Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

forthcoming election

 
 
On 12 Feb 2010 at 2:09pm Taff wrote:
Plaid Cymru dont have any clout in Lewes, so no X there then. However the milk snatchers will never get my vote. Whilst the unions were too strong in the 60s the Tories were equally if not stronger and really out to hit the manufacturing and producing industries. There has been no recovery whatsoever and how are we redistribute our money to GB businesses when we produce next to fanny adams these days. The money on the back of monet system worked for a while but when that fell over so did the country.
Lib Dems are probably the sensible constructive vote but very much in protest. the sooner we have the 'none of the above' option the better.
 
 
On 12 Feb 2010 at 2:43pm Sherlock wrote:
'Unions too strong'. I always wonder what that means. You don't need a 'none of the above' on the ballot slip. you just go to the polling station and write it on yourself.
 
 
On 12 Feb 2010 at 2:48pm Sherlock wrote:
Ed Can Do, you said on an earlier thread, 'Nationalised industries at the time when Thatcher took over were badly run and not at all cost effective, primarily because the people running them had no direct stake in the success of the enterprise so had no real incentive to run them properly.'
Wouldn't it be better to have had them under joint worker-consumer control to ensure the workers had a real stake (instead of just being bossed by state-appointed managers) and the consumer had a part to play in decisions? In fact, wouldn't it be better if everything was run in this way, with worker-consumer control?
 
 
On 12 Feb 2010 at 2:51pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Ruining your ballot paper only gives them the opportunity to prosecute you. Mind you Labour have introduces about 4000 more ways for you to become a criminal during the last few years anyway.
Come the revolution!!!
 
 
On 12 Feb 2010 at 4:49pm Off-Message wrote:
Oh come on Sherlock, don't start all that "None of the Above" rubbish again. Even I'm starting to zzzzzzzzzzzzzz now.
 
 
On 12 Feb 2010 at 5:11pm Sherlock wrote:
Just reacting to Taff but I promise 'never again' Off-Message.
 
 
On 12 Feb 2010 at 8:57pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Sherlock, that would be a very sensible way to run things, yes. One of the reasons touted for the success of John Lewis is that all the employees are shareholders, meaning that they see direct results from increasing the profitability of the business. Similar to how Wal-Mart and Asda refer to their employees as colleagues, it makes them feel more involved. There have been studies done that show making staff feel more involved nearly always leads to greater efficiency.

I suppose the problem with nationalised companies is their sheer scale. Just look at the problems Royal Mail has, the compnay is massive and employs thousands of people. Any attempts to modernise are met with staunch resistance (The whole overly strong unions thing) so instead they resort to selling Post Offices to make money. People hate change, especially if they think it'll mean more work (Or conversely less work, if there are to be job losses).

The government now owns the major stake in at least one bank and I think it's a shame they've not taken the opportunity to take control properly. If the Northern Rock or RBS had been re-invented as public businesses, the whole debate about excessive bank charges and lack of lending could be eradicated over night, simply by offering charge-free banking and lending money to people. Instead they stuck some old school bankers in charge and carried on as they alwasy had, trying to make as much money for the bonus season as possible.

The one thing none of the parties have really said much about is the future of the state's stake in the banks. One would assume they'd sell the shares off at some point but whether that'd be after the money has been made back in dividends or just as soon as the shares are worth what we all paid for them is unknown.

The country's accounts are in such a dire state at present though there's no room for manouvering in terms of the massive investment needed to sort out the railways/manufacturing industry/schools/hospitals/police etc. What's needed in my opinion is a sensible plan to save money in such a way as to least inconvenience the general public, i.e. not by cutting frontline public services.
 
 
On 13 Feb 2010 at 10:25am lopster wrote:
The railways cost Joe Public a fraction of a percentage under nationalisation compared to what they cost now FACT
If you include the amount of money that the railway privatisation process itself cost in a three year period then its a fraction of that and will NEVER be recouped
an unmitigated disaster - AND the network is in a worse state now than ever it could've been under BR - FACT
 
 
On 13 Feb 2010 at 10:32am lopster wrote:
sorry - off high horse now - what I MEANT to post was...
the reason we have no satisfactory political "industry" in this country is that parliament is populated (mostly) by greedy, nest-feathering parasites who have no desire to improve the country - merely enhance their own retirement funds
WE HAVE NO REAL OPPOSITION
there should be a strong opposition in parliament to prevent steam-rollering through of bills that do not benefit the country and to stop time(fund)wasting - how much gvernment money has been wasted on fox-hunting in the last decade - FOR WHAT BENEFIT TO THE COUNTRY (Britain that is NOT the green bits outside the cities)
each and every bill should be cable to be challenged (or dismissed) a strong opposition is one way of questining th eparty in power - tactical voting is essential
There is no longer a true working man's party either - as the majority of us fall into that categorisation then we are all doomed under the current system
 
 
On 13 Feb 2010 at 11:23am Ed Can Do wrote:
Actually, both of those posts are pretty much spot on.
 
 
On 13 Feb 2010 at 11:51am Sherlock wrote:
Can't fault you on any of that lopster. How about getting rid of 'Parliament' and having workers' and consumers' councils organising things. Then we'd have people who know the job and what they're talking about rather than 'professional' politicians.
 
 
On 13 Feb 2010 at 3:12pm lopster wrote:
thanks guys - wonder if its worth standing myself...?
 
 
On 16 Feb 2010 at 5:43pm JR wrote:
Spot on Lopster. When I was younger the labour party fought for the working class now they are as rich as the Tories and in the main don't give a damn for the workers.
Good Government needs strong opposition, when Labour swept to power in '97 the other parties had no idea how to be opposition, they had been in power too long. That is why Labour got away with so much in the early days of their administration.
I've had enough of Brown and his "lets feather our own nest" crowd of shysters, I'm voting to rid this country (England and/or Britian, whatever you like) of the lot of them. No other party can bring a country to its knees in the spectacular manner in they have.


24 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

south street badge 107:132
south street badge

Hi, I would like to add an event but the system won't let me. Please help! Maia Eden more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
Oscar Wilde