not my words (although I have said them often enough !) - but the words of BBC Political correspondent Laura Kuennssberg -
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39934039

These fruitcakes would drive us bankrupt - just as they already have done in Greece !

... and why oh why anyone would believe that a State-run enterprises would ever produce a profit (when not one ever has in the past) defie3s logic !!!!

In The Know wrote:
not my words (although I have said them often enough !) - but the words of BBC Political correspondent Laura Kuennssberg -
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39934039

These fruitcakes would drive us bankrupt - just as they already have done in Greece !

... and why oh why anyone would believe that a State-run enterprises would ever produce a profit (when not one ever has in the past) defie3s logic !!!!

Fruitcakes: Labour? Trump? Thatcher? May? ITK? Me? Well I suppose we all at times can be a fruitcake.
Tax and spending is the overall responsibilty of government. So I for one take exception to labelling any government with just fruitcake without some details / comparisons and even challenges to whoever. I intend to go through my newly downloaded manifesto and then correspond to Labour. Then I would have done my part.

"... and why oh why anyone would believe that a State-run enterprises would ever produce a profit" State or privately owned? Well just applying either approach without considering all the options plus also continually reviewing and improving, is a religious, idealistic approach rather than a pragmatic approach.

One "well known leader" told his finance minister that he just had "to find the money " and oddly in that situation (and regrettably I may add) the money was found and the capital items were obtained.

Thatcher talked about controlling the money supply and yes control is important but all must remember that money supply should be a servant not a master and that history, time and again has shown that when a government wants to or has to deal with a money supply problem they can. For example interest rate now at 0.25% (First period in the 300 years BofE history) QE to support the gilt price (I consider this money distribution exercise misdirected, why not QE for homelessness etc? )
High taxes like IHT and so forth can cripple a family's inheritance yet a few percentage points upwards to a high earner and company taxes really is not life threatening and often means very little to those recipients but a great deal to better wealth distribution.

I will examine the manifesto and the Yories as well and most likely consider all fuitcakes but let's hope for a wind of positive change. I see the council house destroyers now proposing to build more!

In The Know wrote:
not my words (although I have said them often enough !) - but the words of BBC Political correspondent Laura Kuennssberg -
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39934039

These fruitcakes would drive us bankrupt - just as they already have done in Greece !

... and why oh why anyone would believe that a State-run enterprises would ever produce a profit (when not one ever has in the past) defie3s logic !!!!

How can he nationalise the railways and Royal Mail, if he did would Southern Rail still be sufficient or would they still go on strikes ?

Must add two thoughts about Greece!
1. Maybe Greece is the country that should of done a "Brexit" ("Grexit") and joined Iceland's approach and defaulted on all it's debt.
2. Another easy workable solution. EU provided QE to wipe out Greece's debt and restructure in a positive approach (Oh how the German government so quickly forgot their recent past "Marxhall Plan" etc) Money is always just created. It is the allocation and control misused that cause the Argentina or pre war Germany crisis for example not money creation in itself as a common everyday practice.

andrew wrote:
How can he nationalise the railways and Royal Mail, if he did would Southern Rail still be sufficient or would they still go on strikes ?

Three more rail strikes just announced, andrew !
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39939773

What Labour says - On running the economy:

"Our manifesto is fully costed, with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue streams.

"Our public services must rest on the foundation of sound finances.

"Labour will therefore set the target of eliminating the government’s deficit on day-to-day spending within five years."

What it really means:

Usually the big parties are incredibly vague about their fiscal plans in their election manifestos. So Labour is to be applauded for providing a lot of numbers and a full costing document with their 2017 manifesto.

However, their claim that it is fully funded is a bit disingenuous. For one thing, there are big question marks over whether their plans will cost as little as they say, and whether their tax rises will generate as much cash as they think.

Second, there are a fair few items of spending that don't seem to be costed anywhere: nationalising the main rail networks, creating public energy companies and water utilities, extending HS2 to Scotland.

Now, on the one hand, that is not technically current spending, so doesn't count against their fiscal rule (which excludes investment spending).

On the other hand, it is a lot of extra debt – at least £250bn, perhaps getting towards half a trillion.

At some point that will have to be paid off by future generations of British households.

So the idea that only the top 5% will pay for the Labour plans is not quite the full story.

news.sky.com/story/vote-2017-labour-mani...at-it-means-10879977

so, just more Labour LIES and a cartload of debt (at least £250 BILLION) for future generations to pay off !
Where is SP17 and his "national debt" totaliser ???

Hope May can make rail strikes illegal.

In The Know wrote:
not my words (although I have said them often enough !) - but the words of BBC Political correspondent Laura Kuennssberg -
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39934039

These fruitcakes would drive us bankrupt - just as they already have done in Greece !

... and why oh why anyone would believe that a State-run enterprises would ever produce a profit (when not one ever has in the past) defie3s logic !!!!

You're missing the point. Public services aren't there to make a profit, they are there to serve the public and provide a good service. I think it is perfectly feasible to nationalise the water companies. Water rates have gone up 40% above inflation since privatisation. We are all paying over the odds to make a few fat cats richer. Also the railways are mostly nationalised throughout the world. The best railways are in Japan and France, both nationalised.

andrew wrote:
Hope May can make rail strikes illegal.

Yes, holding the country to ransom should be made illegal. If people don't like what they are offered they can always leave - if you have talent, skills and ability your employer will want to ensure that you stay.

Funny - even the Fruitcake's financial backer says he will lose !
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39944331

Having the party cut in half will, apparently, been seen as a victory (thats how mad they are).

These people have never been looking after the workers - look at how many jobs they destroyed in the car industry, motor cycle industry, mining, steel industry etc etc - wherever there were large numbers to be exploited, milked and manipulated, there were Unions destroying jobs.

All this "investment" is nothing more than higher wages for those who don't deserve them ... paying people to do a job when there is in reality no job to do.

In The Know wrote:
andrew wrote:
Hope May can make rail strikes illegal.

Yes, holding the country to ransom should be made illegal. If people don't like what they are offered they can always leave - if you have talent, skills and ability your employer will want to ensure that you stay.

Funny - even the Fruitcake's financial backer says he will lose !
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39944331

Having the party cut in half will, apparently, been seen as a victory (thats how mad they are).

These people have never been looking after the workers - look at how many jobs they destroyed in the car industry, motor cycle industry, mining, steel industry etc etc - wherever there were large numbers to be exploited, milked and manipulated, there were Unions destroying jobs.

All this "investment" is nothing more than higher wages for those who don't deserve them ... paying people to do a job when there is in reality no job to do.

robbiex wrote:
You're missing the point. Public services aren't there to make a profit, they are there to serve the public and provide a good service.

No - YOU are missing the point !

Its not up to Governments to "provide" things ... if there is a need - then a service will provide it (and the users should pay for it).

Are we to have Nationalised Butchers next ???

Take a look at Leisure Centres - almost all run by Councils (at a loss).

A key point ITK; should Government provide things (NHS, Leisure Centres, transport) to some people who cannot afford to pay for them? Is that a part of what society should be or not? You believe not. Others believe Yes. How refreshing that at least this election will have stark choices like this where past ones have only featured shades of grey.

What 'In the Know' sets out is the idea that profit should be the only virtue, the only benchmark, the only arbiter of...well, anything.

This is an utterly arid and morally bankrupt creed - another form of extremism and fanaticism. The fact that 'In the Know' doesn't realise this simply shows the effect on a sector on the populace of four decades of constant propaganda from the UK's right wing media (much of it owned by offshore interests).

JK2006 wrote:
A key point ITK; should Government provide things (NHS, Leisure Centres, transport) to some people who cannot afford to pay for them? Is that a part of what society should be or not? You believe not. Others believe Yes. How refreshing that at least this election will have stark choices like this where past ones have only featured shades of grey.

The main reason that I think "Not" JK, is that Governments (and Councils) are simply not very good at running businesses ! (btw I never said NHS !)

Also, you will always get the scrounger variety who sits back and wants everything done for them (providing someone else is paying).

People should take pride in themselves, their street, their neighbourhood, their town ... and make it better themselves - then they would appreciate things more and the environment would be better for everyone.

In The Know wrote:
Take a look at Leisure Centres - almost all run by Councils (at a loss).

As is every public park and playing field.

Do you think they all should be axed?

The real scroungers are the 1% richest. They are the ones leeching off the rest of us.

Don't agree tdf - I think often the top 1% are responsible for much of the good things. Example; Bill Gates who gives so much to charities that really need it. I think the best people often behave terrifically well.

JK2006 wrote:
Don't agree tdf - I think often the top 1% are responsible for much of the good things. Example; Bill Gates who gives so much to charities that really need it. I think the best people often behave terrifically well.

I stand by my point in general. I will acknowledge that there are exceptions - such as Warren Buffet, who has long argued for the 1%'rs that he himself is a part of to give more back. Buffet has also been a long term critic of right wing Republicans' tax reduction policies, even though he personally benefits from them.

I do not include Bill Gates in my exceptions, unfortunately. He may have done some good things in his life but his behaviour in screwing smaller competitors to Microsoft (may of them much more genuinely innovative) was disgraceful.

But closer to home, considering that most of the wealthy people in London made their fortunes from the Square Mile, do you think the 1%'rs have contributed much to society? All I see is the same faces still sitting around largely in situ since the 2008/2009 financial crash, most them wealthier than ever. The UK jails homeless people and not a single top level banker was brought to justice. It is sickening.

tdf wrote:
The real scroungers are the 1% richest. They are the ones leeching off the rest of us.

What absurd nonsense !

These people are the ones who take all the risks - the vast majority on new businesses fail (and the investors lose their investment).

Why don;t the Fruitcake Unions start a few businesses / pay their workers too much / and see where they end up???

What you are asking for is someone else to take all the risks and then you come along and nick all the profits !

Yes, investors should be rewarded - off the top - and be the first to get a return on their investment.

Most successful companies these days have a profit sharing scheme for employees - in the former of bonuses, share options etc.

These have proven to be popular, equitable and good for all.

And the underlying performance related aspect is beneficial to the invetors/owners - and the workers.

Indeed - a type of business partnership...