BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 15 - 09:19 AM

Jack Campin - your post of 04 May 15 - 07:42 AM, says more about you than it does about her.

Not one mention here about the absolute mess this country was in all the way through the 1970s. Trades Unions thinking incorrectly that they ruled the country and could dictate to the elected Government of the day - we are in for more of the same if the UNITE Trades Union Labour MPs (Over half the Labour candidates standing) are put into Government, the head of that Union has already boasted that they have been put there to do the Unions bidding.

Norman Tebbitt, speed reader. Apparently so too was his wife Margaret, that ability must have been a great comfort to her - she spent two years in Stoke Mandeville Hospital and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, undergoing treatment in their spinal injuries units, she was severely and permanently paralysed - how charming that you find it so funny Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 15 - 09:25 AM

Thread drift I know Musktwat but where on earth did you dig this fantasy from in relation to the First World War:

"the dead soldiers fought for what they thought would be a better society"

Oh and before you, or anybody else comes out with it they weren't fighting in a war to end all wars either - that was the policos take on things right at the end of the war when they were setting up The League of Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 15 - 09:38 AM

"how charming that you find it so funny Jim."
Didn't say I did - but I thought there was a grim poetic justice about the statement, coming from who it did.
Want anaccount of those whose families suffered deprivation, ill-health and homelessness because they couldn't afford "bikes" to get on - you haven't acknowledged them so far?
Blaming the other lot again - Thatcher left unemployment higher than she found it, Homelessness on the rise (even home ownership didn't increase until she'd been kicked out of office), removed our voice in our workplace and a country divided and disillusioned.
Even her brutal politics failed to improve the country - a total failure from every point of view.
The only section of her "non existent" society to have benefited in any way were the better off who were rewarded with tax cuts - and things have remained the same since.
Don't suppose you'd like to address her admiration of fascism - no - thought not!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 09:41 AM

Inflation was in single figures in 1978 but soared to 22% in 1980. By the time she left office it was back in double figures and was never particularly low. Interest rates were around 25% when she left office. She was elected on the back of a campaign that "Labour isn't working", featuring a photo of a long dole queue. But, having inherited an unemployment figure of under 1.5 million, she doubled it in under three years and never got it back to within half a million of the figure she inherited. On top of that she added over a million unemployed people, thrown out of the industries she had destroyed, onto invalidity benefits in order to conceal the fact that they were unemployed, so that the true situation was actually much worse than the "official" (that is, the government's) figures seemed to show. Don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices, Stanron, whatever you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 10:00 AM

Absolute mess? Half the years of the 70s saw the Tories in power. Heath got the 70s off to a rip-roaring first four years, eh, Billyboy? Three-day week, anyone? The unions "running the country" and "holding the country to ransom" were myths created by the right and the Tory press. Do I hear the deafening sound of silence about huge corporations, tax evaders and non-doms being treated ever so gently lest they withdraw their favours elsewhere, err, holding the country to ransom? Get real, Teribus. The working people of this country were being confronted by see-sawing interest rates and inflation through the 70s and all they had for bargaining chips was their labour, and they were using it. Thatcher and her puppy Blair put a stop to that, and the reward is under-employment, claimant harassment, zero-hour contracts, fake apprenticeships and no job security. A scenario that Maggie would have appreciated, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 10:12 AM

Sorry, I hit a wrong number key in my 09.41 post. Interest rates were around 15% when she left office, not 25%. Not as bad, but bad enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Musket
Date: 04 May 15 - 11:25 AM

We often think back with nostalgia to the last year of her leadership, eeh, it were good. We all loved paying 15% mortgages. Thing is, we never knew how lucky we were, eh?

For all the crap we read, she never knew how to run the economy either.

In fact, all told she didn't even deliver for those she favoured. A failure all round and vindictive with it. Mind you, she is dead and her legacy is to see her ideas as things that should never be allowed to happen. Nice to see her place in history alongside Hitler, Stalin and other lessons from history.

Thanks for answering your own question by the way Terribulus. Keep this up and you might be able to stop embarrassing yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 May 15 - 12:06 PM

sorry.. no statistics...

All I can do right now is anecdotal and reasonable conjecture...

I started as a 'mature'* student on a lefty Poly Humanities degree in the early 80s

[*well as mature as a 22 year old could be after an extended few years off
as a dropout in a counter culture punky hippy alternative rock band..]

The tories hated/feared 'reds under the beds' students like us [Cold war mentality and all that]...

The feeling at that time - paranoid or real - bit of both ?
was thatcher was doing whatever she could in her power to try to deter
people like us from studying courses like that...

One such ploy was to clamp down on housing benefit for under 25's,
keeping more young folk living at home with their parents
and unable to move away to and study at 'red' uni/poly hotbeds of dissent and insurrection...

Politically neutering a future generation of potentially socialist minded youth
at a time when she needed them all to aspire to be yuppies...😬

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 May 15 - 01:15 PM

Politically neutering a future generation of potentially socialist minded youth

Not entirely - more like a generation of potentially politically astute youth able to think critically.

Maggie's soul mate Ronnie Raygun slowly exterminated similar young folks across the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 01:27 PM

He wasn't too good for democracy either. Plenty of people in central America would tell you that.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 15 - 02:23 PM

never knew how to run the economy either."

And she went cap in hand to the IMF to bail the country out when during the period she was in office? I know things were running so smoothly and so well that in 1976, James "Crisis, what crisis" Callaghan had to ask for £2.3 billion "the largest-ever call on IMF resources up to that point. In November 1976 the IMF announced its conditions for a loan, including deep cuts in public expenditure, in effect taking control of UK domestic policy. The crisis was seen as a national humiliation" and another Labour first.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 May 15 - 02:34 PM

Greg - "politically astute youth able to think critically"

you are absolutely right, that is better,
and more in line with with the wording I would have used to expres it
back when I was a student...

But 3 decades later, my thinking is now sloppy, lazy and defeated, in comparison to my brighter youth...😞

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 02:52 PM

James "Crisis, what crisis" Callaghan

He didn't say those words. Ask any historian, alive or dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 15 - 03:21 PM

"Crisis What Crisis
Still refusing to respond to the facts on the grounds that they may incriminate you, me lud!!
Rater go with the Sun makkie-ups
Jm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 05:52 PM

Well, Jim, if these people will get their history from Murdoch, why shouldn't we get ours from Blackadder? Far more reliable! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 15 - 06:49 PM

From your link Jim:

"The lasting images from the time are of rubbish in the streets and reports of bodies lying unburied in mortuaries.

As all this was just starting to escalate, the prime minister had gone to an economic conference in Guadeloupe in the West Indies.

Looking tanned, Mr Callaghan returned to be asked how he was going to deal with the problem.

"I don't think other people in the world would share the view [that] there is mounting chaos," was what he actually said.

"PM plays down problems" might have been a more accurate headline, but "Crisis? What crisis?" suited the mood of the nation and has since become part of political folklore.

Same sort of thing as the anti-Maggie mob banging on about her "Rejoice, rejoice" and linking it incorrectly to the sinking of the Belgrano" when in actual fact it related to the recapture of South Georgia. Folklore don't ya just love it - but it cuts both ways.

And Shaw on the First World War threads I think we relied on fact and historical evidence - your "side" relied on discredited information and "Blackadder".

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 07:46 PM

Why Teribus, of course Jim Callaghan wasn't going to step off that plane and admit that there was a crisis. He was a politician. The black art of politics is to paint black white and sidestep every question. Jim, Gawd bless 'im (and I had no time for the man at all and was involved in many a union battle meself at the time) was no different to any other politician in that regard. Likewise, the black art of gutter press journalism is to deliver negative headlines about your pet party's opponents, and The Sun did a brilliant job on Jim. Yes, folklore. But what wasn't folklore is that Maggie tried to lie about the Belgrano to Mrs Gould.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 15 - 07:46 PM

"From your link Jim"
None of which verifies your mis-attributing a quote FROM The Sewer Press.
Nor does it justify your support of a Prime Minister who was a fascist both by her actions and by her own admission.
Your silence on her support for a mass murderer and her describing him as a hero of democracy only serves to underline where you are coming from - it certainly changes nothing a far as she was concerned - thatcher was a fascist prevented on acting on her beliefs because of hard-fought-for British democracy - there, but for the grace of god, could Britain have gone.
Thatcher attempted to cure Britain's ills by making working people pay, by silencing the voice we had in the workplace and by rewarding the better off.
You've had the economic, political and social facts and figures - these also you refuse to respond to - also making no difference to their validity.
Members of my family and people I grew up with are still suffering the consquences.
"Blackadder".
Your jingoism failed to convince anybody that WW1 was anything but a murderous bloodbath, despite distortions such as this - Keith finally retreated to his "real historians" bunker - youroe off into the sunset - it's a little late in the day to claim some sort of victory now.
I can't see you making much headway with Mm Thatcher with your silence and your distortions.
How about some real responses to the fats and figures - no - I thought not.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 08:36 PM

Teribus, really now. No-one relied on Blackadder in "that thread" and you know it. Blackadder was invoked for no better reason than to tweak the tails of Keith and yourself. Your sense of humour deficit is such that it had you fooled and got you all riled. A bit like how your folksy reminiscences of ancient Sun headlines has you fooled even now. As for me, I wasn't really on anyone's "side", was I?


Gotcha!

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 15 - 01:21 AM

Evil cow who set out to steal from the poor to give to the rich - as Scumeron does today, while plotting his unconstitutional self-election after polling day. With the support of a foreign press baron and a rabid attack dog campaign manager. Aux barricades, citoyens.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 May 15 - 01:50 AM

Strange how some people cosy up to complete shits.

first world war generals, total incompetent economist politicians like Tebbit and Thatcher....no doubt the bloodbath in Ireland would still be raging if their inflammatory bollocks was still being spouted.

no wonder Hitler had so many supporters. some people are attracted to utter shit.

tough talk and violence and viciousness towards the weak and disenfranchised within society.
to compare the situations callaghan had to deal with -when OPEC had been kicking the shit out of the British economy to what Thatcher inherited - all the money from North Sea oil is just so typical of the right wing mindset.

still go on vote tory...if you have no shred of real patriotism, love of your country about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 15 - 02:29 AM

So much froth from "the usual suspects".

Considering the way the country was headed in 1978 (don't forget your "good figures" were reliant on the £2.3 billion we'd just begged from the IMF plus the austerity measures and spending cuts that they had imposed - nothing whatsoever to do with good "Labour" governance) the statistics your link provided Jim weren't really all that bad considering the degree of change the country had to go through in such a short period - the politicians on both sides in the decade that had preceded Thatcher had just been kicking the can down the road - cowed and threatened by the trades unions at every turn.

Maggie this and Maggie that, yet not one single one of her policies were overturned or reversed and as Stanron has pointed out her general lead was followed by many others throughout the world, to their benefit.

Margaret Thatcher & Diana Gould? It was Mrs Gould's contention that the Belgrano was headed away from the Falklands outside the exclusion zone (Whose? "Ours" or "Theirs"?) and heading for her home port, she knew all this because the Junta in Argentina had told her that. She also contended that a peace plan proposed by Peru should have reached Margaret Thatcher in the 14 hours before the Belgrano was sunk and that the sinking of the Belgrano was a deliberate escalation - something that Margaret Thatcher knew to be untrue as the following demonstrates.

Major David Thorp, who spent 34 years working as a signals expert in military intelligence, has disclosed for the first time that he was asked to carry out a trawl of all the intelligence on the sinking at the direct request of Margaret Thatcher a few months after the end of the war.

Major Thorp was in charge of a top secret signals interception section hidden on the amphibious warship Intrepid as it steamed with the Task Force.

From his own signals intercepts and those from other Government agencies, he proved that the Argentine cruiser was heading into the exclusion zone.

The report states that in late April 1982, they intercepted a message sent from naval headquarters ordering the Belgrano and its escorts to a grid reference within the exclusion zone and not back to base as the Argentines later claimed.

In recent years the Argentine navy has accepted that the sinking of the Belgrano was a legitimate act of war.

In his book, that was cleared by the security services, Major Thorp disclosed for the first time how the British code-cracking operation gave the force a significant advantage.

"Despite the report being read by Mrs Thatcher she never disclosed the information either in Parliament or elsewhere possibly because she did not want to reveal Britain's eavesdropping capabilities."

Diana Gould was expressing her opinions based upon what actual knowledge? - Margaret Thatcher was answering her based upon her actual detailed knowledge of the events based on the fact that Belgrano was NOT headed away from the Falklands it was actually heading towards a position within the exclusion zone with the intention of attacking our ships, a second Argentine Naval task force centred around their aircraft carrier was also at sea with that same express intention. When interviewed by Frost in 1985, Frost described the sinking of the Belgrano as a turning point, Margaret Thatcher responded by saying that she was extremely pleased that it was not the news of the sinking of HMS Hermes or HMS Invincible, with the subsequent massive loss of British lives that provided that turning point - she was right.

Christmas I don't think anyone tried to make the claim that World War One wasn't a murderous bloodbath - it undoubtedly was - the three claims made were that:

1: It was necessary
2: The British people recognised and accepted that Britain had to take part to honour our obligations and look after our own interests
3: That in general compared to the other combatant nations our armed forces were well led.

Weight of factual evidence upheld all three of the above points as being correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Musket
Date: 05 May 15 - 03:05 AM

Dr Goebbells couldn't have put it better Terribulus.

Unfortunately for you, we don't need to rely on politically motivated revisionist fodder because we were there. We worked, payed mortgages, traded and aspired during her days.

Putting a gloss on it to prop up your rather reactionary armchair commentator persona just makes you all the more hilarious. Do keep it up though. It's almost entertaining.
🙊🙉🙈

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 15 - 03:31 AM

Still no comment on Thatcher's extremism, so as long as "the trains ran on time" it was of no importance that she implicated Britain with The Butcher of Chile and the Moron in the White House.
Doesn't matter too much if unemployment reached its highest level following her winning an election on the slogan "Labour isn't working".
Rising rents, increased homelessness - nah, not important - it's only those who don't count.
Thatcher created mass poverty and hardship among the lower paid and in the meantime made the rich richer - that was her legacy to Britain
Her economic policies failed and the people of Britain were left worse off in a way that had never happened before - she tore Britain in half - a well-documented fact.
The was a political thug who became an embarrasment to her own party "of Wets" - the even despised those who served under her.
Did I mention her support for facism - you haven't, nor have any of you the balls to.
It has become a political tradition to blame their predecessors for their failure - thatcher refined that by blaming the working people and removing their rights of representation.
And still the W.W.1 jingoism and claims of having won the argument - as much a victory as was Gallipoli, I'd say, wouldn't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 15 - 04:02 AM

The respectablisation of greed - thatcher style
"No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well."
― Margaret Thatcher
And power
"I am extraordinarily patient provided I get my own way in the end." - Margaret Thatcher"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 15 - 04:12 AM

"we don't need to rely on politically motivated revisionist fodder because we were there. We worked, payed mortgages, traded and aspired during her days."

Ehmmmm - hate to point this out to you Musktwat - BUT So did I - IIRC one of you did rather well out of the opportunities she and her government created.

Worst possible outcome of this General Election - Miliband gets in and relies on the SNP to stay in power this will see a return to the trades Union/Labour relationship that nearly destroyed the country in the 1970s and will see Scotland all but become a single party state within the UK in the Scottish 2016 elections, the second independence referendum will come along with the SNP being in a position to wrest any demand or concession they want from the Labour "government" of the UK as their (i.e. the Labour Party's) main and only concern will be to stay in power at all costs until 2020 - you will have achieved the unintended consequence of Tony Blair's idiotic populist programme for regional assemblies - i.e. the break up of the United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 15 - 04:38 AM

Actually, one of the few things I approve of about the bitch Thatcher was seeing off the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands. That and refusing to have truck with Irish murderers. Pretty much everything else she did was vile.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 15 - 05:40 AM

Daily Mail second-hand scaremongering from Billyboy this morning, I see. The trade union movement has been just about dismantled in this country, so no danger there (except to ordinary working people, who, courtesy of the successful assaults on the unions since Thatcher, now face zero-hours contracts, under-employment, no job security, workplace bullying and exploitation, below-subsistence wages and bogus apprenticeships). There can be no second referendum on Scottish independence in the next parliament. It is neither being sought nor would it be constitutionally viable within the time unless it was an explicit part of the manifesto of a party that was in power or joint power, and it isn't. A new referendum would have to be almost the first plan of any new administration and that simply won't happen. Scotland will not become a single-party "state" even if every MP belonged to the SNP because it is not a separate state at all (the Scottish people decided that if you recall) and its MPs are Westminster MPs, along with all the others. As for staying in power being the only concern of any new Labour government, well let's remember which tawdry pair of parties made "staying in power for five guaranteed years" the law. Er, wasn't Labour, was it?

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 15 - 05:56 AM

Could have but didn't call for a second general election in 2010;
could we expect a more decisive one to try to gain a majority govt in 2015 ?

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 15 - 06:29 AM

Doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 15 - 08:19 AM

"trades Union/Labour relationship that nearly destroyed the country in the 1970"
Utter crap
World inflation was running rampant in the 1970s - inflation at the time of 'The Winter of Discontent" so called had reached 8%85 in Britain.
Despite social contract agreements with public sector workers, the Govenment decided to cap pay rises at %5, making some of the poorest paid in th country the scapegoats for tackling inflation.
As elected representatives of the workers, The Trades Unions had no alternative bu to oppose what was a basic cut in the standard of livingof its members.
That's what the "discontent" was about.
Despite the picture painted by the Scum Press (where Terrytoon apparently goes for his informtion) no worker goes on strike willingly - the couple of times I've ever indulged (to improve our working standards) it has taken nearly a year to recover.
Thatcher, of couse, changed the situation by silencing our say in our workng standards altogether.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 15 - 08:32 AM

Please will someone remind me what it is that the unions can't do now.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 15 - 09:02 AM

1: "The trade union movement has been just about dismantled in this country"

Just as well it was, back in the day they were out to ruin the country.

2: "zero-hours contracts"

less than 3% of the working population of the country are working on zero hours contracts. Zero hour contract or no work at all which do you want?

3: "There can be no second referendum on Scottish independence in the next parliament."

Really?? Does Nicola Sturgeon know that? She did after all refuse to rule precisely that out in a recent Scottish Leaders debate - all they have to is take a vote on it at their next conference and it goes into the SNP Manifesto for the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Having granted a referendum on that basis previously if Ed Miliband and Labour wanted to stay in power then they would have to agree to Nicola's demands after the 2016 Scottish elections (In Scotland they are talking about 2019 as being the target date).

4: "It is neither being sought nor would it be constitutionally viable within the time unless it was an explicit part of the manifesto of a party that was in power or joint power, and it isn't."

You can bet your boots that a referendum on Independence will be in the next SNP Manifesto before the Scottish Parliamentary elections - if it is not then the SNP will face a rebellion among its new membership that will destroy their party in 2020.

5: By the way Stevieboy when did the statement "Scotland will not become a single-party "state" ever become the same thing as "will see Scotland all but become a single party state" - if you cannot see the difference then there really is no point discussing anything with you as you plainly do not comprehend the English language.

Oh by the way, Alex Salmond if elected, will probably be the SNP leader at Westminster, and he and the other Westminster SNPs will take their orders direct from their Leader Nicola Sturgeon First Minister in Scotland (Unless she losses the 2016 election and I cannot see that happening)

6: "As for staying in power being the only concern of any new Labour government, well let's remember which tawdry pair of parties made "staying in power for five guaranteed years" the law. Er, wasn't Labour, was it?"

Bet they don't repeal it and there is no cast guarantee that they will be there for five years as:

" the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:

- If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.

- If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election"."

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Musket
Date: 05 May 15 - 09:21 AM

"Zero hour or no hour, which would you prefer?"

I think most people would prefer security and a regular income, Terribulus. The thing is, we can offer that as a country. We can't offer that and carte Blanche freedom to those who exploit though.

A lot of people fought hard to ensure you were encouraged to hold views, articulate them and be able to afford the hardware to do so.

It's called advance of society. Something Th*tcher and the Victorian deserving v undeserving attitudes knew nothing about.

Tell me, if you saw me getting out of my £100k sports car on Birdcage Walk getting the club concierge to park it for me, would you doff your cap at your betters? I mention this for two reasons; First off your views are similar to those I hear when staying at the institute rooms by crusty old duffers who don't know the real world and secondly, it actually happened. Quite possibly an American tourist, they are impressed by such things.

Meanwhile, I opened the bottle of cheap verve champers when she died and voted Labour as always by postal vote last week.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Mr Red
Date: 05 May 15 - 09:45 AM

no blood pressure in Rouge Towers
I happily swallow Thatchers Gold.
Cider that is, not the ill gotten gains.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 15 - 09:54 AM

Zero hours contracts zoomed up by 28% in one year. Zero hours contracts can mean exactly what they say: no work. No knowing whether there will be work. No knowing whether you can cover the rent, the bills and whether you can put food on the kids' table. No claiming job seekers. Welcome to Toribus's Britain. The Tories love those contracts and want them to become the norm, as they represent the ultimate when it comes to the "flexible labour market", the latest Tory euphemism for pay as little as you can get away with and hire and fire at will. The rest of your post is typical waffle and unsupportable assertions about unions setting out to ruin the country and a Scottish referendum that simply will not happen with a Labour administration backed by the SNP. It can't be denied that it could well happen if Camoron hangs on. Billyboy, if you're so worried about another Scottish referendum, better vote Labour, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 15 - 09:55 AM

""Zero hour or no hour, which would you prefer?"

Irrelevant, the choice is "Zero hour or no work, which would you prefer?" - That is of course as question that would be of some relevance to anyone if they were actually interested in obtaining employment at all. Those that opt for it of course will be streets ahead in any list of applicants for work than someone who said, "Nope, can't be arsed, I'll stay on benefits". You see to obtain experience of work and acquire a work ethic, you must first do some work - any work is better than none.

You, I take it, must be the bald, fat, boorish, nouveau riche Musktwat, who had it not been for Maggie would still a "leci" down the pit.

Intrigued by this one though and it does rather beg the question I'll ask (But I know I don't have a "cat-in-hell's" chance of a reply):

"The thing is, we can offer that as a country." Pray tell, please do.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 15 - 10:12 AM

"Nope, can't be arsed, I'll stay on benefits".

This choice is not available. You have to apply for work, lots, and prove it. But don't let the facts prevent you from demonising claimants. That fits rather well with your leftie-bashing, Scots-bashing, union-bashing, Maggie-loving, Murdoch-worshipping mentality.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 15 - 10:21 AM

It isn't a question of "Nope, can't be arsed, I'll stay on benefits" when it comes to zero hours contracts. It is often a question of which would pay more - The odd few hours at minimum wage or a consistent amount of money paid into your bank, no matter how low. If faced with the choice of getting a guaranteed £73 or anything between a reasonable wage and nothing, would you risk it? Why should anyone be put in that situation when they are gambling with their own and, often, their children's well-being?

Now, if the government were to say the guaranteed minimum of a zero hours contract would have to be above the JSA plus any expenses incurred then, yes, it could work. I doubt it but it would certainly be more palatable. But when they blatantly push people into taking work at less than the JSA simply to get them off their books it is not what I would call socially responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 May 15 - 10:32 AM

From Teribus "less than 3% of the working population of the country are working on zero hours contracts. Zero hour contract or no work at all which do you want?"

So, there's no third option, you know, something along the lines of a living wage for 40 hours.

Again from Teribus "1: "The trade union movement has been just about dismantled in this country" "Just as well it was, back in the day they were out to ruin the country"

No union in history has set out to ruin the country that is pure right wing rhetoric of the worst kind and blatantly untrue. To get a decent wage or salary has been the primary focus of much trade union work. To gain better conditions, equality, safer working practices oh yes they strived for that and have been constantly rebuffed by successive Tory governments when small progress has been made.

If it where not for the Trade Unions we wouldn't have acts like the Employment Protection Acts from which we benefitted, the Sexual Discrimination Act from which the vast majority of people have gained.

Without Trade Union activity we would, in time, revert to archaic working practices that would see the majority of people as little more than feudal serfs.

Zero hour contracts are just the start.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 15 - 10:34 AM

"Just as well it was, back in the day they were out to ruin the country."
You read exactly like and Murdoch sewer rag - where's your facts - you have mine.
""
Beautiful summing up of Toryism - no rights or no work.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 May 15 - 10:45 AM

Great Tory Think Tank Ideas: # 137

Hey, let's make mass redundancies in the public sector
then force them all to do the same essential tasks and hours as before
to qualify for minimum benefits under 'Workfare'... ✔😜

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 15 - 10:51 AM

Ah DtG the "Government" has to dictate what the wages have to be, then the employer simply has to live with it, irrespective of what happens to his business as a result of complying with "Government" diktat? The natural defence against this is you either outsource abroad or you severely restrict the number of people you employ because under the circumstances you describe that is the only way you can keep control of your labour costs.

I mean to say Gnome exactly how much does the "Government" know about my business? Almost entirely manned by "professional politicians" who have never done an actual days work in their lives, or ever had to make their way in a competitive commercial environment, could you please try to explain where and how they acquired all this acute business acumen to the extent that I should feel confident enough to trust the well-being of my business to them and their constantly changing daft ideas and their even more idiotic demands?

You are looking to take on an new employee, you have evidence before you of two clear and very distinct categories of prospective employees - those who have been working for the last five years - and you have those who have not because they went with your idea of security and a guaranteed hand out. Which would you take on, on the basis that you are looking to do what will benefit you and your business the most?

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 May 15 - 11:05 AM

I suspect left of centre politicians are afraid to say so...

But imho.. frankly there are many small businesses that should go bust.

The owners are completely selfish, greedy, arrogant, exploitative, abusive bastards
not qualified or fit to be employers...

The world don't owe them a right or need them to run businesses.

good riddance if they go under...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 15 - 11:05 AM

I don't disagree with much of what you say about politicians but what has it got to do trying to ensure that people have a decent life? They should at least try to help rather than demonise those who are not doing as well as others.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Musket
Date: 05 May 15 - 11:21 AM

If it hadn't been for Th*tcher, Terribulus reckons I'd still have been down the pit.
😆😆😆
To be fair, I would have been down the pit for about a year longer, (my AMEME (hons) took a year longer thanks to the strike, despite me attending college whilst out.)

Whatever makes you think I was down the pit because it was a job? I made a career choice that included getting qualifications whilst earning and that got me, thanks to the student apprenticeship scheme set up under Wilson not Th*tcher the chance to learn and earn whilst getting hands on credentials. I got fed up when running companies with graduate engineers who through no fault of their own could tell you how much torque a 16" adjustable spanner might exert with the average arm but had never held one let alone relied on using it.

No Terribulus. My career plans included just about what they delivered. As a result, I retired on my 40th birthday. Millions could never do that and there was some good luck involved but chiefly it was the hard graft you reckon nobody wants or is capable of. If the pits had survived, I might have been tempted by a management route, but no. I was going to leave at some point regardless.

My eldest was also a pit electrician. He is now a director of a large manufacturing company. A chip off the old block and recipient of the same formula.

Yet despite what politicians think, most people who climb the greasy pole do so despite of not because of governments and the landscapes they form.

Prat. Save your scorn for those deserving of it. Perhaps those you fawn over at the con club?

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 May 15 - 02:44 PM

leftie-bashing, Scots-bashing, union-bashing, Maggie-loving, Murdoch-worshipping mentality.

Mentality assumes a functioning brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 15 - 02:56 PM

Ah DtG the "Government" has to dictate what the wages have to be, then the employer simply has to live with it, irrespective of what happens to his business as a result of complying with "Government" diktat? The natural defence against this is you either outsource abroad or you severely restrict the number of people you employ because under the circumstances you describe that is the only way you can keep control of your labour costs.

Absolute scaremongering rubbish. We heard all this kind of bleating when the minimum wage (opposed by the Tories, of course) was being brought in, and none of this happened. As you are so fond of history and historians, perhaps it's about time you learned from it for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 15 - 04:11 PM

Stevieboy those on zero hours contracts are paid what? Minimum wage set by? The type of contract allows flexibility. The two greatest users of zero hours contracts as employers are in descending order of magnitude?

Businesses associated with Accommodation and Food
Health and Social Work
Transport, Arts, other services
Wholesale & Retail
Admin & Support Services
Education
Production (including agriculture)
Information, finance, professional
Construction

Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread...
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 15 - 05:40 PM

Interesting article on why attitudes like Teribus's on minimum pay are wrong. By a wealthy capitalist.