Originally posted by RedmikePublic transport can never be 'free' Someone is paying for it Mike.
Well, to start with, an SSP government wouldn't necessarily be godless, and would probably contain people who weren't communists.
But the basic problem in places like Glasgow East is lack of resources. While you say that the Labour government (or the SNP one we have now) have thrown taxpayers money at these kind of areas, this is simply not the case.
T of these peripheral estates.
No simple solution - just radical, redistributive policies.
Don't use the 'f' word Mike, until you find out what it means Mike.
Originally posted by WajomaWould I support a policy that channeled my 'hard-earned tax dollars' (to use a phrase flogged beyond Hackney) into a free public transport program for a place like Glasgow East? Yes, I would: it would be in my interests for such a place to thrive.
Public transport can never be 'free' Someone is paying for it Mike.
Don't use the 'f' word Mike, until you find out what it means Mike.
What kind of public transport, Redmike? Trams? Buses? Minicabs? Maybe cunningly laid out bicycle paths too?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo need for 'policy'.
Would I support a policy that channeled my 'hard-earned tax dollars' (to use a phrase flogged beyond Hackney) into a free public transport program for a place like Glasgow East? Yes, I would: it would be in my interests for such a place to thrive.
What kind of public transport, Redmike? Trams? Buses? Minicabs? Maybe cunningly laid out bicycle paths too?
Just show some gumption, plan, propose, invest in a private scheme, and if you really want to sacrifice yourself, make it non-profit.
Originally posted by WajomaThat's perfectly viable too, but tell me what's the problem if local government comes up with a workable plan funded by taxes?
No need for 'policy'.
Just show some gumption, plan, propose, invest in a private scheme, and if you really want to sacrifice yourself, make it non-profit.
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePeople that don't use it will have to pay for it, others may also have to pay for it even though it is detrimental to their own business. The only correct system is user pays, if it is a workable plan you'd have trouble stopping people from using it and if Mike could come up with a decent proposal you'll be fighting off the investors, Mike should try to be productive and put together a business plan then look for investors, if one of the criteria is that investors must not make a profit that's going to limit responses but it would be a test of his philosophy to get his mates to put their money where their mouths are.
That's perfectly viable too, but tell me what's the problem if local government comes up with a workable plan funded by taxes?
"The idleness of the greater part of the people who are
maintained by the expense of revenue, corrupts, it is probable, the
industry of those who ought to be maintained by the employment of
capital, and renders it less advantageous to employ a capital there
than in other places. There was little trade or industry in Edinburgh
before the Union. When the Scotch parliament was no longer to be
assembled in it, when it ceased to be the necessary residence of the
principal nobility and gentry of Scotland, it became a city of some
trade and industry. It still continues, however, to be the residence
of the principal courts of justice in Scotland, of the boards of
customs and excise, etc. A considerable revenue, therefore, still
continues to be spent in it. In trade and industry, it is much
inferior to Glasgow, of which the inhabitants are chiefly maintained
by the employment of capital. The inhabitants of a large village, it
has sometimes been observed, after having made considerable progress
in manufactures, have become idle and poor, in consequence of a great
lord's having taken up his residence in their neighbourhood.
The proportion between capital and revenue, therefore, seems
everywhere to regulate the proportion between industry and idleness
Wherever capital predominates, industry prevails; wherever revenue,
idleness. Every increase or diminution of capital, therefore,
naturally tends to increase or diminish the real quantity of industry,
the number of productive hands, and consequently the exchangeable
value of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, the
real wealth and revenue of all its inhabitants."
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
Does the present situation in Glasgow provide evidence for or against Smith's thesis? Could the Labour council be regarded as a great lord having taken residence, causing the people to become idle (unemployed) and poor?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt would be buses, trains, ferries and the like. Not minicabs.
Would I support a policy that channeled my 'hard-earned tax dollars' (to use a phrase flogged beyond Hackney) into a free public transport program for a place like Glasgow East? Yes, I would: it would be in my interests for such a place to thrive.
What kind of public transport, Redmike? Trams? Buses? Minicabs? Maybe cunningly laid out bicycle paths too?
Of course, you need to renationatilise them first.
Bike paths are fine too, but they're already free.
Originally posted by WajomaWe're not planning to get new people to generate new rail lines, etc.
People that don't use it will have to pay for it, others may also have to pay for it even though it is detrimental to their own business. The only correct system is user pays, if it is a workable plan you'd have trouble stopping people from using it and if Mike could come up with a decent proposal you'll be fighting off the investors, Mike should try to be p ...[text shortened]... ould be a test of his philosophy to get his mates to put their money where their mouths are.
We're simply planning to take the buses and railways etc from the individuals who currently own them and run them for profit. And run them for free.
Cost about £1 billion per year. We'll just tax the rich - not rocket science.
Originally posted by mohoBoy did you get that one wrong!
It is predicted that Labour will win the Glasgow East bye-election.
No wonder since this constituency has the largest number of persons living on 'welfare' benefits at the taxpayers' expense in the UK.
A client voting population created by Labour politicians to maintain themselves in Office.
I was there campaigning for most of it, and went to the bookies today to collect my £100 winnings.
Was at the count snd it was hysterical seeing all those New labour faces look completely gutted.
Looks like people in Glasgow know there is a perfectly acceptable Social Democratic alternative, and are quite at ease with the constitutional question.
Roll on the UK GENERAL ELECTION!
Originally posted by chris stephensNevertheless I am delighted!
Boy did you get that one wrong!
I was there campaigning for most of it, and went to the bookies today to collect my £100 winnings.
Was at the count snd it was hysterical seeing all those New labour faces look completely gutted.
Looks like people in Glasgow know there is a perfectly acceptable Social Democratic alternative, and are quite at ease with the constitutional question.
Roll on the UK GENERAL ELECTION!
Originally posted by RedmikeHow do you expect the rich to stay rich if you nationalize their property? You're like a vampire, sucking them dry until society collapses.
We're not planning to get new people to generate new rail lines, etc.
We're simply planning to take the buses and railways etc from the individuals who currently own them and run them for profit. And run them for free.
Cost about £1 billion per year. We'll just tax the rich - not rocket science.
You can only live off others' wealth for so long until everyone's poor and has no motivation to work beyond a certain point because they can't keep their earnings.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou do realise that the government is subbing the railways and bus companies, don't you?
How do you expect the rich to stay rich if you nationalize their property? You're like a vampire, sucking them dry until society collapses.
You can only live off others' wealth for so long until everyone's poor and has no motivation to work beyond a certain point because they can't keep their earnings.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't expect the rich to stay rich.
How do you expect the rich to stay rich if you nationalize their property? You're like a vampire, sucking them dry until society collapses.
You can only live off others' wealth for so long until everyone's poor and has no motivation to work beyond a certain point because they can't keep their earnings.
That's kinda the point.