Firstly you would not help anyone Old lady or not without first negotiating the priceEven then you would require her pension book as securityIf you cant understand the definition of a civil servant then please refrain from using the termUnfortunately for all of us you came back, promises to leave again and I will organise a whip round for your ticket, I doubt if you could afford it on your own, I am sure there would be plenty of people wanting to help you on your way Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:37:42 GMT+1 McDanster http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1322 How can you people say it is a con? Cameron has been as open as you could be. To summarise: We have created a society where people help themselves and wait for the state to intervene to make good our lives, we don't look after each other or our communities anymore. At the same time the country is mortgaged itself to the hilt. All the people who 'bleat' are those who expect a Government hand out, people who have grown accustomed to lifestyles where they put little in but expect a lot out.Of course it is linked to savings, of course we are being asked to supplement services we take for granted.Time has come to step to the mark and make a contrbution. For many this will sound unpopular, you can't expect change without getting involved and you can't sit and expect the handouts to keep coming. I will sleep with a clear conscience that I made an effort when asked. Bring it on. Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:32:48 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1321 1315. At 09:30am on 21 Jul 2010, Sjk3:The mystic babble of a guru is no substitute for rational volition! Never subject yourself to existence as a follower of some mystic preacher or their personal interpretation of reality based on nothing more than irrational wishes and desires! Ask the HOW and there answer will always consist of a variation of the 'somehow' Ask the when, and the answer will always be 'not quite, not yet, sometime, maybe-if-but' - its never now! Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:24:34 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1320 1312. At 09:23am on 21 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote://Profit is not the only motive.// Only when convenient for the owner of capital! hay? Its a little hypocritical to suggest we should be motivated to work for reasons other than personal material profit, but at the same instance hold the belief that the profit motive is a fundamental ingredient for success!//Been to a Tea Party lately? Read about them? Populated by evangelical christians who make Thatcher look like Trotsky.// This merely serves to demonstrate the truth of delusional belief systems, ideologically driven dogma and the irrational behaviour of those who seek to exist as animals in the delusional belief they seek to live as angels! Only an irrational person, who lives by emotional responses could possibly hold inconsistent and contradictory beliefs simultaneously! They deny reality to maintain the illusion that they are sane! //So you claim. Without evidence.//The claim is made! It is grounded in logic and reason. I examine the causes and effects - I look for the rational consequences of those causes! Its simply a question of absolutes - right or wrong, true or false. Its not complex or relative - the evidence is empirical and reality! //Here we can agree. Yet many churches _today_ do do charity work and they are not in a position to coerce anyone to participate.// The Church has always engaged in Charity - but one must understand the nature of charity! The meaning of words is important, the meaning of actions and consequences provide the essence of what it is!Do not ask WHY, ask WHAT IS IT? When a person stops asking 'What is it?' and instead asks 'WHY?' they are lost to the mystic explanations provided by fakers, deceivers and evaders. They are set adrift in oceans of fake saints and saviours! You say the Church is not in the business of coercion - but this is faulty logic! The very essence of such coercion is found inside the heads of every individual! We have always suffered the most perverse forms of indoctrination at the bequest of those controlling the Church and society! Your moral 'education' is the only coercion necessary! Think about it! Would you know the real truth? Or would you seek to live as an angel? The doctrine of sacrifice is all pervasive - it corrupts the mind! Question the nature of that MORALITY - What is it? Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:16:31 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1319 Thatcher quotes me: "Is the government proposing that it get out of providing some services? I believe it is. And is the government proposing that these services (if actually required) could be provided through charities and other volunteer services? I believe that's true too.Is that advocating unpaid civil servants? No, it is not.############################ Of course it is"OK. I'll play.Does this mean that if I help an old lady across the road, I'm an unpaid civil servant? After all, I did perform a public service, and I wasn't paid for it.(Which reminds me: I still need to have your address for the invoice I need to send you for that unpaid debt.) Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:10:22 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1318 · 1305. At 08:31am on 21 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote: 5XX writes: "Does the government really advocate unpaid civil servants?"No.And if anyone thinks otherwise, I request they provide us all with a quote or two. And the source of those quotes so we can evaluate the context (and the trustworthiness of that source!)Is the government proposing that it get out of providing some services? I believe it is. And is the government proposing that these services (if actually required) could be provided through charities and other volunteer services? I believe that's true too.Is that advocating unpaid civil servants? No, it is not.############################ Of course it is Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:53:27 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1317 LeftieAgititator writes: "You have captured the essence of the 'Big Society'. the coalition is determined to shrink the public sector, both the Tories and the Orange Book Lib-Dems were determined to do this whether the economy was in boom or bust. The credit crunch just gives them a convenient excuse."Excellent!T"hey are expecting the charitable sector and community groups to take up the slack. One of the mainsprings for the creation of the Welfare State was the failure of charities ,church and community groups to deal with the levels of poverty and social deprivation in the UK."Sure. We were suffering so when we didn't have a Street Naming Coordinator. "The coalition talk a lot about 'social entrepreneurs' ,which I understand to mean someone who will provide what was a public service for a price. The obvious targets are education('Free Schools'), health(GP Budgets), the library service(call them information centres and charge a usage fee), there are a number of other services provided by the State or local government which could be hived off to 'social entrepreneurs' and probably will be."Let's hope. Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:52:19 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=99#comment1316 In-the-uk:I believe you should be addressing Ace the Face. (Assuming, of course, that his post was not intended to be ironic.) Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:48:51 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1315 · 1271. At 10:07pm on 20 Jul 2010, John_Bull wrote: >>"Sale? Of social housing..">>This was aimed at aspiration and “upwardly mobile” and does not exemplify "What she is saying and meant is that the government doesn’t care Its your problem, nothing to do with us, every man for himself"You may be against the principle of aspiration, but if the “right to buy” was such a bad policy why did Labour not end it? ;-)The right to buy council housing was not introduced to provide housing for the masses, just the opposite. Had the right to buy been introduced and houses sold at a realistic price with the councils been allowed to use the proceeds from the sale to provide social housing and replace the housing stock then I can see the benefits.However councils were forced to sell their housing stock at ridiculously discounted prices and then prevented from replacing them. As far as Thatcher was concerned the purpose of the exercise was to remove low cost social housing and force people onto the open housing market.The result was the boom in housing prices that has continued to this day. Like it or not the reason young people cannot afford to buy a house today started with that disastrous policyShe introduced the right to buy and removed peoples chance to have affordable housing>>"Privatisation of the UK">>Most of this was essential as many of these industries were making huge losses partly due to the fact that they were hamstrung by militant unionism. (Perhaps you don't remember 33% basic income tax to pay for it all?) She first had to break the unions, otherwise no one would buy them, and then sell them. Once they made a profit, they could then be taxed and contribute to the economy rather than be a millstone round its neck. Again, why did Labour continue it? ;-)The privatisation of the Utility companies has let to ever increasing prices. At one time gas, electricity, water was provided on a no profit basis the charges to the public only needing to cover production and distribution. It does not take a genius to work out that id you have to make a profit in order to pay a dividend then prices will increase. Privatisation was not about choice or productivity. It was about removing services from the people of this country and putting them into the hands of the ruling classes.Today pensioners have a real choice between having food on the table or heating their homes due simply to the fact that what should be a public service now is only a means of making profitThere is not a single privatisation that has led to an increase in service and a lowering of prices.It is incredulous that you can fly to central Europe cheaper that catch a train from London to Scotland>>"Just about destroyed any and all society left.."This is just more subjective unsupported nonsense ;-)I remember the feeling of society that was in our communities before the Me Me Me Money Money Money culture introduced and encouraged by ThatcherShe did destroy society Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:39:55 GMT+1 Sjk3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1314 How to revive the Economy and have in the Government?No Government will work without knowing the Philosophy of Politics/EconomyMaterial prosperity has been regarded as an essential object of human life. The development of a sound spiritual character can have a firm footing only in sound material society. A materially wretched society may not be able to stand both on the phenomenal and spiritual ground. In order words, materially starved persons are liable to fall victims to selfish ends of rich people and have to sacrifice noble principles and ideals in order to satisfy their material needs. History bears testimony to the above fact as to how economically and politically strong rulers often used the tool of ‘economic benefits’ in order to rule or convert the poor. Therefore, it is binding on the State to ensure to look after material well being of its people properly and not to let them come down to a state of poverty where they can be forced to live at the mercy of wealthy persons. Poverty becomes a curse upon humanity when it causes starvation, diseases and even deaths. So it becomes the duty of the State to establish and maintain a sound economic order to avoid such a sorry state of affairs. Economic insecurity and individual freedom do not go together.Economy is a pillar of the structure of the State. A sound Economy performs the functions of the backbone in the body of the State. It is on the type of Economy that the prosperity of the people of state depends. Without a sound Economy the structure of the State would crumble down to earth; it would no longer be able to maintain its sovereignty and would be liable to be at the mercy of some alien force (Far East) for sustenance. Therefore, economic security is an essential pre-condition of the State. A constant economic advancement is imperative in a State that ensures provision of material comforts and imparting of necessary skills. All serious and thoughtful leaders of men have acknowledged the importance of economic gratification of a man as a necessary condition for progress, in other domains of life. But the objective of the economic security and material prosperity of the people can be realised only if the state has a sound economy.The Economy as conceived by philosopher / teacher / guider / messiah Guru Nanak is a Service Economy. Service is the be-all and end-all of this economy. No doubt development takes place in this economy but with the objective of meeting essential needs of all the people. Within the frame-work of this economy, every individual serves himself as well as his fellow-beings by engaging in some productive work to fulfil his essential needs and save some quantity/amount of the fruit of his productive work for sharing it with others. In it, every individual is a producer as well as a consumer at the same time. It aims at not only satisfying minimum levels of material needs of the people such as consumption of food, provision of clothing and shelter but also making lives comfortable. Keeping the comfort of the people in view, in modern times, their access can be extended to the essential public utility, health and education etc. Consequently the index of progress in this economy has to be in terms of production of goods and services of this kind.This economy has a ‘Service-cum-Everybody’s Accessibility to Everything Available’ approach. This approach has objective of ensuring parity in the purchasing power of all the people so that everyone irrespective of his/her status or any other consideration, maybe in a position to purchase whatever is available in the State. At the same time, this approach emphasises a pattern of development that encompasses the objective such as composition of national products titled in favour of essential needs of life; a labour-intensive process of production in the sphere of consumer goods employing local resources and turning out goods and services demand by the people that thus giving rise to self-sufficient small local units in the State. This approach also implies a redistribution that is directed to the eradication of poverty, a public expenditure that offers service to the people with sole purpose of serving them. In brief, this approach is meant to achieve the objective of rendering service to the people through which poverty, unemployment and economic disparities that not only mar the economic growth of society but cause economic injustice in society, will automatically vanish.Industry (Secondary): - The is also called manufacturing industry, in economics, referring to the sector of a nation’s economy that includes the processing raw-materials supplied by primary industries into consumer goods, or production goods that other secondary industries transform into products, components of products or capital goods used to manufacture consumer and non-consumer goods. Secondary industry also includes such industries as hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind and other electrical power generation that require generations or other specialized equipment to convert raw energy into electricity; and it also includes the construction industries. In the economy of Guru Nanak’s vision, the secondary industry also occupies an important place which is indicated by the references Guru Nanak makes to such industries e.g. smithy, tailoring, pottery etc. To quote him:- Should brass, gold or iron be broken,The smith in fire fuses it together.Then cut by the scissors, by the tailor torn,With needle and thread is it stitched.Guru Nanak goes to the extent of conceiving even God Himself as a Manufacturer viz. Artisan or Potter who fashions all the vessels viz. beings. It means that manufacturing play very significant role in this whole World. This opinion of Guru Nanak determines the significance attached to the manufacturing industry in the economy of his vision. To quote Guru Nanak: -The One (Potter) has fashioned all the vessels.Keeping in view the objective of the economy of Guru Nanak’s vision, the production in the sector of manufacturing industry is to be directed to make human life comfortable. Priority is to be given to the manufacturing of such goods as are useful for agriculture e.g. tractors, pumping sets, harvesters, thrashers etc. these things not only help increase the agriculture production but also make agriculture easier. Stress is also to be laid on the manufacturing of the goods like kitchen appliances, textile machinery, and sewing machines etc, which make the conversion of agriculture produce into final products i.e. consumer goods more convenient, quicker and neater.The manufacturing techniques adopted by these sectors of industries must always be such as do not generate unemployment, poverty or give rise to corruption or exploitation of any sort. These techniques must not be such as, in any way, degenerate the cultural values of the people. The manufacturing industry is to be service-oriented. The goods are to be manufactured at a reasonably low cost so that the State people may easily afford to purchase at home but not abroad. If anyone wants to buy at low cost goods (made in England goods especially premier league kits / jerseys), than they have to travel to the country to purchase at low cost and at the same time the national airline flag carrier could be saved (reasonable ticket fare) and tourist will bring in revenue which the country needs. Reasonable low cost goods for local people so that the people may easily afford to purchase them. Its objective is not to be money-chasing or profit-maximising but service to its State people. If the objective of service to its people is ever kept in view, profits will automatically follow. However, the economy of Guru Nanak’s vision upholds earning of ‘due profit’ only which is essential and sufficient for entrepreneur’s own sustenance and the subsistence of his enterprise. It is suggested by the following words of Guru Nanak’s:-In dealing in false commodities is incurred loss.Whoever by the Master’s teaching makes commerce to the Lord is pleasing:His capital, and commodity safe, Yama’s noose is removed from him.This view of Guru Nanak has been supported by many thinkers and great businessmen of the world. Urwick says, “Earning of profits cannot be objective of a business any more than eating the objective of living.”Similarly Henry Ford declared in his autobiography that, “mere money-chasing is not business.” He built his business on the basis of service and set out to manufacture cars, which would be within the means of low-income groups and which, therefore, would serve the general mass of people. He declared that business consists in manufacturing those goods, which the community wants, at a prize, which the community can pay. The same kind of missionary zeal marked the efforts of the Indian pioneer in the industry, Jamsetji Nausherwanji Tata. Thus, a truly great business can be built up only if objective of service to the community is constantly kept in view. If this is done, profit will come automatically. However, it cannot be denied that it is absolutely necessary for the business enterprise to earn at least the profit sufficient to cover the risks of economic activity, “the profit required to, enable it to stay in business and to maintain intact the wealth - producing capacity of its resources,” as Peter F. Drucker puts it.Industry (Tertiary): - This is also called service industry and includes the sector of a nation’s economy embracing industries that provide services or intangible gains or generate wealth but that produce no tangible goods. In free market and mixed economies this sector generally has a mix of private and government enterprise. As far as the tertiary industry is concerned, it also finds place in the economy of Guru Nanak’s vision. The references made by him to trade, trader, salesman, employee and soldier etc. in his compositions, though in spiritual sense, indicate the necessity of this sector in the economy. “Trade refers to the sale, transfer or exchange of goods.” Guru Nanak, regarding the body as a city, puts forth the concept of trade as under:- In the body city there are shops fortresses and a cabin wherein is the merchandise of the True Name to trade in.And: - Within the fortress are balconies and bazaars.It can be inferred from the above-quoted compositions that bazaars, shops and commodities of good quality etc. are the prerequisites of trade.In this economy, Banking facility is to be provided by the State to facilitate trade. The BANKS will conduct commercial and financial transactions. But the institution of interest will be dispensed with. The Practice of making money only with the help of money has no place in this economy. The banking facility which is essential for trade, has been referred to, though in its old form viz. Shahukara, in the following words:- They are the bankers and the true traders, whom the True Guru has imparted understanding.Trade as conceived by Guru Nanak, is based on the concept of ‘business morality’. It is to be carried on by the trader considering himself a servant of the people. His function is to remove the hindrances of place and time between the goods/services and the consumer. Though due profit as reward of the efforts put in by him in trade is not to be dispensed with as it is essential for his existence in the market; but he is not to run after maximisation of his profit. To quote Guru Nanak:- Trade with the traders (in true merchandise) and take profit with pleasure.The trade is to be based on the principles of truth and virtue. The trader is to do the trade not only for profit making but for the welfare of the people. It can be inferred from the following composition of Guru Nanak: -In this body shop, this mind is a merchant, who through poise deals in truth. The trader is also to be fair in his dealings with all the concerned. Unfairness in dealings has no place in the economy of Guru Nanak’s vision. To quote him:-By unfair dealings the mind and body are rendered corrupt.The trader, in the economy of Guru Nanak’s vision, weighs the commodity with standard weights. He never under weighs it by giving a fillip to the handle of the balance. Guru Nanak conceiving God as a Merchant, puts forth the concept of fair trade:- Within the body fortress are the cities and shops and the business is transacted there. The Merchant, My God, weighs His wares with the sterling weights.In this economy, the person engaged in professional services serve the community by discharging their duties with dedication. To quote Guru Nanak:-With devoted heart render service: make faith in the holy vocation.In the economy of Guru Nanak’s vision, the inter-dependence of all three types of industry is well recognised. That is why proper and amicable co-ordination is established among them. In it, the farmer is contented to produce the life-sustaining commodities; the industrialist produces the goods at reasonable cost for the convenience of the people in purchasing them; the trader deals fairly; the officials serve the community with dedication. The function of, all of them are directed to the service of people and their due returns automatically follow. They always adhere to the ideal of Kirat-Kamaai (Earn with Deed). Why not ask few suggestions from ex-Governor of Hong Kong. Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:30:20 GMT+1 LeftLibertarian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1313 Post 1305: wrote"Is the government proposing that it get out of providing some services? I believe it is. And is the government proposing that these services (if actually required) could be provided through charities and other volunteer services? I believe that's true too."You have captured the essence of the 'Big Society'. the coalition is determined to shrink the public sector, both the Tories and the Orange Book Lib-Dems were determined to do this whether the economy was in boom or bust. The credit crunch just gives them a convenient excuse.They are expecting the charitable sector and community groups to take up the slack. One of the mainsprings for the creation of the Welfare State was the failure of charities ,church and community groups to deal with the levels of poverty and social deprivation in the UK.I expect some government minister to resurrect the concept of the deserving and the undeserving poor.The coalition talk a lot about 'social entrepreneurs' ,which I understand to mean someone who will provide what was a public service for a price. The obvious targets are education('Free Schools'), health(GP Budgets), the library service(call them information centres and charge a usage fee), there are a number of other services provided by the State or local government which could be hived off to 'social entrepreneurs' and probably will be. Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:28:53 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1312 1278. At 11:45pm on 20 Jul 2010, Joseph wrote:The idea is I work and pay taxes etc and the state is looking after things like security, healthcare etc. Cameron wants us to organise that and pay taxes as well. What a great idea-------------------------------------There is an alternative. You gonna pay off the debt left by the last gov? Do that and the gov can afford to run public services again.The people of this country are like winging kids. 'I want I want' but who is gonna pay for it? Not you because your money was spent before the last gov left. Any money you pay now is to pay the debts of labour.So again will you pay off the debt? Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:27:40 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1311 "Ok so how does a volunteer, working in the private sector, providing public services, 'work smarter' without that fundamental essential principle of the private sector ideology - that being the profit motive? Can we conclude this 'big society' idea is destined to fail without a 'profit motive' for the 'volunteer' workforce?"Profit is not the only motive."But the church is NOT capitalist - in fact religious dogma is ANTI capitalist! Jesus, the bible, the Koran and ALL religious teachings on the subject describe the essential ingredients of capitalism as pure evil! The Church has never been a capitalist enterprise - I have never heard of such an irrational and ridiculous justification to support you delusional beliefs! Can you not even grasp the contradiction in your statement? "Been to a Tea Party lately? Read about them? Populated by evangelical christians who make Thatcher look like Trotsky."One does not require a specific 'quote or source' The essence of the 'proposal' is obvious ..."So you claim. Without evidence."Actually our history books are stuffed full of clear examples of the Church as Slave Master. The foot soldiers of empire builders, the justification for tyranny, the destroyers of humanity. Building golden temples with slave labour! You should read a little Masquerade De Sade, or watch The Devils (Russell). In a contemporary context the morality of the church is absolutely about exploitation and the destruction of sovereign rational minds! It represents the ultimate slavery of humanity in the service of evil! Mmmm now that's a little controversial - but true! ;-) "Here we can agree. Yet many churches _today_ do do charity work and they are not in a position to coerce anyone to participate. Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:23:49 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1310 1308. At 08:56am on 21 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote:Ace the face writes: "Ever heard of the saying,"Life is what you make it?" Well, it's a crock. If it was true, I'd be ruling the world by now. Life is not what you make it, life is what OTHER PEOPLE let you make of it. Life is about exploiting people for personal gain. Why should people go to work, paid or unpaid?"I do believe I awarded Best British Irony Award just yesterday. Perhaps I was premature.Well done, Ace!-----------------------------I recommend you seek help in the form of friends or a psychotherapist.Life is a mix of circumstance and perspective. You can have the best life in the world but the glass is always half empty. Or you can have a lot of unfortunate experiences yet see the glass half full.If all you see in your life is exploitation I think you need to be shown how wrong you are.Everybody is different and everyone is looking for something out of life. What are you looking for? Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:21:30 GMT+1 Gea Vox http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1309 So, Cameron and Clegg expect people to volunteer their time, energy and expertise to offset the savage cuts they propose in public jobs and still award senior civil servants at the Home Office pay bonuses of some £773,000.(today's bbc news front page) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10707869 Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:17:13 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1308 1300. At 08:09am on 21 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote://Not John Galt writes (and writes):// Yes I derive some pleasure in writing and exchanging ideas with like minded folk or even with delusional folk! And you are quite correct, I am not John Galt, he is a fictional character - but he does represent an idea! And no real person can be an idea in any literal rational sense! I Maybe represent just a shadow, or even the ghost of an idea! ;-)///"Please explain how exactly the private sector 'works smarter' "It doesn't. Necessarily. But the profit motive will drive it in that direction./// Ok so how does a volunteer, working in the private sector, providing public services, 'work smarter' without that fundamental essential principle of the private sector ideology - that being the profit motive? Can we conclude this 'big society' idea is destined to fail without a 'profit motive' for the 'volunteer' workforce?///"or how it is possible, from a 'free market' capitalist point of view, to provide such public services with a 'volunteer' workforce?"For centuries, churches did this.///But the church is NOT capitalist - in fact religious dogma is ANTI capitalist! Jesus, the bible, the Koran and ALL religious teachings on the subject describe the essential ingredients of capitalism as pure evil! The Church has never been a capitalist enterprise - I have never heard of such an irrational and ridiculous justification to support you delusional beliefs! Can you not even grasp the contradiction in your statement? ///"I am confused - please explain why its OK for a business owner to make a profit from providing public services but no necessary that employees earn a living from such activity? Sounds, like a logical error, or a contradiction in your particular delusional belief system! "And so it is. Just where do you think this is being proposed? Specific quotes and sources please!///One does not require a specific 'quote or source' The essence of the 'proposal' is obvious and the mystic preachers of the Condems never spell out the actual meaning of their statements. The logic and rational explanation provides the only answer necessary to understand the actual consequence. And you know this to be true - some form of a profit motive must be the necessary condition for private sector enterprise....but this is essentially profiteering from the 'voluntary' activities of the 'well intentioned' unpaid employees. Its a corruption of any interpretation of morality! Christian, capitalist or socialist! ///"Or are we proposing 'capitalism' for the owners of 'social enterprise' and socialism for the employees of this new illusion? But then you must think socialism is a form of slavery? Or maybe forms of slavery are justified for public service so long as we pay the slave masters?"I see. So the churches act as slavemasters now, do they? Because they enticed people to do charity work?///Actually our history books are stuffed full of clear examples of the Church as Slave Master. The foot soldiers of empire builders, the justification for tyranny, the destroyers of humanity. Building golden temples with slave labour! You should read a little Masquerade De Sade, or watch The Devils (Russell). In a contemporary context the morality of the church is absolutely about exploitation and the destruction of sovereign rational minds! It represents the ultimate slavery of humanity in the service of evil! Mmmm now that's a little controversial - but true! ;-) ///".....do you whistle while you work?"Yes. Metaphorically anyway. Do you?///Never whistle - its an irrational activity which distracts the mind! ;-) Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:57:30 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1307 Ace the face writes: "Ever heard of the saying,"Life is what you make it?" Well, it's a crock. If it was true, I'd be ruling the world by now. Life is not what you make it, life is what OTHER PEOPLE let you make of it. Life is about exploiting people for personal gain. Why should people go to work, paid or unpaid?"I do believe I awarded Best British Irony Award just yesterday. Perhaps I was premature.Well done, Ace! Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:56:26 GMT+1 His Horse is Thunder http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1306 1069. At 11:03am on 20 Jul 2010, CladinBlack wrote:No-one is going to 'give' you a jobYou have to go to the Job-centre and see what's going, look in the Local Newspaper and the National Newspapers (on the days they advertise jobs)Then you have to apply for a job, carefully filling in any application form they send and enclosing a CV if asked for, written in your best grammatical EnglishIf you're lucky you might get an interview, in which case you dress smartly, arrive on time and present yourself in a pleasant mannerIf you go with the attitude that 'people suck' then don't be surprised if you hear no more----------------------------Ever heard of the saying,"Life is what you make it?" Well, it's a crock. If it was true, I'd be ruling the world by now. Life is not what you make it, life is what OTHER PEOPLE let you make of it. Life is about exploiting people for personal gain. Why should people go to work, paid or unpaid? Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:43:34 GMT+1 Rays a Larf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1305 Re 1284 and 1296.....If the Mob really get educated then all hell will come about.....so to keep the peace, make the mob think they were being educated and are still being educated, and peace will be always with us.Those of us who really aspire will be welcome into the ranks of adherement and so the equation will be maintained. Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:32:25 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1304 5XX writes: "Does the government really advocate unpaid civil servants?"No.And if anyone thinks otherwise, I request they provide us all with a quote or two. And the source of those quotes so we can evaluate the context (and the trustworthiness of that source!)Is the government proposing that it get out of providing some services? I believe it is. And is the government proposing that these services (if actually required) could be provided through charities and other volunteer services? I believe that's true too.Is that advocating unpaid civil servants? No, it is not. Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:31:53 GMT+1 Rays a Larf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=98#comment1303 Two things in this last week, painting white lines around a dead badger in Hampshire. 'Nothing to do with me Guf' attitude and then the Yellow Peril giving tickets to cars hoisted and reparked on the new painted yellow line in Manchester. Surely in first instance, one shovel, one black bag and lifted to the side would have been quite in order to finish the line job. Humilty comes to mind but then also common sense. The excuse for not doing this, not trained to do it guv.In the second instance one doesnt need anything to become a Yellow peril other than 'Get em' what ever the costs' attitude, which is the most important criteau on the application form for the job. Now too my mind both instances explain where we are as a nation and it only took 13 years to achieve it. Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:19:20 GMT+1 Oncebitten http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1302 This will only work in Never-Never Land.So now we pay the taxes and do it ourselves...ummmm.Would like to hear what Nick Clegg & all liberal voters think to some of these very Tory ideas.Family values my butt !! so all spare time should be volunteering.Unpaid work does not pay bills so therefore promotes living on benefits.About time the jokers in the pack decided how to create new paid work instead of coming up with yet another load of claptrap. Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:17:52 GMT+1 5XX http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1301 Hang on - if you want me to work for my local or national government, to run government services, I expect to be paid for it.Does the government really advocate unpaid civil servants?Ok, so I give up work and start helping to run government services (something I currently do for a living) for nothing. Who will pay my bills when my income drops to zero? Crazy idea. Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:14:45 GMT+1 Upemall http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1300 Icebloo, Posting 500, wrote: " Thanks to Thatcher and Major the UK now has mostly low paid, minimum wage jobs which means working people have to take on two jobs and work longer hours just to survive. This is the main reason the family unit is breaking down in the UK - parents are out of the house longer to earn less money. Earning have fallen but the bills have risen sharply. "The alternative was what precisely? Do you really believe Britain could have continued the way it was going in the 1970s without total meltdown economically and socially?"The main reason the family unit is breaking down" is difficult to identify - but perhaps it has more to do with the fact that extended families rarely live within a street of each other these days, sometimes out of choice..People rarely know many of their neighbours - for a variety of reasons, one of which is the fact that we no longer generally work alongside our neighbours on factory production lines, etc.There's nothing wrong with volunteering but of course it undermines paid professionals in many activities. Realistically, though, the vast expansion in numbers of elderly can't possibly be dealt with by official services and there is a rapidly growing need for more neighbourliness (preferably without interfering politicians and nosy social workers). Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:14:14 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1299 Not John Galt writes (and writes): "Please explain how exactly the private sector 'works smarter' "It doesn't. Necessarily. But the profit motive will drive it in that direction."or how it is possible, from a 'free market' capitalist point of view, to provide such public services with a 'volunteer' workforce?"For centuries, churches did this. "I am confused - please explain why its OK for a business owner to make a profit from providing public services but no necessary that employees earn a living from such activity? Sounds, like a logical error, or a contradiction in your particular delusional belief system! "And so it is. Just where do you think this is being proposed? Specific quotes and sources please!"Or are we proposing 'capitalism' for the owners of 'social enterprise' and socialism for the employees of this new illusion? But then you must think socialism is a form of slavery? Or maybe forms of slavery are justified for public service so long as we pay the slave masters?"I see. So the churches act as slavemasters now, do they? Because they enticed people to do charity work?".....do you whistle while you work?"Yes. Metaphorically anyway. Do you? Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:09:18 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1298 1292. At 05:59am on 21 Jul 2010, MellorSJPlease explain how exactly the private sector 'works smarter' or how it is possible, from a 'free market' capitalist point of view, to provide such public services with a 'volunteer' workforce? I am puzzled because most capitalists I know are always banging on about the 'profit motive' and the necessity of rewards for hard work and investment - in fact all capitalists would or should argue that without these incentives (the profit motive) we cannot motivate people to be productive and committed to their work. In fact they point the finger at the failure of communism as resulting from no profit motive. And argue that we must continue to pay high salaries and giant bonuses to attract the best and the brightest - when it is convenient (ie Banking and finance, Director of all those failing private sector businesses) But here we have the very same 'masters of capital' suggesting somehow, it does not apply to this particular type of enterprise! So social capital requires no reward, no motivation? I am confused - please explain why its OK for a business owner to make a profit from providing public services but no necessary that employees earn a living from such activity? Sounds, like a logical error, or a contradiction in your particular delusional belief system! Or are we proposing 'capitalism' for the owners of 'social enterprise' and socialism for the employees of this new illusion? But then you must think socialism is a form of slavery? Or maybe forms of slavery are justified for public service so long as we pay the slave masters? Mmmm, I am always amazed how the preachers of the Doctrine of Sacrifice can employ any idea or concept to justify their mystic babble! Stealing the concepts and language of others to morph and distort into new 'better' 'shiny' 'bigger' and 'smarter' means of deception.....do you whistle while you work? Wed 21 Jul 2010 06:43:28 GMT+1 His Horse is Thunder http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1297 1297. At 07:11am on 21 Jul 2010, KissThisThen wrote:Seems to be a good way to save money (which we don't have due to overspending) and improve our collective responsibilities. Those that want to be spoon fed and sit on their backsides will doubtless complain, but don't worry, enough caring responsible people (similar to the ones doing stuff now) will step in and take up the slack. The public sector has recently provided a safety net of 'non-jobs' for those not able to get a job in the real world though, so we will need to think about retraining them to do productive stuff.---------------------------------------Shouldn't you be reading The Daily Mail or something? Wed 21 Jul 2010 06:33:43 GMT+1 KissThisThen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1296 Seems to be a good way to save money (which we don't have due to overspending) and improve our collective responsibilities. Those that want to be spoon fed and sit on their backsides will doubtless complain, but don't worry, enough caring responsible people (similar to the ones doing stuff now) will step in and take up the slack. The public sector has recently provided a safety net of 'non-jobs' for those not able to get a job in the real world though, so we will need to think about retraining them to do productive stuff. Wed 21 Jul 2010 06:11:32 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1295 1284. At 01:19am on 21 Jul 2010, aristotles23I always enjoy reading your wise comments - its a real joy to recognise the mind of a rational thinking human being in these discussions! I think we more or less posses a similar understanding of reality. But I guess all will eventually arrive at the same conclusions - when they accept the responsibility for the contents of their own minds. :-) Wed 21 Jul 2010 05:53:25 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1294 1274. At 10:18pm on 20 Jul 2010, Artemesia I am afraid you will not find the answer from reading a book - it merely points one in the right direction! Needless to say, at our essence as Humanity, we are all 'rational' but being a sovereign rational human being is a question of volition - its simple really, in a rational sense there can be only one answer to a given question - it is a simple absolute - wrong or right, true or false - 2+2always equals 4. Humanity makes the fatal error in not being rational, refusing to think for themselves - in such a state everything become relative - in such a state we seek instant knowledge from strangers - I think it requires a dedication and mental discipline to avoid the fakers, deceivers and evaders interpretations! And in a rational world, that which matter is that which has creative value - in this sense, the sciences and the arts are both 'creative activities' both have value to humanity in a rational sense. Both require the unique creative productive intelligence of a human being in order to be realised as something of substance. If one creates something of beauty and value obviously it is a fundamental element and expression of our humanity! That which has no beauty and no value is not an expression of our humanity. The destructive elements of society is that which is irrational, illogical and has absolutely no value. Wed 21 Jul 2010 05:44:20 GMT+1 Mike http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1293 More offenders being made to work for their keep, more young feral children 'volunteering' for National Service, more dole scroungers and those on benefits being asked to volunteer as part of their need to have state money, more illegal immigrants being asked to work or volunteer their time to work off the costs of flying them home.Me? I'm hard working, pay my taxes and as it happens already volunteer - how many others of you also do that? Wed 21 Jul 2010 05:05:41 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1292 bedbug97 writes: "Free, un-paid human labour reminds me of capitalisms bad old days."Magic! How?"''The big society', 'People Power' sounds more like voluntary slavery to me"I see. So working for a charity (or the church) is voluntary slavery now, is it? I suppose helping a child across the road is too.Following this chain of logic, I imagine that contributing to a charity is also a form of slavery. And so is paying lollipop ladies.Taking it one step further then, paying taxes is slavery too. (Now there we agree!) Only thing is, you see, it's not voluntary... Wed 21 Jul 2010 05:04:48 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1291 Aristotle23 writes: "In essence,Cameron is about to sell what central government and councils do,to the highest bidder,and who believes that these bidders will act in the public interest?"Is it not in the public interest that these services be carried out?If they are carried out for free, what--exactly--is your problem?If these services are being paid for and they are carried out according to contract, isn't that in the public interest?If the bidders carry out these services by working smarter, isn't that in the public interest?If these bidders should make a profit (while carrying out the work according to contract, and by working smarter), isn't that in the public interest too? Wed 21 Jul 2010 04:59:35 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=97#comment1290 Rene Descartes writes: "I don't think he was complaining about the stock market performance (though they used to say "in every 5 year period since WW2 the stock market has always grown", until about 2003) it was more that irrespective of what happens to investments or savings rates, bankers always make lots of money for themselves."Well yes. That's the nature of making money on transactions not the capital. Lawyers make money even if their client goes to jail. "As a self proclaimed entrepreneur and businessman would you expect to pay yourself huge bonuses and golden goodbyes if your business had just gone bankrupt? Maybe you do believe in privatising profit and socialising losses. If so, stop lecturing others with your double standards."As the owning entrepreneur, you would be paying yourself from your own money (and there are laws that limit even that), so that cannot be the relevant case. Perhaps you mean that the counterparty should pay me? And if that counterparty signed up to do that, I'd expect him to follow through.Of course, if the counterparty is stupid (Lord Miners and his minders) and I am smart (Sir Fred Goodwin), well, that makes the counterparty (Lord Miners and his minders) stupid. Unfortunately, the labour government was acting on our behalf... Wed 21 Jul 2010 04:47:43 GMT+1 michellegrand http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1289 While you blame brown for the financial problems (what, nothing due to the bankers?) we blew our windfall, the north sea oil that Germany and France and Sweden and Greece and all the rest DID NOT GET. We did, and we spent it all in the low tax 1980's and 1990's. Could the two be connected? We're a net importer again now. Wed 21 Jul 2010 04:02:58 GMT+1 michellegrand http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1288 Monica D's post of what her church does is good. Would never want to stop it. What if her church doesn't function in an area? Or it's a church like one local to us that decided only church goers could go to their youth club. Result, hardly anyone went. What if the group think a child with out a father should be treated in 1950's style - never darken our doors! Can the churches and their volunteers (usually the same half dozen in my experience) cope with larger needy groups? What happens if i doesn't work? David Cameron is worth hundreds of thousands and his wife more still. Does he mistake his world for ours? Wed 21 Jul 2010 03:52:18 GMT+1 michellegrand http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1287 When you come home, you should go out and do the volunteer work. Maybe lots of people will work when it is sunny. I do litter picks at times. But to commit to doing it all the time? And if there is no committment, will it be done.So much of what Cameron half explains about could be done under the present system. Our Tory Council could let us in Alton decide what we want in Alton. But it doesn't. It appoints a Tory from elsewhere to decide. Council money to groups to do things - possible. Also provides oversight. But no, tear it all up, throw it out. Then ask people what they wanbt without explaining what is done and why first, and you get populist red top paper obsessions. Wed 21 Jul 2010 03:48:02 GMT+1 michellegrand http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1286 I work 10 hours a day with an hour travelling at each end - that's construction. ( I can't move every contract - i'd be moving every year)When am I finding the time to do this? In the small amount of time I am home?Or a more general note, i want to know what happens if the local provision is uneven? The well off areas have better resources? There's so much coming out this conservative dominated government that is not being debated or looked at, or even asked for. I'm beginning to think that Cameron does want to change the world for ever. People like him, the middle britain too, the top 10% of us won;t really be affected by the changes. But maybe the poor can work for chinese level wages? Wed 21 Jul 2010 03:42:16 GMT+1 andyou http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1285 Cameron is showing his true colours now, giving to those that dont need it, taking away from those that do.Making out its good for 'society'....he forgets that only the few live in HIGH SOCIETY.Yet he allows Micahel Gove to totally pay for security gates at some schools and not for others..just google and see. Wed 21 Jul 2010 00:51:55 GMT+1 mac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1284 Well folks,this is what you voted for.Or is it?What are you going to do about it?Are you going to accept all these cuts,longer hours,working for a very small pension until you are on the point of dropping dead.Watch volunteering become compulsory.Watch the NHS become privatised.Watch the bankers getting richer and richer.Watch the little saver get poorer and poorer.Watch your schools falling apart,watch academies being run by the private sector,watch out when you have to pay for your kids schooling.The big society ...The big CON. Wed 21 Jul 2010 00:28:48 GMT+1 aristotles23 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1283 Cameron is going to sell the public sectors jobs to the private sector,severely diminishing democratic power,increasing inequality and poverty through privatised service provision,re-creating the two-tier society of the eighteenth century and creating an extremely lucrative job-market for himself by helping to further enrich the business/industry owning class,which will undoubtably employ him in numerous directorships after his tenure as prime minister.All this at the expense of public services,arrived at as government social policy after WW2 as an antidote to the twin evils of unemployment and zero provision for public health.Social(council)housing was the only option for the poorest families,then and now and was publicly applauded by those who did not want unemployed homeless wandering the streets and turning to crime out of desperation and few choices.Those advocates of the free market economy who subsequently gained office,tainted the socially responsible ideas of Adam Smith and re-interpreted his philanthropy as merely a sop to the Christian idea of charity.Under the guise of socially-aware capitalism,these self-same profiteers put in place the central tenets of today's political/industrial policies,entrenching their interests and ownership of the resources and mechanics of the industrial and post-industrial ages.The re-setting of the economic expectations of the working majority is a periodic occurrence which always coincides with planned adjustments to the type of economy in any given state,usually characterised as "recession" These "recessions" are actually the resource mismanagement teams way of returning the upward-curve of social improvement to a previous point,where the workers had few rights and even fewer choices.This is in their(self)interest and is the hallmark of corporate fascism.Any serious study of the history of the world and especially of the industrial and post-industrial ages will uncover these self-same truths about who owns and controls what,and who just works to live as a slave for the benefit of the hegemony of vested interests. Wed 21 Jul 2010 00:19:54 GMT+1 mac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1282 The latest tory idea....We want all you working class types to volunteer to do work for nothing...and we will repay you by allowing you to have street parties...isn't that a spiffing idea?You working class types are so thick that you will probably think that this is such a good idea that you will all vote conservative at the next election...what ho.We will cut your wages, and tell you that it is for the good of the country,we will get the BBC to play land of hope and glory,with tears in your eyes,and being the thickos that you are, you will even say that it is the right thing to do...we learned these tricks at jolly old Eton..you know.Well, I'm going to get my man servant to bring me a super cup of cocoa and hop into my jolly old bed and count my millions to put me to sleep,you lot can count sheep or whatever poor people count,I will just count my money and think up some other super duper idea to diddle,sorry, I meant help the poor. Wed 21 Jul 2010 00:09:11 GMT+1 Bernard Matthews http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1281 I am amazed at just how many people are complaining because the Government are suggesting that they take some reponsibility for their lives. It seems as though thirteen years of paying Labour to tell us what to do in every minute corner of our lives, has made people reliant on the nanny state.Perhaps they would like their local MP to come around to their houses to chew their food for them. Wed 21 Jul 2010 00:04:30 GMT+1 John http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1280 If we are to run some public services ourselves, we won't need to pay as much council tax. Tue 20 Jul 2010 23:38:50 GMT+1 The_Left_Hand http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1279 At the moment I am working maximum hours for the minimum wage the government can get away with by law. If my tax bill goes up any more I seriously, honestly will not be able to pay it. I'm not a tax rebel, I just won't be able to manage. Now, I'm told that although tax is rising we will get less government help. Instead, a great army of volunteers will step in. Excuse me, but like hell! Those who work are like me, fighting to keep our heads above financial water, those who are genuinely seeking work are forced to keep convincing those useless professional sneerers called Job Centre staff and their neighbours they are not work-shy doleys but are doing their best to find a job where fifty people apply for each position, those who can't be bothered to get out of bed to collect their dole before one pm are not going to get out of bed to give their time freely, those who do take time to volunteer, the retired, the unemployed, the disabled, are going to be pushed to the limit and beyond as people losing out on government support will come to them for help. It's not a case of being selfish, it's a case of playing keep up while the capitalists and their lackeys play 'divide and rule' amongst the poor ordinary devils who pay for their lavish lifestyles. I was once told, when unemployed, 'do voluntary work, it'll impress any future boss'. Right, if you're a capitalist and you get two people, one eager and willing to work for nowt apart from the feel-good factor, and the other who wants to be paid, who do you think is going to be picked? (I did do voluntary work, at an animal shelter, but not to impress any future boss but because I love animals).Not only are we going to be stripped of our basic amenities while working ourselves into stress and exhaustion all for adding more and more to the Exchequer we are also going to be made to feel like muck for not 'getting on with it' and 'doing our bit'.The Tories seem to admire Victorian values. Right. So you get a chap with a good, useful idea to assist his fellow man but no money having to crawl to committees of stony faced capitalists begging for money while questions like; 'but are they the deserving poor?' are asked.I can imagine poor, idealist Nicky Clegg in an adjoining room listening to PM Cameron spouting his 'Big Society' philosophy while he bangs his head repeatedly on the table in front of him and the tears flow free.No, I have never voted Labour, not even in the wild anti-Tory rush in 1997.Yes, I said 'capitalist' to describe the boss/ruling class. I'm a Communist. Live with it. Tue 20 Jul 2010 23:23:22 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1278 1222. At 5:04pm on 20 Jul 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:Of course I realise that people cared for each other before religion. Did they also care about a much wider community for any reasons other than selfishness? We'll never know the answer to that.----------------------------------Yes they did. Society was around before religion and looking after your society was too. You have to be religious to have an alternative view of history Tue 20 Jul 2010 22:46:02 GMT+1 Joseph http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1277 The idea is I work and pay taxes etc and the state is looking after things like security, healthcare etc. Cameron wants us to organise that and pay taxes as well. What a great idea Tue 20 Jul 2010 22:45:36 GMT+1 Artemesia http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=96#comment1276 1264. At 9:47pm on 20 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 1260. At 9:27pm on 20 Jul 2010, Artemesia wrote: We can only read her words, I think we shall ever be divided as to what she actually meant #################### "True But remember she was a politician"How could any of us ever forget it!I see you've gone to bed as you have to get up at 6amMy commiserations, at one time I too used to arise at 6am in order to be at work for 7amI am not necessarily trying to defend Margaret Thatcher or her policies but what does aggravate me is 'there is no such thing as society' taken out of context without having read the full interview, which is actually longer than most of usually quoteI have voted in every General and Local Election since I was 21 but apart from that, I have never joined a Political Party, nor voluntarily assisted one, never stood for election, never contacted my MP, never written to a Newspaper, never organised or participated in a political protest etcIn other words, politically speaking I have done nothing!Therefore I don't feel in a position to be overly-critical of our politiciansNote, I said 'overly-critical'Of course we must be on our guard and criticise our politicians when we feel it is justified but there seems to be a tendency on HYS to go overboard with our criticisms, whichever hue the Govt Tue 20 Jul 2010 22:34:13 GMT+1 SheffTim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1275 To attempt to draw a conclusion from the above wisdom of the crowd:There's a storm coming. Buckle up. Tue 20 Jul 2010 22:06:32 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1274 1266. At 9:51pm on 20 Jul 2010, John_Bull The difficulty you are experiencing is one of conceptualisation! There is no belief system to adopt, no instant knowledge to absorb, no saviour or salvation from something constructed on your behalf by some wise and all knowing stranger! No god figure to lead the way! You were never born to follow or accept the pronouncements of mystics. The answers you seek must be discovered by yourself - others can point the way but nothing more! The society envisioned is simply one of sovereign rational human beings living with honesty, integrity and moral fortitude. but one must first reject delusional belief systems and face reality! Tue 20 Jul 2010 21:19:27 GMT+1 Artemesia http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1273 Ghosts of John GaltWay back in the mid-sixties I did read Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged', probably too young then to fully appreciate it, if I still have it I shall have to dig it out and read it again but before I do that, I know your philosophy is based upon Rand's 'objectivism' but from your personal point of view, what I want to know is this..I understand that you are a rational being, I don't know about the 'sovereign' bit but that aside, if we are all to become 'sovereign rational beings', that surely cannot happen to us all at once, overnight as it were, so presumably we're talking long-termAssuming that at some point in the future we (all of us world-wide?) have become 'sovereign rational beings', how is society (the world?) to be organised, who will be the leaders of 'sovereign rational beings'? I think someone else has already asked that, John-Bull I think it wasThat present-day society\the world is in a bit of a mess cannot be denied but I would like to know how you envisage a society\world of 'sovereign rational beings'?Also, I would like to know, is there any place for 'The Arts' in all it's various forms in this future supremely rational society?As I said, I will read 'Atlas Shrugged' again, so maybe the answers are therein Tue 20 Jul 2010 21:18:54 GMT+1 dilbertrules http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1272 What will be interesting is whether we the taxpayers will ahve a say on the non jobs that have proliferated in the Public sector.No more free interpreters, no more excessive health & safety clerks but maybe more spent on rubbish collection etc. Tue 20 Jul 2010 21:16:22 GMT+1 fedupwiththelotofthem http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1271 I am doing my bit, I go to work each day, paying my taxes on what I earn and what do I get for it, CUTS CUTS CUTS. Tue 20 Jul 2010 21:12:13 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1270 1261. At 9:29pm on 20 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:>>"Sale? Of social housing.."This was aimed at aspiration and “upwardly mobile” and does not exemplify "What she is saying and meant is that the government doesn’t care Its your problem, nothing to do with us, every man for himself"You may be against the principle of aspiration, but if the “right to buy” was such a bad policy why did Labour not end it? ;-)>>"Privatisation of the UK"Most of this was essential as many of these industries were making huge losses partly due to the fact that they were hamstrung by militant unionism. (Perhaps you don't remember 33% basic income tax to pay for it all?) She first had to break the unions, otherwise no one would buy them, and then sell them. Once they made a profit, they could then be taxed and contribute to the economy rather than be a millstone round its neck. Again, why did Labour continue it? ;-)>>"Just about destroyed any and all society left.."This is just more subjective unsupported nonsense ;-) Tue 20 Jul 2010 21:07:53 GMT+1 factoryworker439 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1269 1246. At 8:21pm on 20 Jul 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:It is a puzzle, don't you think! NOT capitalist, NOT socialist - is it individualism to blame or communitarianism? or maybe its the atomisation of the person. or too much humanitarianism or too many religion-isms - Nope non of these! Gosh which 'ism' do you believe we should blame for our wrecked society? Which ever you choose please remember real capitalism has REAL negative consequence for the greedy and profiteers! REAL socialism would never sacrifice the public sector to private profit - and no bank would be able to destroy the global economy! Now, then which ism thinks its a good idea to compromise between socialism and capitalism? Which ideology seeks to socialism losses while privatising profits? Which ideology has overt mysticism, lots of patriotism, nationalism and a forced sense of 'community spirit'? Which ism likes to profess 'we are all in this together', while persecuting the disadvantages, vulnerable and minority sections of society?----------------------------------I thinks i know. Is the answer Fascism Tue 20 Jul 2010 21:04:20 GMT+1 This is a colleague announcement http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1268 What's so good about voluntary groups per se? The EDL, KKK, Mafia etc. (at first) are all voluntary groups. Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:57:10 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1267 Time for bedWork at 6 Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:56:54 GMT+1 englishimmigrant http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1266 Moderators, where is my comment on this subkectRegardsenglishimmigrant Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:54:18 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1265 1257. At 9:20pm on 20 Jul 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:I don't think you are a loony and I had already worked out that it was not Marxism. I was initially being prejudicial; I was looking for Marxism because I don't like MarxismThe gulf between us lies in the lack of empiricism. Your explanations are very colourful and enlightening, but they lack a sense of physical being or reality, perhaps the lack of something that you can directly point to and say, "it's like that"The questions I ask you are aimed at bridging that gulf. Unless you are merely taking about a personal state of mind, which I don't think you are, then you must be talking about a Society based on such principles?If so how is it structured? What do we as individuals do in this Society? How is it governed and by Who? etc.And finally, how on Earth do you draw parallels between the big Society and Auschwitz? Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:51:03 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1264 1259. At 9:24pm on 20 Jul 2010, aristotles23:Given that I know they all play for the same team, I had privately made the assumption that Mandy the dark lord would be the one growing a comedy moustache, and I still cannot perceive of 'Call me Dave' being a failed, frustrated vegetarian artist with a persecution complex! But whatever happens in the coming years, they already got the Storm troopers in place and Hague is definitely a little corporal....I expect all hell to break loose after the Olympics. Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:48:43 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=95#comment1263 · 1260. At 9:27pm on 20 Jul 2010, Artemesia wrote: We can only read her words, I think shall ever be divided as to what she actually meant #################### True But remember she was a politician Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:47:59 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1262 1247. At 8:29pm on 20 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 1246. At 8:21pm on 20 Jul 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote: Please don't tell me you do not understand the question! ###################### I can read the question (understand?); I have no idea as to the answer---------------------------------Oh dear - can I offer a clue!How many Corporations came to dominate the global economy as a result of their support of this particular 'ism'?Or more interestingly, how many of these same global corporations, who really like this particular 'ism' are doing great business in CHINA - which incidentally is anther nation embracing the ideas embodied in this particular 'ism' - In fact they appear to be having remarkable success in destroying the economies of every advanced developed nation (apart from Germany) employing the ideas expressed by this 'ism' - they have embraced the free markets of capitalism, created a wealthy elite but keep socialism for the poor, socialise all the losses, privatise most of the profits! Go on have a guess! ;-) ################# Pass Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:45:23 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1261 1247. At 8:29pm on 20 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 1246. At 8:21pm on 20 Jul 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote: Please don't tell me you do not understand the question! ###################### I can read the question (understand?); I have no idea as to the answer---------------------------------Oh dear - can I offer a clue!How many Corporations came to dominate the global economy as a result of their support of this particular 'ism'?Or more interestingly, how many of these same global corporations, who really like this particular 'ism' are doing great business in CHINA - which incidentally is anther nation embracing the ideas embodied in this particular 'ism' - In fact they appear to be having remarkable success in destroying the economies of every advanced developed nation (apart from Germany) employing the ideas expressed by this 'ism' - they have embraced the free markets of capitalism, created a wealthy elite but keep socialism for the poor, socialise all the losses, privatise most of the profits! Go on have a guess! ;-) Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:30:29 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1260 · 1258. At 9:22pm on 20 Jul 2010, John_Bull wrote: 1256. At 8:58pm on 20 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 1249. At 8:36pm on 20 Jul 2010, John_Bull wrote: 864. At 9:01pm on 19 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote The point people like you keep missing is that you believe what she said, the reality of her policies give a different interpretation on the quoteYou believe what a politician says; you should look beyond the words and read the meaningLook at what happened===========================================================Your argument is incoherent at best.You have simply rephrased what Thatcher said into words that better support your point of view, and then subsequently claimed that I’m taking her too literally???What’s your point? Please clarify and we can continue.############################# Let's examine it line by line then.>>>"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it....”What she is saying and meant is that the government doesn’t care Its your problem, nothing to do with us, every man for himself>>>"There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first....”Same as above>>>"People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation....”Same as above==============================================Still incoherent, but now also subjective!This is just an emotive interpretation unsupported by any facts or reasoning.Precisely what Acts / Policies exemplify your point?.################################# Sale? Of social housingPrivatisation of the UKJust about destroyed any and all society left Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:29:14 GMT+1 Artemesia http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1259 1256. At 8:58pm on 20 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:"Let's examine it line by line then"Nice bit of cherry-picking!Why leave off the rest of one of the lines you quote?" ..no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first...."From which you infer.."What she is saying and meant is that the government doesn’t care Its your problem, nothing to do with us, every man for himself"What's wrong with the rest of the quoted line?..." It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.."We can only read her words, I think shall ever be divided as to what she actually meant Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:27:47 GMT+1 aristotles23 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1258 1246.....Ghosts of John Galt..Of course the "ism" that you wish people to realise is seeking to enslave them for their entire lifetime is...Fascism,"The Third way".It seems incredible that anyone could have missed all the "clues" that you have provided,especially when you have stated the term in numerous comments! Such is the result of a poor education and a reliance on the views and dogmas of others,such is the result of relying on belief to attempt understanding. We are seeing the arrival of that point at which the Weimar Republic failed,and the power-vacuum was filled by...the Austrian corporal with the comedy moustache. Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:24:16 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1257 1256. At 8:58pm on 20 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 1249. At 8:36pm on 20 Jul 2010, John_Bull wrote: 864. At 9:01pm on 19 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote The point people like you keep missing is that you believe what she said, the reality of her policies give a different interpretation on the quoteYou believe what a politician says; you should look beyond the words and read the meaningLook at what happened===========================================================Your argument is incoherent at best.You have simply rephrased what Thatcher said into words that better support your point of view, and then subsequently claimed that I’m taking her too literally???What’s your point? Please clarify and we can continue.############################# Let's examine it line by line then.>>>"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it....”What she is saying and meant is that the government doesn’t care Its your problem, nothing to do with us, every man for himself>>>"There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first....”Same as above>>>"People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation....”Same as above==============================================Still incoherent, but now also subjective!This is just an emotive interpretation unsupported by any facts or reasoning.Precisely what Acts / Policies exemplify your point?. Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:22:28 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1256 1248. At 8:30pm on 20 Jul 2010, John_Bull:Seriously, if you thought John Galt represents some Marxist revolutionary you are so way off the mark! No Banana ;-) What Atlas Shrugged really represents is the ideas embodied by Ojectivism (controversial subject) quite marginalised by mainstream philosophy! However, the book does serve a rather interesting purpose in so far as it illustrated the nature of corrupt society! The essence of that which is wrong. It is an exploration into the concept of rational volition and human beings living as nature intended! One may agree or disagree with the arguments explored but Galt's persona is anti- socialist, pro capitalist - the point being that at the very centre of our humanity is our sense of morality and self esteem - it is our morality and self esteem which is corrupt from its very inception - and thus its the corruption of humanity which leads to the corruption of social systems! The idea is not to create some utopian society but to discover what it is to be a human being - what it is to be a moral being. Personally, I think Ayn Rand makes an error in some assumptions about capitalism, but it is essentially right in the context of the writers life experiences. And to understand why one must delve in to the very substance of our belief systems, indoctrination and the concept of the doctrine of sacrifice. Atlas Shrugged serves to expose the true nature of religious and materialist versions of this indoctrination!Anyhow, these ideas are actually proved to be correct if one takes a little time to investigate the origins of the Doctrine of Sacrifice, that's why I often mention the Shadow of the Dalai Lama - another fascinating book! it exposes the true nature of contemporary society without actually meaning too. I am not just some loony, although some might think so, I have studied this stuff for years and once I would have considered the world very differently - but experience brings wisdom - and at some point I stopped believing in accepted delusions and started asking the right questions. This to me is very important stuff, because it appear that most will spend their whole lives not even understanding the reality of the world they exist in, instead they argue about which political party is to blame or which ideological construct is actually really screwing up their lives! Well, in truth its the delusional beliefs and the illusion created by very nasty people which is messing up individuals head! These elites have been kicking Humanity in the head for centuries and they will never stop unless we refuse them permission to do it. Even if you do not believe a word I say - it must be worth reading a few obscure books just to see if it makes any sense to you. And most of the books you should read are knocking about the internet free - so it will only cost a little time! Tue 20 Jul 2010 20:20:46 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1255 · 1249. At 8:36pm on 20 Jul 2010, John_Bull wrote: 864. At 9:01pm on 19 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote The point people like you keep missing is that you believe what she said, the reality of her policies give a different interpretation on the quoteYou believe what a politician says; you should look beyond the words and read the meaningLook at what happened===========================================================Your argument is incoherent at best.You have simply rephrased what Thatcher said into words that better support your point of view, and then subsequently claimed that I’m taking her too literally???What’s your point? Please clarify and we can continue.############################# Let's examine it line by line then.>>>"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it....”What she is saying and meant is that the government doesn’t care Its your problem, nothing to do with us, every man for himself>>>"There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first....”Same as above>>>"People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation....”Same as above Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:58:44 GMT+1 bedbug97 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1254 The fact is there are five JSA claimants for every one job vacancy, and i'm sure this ratio will rise under the Tories slash and burn policy. People should realise that atleast 80% of these unemployed genuinely can't find work because the private sector is'nt hiring. If you haven't heard, the U.Ks capitalist engine has broken down and is billowing smoke. The mechanics have'nt got a clue how to fix it, so they started by ripping the spark plugs out. George Osbourne who must have been taking some 'legal highs' when he announced that the private sector would rush in and create some 2 million+ jobs in the coming years. It would be lucky to even hold on to 2 million jobs with the debt it is carrying, and almost zero growth.This 'big society' scam is nothing more than attempt to squeeze free labour out of society, to run the under-staffed public services that the Tories are busy demolishing. Now If I do work for someone, I expect payment, thats generally how capitalism works. Things must be really bad if this simple mechanism isn't working. Free, un-paid human labour reminds me of capitalisms bad old days. 'The big society', 'People Power' sounds more like voluntary slavery to me. If the public jobs are so important why are they axing them in the first place? Its even more ridiculous that they expect society to do them for free. Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:53:15 GMT+1 aristotles23 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1253 Interesting to note that the "volunteers" that Cameron HAS talked to are the kind of civic heroes who own companies currently running "out-sourced" services for councils and central government.These same champions of social justice are also in the running to bid for service provision that has yet to be tendered out to the private sector,but whose tendering will coincide with the cuts/council purges.Changing from,not-for-profit government employed provision,to for-profit private sector provision will inevitably increase costs to the public purse,both as taxpayers and as service users.The track-record of such public-private "partnerships" and hand-overs is discouraging to say the least,think NHS,National IT database,The Railways etc, PFI was copied from the Tories by Blair and his chancellor,with disastrous results,this recent policy direction unveiled by Cameron chimes exactly with the thinking that gave us PPP and PFI,the results will be the same,reduced quality and quantity of services,for vastly greater cost.The reason it will cost more is simple,vested interests want to make as much profit from this as they did from the disaster of PFI. In essence,Cameron is about to sell what central government and councils do,to the highest bidder,and who believes that these bidders will act in the public interest? Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:51:31 GMT+1 Rene Descartes http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1252 1241. At 7:31pm on 20 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote:Robedwards1980 whines: "I don't think that's true. It's certainly not true for my investments.It's not true for most of mine, but anyone who bought a tracker 10 years ago has lost money. Those who bought in 2000 or 2007 have probably lost a lot."It's called "framing." Pick your "frame" to make your point.Probably? Puhleeze!In any event, it's called the market. Unless you can prove sharp practice, take your lumps like the rest of us.I don't think he was complaining about the stock market performance (though they used to say "in every 5 year period since WW2 the stock market has always grown", until about 2003) it was more that irrespective of what happens to investments or savings rates, bankers always make lots of money for themselves.As a self proclaimed entrepreneur and businessman would you expect to pay yourself huge bonuses and golden goodbyes if your business had just gone bankrupt? Maybe you do believe in privatising profit and socialising losses. If so, stop lecturing others with your double standards. Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:50:59 GMT+1 Haider http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1251 Cameron seems like a nice chap and all that, but this really is rubbish. Its either plain naivety or simply a rues to get a whole lot of stuff privatised. Here we go, market economy in everything! Great! Erm if you are rich and own a big business that can start leaching off the service sector.So when car body shop knows its an insurance job they hike the price and when a landlord knows its dss he (or she) hikes the price. Human nature is greedy. Welcome back to Thatchers Britain.Loved it the first time round didn't we? Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:48:24 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=94#comment1250 Ok I have found the perfect solution! The best way to stop all the insanity and make our society, better, brighter and shinier - All you folk with far to much self importance and management responsibilities, all you entrepreneurs, captains of industry and business leaders, all you political folk and lobbyists, the PR gurus and media types, all those who would profess to have a solution or an analysis, any who would masquerade as fake saints and saviours - just do one small thing tomorrow - if you are male do not wear cuff links ( get some shirts with buttons) and if you are a female just leave the pearls at home! And all of you should stop doing the 'power dressing', forget the starbucks plastic commuter coffee, throw the Iphone/blackberry in the bin - and forget your tweets, emails and other nonsense - And stop using that annoying management speak drivel - you do not know what you mean - its nonsense.....Porter, Hamel et al are all con men! Instead of pretending and acting a part - tomorrow actually start thinking for yourselves! AND please please stop saying 'the way forward, going forward or any other meaningless throw away line - its really stupid....That would go along way to create a Big Society folks! Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:47:02 GMT+1 robedwards1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1249 MellorSJ - I am not sure why you are being pedantic in taking apart my posts when the principle is pretty obvious: a brain dead monkey could have made money in banking in 2009 given the stock market recovery (that their sector caused the collapse of in the first place) and the high margins between borrowing and lending that their saving customers have yet to benefit from. In the meantime pension funds are delivering poor returns and many have huge deficits because of these same bankers.You need help. I have a 3yr bond at over 3%. In any case, lending at 6% means nothing because it does not account for costs. Let alone the gummint's requirement to impove balance sheets.In the end. you don't like it, set up your own bank and put these supposed thieves out of business.And I have some 3 year ISAs at 4%, but the rates are lower now if you open a new account. If the bankers' costs of doing business are so great as you appear to be defending they could look at their bonus payouts to improve profitability. If you are genuinely a business owner I am surprised you defend the bankers given the actaully have not passed on the money loaned or quantitatively eased to invest in the economy they crashed.I thought it was a pretty obvious but if you can't parse it, here goes again."That's as easy to say as: "stop paying taxes and see what happens". It is as relevant to ask Bankers what they are doing with OUR money, as it is [to ask] of the state, [what it is doing with] our taxes.:What dialect of English is the following derived from: "In the end. you don't like it, set up your own bank and put these supposed thieves out of business" Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:41:23 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1248 864. At 9:01pm on 19 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote The point people like you keep missing is that you believe what she said, the reality of her policies give a different interpretation on the quoteYou believe what a politician says; you should look beyond the words and read the meaningLook at what happened===========================================================Your argument is incoherent at best.You have simply rephrased what Thatcher said into words that better support your point of view, and then subsequently claimed that I’m taking her too literally???What’s your point? Please clarify and we can continue. Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:36:23 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1247 1246. At 8:21pm on 20 Jul 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:One thing is for sure! You folk may believe the problems we face are a consequence of capitalism or socialism or whatever ism, but none of the problems we face would happen in a capitalist world and likewise none of these problems would materialise in a socialist world! It is a puzzle, don't you think! NOT capitalist, NOT socialist - is it individualism to blame or communitarianism? or maybe its the atomisation of the person. or too much humanitarianism or too many religion-isms - Nope non of these! Gosh which 'ism' do you believe we should blame for our wrecked society? Which ever you choose please remember real capitalism has REAL negative consequence for the greedy and profiteers! REAL socialism would never sacrifice the public sector to private profit - and no bank would be able to destroy the global economy! Now, then which ism thinks its a good idea to compromise between socialism and capitalism? Which ideology seeks to socialism losses while privatising profits? Which ideology has overt mysticism, lots of patriotism, nationalism and a forced sense of 'community spirit'? Which ism likes to profess 'we are all in this together', while persecuting the disadvantages, vulnerable and minority sections of society? Please don't tell me you do not understand the question=================================================================Are you not talking to me any more Galty?I am a potential convert.Page 2 Comment #821 Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:30:05 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1246 · 1246. At 8:21pm on 20 Jul 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote: Please don't tell me you do not understand the question! ###################### I can read the question (understand?); I have no idea as to the answer Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:29:52 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1245 One thing is for sure! You folk may believe the problems we face are a consequence of capitalism or socialism or whatever ism, but none of the problems we face would happen in a capitalist world and likewise none of these problems would materialise in a socialist world! It is a puzzle, don't you think! NOT capitalist, NOT socialist - is it individualism to blame or communitarianism? or maybe its the atomisation of the person. or too much humanitarianism or too many religion-isms - Nope non of these! Gosh which 'ism' do you believe we should blame for our wrecked society? Which ever you choose please remember real capitalism has REAL negative consequence for the greedy and profiteers! REAL socialism would never sacrifice the public sector to private profit - and no bank would be able to destroy the global economy! Now, then which ism thinks its a good idea to compromise between socialism and capitalism? Which ideology seeks to socialism losses while privatising profits? Which ideology has overt mysticism, lots of patriotism, nationalism and a forced sense of 'community spirit'? Which ism likes to profess 'we are all in this together', while persecuting the disadvantages, vulnerable and minority sections of society? Please don't tell me you do not understand the question! Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:21:59 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1244 This post has been Removed Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:17:22 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1243 · 1241. At 7:31pm on 20 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote: Robedwards1980 whines: "I don't think that's true. It's certainly not true for my investments.########################## As always your response shows all the inelegance of a monopoly player who tries to by the community chest Tue 20 Jul 2010 19:03:05 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1242 1207. At 4:23pm on 20 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote://After ignoring many ignorant posts from Thatcher, we run across this gem: "How does firing people keep them in employment ?"Now, toddle off and google "Schumpeter" and "creative destruction."//Schumpeter and his ideas of 'creative destruction' have about as much credibility as 'Marx' and his idea of 'proletariat revolution'!And both ideas are equally stupid! Mmmmm how those delusional belief systems take you down all sorts of rabbit holes! Hilarious! Tue 20 Jul 2010 18:52:31 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1241 · 1240. At 7:23pm on 20 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote: I do believe John_Bull has it 1000% right on the money when he says: "What are you suggesting anyway, a revolution? The core Labour voters wouldn’t be up for that; they’d have to get off their backsides."Yet another thing Marx got wrong.... For exactly the same reason. They're too busy expecting someone else to do it for 'em.############################## Back from the day job then Tue 20 Jul 2010 18:38:33 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1240 Robedwards1980 whines: "I don't think that's true. It's certainly not true for my investments.It's not true for most of mine, but anyone who bought a tracker 10 years ago has lost money. Those who bought in 2000 or 2007 have probably lost a lot."It's called "framing." Pick your "frame" to make your point.Probably? Puhleeze!In any event, it's called the market. Unless you can prove sharp practice, take your lumps like the rest of us."I have a lot of cash saved. I get paltry interest on that cash but they make at least 5% on top. You may argue I have a choice, but the choice is to stuff £50 notes under the bed which isn't a choice, or of a similar nature to that offered by entrepreneur Milo Minderbinder to the aircrews in "Catch 22"."5%, eh? Where did this figure come from?"Banks borrow at 0.5% and lend at 6%+ (I am told, I don't have any borrowings, ST Money had best loan rates at about 8%). Best ISA I can currently get is around 2.75%, so there's a big differential, whether it's 5% or 3% - it's money for old rope (if you're a banker). "You need help. I have a 3yr bond at over 3%. In any case, lending at 6% means nothing because it does not account for costs. Let alone the gummint's requirement to impove balance sheets.In the end. you don't like it, set up your own bank and put these supposed thieves out of business."That's as easy to say as stop paying taxes and see what happens. It is as relevant to ask Bankers what they are doing with OUR money as it is of the state of our taxes.:Given the best interpretation in the world, this is nonsense. Try rewriting it in English. Tue 20 Jul 2010 18:31:42 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1239 I do believe John_Bull has it 1000% right on the money when he says: "What are you suggesting anyway, a revolution? The core Labour voters wouldn’t be up for that; they’d have to get off their backsides."Yet another thing Marx got wrong.... For exactly the same reason. They're too busy expecting someone else to do it for 'em. Tue 20 Jul 2010 18:23:09 GMT+1 robedwards1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1238 1215. At 4:44pm on 20 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote:Robedwards writes (#1193): "Err, actually you're wrong. The taxpayer has bailed out the banks or underwritten their bad decisions, so some of my tax went there."By far the majority of this money went into buying stakes in the companies involved. As a majority shareholder, the government could have (for example) told Lord Miners to get stuffed. It didn't. Don't blame the bankers."I have many investments in stocks and equities (whether in ISAs or pension funds): they make money from ME when they trade those equities for me but have they risen in value in the past 10 years?"I don't think that's true. It's certainly not true for my investments.It's not true for most of mine, but anyone who bought a tracker 10 years ago has lost money. Those who bought in 2000 or 2007 have probably lost a lot."I have a lot of cash saved. I get paltry interest on that cash but they make at least 5% on top. You may argue I have a choice, but the choice is to stuff £50 notes under the bed which isn't a choice, or of a similar nature to that offered by entrepreneur Milo Minderbinder to the aircrews in "Catch 22"."5%, eh? Where did this figure come from?Banks borrow at 0.5% and lend at 6%+ (I am told, I don't have any borrowings, ST Money had best loan rates at about 8%). Best ISA I can currently get is around 2.75%, so there's a big differential, whether it's 5% or 3% - it's money for old rope (if you're a banker). S"o, for a variety of reasons it is not correct to say it "NOT YOUR MONEY". They got it from us and, in recent times, have given little (if any) value in return, unlike your Bill Gates example."I am happy to agree that bankers' bonuses are high. But you're the shareholder. Stop paying them and see what happens.That's as easy to say as stop paying taxes and see what happens. It is as relevant to ask Bankers what they are doing with OUR money as it is of the state of our taxes. Tue 20 Jul 2010 18:02:09 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1237 472. At 2:33pm on 19 Jul 2010, AmericanGirlUK wrote:Seriously, How much more of this ridiculous coalition government are people going to stand for?I just hope that people see all of this for what it is and really start doing something about it. Get these guys OUT!!! Unless you're independently wealthy, in which case all of this is a good thing. =======================================================================I assume that you were as equally vocal in condemning the lack of Socialism back home? You remember, the place that thinks having a free Health Service is Communism. All of your contributions display a complete lack of appreciation of the harsh reality this country now faces. Even your Labour idols, Clown McBrown, Balls, the Miliband boys and yes, even Harriet Harperson had accepted the need for cuts! They were going to come anyway, regardless of who won, Labour just didn't want to frighten you and tell you where from. The electorate has done them a huge favour. Now they can stand on the sidelines whining and convince people like you, that there isn't really a problem, it's just the "nasty Tories" who want to exterminate the poor…In direct answer to your question; if the electorate has got any sense, it will ignore the pointless Lib-Dems next time and continue to vote Tory. Oh, I forgot, if they had any sense, they wouldn’t have been voting for Labour and we then wouldn't be £1 Trillion pounds in debt!What are you suggesting anyway, a revolution? The core Labour voters wouldn’t be up for that; they’d have to get off their backsides. Tue 20 Jul 2010 17:51:11 GMT+1 robedwards1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=93#comment1236 1213. At 4:38pm on 20 Jul 2010, MellorSJ wrote:robedrewards (#1189) writes: "In fact these three demonstrate the difference between "sticker price" and cost of ownership. 1) has medium sticker price and high cost of ownership; 2) has high sticker price and lower cost of ownership and 3) has low sticker price but lots of hidden costs of ownership which you don't realise until you're committed."You demonstrate the benefits of doing your research. But the fact remains that YOU choose to buy.(And, yes, the market does need some regulation to prevent monopoly, especially when network effects are decisive. That doesn't mean that a company can force you to buy its products.)In the same way that Minderbinder didn't force the aircrew in Catch 22 to eat: they certainly had a choice, pay his prices or starve. If you need (it was want 10 years ago, need now) you have a choice of buying a Windows system (some choice of h/w, but that's all), buy a Mac (much improved user experience but at a price) or build it yourself. If you build it yourself it will meet your needs but may not be compatible with anyone else's and may not be useable by them. Actually this is a pretty close analogy to what's on offer with this proposal: a standard but boring monopoly offering, a high end private one or a cheap and cheerful DIY one. The choice for many is illusory. Tue 20 Jul 2010 17:49:57 GMT+1 deciet http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=92#comment1235 Explain why we should pay £4,000 a day looking after Williams safety when he can stay on a military base and not drum up a ridicules bill. Unless his mother is willing to pay for his security. I don’t like this idea and think Cameron should rent the whole family to Hollywood for a few million and then we can rent out all their palaces and start getting something back. What happened to the “all people are equal” phrase? Tue 20 Jul 2010 17:39:52 GMT+1 Black_And_Proud http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=92#comment1234 To paraphrase Our Greatest Prime Minister:"There is no such thing as the Big Society" Tue 20 Jul 2010 17:33:36 GMT+1 Jaywat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=92#comment1233 potatolord wrote:I think they should make all pensioners and the unemployed do voluntary work. Not only would this save the taxpayer money, but it would reduce crime by making layabouts work instead of burgling.---------------I'm sorry, was it pensioners or the unemployed that are layabout thieves? You're really willing to condemn all unemployed as layabout criminals? HUNDREDS of job applications after I was no longer eligible for any kind of unemployment benefit, I'm still having no luck whatsoever. Given that there's no work in my field, I've applied for anything and everything, but the consensus seems to be, without bothering to ask, that I'm over-qualified and will get bored and leave. Of course, now my other problem is I have a hefty gap in my employment record, too.So here I sit, overqualified, unemployed and absolutely penniless. If my partner wasn't earning, we'd be living in a cardboard box.Still, at the rate I'm burning through the meagre savings I had for my family's future (the reason I'm ineligible for benefits), I'll be eligible to sponge off the state in a matter of months, including housing! And I shall REALLY enjoy spending your taxes doing it.Also, I really hope you lose your job in the near future! Your views need some adjustment through personal experience. Tue 20 Jul 2010 17:23:08 GMT+1 paul doherty http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=92#comment1232 cant we just scrub the debt and move on? whos going to do anything about it, the rest of the worlds in the same boat Tue 20 Jul 2010 17:12:10 GMT+1 His Horse is Thunder http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=92#comment1231 Re post: # 1166-------------------Tell me when to stop laughing. Tue 20 Jul 2010 17:11:55 GMT+1 paul doherty http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=92#comment1230 i bet there are a lot of people who would like to get involved with their community...but, who is going to supply the stab vests? Tue 20 Jul 2010 17:10:05 GMT+1 Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/how_should_you_contribute_to_s.html?page=92#comment1229 I work in a library - staff here have a range of skills, knowledge and experience built up over a number of years - does David Cameron seriously think it's ok or acceptable to replace that with unpaid volunteers? Everyone thinks it's a nice little job serving books in and out of the library - well what about support for digital inclusion, the range of services relating to information literacy, free help and support for IT relating issues and problems - can volunteers fulfill that highly skilled role? Am I to lose my job to an unpaid, unskilled person? Tue 20 Jul 2010 17:09:16 GMT+1