HAPPY THATCHER DAY EVERYONE!

"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:12:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:

snip


How was the quantity of housing being reduced?

Yeah it always tickles me does this one)) Perhaps the Martians take up
any sold council house)))


Dozy cow: did you buy your council house and sell it on making a quick
profit.?

Or perhaps you could explain how selling off council houses and allowing
people
to make thousands of pounds benefited anyone other themselves and the
Thatcher
government who effectively bought their votes.

I assume it was to the benefit of society as a whole: just what the Bitch
would
have wanted.

On 10/04/2014 20:37, Judith wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:12:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:

snip


How was the quantity of housing being reduced?

Yeah it always tickles me does this one)) Perhaps the Martians take up
any sold council house)))


Dozy cow: did you buy your council house and sell it on making a quick
profit.?

Or perhaps you could explain how selling off council houses and allowing
people
to make thousands of pounds benefited anyone other themselves and the
Thatcher
government who effectively bought their votes.

I assume it was to the benefit of society as a whole: just what the
Bitch would
have wanted.

What is better for society as a whole:

To have houses in the possession of those willing and able to maintain
and improve them or:

Have them in the possession of those where that same society has to pay
landlords, whether they be private or public, to allow them to live in them?

Social housing does me no good whatsoever. I am not even eligible to
take advantage of it.

On 11/04/2014 11:09, Feral Underclass wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:


On 10/04/2014 20:37, Judith wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:12:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:

snip


How was the quantity of housing being reduced?

Yeah it always tickles me does this one)) Perhaps the Martians take up
any sold council house)))


Dozy cow: did you buy your council house and sell it on making a quick
profit.?

Or perhaps you could explain how selling off council houses and allowing
people
to make thousands of pounds benefited anyone other themselves and the
Thatcher
government who effectively bought their votes.

I assume it was to the benefit of society as a whole: just what the
Bitch would
have wanted.

What is better for society as a whole:

To have houses in the possession of those willing and able to maintain
and improve them or:

Have them in the possession of those where that same society has to pay
landlords, whether they be private or public, to allow them to live in them?

Social housing does me no good whatsoever. I am not even eligible to
take advantage of it.

You are getting society mixed up with capitalism again. Society as a
whole (ie including everyone, not just the rich) would benefit the
most from shared ownership. The closest we have to that is council
houses.

In what way does the PP "benefit" from there being more council houses
(each, incidentally, requiring more subsidy, irrespective of the
circumstances of the occupants)?

On 11/04/2014 12:49, Feral Underclass wrote:
JNugent wrote:


On 11/04/2014 11:09, Feral Underclass wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:


On 10/04/2014 20:37, Judith wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:12:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:

snip


How was the quantity of housing being reduced?

Yeah it always tickles me does this one)) Perhaps the Martians take up
any sold council house)))


Dozy cow: did you buy your council house and sell it on making a quick
profit.?

Or perhaps you could explain how selling off council houses and allowing
people
to make thousands of pounds benefited anyone other themselves and the
Thatcher
government who effectively bought their votes.

I assume it was to the benefit of society as a whole: just what the
Bitch would
have wanted.

What is better for society as a whole:

To have houses in the possession of those willing and able to maintain
and improve them or:

Have them in the possession of those where that same society has to pay
landlords, whether they be private or public, to allow them to live in them?

Social housing does me no good whatsoever. I am not even eligible to
take advantage of it.

You are getting society mixed up with capitalism again. Society as a
whole (ie including everyone, not just the rich) would benefit the
most from shared ownership. The closest we have to that is council
houses.

In what way does the PP "benefit" from there being more council houses
(each, incidentally, requiring more subsidy, irrespective of the
circumstances of the occupants)?

What is this PP and what does it have to do with society?

Previous poster, of course.

I'll spell it out for as one might have to spell it out to a child...

In what way does the Mel Rowing "benefit" from there being more council
houses (each, incidentally, requiring more subsidy, irrespective of the
circumstances of the occupants)?

Please give a credible answer that doesn't sum to "Your money or your life".

You have already stated that everyone benefits from council houses.

On 11/04/2014 18:45, Feral Underclass wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:

I think it would be clearer to state than all property that is not
privately owned is publicly or communally owned but in no way is
ownership shared.



I didn't say they were, just that shared ownership would benefit
society more than private ownership. Private ownership, by its
definition, excludes most of society. But shared ownership would not
exclude the rich.

You are a silly fellow.

Ask anyone whether he would be prepared to place all his wealth into a
common pot and what do you think the answer would be in the vast vast
majority of cases? Ask any home owner what he would think of handing his
property over to a pool of public housing and then accepting whatever
property is allotted to him on the basis of arbitrary applied criteria
of need.

You see personal or private property is not as you say definitive of
privilege but rather the opposite. The fact that we own that which we
have lawfully earned and that the law will protect such ownership, the
right to take the fullest advantage of our own talents and enjoy the
fruits of his own labour is the very epitome of freedom.

The fundamental problem with socialism in its purer forms is that it
doesn't work and is counter productive. Nobody works harder for a
philosophical idea than he does for himself. Why should he? Adherence to
the Communist Manifesto will not in itself, feed him or his family or
put clothes on his or their backs, a roof over heads or food into
stomachs. Further if this fairly satisfactory state of affairs were to
be achieved then what would be the point in increasing effort so as to
accommodate someone else?

The comes the question of distribution. Under socialism just before the
inevitable collapse, it always seems to become the case that some are
more equal than others. The surplus fruits of production always seem to
end up in certain privilege pockets. Cars and the best houses go to the
party leaders and party officials Stalin had several luxurious dachas
despite the fact that he predominantly use one, in a country where the
majority of peasants lived in insanitary hovels.

Communism failed in the Old Soviet Union just as it did in Maoist China
and is doing in Cuba and socialism struggles in the meantime in
Venezuela despite its oil riches. The last vestiges remain in North
Korea where the fortified frontier exists to keep the population in
rather than invaders out. North Korea will undoubtedly follow the well
trodden path in due course.

On 12/04/2014 14:35, Feral Underclass wrote:
JNugent wrote:


On 11/04/2014 12:49, Feral Underclass wrote:
JNugent wrote:


On 11/04/2014 11:09, Feral Underclass wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:


On 10/04/2014 20:37, Judith wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:12:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:

snip


How was the quantity of housing being reduced?

Yeah it always tickles me does this one)) Perhaps the Martians take up
any sold council house)))


Dozy cow: did you buy your council house and sell it on making a quick
profit.?

Or perhaps you could explain how selling off council houses and allowing
people
to make thousands of pounds benefited anyone other themselves and the
Thatcher
government who effectively bought their votes.

I assume it was to the benefit of society as a whole: just what the
Bitch would
have wanted.

What is better for society as a whole:

To have houses in the possession of those willing and able to maintain
and improve them or:

Have them in the possession of those where that same society has to pay
landlords, whether they be private or public, to allow them to live in them?

Social housing does me no good whatsoever. I am not even eligible to
take advantage of it.

You are getting society mixed up with capitalism again. Society as a
whole (ie including everyone, not just the rich) would benefit the
most from shared ownership. The closest we have to that is council
houses.

In what way does the PP "benefit" from there being more council houses
(each, incidentally, requiring more subsidy, irrespective of the
circumstances of the occupants)?

What is this PP and what does it have to do with society?

Previous poster, of course.
I'll spell it out for [you] as one might have to spell it out to a child...
In what way does the Mel Rowing "benefit" from there being more council
houses (each, incidentally, requiring more subsidy, irrespective of the
circumstances of the occupants)?
Please give a credible answer that doesn't sum to "Your money or your life".
You have already stated that everyone benefits from council houses.

Shared ownership does not equal council houses. Council houses is just
the closest real world analogy.

TRANSLATION: "Meaningless waffle unrelated to the question".

How about answering the question I asked?

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.

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 14/04/2014 11:14, Feral Underclass wrote:
JNugent wrote:


On 12/04/2014 14:35, Feral Underclass wrote:
JNugent wrote:


On 11/04/2014 12:49, Feral Underclass wrote:
JNugent wrote:


On 11/04/2014 11:09, Feral Underclass wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:


On 10/04/2014 20:37, Judith wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:12:27 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:

snip


How was the quantity of housing being reduced?

Yeah it always tickles me does this one)) Perhaps the Martians take up
any sold council house)))


Dozy cow: did you buy your council house and sell it on making a quick
profit.?

Or perhaps you could explain how selling off council houses and allowing
people
to make thousands of pounds benefited anyone other themselves and the
Thatcher
government who effectively bought their votes.

I assume it was to the benefit of society as a whole: just what the
Bitch would
have wanted.

What is better for society as a whole:

To have houses in the possession of those willing and able to maintain
and improve them or:

Have them in the possession of those where that same society has to pay
landlords, whether they be private or public, to allow them to live in them?

Social housing does me no good whatsoever. I am not even eligible to
take advantage of it.

You are getting society mixed up with capitalism again. Society as a
whole (ie including everyone, not just the rich) would benefit the
most from shared ownership. The closest we have to that is council
houses.

In what way does the PP "benefit" from there being more council houses
(each, incidentally, requiring more subsidy, irrespective of the
circumstances of the occupants)?

What is this PP and what does it have to do with society?

Previous poster, of course.
I'll spell it out for [you] as one might have to spell it out to a child...
In what way does the Mel Rowing "benefit" from there being more council
houses (each, incidentally, requiring more subsidy, irrespective of the
circumstances of the occupants)?
Please give a credible answer that doesn't sum to "Your money or your life".
You have already stated that everyone benefits from council houses.

Shared ownership does not equal council houses. Council houses is just
the closest real world analogy.

TRANSLATION: "Meaningless waffle unrelated to the question".

How about answering the question I asked?

Your question is meaningless. Everyone would benefit equally.

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).

On 14/4/14 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2014 11:14, Feral Underclass wrote:
JNugent wrote:


On 12/04/2014 14:35, Feral Underclass wrote:
JNugent wrote:


On 11/04/2014 12:49, Feral Underclass wrote:
JNugent wrote:


On 11/04/2014 11:09, Feral Underclass wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:


On 10/04/2014 20:37, Judith wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:12:27 +0100, "Ophelia"

wrote:

snip


How was the quantity of housing being reduced?

Yeah it always tickles me does this one)) Perhaps the
Martians take up
any sold council house)))


Dozy cow: did you buy your council house and sell it on making
a quick
profit.?

Or perhaps you could explain how selling off council houses
and allowing
people
to make thousands of pounds benefited anyone other themselves
and the
Thatcher
government who effectively bought their votes.

I assume it was to the benefit of society as a whole: just
what the
Bitch would
have wanted.

What is better for society as a whole:

To have houses in the possession of those willing and able to
maintain
and improve them or:

Have them in the possession of those where that same society
has to pay
landlords, whether they be private or public, to allow them to
live in them?

Social housing does me no good whatsoever. I am not even
eligible to
take advantage of it.

You are getting society mixed up with capitalism again. Society
as a
whole (ie including everyone, not just the rich) would benefit the
most from shared ownership. The closest we have to that is council
houses.

In what way does the PP "benefit" from there being more council
houses
(each, incidentally, requiring more subsidy, irrespective of the
circumstances of the occupants)?

What is this PP and what does it have to do with society?

Previous poster, of course.
I'll spell it out for [you] as one might have to spell it out to a
child...
In what way does the Mel Rowing "benefit" from there being more
council
houses (each, incidentally, requiring more subsidy, irrespective of
the
circumstances of the occupants)?
Please give a credible answer that doesn't sum to "Your money or
your life".
You have already stated that everyone benefits from council houses.

Shared ownership does not equal council houses. Council houses is just
the closest real world analogy.

TRANSLATION: "Meaningless waffle unrelated to the question".

How about answering the question I asked?

Your question is meaningless. Everyone would benefit equally.

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?

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?

How do any of us benefit from the opening of a big new factory somewhere
in the north of England which gives hundreds of jobs to locals but no
jobs to people in my immediate area?

Why should I have to pay taxes anyway? I endorse the words of William
Ewart Gladstone. Money should fructify in the pockets of the people.
Income tax was first invented by the Conservative Party. Bring back the
Whigs.

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

[ the building of council houses, which convey only a private benefit
to their occupants and no public benefit whatsoever; just like any other
housing]

FU said:
... Everyone would benefit equally.

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.

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.

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

How do any of us benefit from the opening of a big new factory somewhere
in the north of England which gives hundreds of jobs to locals but no
jobs to people in my immediate area?

Indirectly only. We might no longer need to see so much of our taxes
leaking away into benefits with no return for them, allowing the money
to be spent better and more productively elsewhere (or, indeed, allowing
taxes to be reduced, or some combination of both).

Why should I have to pay taxes anyway? I endorse the words of William
Ewart Gladstone. Money should fructify in the pockets of the people.
Income tax was first invented by the Conservative Party. Bring back the
Whigs.

You might, at long last, have hit upon a valid point with that.

Two valid points in a single Todal post... what IS the world coming to?