RAF sackings - believable?

[websaway]

You guys have got short memories. Or you are too young to remember.

Maggie (although she did do some good,) was the ultimate destroyer.
"Greed is good". "lunch is for wimps"

What did Maggie really do....
She destroyed our manufacturing base completely.
Who has a thriving economy in Europe? The Germans and why? because of their strong manufacturing base. They are happily building and exporting around the world.

What are we left with in the UK? Call centres & Canary wharf
"greed is good"

She ecouraged people to buy and forced councils to sell their housing stock. It's just a pity they didn't plough the money back into building new housing

But there again, how could they? They were forced to sell houses for £30k when it was costing £60K for a replacement. Makes real sense that does.

But hey, greed is good. People sat in their newly bought house for 3yrs as that was the legnth of time before they were allowed to sell. Then they sold for £100K +

So now we have a severe shortage of social housing.


Privatisation:
I agree we needed this but lets look closely at what we actually now have left that is British owned?

80% of our water companies are foreign owned.
Our nuclear industry is foreign owned
Most of our electricity companies are foreign owned.

greed is good.

We have nothing left. No manufacturing base and our main utilities in the hands of foreign ownership. We embraced Maggies vision and now we reap what we sowed.

Ever notice how the rest of Europe pretend to do the same but they still own their own infrastructures and some, they bought ours!

"new labour" was/is old Tory. They just continued down the same road Maggie started.


"The future is service industries and building London into a financial powerhouse"
Well, we took you at your word Maggie, in fact, we were so good at it we thought it would be a great idea to outsource our service industry to India.

Greed is good

Financial powerhouse:
We done good. A crippled economy, 2 state owned banks and a couple of building societies left.

Greed is good.


Our country is fecked. We have villages with no social contact as all the banks decided to pull out (at the time the economy was booming) Why? greed is good.

.........

So, what to do?
The problem this time round is we have nothing left to sell. Ok, not quite true:
post office
air sea rescue
and most likely air traffic controllers

After that, nothing. We have privatised and sold our souls. There is nothing left and we own nothing.

Never mind. Stiff upper lip and all that.


.

This is a little like blaming Churchill for our losses in the second world war....

When Thatcher took over, Britain was bust.

 

[Edwin]

The single biggest issue is the endemic, knee-jerk, ingrained, irrational hatred of "rich people" and people who do extremely well for themselves in any capacity and for whatever reason. In the US, the average person is much more aspirational (the American dream) and even if in reality there's a 99.999% chance that they can't "get rich" because of their situation, they continue to cling to - and seek for - that opportunity. And they don't by and large mock and look down on those who did get there.

Here the dialogue is all about "fat cats" and "snouts in the trough" and anyone who earns above the "socially acceptable norm" (e.g. council leaders on 100K) is roundly mocked by the media and by society at large. More generally, earning a lot has automatically been equated to "being bad" (in some indefinable but nonetheless very real way) and therefore those who do are automatically accepted as worthy of public and private derision and finger-pointing.

Whether you bent the system (SOME bankers), got a leg up (daddy) or earned your way to the top (the majority of high earners), the treatment you'll get from media and society is exactly the same - you'll be vilified and demonised.

And yet someone at the top of their profession, even with every tax avoidance loophole and tweak their expensive accountant can find for them (tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion isn't) will pay more tax in one year than a 3-generation family who have depended on benefits all their lives will have paid in their combined lifetimes.

And that's the REAL "crime".

At the end of the day, the government can (should) only spend the money it has. And that money comes largely from TAXES. And who pays the most taxes (in "actual pounds-and-pence on the table" terms, if not in %)? Those with well-paying jobs and high incomes!

Of course the American Dream has not solved the problem of "inequality" or of "poverty" but you can bet that if the concept didn't exist America today (as a country) would be a LOT poorer and in MUCH deeper trouble than it currently is.

NOTE: I expect most of the responses this post generates will prove my point extremely effectively. But I'm still willing to be pleasantly surprised...

 

[binny]

You guys have got short memories. Or you are too young to remember.

Maggie (although she did do some good,) was the ultimate destroyer.
"Greed is good". "lunch is for wimps"

What did Maggie really do....
She destroyed our manufacturing base completely.
Who has a thriving economy in Europe? The Germans and why? because of their strong manufacturing base. They are happily building and exporting around the world.

What are we left with in the UK? Call centres & Canary wharf
"greed is good"

She ecouraged people to buy and forced councils to sell their housing stock. It's just a pity they didn't plough the money back into building new housing

But there again, how could they? They were forced to sell houses for £30k when it was costing £60K for a replacement. Makes real sense that does.

But hey, greed is good. People sat in their newly bought house for 3yrs as that was the legnth of time before they were allowed to sell. Then they sold for £100K +

So now we have a severe shortage of social housing.


Privatisation:
I agree we needed this but lets look closely at what we actually now have left that is British owned?

80% of our water companies are foreign owned.
Our nuclear industry is foreign owned
Most of our electricity companies are foreign owned.

greed is good.

We have nothing left. No manufacturing base and our main utilities in the hands of foreign ownership. We embraced Maggies vision and now we reap what we sowed.

Ever notice how the rest of Europe pretend to do the same but they still own their own infrastructures and some, they bought ours!

"new labour" was/is old Tory. They just continued down the same road Maggie started.


"The future is service industries and building London into a financial powerhouse"
Well, we took you at your word Maggie, in fact, we were so good at it we thought it would be a great idea to outsource our service industry to India.

Greed is good

Financial powerhouse:
We done good. A crippled economy, 2 state owned banks and a couple of building societies left.

Greed is good.


Our country is fecked. We have villages with no social contact as all the banks decided to pull out (at the time the economy was booming) Why? greed is good.

.........

So, what to do?
The problem this time round is we have nothing left to sell. Ok, not quite true:
post office
air sea rescue
and most likely air traffic controllers

After that, nothing. We have privatised and sold our souls. There is nothing left and we own nothing.

Never mind. Stiff upper lip and all that.


.

I've read enough to know that Labour left Britain on it's knees in the 70's and old enough to remember that the British economy was reasonably strong again before Labour began their latest hoorah. Perhaps 'greed is good' was better than 'we'll pay for it tomorrow' under Blair and Brown.

You can't honestly blame Thatcher for globalisation?

 

[newguy]

I think we need to move beyond the idea that Party X or Party X are to blame for the problems. The system itself and to an extent human nature brings it about. I have voted numerous times, but realistically I'm fast coming to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter who you vote for. They're all about disagreeing with opposition over anything and everything, getting into power (rather than serving the people) and 'stamping their mark' with a whole host of unnecessary changes to the education system and whatnot. Slumps and injustices like the current situation will always come about, no matter who you vote for.

 

[scooter]

newguy, you hit the nail slap bang on the head.

I'm not a blairite or a thatcherite or whatever. I'm just disillusioned with the lot of them. They are all (the majority of them) scheming, backstabbing "i'm out to get what I can for myself" bunch of crooked hypocrites.

As I stated, Maggie had the vision and new labour were more than happy to continue down the same road.


BREWSTERS:
That's one way to look at it.
I totally agree. The unions had to be smashed but her vision was to change the course of our country by going blue collar. Concentrate on the service industry, financial markets and abandon manufacturing. New Labour were happy to persue the same dream.

We reap what we sow.


websaway:
When Thatcher took over, Britain was bust.
I agree. Things had to change but she made one fundamental flaw. One which labour were also happy to pursue. Let's put all our eggs in the same basket. Blue collar and let manufacturing die.

How do you think Maggie feels now? Our core infrastructure is in foreign ownership. Do you think that was her vision? or do you think she thought Britain would be the powerhouse and our european friends infrastructure would be owned by British companies?


Edwin:
And that's the REAL "crime".
I agree. But what sort of example do our elected peers set when it is they that are in the press for exploiting the loopholes as they sit on their millions? Is the man at the very bottom of the chain not going to try and replicate what their elected official is already doing?

"i'm out to get what I can for myself"

I totally agree. It stinks and you cannot have generations living on loopholes but change has to come from the top first, to set the bar for others to follow.

I also agree the UK press is infatuated by fat cats. This is because the fat cats determine the average UK mans livelihood. At the stroke of a pen they make many hundreds of people redundant and by doing so they are rewarded by millions in bonuses. Perhaps almost as much as it would have cost to keep them in a job? Remember, this is peoples lives we are talking about. To them it is sums on a piece of paper. The more they can reduce the sums, the bigger the bonus.

Is is right? I don't really know but I don't particularly like it. Granted if a company is top heavy then yes but the new fat cats will cut a company to the bear threads of working existence and think it is business as usual. It is not. Peoples work loads increase to the almost unbearable and morale sinks to zero, but hey, business as usual as greed is good.

A quick example:
We decided it was not "cost effective" to employ cleaners through the NHS. Government puts it out to tender. Company xyz wins a 3 year contract, promises to keep all things equal and cleaners contracts are transferred to new company. 3 years later, put back out to tender, Fat Cat decides to put it in a bid. Tender won by Fat Cat. All cleaners who wish to keep their jobs are transferred to the new company. They now lose their pension rights, asked to work more hours and have their pay frozen for 3 years.

We now have some of the dirtiest hospital wards in western europe. Is it really any wonder? (greed is good)

I do not have a solution for this. All i am stating is I totally agree with newguy. Something is abhorrently wrong with our current system and it is getting worse.


Of course the American Dream has not solved the problem
There is a fundamental difference between the UK and the USA policy regarding the recession. The US policy is to invest billions in infrastructure to keep people employed and to encourage spending. The UK's policy is to cut spending and make many thousands of people unemployed.

It is a grand social experiment not seen since the great depression. It will be interesting to see who favours the best. My gut felleing is we will both come out of it at the same time and if that is true, I know what side of the fence i would rather have been sitting on. Time will tell.


.

 

[BREWSTERS]

The single biggest issue is the endemic, knee-jerk, ingrained, irrational hatred of "rich people" and people who do extremely well for themselves in any capacity and for whatever reason. In the US, the average person is much more aspirational (the American dream) and even if in reality there's a 99.999% chance that they can't "get rich" because of their situation, they continue to cling to - and seek for - that opportunity. And they don't by and large mock and look down on those who did get there.

Here the dialogue is all about "fat cats" and "snouts in the trough" and anyone who earns above the "socially acceptable norm" (e.g. council leaders on 100K) is roundly mocked by the media and by society at large. More generally, earning a lot has automatically been equated to "being bad" (in some indefinable but nonetheless very real way) and therefore those who do are automatically accepted as worthy of public and private derision and finger-pointing.

Whether you bent the system (SOME bankers), got a leg up (daddy) or earned your way to the top (the majority of high earners), the treatment you'll get from media and society is exactly the same - you'll be vilified and demonised.

And yet someone at the top of their profession, even with every tax avoidance loophole and tweak their expensive accountant can find for them (tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion isn't) will pay more tax in one year than a 3-generation family who have depended on benefits all their lives will have paid in their combined lifetimes.

And that's the REAL "crime".

At the end of the day, the government can (should) only spend the money it has. And that money comes largely from TAXES. And who pays the most taxes (in "actual pounds-and-pence on the table" terms, if not in %)? Those with well-paying jobs and high incomes!

Of course the American Dream has not solved the problem of "inequality" or of "poverty" but you can bet that if the concept didn't exist America today (as a country) would be a LOT poorer and in MUCH deeper trouble than it currently is.

NOTE: I expect most of the responses this post generates will prove my point extremely effectively. But I'm still willing to be pleasantly surprised...

Quite true.

In many cases, those vilifying the wealthy will think nothing of telling the chairman of the footbll club they support to 'put his hand in his pocket and buy player 'X' for £30m and then pay him £200k a week.

Most people in lower grade positions like to think they can do their bosses job better themselves - they can't - wouldn't know where to start in most cases.

If someone isn't in further education or found paid employment by say 19, they should be made to do something positive; community based work or subsidised apprenticeships - we're paying them anyway, why not get something in return for it? I'm of the belief that everyone feels better about themselves and the world around them if they are contributing positively - some people must never get a sense of achievement. For us, their lack of ambition and drive means a financial penalty, for them its much worse; a waste of life.

Of course something like this would be very hard to introduce because - how many bums would vote for it? Why should someone be allowed to vote if they haven't paid any taxes from one election to the next? Voting should be a priviledge, not a right - you don't let the masses decide how you spend your income do you.

I was heartened last week when MPs across the board voted in favour of not bending over for Brussells regarding votes for prisoners.

 

[Edwin]

BTW, if you skip over her heavy-handed preaching of her rather peculiar philosophy of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" is incredibly prescient about modern-day Britain (it was actually written about a dystopian future USA from the vantage-point of the 1950s but so many facets of the story resonate with what's happening to the UK right now) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

It's a struggle to get into, but a fascinating read if you can stick with it - I must have read it 10x at least over the years...

 

[monaghan]

Most people in lower grade positions like to think they can do their bosses job better themselves - they can't - wouldn't know where to start in most cases.

I'd have to disagree with this, far too many companies and organisations promote based on length of service rather than capability.

Take a good postman and promote him to a bad manager, take a good IT technician and promote him to a bad team manager, a good school cook to a bad kitchen manager, I'm sure you can think of many other examples. I don't think that managers shouldn't come from the "shop floor" (in fact one of my best managers was an ex-mainframe low level programmer), but most don't have the necessary skill set or desire to manage.

I ended up in a management position rather than technical, but fortunately the company I was working for had a change in working practise and introduced a technical stream to allow you to progress the promotion ladder without being forced into management and allowing you to earn the same as the management grade whilst progressing technically.

 

[disruptive]

BTW, if you skip over her heavy-handed preaching of her rather peculiar philosophy of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" is incredibly prescient about modern-day Britain (it was actually written about a dystopian future USA from the vantage-point of the 1950s but so many facets of the story resonate with what's happening to the UK right now) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

It's a struggle to get into, but a fascinating read if you can stick with it - I must have read it 10x at least over the years...

I've never see do many people read it. Look around on the tube next time and you'll see this classic everywhere. There are those "Randians" who see her work as a modern day bible. Ask yourself what happens when you strangle innovation and innovators?

 

[BREWSTERS]

I'd have to disagree with this, far too many companies and organisations promote based on length of service rather than capability.

Take a good postman and promote him to a bad manager, take a good IT technician and promote him to a bad team manager, a good school cook to a bad kitchen manager, I'm sure you can think of many other examples. I don't think that managers shouldn't come from the "shop floor" (in fact one of my best managers was an ex-mainframe low level programmer), but most don't have the necessary skill set or desire to manage.

I ended up in a management position rather than technical, but fortunately the company I was working for had a change in working practise and introduced a technical stream to allow you to progress the promotion ladder without being forced into management and allowing you to earn the same as the management grade whilst progressing technically.

I stand by what I wrote;

Originally Posted by BREWSTERS View Post
Most people in lower grade positions like to think they can do their bosses job better themselves - they can't - wouldn't know where to start in most cases.

I don't see the relevancy in your response to the statement I made.

 

[monaghan]

In summary - Many people can manage better than their managers as we promote the wrong people based on length of service rather than capability.

 

[disruptive]

I'd have to disagree with this, far too many companies and organisations promote based on length of service rather than capability.

Take a good postman and promote him to a bad manager, take a good IT technician and promote him to a bad team manager, a good school cook to a bad kitchen manager, I'm sure you can think of many other examples. I don't think that managers shouldn't come from the "shop floor" (in fact one of my best managers was an ex-mainframe low level programmer), but most don't have the necessary skill set or desire to manage.

I ended up in a management position rather than technical, but fortunately the company I was working for had a change in working practise and introduced a technical stream to allow you to progress the promotion ladder without being forced into management and allowing you to earn the same as the management grade whilst progressing technically.

There is something called the "Peter Principle"...promoting until you get a level of incompetance.