Another one goes under

[catgate]

Just remember that B'liar has abandoned clause four.

Just exactly what did clause four say?

[andsome]

Just remember that B'liar has abandoned clause four.

Just exactly what did clause four say?

CLAUSE FOUR.

'To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service.'

[andsome]

More about clause four.

When Blair ditched socialism from the Labour Party

ANYONE WHO is getting interested in socialist ideas for the first time must find it incredible that the Labour Party ever had the aim of replacing capitalism with a publicly owned and democratically run economy, i.e. socialism, enshrined in its constitution.

Steve Score

Today's Labour Party, with its zeal for privatisation, funding from big business and advocacy of the virtues of "the market" is a long way from the one that had "Clause Four" printed on all its membership cards

It was now clearly a party that had a pro-big business agenda and socialist ideas could get no real echo even from below. Today, Labour for example does not countenance nationalising Rover to save jobs. Yet this is not in itself a socialist measure, even the Tories nationalised Rolls Royce in the early 1970s to save a prestige name for British capitalism.

The clause had been put in the party's constitution in 1918 following huge support amongst Labour Party supporters for the Russian workers in the revolution of 1917. The wording of the clause, with its use of Marxist language, had been written by Sidney Webb from the party's Fabian right wing. This was to ensure that even more direct revolutionary language was not passed!

For example the 1908 conference passed a resolution saying: "... the Labour Party should have as a definite object, the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, to be controlled by a democratic state in the interest of the entire community, and the complete emancipation of labour from the domination of capitalism, and landlordism."

All above from HERE

[catgate]

Just remember that B'liar has abandoned clause four.

Just exactly what did clause four say?

CLAUSE FOUR.

'To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service.'

I was worried when I first read that, and it sounded much too 'highfalootin' to have been written in the town that must bear full reponsibility for creating and nurturing both the Labour movement and me. Your second post did give me more comfort on this score. I have never, until now, actually seen, word for word, what the famous Clause Four actually said.

Is there not a case to be made, under the Trade Descriptions Act, to sue our little cherub for a false description on the label.

[andsome]

B'liar wouldn't have had the intelligence to have written that.

[edbanger]

What did the Tories sell off that was paying

How about north sea oil, gas, BT, airports, water, electricity etc: :lol:

I see there as been no reply from a Tory supporter to this post.

The Tories raked in 50+ billion pounds when they sold off government owned industries. :rolleyes:

[catgate]

I see there as been no reply from a Tory supporter to this post.

The Tories raked in 50+ billion pounds when they sold off government owned industries. :rolleyes:

That could be because there are none. It does not follow that an anti Labour person is a Tory supporter. This is a popularly held misconception.

[andsome]

I don't think that the Tories raked in anything at all. Any proceeds belong to the country, and not to any political party. No political party is qualified to run large industries, as can sadly be seen by the top heavy management structure of the NHS, many trusts are millions of pounds in the red, and we are experiencing drastic cuts in services, particularly in the Midlands. It is noticeable that B'liar has NOT rushed to re-nationalise anything at all, on the contrary he has engaged in further privatisation, because he knows full well that state ownership is top heavy, costly and in the long term, completely unmanageable.

[edbanger]

What did the Tories sell off that was paying

How about north sea oil, gas, BT, airports, water, electricity etc: :lol:

Sill no reply to this post.

Is this because the quote about the the Tories not selling off any of nationalised industries that was paying is a lie?

The Tory Government used the money from the sale of the countries assets, to fund the 3 million plus workers who had no jobs as the result of their policies.

[Thos]

although not particually fond of blair or new labour i do feel that they have slowed the fall.

had the tories not sold the family jewels i think they would have done even better.

but as the third world rises i feel there is not much hope for any western industry in the long term.

That’s right. We live in a global economy and labour intensive jobs will always go to those parts of the world that have cheap labour.

I would not say that Labour have slowed any demise of British industry. It has carried on at a steady rate. As for selling the family jewels, most of those family jewels were already loosing the country millions, and would have gone to the wall anyway. Since gaining power, B'liar has also done his share of privatisation. The privatised industries are now in better shape than they were when they were run by the state, whether the Tories or Labour have sold them off.

Here is one of Labours sell offs. Click here

Selling off the health service and schools

Selling off Londons tube

There are many more.

I am not sure which way you are facing on this. You say that Labour has carried on with privatization, which is true, but you go on to say that they are in better shape because of this. So they deserve credit?

Your links are mysterious also. The first one relating to British Nuclear Fuels was dated some months ago and was a “talking point”. No sell-off has yet taken place and the situation has become complicated with the search for fresh energy sources. This has reopened the debate on whether we should go for the nuclear option. If so, the country will need many new nuclear plants at immense cost which will probably have to be funded by the private sector

The other links relate to the introduction of some private finance into schools, hospitals and the Tube system. I suspect that the need for this is now generally accepted.

There is no doubt about it, we are in a terrible mess, as is the rest of the world.

We have a man "in charge" whose sole ambition is to leave "a legacy", and additionally be remembered as a Great Statesman. His "chosen" successor seems to be perpetually comatose (or biting his tongue). His claims to fame are 1) selling not the family jewels but the countries gold, 2) adding to the pensions problem by stealing from the pension funds and 3) presiding over the success built on the foundations laid by Maggie and her sad crew.

The new leader of New Conservatism is giving a wonderful display of modern political strategy. He has abandoned much of what he personally created for Micheal Howards failed attempt to become PM and in its place he is putting what he thinks will win the next election (if he is still leader by then). He has sacrificed "Tory Principals" for vote winning rhetoric just as our little cherub sacrificed Labour Principals in order to get his feet in the trough. The one spark of hope is that he obviously realises just how incompetent he and his cronies are, and has brought 'on board' that foul mouthed oaf Geldorf as an advisor . With an advisor like that who needs friends or enemies?

This week we also have seen the honesty of the liberal camp displayed to the full. For months "Ginger" has had no drink problem (and all his party kept quiet) then suddenly he says that he has a drink problem. What is more he expects to be allowed to continue, as though it was perfectly acceptable for an MP and, in his eyes, "potential" PM, to have a drink problem. Imagine, he could become another Boris Yeltsin.

Speaking of whom, just look at the furore created by Putin, over the last week or so. True World Statesman Diplomacy at its best.

Then of course there is Dubya and his buddies.

Not forgetting all the good living, well meaning religious fundementalist (of all persuasions ...PC speak).

What a wonderful world. Alice would have felt at home.

I have some sympathy with this, except for the first sentence.

I do think that the Prime Minister has allowed the future i.e. his view of his place in history, to take precedence over current events. The jury is still out on Cameron and will have to be for some time and events are still unfolding on the Liberal front. I don’t want to comment on the President of the USA, except to say his politics are not mine.

But to go back to “there is no doubt about it, we are in a terrible mess”, well I don’t think we are. As I look back on my years, I believe we are in a better state now than we have ever been. We live longer, we live better. We have greater expectations. The world is full of good things. We can communicate easily. People are generous in adversity. Of course there are matters to moan about and I do my share of that, but I know that my Mum & Dad would have loved to be alive today to share in this good life. I wish, though that the good life we enjoy could also be shared across the world with the impoverished. I would not wish to change our “leaders” with the governments of some of the third world countries.

What did the Tories sell off that was paying, and most importantly would have carried on paying without state support? You have accused the Tories of selling the state jewels, but have not acknowledged the links that I provided. B'liar has carried on exactly where the Tories left off. You mention pensions. One of the first tasks that B'liars hoppo Brown did, was to remove the tax concessions that pension funds enjoyed. This has had more that one bad effect. For a start it reduced the value of all existing pension funds by up to at least 15%, thereby reducing the pensions of everyone in a pension scheme. I for one am getting considerably less that I would have done otherwise, well in excess of 10% less. Secondly the removal of this tax concession is one of the main reasons that so many pension funds are now in queer street, and are billions in the red. This move of B'liars government is largely responsible for the reluctance of so many people to save for their retirement in pension funds. Anyone with any sense would leave pension funds well alone and seek investment elsewhere. Brown also stopped PEPS and introduced Isa's, which are far less valuable. Not only are industries going under at an increasing rate, but pension funds as well. Brown and B'liar need stuffing with the rough end of a rag mans trumpet, a good old fashioned Midlands expression, which is very true in this instance.

Just remember that B'liar has abandoned clause four. He knew that it did not make sense.

There are many complex reasons why the pensions industry is in a mess and to suggest that it is solely because of Brown’s withdrawal of the tax advantage is not true, though it did not help, as it has turned out. As far as current state pensioners go, the government has been quite generous with various allowances. The savings schemes mentioned seem to me to be something to be appreciated not denigrated. PEPS were due to finish and were replaced by a wider scheme giving tax free status to cash and share savings and a mixture of both. To many commentators' surprise these have been renewed year by year and those who could afford to salt money away in them should have a nice tax efficient sum by now.

I apologise for the length of this contribution. I have been off-line over the weekend when other's contributions were being posted. I haven't commented on the "clause 4" part. I can't make out whether it is thought to be good or bad that the Labour Party had abandoned it.

As catgate would say "Is there any more tea in that pot?"

Thos.

[andsome]

Without a lot of research I do not know what was paying at the time and what wasn't, but if that many people were thrown out of work by selling off, then it looks pretty obvious to me that they either were not paying, or certainly would NOT have continued to do so for long. As I stated, B'liar has NOT RENATIONALISED these industries, because he acknowledges that they are better in the private sector. On the contrary, he has carried on with his own privatisations.

[CurlyWhirly]

It does not follow that an anti Labour person is a Tory supporter. This is a popularly held misconception.

I agree.

I have always been a strong Labour supporter until now but this doesn't mean that I will automatically switch to the Tories as I can remember the Thatcher years :angry2:

I don't know who to vote for in the next General Election to be honest or even whether I will bother to vote at all.

There seems to me to be very little difference between them!

[rong]

If you don't vote go and ruin your ballot

[catgate]

But to go back to “there is no doubt about it, we are in a terrible mess”, well I don’t think we are. As I look back on my years, I believe we are in a better state now than we have ever been. We live longer, we live better. We have greater expectations. The world is full of good things.

When I look back to my childhood and teenage years I see things differently. Back in the 30s I used to walk to the infant school on my own. I used walk to junior school on my own. In the 40s I used to cross the City of Bradford to go to Grammar school on my own. Two friends and I used to go camping on our own up in the Yorkshire Dales in our very early teens. I can remember only one murder bing committed in Bradford during the time I was growing up (it was a drunken jealous lover job at a pub). There were probably more murders but they were not an every day occurance in the country as they are today. Shoplifting and robbery were extemely rare happenings. The streets were never full of drunken louts. Drugs, and crime to pay for drugs, did not exist. People often had a smile upon their face. The country was not full of rip-off merchants trying to steal the last penny out of a chaps pocket. Granted, TV did not whizz news around the world as it does today, but by and large the world seemed a much safer and more peacable place. News of insurection and kidnapping did not seem to appear. However, we went through a very critical wartime era that changed the outlook of most people. After this the time was ripe for the "Clause Four" brigade to promise everyone the "right" to this, that and the other, and as a result they created an atmosphere where everyone expected, and was virtually promised, to be looked after from the cradle to the grave. We are now reaping the benefit of this outlook, both in this country and elsewhere in the world where this "con" has taken hold.

We have sunk to a level where respect for others has virtually vanished, no one has any thought of accepting responsibility for their actions, and the general public are there, not to be served by those elected, but to provide the wherewithall for those elected to live out their fantasies, be they local, national or international.

Have you drunk all that tea, Thos?

[rong]

most of the things you did in your youth I did as well, and could still be done if the media didn't blow everything up to sensationalise it, and so make us think things are far worse than the are. The only thing that would worry me is the amount of traffic, hence bad drivers.

[Thos]

You make a fair point, catgate young man, and rong also points up the sensationalism inherent in the news media today. I, too, remember those days. But to be honest, I have never been particularly threatened or felt threatened when out and about. I do, however, always have in mind the media reports of violence abounding in our culture and it does create a state of mind.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't wish to argue the main point you make.

But taken overall, the world is a wonderful place to be in at the moment. Advances in technology are thrilling and there is not a day goes by that I wish to see what the next 50 years will bring.

I'll make a fresh pot!

Thos.

[Robbers Dog]

The amount that was recieved for selling off the nationalised industries was treble the amount stated in a previous post.

Between 1979 and 1997 the Conservative Government sold of £300 billion worth of UK state assets (that's what they were paid - not what the assets were worth) . Even Harold Macmillan (ex-Tory Prime Minister Super Mac) complained that they were "selling off the family silver". What was that money used for? - well mainly to finance mass unemployment - the UK taxpayer has hardly ever seen any benefit.

Taken from here. http://website.lineone.net/~xebra/pages/assetstrip.html

[catgate]

You make a fair point, catgate young man, and rong also points up the sensationalism inherent in the news media today. I, too, remember those days. But to be honest, I have never been particularly threatened or felt threatened when out and about. I do, however, always have in mind the media reports of violence abounding in our culture and it does create a state of mind.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't wish to argue the main point you make.

But taken overall, the world is a wonderful place to be in at the moment. Advances in technology are thrilling and there is not a day goes by that I wish to see what the next 50 years will bring.

I'll make a fresh pot!

Thos.

I think the contents of the news, being viewed in the surroundings of the home, becomes accepted as "normal" by impressionable young folk (and others) and consequently the standards of acceptable behaviour become debased generation by generation. To the point where anti social behaviour, and crime, is sometimes looked upon as "good" and "trendy".

The recent pronouncements on obesity and the pronouncements on the increase of alcohol fueled liver problems (I have to call it that because I can not spell Cirrhosis and neither can my splot chicker) both go to show how even respect for oneself has been seriously reduced.

As far as the next 50 years are concerned I am only too grateful that I shall not be around to see the outcome (I hope)

Mines just one sugar please, and a drop of milk.

[Thos]

As far as the next 50 years are concerned I am only too grateful that I shall not be around to see the outcome (I hope)

Mines just one sugar please, and a drop of milk.

Really? Oh, dear. You are a pessimist.

I'm going over to Nescafe this time. But I'll pour you one.

Thos.