|
Post by Northy on Sept 12, 2018 8:08:27 GMT
What they need is agile thinking
A simple definition of 'Agile' is that it's an iterative approach which focuses on the collaboration of self-organizing, cross-functional teams that include our customers. Those teams share a focus on delivering value early. Across the business environment I see Agile development starting to replace traditional consulting and Waterfall development.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 12, 2018 13:16:55 GMT
Socialism requires a lot of government intervention and having a big bloated government is a bad idea in my opinion. Many aspects of the government are simply incompetent and wasteful. At the moment we’re not even getting the basics like healthcare and policing right. It seems madness to me that people think the solution is to hand over further control to the government. Minimum government intervention is what I would like to see. There are a few givens that government needs to be in charge of, , education, healthcare, law and order, the military and basic infrastructure like roads etc. Exactly what part of zero hour contracts, people living in sheer poverty and Amazon warehouses having a health record that looks like it was pulled from an Ethiopian sweatshop is right? I'm not saying the gov are right, but you're making it sound like privatisation makes England run great. Yeah.... trains are awesome these days. Northern Rail are particularly good
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 12, 2018 13:55:10 GMT
Socialism requires a lot of government intervention and having a big bloated government is a bad idea in my opinion. Many aspects of the government are simply incompetent and wasteful. At the moment we’re not even getting the basics like healthcare and policing right. It seems madness to me that people think the solution is to hand over further control to the government. Minimum government intervention is what I would like to see. There are a few givens that government needs to be in charge of, , education, healthcare, law and order, the military and basic infrastructure like roads etc. Exactly what part of zero hour contracts, people living in sheer poverty and Amazon warehouses having a health record that looks like it was pulled from an Ethiopian sweatshop is right? I'm not saying the gov are right, but you're making it sound like privatisation makes England run great. Yeah.... trains are awesome these days. Northern Rail are particularly good I’ve never understood why people ‘counter’ arguments in the manner that you have. When did I say that any of those things you mention were ‘right’? The answer is clearly that I didn’t. I also didn’t suggest that there shouldn’t be any intervention whatsover, just that it should be kept to a minimum. If you’re going to provide a counter argument at least counter the things I’m actually saying rather than just making stuff up. Let’s take the ‘people living in sheer poverty’ part that you mentioned though, it’s way too vague when there’s a lot of nuance required. Why are people in poverty in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 12, 2018 14:42:13 GMT
Exactly what part of zero hour contracts, people living in sheer poverty and Amazon warehouses having a health record that looks like it was pulled from an Ethiopian sweatshop is right? I'm not saying the gov are right, but you're making it sound like privatisation makes England run great. Yeah.... trains are awesome these days. Northern Rail are particularly good I’ve never understood why people ‘counter’ arguments in the manner that you have. When did I say that any of those things you mention were ‘right’? The answer is clearly that I didn’t. I also didn’t suggest that there shouldn’t be any intervention whatsover, just that it should be kept to a minimum. If you’re going to provide a counter argument at least counter the things I’m actually saying rather than just making stuff up. Let’s take the ‘people living in sheer poverty’ part that you mentioned though, it’s way too vague when there’s a lot of nuance required. Why are people in poverty in the first place? If you go back through this thread you'll see that I'm not a hard lefter who's calling for socialism, but minimal intervention suggests that you think the private sector is doing a swell job of running previously nationalised industries. Basic utilities, energy and home service providers (water, gas, leccy) are a joke these days. The trains are dreadful. I have used the trains for years and they're honestly awful in this country. Expensive, unpredictable and seemingly no accountability either. I was once dumped off a train, with about 100 other people, in Sandbach, with thick snow billowing down, and told "good luck, you're on your own". I was alright, because I had someone to pick me up, but there were people on that train who were trying to get to London and were facing a night in a hotel (or worse). Unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. There was no attempt whatsoever to aid us in our journey. BT (privatised in 1984) is awful.... Pretty much all of them are dreadful mate.... so while a big bloated government isn't appealing to you, a lot of people would like to see trains under national control again. As for poverty.... there's a lot of reasons. It's a very complex subject, as you said. Some people are disadvantaged from birth though. Their parents were drug addicts or alcoholics or maybe have been put in jail. They are immediately at a disadvantage, so they have to work twice as hard. There are young kids who are having to raise their even younger siblings because the parents are unable too. At 18, they take a zero hour contract at Mike Ashley's emporium or Ronald's clown factory selling shit food to overweight people. What chance have they got of breaking out of that horrible situation they find themselves in? Some people perhaps grew up in a low income household but the fact their family unit was solid allowed them to thrive and break away and make something of themselves. There are a lot of people who are living in poverty though, through no fault of their own. Thee are others who simply have no ambition or desire to break out of poverty. A nuanced subject, like you said. If you can't see the problems though, then you really need to open your eyes wider.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 12, 2018 15:24:19 GMT
I’ve never understood why people ‘counter’ arguments in the manner that you have. When did I say that any of those things you mention were ‘right’? The answer is clearly that I didn’t. I also didn’t suggest that there shouldn’t be any intervention whatsover, just that it should be kept to a minimum. If you’re going to provide a counter argument at least counter the things I’m actually saying rather than just making stuff up. Let’s take the ‘people living in sheer poverty’ part that you mentioned though, it’s way too vague when there’s a lot of nuance required. Why are people in poverty in the first place? If you go back through this thread you'll see that I'm not a hard lefter who's calling for socialism, but minimal intervention suggests that you think the private sector is doing a swell job of running previously nationalised industries. Basic utilities, energy and home service providers (water, gas, leccy) are a joke these days. The trains are dreadful. I have used the trains for years and they're honestly awful in this country. Expensive, unpredictable and seemingly no accountability either. I was once dumped off a train, with about 100 other people, in Sandbach, with thick snow billowing down, and told "good luck, you're on your own". I was alright, because I had someone to pick me up, but there were people on that train who were trying to get to London and were facing a night in a hotel (or worse). Unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. There was no attempt whatsoever to aid us in our journey. BT (privatised in 1984) is awful.... Pretty much all of them are dreadful mate.... so while a big bloated government isn't appealing to you, a lot of people would like to see trains under national control again. As for poverty.... there's a lot of reasons. It's a very complex subject, as you said. Some people are disadvantaged from birth though. Their parents were drug addicts or alcoholics or maybe have been put in jail. They are immediately at a disadvantage, so they have to work twice as hard. There are young kids who are having to raise their even younger siblings because the parents are unable too. At 18, they take a zero hour contract at Mike Ashley's emporium or Ronald's clown factory selling shit food to overweight people. What chance have they got of breaking out of that horrible situation they find themselves in? Some people perhaps grew up in a low income household but the fact their family unit was solid allowed them to thrive and break away and make something of themselves. There are a lot of people who are living in poverty though, through no fault of their own. Thee are others who simply have no ambition or desire to break out of poverty. A nuanced subject, like you said. If you can't see the problems though, then you really need to open your eyes wider. Basic utilities being ‘awful’ is too vague, you need to be more specific. I’m not sure what the point of your anecdote for the train journey is. If the weather conditions prevented a private company from completing the journey what makes you think the trains being in the hands of the public sector would have made it any different? The rest of your anecdotal stuff doesn’t really stack up either. Not everyone who experienced a troubled upbringing, who were massively disadvantaged, end up in poverty and helpless. I know people (including myself) that have grown up in awful circumstances like the ones you describe, they didn’t have a stable family unit and yet they’ve gone on to do quite well for themselves. Why is this? I’d argue that it’s largely because they’ve made better decisions and applied themselves more. They improved their own circumstances, they didn’t rely on (or even need) the government to improve it for them. Even working at somewhere like McDonalds isn’t the negative thing you suggest it is. If they apply themselves well then they can promoted etc. There are so many variables involved, it’s so incredibly nuanced. Who are the people who are truly in poverty through ‘no fault of their own’?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 12, 2018 16:14:31 GMT
If you go back through this thread you'll see that I'm not a hard lefter who's calling for socialism, but minimal intervention suggests that you think the private sector is doing a swell job of running previously nationalised industries. Basic utilities, energy and home service providers (water, gas, leccy) are a joke these days. The trains are dreadful. I have used the trains for years and they're honestly awful in this country. Expensive, unpredictable and seemingly no accountability either. I was once dumped off a train, with about 100 other people, in Sandbach, with thick snow billowing down, and told "good luck, you're on your own". I was alright, because I had someone to pick me up, but there were people on that train who were trying to get to London and were facing a night in a hotel (or worse). Unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. There was no attempt whatsoever to aid us in our journey. BT (privatised in 1984) is awful.... Pretty much all of them are dreadful mate.... so while a big bloated government isn't appealing to you, a lot of people would like to see trains under national control again. As for poverty.... there's a lot of reasons. It's a very complex subject, as you said. Some people are disadvantaged from birth though. Their parents were drug addicts or alcoholics or maybe have been put in jail. They are immediately at a disadvantage, so they have to work twice as hard. There are young kids who are having to raise their even younger siblings because the parents are unable too. At 18, they take a zero hour contract at Mike Ashley's emporium or Ronald's clown factory selling shit food to overweight people. What chance have they got of breaking out of that horrible situation they find themselves in? Some people perhaps grew up in a low income household but the fact their family unit was solid allowed them to thrive and break away and make something of themselves. There are a lot of people who are living in poverty though, through no fault of their own. Thee are others who simply have no ambition or desire to break out of poverty. A nuanced subject, like you said. If you can't see the problems though, then you really need to open your eyes wider. Basic utilities being ‘awful’ is too vague, you need to be more specific. I’m not sure what the point of your anecdote for the train journey is. If the weather conditions prevented a private company from completing the journey what makes you think the trains being in the hands of the public sector would have made it any different? The rest of your anecdotal stuff doesn’t really stack up either. Not everyone who experienced a troubled upbringing, who were massively disadvantaged, end up in poverty and helpless. I know people (including myself) that have grown up in awful circumstances like the ones you describe, they didn’t have a stable family unit and yet they’ve gone on to do quite well for themselves. Why is this? I’d argue that it’s largely because they’ve made better decisions and applied themselves more. They improved their own circumstances, they didn’t rely on (or even need) the government to improve it for them. Even working at somewhere like McDonalds isn’t the negative thing you suggest it is. If they apply themselves well then they can promoted etc. There are so many variables involved, it’s so incredibly nuanced. Who are the people who are truly in poverty through ‘no fault of their own’? I didn't grow up with a silver spoon either.... However my point is that some people are trapped. Also, having worked in McDonald's, your chances of promotion are incredibly slim. Not that I was trying to get promoted, but I speak from experience of having worked there.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 12, 2018 17:08:29 GMT
Basic utilities being ‘awful’ is too vague, you need to be more specific. I’m not sure what the point of your anecdote for the train journey is. If the weather conditions prevented a private company from completing the journey what makes you think the trains being in the hands of the public sector would have made it any different? The rest of your anecdotal stuff doesn’t really stack up either. Not everyone who experienced a troubled upbringing, who were massively disadvantaged, end up in poverty and helpless. I know people (including myself) that have grown up in awful circumstances like the ones you describe, they didn’t have a stable family unit and yet they’ve gone on to do quite well for themselves. Why is this? I’d argue that it’s largely because they’ve made better decisions and applied themselves more. They improved their own circumstances, they didn’t rely on (or even need) the government to improve it for them. Even working at somewhere like McDonalds isn’t the negative thing you suggest it is. If they apply themselves well then they can promoted etc. There are so many variables involved, it’s so incredibly nuanced. Who are the people who are truly in poverty through ‘no fault of their own’? I didn't grow up with a silver spoon either.... However my point is that some people are trapped. Also, having worked in McDonald's, your chances of promotion are incredibly slim. Not that I was trying to get promoted, but I speak from experience of having worked there. Why and how are some people trapped?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Sept 12, 2018 17:43:56 GMT
What they need is agile thinking A simple definition of 'Agile' is that it's an iterative approach which focuses on the collaboration of self-organizing, cross-functional teams that include our customers. Those teams share a focus on delivering value early. Across the business environment I see Agile development starting to replace traditional consulting and Waterfall development. Shouldn't this be "Agile Thinking Solutions"?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Sept 12, 2018 17:49:53 GMT
Basic utilities being ‘awful’ is too vague, you need to be more specific. I’m not sure what the point of your anecdote for the train journey is. If the weather conditions prevented a private company from completing the journey what makes you think the trains being in the hands of the public sector would have made it any different? The rest of your anecdotal stuff doesn’t really stack up either. Not everyone who experienced a troubled upbringing, who were massively disadvantaged, end up in poverty and helpless. I know people (including myself) that have grown up in awful circumstances like the ones you describe, they didn’t have a stable family unit and yet they’ve gone on to do quite well for themselves. Why is this? I’d argue that it’s largely because they’ve made better decisions and applied themselves more. They improved their own circumstances, they didn’t rely on (or even need) the government to improve it for them. Even working at somewhere like McDonalds isn’t the negative thing you suggest it is. If they apply themselves well then they can promoted etc. There are so many variables involved, it’s so incredibly nuanced. Who are the people who are truly in poverty through ‘no fault of their own’? I didn't grow up with a silver spoon either.... However my point is that some people are trapped. Also, having worked in McDonald's, your chances of promotion are incredibly slim. Not that I was trying to get promoted, but I speak from experience of having worked there. Strangely enough I was talking to someone this week who has two jobs and one of them is McDonalds. He's sidestepping promotion because he is pursuing the first job however he did mention that it would be difficult to leave McDonalds because the healthcare scheme was excellent.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2018 8:22:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 29, 2019 10:24:16 GMT
More evidence of the beauty and wonder of the Capitalist dream
|
|
|
Post by stokieinaus on Jan 29, 2019 22:53:40 GMT
Unfortunately there will always be three classes of living. The Rich, the content and the poor. If we were all rich, then in the same breath we would all be poor as there would be no value in anything. If we were all poor, then anarchist would rule and eventually become rich. Then the solution would be, we are all content, that’s where the issue lies, as everybody has a different idea about being content. We all want what the other person has. At this moment in time capitalism is the solution but is it the correct one?
The best way to look at society is, if we all got moved to another earth and lost all current knowledge and had to start again from scratch (all equal) would we, in time, end up in the same situation? - I think YES
|
|
|
Post by auntiegeorge on Jan 30, 2019 12:45:24 GMT
More evidence of the beauty and wonder of the Capitalist dream Sheikh, do you remember a Labour MP called Dave Nellist? He was MP for Coventry south-east from 1983-92 and a member of the then militant tendency. He donated 60% of his MPs salary to the Labour movement and various charities and lived on the remaining 40% which was a skilled factory worker's wage back then. He won The Spectator's "Backbencher of the Year" award in 1991. He was (and still is) a man of unshakable principle and a true believer in equality for all. I've admired him for 30 years and put into practice some of his principles on a personal level. I've worked for a utility PLC since 1990 and we have something you will hate called a share options scheme, available to full-time employees. I donate at least 50% of all my personal proceeds to good causes - mostly animal welfare and charities such as local food banks and homeless shelters. Wouldn't it be nice if the multi-millionaire bankers and corporate chiefs could do the same? I think they could easily live on 40% of their outrageous salaries.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 30, 2019 13:52:26 GMT
More evidence of the beauty and wonder of the Capitalist dream Sheikh, do you remember a Labour MP called Dave Nellist? He was MP for Coventry south-east from 1983-92 and a member of the then militant tendency. He donated 60% of his MPs salary to the Labour movement and various charities and lived on the remaining 40% which was a skilled factory worker's wage back then. He won The Spectator's "Backbencher of the Year" award in 1991. He was (and still is) a man of unshakable principle and a true believer in equality for all. I've admired him for 30 years and put into practice some of his principles on a personal level. I've worked for a utility PLC since 1990 and we have something you will hate called a share options scheme, available to full-time employees. I donate at least 50% of all my personal proceeds to good causes - mostly animal welfare and charities such as local food banks and homeless shelters. Wouldn't it be nice if the multi-millionaire bankers and corporate chiefs could do the same? I think they could easily live on 40% of their outrageous salaries. Top Man Dave Nellist, AG. Sadly, a victim of the left of centre cleansing of the Labour Party in the early 90's. Now there is a man who went into Politcs for the right reasons.
|
|
|
Post by trentvale68 on Jan 30, 2019 15:28:48 GMT
Most people would just like to see some fairness and a level playing field, what is it, 99% of the world's wealth owned (stolen) by the 1%?? How is that right? Surely the planet and its resources belong to us all???
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 30, 2019 15:50:47 GMT
Sheikh, do you remember a Labour MP called Dave Nellist? He was MP for Coventry south-east from 1983-92 and a member of the then militant tendency. He donated 60% of his MPs salary to the Labour movement and various charities and lived on the remaining 40% which was a skilled factory worker's wage back then. He won The Spectator's "Backbencher of the Year" award in 1991. He was (and still is) a man of unshakable principle and a true believer in equality for all. I've admired him for 30 years and put into practice some of his principles on a personal level. I've worked for a utility PLC since 1990 and we have something you will hate called a share options scheme, available to full-time employees. I donate at least 50% of all my personal proceeds to good causes - mostly animal welfare and charities such as local food banks and homeless shelters. Wouldn't it be nice if the multi-millionaire bankers and corporate chiefs could do the same? I think they could easily live on 40% of their outrageous salaries. Top Man Dave Nellist, AG. Sadly, a victim of the left of centre cleansing of the Labour Party in the early 90's. Now there is a man who went into Politcs for the right reasons. there are plenty of people from all parties who go into politics for good reasons. Sadly they are a dying breed Easy to fix in principle. Put something in place that ensures prospective MP’s have experience in life. A minimum age perhaps I don’t know. But 18 straight out of school or just working for a party is no experience All MPs must be local to their constituents. Either by having 5 years living there paying council tax before being allowed to run. or brought up there before moving. Stop people like Blair and Osbourne getting parachuted into safe seats. Stop the allowances. Some of them are needed but some are just a top up of wages. I would love to see the main parties put forward primaries. Even in safe Tory/labour seats where people will not change there party there needs to be somthing where we can choose who runs. At the moment labour and Tory just keep putting in more of the same
|
|
|
Post by Frogger Theft Auto on Jan 30, 2019 17:03:43 GMT
If you go back through this thread you'll see that I'm not a hard lefter who's calling for socialism, but minimal intervention suggests that you think the private sector is doing a swell job of running previously nationalised industries. Basic utilities, energy and home service providers (water, gas, leccy) are a joke these days. The trains are dreadful. I have used the trains for years and they're honestly awful in this country. Expensive, unpredictable and seemingly no accountability either. I was once dumped off a train, with about 100 other people, in Sandbach, with thick snow billowing down, and told "good luck, you're on your own". I was alright, because I had someone to pick me up, but there were people on that train who were trying to get to London and were facing a night in a hotel (or worse). Unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. There was no attempt whatsoever to aid us in our journey. BT (privatised in 1984) is awful.... Pretty much all of them are dreadful mate.... so while a big bloated government isn't appealing to you, a lot of people would like to see trains under national control again. As for poverty.... there's a lot of reasons. It's a very complex subject, as you said. Some people are disadvantaged from birth though. Their parents were drug addicts or alcoholics or maybe have been put in jail. They are immediately at a disadvantage, so they have to work twice as hard. There are young kids who are having to raise their even younger siblings because the parents are unable too. At 18, they take a zero hour contract at Mike Ashley's emporium or Ronald's clown factory selling shit food to overweight people. What chance have they got of breaking out of that horrible situation they find themselves in? Some people perhaps grew up in a low income household but the fact their family unit was solid allowed them to thrive and break away and make something of themselves. There are a lot of people who are living in poverty though, through no fault of their own. Thee are others who simply have no ambition or desire to break out of poverty. A nuanced subject, like you said. If you can't see the problems though, then you really need to open your eyes wider. Basic utilities being ‘awful’ is too vague, you need to be more specific. I’m not sure what the point of your anecdote for the train journey is. If the weather conditions prevented a private company from completing the journey what makes you think the trains being in the hands of the public sector would have made it any different? The rest of your anecdotal stuff doesn’t really stack up either. Not everyone who experienced a troubled upbringing, who were massively disadvantaged, end up in poverty and helpless. I know people (including myself) that have grown up in awful circumstances like the ones you describe, they didn’t have a stable family unit and yet they’ve gone on to do quite well for themselves. Why is this? I’d argue that it’s largely because they’ve made better decisions and applied themselves more. They improved their own circumstances, they didn’t rely on (or even need) the government to improve it for them. Even working at somewhere like McDonalds isn’t the negative thing you suggest it is. If they apply themselves well then they can promoted etc. There are so many variables involved, it’s so incredibly nuanced. Who are the people who are truly in poverty through ‘no fault of their own’? I know this post is dead old but of course there are people in poverty through no fault of their own, even if it’s just temporarily because they’ve been laid off or something. At the moment it’s quite common with Universal Credit and 10 years of austerity.
|
|
|
Post by trentvale68 on Jan 30, 2019 17:11:31 GMT
Universal Basic Income is a mooted idea, if it can be made workable. Doesn't have to be a ridiculous amount, just say it was £100 a week, would keep the wolves from the door during hard times, replace the cost of means testing for a start and remove the sanctions process. Things like housing benefit would be claimed separately and maybe top ups for job seekers allowance? At least no one would need to have to beg for food from a food bank.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 31, 2019 7:19:15 GMT
I didn't grow up with a silver spoon either.... However my point is that some people are trapped. Also, having worked in McDonald's, your chances of promotion are incredibly slim. Not that I was trying to get promoted, but I speak from experience of having worked there. Strangely enough I was talking to someone this week who has two jobs and one of them is McDonalds. He's sidestepping promotion because he is pursuing the first job however he did mention that it would be difficult to leave McDonalds because the healthcare scheme was excellent. It's not often you see the words McDonalds, healthcare and excellent in the same sentence. Presumably, said health care does not involve eating their products.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 6, 2019 12:34:13 GMT
People are more likely to succeed in life if they’re raised in stable two parent households.
The number of people being raised in single parent households has skyrocketed since the introduction of welfare.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 6, 2019 17:46:12 GMT
People are more likely to succeed in life if they’re raised in stable two parent households. The number of people being raised in single parent households has skyrocketed since the introduction of welfare. Possibly, but is this correlation or causality?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 6, 2019 18:34:55 GMT
People are more likely to succeed in life if they’re raised in stable two parent households. The number of people being raised in single parent households has skyrocketed since the introduction of welfare. Possibly, but is this correlation or causality? Causality for me, there are other examples of where socialist measures, implemented with the best of intentions, have not really improved things and have arguably made things worse.
|
|
|
Post by wilcopotter on Feb 6, 2019 20:49:24 GMT
Back to OP, do as I say not as I do. For example, Arthur Scargill.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Feb 9, 2019 10:44:34 GMT
Socialists love to point to inequality and say something must be done about it. I had this very mindset, I’ve studied socialism a lot and at one stage during my younger years I considered myself to be a socialist. One thing bothered me though, if it was so obvious why wasn’t everyone up in arms about inequality.
It’s at this point that I came across the work of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. It seems obvious to me that socialists love to make emotive arguments that on the surface of things make sense, but only if you’re unaware of history and facts.
The world has never been a level playing field. I almost never see socialist arguments taking into account the following factors into account when talking about inequality.
- Geography - Age - Culture - Knowledge - personal responsibility
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 9, 2019 14:28:04 GMT
Socialists love to point to inequality and say something must be done about it. I had this very mindset, I’ve studied socialism a lot and at one stage during my younger years I considered myself to be a socialist. One thing bothered me though, if it was so obvious why wasn’t everyone up in arms about inequality. It’s at this point that I came across the work of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. It seems obvious to me that socialists love to make emotive arguments that on the surface of things make sense, but only if you’re unaware of history and facts. The world has never been a level playing field. I almost never see socialist arguments taking into account the following factors into account when talking about inequality. - Geography - Age - Culture - Knowledge - personal responsibility Particularly the last of those.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 27, 2019 10:45:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 27, 2019 11:03:41 GMT
Clearly ridiculous and totally unacceptable but it does seem to have been condemned across the parties ( and by all right minded people)....I think that you are right about our divided society and I can only see it getting worse ( I've only had a quick perusal)
|
|
|
Post by Bagwash on Mar 27, 2019 11:23:59 GMT
Sheikh, do you remember a Labour MP called Dave Nellist? He was MP for Coventry south-east from 1983-92 and a member of the then militant tendency. He donated 60% of his MPs salary to the Labour movement and various charities and lived on the remaining 40% which was a skilled factory worker's wage back then. He won The Spectator's "Backbencher of the Year" award in 1991. He was (and still is) a man of unshakable principle and a true believer in equality for all. I've admired him for 30 years and put into practice some of his principles on a personal level. I've worked for a utility PLC since 1990 and we have something you will hate called a share options scheme, available to full-time employees. I donate at least 50% of all my personal proceeds to good causes - mostly animal welfare and charities such as local food banks and homeless shelters. Wouldn't it be nice if the multi-millionaire bankers and corporate chiefs could do the same? I think they could easily live on 40% of their outrageous salaries. Top Man Dave Nellist, AG. Sadly, a victim of the left of centre cleansing of the Labour Party in the early 90's. Now there is a man who went into Politcs for the right reasons. There used to be a programme on Central TV at 10.30 on Fridays called Central Weekend and Dave Nellist was on there pretty regular.Very good speaker and highly principled,so its no surprise that the Labour Party got rid of him. He is the type of person we need coming into politics.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 20, 2019 11:03:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Apr 20, 2019 11:47:48 GMT
Hardly capitalism, this has been going on for centuries momo
|
|