It seems to have died.

When I started on TMF LoST was the first on my favourite list. As I added others it always had the greatest number of posts.

It has been a source of amusement, irritation, fury, disappointment, delight frustration and sheer disbelief at some of the views/comments.

I have noticed as time went on that URLs without comment were increasing as were the one-line sarcastic/rude/inane posts. Occasionally there would be a gem which, in the past would have resulted in robust discussion, but lately, has resulted in bickering, round robin arguments and very little actual talking about the subject.

One day I even logged on and found zero comments on here. There has been no other time this has happened.

Perhaps if some of the posters who have deserted because of the above could come back with, maybe, a LOT of persistance, it could be brought back to the once excellent board that allowed for a wide variety of topics/views without the sniping.

I am optimistic - hopefully:-)

I think that it's terminal.

As a broadly right-leaning board, LoST must have been a pretty comforting place for Tory supporters looking for a way of venting their frustration at the absolute shambles into which the Labour government descended. And at least they could look forward to the day that Labour was booted out of government.

Now that Labour have been booted out, and it has become obvious to all but the most committed* Tories that their own lot are also an absolute shambles, what is there that's left to be said?

There's not even much fun to be had for Labour supporters. Too easy to shut them up by pointing out that any party that has Ed Miliband as leader is, at absolute best, a shambles-in-waiting. (But more likely a shambles that's doomed to permanent opposition until they can bring themselves to get someone even vaguely electable.)

And as for LibDem supporters... God. No. Getting started on the LibDems would be too cruel. It's one thing kicking a man when he's down, but dancing on his grave is a step too far.

* "Committed" usually means something similar to "dedicated". There's also an association with mental health, though. Probably pretty accurate for anyone deluded enough to deny that the current administration is an absolute shambles.

Hi orchard101

..Perhaps if some of the posters who have deserted because of the above could come back with, maybe, a LOT of persistance, it could be brought back to the once excellent board that allowed for a wide variety of topics/views without the sniping...

Unfortunately those posters might not see your plea.
:-(

I am one who posts here much less these days. I have been spending more time on Political Fools which provides more in depth discussion of the sort that I appreciate ...rather than the one liner tribal posting that I used to participate in here. As I am no longer a member of any political tribe, the more extensive discussion is better suited to me.

As Political Fools has become busier, the consequential lightening of the number of political posts here should be freeing it up for other topics...it was, at one time, IMO, over busy. When you come to think of it, there are boards for most Serious Topics on TMF these days, so there are fewer topics which can't be discussed elsewhere. The Snug might have taken a lot of traffic from here too.

ATB
Tom

Hmm, but what's happening in British politics which is interesting?

A wet blanket of a deficit reduction programme which fails to tackle the debt and basically leaves most people standing still? Some sort of organisational change in the NHS? Continuing stalemate in Afghanistan? Scots droaning on about independence?

Excuse me while I try to contain my excitement.

You have got to be kidding me?

270,000 public sector jobs shed last year. Big cuts in tax credits. Root and branch change in the NHS.

You might be standing still. You're living in dreamland if you think that everyone else is as lucky as you.

TW

Excuse me while I try to contain my excitement.
So that's why we don't see much of you on Political Fools!

But what is your reason for not discussing other more interesting Serious Topics on LoST ..as a long standing LoSTian?

ATB
Tom

As I added others it always had............

Hmmmmm.. And you miss it?

I know a chap has some pretty blue coloured seed meal.................

Sincerely yours,

R.E.N. T'OChill, if I remember roit.

270,000 public sector jobs shed last year. Big cuts in tax credits. Root and branch change in the NHS.
You might be standing still. You're living in dreamland if you think that everyone else is as lucky as you.

Like many people in the private sector, I've been through redundancy and consequential re-location (twice), had pay freezes, suffered the loss of a final salary pension scheme, etc. Yes I'm lucky to be in work at the moment, but there are no guarantees going forward. It only takes your employer to lose its competitive edge and you are in big trouble. I've never known it any different. My first employer was a major company and doesn't even exist any more.

I suppose it is news that the public sector is now having to cope with a dose of reality but generally they remain relatively protected, including getting pay rises related to automatically moving up through pay scales. I've every sympathy for individuals who might lose their jobs but what's your alternative, that the public sector will grow every year and never have to adjust to economic or competitive pressures? Life would be wonderful if we could borrow forever to keep Brown's former boom going, but it is just pie in the sky. Check out what has happened in Greece if you want to see where irresponsible economics leads.

So the only sensible argument left is one of degree. Even Labour concede there need to be cuts, though they try to spin it otherwise. If you think there's an alternative to some sort of government spending restraint then go ahead and make the argument; no doubt it will help to liven up this board.

Author: CasperCCC | Date: 11/04/2012 21:17:42 | Number: 519163

You have got to be kidding me?

270,000 public sector jobs shed last year. Big cuts in tax credits. Root and branch change in the NHS.

You might be standing still. You're living in dreamland if you think that everyone else is as lucky as you.

And there in lies the problem. 270,000 might sound like a large number, but it isn't. There's 6,000,000 employed public sector staff, and the best part of another 2,000,000 who have sloped off into a cushy early retirement, so while 270,000 was a commendable start, that is all it is. We've had a little tinkering with the tax credit system, but nothing like the reform we need to see so that nobody earning over minimum wage receives benefits and nobody receiving benefits receives more than the post tax minimum wage.

There are 2 ways out of the deficit. The greek way, or the Irish way. Right now we're stalling hoping a third way will appear, and it won't.

So either we go Irish, and the public sector takes some real pain (20% pay cuts and an end to the indefensible gold plated pensions) and gets refocussed on what it should be doing and not co-ordinating diversity, managing street football, etc and we cap benefits (all of them in total) to a portion of the minimum wage rather than an uncapped multiple of it... Or, we go Greek and everyone takes a lot of pain before inevitably the public sector is dismantled whole sections at a time.

That, of course, isn't what anyone on the left wants to hear. I used to read LoST regularly, but found that while most posters had a level head, there were far too many of the left using it as some kind of comfort group while trying to defend the worst government in the history of the nation.

I was once a leftie myself, before I grew up and learned about economics, so I realise the shock of what's to come will be like a plane decompressing at 30,000 feet for some, believe me when I say that what we have now is both standing still AND dreamland, compared to the choices ahead, if we are not to curse the next 5 generations for our electoral incompetance as a nation.

The real reason LoST is dying is that any of the left who reply will do so with empty rhetoric and emotive garbage, rather than any sensible alternatives backed by economics. The best intentions in the world are worth nought if you cannot afford to pay for them. I often found Capser to be one of the more credible leftie posters, yet even you have gone straight for the emotive nonsense about a trivial number of cuts to non jobs and a gradual withdrawal of benefits for those earning between 2 and 3 times the average salary. A serious topic can't survive without serious debate.

270,000 public sector jobs shed last year. Big cuts in tax credits. Root and branch change in the NHS.

ISTR that Tony & Gordon created something like 3 times that number of new civil servants during their time in office, so 270,000 public sector jobs would seem like a step in right direction, but not a very big one given the nature of the problem. As for tax credits - just how many jobs did that convoluted brainchild of Gordon create? The sooner we return to a simplified tax system that we can all understand, the better, and IMHO the abolition of tax credits altogether would be a very good start. After all, it is only a crafty way to keep expenditure off the balance book, isn't it? As to the NHS, it has long been accepted that it is "management heavy" and far too expensive as a result. The only question is how to reform it when those that run it don't want to. Not that I think Landsley has the mental capacity or balls to face the reality and try for some serious pruning on the management side. Any realist must accept that in its current state it has become unaffordable.

thurgarton

Well Orchard, I guess it doesn't help when every thread is hijacked for the same old political arguments, just like this one has been almost immediately .....

Like many people in the private sector, I've been through redundancy and consequential re-location (twice), had pay freezes, suffered the loss of a final salary pension scheme, etc. Yes I'm lucky to be in work at the moment, but there are no guarantees going forward. It only takes your employer to lose its competitive edge and you are in big trouble. I've never known it any different. My first employer was a major company and doesn't even exist any more.

I know many -and I mean many - in the private sector (incl me) where teh above applies. In particular we're earning less now than in previous jobs.

In contrast - the public sector workers I know are a generation behind. Living in a job for life fantasy land, complaining about about the most minor reductions in terms and conditions.

Of course, this is the real reason that LoST has died. I point out that there have been some major changes, contrary to ThirdWay's assertion. By any measure, more than a quarter of a million people losing their jobs is a substantial change. Circa 5% of the workforce, from memory. And the big changes to tax credits aren't the ones to people on three times average salary - they're the ones to people working in part time jobs.

No comment on whether I approve, whether I think it's enough, or too much, or too little. Just pointing out that there have been changes.

And what do I get? The same tired old pony from the same tired old posters, launching into the same tired old arguments based on the same tired old habits of attacking the poster's perceived views, rather than what he actually said. LoST has long been a toxic swamp full of ad hominem attacks and the constant rehashing of party political dogma. (From both sides of the spectrum.)

That's why it has died, finally. Hopefully.

losing their jobs is a substantial change. Circa 5% of the workforce, from memory

5% is nothing - natural wastage as they say. I was in an organisation when 30% lost their jobs - and that was after massaging down the true figure. And yes, i was one of them.

No comment on whether I approve, whether I think it's enough, or too much, or too little. Just pointing out that there have been changes.

But this is exactly the point TopOnePercent made. The complaints here against government policy are little more than emotional objections to some [I would say] relatively minor adjustments. If posters are not prepared to suggest alternative ways forward then there's not much debate to be had.

That's why it has died, finally. Hopefully.

I think your radar is off. Once the effect of current policies begins to become evident, we will hopefully get the return of free thinking left-wing posters like nativity who are prepared to debate alternative policies.

Casper
..
By any measure, more than a quarter of a million people losing their jobs is a substantial change. Circa 5% of the workforce, from memory. And the big changes to tax credits aren't the ones to people on three times average salary - they're the ones to people working in part time jobs.

No comment on whether I approve, whether I think it's enough, or too much, or too little. Just pointing out that there have been changes.

And what do I get? The same tired old pony from the same tired old posters, launching into the same tired old arguments based on the same tired old habits of attacking the poster's perceived views, rather than what he actually said. LoST has long been a toxic swamp full of ad hominem attacks and the constant rehashing of party political dogma. (From both sides of the spectrum.) ..

This is not surprising. It is, after all, easier to attack a fantasy belief and an imagined statement than it is to engage in real discussion and find real solutions that, if agreed upon, would involve further work and effort...that of having to persuade politicians to change their narrow conservative thought processes, rather than being happy to be supported in their highly paid debating games by lazy journalists in the popular media.

Much easier to wallow in the comfort of depressed thinking and label anyone who thinks otherwise as a communist or Sith or some other more fashionably bad name. There is comfort to be had in any tribe membership whatever the aims and objectives of the tribe.

ATB
Tom

TW

Once the effect of current policies begins to become evident, we will hopefully get the return of free thinking left-wing posters like nativity who are prepared to debate alternative policies.

I obviously don't know but I doubt it. It might be what you want but I doubt if it is what most people here want to go out of their way to encourage.

nativity, anyway, was surely not left wing. He seemed to me to be posting in support of Nu Labour policies in the days when Blair was supported ny the Murdoch press. I know that many did regard Blair as left-wing, but that is just an indication of how narrow the spectrum of British politics is compared to, say, France.

ATB
Tom

I wasn't complaining. Or objecting. Just stating. The fact that even after I specifically pointed this out you're still talking in those terms says it all, really.

I don't have a problem with cutting the size of the public sector, on the whole. Perhaps one of the attack dogs could have saved themselves some time by checking on this first, instead of making assumptions?

I wasn't complaining. Or objecting. Just stating. The fact that even after I specifically pointed this out you're still talking in those terms says it all, really.

Complaining? Objecting? Stating? Who is to say? You certainly brought out the violin for the public sector when you accused me of being "lucky".

My point is a general one that few people here are giving any alternatives to government policy.

TW

Complaining? Objecting? Stating? Who is to say? You certainly brought out the violin for the public sector when you accused me of being "lucky".

I have no idea what Casper meant by his statements regarding your luck. He might have been referring to the public sector issue..but my understanding was that he meant it in its common everyday meaning...that of being lucky to be alive in a calm day in Britain rather than caught up in an earthquake somewhere in the world, or be trapped in a fight between alleged Muslims and alleged Christians somewhere on the planet, or trapped in poverty without a drop of water to drink in sub-Saharan Africa.

Perhaps he will say. Perhaps you could have asked. The asumption though makes the communication harder than it might have been.

ATB
Tom

...makes the communication harder than it might have been.

I suppose, when I think of it, that it the real reason that I don't come here a lot these days. It is made unnecessarily hard...and for what?
What is in it for me?

Au revoir
Tom

Casper
LoST has long been a toxic swamp full of ad hominem attacks and the constant rehashing of party political dogma. (From both sides of the spectrum.)


I'd say the opposite - whats dominant on LOST is a disparaging of all the political parties and politicians generally - how many times is the phrase "political class" used as if elected representatives were some toxic breed to be opposed regardless.

This is not healthy and its astonishing really when so many across the world strive (often at huge personal cost) to get democracy in their countries that we are so dismissive of it.

glic

Toponepercent The real reason LoST is dying is that any of the left who reply will do so with empty rhetoric and emotive garbage, rather than any sensible alternatives backed by economics.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is posts like these, substantially recc'ed, which treat those with whom they disagree with a lack of respect, indeed contempt, that make it such a pointless, hopelessly futile, exercise to engage in debate on LoST, particularly when time has been spent assembling fully supported arguments. Thoroughly depressing.

so many across the world strive (often at huge personal cost) to get democracy in their countries that we are so dismissive of it.

Ah, Democracy - a political system designed to run ancient Greek city states, and even then with huge restrictions on who got to vote, now corrupted to "representative" democracy, where you only get to vote for someone to have a vote, with no guarantee that they will vote the way you want them to...

You would think that after a couple of thousand years the human race could have come up with something better, but no, "Democracy" is spoken of with almost religious awe, and it is automatically assumed that there can be no improvement.

Humans have made great str5ides in almost every field over the last few thousand years, except this one. Why not, I wonder?

DZ

You would think that after a couple of thousand years the human race could have come up with something better, but no, "Democracy" is spoken of with almost religious awe, and it is automatically assumed that there can be no improvement.

Thats a confusing comment - every democracy is by definition capable of improvement in every country it operates.

But I am less clear that any other system of government can be said to be an improvement on democracy - do you have any suggestions ?

glic

But I am less clear that any other system of government can be said to be an improvement on democracy - do you have any suggestions ?

Sadly not - if I knew of something better I would be out there shouting about it. But surely political science can't have peaked a few thousand years ago - there are no shortages of clever people, hasn't anyone thought of anything better?

We've certainly managed to come up with a couple of things that are worse, imho - Communism and fascism, for example [well, the implementations of them were certainly worse!]. Not sure about monarchy,l tho - sometimes good, sometimes bad.

DZ

Speaking for myself, I've simply found that it's much more rewarding to post on the CiF site on 'The Guardian' and 'The Daily Telegraph' sites .... judging by the recs one's messages get many more readers there.

Glic writes, with my added punctuation:- [;-)]
...it’s astonishing really, when so many across the world strive (often at huge personal cost) to get democracy in their countries, that we are so dismissive of it.

Which raises the question – Do we, in truth, have it?

And DalekZek writes:-
Ah, Democracy - a political system designed to run ancient Greek city states, and even then with huge restrictions on who got to vote, now corrupted to "representative" democracy, where you only get to vote for someone to have a vote, with no guarantee that they will vote the way you want them to...

You would think that after a couple of thousand years the human race could have come up with something better, but no, "Democracy" is spoken of with almost religious awe, and it is automatically assumed that there can be no improvement.

Humans have made great str5ides in almost every field over the last few thousand years, except this one. Why not, I wonder?


In a number of my contributions to LoST over the years, and in particular in connection with discussions relating to ‘democracy’ (and also to ‘racism /racist’), I have enjoined others to define the terms they use. There seems to be an underlying assumption that everybody who uses the word ‘democracy’ knows exactly what every other user means by it when they in turn use it. The unspoken meme seems to be: “We don’t define ‘tennis-ball’ when we use it, so why define ‘democracy’ – isn’t the meaning obvious?”

Well, no it isn’t obvious. The fox-hunting issue should have provided evidence enough that those who cry “Democracy rules!” are quite happy to to see tyranny rule – or are actually blind to its imposition.

I don’t wish to hijack this present, much-needed thread. I wish merely to invite Glic and DalekZek (and other interested contributors) to peruse, and to contribute their thoughts to a (short) thread I opened on another board some time ago entitled “Democracy – the essentials.”

My purpose was adequately spelled out I think in my opening words on that thread, to wit:-

I find both here and on LoST the topic of democracy impinges on numerous discussions and I find these discussions tend to become pointless through being argued at cross-purposes due to a lack of a commonality of terms.

I wish to take issue with some recent posts on several MET threads, but to do that requires some agreement on what "democracy" is.

For myself I am not I interested in assessing the fine detail of democratic mechanics, it is in agreement over the defining essence of democracy that I seek your cooperation here.

The whole thread –it is still only short, fourteen posts – can be seen on the link below. Unsurprisingly I regard it as a serious topic, too serious for the present LoST. I don’t feel possessive of the thread, but would value contributions from those who feel 'democacy’ should be more meaningful that a mere procedural mechanism.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/democracy-the-essentials-9697463.as...

avconway

DZ
You would think that after a couple of thousand years the human race could have come up with something better, but no, "Democracy" is spoken of with almost religious awe, and it is automatically assumed that there can be no improvement.

Humans have made great str5ides in almost every field over the last few thousand years, except this one. Why not, I wonder?


They have.
Even within Europe.
Even within UK.
Not yet for Westminster Government though.
The Coalition messed up the latest very minor attempt to improve it slightly in a Referendum that, the victors claim, will see off the prospects of improvements in fairer voting for another generation.
Not content with that the Coalition appeared to then try to mess up the arrangements for the Scottish Independence Referendum now due in August 2014.
Salmond, fortunately, seems to be more of a democrat than anyone in the Coalition and has so far outsmarted them.
This is all bad news for people like me an my family, Unionists living in Scotland.
We do need better democracy...North and South of the border. This hereditary system bolstered by the Old Boy's Club is just not working properly.

ATB
Tom

DZ

But I am less clear that any other system of government can be said to be an improvement on democracy - do you have any suggestions ?
Sadly not - if I knew of something better I would be out there shouting about it. But surely political science can't have peaked a few thousand years ago - there are no shortages of clever people, hasn't anyone thought of anything better?

They have. This group have been doing it for over a hundred years..
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
They sell their services all over the world and are highly respected...but not, it seems, in the top levels of the Conservative Party or amongst a few MPs in the Labour Party.

LibDems were smeared stupid in the AV referendum by a dirty campaign when they proposed fairer voting. Even Milliband supported it but the conservative old hands who dominate the Labour Party made sure that his leadership was disregarded.

ATB
Tom

For myself I am not I interested in assessing the fine detail of democratic mechanics, it is in agreement over the defining essence of democracy that I seek your cooperation here.

I would strongly argue that the modern implementation of parliamentary 'democracy' is so watered down that it is does not deserve the word. What we seem to have drifted into is a form of parliamentary aristocracy i.e. rule by a parliamentary elite over which we have little real control.

I don't accept that having a vote every five years, with the odds firmly stacked in favour of the current occupant regardless of party or ability is democracy.

We seem to have reverted to the patrician elite model of the empire, with the politicians from the various sides going through the same treadmill public schools -> PPE at Oxbridge -> proto-political sinecure (e.g. MP's Parliamentary Secretary) -> selection and seat fighting in some opposition hell hole they have no chance of winning -> Backbench MP -> Ministerial Aid -> Junior Minister -> etc.

How can we even pretend to be a representative democracy (even the weakest kind) if the parliamentary representatives are neither representative of us or our views. I know of no-one outside of the political system (including journalism) that has done PPE, it's just kind of the qualification for getting on the political treadmill.

The parliamentary democracy that we have today is just a fig-leaf to let the same old elite rule us in the same old ways. Their contempt for our actual views, specifically on the EU, immigration, capital punishment, taxation and busy-bodying legislation is legendary.

would value contributions from those who feel 'democacy’ should be more meaningful that a mere procedural mechanism.

My start point is to be amazed that you diminish the ability of citizens in any country to vote in their leaders as "a mere procedural mechanism".

As I said earlier all over the world and over all time spans people have suffered greatly just to get that chance - what do you suggest as a better option ?

In operation its always flawed - but thats a whole different debate - and the extent and nature of the flaws are different in each country

One key requirement of democracy is that those initially elected have the possibility of being voted out next time round - thats often the failing of initially "democratic" regimes.

Yes there are additional assumptions that a rule of law and avoidance of "elected doctatorships" must apply but in honesty when you combine a discussion of democracy as the best governance option with a narrow point re foxhunting then I cant help thinking that you are missing the point

glic

It seems to have died.

Judging by this thread, I think Mr Orchard has touched a nerve somewhere :0)

KThey have. This group have been doing it for over a hundred years..
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
They sell their services all over the world and are highly respected...but not, it seems, in the top levels of the Conservative Party or amongst a few MPs in the Labour Party.

LibDems were smeared stupid in the AV referendum by a dirty campaign when they proposed fairer voting. Even Milliband supported it but the conservative old hands who dominate the Labour Party made sure that his leadership was disregarded.

Sorry, Tom, I just don't buy that as any sort of progress - it's just trying to change the mechanism for snout counting, without questioning whether snout counting is worthwhile in the first place.

To use a [sadly] current analogy - they are just trying to re-arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic...

DZ

DZ

To use a [sadly] current analogy - they are just trying to re-arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic...

1. If I may correct the tense...

they were just trying to re-arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic.

2. (Much more significantly)
We need to start somewhere in the process of improvement. Small changes and improvements do matter.
If the deckchairs on the Titanic had been properly rearranged and used in the construction of makeshift life boats, some lives might have been able to have been saved.

Whether that happened or not, the activity of construction might have been useful in preventing panic and thus allowed a more ordely loading of life boats.


Whether AV would have been progress or not though is surely irrelevant for 2 reasons...
1. The conduct of the Referendum was a democratic disgrace.
2. The work of the Electoral Reform Society linked to is about much more than STV ...and the rest of their suggestions for improvement continue to be resisted by the Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party seem to me to be much more interested in actually ruling rather than ruling democratically. It is the ruling that is important to them.

ATB
Tom

I should add that the departure of outstanding contributors such as Femiokay (due to poor moderation) has been fatal. It's really not much fun being in a house where the owners are so PC.

Hi Tom

sorry,
The conduct of the Referendum was a democratic disgrace.
but my point is that democracy itself may in fact not be what we should be aiming for?

The work of the Electoral Reform Society linked to is about much more than STV ...and the rest of their suggestions for improvement continue to be resisted by the Conservative Party.
Given my stance on democracy, I'm afraid party politics is of absolutely no interest to me...

DZ

DZ
Given my stance on democracy, I'm afraid party politics is of absolutely no interest to me.

Sorry.
I thought that you wanted an improvement of Democracy. My remarks have been designed to that end.

Are you looking to replace it altogether? What with?

Party politics is becoming of less and less interest to me too as I age. In Britain, it is becoming part of the problem rather than being part of the solution to how people are best represented.

ATB
Tom

Tom

I thought that you wanted an improvement of Democracy. My remarks have been designed to that end.

Are you looking to replace it altogether? What with?

More an improvement ON democracy, rather than an improvement OF dfemocracy.

I don't know what would be better - that's what I was hoping to get some idea of from this discussion. But "democracy" seems to be almost a sacred word - mustn't question its perfection, or ask if there is a better way. Tinkering with it is all very well, but should we actually be building something else altogether?

DZ

Purplemoonlight

Well Orchard, I guess it doesn't help when every thread is hijacked for the same old political arguments, just like this one has been almost immediately .....

I agree. Serious doesn't have to mean political, there is Political Fools for that.

Surely this board should be about topics that are serious to the poster even if, sometimes, it may appear trivial to others. Perhaps about social trends, youth, old age and worries about other things that are happening here and in the wider world.

Politics ARE serious and I follow PF now, but I can forsee the time when that becomes almost the same as LoST, thereby losing posters who want a serious discussion rather than cant and also, importantly, posters who will agree to disagree without recourse to sarcasm/rudeness/pettiness.

We can only hope.

It seems to have died.

Traffic across the whole of TMF appears to be substantially down IMO. Not sure why or if definitely true, but it certainly feels that way.

B

It seems to have died.

Traffic across the whole of TMF appears to be substantially down IMO. Not sure why or if definitely true, but it certainly feels that way.


The beginning of the end was, I believe, Dec 2002 when this and a few other boards were excluded from the Best of Boards. Posters would previously compete, sometimes frivolously to amuse, but usually genuinely to debate, enrich and educate. Now the incentive of seeing your name on the Best of Board the incentive to try that bit harder has been removed and the quality of the debate has diminished.

For a time the board had momentum but slowly over time posters have drifted away (many to competitors) and fewer people have joined because they are much less likely to find the board. As the best posters have moved on the quality of the posts has further withered and the slow trickle of defectors has increased. The loss of posters here will have had a knock on effect on the rest of TMF although a lack of money to invest will also of had a big effect in the last few years.

An indication of the decline in this board can be seen by comparing the date of posting of the most recommended posts:

http://boards.fool.co.uk/land-of-serious-topics-50945.aspx?s...

The posts are nearly all 7 years old even if you click your way through the pages.

Contrast with:

http://boards.fool.co.uk/jokers-corner-50924.aspx?sort=recom...

Where the most recommended posts are spread around apart from 2011/2 which supports Berteee's point that there is a now a general drift away.

Personally I think TMF would increase their active customer base if they allowed a limited number of posts from this and the other boards currently banished from the Best of to make a come back. Collectively up to 2 or 3 from all the banished boards would encourage a better standard of debate without flooding the Best of with non-investment posts. Perhaps then some of the best posters may return hopefully diluting some of the mud slinging.

DAK if the moderators choosing which boards qualify for BoB also happens on the US site?

Now the incentive of seeing your name on the Best of Board the incentive to try that bit harder has been removed and the quality of the debate has diminished.

Surely rec hunting is the equivalent of dog whistle politics thats really to be condemned not encouraged in pursuit of intelligent debate ?

Usually its posts like "Gordon Brown has the intelligence and personality of a camel" that garners the most recs in the quickest time

glic

Perhaps one of the attack dogs could have saved themselves some time by checking on this first, instead of making assumptions?

Such a delicate flower. Having just read the thread the words, pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

Grrrr!

I have no idea what Casper meant by his statements regarding your luck.

See below

Perhaps he will say. Perhaps you could have asked. The asumption though makes the communication harder than it might have been.

Revisionism in its purist form. Let's just remind ourselves what CCCC did say shall we:

"You have got to be kidding me?

270,000 public sector jobs shed last year. Big cuts in tax credits. Root and branch change in the NHS.

You might be standing still. You're living in dreamland if you think that everyone else is as lucky as you."

As usual, no assumptions required. Just honesty.

What is in it for me?

Never a truer word

Au revoir
Tom

Dare we hope, goodbye?

nettirb

The board does tend to mirror the Conservative obsession with the mantra
public sector bad/ privare sector good
You too are making similar incorrect assumptions. Let me explain why...

270,000 public sector jobs shed last year.
The consequences of this of course are not just felt by the public sector employee families, they are felt also by the all the businesses that they normally use and might have been planning to use.

Big cuts in tax credits.
Certainly of interest to some of the less well paid public sector employees...but by no means only of relevance to public sector. Private sector are also involved to at least an equialent extent.

Root and branch change in the NHS.
All people in the country are impacted by that!


As usual, no assumptions required. Just honesty.
Incorrect assumptions more like. Certainly not honesty. I would not accuse anyone here of dishonesty but there does seem to be a lack of understanding and/or knowledge.

ATB
Tom

nettrib

What is in it for me?
Never a truer word

Not at all. Altruism is my preferred style. It is very unusual for me to ask the above question. I only ask it if I get the feeling that I am being misused...quite a common feeling if you are about if I recall correctly from previous halcyon days on LoST.


Au revoir
Dare we hope, goodbye?
Is there more than one of you? Should you be calling yourself nettribs?

I'll say goodbye when I am good and ready.

ATB
Tom

It seems to have died.

Traffic across the whole of TMF appears to be substantially down IMO. Not sure why or if definitely true, but it certainly feels that way.


I kind of agree, but then expressing an opinion on sites such as LoST does little other than allow one to state ones point of view. There is no hope or expectation that you are likely to change the opinion of the entrenched, or indeed anything you disagree with, although a little provocation can provide amusement. We seem, IMHO, to have developed what can only be described as a benevolent dictatorship as a means of government, and I have certainly given up hope that my opinion counts for anything. However, posting does allow you to express your view and I suppose we should be grateful that we still have that freedom. So I'll continue to comment on those threads that interest me and raise issue that i think should be raised - oh and I'll keep taking Private Eye so at least I'll have some idea of what is really going on.

thurgarton

Personally I think TMF would increase their active customer base if they allowed a limited number of posts from this and the other boards currently banished from the Best of to make a come back. Collectively up to 2 or 3 from all the banished boards would encourage a better standard of debate without flooding the Best of with non-investment posts. Perhaps then some of the best posters may return hopefully diluting some of the mud slinging.

The Moderators are essentially reactive rather than strategic although, in their defence, they are only "obeying orders". If they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that a particular board, topic or poster is interfering with their image of how they'd like this venue to be, they tend to fixate on that even if only ephemeral and, as with all people who are paid to do something, they feel the need to do something. "Less is more" doesn't resonate here and nor does the free and equitable speech that the internet so credibly and tantalisingly promised.

So they close a thread here, ban a poster there, banish a board to the back of beyond if it ever exhibits any passion, and the next thing you know you have a site that is a moribund collection of bland sycophants and tedious groupthink. And that becomes self-reinforcing as the smarter folks depart to be replaced by those comforted by never being morally disturbed or challenged.

The key to managing an online community is to understand that the community is the boss and the site providers are the facilitators. But TMF, notwithstanding it's groovy origins, has become a classical establishment media that practices centralised top-down command and control. Creativity, originality and alternative ways of communciating have been suppressed under an oppressive regime of sanctimonious censorship and mendacious micromanagement.

TMF isn't seeking to increase presence and influence any more. It is seeking to maintain it's revenues (and of course their jobs) which, in their mind, means massaging the message to attract the exact kind of eyeball that buys TMF's (mostly crappy) products and services. Can it recover? I don't know but it needs to be shaken up from the top down. The vested interests are too deeply entrenched to enable constructive self-criticism. They need to bring in some aggressive outside management or consultancy because, right now, they have become complacent, fat and happy. Whether that derives from the residual power of their stateside parents or is more a peculiarly British form of self-destructive passivity is up for debate.

Author: CasperCCC | Date: 12/04/2012 07:09:46 | Number: 519212

And what do I get? The same tired old pony from the same tired old posters, launching into the same tired old arguments based on the same tired old habits of attacking the poster's perceived views, rather than what he actually said

As I recall I said you were one of the more credible posters on the left of the debate Casper.

I do, however, stand by my statement that your post to which I replied was emotive nonsense and simply not based upon rational economics. I work for a company that cuts a greater percentage of its staff every year without fail, regardless of whether its trying to reduce costs. That is the real world.

It'd be a great shame if LoST does die with this thread reprseenting your final contribution, as it simply doesn't do you justice, IMHO.



Author: stomerick | Date: 12/04/2012 10:37:21 | Number: 519212

It is posts like these, substantially recc'ed, which treat those with whom they disagree with a lack of respect, indeed contempt, that make it such a pointless, hopelessly futile, exercise to engage in debate on LoST, particularly when time has been spent assembling fully supported arguments. Thoroughly depressing.

What lack of respect? I have a lot of respect for Casper, as it happens.

Criticising the trivial pruning of the state sector that we've seen to date does not represent a "fully supported argument", and I'm frankly astonished that you think it does.

TopOnePercent

I work for a company that cuts a greater percentage of its staff every year without fail, regardless of whether its trying to reduce costs. That is the real world.

No, it is not the real world.

If your perception is correct then it is the real world for you and those unfortunate enough to be working for that company ...and the misfortune of those who want, wanted or will want to work for it. We don't have to be slaves to a machine though. Leave that for the robots.

I used to work in a pottery factory. The potteries were family owned businesses that had survived for generations. Work was a pleasure. It was like going to a different family. That is the way work should be. That is the way that work needs to be to sustain the interest, creativity and loyalty of the people needed to keep the wheels turning.

Routine sacking just ensures continuity of employment for the managers and business for the job seeking companies. The more common the practice that you describe is allowed to become the closer does Britain become to an Asian sweat shop nation.

ATB
Tom

Author: GlasgowegianProf | Date: 13/04/2012 10:49:22 | Number: 519214

No, it is not the real world.

I'm sorry, but it is. There is a growing trend for companies ot trim the fat and prune the deadwood regularly, because you're in global competition with people who already do this.

If your perception is correct then it is the real world for you and those unfortunate enough to be working for that company ...and the misfortune of those who want, wanted or will want to work for it. We don't have to be slaves to a machine though. Leave that for the robots.

I have a job I enjoy, with talented colleagues, all of whom work hard and have meaningful levels of skill. For this I am well paid, and accept the fact that should I find myself in the least necessary or least talented 5% of the company in any given year, my employement will end.

I used to work in a pottery factory. The potteries were family owned businesses that had survived for generations. Work was a pleasure. It was like going to a different family. That is the way work should be. That is the way that work needs to be to sustain the interest, creativity and loyalty of the people needed to keep the wheels turning.

That is a vision from days gone by. There is a reason the potteries went bust. Family is family: work is work. The two are not the same and nor should they be.

Companies don't need, or indeed largely want, loyalty. It is the shield of the inept, and the hammock of the lazy. What companies want is hard working, talented employees who will stay with the company for only as long as the company needs them and they are willing to give 100%, and not one day longer. That, Tom, is the future.

Routine sacking just ensures continuity of employment for the managers and business for the job seeking companies. The more common the practice that you describe is allowed to become the closer does Britain become to an Asian sweat shop nation.

As a device for removing those who are now coasting rather than charging hard, its an outstandingly effective mechanism. Britain must earn its way in the world and faces competition for work from the whole world. Its high time we saw a 20/70/10 system in place in the public sector to remove the vast swathes of people for whom hard graft is for "robots".

The jobs for life culture of public "service" needs to end, as does national bargaining, final salary pensions, and annual pay bumps. We need to ensure people can and do transit between the public and private sectors, and for that to happen the public sector will have to start doing an awful lot more for an awful lot less. Otherwise we'll have to offshore the back office side (anything not front line) as we can't afford to keep them all. We never could.

Hands up those of you that never experienced a burned out school teacher? What about an officious and inefficient administrator in the NHS? Perhaps you've never dealt with someone at HMRC that didn't understand the tax code? There's going to be almost no hands in the air here, yet those people enjoy a stress free job for life with a gold plated retirement at the end. Why? When they could be replaced with someone who wants the job.

Topone percent What lack of respect? I have a lot of respect for Casper, as it happens.

Criticising the trivial pruning of the state sector that we've seen to date does not represent a "fully supported argument", and I'm frankly astonished that you think it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you were generalising from the particular to disparage the vast majority of posters who are not devotees of free-market economics. I can recall over the years many quality posts, well-researched and fully supported,which take a different view of economics from you. There is little point in engaging in debate if you are so contemptuous of their input.

i would have thought that openness to the expression of economic alternatives other than the economic ideology that got us into this crisis, the most severe in the lifetimes of the great majority here, rather than adopting a position of blind adherence to it, is the least that Fools can expect, irrespective of their political views.

Author: stomerick | Date: 13/04/2012 11:59:56 | Number: 519216

i would have thought that openness to the expression of economic alternatives other than the economic ideology that got us into this crisis, the most severe in the lifetimes of the great majority here, rather than adopting a position of blind adherence to it, is the least that Fools can expect, irrespective of their political views.

We got into this crisis because Gordon Brown and the Labour government borrowed more than £40 BILLION a year during an economic boom, and hid more than double that away in off balance sheet transactions every year, to engage in a public sector spending splurge the like of which has never been known, in an attempt to buy votes from a client state. That, Stomerick, is NOT free market economics: It is a corrupt and dangerous form of socialism. But that is besides the point.

The point I was making to Casper, is that in the past his own posts have been "quality posts, well-researched", though I'd disagree with "fully supported" in the strongest possible terms, obviously. That, however, bears no resemblence to the content and quality of the post to which I replied.

Quite why you don't see the difference between an emotive response to a trivial number of job cuts (almost all of which will be natural wastage anyway), and a well researched and fully supported post, I cannot comprehend?

TopOnePercent

I work for a company that cuts a greater percentage of its staff every year without fail, regardless of whether its trying to reduce costs. That is the real world.

No, it is not the real world. If your perception is correct then it is the real world for you and those unfortunate enough to be working for that company ...and the misfortune of those who want, wanted or will want to work for it. We don't have to be slaves to a machine though. Leave that for the robots.

I'm sorry, but it is. There is a growing trend for companies to trim the fat and prune the deadwood regularly, because you're in global competition with people who already do this.

If there are ineffective / inefficient employees they go. That has been the case in Britain for a long time now. There is no doubt about that. It is inexcusable for any other situation to hold when there are so many wanting and needing jobs.
If though you are saying that BP, Shell, Barclays, Wotherspoons, BT, etc., have a fixed percentage of their workforce to sack annually in order to replace, you are simply wrong.


That is a vision from days gone by. There is a reason the Potteries went bust. Family is family: work is work. The two are not the same and nor should they be.

Not to many small businesses it isn’t a vision from days gone by. It is a living reality.
The Potteries didn’t go bust by the way. Stoke on Trent has modernised, regrouped and is well on the way to thriving. Stoke City’s successes are (it saddens me to say ..as a Valiant) surely an indication of that.


Companies don't need, or indeed largely want, loyalty. It is the shield of the inept, and the hammock of the lazy.
What companies want is hard working, talented employees who will stay with the company for only as long as the company needs them and they are willing to give 100%, and not one day longer.

Any company which thinks that it can survive without loyalty is doomed to a short term future or a longer term of lurching from crisis to crisis. I am confident that a few recent case studies could be found to support that claim.


That, Tom, is the future.
What makes you so certain that you can recognise a future reality that I can't?
The future is still to be written. My experience tells me that we will probably obtain the future that we work for. Your gloomy future is certainly more likely if people don't work to avoid it.


..the vast swathes of people for whom hard graft is for "robots"

This is the worst misunderstanding that you might have made of what I posted. You have little evidence for it. Most of the people that I come across ...and the students that I used to teach..thrive on hard work provided that they are managed by real people and not by people who behave as though they are from a different planet and seek to misuse them. British people were not born as slaves and our forefathers have put us in the position where we do not need to work for slavemasters. There needs to be much more to life than work if your work is not organised in such a way as to be enjoyable or fulfilling.


The jobs for life culture of public "service" needs to end,

No need to worry. It it ever existed to a greater extent than it did in the private sector family and larger firms, it finished a long time ago. Commentators such as yourself need to bring yourself up to date with this reality if you are wanting to retain credibility within those of your readers who are in the public sector and know the false impression that you are creating. You also owe it to your colleagues in the private sector to keep your sources as up to date as possible.

ATB
Tom

For a 'dead' board, this thread has gotten rather long.


G3.

Toponepercent We got into this crisis because Gordon Brown and the Labour government borrowed [sic] to engage in a public sector spending splurge the like of which has never been known, in an attempt to buy votes from a client state. That, Stomerick, is NOT free market economics: It is a corrupt and dangerous form of socialism. But that is besides the point.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beside the point? Perhaps so, but it did not stop you making it. In another sense, it makes my point for me in refusing to give a fair hearing to any explanation of the global financial crisis other than 'it was Gordon Brown's fault'. A politically-charged view is fine but dressing it up as based entirely on economics, a free-market form to which there is no alternative, and treating Fools of differing views with blanket disdain, precludes debate. A healthy discussion may have been stifled on LoST by this lack of openness but I am pleased to note that it is being successfully engaged in the economics community and elsewhere.

Well, you were generalising from the particular to disparage the vast majority of posters who are not devotees of free-market economics.

Any idea what the vast majority of posters in this board (your words) mean by an alternative to free-market economy? Brazil's, China's or USA's versions?

Are they advocating moral Capitalism, for example?

Regards
M.

Author: GlasgowegianProf | Date: 13/04/2012 13:47:35 | Number: 519220

If though you are saying that BP, Shell, Barclays, Wotherspoons, BT, etc., have a fixed percentage of their workforce to sack annually in order to replace, you are simply wrong.


I used to work for one of those five fims, though I won't expand upon which one. While the percentage staff cut annually is not fixed, they cull the under performers every year. At least once a year.

The Potteries didn’t go bust by the way. Stoke on Trent has modernised, regrouped and is well on the way to thriving. Stoke City’s successes are (it saddens me to say ..as a Valiant) surely an indication of that.


You have a very different impression of Stoke than I. Stoke is one of the most economically struggling areas of the country. The potteries may have HQ's there, but little to no manufacturing anymore. I have strong connections to the area and visit frequently. Now that Royal Mail are pulling out in swathes, Newcastle is going to be in even deeper trouble.

Any company which thinks that it can survive without loyalty is doomed to a short term future or a longer term of lurching from crisis to crisis.

Yet cigarette companies have been killing thei customers for decades and yet enjoy massive and growing profits.
The future is still to be written. My experience tells me that we will probably obtain the future that we work for. Your gloomy future is certainly more likely if people don't work to avoid it.


What interests me most about your post, and it genuinely does interest me more than anything else in the thread, is that you find my vision for the future gloomy. I find it bright, shining, and full of hope. I want people to work hard for a living. I want the country to compete with the rest of the world. And win. I want talented and skilled colleagues who push as hard as I do at work, without having to carry any of my co-workers because they can't be bothered and have settled for good enough. I want the dead wood cut, I want people turfed out of the hammocks in which they lounge at my expense, and to be put to productive use.

British people were not born as slaves and our forefathers have put us in the position where we do not need to work for slavemasters

Unfortunately they have also put us in the position where several generations of families feel no need to work at all, and literally millions of people sit back and soak up the states largess for doing nothing of value, or for making as little effort as they can get away with doing jobs that don't need doing.

No need to worry. It it never existed to a greater extent than it did in the private sector family and larger firms, it finished a long time ago.

I've corrected what I think is a typo in your post, not to seem clever, but to explain the context in which I answer it.

I went to an average state school and left 20 years ago. Fully half of my teachers were burned out and making no effort to actually teach. More still were incapable of achieving a good result. Several of them are still working. None of them were ever sacked. That does not fit at all well with your claims.

I was recently in an NHS hospital where the floor of the ward was so dirty that even when I was a single student, I kept the toilet cleaner that the ward. The group of nurses stationed at the end of the ward has a long time to chatter each shift, yet none of them had thought to pick up a mop and bucket and do a job desperately in need to doing. Not their job, you'll say, but it is. It has a direct effect on patient care and well being, and if that is not the primary job of a nurse then we do not need the NHS any longer.

"Not my job" isn't something you hear where I work, and it isn't something I want to hear when I have to interact with the state. You may think that is a grim vision of the future, but I think it sounds positively wonderful.

Author: stomerick | Date: 13/04/2012 15:13:04 | Number: 519222

In another sense, it makes my point for me in refusing to give a fair hearing to any explanation of the global financial crisis other than 'it was Gordon Brown's fault'.

Had we saved 40 BILLION a year instead of squandering it, we'd have had two things when the financial crisis hit:
1) A far smaller and more efficient public sector, consuming far less GDP than it does now
2) A war chest of over half a trillion pounds to spend on infrastructure upgrades - roads, rail, airports etc.

That we have neither IS Gordons fault.

Had we not had Labour or had they stuck to the Conservatives spending plans, we would have had almost no national debt up to the bail out, so we could have spent the 70 Billion we actually spent, and still had 400 Billion left to kick start the economy. 400 billion. Without the need for a single job cut. And all before we address the off balance sheet liabilities (PFI, Publi Sector Pension accruals etc).

Now we can debate the cause of the financial crisis until the cows come home, but on the subject of the UK's dire position to meet it, there's no where else to put the blame. And the sooner Labour get around to apologising for it, and explaining to the electorate what lessons they have learned from it, and how they intend to ensure they cannot do it again (every damn time), the sooner I'll be able to vote for them again - I was born & raised a labour voter, but just can't get past their utter utter fiscal incontinence.

Its always amazed me that the people who vote labour are almost always those that suffer the most as an inevitable consequence of their parties economic ineptitude. To my dying day I don't think I'll understand that.

mmepani Any idea what the vast majority of posters in this board (your words)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, my words referred to the vast majority of posters who are not devotees of free-market economics, not the vast majority of posters.

There are many alternative forms of capitalism, other than the neo-liberal, free-market, Washington Consensus form that has prevailed over the last 30 years, which recent events have brought into question. A recognition of this fact (of alternatives) gets us beyond the facile 'the only alternative to free-market capitalism is socialism' line of thinking. Raising the question of a 'better' form of capitalism seems entirely apposite. Trying to pigeon-hole those forms, or dismiss them as socialism, does not assist the process of arriving at a pragmatic reappraisal.

I can't speak for other posters, mmepani, as I cannot second-guess their respective positions. You may, or may not, wish to lead the discussion by starting a thread on the issue, and then posters can express their views on alternatives/variations/status quo. Who knows...it may help to get LoST beyond the usual diet of sterile cheer-leading posts from a single political stable.

It is surely burying one's head in the sand to think that the economic consensus that has prevailed over the last generation can continue unaltered into the future. And so I believe it is a mistake on the part of various interests to think that the threat to the continuation of the status quo has been overcome. Blaming it on government profligacy won't, in the end, survive scrutiny. A continuation will ultimately mean a repeat, with governments even more exposed when finance capital once again calls on them to 'socialize' its losses.

I wonder if the reason its so quiet on here is that the penny is starting to drop.

This is not a normal recession, we will not see a Thatcherite renaissance, or Blairite cool Britannia for a very long time. This is a depression. We are going to have to get used to lower standards of living, and work out a way of earning our way in the world, otherwise China and India will not just converge on our standard of living, they will soar past us as we are on the way down.

Its beginning to become painfully apparent that our current political class has no answers to this. They are a generation who are used to pretty much unparalleled peace and prosperity (yes there's an argument to be had about proxy wars in the Middle East, but lets restrict it to wars which affect our day to day life.) They have also been schooled during the era of the "professional politician" in which they have been tutored by spin doctors and voice coaches on how to sell a lie convincingly. Our political class is used to "briefing" journalists, having inappropriate contacts and influence over the police and the judiciary, and introducing policies which benefit their paymasters rather than the people of this country.

Vote red, blue or yellow it won't make a damn bit of difference.

So this is where we are................the question is, what do we do about it?

Stomerick,

I have started a new thread on "Alternatives to Free Market Economics".

Hope you can contribute - genuinely interested.

M.

it makes my point for me in refusing to give a fair hearing to any explanation of the global financial crisis other than 'it was Gordon Brown's fault'

Some bankers were incompetent fools we know that.

But who rewarded these bankers with knighthoods? Who ensured they got their bungs and pensions? Who praised them year after year in his Mansion House speeches?

But, more importantly, who spent money like there was no tomorrow on the back of the funny money boom he encouraged?

Yes - Gordon Brown.

I used to work in a pottery factory. The potteries were family owned businesses that had survived for generations. Work was a pleasure. It was like going to a different family. That is the way work should be. That is the way that work needs to be to sustain the interest, creativity and loyalty of the people needed to keep the wheels turning.


That's fine so long as the pottery provides what people wnat at the price they are prepared to pay.

it makes my point for me in refusing to give a fair hearing to any explanation of the global financial crisis other than 'it was Gordon Brown's fault'

If the finger can be pointed at any one politician, it is surely Bill Clinton for creating the whole sub-prime mess that sparked it all off. You must then add in the greed of the bankers, the incompetence (or was it?) of the ratings agencies and the failure of regulators. That said, it is a matter of record that Gordon was told of the impending crisis in the preceding December but chose to take no action. It is, therefore, quite unfair to blame him for the problem. However, it was undoubtedly his handling of the British economy that left us so exposed to the effects of the crisis. Never one to save for a rainy day, his fiscal policy created a vast unsustainable black hole into which we have all fallen. Nobody, including Ed Balls, has sought to deny this. It is my opinion that, whilst Gordon undoubtedly wasn't at fault with the cause of the crisis, he certainly made the UK's position far worse than it need have been by his unsustainable policies.

thurgarton

Wryly amused by this whole thread.

What really drove me away from LoST was my frustration at people ignoring what I said, and instead attacking what they thought I said. Whether it was their fault for not bothering to read what I'd written or my fault for not being able to express myself is moot. The only thing that really matters was that I found it incredibly frustrating. Posting on LoST wasn't fun any longer, and if it isn't fun, then what's the point of posting?

So there's an irony in the thread mourning the death of LoST contains so many examples of what killed the board for me. I clarified my initial reply to ThirdWay here:

No comment on whether I approve, whether I think it's enough, or too much, or too little. Just pointing out that there have been changes.

And even more explicitly, here:

I wasn't complaining. Or objecting. Just stating. The fact that even after I specifically pointed this out you're still talking in those terms says it all, really.

I don't have a problem with cutting the size of the public sector, on the whole. Perhaps one of the attack dogs could have saved themselves some time by checking on this first, instead of making assumptions?

And then a day and a half later, I'm still getting this:

I do, however, stand by my statement that your post to which I replied was emotive nonsense and simply not based upon rational economics.

You're right that it wasn't based on rational economics. Then again, it wasn't based on irrational economics either. It wasn't based on any kind of economics. It was just an attempt to point at that for a lot of people, the changes that have been made aren't nearly as trivial as ThirdWay was making out.

The emotiveness, the economics, the perceived judgement on the wisdom of the changes: you're not replying to me. You're replying to who you think I am.

And while I'm not in the habit of looking gift horses in the mouth, I've got a feeling that this is also the reason you think that I'm one of the more credible posters on the left of the debate.

I'd love to believe that your view of my credibility is because I'm a great rhetorician, or because I'm particularly politically astute, or because I'm particularly well-informed. (Although I am all those things, of course... :) ) Really, I think it's just because I'm not nearly as left wing as the Casper that you've created. If you're expecting rabidly left-wing views, then it's always going to pretty easy for me to surpass those expectations.

You certainly brought out the violin for the public sector when you accused me of being "lucky".

More wry amusement. Only on LoST would describing someone as lucky be an "accusation". Being lucky isn't an insult.

I'm lucky. Very lucky. On so many fronts. I'm lucky to have been born into the family I was born into. Lucky to have been born with half a brain. Lucky to have been born in a decent area. Lucky to have somehow found myself in a job that I enjoy and that I'm pretty good at.

I suppose you could get all existential about it and say that the only reason that I've got where I am is because of my own actions, but I don't buy that for a second. I'm lucky.

Don't you think that you're lucky to be where you are today?

Last piece of wry amusement for the day. On the thread that suggests that LoST is dead, DOW and I finally find something to agree about.

DOW says:

Vote red, blue or yellow it won't make a damn bit of difference.

I say:

Now that Labour have been booted out, and it has become obvious to all but the most committed Tories that their own lot are also an absolute shambles, what is there that's left to be said?

I'm more positive about the future of the country than DOW. Recession or no recession, China or no China, Blair or Thatcher, the truth is that most people get by. There's an unlucky few who do find it hard, and it grates when people pretend that nothing is happening, but humans survive. We're good at it. If things change then we tend to change with them.

But on the politicians - he's nailed it. Tories, Labour, LibDems. All an absolute shambles. That's pretty terminal for a board that thrived on party political name-calling.

TopOnePercent
......................................Part 1 of 2
If though you are saying that BP, Shell, Barclays, Wotherspoons, BT, etc., have a fixed percentage of their workforce to sack annually in order to replace, you are simply wrong.
I used to work for one of those five fims, though I won't expand upon which one. While the percentage staff cut annually is not fixed, they cull the under performers every year. At least once a year.

The way that you say it sounds unbelieveable and inefficient. The smaller public and private employers that I have worked for would part with ineffective staff as soon as the need to do so arises as soon as a replacenent could be found.


The Potteries didn’t go bust by the way. Stoke on Trent has modernised, regrouped and is well on the way to thriving. Stoke City’s successes are (it saddens me to say ..as a Valiant) surely an indication of that.
You have a very different impression of Stoke than I. Stoke is one of the most economically struggling areas of the country. The potteries may have HQ's there, but little to no manufacturing anymore. I have strong connections to the area and visit frequently.

I know it well too. I was born there and spent the first 18 years of my life there. I too return as frequently as I can, helping to swell the tourism that is now one of its major industries. It was always a low wage area, even at the height of its prosperity, and still is. The living and working conditions now are immeasurably better than they were 50 years ago.


Now that Royal Mail are pulling out in swathes, Newcastle is going to be in even deeper trouble.
I always regarded Newcastle as "posh" and not part of the Potteries.


The future is still to be written. My experience tells me that we will probably obtain the future that we work for. Your gloomy future is certainly more likely if people don't work to avoid it.
What interests me most about your post, and it genuinely does interest me more than anything else in the thread, is that you find my vision for the future gloomy. I find it bright, shining, and full of hope. I want people to work hard for a living. I want the country to compete with the rest of the world. And win. I want talented and skilled colleagues who push as hard as I do at work...

We seem to be in agreement about the part that I have highlighted. Agreement or not it is certainly desirable and a way to enjoy work...or, at least, I have always found that. Where we might well differ is in the rest of what you say...

... without having to carry any of my co-workers because they can't be bothered and have settled for good enough. I want the dead wood cut, I want people turfed out of the hammocks in which they lounge at my expense, and to be put to productive use...

and it is the consequences and detail of this that will probably prevent further agreement between us. I will save that to my next post though, as I am aware that this is becoming quite long.

ATB
Tom

Don't you think that you're lucky to be where you are today?

If you mean career-wise then in many ways - yes. I was lucky to eventually get the breaks I needed when I needed them. It could easily not have happened and I might be in the gutter now. Probably it doesn't come across on this board (my fault) but I'm not unsympathetic with anyone who doesn't get the breaks and ends up in some sort of rut.

What I don't like though are people who are lazy, and a system which encourages people to be lazy. It really takes the pee when some people are getting way above the above wage because they've chosen to stay at home breeding and watching TV. I have certainly never been lazy and I'm often cream crackered after work. It certainly grates a bit when people get the rewards but put nothing in.

Then we have the public sector. I have no ideological objection to it whatsoever. But all the same, you'd have to say it has become bloated and over-generous to its employees. We live in a competitive world and we have to cut our cloth accordingly. China will not stand by while we lose any competitive edge we might still have.

Lastly, we have the bizarre situation where our young people turn their noses up at any job which doesn't meet their aspirations - yet Eastern Europeans are queuing up to do these jobs. Again I have some sympathy. They've been conned by the political classes that getting a dumbed down degree will line them up as Alan Sugar's next apprentice. Or maybe they'll win the X-Factor. It just isn't going to happen and I'm afraid they need a reality check kick up the backside. I keep making this point in replies to you but you never seem to address it.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if people are lucky or unlucky and life is never that simple anyway. What's for sure is we can't be too sentimental or overgenerous with taxpayers' money because it is ultimately hard work which drives any country forward.

Third Way

Lot of good stuff that in that post of yours. Britain has got to change. It has to go its own way in the world. Britain still has a strata(ed) society where a plummy accent is considered an important part of social attributes. You're right about China et al but they are also changing to meet a different world and so is all of Asia. They don't care whether Britain sinks or swims. You either get on board the same boat or get left behind.
It's fine for some who are lucky here and lucky there and lucky in their families but that attitude simply smacks of an I'm All Right Jack complacency.
From my occasional visits to Britain it is obvious that some changes have taken place but not the ones that will drive Britain into a prosperous future. There's just too much interia of the past to overcome.

Harmy

Hi harmy

What is the situation like in Australia? How do the rewards in the private and state sectors compare? Are many people better off on benefits, leaving less desireable jobs to immigrants?

Cheers

TW.

Are many people better off on benefits, leaving less desireable jobs to immigrants?

Only the benefits have changed over the years. Hark back to the '50s & '60s when much of the labour on the Tube and a large proportion of the lower end of the NHS fitted that description. It was just that back then nobody had the idea that you needed a degree to sweep the shop floor and that the state could be all things to all people. All that has happened is that our leaders (for want of a better description) have managed to bankrupt the country attempting unsuccessfully to fulfil that dream. Now huge numbers are, for a variety of reasons, totally dependant on the state for just about everything and the state simply isn't up to the job. Almost all the so-called developed countries are in the same boat to a greater or lesser degree, and to cap it all we are "celebrating" the centenial of the sinking of the Titanic, which, ISTR, was claimed to be unsinkable. Now that is what I call irony!

thurgarton

TW

What is the situation like in Australia? How do the rewards in the private and state sectors compare? Are many people better off on benefits, leaving less desireable jobs to immigrants?

In the first place there isn't the wide disparity which exists between the State and private sectors. Wages in the more buoyant sectors of the Oz economy leave the State sector for dead but overall it is much of a muchness. There isn't the different between State and private pensions because more than thirty years ago the Government set up a universal super scheme where all employees, both State and private, paid the same amount into their Superannuation Fund. That stands at 9% for both employee and employer which is soon to rise to 12% for the employer making a total of 21% going into dedicated Funds. Additionally the Age Benefit is still paid but is asset tested by the Super Fund payout. The asset test is 50% of the Super Fund payout.

This is what Wiki has to say:

After more than a decade of compulsory contributions, Australian workers have over $1.28 trillion in superannuation assets. Australians now have more money invested in managed funds per capita than any other economy.

That is a lot of money to have sloshing about in investment funds.

On balance, and I'm not fully knowledgeable about the UK system, I think Australia probably has a better and fairer system. One thing is for sure which is that it is an affordable system. I was a State employee both in NZ and Australia for nearly forty years and at the same time I was contributing towards my Superannuation Fund the UK State employees got a free one gratis simply by being State employees. Those chickens were always going to come home to roost one day.
As for people on benefits there will always be the few who rort the system but they're pretty tough down here and getting tougher.
Australia is in a pretty advantaged position vis-a-vis the rest of the developed countries - big country and small population - so I don't think it's fair to draw a direct comparison.
Looking at the position of my relatives in the UK who are within months of retiring, I think they may struggle a bit and they certainly seem concerned about the long term for themselves and their family.

Regards
Harmy

over $1.28 trillion in superannuation assets - That is a lot of money to have sloshing about in investment funds.

Does the Aussie Government regulate the fund managers' remuneration in some way and also what and where those funds can invest in?

supremetwo

Does the Aussie Government regulate the fund managers' remuneration in some way and also what and where those funds can invest in?

There's a number of regulatory bodies responsible for the management and running of the 500 odd Funds. Not sure about the fund managers remuneration but I haven't heard of any excesses come to light and I would imagine there would be complaints if that were the case. As to what the Funds invest in that is up to the Fund managers within certain bounds.

Regards
Harmy

Author: CasperCCC | Date: 13/04/2012 20:08:44 | Number: 519248


I've got a feeling that this is also the reason you think that I'm one of the more credible posters on the left of the debate.


The respect wasn't based upon political views, it was based upon what I had perceived as an avoidance of game playing on your part.

The post you made to which I responded (critically) is copied in full below. You are attempting to include content from your subsequent posts as a rebuttal to my criticism of your original post, which is poor form.



You have got to be kidding me?

270,000 public sector jobs shed last year. Big cuts in tax credits. Root and branch change in the NHS.

You might be standing still. You're living in dreamland if you think that everyone else is as lucky as you.

The post you made to which I responded (critically) is copied in full below. You are attempting to include content from your subsequent posts as a rebuttal to my criticism of your original post, which is poor form.

You have got to be kidding me?

270,000 public sector jobs shed last year. Big cuts in tax credits. Root and branch change in the NHS.

You might be standing still. You're living in dreamland if you think that everyone else is as lucky as you.

So go on then: on the basis of that original post, where's the criticism of the changes?

It was a post responding to ThirdWay's suggestion that there had been no changes. I was pointing out that his post was nonsense. The only critical sentiment in that post was of ThirdWay's complacency/ignorance.

So seriously: where is the criticism in my post? Where did I criticise the measures I described? 270,000 jobs have been shed. There have been big cuts in tax credits. The government has legislated for root and branch change of the NHS. They're all matters of record.

You could argue the changes haven't gone far enough. Or that they've gone too far. But I didn't do either of those things. I just pointed out that there have been changes, and that they are having a real impact on some people. The "irrational economics" you accused me of are entirely in your own head - in your reading of the post. It's certainly not in the post itself.

And even when I clarify, unequivocally, that the post wasn't intended as criticism, you have totally refused to acknowledge that clarification, and still reply to me on the basis of your initial, incorrect reading of the post.

Mis-reading a post - that can happen to anyone. Perhaps it was my fault. Who knows? Maybe when you show me the part of that initial post that criticises the changes I outlined, I'll have some kind of epiphany and realise that it's all about my own failure to communicate, rather than your failure of comprehension.

But even if it was my fault that you misread the sentiments in that post, how can I ever expect to get a fair hearing on LoST when I've since clarified, unequivocally, what I meant, and yet you paid absolutely no attention to that clarification? Now that's the poor form.

And that's why I hate LoST. And that's why it's turning into a talking shop for the people who think that tin foil is a suitable material for millinary.

It was a post responding to ThirdWay's suggestion that there had been no changes. I was pointing out that his post was nonsense.

I didn't say there had been no changes. I said the deficit reduction was inadequate and leaves most people standing still.

I'd prefer it if you didn't misquote me as part of your defence.

I didn't say there had been no changes. I said the deficit reduction was inadequate and leaves most people standing still.

You'd asked what was happening that was "interesting". If you don't think that quarter of a million people leaving the public sector workforce is interesting, or that a fundamental change in the way in which the NHS works is interesting, then I'm not sure what you're here for.

But I'm terribly, terribly sorry for misquoting you. If I'd realised that the problem was a lack of curiosity rather than a lack of political awareness, then I'd have phrased my comment differently.

Now, isn't it time you suggested that young people get a job cutting people's lawns? You haven't done that for... ooh... at least a day.

You'd asked what was happening that was "interesting". If you don't think that quarter of a million people leaving the public sector workforce is interesting, or that a fundamental change in the way in which the NHS works is interesting, then I'm not sure what you're here for.

If you wanted to pick me up over my lack of concern then fine, you could have made that point.

But your misquote just now wasn't even directed at me, but used to make some other point to a third party. I think if you are going to be critical of posting standards then you should uphold your own. I can imagine your reaction if someone misquoted you.

Well Orchard, I guess it doesn't help when every thread is hijacked for the same old political arguments, just like this one has been almost immediately .....

Oh come on, LOST can only be saved by yet another rabidly right wing nonsensical post attacking lefties for economic incompetence .......whilst the freemarket has proven once again that it is unstable, often irrational and prone to crisis and excess and even the righties criticism of NuLabour was their lack of regulation. We need comedy turns like that post more and more, especially as they get funnier the more kneejerk recs they garner.

The Tories have proven once again that their economics is nonsense...their belief was that under them unemployment would fall quarter on quarter, the blessed private sector would rebound free from being "squeezed out" by the public sector. Turns out that when lefties like me predicted the resulting stagnation and rising unemployment we were only proved right for some other unpredictable reason, ohh like the financial crisis in Europe not being cured by austerity....Oh yes it turns out that lefties correctly predicting the consequences of tory policy is further proof that we don't get economics.... Keynes knew and Keynesians know a lot more about economics than George Osborne.

Oh come on, LOST can only be saved by yet another rabidly right wing nonsensical post attacking lefties for economic incompetence .......whilst the freemarket has proven once again that it is unstable, often irrational and prone to crisis and excess and even the righties criticism of NuLabour was their lack of regulation.

Good afternoon richas. I'm glad you've now woken up to this, having previously been a believer in the No More Boom and Bust school of thinking.

Incidentally, I should imagine most posters here on LoST fully anticipated that turning around the mess would be far from easy.

LibDems were smeared stupid in the AV referendum by a dirty campaign when they proposed fairer voting. Even Milliband supported it but the conservative old hands who dominate the Labour Party made sure that his leadership was disregarded.

Oh great, blame Labour for a Lib Dem failure. As it happens the huge animosity within the Tories was magnified by the way that during the coalition talks the Lib Dems bumped the tories by falsely claiming that Labour had agreed to a move to AV without a referendum.

The Tories felt tricked into a referendum and fought against it in a dirty way that was not quite as dirty as the Lib Dems lie about the Labour coalition deal on offer.

Then of course the Lib Dems failed to make the case for AV, indeed their coalition deal junking their policies and blaming the electorate for not delivering a majority proved to millions that coalition politics is not just dirty but dishonest, in a permanent coalition scenario with no party given a majority all parties can do as the Libs did and bin their pledges within hours of the vote.

The coalition highlighted the dangers of PR for the primary chamber and the Libs could make no case for the Alternative Vote system balloted on that the Libs themselves had no entusiasm for. Please don't blame Labour for the disaster that was the Lib Dems bouncing the tories into an alternative vote referendum and then failing to make the case for an electoral system that even the Lib Dems did not really want!

PS I voted for the alternative vote system. It is marginally better but don't pretend that the AV referendum disaster was anything other than a Lib Dem failure.

Party politics is becoming of less and less interest to me too as I age. In Britain, it is becoming part of the problem rather than being part of the solution to how people are best represented.

Oh please. The concept of a political party placing a programme before the electorate is essential to democracy. Whipping the representatives to follow their manifesto is also democratic. The idea that somehow "independent" people of character can or could form a government is a nonsense, there needs to be a common platform, a mechanism for the group elected to carry through the policies they were elected upon.

The current weaknesses of political parties are not related to the concept but rather to the reduction in participation within the parties.

I don't know what would be better - that's what I was hoping to get some idea of from this discussion. But "democracy" seems to be almost a sacred word - mustn't question its perfection, or ask if there is a better way.

Perfection? Who claims that? Democracy is the worst form a government...apart from all the others



according to Winston Churchill

Now the incentive of seeing your name on the Best of Board the incentive to try that bit harder has been removed and the quality of the debate has diminished.

Surely rec hunting is the equivalent of dog whistle politics thats really to be condemned not encouraged in pursuit of intelligent debate ?

Usually its posts like "Gordon Brown has the intelligence and personality of a camel" that garners the most recs in the quickest time


True.

The issue though is that the Best of Boards introduce new people, thoughts and diversity. The pond is no longer being refreshed so we are left with one old hardened Labourite, a couple of independent thinkers and the usual right wing libertarian nonsense you would expect on an investment site.

Dare we hope, goodbye?

it is amazing how intolerant the righties who bang on about the PC brigade are of dissent.

I do, however, stand by my statement that your post to which I replied was emotive nonsense and simply not based upon rational economics. I work for a company that cuts a greater percentage of its staff every year without fail, regardless of whether its trying to reduce costs. That is the real world.

Actually it is what Enron did. it is not the real world it is a stupid management policy designed to instill fear.

As a device for removing those who are now coasting rather than charging hard, its an outstandingly effective mechanism. Britain must earn its way in the world and faces competition for work from the whole world. Its high time we saw a 20/70/10 system in place in the public sector to remove the vast swathes of people for whom hard graft is for "robots".

LOL, it is a tool to weed out dissent and non-conformists from an organisation. How else could Enron carry on faking its accounts and engineering shortages in California to boost its trading position.

The rank and dump management approach is about excessive control and developing group think. It is a primary indicator of a firm that should be disinvested from ASAP. If a firm manages performance just by sackings it not only introduces a climate of fear but adds recruitment costs for little or no purpose but worst it culls the yeast, the few people who think differently, who put an alternate view, who rub their managers the wrong way by asking awkward questions.

It comes as no surprise that you relish such an environment but as an investor I would stay well clear of any firm employing the Enron approach to staff management and as an employee I would go nowhere near such a deluded company that sees staff performance as a ranking process on an annual or semi annual basis. The employee failing to perform for two quarters may be the one who would have saved the company if not pushed out.

Had we not had Labour or had they stuck to the Conservatives spending plans, we would have had almost no national debt up to the bail out, so we could have spent the 70 Billion we actually spent, and still had 400 Billion left to kick start the economy. 400 billion. Without the need for a single job cut. And all before we address the off balance sheet liabilities (PFI, Publi Sector Pension accruals etc).


LOL, the tory spending plans were to back Labour's spending levels!!!!

richasdotcom
...the alternative vote system. It is marginally better but don't pretend that the AV referendum disaster was anything other than a Lib Dem failure...

I wasn't seeking to blame merely the Labour Party. It was a disaster for everyone. It proved to everyone how silly the political system is.

AV would have been such a marginal change. The Conservatives should never have got hung up on opposing it...they only did so because they suspected, wrongly, that it would give them a disadvantage. LibDems should obviously have campaigned more effectively for it..at the time they were, I suppose, hamstrung by the need to be loyal Coalition members. The personality destruction warfare that became part of the campaign though put an end to that. Labour were equivocal about it. Their failure to follow their Leader cannot have helped him but they did, of course, have that right.

It was such a minor technical change that it was never ever going to be worth having a Referendum about. The failure though to have a good natured and honest contest set Britian into a bad light democratically. One of the better things to result from it was the end to the dishonest and strained palsy walsy, cosy wozy, Coalition Mark 1 and the bringing in of Coalition Mark 2 where LibDems and Conservative are more in public Opposition to each other. It has made the subsequent Government seem scrappy though and disjointed.

The creation of Coalition Mark 2 from the ashes of Coalition Mark 1 is the only value that I see to have arisen from that scrappy, messy Referendum in which so few voted. Having shown the world how poor it is at organising a referendum it ill behoves the British Government to try to lecture the Scottish Government on how to conduct the Independence Referendum in August 2014.

ATB
Tom

richasdotcom

..The idea that somehow "independent" people of character can or could form a government is a nonsense, there needs to be a common platform, a mechanism for the group elected to carry through the policies they were elected upon...

It is not really part of my thinking that this should be attempted ...except in very small communities where everyone knows everyone else.


..The current weaknesses of political parties are not related to the concept but rather to the reduction in participation within the parties...

Indeed. The only people who will be able to correct that though are the parties themselves. I see no signs of the problem being recognised let alone addressed. I am no longer in much of a position to comment with accuracy though as it is two or three years since I have been politically active. In Scotland the SNP seem to be both very active and growing quickly.

ATB
Tom

If the finger can be pointed at any one politician, it is surely Bill Clinton for creating the whole sub-prime mess that sparked it all off.

Oh please, now you really are getting rediculous. Why not read some of the accounts like "All The Devils are here". The financial system created new securities and loans not supported by the minimum standards traditional at Fannie and Freddie. The NINJA loans were created by the financial system, for the financial system and the Republicans made sure that they stayed unregulated.

Gordon Brown is condemned for praising the city in a mansion house speech (whilst at the time was condemned for overregulation and refusing to go white tie in subservience to them) and Clinton is attacked for seeing wider home ownership as desirable and questioning/blocking the redlining of areas rather than people that were racially discriminatory. He did nothing to create NINJA loans or AAA listed securities based upon garbage loans.

The financial crisis was the product of a free market in financial services not the product of politicians.

The Aussie compulsory superanuation fund has been a success.

It was introduced in 1992 by the Labour government, included employer contributions and the cooperation of the Trade Unions who agreed that pay increases over a number of years would be redirected as employee contributions to the pension.

This is a fine example of how the politics of social democracy and yes party politics can and do make a big difference to people. All politicians and all policies are not the same.

In the UK the minimum wage, tax credits, the shift to NEST for our pensions, sure start, increased pre school provision, doubling child benefit, reducing child poverty, changing it so that whilst pensioners used to be the most likely age group to live in poverty to the least, cutting NHS waiting times from over 18 months to under 18 weeks and reducing the national debt between 1997 and 2007 whilst doing this.

Oh stop being silly. Gordon Brown had more surplus years than any other chancellor. From 1997-2007 the debt fell as a proportion of GDP.

The financial crisis of 2007/08 to now had nothing to do with overspending by NuLabour, something that becomes even clearer when you remember that until October 2008 George Osborne and Cameron backed Labours spending plans.

Only one person is being silly Richas and we all know who it is.

Gordon Brown inherited falling debt and a booming economy. He followed Conservative policies for a few years and debt plunged. He then ran a deficit year after year, building debts even with a strongly growing economy to take us into recession with debt at what should have been the level seen at a cyclical high and with an already large budget deficit. Gordon's 'Golden Rule' was that debt should be a maximum of 40% of GDP - he took us into recession with debt at a level already at the top end of his own policy.

Because of wreckless overspending by Labour the government had barely any ability to provide a fiscal stimulus and the recession was longer and deeper than it otherwise would have been.

B

richasadotcom
..Gordon Brown is condemned for praising the city in a mansion house speech (whilst at the time was condemned for overregulation and refusing to go white tie in subservience to them) and Clinton is attacked for seeing wider home ownership as desirable and questioning/blocking the redlining of areas rather than people that were racially discriminatory. He did nothing to create NINJA loans or AAA listed securities based upon garbage loans.

The financial crisis was the product of a free market in financial services not the product of politicians.

I agree with all of that and your post carries my rec.

Cameron’s role in hindering Brown’s chances of one of the world top financial jobs was a poor start to his Premiership but this has all been discussed many times before. There were 2 threads on Political Fools which discussed as many aspect of Gordon Brown as most would really want to discuss.
One started its serious discussion of Gordon here...
http://boards.fool.co.uk/as-grundbesitz-pointed-out-youd-hav...
although there are the usual tired derogatory mentions of him earlier in the thread also.
The start is here...