How miserable are you that the Tories are in power?

[sundayrose10]

I feel tense and twitchy. I used to enjoy reading the politic section/ other political forums, but I fear if I keep on going there and reading more and more about Tory plans, I will give myself a heart attack.

I loath them but worst I fear them. I am anxious for this country and the ordinary man and woman.

Dave makes me feel insane with hatred.

I have a colleague who is in love with the Tories. I don't share biscuits with him any more.

Dave makes me itch. All over.

'creative destruction'

that is an oxymoron, but the irony is lost on those who coined the term, but then they're probably coining it in.

I wonder if politicians will catch up and start using it soon. I wonder if the people will vote for 'creative destruction' and the turkeys will vote for Christmas.

yanbu
Revulsion for the tories is a survival instinct for anyone who cares about their lives or souls.

''If we become un-competitive due to pressures from overseas manufacturers we use creative destruction and the comparative advantage of our people to create products with more subjective value, not expect a state handout.'"

It's a shame the bankers didn't follow that advice. A bit of 'creative destruction' might have done them and the country some good, instead of expecting state handouts to pay their bonuses.

Instead of bailing out 'creative' accountants and financiers, I would have preferred that the government bailed out our 'creative' industries - the ones that create real products that people use, like cars, the ones they call 'failed industries'.

Fascinating that the term 'creative destruction' originates from Marxist economic thinking and is used in the 'Communist Manifesto' to indicate negative destructive forces. It was then later used by neo-liberals and turned on its head as if it were a good thing. I wonder if its real roots are widely known.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

I wonder if the people who promoted that term were having a laugh.

Pretty indiferent now....given that Milliband went against the strikers, telling them not to strike.

Doesn't seem to be any difference between the parties now....if there were a general election tomorrow, I really don't think I could vote at all (for the first time).

As always, with 'creative destruction', global warming and the greens, the joke is on the public. The bankers and billionaires keep on laughing all the way to the bank.

The lights won't go out in Al Gore's palatial mansion and he won't stop flying to spread the message that the people should stop flying. they're nothing if not 'creative', the 'destructionists'.

Just checked back and I can't see a post telling me what Tory policies Labour revoked in their 13 years in power.

Hmm.

Oooof.

feeling more than a little hung over today........

reading back on my posts last night I hope it's apparent I meant nationalisation rather than privitisation.

yes Clag, GM were so not failing and are a shining example of the way forward

They were doing so well that they filed for bankruptcy and had $170 billion in debt.

"But I am not surprised that you call me a conspiraloon and equate me and Daily Mail readers with the BNP."

I wasn't equating Daily Mail readers with the BNP, they would never support their (your) far left economic policies. You profess to admire Margaret Thatcher, I don't think you have a clue what she stood for tbh; she'd be appalled by pretty much every single recommendation you've made.

I also wasn't equating you with the BNP either btw, I was just pointing out that what you're recommending is pretty much a carbon copy of the BNP's far left economic policies. Their manifesto is the only place I've ever seen your confused mix of left wing economic beliefs and right wing social agenda; just to be clear that doesn't imply I think you support the BNP by any means, I'd hope you weren't quite that far gone.

As for "conspiraloon", I'm of the opinion that your fantasy that there's a shadowy new world order cabal elite composed of the world's richest people who don't care about money and want to slow down economic growth and cull the worlds population using the environmental movement as a tool to create financial destruction is utter nonsense.

Sounds like just the sort rubbish swallowed up wholesale by the more gullible conspiracy theorists amongst us.

I didn't mention 'a shadowy new world order cabal'. That's something that you keep mentioning. Maybe you know something about it.
Gordon Brown spoke of a 'new world order', I didn't.
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g20-summit/5097195/G20-summit-Gordon-Brown-announces-new-world-order.html

Maybe you missed Adam Curtis's recent BBC series which mentioned environmentalism and the Club of Rome, an elite business thinktank that publishes sustainability type reports called things like 'The Limits to Growth'

Here is where they spell out how they viewed 'global warming'

'In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution.[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[6] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."[7]'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

Are you not aware that the Green party has its roots in the People Party, strongly influenced by rightwing thinking of ex-Conservatives and also the rich Teddy Goldsmith

'An interview with overpopulation expert Paul R. Ehrlich in Playboy Magazine inspired husband and wife solicitors Lesley and Tony Whittaker - an ex-Conservative Party activist from Coventry - and others, to convene the short lived 'Club of Thirteen'. Though many in this 'Club' were wary of forming a political party; they joined 2 other members, Michael Benfield and Freda Sanders, to form 'PEOPLE' as a political party to challenge the UK political establishment, in Coventry during 1972/3. Subsequently recognised as perhaps the world's earliest Green party this had the first edition of the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society as its statement of policies inspired by Blueprint for Survival (published by The Ecologist magazine). The editor of The Ecologist, Edward 'Teddy' Goldsmith, merged his 'Movement for Survival' with PEOPLE. Goldsmith became one of the leading members of the new party during the 1970s.[1]'

Can't you see the same thread of population control and sustainability behind it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(UK)

I admire Margaret Thatcher for many reasons. But I don't agree with everything she did. I disagree with lots of it, but I agree with other things she did do. I admire her much more than I admire Gordon Brown. I like the Daily Mail, but I disagree with lots that it says. I have my own views. I don't believe everything I am told.

By the the way, Chen23, are you in fact the poster ttosca?
I only ask because you have the same hatred of the Daily Mail, aggressively, progressively accuse me of the same lunacies and insanities and because you make the same spelling mistakes.

'Mr Brown said. "I think a new world order is emerging with the foundation of a new progressive era of international co-operation,"

interesting that Gordon Brown talks of this 'new world order' and sees it as 'progressive'.

Chen23, are you one of these 'progressives'? Are you part of the 'new era'?Is that why you are so aggressive?

By the way, the Club of Rome was founded by the billionaire David Rockefeller. It wants limits to growth and sustainability and pushes teh global warming agenda. It says the the real enemy is 'humanity itself'. I think it wants population control and limits to growth for the peasants. I think that is what environmentalist David Rockefeller wants too. He doesn't want any more money, he's got more than enough of that.

And by the way, the Rockefellers were oil magnates
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
and a Rockefeller is instrumental in setting up an elite thinktank that pushes global warming, sustainability and limits to growth for the public.

claig - The banks weren't rescued as a failed industry. They were refinanced in order to stop a collapse which would have cost the country (and individual investors) billions more than the bailout itself. It was nothing to do with saving the jobs of those employed in the industry; you're now talking about a completely different issue to the one at hand - pumping money into an industry with no future.

Creative destruction is a phrase which, regardless of its origin, describes the way industry advances. It's about evolution of products, services, technologies... without it we'd still be travelling around in horse-drawn carts. It's a very 'luddite' way of thinking, if you dismiss creative destruction.

The US should not have bailed out GM. I think it was one of the most ridiculous and badly thoughout refinancings there has ever been. It's as good an example of why you shouldn't create sunk cost as I can ever imagine. GM was/is producing crap cars that no one wanted; Americans were and are clamouring to get into better Japanese and European alternatives and bailing the company out has only ensured that progress will be slower than had it been allowed to fail and someone else fill the void.

"The lights won't go out in Al Gore's palatial mansion and he won't stop flying to spread the message that the people should stop flying. they're nothing if not 'creative', the 'destructionists'."

To be honest, Claig, it's very difficult to understand your points regarding 'greens'.

I don't understand why you think 'rich industrialists' and 'the greens' are inextricably linked? If anything it's the exact opposite - green policies are exactly what most industrialists are, rightly or wrongly, fighting.

Why on earth would you think that someone who, for example, owns a global steel manufacturing company would support green policies which would, given the chance, cripple it with carbon taxes?

It really is quite bizarre to marry up these diametrically opposed groups as you are doing.

Ooh, you've got wikipedia links and everything

I take it all back, the world's richest people are in fact conspiring to cull the world's population and are actively seeking to shrink and destroy the global economy because they're not actually interested in making money.

I have no real idea what you stand for tbh, going by this thread it's a hodge podge collection of protectionist quasi communist command economy nonsense somehow mixed up with elements of Thatcherism (btw exactly what policies of her did you admire as they seem totally at odds with every single economic recommendation you've made?)

btw you might need to toughen up a bit if you really think I'm being aggressive Clag, I've taken the piss on an internet forum and been dismissive of some of your more mentalist views but accusations of aggression seem more than a little feeble.

ShellyBoobs, there is more than one perspective when looking at these issues. Yours is more a globalisation, business perspective,; my perspective is a more protectionist perspective that safeguard sthe people's interests over the interests of teh business moguls. My perspective is similar to teh billionaire business entrepreneur, Sir Oliver Goldsmith. Both perspectives are valid, but which one helps the population more, which one helps the people more?

'The US should not have bailed out GM. I think it was one of the most ridiculous and badly thoughout refinancings there has ever been.'
I disagree with that. The US is not there just for its business moguls and its billionaire Rockefeller elites, it is there for its people, who make up and define what the US is. That is why rightwing politicians like Sarah Palin, champion of the people, fully supported the bailout for General Motors and was against much of the bailout for the bankers. Generla Motors will survive for another day and its workers and their families will also survive for another day. The bailout for GM was peanuts to what the public coffed up to bail the bankers out, and the GM bailout saved their jobs and livelihoods.

'I don't understand why you think 'rich industrialists' and 'the greens' are inextricably linked? If anything it's the exact opposite - green policies are exactly what most industrialists are, rightly or wrongly, fighting.'

Did you read my post about the Rockefellers, the Club of Rome and the founding of the Green Party. The world is not what it seems. If you pull back teh rug, you discover things of which you couldn't dream - look at the News of the World phone hacking scandal. It is enormous and has all sorts of political ramifications. None of us could have imagined that such things could occur behind the scenes.

'Why on earth would you think that someone who, for example, owns a global steel manufacturing company would support green policies which would, given the chance, cripple it with carbon taxes?

a CEO who owns that company may not want green policies, but that CEO is only an employee, they don't pull the strings.

'I have no real idea what you stand for tbh'
I stand for reason.
I stand for reasoned debate, not aggressive slanging matches.

"My perspective is similar to teh billionaire business entrepreneur, Sir Oliver Goldsmith."

Oliver Goldsmith was an 18th century poet.

"a CEO who owns that company may not want green policies, but that CEO is only an employee, they don't pull the strings."

Eh? If the CEO owns that company he's not only an employee and he does pull the strings.

'Oliver Goldsmith was an 18th century poet.'
Are you saying that you don't like his rhymes, that he committed some sort of crime?

'If the CEO owns that company he's not only an employee and he does pull the strings.'

The owner pulls the strings, not the CEO.
Murdoch pulls the strings, not Rebekah Brooks.
Rebekah Brooks and other CEOS are just employees who are better rewarded than the rest.

I know what a CEO dies

you said

If the CEO owns that company

"Are you saying that you don't like his rhymes, that he committed some sort of crime?"

No, I'm saying he's not a billionaire entrepreneur and that an 18th century poet is probably not a good source for your financial perspective.

I disagree . I think poets speak the truth, they are seers who express the zeitgeist like no one else can.

I knew Oliver Goldsmith, Oliver Goldsmith was a friend of mine, Chen23, Oliver Goldsmith was no progressive.

Oliver Goldsmith was in my class at primary school, that's how I know the above is true.