Great minds think alike?
Oct. 10th, 2004 01:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbCertainly some minds do, although I am not sure whether I would characterize them as great. In order not to raise national taxes, Messrs. Blair and Brown have stealthily caused local taxes (based on property value) to grow by as much as 300%. And now news comes from Italy that Mr.Berlusconi and his unlovely government, who claim to be cutting national taxes, have had the bright idea of reforming the area categories that underlie the ICI (Town Tax on Real Estate, Imposta Comunale sugli Immobili), which is going to result in increases of up to 400% in local tax. What is really hilarious is that both groups probably imagined this to be a wizard wheeze that nobody would see through.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: You're wrong
Date: 2004-10-14 12:59 pm (UTC)1) My original post was that Blair had forced the local authorities to increase their tax. As you lie about what I said, I am not surprised that the rest of your answer is nonsense too. (And tell me, do they give PhDs to people who can't spell your, these days? Donkey.) You just assert that "there are no commitments on local authorities forcing them to raise taxes", a pure assertion which you back with no data of any kind. Your thesis is that British local authorities are so corrupt or incompetent that the sudden and devastating rise in local tax in the last few years is somehow the result of their own corruption and incompetence going back forty years. To say that this thesis is counter-intuitive is to be kind, and you back it with no more than pompous allusions.
2) Of course I do not condone Livingstone for lying during the election; but as for his use of taxes, I will wait till I see what happens to public transport. So far he has visibly improved the bus services, which are the one thing in which your foul Scottish chieftain had not hampered him. Anyway, for a Blairite to complain about someone lying to the public is really the height of shamelessness... WMDs, anyone?
3)The report I spoke of was published on March 19, 2004. Check your facts before you charge others with not checking theirs, donkey. And so far, I have quoted a source (of which you were ignorant) and you have quoted none, except titles which you may, for all I know, have bought. And you certainly show no such eminence that I should respect your intellect.
4)Don't be ridiculous. If you knew anything about private enterprise, like those of us who have actually worked in it (I have been a publisher and I have worked for a business consultant), you would not tell me romantic shit about their taking risks. No businessman ever goes into any business that he considers risky. And if your darling contractors ever find out that anything is going wrong, they immediately demand more taxpayers' money from the Treasury. If you want instances, we can go on till tomorrow.
5) Ah, yes, the famous 5% shit numbers from the Treasury. If you want me to take that crap seriously, at least show some acquaintance with the fact that those so-called numbers have been challenged and refuted. You are a crass careerist cad who will believe whatever is most convenient for him/her to rise, but at least don't try to bother those of us who actually have no axe to grind.
6)Of course you don't support the Government. That would imply that you have any principles. You support your own swift rise through whoever is in charge, and you know that the top bureaucrats in the Treasury (an institution that easily compares with the Home Office for repellent morals and poisonous influence on national life) are currently solid for the private plunder of state funds.
7)You are building less hospitals and schools with private money than you were when the State ran the bloody things, and paying more. Anything else is lying shit. And when the bill comes in forty years, the State won't be able to build anything at all; right now we are only paying interest on the capital.
As for my title to comment on these things, you foul, superior, ignorant, posturing piece of scum with your lips already itching for the trough, I am a citizen. Do you understand that? I am a citizen. If you ever want to talk to me again, get that revolting sneer of superiority out of your foul face, or I'll take the privilege of a free man and wipe it for you. And learn to spell your and check your sources.
You're just so funny
Date: 2004-10-15 04:22 am (UTC)Re: You're just so funny
Date: 2004-10-15 07:51 am (UTC)Re: You're just so funny
Date: 2004-10-16 09:05 am (UTC)Given that my name has been mentioned (part 1).
Date: 2004-10-16 01:27 pm (UTC)The cause of our last falling out was because of an incident between you and FAP where you felt that I was siding with the administration because I intervened in an attempt to try and smooth things through. You felt that it was personal. I disagree but an exchange of emails was made.
That is not something on which I feel there is a lot of point in dwelling on now. However, if you are going to make a comment about it, I think you could at least be accurate in setting out the history here.
Now, to get to my main point in commenting here, I do admit that I was given a link to this entry in your LJ. The person who gave me it (who I am not going to name because there is frankly no point) did so because they know that I am an attorney with a speciality in infrastructure finance (that's a private practice solicitor, not a bureaucrat). My clients include public and private entities (so I have no prejudices either way and have seen deals run from both sides of the table).
I in turn forwarded the link to a friend of mine, D. who is currently engaged in post-doctoral public policy research which involves looking at the link between the community charge and the growing use of PFI in the UK. I did so because you comments appeared to epitomise how a lot of people feel about it in the UK and I figured that it would interest him.
I did not know that D. would come here and comment on your LJ.
For the record, I have not posed as D. for the purposes of commenting on your LJ.
I do not need to pose as someone else if there is a point that I wish to make or a misconception that needs to be addressed.
Whatever you may feel about me personally (and there is obviously a lot of hostility still there on your part) I have always been up front in my dealings with you, just as I would be with anyone. Believe that or disbelieve it - it's your choice. The only thing I'd point to is that your LJ has IP addresses logged. Check the anon's comments against mine if you're looking for some proof.
Speaking personally, I think that you over-react when someone makes a comment that you strongly disagree with. I have no problem with someone being passionate about their beliefs, but I do draw the line at someone being abusive. Looking at his comments here, I believe that D. crossed the line in some of the things that he said. I also think that you were abusive in some of your comments back. In other words, I think that you are equally bad as each other when it comes to this situation.
On my own political beliefs, whilst a proportion of the work that I do involves PFI, I am actually not someone who is strongly in favour of it as the only solution. In fact, I am more in favour of the current LIFT finance scheme which gives more of a 'say' to the public sector in terms of controlling the long-term operation of a project, although the cost effectiveness of this is something that will not be known for another 5 years or so. The articles that I produced during the course of my MSc were actually very much arguments against private involvement in the public sector (with special regard to the failures of the privatisation schemes instigated by the Tories in railways and water).
Given that my name has been mentioned (part 2)
Date: 2004-10-16 01:29 pm (UTC)Whatever you may feel about me personally, I do resent the accusation that I am corrupt. I am not - either financially, ethically or morally. To make that accusation is groundless. I also object to seeing you play the victim here when I was informed of your taking my name in vain again a couple of months ago (a comment on the Diana Memorial Fountain, if memory serves). I made no comment then as you were plainly sounding off and, given my well documented opposition to the Labour Government, the comparison between myself and the Secretary of State for Culture was actually quite amusing to me. I am making a comment here because I noticed that you're happy to snipe at me on your own ground, but are unwilling to do so on mine and, as the saying goes, "If Mohammad won't come to the mountain, then the mountain must come to Mohammad".
Finally, I am obviously aware that there have been strong disagreements between you and several people on my LJ Flist. I have not, at any time, participated in them (other than to respond to a comment you made on Narcissa Malfoy's LJ a week or so ago). I also note that we share several friends on LJ - your friendship with them doesn't bother or affect me and I trust that my friendship with them doesn't bother or affect you. Even if you don't like me very much, I would at least hope that we could be civil to each other. We're both grown-ups, we're both intelligent and we're both articulate.
My offer to discuss PFI is genuine. If you'd like to do so, then we can discuss it here, on my LJ or via email. I think that it's something we could both learn something from.
tybalt-quin
PS - In posting this I do in fact find that I owe you one apology. I had been under the impression that you'd banned me from commenting on your LJ (and had said as much to a couple of other users). I obviously now find that this is not the case, and so apologise for the inaccuracy. Of course, it is entirely possible that this was an error on your part.
Re: Given that my name has been mentioned (part 2)
Date: 2004-10-16 02:07 pm (UTC)Of course I do not tell people who they should friend (though I have heard that some people do). And as you had not written to me before in your own name, I had not had the opportunity to bar you (not that I will do so this time). I consider that I have been treated extremely shabbily by the FA mods and as there is still a month or more of the suspension that you imposed on me (with people publicly and openly hoping that it would prelude to a final expulsion), you can hardly expect me to forget it. But I have already deleted another post where I mistakenly named you as the author of these items, and I apologize for forgetting to delete this entry.
As for your friend, I would have discussed the matter with him/her, instead of losing my temper, if s/he had shown any respect for my views. Unfortunately, his/her tone was, from the beginning, that of the superior being annoyedly imparting information to a lesser creature; and, whatever you may say of me, I hope I have never treated people as ants with that particular kind of sneer on my face. That is an English habit, not an Italian one. I have said what I think of his/her manner, the typical manner of the English boyar, and I see no reason to repeat myself. You should have informed him/her about my temper, but, of course, you are not responsible for his/her manners.
Re: Given that my name has been mentioned (part 2)
Date: 2004-10-16 02:20 pm (UTC)I am not going to comment on the situation between you and FAP. There's bad blood (a poor choice of phrase but the only one I can think of at the moment) and I don't think this is the place.
D. is, I'm afriad, a rather hot tempered Brazilian (if you'll excuse the national stereotype). He's not a bad bloke - I've known him since uni (we were on the same course) and you know, he actually hates Labour with a passion that even you'd find surprising. I probably should have warned him about your temper, but I didn't think he'd comment. Perhaps that's something I should have anticipated.
I'm going to be honest here (at the risk of causing offence, which is certainly not what I mean to cause). There are times when you completely bloody infuriate me. The last exchange of emails between you and me also (and with apologies for the phrase), completely got on my tits because I was really trying to be polite and civil in an unpleasant situation and felt scorched for my pains.
Like I said, if you want to talk about PFI, I'm happy to engage. I also think you'd enjoy the Monbiot book (although it looks more at the first wave of deals and the situation is a little different now). If you don't want to, then that's fine. We can agree to disagree.
t-q
Re: Given that my name has been mentioned (part 2)
Date: 2004-10-16 02:30 pm (UTC)