Farewell to Kinnock
SMELLS LIKE JOHN MAJOR....
for trying but we appreciate that no one can face up to lies on the
scale propagated by Fleet Street.
By way of an aside, does anyone remember how in the late-1980's
the press tried to show how inferior Kinnock was with his degree
from Cardiff Uni. when compared to Thatcher and her Oxbridge degree.
Remarkably, when Johnny "Two O-Levels" took over the premiership,
I seem to remember precious little in the way of any newspaper
pointing out how Kinnock had a degree, passed his o-levels and A-levels.
Mind you, the British press are something for the British to malign
and the foreigner to view with disgust and disbelief.
Hopefully someone like John Smith will get the job, as it's going to take
a particularly senior and skilled politician to hold Labour together
through the next bleak 5 years.
Philip A. Carney On Exchange from Lancaster University,
Texas A&M University, TX England.
**********ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN, NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF**************
******TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY, LANCASTER UNIVERSITY OR THEIR ASSOCIATES**********
"The lust for power is rooted not in strength, but in weakness..." - Erich Fromm
Jonathan Lloyd
>So goodbye Neil Kinnock, depised by far-left and Tory alike. Well, thanks
>for trying but we appreciate that no one can face up to lies on the
>scale propagated by Fleet Street.
Oh come on Philip, you don't give the British public credit for enough
good sense to be able to be able to read between the lines in the
gutter press.
Besides, the gutter press are balanced by the socialist types in
the BBC television news, which are giulty of almsot as much bias in a
far more powerful medium.
>By way of an aside, does anyone remember how in the late-1980's
>the press tried to show how inferior Kinnock was with his degree
>from Cardiff Uni. when compared to Thatcher and her Oxbridge degree.
>Remarkably, when Johnny "Two O-Levels" took over the premiership,
>I seem to remember precious little in the way of any newspaper
>pointing out how Kinnock had a degree, passed his o-levels and A-levels.
>Mind you, the British press are something for the British to malign
>and the foreigner to view with disgust and disbelief.
All true I know. You are absolutely correct.
But remember the tories skillfully used John Major's "ordinary chap"
image -and that all it is an _image_- to their advantage.
>Hopefully someone like John Smith will get the job, as it's going to take
>a particularly senior and skilled politician to hold Labour together
>through the next bleak 5 years.
For the record I'm a conservative, on the side of ecconomic rationalism.
Unfortunately both sides of the house are not exactly on the ball at the
moment. A strong opposition is essential for the UK's democracy to work
best. That is probably one reason why the past few years have been a bit
of disaster. John Smith will be a big improvement on Kinnock, who I think
was Labour's biggest liability, and the Tories big asset.
Actually Philip I think you are being a bit too pessimistic.
There are signs of recovery on the horizon. And I believe when the recovery
does arrive (say in 94-95) it will have a better base than if some of the
silly ideas the Labour party have would have been passed into legislation.
The recession in Britain must be a miserable experience for many, but
what I have seen of Labour policy indicates that the incentives to work
our way out would be taxed out of existence.
Their basic elctoral cry -reading between the lines- is that "if we make all
the _rich_ people poorer we will make all the poor rich" and we all know
that kind of stuff is utter crap -just like what our "gutter press"
writes.
I forgot to say I was a cynic too......
********************************************************************
** These views are my own and do not reflect upon the policy *******
** or views of the University of Wollongong, only of a young *******
** welshman in a land down under ---Cymru am Byth ******************
********************************************************************
Phone +61 42 213018 Fax +61 42 213112 Email J.L...@uow.edu.au
Steve Varty
>So goodbye Neil Kinnock, depised by far-left and Tory alike. Well, thanks
>for trying but we appreciate that no one can face up to lies on the
>scale propagated by Fleet Street.
>By way of an aside, does anyone remember how in the late-1980's
>the press tried to show how inferior Kinnock was with his degree
>from Cardiff Uni. when compared to Thatcher and her Oxbridge degree.
>Remarkably, when Johnny "Two O-Levels" took over the premiership,
>I seem to remember precious little in the way of any newspaper
>pointing out how Kinnock had a degree, passed his o-levels and A-levels.
>Mind you, the British press are something for the British to malign
>and the foreigner to view with disgust and disbelief.
>Hopefully someone like John Smith will get the job, as it's going to take
>a particularly senior and skilled politician to hold Labour together
>through the next bleak 5 years.
I don't think he is as good as Neil though.
Steve.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= From: | The Alarm =
= Steve Varty (steve...@uk.ac.newcastle) | Unsafe 1981-1991 =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Caley
pac> By way of an aside, does anyone remember how in the late-1980's
pac> the press tried to show how inferior Kinnock was with his degree
pac> from Cardiff Uni. when compared to Thatcher and her Oxbridge degree.
pac> Remarkably, when Johnny "Two O-Levels" took over the premiership,
pac> I seem to remember precious little in the way of any newspaper
pac> pointing out how Kinnock had a degree, passed his o-levels and A-levels.
You miss the point. The point is to be prime minister supported by The
Sun one must be a failure. Major is truely world class at that and The
Blue Witch, for all her oxbridge degree failed to do anything as a
chemist except whip air into ice cream. By this reasoning the next
conservative prime minister should be either Jeffery Archer or Chris
Patten.
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Al Crawford
>
> You miss the point. The point is to be prime minister supported by The
> Sun one must be a failure. Major is truely world class at that and The
> Blue Witch, for all her oxbridge degree failed to do anything as a
> chemist except whip air into ice cream.
Isn't this true of all politicians though? If they were any good at
whatever they did their degree in (or in the case of JM, when they did their
non-certificate woodwork class :-) rather than at blowing their own
trumpet, they'd be busy doing *that* instead of having gone into politics.
Those who can do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach but have
enormous egos go into politics?
As an example I ask those readers who are at academic establishments to
have a good look at their "student politicos", especially if they are at a
UK university. These are the people who will be the next generation of
"university educated politicians", the Margaret Thatchers and Neil Kinnocks
to come. Around here at least, they're a bunch of wasters who seem to have
come to university mainly to mess around playing student politics and who
will only scrape through their degree on a wing and a prayer, if at all.
--
Al Crawford - aw...@dcs.ed.ac.uk
"Breakdown. Splinter. A thousand fragments disperse and die."
SMELLS LIKE JOHN MAJOR....
jll...@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes...
>Besides, the gutter press are balanced by the socialist types in
>the BBC television news, which are giulty of almsot as much bias in a
>far more powerful medium.
You must have been out of Britain a long, long time. Since the infamous
bullying by Norman Tebbitt of BBC news and current affairs and
the personal bullying of John Birt by John Major and his cabinet colleges at
a dinner party - which must have been the least subtle softening up job in
history.
>Actually Philip I think you are being a bit too pessimistic.
>There are signs of recovery on the horizon. And I believe when the recovery
>does arrive (say in 94-95) it will have a better base than if some of the
>silly ideas the Labour party have would have been passed into legislation.
Well yes, we'll certainly be out of recession, but some of the pressures
that have built up already under the Conservatives will be untenable - the
educational crisis will continue unless teachers and lecturers wages are
improved or at least brought up to the level of a police sergeant. The NHS
is probably a write-off affair already as the "internal market" has been
so thoroughly buggered up that some hospitals are charging parking admission
at outpatients and sending people hundreds of miles for basic treatments.
I also think that Scotland will no longer be with us, which I find immensley
sad but understandable. There is something profoundly wrong with the present
system that allows mainly the South and South East to dictate the government
to everyone else.
>The recession in Britain must be a miserable experience for many, but
>what I have seen of Labour policy indicates that the incentives to work
>our way out would be taxed out of existence.
I'm sorry, but you should know that the Conservatives have increased VAT
3-fold and it is part of the highest tax burden put on any British citizenry
ever.
Labour's main idea was to abolish the ceiling on NI, which had the support
of many accounting agencies. The fact is it is simply not fair that someone
on 20,000 should pick up the same NI bill that a guy on 40,000 does.
Andrew Farmer
In soc.culture.british, r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
> By this reasoning the next
> conservative prime minister should be either Jeffery Archer or Chris
> Patten.
Oh god, don't even think it...Next thing you know, we'll
have Fred Housego or Eddie the bloody Eagle as PM...
arf
Jonathan Lloyd
>In article <1992Apr14....@cc.uow.edu.au>,
>jll...@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes...
>>Besides, the gutter press are balanced by the socialist types in
>>the BBC television news, which are giulty of almsot as much bias in a
>>far more powerful medium.
>You must have been out of Britain a long, long time. Since the infamous
>bullying by Norman Tebbitt of BBC news and current affairs and
>the personal bullying of John Birt by John Major and his cabinet colleges at
>a dinner party - which must have been the least subtle softening up job in
>history.
Not that long mate, about 2 years actually.
>>Actually Philip I think you are being a bit too pessimistic.
>>There are signs of recovery on the horizon. And I believe when the recovery
>>does arrive (say in 94-95) it will have a better base than if some of the
>>silly ideas the Labour party have would have been passed into legislation.
>Well yes, we'll certainly be out of recession, but some of the pressures
>that have built up already under the Conservatives will be untenable - the
>educational crisis will continue unless teachers and lecturers wages are
>improved or at least brought up to the level of a police sergeant. The NHS
>is probably a write-off affair already as the "internal market" has been
>so thoroughly buggered up that some hospitals are charging parking admission
>at outpatients and sending people hundreds of miles for basic treatments.
>I also think that Scotland will no longer be with us, which I find immensley
>sad but understandable. There is something profoundly wrong with the present
>system that allows mainly the South and South East to dictate the government
>to everyone else.
Unfortunately for those that don't like it, most of the people in the UK do
live in the SE of England. As I understand it they have felt the recession
more (relatively speaking since they are generally wealthier) than the rest
of the UK. The Scottish problem is largely a legacy of the same sort of
millitant trade unionism and attempts at planning the local ecconomy that
screwed up Merseyside and the Teeside areas.
You and I both know that those in much of rural Scotland and the North
are nearly as conservative as those in the Home Counties. They don't like
being dictated to by what they perceive as the lefties in town!
>>The recession in Britain must be a miserable experience for many, but
>>what I have seen of Labour policy indicates that the incentives to work
>>our way out would be taxed out of existence.
>I'm sorry, but you should know that the Conservatives have increased VAT
>3-fold and it is part of the highest tax burden put on any British citizenry
>ever.
But Philip, it is in your own hands whether you spend your hard earned
wages on things subject to VAT or not.
Domestc fuel, food, housing and childrens clothes are all exempt.
Besides it is much more difficult to avoid VAT, so the cheats get
away with less. Labour's taxation policy smells of the "nanny state".
BTW Philip they did increase it 3 fold on some things but not on every thing.
Do you remember Denis Healey's 25% VAT on "luxury items" incl.
electrical goods.
>Labour's main idea was to abolish the ceiling on NI, which had the support
>of many accounting agencies. The fact is it is simply not fair that someone
>on 20,000 should pick up the same NI bill that a guy on 40,000 does.
But NI is not really NI at all it is an income TAX. The sooner some
government comes clean and calls it one the better.
The National Insurance name suggests that those who contribute most
will stand to gain most. The reverse is true. In fact self employed
people who pay the biggest NI charges get almost nothing out!!!!
NI is a heap of bullshit. Call a Tax a TAX. It (NI) should be abolished.
In Australia we have a "Medicare Levy" which is 1.25% of your taxable
income. It all goes to healthcare, but they still need to take more from
other tax sources. And soon they are plans afoot to give you tax credits for
taking out private health insurance. This is the kind of fairness that is
completely lacking in the UK system.
Finally, Philip, you will not doubt be unsurprised to hear that the total
tax take as a % of GDP has steadily grown during the years of Tory
government. Kinnock WAS right "High taxer Thatcher".
But the revenue was needed to maintain very high levels of public spending
in welfare and health programes as well as education etc. Indeed at levels
higher than those of the "socialists" they followed. This level of taxation
has strangled the UK economy over the last decade. I fear a Labour
administration with their ridiculous promises would only do more damage.
********************************************************************
** These views are my own and do not reflect upon the policy *******
** or views of the University of Wollongong, only of a young *******
** welshman in a land down under ---Cymru am Byth ******************
********************************************************************
Phone +61 42 213018 Fax +61 42 213112 Email J.L...@uow.edu.au
(BTW this is fun!)
Guy Barry
>Unfortunately for those that don't like it, most of the people in the UK do
>live in the SE of England.
What? The South East may be overcrowded, but we haven't yet got to the
state where over half the population lives there.
>But NI is not really NI at all it is an income TAX. The sooner some
>government comes clean and calls it one the better.
I wish they would. It would then be clear that those earning below
the NI threshold paid a higher marginal rate of tax than those earning
above it.
>The National Insurance name suggests that those who contribute most
>will stand to gain most. The reverse is true. In fact self employed
>people who pay the biggest NI charges get almost nothing out!!!!
Self-employed people in fact pay a *lower* rate of NI than employed
people (and there's no employer's contribution either).
>NI is a heap of bullshit. Call a Tax a TAX. It (NI) should be abolished.
>In Australia we have a "Medicare Levy" which is 1.25% of your taxable
>income. It all goes to healthcare, but they still need to take more from
>other tax sources. And soon they are plans afoot to give you tax credits for
>taking out private health insurance. This is the kind of fairness that is
>completely lacking in the UK system.
In Britain, NI is only used to fund a limited range of social security
benefits, and virtually none of the money goes to health. Most social
security spending, and nearly *all* health spending, comes from
general taxation. What makes the Australian system fairer?
--
Guy Barry Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 | University of Cambridge
Fax: +44 (0)223 334678 | Computer Laboratory
JANET: Guy....@uk.ac.cam.cl | New Museums Site, Pembroke Street
Internet: Guy....@cl.cam.ac.uk | Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK
Paul Smee
>live in the SE of England. As I understand it they have felt the recession
>more (relatively speaking since they are generally wealthier) than the rest
>of the UK.
Depends on when you define the 'recession' as having started. For
quite a long time, the SE was doing pretty all right, and things got
worse as you moved North and/or West. The 'first wave' appears to have
hit most savagely outside of the SE. However, the most recent 'wave'
appears to be biting the SE more harshly -- maybe only because there is
more left down there to bite. It is also possible to argue that this
is simply a result of standard 'capitalist rebalancing'.
Depression in the NW means there is a larger available labour pool,
property is cheaper, and because the cost of living is lower you can
get away with lower salaries. There's some evidence that the current
downward trend in the SE might be caused, in part, by companies
deciding that the differentials are great enough that it is cost
effective to move away from the SE, even bearing in mind the costs of
the move. Lloyd's Bank is in the process of moving a large part of its
central operations to Bristol, for example. I'm sure I've heard of
other companies doing similar things, but Lloyd's is the only one I'm
prepared to swear to.
--
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
P.S...@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Bob Gray
>You and I both know that those in much of rural Scotland and the North
>are nearly as conservative as those in the Home Counties. They don't like
>being dictated to by what they perceive as the lefties in town!
The elections must be rigged then. They keep electing a lot
of Liberal Democrat MPs.
Bob.
Jonathan Lloyd
Well Bob truth be told I have not yet seen the regional breakdown in
detail yet.
But I don't think that 20 seats is a lot of Lib Dem MPs, relative to the
large conurbations country folk do tend to be a tad more conservative.
But you are correct in one sense that Lib Dems always seem to get more
sympathy in the country but the whole political scene there is shifted to
the right a bit (don't you think?).
I remember being told e.g. by people in Ayrshire that their rates shot up when
they became part of Strathclyde region. They were pretty pissed off about
subsidising Glasgow folk, and getting less for their very high Scottish
rates. (1988). I think you will find that people in the country areas are
fairly resentful of "townies interefering" etc.
Jonathan Lloyd
>In article <1992Apr15.0...@cc.uow.edu.au> jll...@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes:
>>Unfortunately for those that don't like it, most of the people in the UK do
>>live in the SE of England.
>What? The South East may be overcrowded, but we haven't yet got to the
>state where over half the population lives there.
True. More like 1/3.
>>But NI is not really NI at all it is an income TAX. The sooner some
>>government comes clean and calls it one the better.
>I wish they would. It would then be clear that those earning below
>the NI threshold paid a higher marginal rate of tax than those earning
>above it.
>>NI is a heap of bullshit. Call a Tax a TAX. It (NI) should be abolished.
>>In Australia we have a "Medicare Levy" which is 1.25% of your taxable
>>income. It all goes to healthcare, but they still need to take more from
>>other tax sources. And soon they are plans afoot to give you tax credits for
>>taking out private health insurance. This is the kind of fairness that is
>>completely lacking in the UK system.
>In Britain, NI is only used to fund a limited range of social security
>benefits, and virtually none of the money goes to health. Most social
>security spending, and nearly *all* health spending, comes from
>general taxation. What makes the Australian system fairer?
Yes, and most of those benefits are not available to self employed people when
they fall upon hard times.
As I see it (these are personal opinions) the Aussie system is a hell of
a lot more honest. They call payroll tax "payroll tax", not an employers
NI contribution. In UK just about the only benefit of paying NI is the dole.
But if you have not made enough contributions they pay you "supplementary
benefit" anyway. (Dole is not means tested as I recall,
but things may have changed).
The UK social security and NHS system seems (looking back from outside)
to be out of control. Many people are so dependent on still generous hand outs
from the taxpayers pocket that many are what aussies call "dole bludgers".
The NHS provides good value, but healthcare is a bottomless pit sucking up
as much resources that are thrown into it, (you have to be pragmatic!).
The aussie system (with a Labour government that bears more resemblance to
MTs mob) rewards free enterprise and entrepeneurship. Your study expenses etc
are tax deductable. So are brokerage costs when you buy shares (but all your
capital gains are taxed). The difference in the cultures is amazing
Australia is a land of "little aussie battlers" true popular capitalism
with more of a can do (and will do) better mentallity than I ever saw in UK.
This is because their system rewards those who create wealth,
not bleeds them dry to try and pay for a "nanny state".
I could could go on and on, but I just don't have time.
All I can say is that you have to live here to experience the difference.
Australia has got it closer to a sensible balance than UK has.
There is a "safety net" here, to save those who really need help.
But the whole mentallity of the nation is far removed from that of the UK.
I still love my homeland but I don't think I could live there again.
Richard Caley
af> Oh god, don't even think it...Next thing you know, we'll
af> have Fred Housego or Eddie the bloody Eagle as PM...
Great idea! Better an eagle than a turkey.
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk Does John Smith have ginger pubes, that's
what the nation is asking!
Guy Barry
>gd...@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr15.0...@cc.uow.edu.au> jll...@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes:
>
>>>NI is a heap of bullshit. Call a Tax a TAX. It (NI) should be abolished.
>>>In Australia we have a "Medicare Levy" which is 1.25% of your taxable
>>>income. It all goes to healthcare, but they still need to take more from
>>>other tax sources. And soon they are plans afoot to give you tax credits for
>>>taking out private health insurance. This is the kind of fairness that is
>>>completely lacking in the UK system.
>
>>In Britain, NI is only used to fund a limited range of social security
>>benefits, and virtually none of the money goes to health. Most social
>>security spending, and nearly *all* health spending, comes from
>>general taxation. What makes the Australian system fairer?
>
>Yes, and most of those benefits are not available to self employed people when
>they fall upon hard times.
>As I see it (these are personal opinions) the Aussie system is a hell of
>a lot more honest. They call payroll tax "payroll tax", not an employers
>NI contribution.
I agree with you that the UK system is dishonest, in that both
employee's and employer's NI contributions are effectively a form
of tax and should be treated as such. What I was asking was
why it's any less dishonest to call a tax a "Medicare Levy" when
the amount raised isn't enough to fund health care. That makes
it seem to the taxpayer as though health care comes a lot cheaper
than it really is. If you think British NI should be combined
with general taxation, then surely the Australian medicare levy should
also be combined with general taxation.
>In UK just about the only benefit of paying NI is the dole.
And the state retirement pension.
>But if you have not made enough contributions they pay you "supplementary
>benefit" anyway. (Dole is not means tested as I recall,
>but things may have changed).
You're basically right. Supplementary benefit has now been renamed
"income support", but the principle is still the same. The ridiculous
fact is that for most people neither unemployment benefit nor the
state pension is enough to live on, so if you haven't any other income
you have to claim means-tested benefits like income support and housing
benefit to make up the difference. That means that in practice you
might as well be living entirely on means-tested benefits.