Samael [Samael@dial.pipex.com] wrote:
>in
>the UK, under more capitalist policies the percentage difference between the
>rich and the poor went up by about 7% over the 10 years the conservative
>party was in power.
Given the level of tax cuts for the richest people in British society, the poor must have got a lot richer for the difference to only be 7%. And, uh, so what?
>This caused large amounts of social unrest,
>demonstrations
As the greedy socialists realised they could no longer screw as much money out of people who did work for a living.
>and the biggest landslide in living history for their
>opposition party
Given that a) there is essentially no difference between the Labor and Conservative parties, except that the Labor party have started reducing welfare payments whereas the Conservatives only talked about doing so, and b) just about all the Labor voters I know were not voting for the Labor party but *against* the Conservatives (even the stauch Labor supporters couldn't give me any positive reason for voting that way), I don't see any real significance in that.
As much as I despise Thatcher for many of her authoritarian policies, without her the British economy would still be the basket-case it was in the seventies. She may be a borderline-psycho scumbag, but she at least got some things right.
>My preferred method of socialism would be to provide free Health Care (of a
>standard necessary to get people back to work) and enough of a handout to
>allow people to survive.
Where are you going to get that money from? Or will the doctors and nurses work for free?
>Free
>Education will also be provided (education leads to raised output and higher
>GNP's as well as lowering reproduction),
I'm glad to see you're going to get the teachers to work for free too. Oh, or do you mean "Education funded by stealing money from the rest of the population"?
Mark