HAPPY THATCHER DAY EVERYONE!

Apologies to ukrc for the inappropriate x-posting.

I'll try to remember to trim the list in future.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:11:41 +0100, JNugent
wrote:
Explain how I, or Mel Rowing (from what I understand, we both own our
homes outright - no mortgage or similar) will benefit from the building
of a row of council houses in Hackney.

In particular, explain how the "benefit" we (and millions of others)
would get from that - other than the delight of paying for it - would be
"equal" to the benefit to those who are housed in the new properties
(and that is whether or not they pay their rent - AIUI, very few social
tenants pay their own rents in full).


Because if you don't they'll come around and rob you until they can
afford a roof over their heads.

On 13/04/2014 15:28, Vidcapper wrote:
On 13/04/2014 11:49, ®i©ardo wrote:

As for privatisations that was merely returning things appropriated by
the then government from their owners under their great Sovietisation -
oops, sorry - Nationalisation Acts of 1946 and 1948.


Except that most professions were effectively nationalised *anyway*,
thanks to the war.


So which "professions" were nationalised?

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

On 14/04/2014 12:49, ®i©ardo wrote:

On 13/04/2014 15:28, Vidcapper wrote:
On 13/04/2014 11:49, ®i©ardo wrote:

As for privatisations that was merely returning things appropriated by
the then government from their owners under their great Sovietisation -
oops, sorry - Nationalisation Acts of 1946 and 1948.

Except that most professions were effectively nationalised *anyway*,
thanks to the war.

So which "professions" were nationalised?

I was wondering that.

On 14/4/14 12:46, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2014 12:31, The Todal wrote:
On 14/4/14 12:11, JNugent wrote:


Explain how I, or Mel Rowing (from what I understand, we both own our
homes outright - no mortgage or similar) will benefit from the building
of a row of council houses in Hackney.
In particular, explain how the "benefit" we (and millions of others)
would get from that - other than the delight of paying for it - would be
"equal" to the benefit to those who are housed in the new properties
(and that is whether or not they pay their rent - AIUI, very few social
tenants pay their own rents in full).

And when you've done that, explain how Mr Nugent and Mr Rowing who are
(as the case may be) in excellent health or already suffering from a
terminal disease, will benefit from the building of a new medical unit
to treat diabetes or rare forms of cancer. What benefit, other than the
delight of paying for it?

Many thanks.

You have, though inadvertently, I'm sure, hit upon a very valid point.

A medical facility benefits anyone who needs to use it (and indirectly,
their family members and friends). It might benefit you or me tomorrow
tomorrow, or next week or next year. A marginal extra council house will
never benefit you. Or me. Except for the "benefit" of having to pay for it.

A council house benefits those who live in it and no-one else.

Surely only in the sense that welfare payments from the DWP benefit only
the recipients and no-one else.

This must be the best excuse I can find to post this URL of a superb
article written by the author of "Adrian Mole", about what it was like
to live on benefits in the sixties. Good, or what?

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...wnsend-welfare




How do I benefit from a Falklands War which establishes that a handful
of islanders at a remote location will continue to be regarded as
British citizens, albeit with no right to relocate in the UK?

You don't have to benefit from it. The benefit - in the main - was to
the British people who live there, just like the main benefit of the
fire brigade putting out a fire at your house would accrue to you and
your immediate neighbours.

There was no benefit to us who lived on mainland Britain, though. It
made rather less sense than sending a hundred million pounds to help
with famine relief in Somalia. At least that could save lives.



You aren't doing very well in picking these analogies, are you?

Analogies are usually flawed, you know.

On 14/04/2014 12:55, The Todal wrote:

On 14/4/14 12:46, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2014 12:31, The Todal wrote:
On 14/4/14 12:11, JNugent wrote:

Explain how I, or Mel Rowing (from what I understand, we both own our
homes outright - no mortgage or similar) will benefit from the building
of a row of council houses in Hackney.
In particular, explain how the "benefit" we (and millions of others)
would get from that - other than the delight of paying for it -
would be
"equal" to the benefit to those who are housed in the new properties
(and that is whether or not they pay their rent - AIUI, very few social
tenants pay their own rents in full).

And when you've done that, explain how Mr Nugent and Mr Rowing who are
(as the case may be) in excellent health or already suffering from a
terminal disease, will benefit from the building of a new medical unit
to treat diabetes or rare forms of cancer. What benefit, other than the
delight of paying for it?

Many thanks.
You have, though inadvertently, I'm sure, hit upon a very valid point.
A medical facility benefits anyone who needs to use it (and indirectly,
their family members and friends). It might benefit you or me tomorrow
tomorrow, or next week or next year. A marginal extra council house will
never benefit you. Or me. Except for the "benefit" of having to pay
for it.
A council house benefits those who live in it and no-one else.

Surely only in the sense that welfare payments from the DWP benefit only
the recipients and no-one else.

Good point (three in a row).

But...

....you, Mel or I could conceivably need/be entitled to social security
payments at any time, depending on matters beyond our control. I don't
know about you, but the other two of us could not be entitled to council
housing. Not never, not nohow.

Council housing and social security are by no means in the same
category. I can see that there's a superficial similarity, but it's
deceptive.

This must be the best excuse I can find to post this URL of a superb
article written by the author of "Adrian Mole", about what it was like
to live on benefits in the sixties. Good, or what?

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...wnsend-welfare

I won't read it (I'm aware of her work), but I fancy that I already know
what it was like, being the eldest child of a low-paid worker in those
days before housing benefit (rent and rate rebates), child benefit,
child tax credits or working tax credits.

How do I benefit from a Falklands War which establishes that a handful
of islanders at a remote location will continue to be regarded as
British citizens, albeit with no right to relocate in the UK?

You don't have to benefit from it. The benefit - in the main - was to
the British people who live there, just like the main benefit of the
fire brigade putting out a fire at your house would accrue to you and
your immediate neighbours.

There was no benefit to us who lived on mainland Britain, though.

So what?

No-one said there had to be.

Just like there was no necessity for you or I to personally benefit from
the capture and imprisonment of the Yorkshire Ripper.

It made rather less sense than sending a hundred million pounds to
help with famine relief in Somalia. At least that could save lives.

We'll have to disagree on that (particularly on that).

You aren't doing very well in picking these analogies, are you?

Analogies are usually flawed, you know.

Clearly so.

On 14/04/2014 12:49, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 13/04/2014 15:28, Vidcapper wrote:
On 13/04/2014 11:49, ®i©ardo wrote:

As for privatisations that was merely returning things appropriated by
the then government from their owners under their great Sovietisation -
oops, sorry - Nationalisation Acts of 1946 and 1948.


Except that most professions were effectively nationalised *anyway*,
thanks to the war.


So which "professions" were nationalised?

Manufacturing industries mainly - they were subject to strict state
regulation, even if the gov't didn't technically own them.

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 14/04/2014 17:27, Vidcapper wrote:
On 14/04/2014 12:49, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 13/04/2014 15:28, Vidcapper wrote:
On 13/04/2014 11:49, ®i©ardo wrote:

As for privatisations that was merely returning things appropriated by
the then government from their owners under their great Sovietisation -
oops, sorry - Nationalisation Acts of 1946 and 1948.


Except that most professions were effectively nationalised *anyway*,
thanks to the war.


So which "professions" were nationalised?

Manufacturing industries mainly - they were subject to strict state
regulation, even if the gov't didn't technically own them.


But that was during the war for obvious reasons. There was far less need
for such once the war was over, least of all by way of industries being
taken over and run by the state. This always seems to be a recipe for
disaster as they end up being controlled by people who couldn't run a
whelk stall.

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:51:19 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 14/04/2014 12:49, ®i©ardo wrote:

On 13/04/2014 15:28, Vidcapper wrote:
On 13/04/2014 11:49, ®i©ardo wrote:

As for privatisations that was merely returning things appropriated by
the then government from their owners under their great Sovietisation -
oops, sorry - Nationalisation Acts of 1946 and 1948.

Except that most professions were effectively nationalised *anyway*,
thanks to the war.

So which "professions" were nationalised?

I was wondering that.

medicine(nhs)... a large slice of the economy...
many interferences with 'education'...eg, raising school age...
wage controls
legal aid...

what are you terming as a 'profession'?


--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 15/04/2014 10:35, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 14/04/2014 17:27, Vidcapper wrote:

Manufacturing industries mainly - they were subject to strict state
regulation, even if the gov't didn't technically own them.


But that was during the war for obvious reasons. There was far less need
for such once the war was over, least of all by way of industries being
taken over and run by the state. This always seems to be a recipe for
disaster as they end up being controlled by people who couldn't run a
whelk stall.

The war did more damage to our way of life much more than was obvious at
the time.

It drove politicians nearer towards the command economy that many
aspired to and some still do. These were very reluctant to yeild this
authority once the emergency was over. The election of an Atlee
government in 1945 did not help matters in this respect.

Dear old Maggie swore to roll back the frontiers of the state. Alas she
was only partially successful and some of the ground she won has
subsequently been yielded.

Old habits die hard and power is enjoyable.

We need to keep chipping away until the penny eventually drops and folks
realise that the need of emergency measures is long over. People are
capable of living their own lives without nanny state hovering in the
background.