|
03 May 15 - 09:36 AM (#3706061) Subject: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray) Me, I hate the evil old cow and everything she stands for (including Thatcher Ice-Cream) and regard her savage tenure as one of this country's darkest hours BUT I'm sure opinions vary - especially for that happy few who benefited from others' misery and continue to rejoice in their ill-gotten filth and privilege to this day. What sayest thou? |
|
03 May 15 - 09:47 AM (#3706066) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker It's not easy having to admit for a long time my favourite drink was Thatcher's Cider. 'Thankfully' blood pressure and cholesterol have conspired to almost completely resolve that dilemma.. |
|
03 May 15 - 09:52 AM (#3706067) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "What sayest thou?" That this thread will disappear faster than Thatchers Ice Cream in the mid-day sun Nice to find something we agree on though Jim Carroll |
|
03 May 15 - 10:04 AM (#3706071) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,gillymor Mother Knows Best (Warning: Loud Rock & Roll and hot electric guitar contained in this link.) I feel your pain, pfr. I have to use a "Reagan" 5th string capo on one of my banjos that has no RR spikes. |
|
03 May 15 - 11:32 AM (#3706089) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket Why the fascination with the bitch? She is dead. Hurrah. Move on. Before long, History Channel will be doing documentaries asking how we can learn from her evil legacy in the same way they do now with Hitler. |
|
03 May 15 - 12:11 PM (#3706108) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,achmelvich the t******r cider is pretty good. i have to point and say 'pint of THAT cider please' or you can ask for a stowford press and will probably be told 'havn't got it -will this do?' 'ok -cheers' i'm pleased to note that my hatred has only deepened over the years as i get a better understanding of what she was about. don't need reminding of how a large minority of the country can easily reject a thoroughly decent, humane and intelligent man (foot) to elect a vicious, ignorant government who are working against the interests of all but a tiny minority of the people who elected them. at least that could never happen these days - come on people, don't get fooled again! |
|
03 May 15 - 12:52 PM (#3706125) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford And yet people voted for her! She never lost an election. |
|
03 May 15 - 01:03 PM (#3706128) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker yeah.. funny that... neither did Hitler at the height of his popularity...??? Thatcher successfully bribed voters on our estate with the right to buy their council houses, then within a years or so the factory the estate depended on closed down and they were all made redundant and unable to keep up mortgage payments... My old mum is still in her's [despite bullying from a rogue housing agency official - who got sacked a few years ago], because my parents stayed renters on principle.. |
|
03 May 15 - 01:06 PM (#3706129) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "She never lost an election." Which is a sad reflection on her success in creating a divided country - haves versus have-nots, housed versus homeless, employed versus unemployed, North versus South. It is also an indication of how Parliamentary Democracy only serves the better-off and the Establishment. Her being elected in no way alters her undemocratic behaviour and her declared support of murderous extremism - straight out of the horse's mouth. Not only was she what people say she was, she implicated the British people in her extremism - should be enough for anybody. Jim Carroll |
|
03 May 15 - 01:19 PM (#3706137) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray) Does Thatcher's Cider have anything to do with the crazy old inhuman hag who rode our country into the ground? I think, perhaps not. Thatcher Ice-Cream, OTOH, has everything to do with her and stands testimony to the cynical essense of the woman - i.e. sell them less and charge them more, or snatch it off them altogether. Otherwise... Why the fascination with the bitch? There was a Thatcher squabble broke out above the line. Fearful of The Red Thread Death, I opened this as a more suitable arena for some theraputic corpse-kicking - or else apology for the evil old shit bag, whatever you find the most obscene really. And yet people voted for her! It was the closest this country's ever came a Fascist State since the Norman Conquest - the North was Harried afresh. People were bewitched by the bloody spectacle of it all - much as they were in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. |
|
03 May 15 - 01:20 PM (#3706138) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: akenaton Oh get real guys, it wasn't Margaret Thatcher's fault that our industry became uncompetitive, that is what happens in this type of economic system. Investment goes where profits can be made.....why cant the "left" understand that.....Margaret Thatcher did and gained capitalism another few years grace. We cant fix this system or make it in any way equitable, Mrs Thatcher ran it efficiently and in the interests of those who control it. That's the way it is guys, all the "liberal" ideology is bullshit when we get down to the wire. Mrs Thatcher although the antithesis of my political views, has been made a scapegoat for the stupidity of the liberal left. |
|
03 May 15 - 01:39 PM (#3706142) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "Oh get real guys, it wasn't Margaret Thatcher's fault that our industry became uncompetitive" The responsibility for the national economy lies with the government of the day - it is why they are elected. Whoever or whatever te reasons for the state of the economy, Thatcher adopted a policy of making the less well off pay, her main method being to create a subservient work force. Jim Carroll |
|
03 May 15 - 01:48 PM (#3706144) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker 1980s - Factory closures in small provincial towns with few other large employers.. tough.. they weren't competitive enough.. ..survival of the fittest / law of the jungle economics... |
|
03 May 15 - 02:13 PM (#3706150) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: akenaton Yes PFR...exactly!.....Isn't it time we learned that? When in the "jungle" don't walk about with your eyes closed, or your mind. Jim you know British industry had been in decline well before Thatcher came to power.....even she couldn't fight the system....not that she wanted to.....but neither did Blair and his "Labour" govt. |
|
03 May 15 - 02:23 PM (#3706151) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker ake - well.. there was more than a touch of irony and sadness/ire to what I just posted.. But, agreed, a clear objective analysis of reality is a necessary starting point... |
|
03 May 15 - 03:14 PM (#3706158) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Stanron This was written after punkfolkrocker's post of 01:48. Apologies to subsequent posts. It's a constant source of wonder to me as to how people who are otherwise intelligent and capable of intellectual discrimination can continue to fall for the hypocracy and dishonesty that is at the heart of today's Labour party. Maybe it's the original idealism that is essentially 'fair shares' that keeps people locked to a party who's indisputable legacy is a history of constant betrayal of the people it claims to represent. Here's a bit of history. Up to almost halfway through the 20th century Britain had an Empire. With the Empire Britain had a large captive market for it's industries. You'll see the names of British manufacturers all over Indian railways even today. Ignoring for the moment which party was idealogically opposed to the whole concept of Empire, once it was gone Britain's industries were over producing, outdated, war weary and unsustainable. Some one should have managed the shrinking and reforming of our industrial base right after the war. Instead of that Labour nationalised it all and the trade unions forbade any reduction. Every Labour government that has lasted long enough, that is a full term or more, left the country bankrupt so when the Tories got in their efforts were always in repairing the economy, rather than tackling the Unions and restructuring Industry. Maggie at least had the time and courage to take the unions on and thank goodness she won. She de-nationalised a range of industries and let the market place wield it's own axe. Brutal, I admit, but badly needed. Of course a lot of people hate her for that but you have to be an idiot not to see that it had to be done by somebody and the later it was left the worse it got to be. It's by no means all over. Labour still denies any overspending, still expouses the ludicrous belief that you can create wealth by spending it and still wants to pay for today by taxing the future. The Roman equivalent was 'bread and circues', but Rome only paid for that by conquest and the expansion of it's empire. In todays world we don't have that option. We have to live within our means and right now we are not even doing that. |
|
03 May 15 - 03:25 PM (#3706161) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Stu I patted her on the back once, at the Young Conservatives rally at Wembley just before the 1983 election. I was 17 and desperately homesick for Brum and had fell in with the local YC group from the posh village we had moved; they liked a drink and a good row so that was fine be me - there was sod all else to do and I was friendless. However, the behaviour of some of these little shits on the way back from the jolly to the smoke, especially towards some of the folk from the people's march for jobs was appalling, and I was pretty disgusted. A motnh or two later an ardent socialist came to talk at our branch and every word he said made sense, and that was that. I stopped pretending to believe the tory line and left the little toffs to themselves; I was glad to be out of it. As for Thatcher . . . a contemptible harridan. |
|
03 May 15 - 03:48 PM (#3706170) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "Every Labour government that has lasted long enough, that is a full term or more, left the country bankrupt so when the Tories got in their efforts were always in repairing the economy" Nothing to do with the system that Tory Governments and now Labour governments have dedicated to propping up, of course - always the fault of "that other lot" Past Labour Governments have attempted to solve economic problems without hurting the lesser-well-off too much - the Tories have never bothered and have just gone in with the boot from day one. Nowadays, their policies have become virtually indistinguishable. Thatcher made no bones about her contempt for workers rights and the conditions they/we lived in, so when she came to power, she went straight for the jugular. THATCHER YEARS STATISTICS THE RESULT Jim Carroll |
|
03 May 15 - 05:13 PM (#3706183) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Big Al Whittle someone organised a cider festival with all the big hitters involved Thatchers, Strongbow, Bulmers etc one Dorset wag remarked - that ain't a praper cider festival, that a 'shit you find in the back of the fridge' festival. |
|
03 May 15 - 05:31 PM (#3706186) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Those people who think thank God, she smashed the unions, had better explain why we have governments who can ignore public sector pay review bodies with impunity, who can completely do away with any idea of job security, who can see hundreds of thousands on contracts that don't guarantee work, that ditches people off jobseekers in order to call them self-employed, that clobbers teachers with mountains of useless bureaucracy, that invents fake apprenticeships that pay kids a couple of quid an hour to keep them off job seekers and that puts unqualified people in charge of our kids in schools. I'm waiting... |
|
03 May 15 - 05:51 PM (#3706190) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Got so mad there that me singulars and plurals got a bit mixed up. :-( |
|
03 May 15 - 05:56 PM (#3706191) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: akenaton Mr Blair was more successful than Mrs Thatcher in "smashing the Unions" Steve. Don't you remember? Thatcher polarised opinion. Blair assassinated the Union movement in his bid to privatise Britain. The law of the jungle and Blair was a big beast, a winner of elections, a media pin up boy, a war criminal. |
|
03 May 15 - 06:00 PM (#3706192) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw I was taking on a point made by Stanron. Do try to follow the threads and try to make points based on rational thought. |
|
03 May 15 - 06:07 PM (#3706193) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Thank you for those two links, Jim, which anyone following this thread should read. They make Stanron look like Cameron's publicity agent. |
|
03 May 15 - 06:13 PM (#3706196) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: akenaton Cant you address your posts to specific people, when that is your intention Steve? I thought this thread was about Mrs Thatcher and her policies. |
|
03 May 15 - 06:13 PM (#3706197) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jeri Apparently, Sarah Palin liked her (apparently, a lot more than Thatcher liked Palin. |
|
03 May 15 - 06:21 PM (#3706199) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. Its a shame Thatcher is buried in a protected military cemetery - otherwise I'd be mopre than happy to incur the cost of a trip to the UK to shit on her grave. |
|
03 May 15 - 07:09 PM (#3706208) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw I can post in whatever manner I choose, Akenaton. My point about union-bashing was very direct even though I didn't mention Stanron by name in that post. He was the only person in the thread so far who had defended Thatcher's union-bashing so it was obvious to anyone properly following the thread whose point I was addressing. As I said, try to follow the threads and respond accordingly. That would make a pleasant change. |
|
03 May 15 - 07:11 PM (#3706209) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw I'd pay your fare if you'd bring the bumwipe, Greg. |
|
03 May 15 - 07:18 PM (#3706214) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket I thought she was cremated? If she had been buried, her grave would have needed a sprung dance floor. We ex miners have dodgy knees.... |
|
03 May 15 - 07:20 PM (#3706216) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,# I expect she was buried in the ground then cremated much further down in the earth. Just a thought. |
|
04 May 15 - 03:59 AM (#3706272) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "Mr Blair was more successful than Mrs Thatcher in "smashing the Unions" Utter nonsense. thatcher deliberately took on Britain's most effective and dedicated Trades Union and won - the rest was easy for whoever followed her. There has been enough written to show that this was a deliberate policy with long-term aims. She went to the same lengths as any other dictator would go to, falling short of actual coup, the clearest evidence was her her use of the police and her intended use of the Army to crush the miners besieged mining villages, arrests, entry into homes, open violence towards demonstrators.... THATCHER'S LEGACY Her declared admiration for Pinochet and her description of him as a hero of democracy should convince any doubters - usually met with a blanket silence from her supporter. Wherever she is buried, this should be her marker, so we don't forget what she was about "Epitaph for the eighties? "there is no such thing as society" Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987 "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 15 - 04:30 AM (#3706277) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford A more balanced view from The Independent. "Baroness Thatcher defeated Labour at three general elections and forced the party to drag itself into the modern world by supporting market forces; privatisation; reform of employment laws to reduce the power of the trade unions; lower taxation for individuals and business; an independent nuclear deterrent; a "special relationship" with America; public services geared more to consumers than producers and the sale of council houses to their tenants. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the two principal architects of New Labour, were dubbed "sons of Thatcher" for embracing her free-market reforms. Labour's conversion was epitomised by Mr Brown. In 1989, as a rising Labour star, he wrote a book called Where there is greed... Margaret Thatcher and the Betrayal of Britain's Future. It was dedicated to his Dunfermline East constituents who, he said, "have more reason than most to look forward to the end of the Thatcher era." Yet after becoming Prime Minister in 2007, Mr Brown inviting her to Downing Street and Chequers as he tried to bolster his own credentials as leader of the nation. After the 1978-79 Winter of Discontent, the voters might not have trusted Labour to run the country again unless Lady Thatcher had diluted the unions' power. She forced them to hold ballots before strikes; opened them up to claims for damages if they took illegal industrial action and curbed the closed shop (which required workers to join a union). As shadow Employment Secretary, Mr Blair took on the unions and Labour left by accepting the key Thatcher reforms. On becoming Labour leader in 1994, he announced plans to ditch Clause IV of the party's constitution, its commitment to old-style public ownership, a change which mirrored the Thatcher privatisation programme. Mr Blair deliberately copied the style of Lady Thatcher. He was determined to project a tough image to the public and to impose his will on his party and, when in power, on his Cabinet. Neither leader wanted to "waste time" on internal arguments. Both had a small trusted circle of people who were "one of us". Lord Mandelson, another founder of New Labour, told The Independent: "Labour went through a near-death experience in the 1980s. We turned ourselves round but the effect of Margaret Thatcher was to remind the Labour Party that it had to listen to the public and not just its activist base in order to be re-elected. In particular, we had to speak to the aspirational working class to whom Lady Thatcher appealed and who we had to win back." The former Cabinet minister admitted Labour would never have been able to reform employment laws or privatise utilities because of opposition from the trade unions. But because the Thatcher Government had made the changes, he said, Labour could decide not to reverse them." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatchers-legacy-spilt-milk-new-labour-and-the-big-bang--she-changed-ever |
|
04 May 15 - 04:32 AM (#3706279) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Sorry, link no good. Google some of the text. |
|
04 May 15 - 04:33 AM (#3706280) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket I liked the first line best. "A more balanced view from The Independent." Nice one. 🐮💩 |
|
04 May 15 - 04:45 AM (#3706284) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Thanks Musket for your unexpected support. |
|
04 May 15 - 05:04 AM (#3706286) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "A more balanced view from The Independent." You have the been given the statistics of Thatcher's reign and its consequences for the people of Britain Whatever is claimed about what other parties migt or might not have been able to achieve - she failed and because she used us in her 'Social Engineering' experiment, we paid the price, and are still paying it. Wouldn't it be better to actually address the facts of her reign of terror rather than digging up meaningless press opinions Politically, she failed, but it was Thatcher's view of people (or lack of it) that made he what she was. At least her Tory predecessors had a streak of benevolence and humanity about them - she had none - the facts and her own statements confirmed that - try addressing them. ANOTHER, MAYBE NOT SO "BALANCED" VIEW FROM THE INDEPENDENT Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 15 - 05:32 AM (#3706294) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw She turned this country into a dog-eats-dog, every man for himself philistine place in which unregulated spivs in the City could make a fast buck or million and in which whole communities were thrown on the scrapheap. She started the cut-price sell off of national assets that were not hers to sell (they were ours). She formed a special relationship with an American president who was little more than an ignorant thug and she was swept back into power on the back of a war over a lump of rock that should never have been ours in the first place (doing it with the help of a murderous military dictator). It gave those of us with a bit more conscience no pleasure at all to see Blair enthusiastically assuming her mantle. There. That's a balanced view for you. |
|
04 May 15 - 06:00 AM (#3706299) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Fred McCormick As I key this in, homelessness protesters are occupying an old Bank of England branch in Liverpool. They've barricaded themselves in so effectively that the bailiffs have been unable to serve a high court injunction on them. What's more, at a time when police resources are allegedly stretched to breaking point, the whole area is crawling with "Thatchers thugs in blue". Homelessness. The bedroom tax. Cuts to local authority services. Benefit sanctions. An NHS which is dying on its feet. Zero hours contracts. Workfare. Privatisation of everything which hasn't been privatised already. Just a few of the things which Thatcher's legatees have inflicted on us. I think I hear an army. |
|
04 May 15 - 07:18 AM (#3706306) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford More balance. Some historians writing for BBC. Extract, "The fact that Thatcher won 13.7 million votes in the 1987 general election, compared to 13 million in 1983, or that northern seats such as Darlington or Barrow and Furness, Labour seats in 1979, turned blue in 1983 and 1987, point to a far more nuanced approach. As someone who was born in 1981, I do not pretend to remember much of the decade: for myself, it is as much a part of history as the 1945 postwar government. But as history, we must not allow politics to blind ourselves from reaching an impartial and balanced picture of the achievements and failings of the Thatcher government." |
|
04 May 15 - 07:19 AM (#3706308) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Forgot link. http://www.historyextra.com/thatcher |
|
04 May 15 - 07:29 AM (#3706310) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll And your point is.....? Youhave yet to respond to one single researched figure put up How can that possibly be "balanced"? Not one of your quotes have contradicted those facts "The fact that Thatcher won 13.7 million votes in the 1987 general election, compared to 13 million in 1983, or that northern seats such as Darlington or Barrow and Furness" Your uncredited "more balanced" quotes come from Sir Max Hastings and Chris Skidmore, a historian and Conservative MP - lora - lorra balance there!! Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 15 - 07:30 AM (#3706311) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket How's the balancing act coming on Keith? 😹😹😹 |
|
04 May 15 - 07:36 AM (#3706314) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Paddy Ashdown, "Though there will be many who saw her as the author of much destruction that we still mourn, much that she pulled down needed to be pulled down. She was better as destroyer of old tired institutions and lazy ways of thinking than she was as the builder of new ones; better at defining divisions than building cohesion. But probably that's what Britain needed then. Had we on the left not grown so lazy about our addictions to the easy ways of state corporatism, she would perhaps have been less successful at so cruelly exposing their hollowness. " http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/what-did-margaret-thatcher-do-britain |
|
04 May 15 - 07:42 AM (#3706316) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jack Campin The saddest thing about the whole Northern Ireland conflict was that the Brighton Hotel bomber didn't manage to kill her. |
|
04 May 15 - 07:47 AM (#3706317) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford The Economist. "Her combination of ideological certainty and global prominence ensured that Britain played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union that was disproportionate to its weight in the world. Mrs Thatcher was the first British politician since Winston Churchill to be taken seriously by the leaders of all the big powers. She was a heroine to opposition politicians in eastern Europe. Her willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder with "dear Ronnie" to block Soviet expansionism helped to promote new thinking in the Kremlin. But her readiness to work with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, also helped to end the cold war. Mrs Thatcher's privatisation revolution spread around the world. Other EU countries followed her example, if not her rhetoric: in 1985-2000 European governments sold off some $100 billion-worth of state assets, including national champions such as Lufthansa, Volkswagen and Renault. The post-communist countries embraced it heartily: by 1996 Russia had privatised some 18,000 industrial enterprises. India part-dismantled the licence Raj, and unleashed a cavalcade of successful companies. Across Latin America governments embraced market liberalisation. Whether they did this well or badly, all of them looked to the British example. At home, her legacy was more complicated. Paradoxes abound. She was a true-blue Tory who marginalised the Tory Party for a generation. The Tories ceased to be a national party, retreating to the south and the suburbs and all but dying off in Scotland, Wales and the northern cities. Tony Blair profited more from the Thatcher revolution than John Major, her successor: with the trade unions emasculated and the left discredited, he was able to remodel his party and sell it triumphantly to Middle England. His huge majority in 1997 ushered in 13 years of New Labour rule. She was also an enemy of big government who presided over a huge expansion of it. Her dislike of the left-wing councils that dominated many British cities was so great that she did more than any other post-war prime minister to bind local governments into an ever tighter net of restrictions. She had no time for the idea of elected mayors who united real power with real responsibility. Britain became much more like highly centralised France than gloriously decentralised America. Yet her achievements cannot be gainsaid. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576081-margaret-thatcher-britains-prime-minister-1979-1990-died-april-8th-age |
|
04 May 15 - 08:26 AM (#3706324) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Ed T Margaret Thatcher Died at the Ritz: poem by Anna Chen |
|
04 May 15 - 08:47 AM (#3706327) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll More quotes and no response to the facts Keith Yours was a quote from the obituary in The Economist, they always say nice things when you die and none of them mention her tearing Britain in half - or all the other atrocities she committed - I'd settle for an explanation of her support for Pinochet's take on democracy. "the Brighton Hotel bomber didn't manage to kill her." We spent New Years Eve in Brighton a few months after the Brighton bombing and we were standing at the par of a pub, when a total stranger, a well spoken, well dressed middle aged lady said to us: "How do you know Michael Tebbitt is a fast reader?" Somewhat bemused, we replied, "Don't know" "Because he got through five stories in five seconds". Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 15 - 08:58 AM (#3706330) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket I see the history revisionists are at it again. Sanitising Th*tcher. Almost as disgusting as sanitising the First World War... Although the dead soldiers fought for what they thought would be a better society, Th*fcher fought originally for what Keith Joseph and Nicholas Ridley told her to fight for and later fought for her sanity. |
|
04 May 15 - 09:07 AM (#3706334) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Stanron I am not a big fan of statistics, after all if you can't lie with statistics you're not really trying. However for those of you who can't be bothered to plough through the links provided by Jim Carroll here's a synopsis of one of them. It's from the BBC so I can't really attack it as dodgy at source. I'll leave it to someone else to do the other one. Inflation down from nearly 25% in 1976 to approximately 2% in 1993. Isn't that a good thing? In the same period unemployment doubled from 1.5 milliom to 3. Obviously not a good thing but an inevitable result of resizing our industrial base all in one go. This could have been managed over a fifty year period had the unions allowed anyone to attempt it, and the dreadful effects that came from this might have been ameliorated. Coal production came down. Big deal. What's the point in mining it if you don't use it? I don't remember much talk about CO2 emissions back then but didn't we still have coal gas at the start of that period and North Sea gas at the end? GDP Two recessions and two booms. The commentary links the the recessions to the attempts to reduce inflation. In the long term inflation has been reduced. I remember thinking at the time of Blaire's election that it was kind of ironic that the Tories had finally stabalised the economy only to be thrown out and unable to build on it. Is the same thing about to happen again? Interest rates. A 17% high in 1980 down to just over 5% in 1993. Anyone fancy paying 17% on their mortgage? Council houses. She sold em. Yes OK and she also kept the money. She was, of course, at war with Labour councils or rather they were at war with her. I presume she had no intention of funding such a vigorous opposition. House prices. They went up until 1989 then started to fall back again. I wouldn't be surprised if they went up again later on. So what exactly does any of this prove except that the economy was a real basket case when she came into office and it was more or less sorted before Blaire and Browne got their chance to screw it all up again. |
|
04 May 15 - 09:19 AM (#3706336) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus 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. |
|
04 May 15 - 09:25 AM (#3706337) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus 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. |
|
04 May 15 - 09:38 AM (#3706338) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
04 May 15 - 09:41 AM (#3706339) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
04 May 15 - 10:00 AM (#3706345) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw 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? |
|
04 May 15 - 10:12 AM (#3706347) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
04 May 15 - 11:25 AM (#3706370) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket 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. |
|
04 May 15 - 12:06 PM (#3706379) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker 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...😬 |
|
04 May 15 - 01:15 PM (#3706399) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. 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. |
|
04 May 15 - 01:27 PM (#3706402) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw He wasn't too good for democracy either. Plenty of people in central America would tell you that. |
|
04 May 15 - 02:23 PM (#3706415) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus 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. |
|
04 May 15 - 02:34 PM (#3706417) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker 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...😞 |
|
04 May 15 - 02:52 PM (#3706419) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw James "Crisis, what crisis" Callaghan He didn't say those words. Ask any historian, alive or dead. |
|
04 May 15 - 03:21 PM (#3706427) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
04 May 15 - 05:52 PM (#3706461) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Well, Jim, if these people will get their history from Murdoch, why shouldn't we get ours from Blackadder? Far more reliable! :-) |
|
04 May 15 - 06:49 PM (#3706480) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus 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". |
|
04 May 15 - 07:46 PM (#3706489) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
04 May 15 - 07:46 PM (#3706490) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
04 May 15 - 08:36 PM (#3706502) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw 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! |
|
05 May 15 - 01:21 AM (#3706537) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
05 May 15 - 01:50 AM (#3706539) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
05 May 15 - 02:29 AM (#3706542) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus 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. |
|
05 May 15 - 03:05 AM (#3706547) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket 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. 🙊🙉🙈 |
|
05 May 15 - 03:31 AM (#3706550) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll 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 |
|
05 May 15 - 04:02 AM (#3706552) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll 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 |
|
05 May 15 - 04:12 AM (#3706553) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus "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. |
|
05 May 15 - 04:38 AM (#3706558) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
05 May 15 - 05:40 AM (#3706565) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw 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? |
|
05 May 15 - 05:56 AM (#3706569) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST 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 ? |
|
05 May 15 - 06:29 AM (#3706570) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Doubt it. |
|
05 May 15 - 08:19 AM (#3706593) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
05 May 15 - 08:32 AM (#3706596) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST Please will someone remind me what it is that the unions can't do now. |
|
05 May 15 - 09:02 AM (#3706601) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... 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. 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"." |
|
05 May 15 - 09:21 AM (#3706606) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket "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. |
|
05 May 15 - 09:45 AM (#3706619) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Mr Red no blood pressure in Rouge Towers I happily swallow Thatchers Gold. Cider that is, not the ill gotten gains. |
|
05 May 15 - 09:54 AM (#3706622) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw 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? |
|
05 May 15 - 09:55 AM (#3706624) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus ""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. |
|
05 May 15 - 10:12 AM (#3706625) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw "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. |
|
05 May 15 - 10:21 AM (#3706628) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome 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. |
|
05 May 15 - 10:32 AM (#3706630) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Raggytash 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. |
|
05 May 15 - 10:34 AM (#3706631) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
05 May 15 - 10:45 AM (#3706636) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker 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'... ✔😜 |
|
05 May 15 - 10:51 AM (#3706637) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus 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? |
|
05 May 15 - 11:05 AM (#3706642) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker 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...!!! |
|
05 May 15 - 11:05 AM (#3706643) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome 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. |
|
05 May 15 - 11:21 AM (#3706646) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket 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? |
|
05 May 15 - 02:44 PM (#3706685) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. leftie-bashing, Scots-bashing, union-bashing, Maggie-loving, Murdoch-worshipping mentality. Mentality assumes a functioning brain. |
|
05 May 15 - 02:56 PM (#3706686) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
05 May 15 - 04:11 PM (#3706698) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus 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 |
|
05 May 15 - 05:40 PM (#3706710) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Interesting article on why attitudes like Teribus's on minimum pay are wrong. By a wealthy capitalist. |
|
05 May 15 - 06:16 PM (#3706718) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Then explain why we suddenly need them under your precious Tories, Billyboy. Just an unscrupulous idea that works because the unions have been emasculated and the Tories like them, that's why. |
|
06 May 15 - 01:18 AM (#3706755) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus C'mon Stevieboy answer my questions: 1: What are those on zero hour contracts paid? 2: Who was it set the minimum wage? Good article DtG only thing he brushes on very lightly is that trickle down is finite and only goes so far and it has worked (BBC "Rich World" series showed that the fastest growing "class" in society was the Middle-Classes throughout the world). What he misses out on completely is that "trickle down" has the effect of improving everyone's lot in life to varying degrees, it has never laid claim to be a means of equally sharing wealth. As for the thread Margaret Thatcher will probably go down as one of the country's best peacetime Prime Ministers, she was a far, far better leader and politician than those she replaced and a damned sight better than those who came after her and attempting to blame her for everything wrong that has happened in the twenty-five years since she left office is simply idiotic and pathetic - a typical standpoint for a "socialist" though as "it is always somebody else's fault" irrespective of how badly they screw up (The Blair & Brown years - and before the screams of "They weren't real socialists" deafen us, remember you lot voted for Blair three times). |
|
06 May 15 - 03:09 AM (#3706764) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,achmelvich since the 70s - thatcher, reagan and their decendents have been applying the lessons of the chicago school the wirld over. detailed and completely persuasive evidence presented by naomi klein in her book 'the shock doctrine' shows the tactics first tested in chile have driven the political direction in every major -and many minor- disputes worldwide. the idealogical imperative to destroy the state regardless of the consequences for the majority of the people is the major crime committed by thatcher. nothing can justify her good reputation for anyone who cares nothing for the country and it's people. when accountants and bankers run the show - it's price of everything and the value of nothing. obviuosly we have been hammered by 4 /5 decades of relentless right wing media but it is depressing to see our country still in thrall to american politics and 'values' and stubbornly refusing to learn the lessons from progressive mainland europe. blame thatcher. and blair. and the shady shape shifting lizards. of course around them |
|
06 May 15 - 04:01 AM (#3706772) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Richard Bridge Zero hours contracts allow workers suffering them the "flexibility" to be ordered about and left to starve on the weeks the employer does not want to pay them. An ex-G/F is on such a contract - not being permitted more than 16 hours work a week, because then she might get some feeble employment rights, travelling up to 10 hours (5 each way) to work an 8-hour shift, barred from working for anyone else, and earning £116-ish per week if she gets 16 hours - when her rent is £140 per week. She is slowly being ground to dust, and the benefits gestapo say (I'm sure they lie) she has been OVERPAID benefits and want some thousands of quid back from her. She is a fine and diligent person being broken by the sons of Thatcher. THe people doing that to her should be up against the wall. |
|
06 May 15 - 04:12 AM (#3706773) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll Lion's share of wealth in Britain "Margaret Thatcher will probably go down as one of the country's best peacetime Prime Ministers" She is on record as being the most hated Prime Minister ever by those who experienced her reign and are still experiencing the aftershocks. From the horse's mouth Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 15 - 04:56 AM (#3706777) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome What he misses out on completely is that "trickle down" has the effect of improving everyone's lot in life to varying degrees, it has never laid claim to be a means of equally sharing wealth. Neither the author nor I ever suggested it did. It does however ensure that at least some of the wealth is being spent by people who need it. Unlike some others on here I do believe that capitalism can work and provided that there is a good measure of social responsibility it is not a bad thing. As I have pointed out before a good economy relies on capital, labour and natural resource to work properly. Concentrating on one to the exclusion of others will never work properly. |
|
06 May 15 - 05:10 AM (#3706780) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Shimrod Surely, Thatcher's main legacy is that of a promoter of the pernicious, neo-liberal, economic doctrine of the 'free market' - a licence for the privileged minority to thieve and rob from the rest of us. This self-serving nonsense has divided our society and led to accelerating environmental destruction (for a detailed analysis of this latter point, read Naomi Klein's recent book, 'This Changes Everything'). Of course, Blair also embraced neo-liberalism thus perpetuating and institutionalising Thatcher's evil legacy. |
|
06 May 15 - 05:20 AM (#3706781) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Don't give me your "c'mon, Stevieboy" shit, Teribus. I couldn't post to this website for hours last night for some reason. It became read-only this end. Fortunately, I copied the post I was trying to send, so here it is. Cheers for that brilliant article, Dave. Come on, Teribus, let's see you taking it on. How about this: "Low-wage workers stuck on a path to poverty are not only weak customers; they're also anemic taxpayers, absent citizens and inattentive neighbors." What price your zero-hour contracts for all (looks like we're heading that way) and your "flexible labour market"? I don't give a stuff if my post is twelve hours out of date. I sweated over it for minutes. So you're getting it now. So c'mon, Billyboy... |
|
06 May 15 - 05:35 AM (#3706785) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw So, to answer your rather pointless questions, those on zero-hours contracts are paid anything from zero (duh) to not very much per hour. Mostly minimum wage to not much over. No hours, no pay. That's the principle. You get work, the employer has to abide by the law on hourly pay, like everyone else. What exactly was your point in asking? The minimum wage was brought in by Labour. The Tories opposed it. Cameron was one of the leading voices. He said unemployment would rocket. It didn't. He was wrong and you are wrong. He supports it now, basically because he has to. Interesting tangential point. In 2010, the rate for Cameron's bogus apprenticeships was £2.50 per hour. Today it's £2.73 per hour. Five years for an extra 23p. Work a 40 hour week on that and you just about scrape a few quid more than jobseekers for being exploited. Welcome to Toribus's Britain. |
|
06 May 15 - 05:37 AM (#3706786) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw That's zero pay if you have no hours. Obviously. Another double espresso please. |
|
06 May 15 - 05:40 AM (#3706787) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford She is on record as being the most hated Prime Minister ever by those who experienced her reign and are still experiencing the aftershocks. She won three elections in a row, never defeated. A lot of people must have liked her. |
|
06 May 15 - 05:41 AM (#3706789) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker errrrrmmmm... not something I tend to admit, or even readily remember... but before I got properly progressively politicised and aware of true harsh social reality, my 6th Form College course was OND Business Studies and 'A' level Law, Accounts, and Economics... [I actually really wanted to do English, Art, and Drama - but life seldom works out to plan ???] Though the Government & Politics 'O' level in the first year was a good starting point for me and my best mates in our 'punk' band to learn the nuts & bolts of British Constitution and Govt. leading us on to gradually 'discovering' our inclination towards socialism... Any way the point is, I've always accepted the value of a mixed economy of nationalised key services & utilities and a private sector of responsible good quality ethical employers. Unfortunately, my youthful naive idealism has been consistently battered & disillusioned by a lifetime of being cheated and stabbed in the back by unscrupulous ruthless contemptuous thatcherite bastard managers and bosses only out to get on and line their own pockets no matter who they fuck up and dispose of along the way...😠 |
|
06 May 15 - 05:49 AM (#3706791) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Richard Bridge You are right, PFR. |
|
06 May 15 - 05:50 AM (#3706793) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Don't want you thinking I'm persecuting you, Teribus, but, as for this: As for the thread Margaret Thatcher will probably go down as one of the country's best peacetime Prime Ministers, she was a far, far better leader and politician than those she replaced and a damned sight better than those who came after her and attempting to blame her for everything wrong that has happened in the twenty-five years since she left office is simply idiotic and pathetic - a typical standpoint for a "socialist" though as "it is always somebody else's fault" irrespective of how badly they screw up (The Blair & Brown years - and before the screams of "They weren't real socialists" deafen us, remember you lot voted for Blair three times). Very unlike you, that. The whole thing consists of unsupported assertions. I'm sure you could have found something to back you up. You do read the Sun, don't you...? Incidentally, I for one never once voted FOR Blair. I always voted AGAINST the Tories. LibDem every time, to make sure the Tory didn't get this seat (Cornwall North). I shall do the same again this time in spite of the betrayal of 2010. My clothes peg is ready. Nothing is black and white, Billyboy. A visceral lifelong hatred of the Tories does not translate into a love of Blair/Brown, I assure you. |
|
06 May 15 - 05:59 AM (#3706798) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Well, Keith, I think you have an uphill job demonstrating that an awful lot of those people who purportedly "liked" Maggie didn't vote Tory because they didn't like Foot or Kinnock. I wasn't overly keen myself, to say the least. And let's not forget the SDP wrecking ball as well as Arthur, Maggie's secret weapons. |
|
06 May 15 - 06:09 AM (#3706801) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus "Incidentally, I for one never once voted FOR Blair." Well then Stevieboy at least we have that in common. Doesn't alter the fact though that there were plenty who did, not once, but thrice when all the indicators were there that he and his Chancellor and ultimate successor were ruining the country (Blair & Brown - there was not one single thing that they touched that didn't turn to shit) - daftest thing is there are those "Red Rosette on a Pig and I'll vote for it" clowns lining up in droves to vote for the same political party to do the same thing all over again - and the daft prats wonder how things don't get better. |
|
06 May 15 - 06:12 AM (#3706803) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket I was talking to that Godwin chap and he said "A lot if people must have liked her err.. Him" I think he was talking about that popular politician chap, Hitler. zzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
06 May 15 - 06:45 AM (#3706815) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Raggytash From Teribus " daftest thing is there are those "Red Rosette on a Pig and I'll vote for it" clowns lining up in droves to vote for the same political party to do the same thing all over again - and the daft prats wonder how things don't get better" Question for you Teribus, does that also apply to people voting for a pig with a blue rosette? |
|
06 May 15 - 07:41 AM (#3706830) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Hitler only won one election and never risked standing again. No free press or opposition parties or any dissent allowed. No comparison. |
|
06 May 15 - 07:47 AM (#3706832) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Million miles from Hertford True. Hitler never actually used the words "enemy within." She did though. |
|
06 May 15 - 08:20 AM (#3706844) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford I think he used the German equivalent, and arranged special accommodation for them. |
|
06 May 15 - 08:31 AM (#3706851) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Then you should be condemning her on the same grounds as you, presumably, condemn him. I speak as one of her enemies within. We were called trade unionists. Where's Pastor Niemoller when you need him? |
|
06 May 15 - 08:53 AM (#3706856) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Do you compare her to Hitler? Is that a fair comparison? |
|
06 May 15 - 09:05 AM (#3706859) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw I thought that what you were doing, actually. |
|
06 May 15 - 09:12 AM (#3706861) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "Is that a fair comparison?" No - it is not fair. Hitler carried out the aims of the Nazi Party - Thatcher would never have got away with putting her Fascist inclinations into practice, but she made them clear i the meeting she organised and spoke at in support of Pinochet and she accused British politicians who were considering holding him under house arrest as running a "Police State". 'By thy actions own words shall ye be judged'. "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." Mrs T on Pinochet She really wasn't as successful as Hitler, but it wasn't for the want of trying. Her attitude to Trades Unions, which she described as 'The Enemy Within' wasn't that unsimilar, but then again, Democracy stopped her from throwing them in jail. Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 15 - 09:21 AM (#3706868) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST Please will someone remind me what it is that the unions can't do now ? (I did ask earlier. The follow on question is why Labour didn't change thinsg back ?) |
|
06 May 15 - 09:25 AM (#3706869) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus Undoubtedly Raggytash, only thing is the ones wearing red rosettes keep destroying the country's economy with the result that the ones wearing the blue rosettes start off their term sorting out the mess. Populist governments never actually work because to get elected they make all sorts of daft promises that they know they can't keep. On winning the election they find themselves "governing" the country where all the rhetoric they used to spout whilst sitting on the opposition benches is shown in the light of having to face real problems to be complete and utter bullshit. Governance requires real leadership and that means biting the bullet and making tough decisions as and when required for the good of the country as a whole. Every Labour Government this country has had has been an economic train wreck. You are free to disprove that statement. |
|
06 May 15 - 10:03 AM (#3706876) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Economic train wreck it may have been, I do not know and am not inclined to look it up, but it was a labour government that created a national health service that is still the envy of a lot of the world. What is more important, health or wealth? OK - I know we need wealth to provide health care but it seems that while, in your opinion, the right is better at creating that wealth, they are certainly not good at caring :-( |
|
06 May 15 - 10:06 AM (#3706877) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Stanron I wonder how many of you would even bother to read Daniel Finklestein's article in the Times. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4431576.ece and if it would make the slightest difference if you did. |
|
06 May 15 - 10:06 AM (#3706878) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST Voting Labour is not an unconditional endorsement. There will be compromises and disappointments. But for all the genuine [as opposed to right wing media scaremongering] faults of Labour Govts. It's still a more positive choice than yet another round of tory's public sector asset stripping and dubious sell offs to international corporate cronies. [ if we still have that many post war public assets left for the spivs to sell off !!!???] |
|
06 May 15 - 10:08 AM (#3706879) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Stanron Here's the clicky thing clicky |
|
06 May 15 - 10:20 AM (#3706881) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus I know it's the Mail but Jim Carroll has put it up as a credible source before now: Tory triumphs and Labour disasters |
|
06 May 15 - 10:37 AM (#3706889) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Stanron - Only subscribers to the Times can see it so I cannot comment. Only to say that Rupert Murdoch wants to keep the Tories and and that in itself tells a tale. Teribus - There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Then there is the popular press. |
|
06 May 15 - 10:54 AM (#3706893) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "I know it's the Mail but Jim Carroll has put it up as a credible source before now:" That is an election statement from The Daily Mail - an acclaimed supporter of The Tories on the eve of the election - what else are they going to say - "we've got it wrong - don't vote for them" maybe? I have quoted The Mail regularly - whenever it makes a statement not in favour of the right - the only thing "reliable" about the rag is that it is an extreme rightist, pro-Tory tabloid and it will never make up anything which shows cjhallenges the right and the status quo - so when it does, you can put money on it. Not so long ago I put up something by them and you ased "do you believe everything you read in te paper" - not in this case, especially at this time. You have totally ignored every fact put up which shows Thatcher, the Tories and the system for the predators they are - unemployment, homelessness, povery, the gap increasing gap between rich and poor, Thatcher's fascism.... - not a peep. And you expect us to swallow a party-political broadcast on behalf of the Conservatives The election campaign must be in a bad way!!! Must go and dry my hair (I assume yu think we've 'just got off the boat!' Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 15 - 11:26 AM (#3706901) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket Train wreck.. The economic mess Heath left for Wilson to deal with? The one Th*tcher bequeathed Major that Blair had to deal with? How about the appalling way Cameron and Osborn have dealt with the national debt now? They say ignorance is bliss Terribulus, but to differentiate between governments on the basis of party displays a naivety not even your precious Daily M*il teaches you... 😂😂😂 |
|
06 May 15 - 02:07 PM (#3706939) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus "I have quoted The Mail regularly - whenever it makes a statement not in favour of the right" So from that I take it that when you quote and refer to something from that particular news source it has to be taken as "gospel" and is thoroughly credible as long as it feeds your bigotry? Grow up Christmas. "You have totally ignored every fact put up which shows Thatcher, the Tories and the system for the predators they are" And you have totally ignored and dismissed every fact put up which disproves your dearly held myths. "unemployment, homelessness, poverty" All of those things existed pre-Thatcher and they did not get worse, in fact despite the depredations of Blair and Brown (The Pension Raids) in general people are better off today than they were 30 years ago and a damned sight better off than they were 60 years ago. "the gap increasing gap between rich and poor" From the link I provided Christmas - on this very subject: "TAX AND INEQUALITY - The rich are paying their fair share of tax. The best-paid 1 per cent contribute 27 per cent of all income tax revenue. (According to information supplied by HMRC in response to a request under the FOI Act) - Despite Ed Miliband's disingenuous claims about 'tax cuts for millionaires', the top 0.1 per cent of earners are paying 12 per cent of all income tax — a record high. (According to information supplied by HMRC in response to a request under the FOI Act) - The rise in the personal allowance to £10,600 a year has taken 3.7 million people out of paying income tax altogether. - Income inequality in the UK, as measured by the Office for National Statistics, is lower than it was in 2010/11 when the Coalition came into office. "Thatcher's fascism??" - democratically elected as a Member of Parliament. Elected by her Party as Leader, her Party was elected into office by the electorate of the United Kingdom on three occasions. When her position as leader was challenged and she lost the vote within her political party she stood down - now care to tell me of any Dictator Fascist or other wise whose political career followed a similar path? Your childish scatter-gun approach to flinging insulting terms about is ill-informed and pathetic. |
|
06 May 15 - 02:58 PM (#3706944) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "Grow up Christmas." Grown up - I suggest you do the same (you might start by not shuffling around inconvenient facts. Can always tell when you're stuck when you resort to insults and invective, as now. As I said, The mair is a right wing rag and there is no reason for them to make up anti right-wing propaganda "And you have totally ignored and dismissed every fact put up which disproves your dearly held myths" You have qualified none of your claims - you seldom do. You make them as arrogant statements of truth - as ytou have been doing throughout these two arguments You have had charts backing up what we have been claiming - you offer nothing except tabloid propaganda in return. You have had Thatcher's own statements declaring her support for fascism - not a murmer in response. "All of those things existed pre-Thatcher and they did not get worse" Utter nonsense - and you have had the figures to prove it. The gap in the division of wealth, both in Bitain and throughout the Capitalist world has reached astronomical proportions - no figures to counter them in return from you - now a few feeble denials. Utter nonsense to claim the rich are paying their share - though it is quite fscinating to have someone actually advocating on behalf of them TAX LOOPHOLES MORE The fact man, we need the facts Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 15 - 03:14 PM (#3706947) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Raggytash From Teribus, " Undoubtedly Raggytash, only thing is the ones wearing red rosettes keep destroying the country's economy with the result that the ones wearing the blue rosettes start off their term sorting out the mess" Are you REALLY that naïve that you believe that ? Incredible. |
|
06 May 15 - 03:47 PM (#3706954) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket "If you repeat it often enough it becomes the established truth " Dr Goebbells "This mess we inherited was too bad to sort in one term" Heath, Th*tcher, Major, Cameron. |
|
06 May 15 - 04:47 PM (#3706966) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Penny S. I distinctly remember thinking back then that to claim a mandate when one hadn't received the majority of the popular vote was attributing some sort of magic to the way the number of seats in Parliament reflected an opposite opinion to that of the numbers of the electorate, so that it was actually what the people had intended. Did she always get in with a majority of the popular vote? Penny |
|
06 May 15 - 05:00 PM (#3706971) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll Sorry - didn't finish (didn't want to miss'Gently' - great!!) ""Thatcher's fascism??" " Thatcher called a meeting of the Tory Party in defence of a man who had overthrown a legally elected Government, had had the President murdered, rounded up many thousands of young peolpe wo took to the streets in protest, herded them into Santiago Stadium, where they were tortured - the women were raped and thousands of them were 'disappeared' and where fished out to the river in their hundreds. She described these actions as "democratic" and, it is my belief, had she been given the opportunity, she would have used similar tactics on the people she referred to as "the enemy within" (in Chile, they were referred to as "the mob". Her efforts helped to prevent Pinochet from being put on trial for mass-murder and human rights abuses. "Your childish scatter-gun approach " There is nothing "scatter-gun" about my approach - on the contrary, the evidence I have put up is fairly precise and well- documented - not a personal opinion, as is yours. What is "pathetic" is your clumsy attempts first to ignore the facts that have been presents, but your present attempts to bluster and shuffle your way past them. Mor facts for you to ignore (and then, maybe deny" Jim Carroll TELEGRAPH EDUCATION WORK YOUTH HOUSING |
|
06 May 15 - 05:25 PM (#3706977) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Penny S. When people argue about the proportion of taxes paid by the rich, they always base the argument on income tax alone, not on VAT. Proportionately, the poorer pay more of their income as VAT than do the rich. Here's a nice government document about it. Office of National Statistics The proportions of VAT paid by the lowest earners increased over the period of the study, while those of the rich have remained steady. This study is of the Labour period of office. I can't find anything more recent, though there is a prediction here Retail research of the effects of the increase to 20%. (About halfway down.) |
|
06 May 15 - 05:39 PM (#3706981) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Penny S. From my calculations, if the lowest quintile is paying 12.1% of disposable income in VAT, and the average is 7.4%, then the richest quintile are paying in the region of 2.7% in VAT. To work this out, I calculated for the middle 3 quintiles at the average 7.4%, and assumed an even distribution. Even if this is wrong, the gap between 12.1% and 7.4% is a bit steep. |
|
06 May 15 - 05:58 PM (#3706985) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Good work, Penny. And let's not forget the billions that the richest don't pay because they can afford to hire the finest accountants in the land. |
|
06 May 15 - 06:35 PM (#3706994) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Stanron "don't pay because they can afford to hire"? |
|
06 May 15 - 07:23 PM (#3707003) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Don't pay in tax. It isn't hard. |
|
06 May 15 - 07:58 PM (#3707008) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Stanron But Legal services cost a lot and have VAT on top. That's not tax? |
|
06 May 15 - 08:26 PM (#3707014) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw I made my point and you are becoming tedious. Perhaps you have more time on your hands now that your part in Cameron's election campaign is over. |
|
06 May 15 - 08:28 PM (#3707015) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker yeah... but still a cost effective expense if it saves the rich ££££$ in tax... ...and do doubt those cunning tax accountants might even find ways of making their own fees tax-deductible for mega wealthy clients ...???? |
|
06 May 15 - 08:33 PM (#3707016) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw You tell him, mate! :-) |
|
06 May 15 - 10:29 PM (#3707037) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker btw.. before I pack up for the night and go to bed/fall asleep on the sofa... mrs punkfolkrocker came home from work tonight and told me she'd just found out from local female gossip hotline that her favourite long established and thriving hair salon in the town centre suddenly closed at the end of last week. all the staff being laid off without warning or notice. Total surprise and dismay all round... Rumours are that the owner/boss may have been 'living beyond her means'... And this is the kind of small business and unprotected employment culture that the tories, and sadly Labour, proudly boast about wanting to promote and base our economy on...?????😣 |
|
07 May 15 - 12:21 AM (#3707050) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus "those cunning tax accountants might even find ways of making their own fees tax-deductible" Of course tax accountants fees are legitimate expenses to defray against tax - that is why everyone should use one. As stated previously elsewhere I worked on a zero-hours contract basis for about 30 years (i.e. No guaranteed hours, if you didn't work you didn't get paid) and always used an accountant for my tax returns, standard deductions were: 1: My Personal allowances 2: His services 3: Private pension payments that were limited to ~17% of net relevant earnings (i.e. gross earnings, did not include investment income or interest) 4: Travel & living expenses (When relevant) 5: Medical expenses (Associated with work - mandatory requirement) 6: Training & refresher courses (Required for professional qualifications and upkeep of same to maintain and improve job prospects) 7: Calculation of "Time out of the country" due to work and credit for tax paid elsewhere Provided I conscientiously kept records and receipts the guy I used could do this easily within three days and he always saved me money. Nothing whatsoever stopping anyone from using the services of someone who knows the tax system of this country to minimise the amount of tax paid that is perfectly legal. Sure enough you have to spend, but you are spending for your benefit, like renting or owning, rent is money you put into somebody else's pocket for no benefit to you, whereas the money you use each month to pay off a mortgage is money ultimately going into your pocket. GUEST,punkfolkrocker - 06 May 15 - 10:29 PM - Ask Mrs pfr if the ladies still want their hair cut by their usual hairdresser? If as you say the business was long established and thriving, what you have just described presents an ideal business opportunity for those employed there. |
|
07 May 15 - 02:38 AM (#3707056) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Raggytash rom Teribus "like renting or owning, rent is money you put into somebody else's pocket for no benefit to you, whereas the money you use each month to pay off a mortgage is money ultimately going into your pocket" Three things Teribus: 1. If you pay rent you get a roof over your head which is a benefit. 2. You still haven't explained to me how my son could get a mortgage on his limited income with no opportunity to save for a deposit. 3. You really have no idea about poverty inn the UK today, do you. |
|
07 May 15 - 02:44 AM (#3707059) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "that is why everyone should use one." Even those on benefit, or in emergency accommodation, or trying to bring up a family on less than a living wage..... or all the other products of the increasingly sharply divided society created by Thatcher, those who came before her, and those who followed her. What planet to you live on? Still no answer to the facts of what is happening in the world today - just the bluff and bluster. Jim Carroll |
|
07 May 15 - 02:53 AM (#3707061) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket If you know of an accountant who can make their fees tax deductible, send me their details eh? I would say that the vast majority of accountant customers are paying for their services due to the complexity of the tax system and earn very small personal incomes. Self employed traders often scrape a living. Unless you are employed and paying PAYE, it is a bloody mine field. That said, my accountant does feel that I pay too much tax. So do I but if the only way to reduce it is to operate fringe systems that leave a bad taste, I'd rather trust some Socialist principles and hope they use my taxes wisely. |
|
07 May 15 - 03:48 AM (#3707071) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST On the information provided Teribus seems to have a good point about the hairdressers. |
|
07 May 15 - 03:57 AM (#3707073) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Yep - When I was self employed I used my own limited company, paid myself a salary that was not subject to tax and split the dividends between myself and my non-earning wife and son. Saved a fortune in tax, quite legally, and the accountants fees were a legitimate business expense. That was in the days I was a freelance contractor. Now I have decided to spend the few years before retirement in a more secure, permanent role I am limited to PAYE and my accountant, to his credit (pun intended), advised that there was little or nothing he could do to save me money. Most people in the country are PAYE employees. Maybe if they did become freelance they could save money but it is a huge risk that many cannot afford to take. On the other side of the equation we have the employers, such as mine, who will not use contract staff where there is intellectual property that belongs to them. They will not risk using contract staff, who can leave at a moments notice and owe no loyalty, where it would leave the business vulnerable to lose that expertise. Put everybody on zero hours contracts and everyone will benefit? Hardly. |
|
07 May 15 - 04:01 AM (#3707074) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker "On the information provided Teribus seems to have a good point about the hairdressers." "seems" being the operative word... providing any of these now suddenly unemployed, shocked & distressed staff have; entrepreneurial skills business acumen spare capital for investment a ruthless streak etc.. etc.. etc.. As much as it might fit tory ideology, not everyone is cut out for self employment... Not enough wannabe small business owners are fit individuals to be good responsible caring employers... |
|
07 May 15 - 04:20 AM (#3707079) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Raggytash Re: The Hairdresser. The solution for the hairdresser was actually quite simple. 1. Sack two members of staff on minimum wage of £6.50 per hour (£13) 2. Employ two apprentices on their minimum wage £2.73 per hour (£5.46) Net saving £7.54 per hour x's 40 £301.60 per week, that should help the cash flow. The fact that two people have lost their jobs, the fact that nobody can live on £2.73 per hour needn't concern anyone ..... should it? |
|
07 May 15 - 04:55 AM (#3707082) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Ah but £2.73 an hour is better than jobseekers (if you slave for enough hours, of course). We'll make sure it always pays to be in wage-slavery! |
|
07 May 15 - 05:02 AM (#3707086) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST Using apprentices is only good for the cash flow if customers still come, and if an insurer does not hike the premiums or insist on supervision. Thanks punkfolkrocker - that was the response I was hoping for. I wonder if similar considerations explain why the guys who clean cars in supermarket car parks are mainly from eastern europe. |
|
07 May 15 - 05:08 AM (#3707087) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST Except that there is no need for a ruthless streak if there is a need to be met. IME. |
|
07 May 15 - 07:13 AM (#3707115) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus Oh Raggy, some fairly obvious comments on your solution: "The solution for the hairdresser was actually quite simple. 1. Sack two members of staff on minimum wage of £6.50 per hour (£13) 2. Employ two apprentices on their minimum wage £2.73 per hour (£5.46) Net saving £7.54 per hour x's 40 £301.60 per week, that should help the cash flow." A) Ladies hairdressing is quite an art, not just anybody can do it and there is obviously a reason Mrs pfr described the business to him as long established and thriving - It is a business centred around custom trust and good will. B) Reduce qualified Staff and you cut your income as four cutters can cut more heads per day than two. C) The cutters you sack will take their "heads" with them so you have lost customers. Just as well you're not running the country - you'd have us bankrupt in a month. |
|
07 May 15 - 07:28 AM (#3707116) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Raggytash It would seem irony is lost upon you Teribus. PS. When are you going to enlighten us as to how a young man on low income can afford to buy a house. |
|
07 May 15 - 07:36 AM (#3707119) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker bloody hell... I'm getting flashbacks to my OND Business Studies exam papers nearly 40 years ago !!!😜 [shame.. mum and dad's hopes of me getting set up for a good career for life dashed by teenage rebellion and left wing counter culture rock'n'roll...🎸] |
|
07 May 15 - 07:45 AM (#3707123) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I did ONC Business studies in the early 70's PFR. Went to grammar school after sec. mod. but could not get into the academic discipline of doing A level, History, English and British Constitution and Government. Never sure why I chose the latter. Still... Anyway, started work instead. Did the ONC on day release and passed with distinctions. Went on to be accepted on a day release/part time LSE degree in Economics at Wigan Tech but it was cancelled after the first few weeks due to lack of either interest, funding or pies. Not sure which. |
|
07 May 15 - 08:41 AM (#3707138) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST Pies, Wigan ! One of my few memories of Wigan is from a pub that we used to stop at on the way to the dales that did good pies. One evening they sold out (of pies, not beer) and my memory is of the elderly lady from the kitchen, saying - with the diction and exaggerated mouth movements of one who has worked in a spinning room - "THERE IS NO PIES" My dad was self-employed in an industry that faded in the 70s. Part of the help from a pre-Thatcher government was GCSE Business Studies at evening classes. The handout notes were really good and I used them 20 years later when I became self-employed. Plenty good enough for a hairdresser I would have thought. Is that sort of help still availble ? |
|
07 May 15 - 08:48 AM (#3707142) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I kid you not. When I went to enroll for the degree it was in the canteen. The menu of the day was meat pie or meat and potato pie. Vegetarian option cheese and onion pie and for pudding apple pie. Not sure if anyone does day release any more. One of the consequences of high unemployment I guess. |
|
07 May 15 - 08:51 AM (#3707144) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker ..or what about help for setting up workers collectives and co-ops * ...??? do they figure at all positively on Cameron's radar...???? [* here I go again - always thinking back to the 70s...😜] |
|
07 May 15 - 08:54 AM (#3707145) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket This hairdressing lark. It must be lucrative because a mate described my Merc SLK AMG sports car as a hairdresser's car when I got it. By Terribulus's logic, I assume they can all afford £90k+ sports cars.... |
|
07 May 15 - 10:16 AM (#3707172) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus Raggy - in the case of YOUR Son - YOU help him |
|
07 May 15 - 10:23 AM (#3707175) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus "a mate described my Merc SLK AMG sports car as a hairdresser's car when I got it. By Terribulus's logic, I assume they can all afford £90k+ sports cars." Ehmmmmm NO Musktwat - obviously by your mate's logic, nothing at all to do with me. Plenty of people have worked themselves up from nothing, Margarte Thatcher didn't stop them, but for far too many in this country it is just simply too easy to sit back and blame someone else - oddly enough one thing they all seem to have in common is their politics. |
|
07 May 15 - 10:43 AM (#3707185) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome but for far too many in this country it is just simply too easy to sit back and blame someone else What, you mean like the Tory politicians who blame Labour for the financial crisis rather than their banking mates? Or the popular press who try to blame immigrant workers rather that their banking mates? Oh, hang on, I'm seeing a pattern here. Wonder who finances the Tory politicians and popular press? |
|
07 May 15 - 10:54 AM (#3707190) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket Terribulus doesn't seem to grasp his own logic now. Not surprising as mostly he cuts and pastes it from the logic of Mr Dacre. |
|
07 May 15 - 03:58 PM (#3707281) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Raggytash Teribus, In previous comments you have clearly indicated you have no knowledge of the plight of people living with limited means. Could I suggest by way of an education you take the time out to visit people who live in inner cities or rural communities where your lovely rosy view of the country does not pertain. |
|
07 May 15 - 04:53 PM (#3707291) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Teribus Raggy, my first job paid me a month about a one-half of what most people earned per week, I HAD TO save 40% of it each month, it was mandatory. If somebody wants something THEY have to go after it and get it, not the Government, not the taxpayer, it doesn't involve anybody else, it is called self reliance and knowing the value of money and deciding upon what is important and essential and what is not. |
|
07 May 15 - 05:34 PM (#3707304) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket Cold gravel? You lucky bastard... zzzzzzzz |
|
08 May 15 - 03:16 AM (#3707413) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I agree, Teribus. If someone wants something they are the only ones who can make it happen. But when something happens to stop them, like sickness or unemployment, we should be helping them, not blaming them for our own deficiencies. You said earlier that it is far to easy to sit back and blame someone else. Again I agree, yet I do not believe that we are talking about the same things. |
|
08 May 15 - 07:48 AM (#3707463) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. they are the only ones who can make it happen. Or, many times, not. Fatuous. |
|
08 May 15 - 08:04 AM (#3707470) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Why fatuous, Greg? Simplistic maybe but, if you want something, you have the ultimate responsibility for making it happen. You may fail on a number of occasions but, if so, either try again or reset your sights. |
|
08 May 15 - 08:10 AM (#3707472) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "have no knowledge of the plight of people living with limited means." Doesn't care particularly - not enough to acknowledge their situation other than to blame them for being in it - pure Thatcherism Jim Carroll |
|
08 May 15 - 08:37 AM (#3707483) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. Why fatuous? Because the facile answers of armchair philosophy rarely operate universally in the real world. |
|
08 May 15 - 09:11 AM (#3707490) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker .. is it all over.. has she won again ??? constitutionally, can ghosts be made prime minister.. and if so.. for how many terms of office....???😬 |
|
08 May 15 - 09:51 AM (#3707508) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I am not following your reasoning here at all,Greg, please explain. What is facile about stating that the responsibility of getting something ultimately lies with yourself? If you are lucky, someone may give you something you want out of the blue but you cannot rely on it. If I wanted, for instance, a new job, who but me could make that happen? |
|
08 May 15 - 12:45 PM (#3707580) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. If you are lucky... And what if you're not "lucky"? I assume you ascribe to the myth of the "level playing field"? Reg'lar Horatio Alger, aintcha? |
|
08 May 15 - 01:46 PM (#3707605) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll " If I wanted, for instance, a new job, who but me could make that happen?" Only you When I left school I walked the streets of Liverpool for three months looking for a job - never found one - even back in the 50s Not far from where we lived (one of the largest overspill estates in Europe) there was a thriving factory estate containing over 100 small manufacturing firms - all gone - no manufacturing firms any more. I finally got work on the docks as an apprentice electrician - all gone - no more ships coming into the Mersey. I got work as a maintenance electrician for Liverpool housing department - the maintenance work reduced to a trickle because of Council cutbacks. Moved to Manchester and worked for the council - work dried up because of cutbacks. I finally moved to the soft under-belly of Britain, the South East - struggled to find work, but with help, got it, but lived hand-to-mouth because of the cost of accommodation. Finally became self-employed and got regular work - this would never have been possible in the North of England, where I would have had to spend most of my life unemployed through no fault of my own - a skilled, time-served tradesman willing to work (in fact, spending most of my life being terrified of being unemployed, as was my father before me) It is the responsibility of ny government to create the conditions whereby anybody willing to work has a fair chance to be able to - failing that, they must create a safety net for those who can't Britain is not a poor country, on the contrary, compared to most, it possesses considerable wealth and influence That with is being concentrated mor and more into fewer hands. We are told that if we can't find work it is because we're lazy and if we complin about the conditions we sometimes have to live in, or poor standards of education for4 our children, or a failing health service, we are "moaners and troublemakers" - just been told this by a Thathcherite defending Thatcher's reign of terror. He also said that Britain can't afford the minimum wage and Trades Union rights (we've ruined Britain by having them) Who the **** do these people think they are, and who do they think we are? Thatcher, Major and the banks, my arseum F T A Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 15 - 04:30 AM (#3707709) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Nope, Sorry Greg. Think we may have to call it a day on that. Still no idea what you are on about and never heard of Horatio Alger. I have already said what happens if you are not lucky. Remember? If you are lucky, someone may give you something you want out of the blue but you cannot rely on it. If I wanted, for instance, a new job, who but me could make that happen? |
|
09 May 15 - 09:02 AM (#3707750) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. never heard of Horatio Alger There's this thing called "Google".... |
|
09 May 15 - 09:07 AM (#3707752) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Ok.. I just googled it.. oh.. it's an old American name drop cultural reference.. no wonder it's so obscure to us....😜 |
|
09 May 15 - 09:09 AM (#3707754) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket It's Alright Dave. They've never heard of Brian Fullard who used to own the chippy on Coggan St in Worksop after his father in law Walter handed it over. But they have now. |
|
09 May 15 - 12:19 PM (#3707793) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I really don't want to squabble, Greg. We are, more often than not, singing from the same hymn sheet. But I really am puzzled by your attitude here. You seem to be saying that by stating that our lives are in our own hands I am, somehow, living in some sort of dream world. Is that right? If so, I genuinely do not understand why. I think by your reference whoever it was and looking it up on Google you are just trying to divert attention from the main point and I am not going down that road. Why do you think that I am deluded if I believe that I can make a difference in my own life? |
|
09 May 15 - 03:16 PM (#3707828) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. by stating that our lives are in our own hands I am, somehow, living in some sort of dream world. Absolutely, yes. You ARE living in a dream world if you think that all that is required for "success" is individual initiative - excluding all the myriad factors outside the individual's control. Let's talk about equality of opportunity, equality of of access to real education and .................... oh, shite, what's the fark's the point............................ |
|
09 May 15 - 03:21 PM (#3707830) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: akenaton "Let's talk about equality of opportunity, equality of of access to real education and .................... oh, shite, what's the fark's the point............................ " Absolutely, one cant buck the jolly old system....what? But you have got equality....of sorts. |
|
09 May 15 - 03:58 PM (#3707838) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Stanron What an interesting point this thread has reached. Equality. Of course we are not all equal. It appears to be an ambition of the left to impose equality on everyone and that might be a reason the Left always fails. Some people will see inequality as an opportunity and others as a challenge. So we aren't even equal in how we see inequality. It is to the credit of any society if it aims to help those at the bottom of the heap, but not if in trying so to do they ruin it for eveyone. |
|
09 May 15 - 04:08 PM (#3707840) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. It is to the credit of any society if it aims to help those at the bottom of the heap, but not if in trying so to do they ruin it for eveyone. The 1% and the corporations paying their fair share is hardly going to "ruin it for everyone". At this point the 1% & the multintionals are ruining it for every one but themselves. Gonzo capitalism on steroids. |
|
09 May 15 - 04:48 PM (#3707845) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Stanron Good luck in your endeavours to impose equality on multinational corporations. Please keep us informed of your progress. |
|
09 May 15 - 06:41 PM (#3707870) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. Take it up with the Republicans, stan. |
|
09 May 15 - 09:07 PM (#3707891) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: LadyJean Reagan wasn't a thug. He was an ass. He spent most of his life in Hollwyood, making the kind of movies they made in the 30s and 40s, where the good guys won, and there were no shades of gray. He was too nearsigted for combat, and spent the war years making training films. He saw the world through a Hollywood lense. This goes a long way toward explaining his policies, and toward explaining why people liked him. He did a good job of playing the role of president, until the last couple of years, when the Alzheimer's became obvious. Ronald Reagan was an uninformed, senile actor. What was Mrs. Thatcher's problem? She seemed bright enough. |
|
10 May 15 - 03:50 AM (#3707937) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket "Shallow fools spit the word "equality" to mean a nirvana where difference is eradicated. What they forget to mention is that they fear equality of opportunity as a concept because they didn't take it themselves. An equal chance at happiness and success can be dictated by government. Naysayers are generally failures with attitude." A quote from a book I am reading. It had been highlighted by over 800 readers. |
|
10 May 15 - 04:27 AM (#3707946) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "What was Mrs. Thatcher's problem?" It's rumoured that Pinochet jilted her Jim Carroll |
|
10 May 15 - 04:33 AM (#3707947) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: MGM·Lion We've got two Barbara Allen threads going, Jim. Don't turn this into another! ≈M≈ "Men have died from time to time and worms have eaten them. But not for love" As You Like It> |
|
10 May 15 - 05:13 AM (#3707954) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome You ARE living in a dream world if you think that all that is required for "success" is individual initiative - excluding all the myriad factors outside the individual's control. Where did I or anyone say it was all that was required? I believe the term used was that the ultimate responsibility was personal. Of course things can get in your way, which is why we either try again or reset our sights. Again something I already stated. It is obvious that you misunderstood my view,for which I will, as always accept some of the responsibility but you could have been a bit clearer in what you were objecting to rather than hurling out obscure references as invective. Unless of course you do not believe that we have ultimate responsibility for our actions as well? |
|
10 May 15 - 01:35 PM (#3708005) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,BrendanB Blimey! For a second there I thought that I was agreeing with Musket, then I caught on that I was agreeing with a quote from a book. So that's alright then. |
|
10 May 15 - 02:54 PM (#3708021) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link I have heard that there are some who do argue against the concept of ultimate personal responsibility . |
|
10 May 15 - 03:44 PM (#3708031) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Tell us what you've heard them arguing, and tell us who they are. |
|
10 May 15 - 06:51 PM (#3708055) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket Brendon. You have every opportunity to wake up and display equal intelligence. You don't have to though, you'll be pleased to know. |
|
11 May 15 - 09:51 AM (#3708176) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I have heard that there are some who do argue against the concept of ultimate personal responsibility . What, like the people who say that whatever they do is the will of god? :-P |
|
11 May 15 - 10:25 AM (#3708189) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. Of course "we have ultimate responsibility for our [own] actions" Dave, but that's not what you were going on about. As in that the responsibility of getting something ultimately lies with yourself and you have the ultimate responsibility for making it happen |
|
11 May 15 - 10:29 AM (#3708191) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford What, like the people who say that whatever they do is the will of god? Who says that Dave? Christianity, Judaism and Islam all believe that we have free will, and are not merely God's puppets. |
|
11 May 15 - 10:41 AM (#3708196) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Greg - I know very well what I meant and it was not what you suggest. Keith - I have heard it from many people. None of whom you will be familiar with. |
|
11 May 15 - 10:50 AM (#3708199) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket Ah, but the prophets have to be alive, writing on scrolls in the last thirty years and called eminent by articles found on the Internet! Mind you, keep searching and you may well find a few...... |
|
11 May 15 - 11:22 AM (#3708211) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. Greg - I know very well what I meant And I know what you said, Dave. I'm not a mind reader. |
|
11 May 15 - 12:05 PM (#3708223) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all believe that we have free will Better re-read John Calvin, Keith. And, of course, those three are theonly religions on the face of the earth. |
|
11 May 15 - 01:21 PM (#3708245) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome At the risk of labouring the point, Greg, And I know what you said, Dave. I'm not a mind reader. There is a very easy way of determining what I said. Look it up. I have even saved you the trouble. From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 08 May 15 - 03:16 AM I agree, Teribus. If someone wants something they are the only ones who can make it happen. But when something happens to stop them, like sickness or unemployment, we should be helping them, not blaming them for our own deficiencies. From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 08 May 15 - 08:04 AM Why fatuous, Greg? Simplistic maybe but, if you want something, you have the ultimate responsibility for making it happen. You may fail on a number of occasions but, if so, either try again or reset your sights. From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 08 May 15 - 09:51 AM I am not following your reasoning here at all,Greg, please explain. What is facile about stating that the responsibility of getting something ultimately lies with yourself? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 10 May 15 - 05:13 AM "You ARE living in a dream world if you think that all that is required for "success" is individual initiative - excluding all the myriad factors outside the individual's control." Where did I or anyone say it was all that was required? I believe the term used was that the ultimate responsibility was personal. Of course things can get in your way, which is why we either try again or reset our sights. Again something I already stated. Now, in which of those statements do you believe I said that that all that is required for "success" is individual initiative? Just so I don't make the same mistake again. |
|
11 May 15 - 03:06 PM (#3708279) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Dave, what I stated was correct, but it did not invalidate your point about what people claim. You were right. Sorry. |
|
11 May 15 - 05:09 PM (#3708302) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Thanks Keith. |
|
11 May 15 - 05:23 PM (#3708305) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. Never mind, Dave - we're talking at cros-purposes. |
|
11 May 15 - 05:27 PM (#3708306) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Thought so myself, Greg. Thanks. |
|
12 May 15 - 05:21 AM (#3708354) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "If someone wants something they are the only ones who can make it happen. But when something happens to stop them, like sickness or unemployment," Extremely simplistic - and since Thatcher made her "There is no such thing as society" statement, it has become an excuse for the State for renaging on its responsibility Yes - it is everbody's responsibility to support themselves, feed themselves, find work, homes.... and all the rest of it. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the State to create the conditions which make this possible. Governments are fully aware of this - Thatcher won one election on the slogan "Labour isn't working" - the implication being it was Labour's responsibility to create work - they failed and the Conservatives could do better (they didn't of course - under Thatcher unemployment peaked at 4 million). The argument put forward by state suckholes like Terrytoon (and by you, to some extent) is that we should all be prepared to move to wherever the work is - a permanent itinerant work-force when the Government fails to manage the economy - a terrifying nonsense - Orwell couldn't have come up with anything more bizarre He also suggested that Britain could not afford to adhere to the minimum wage and further suggested that the workers could not be truted to have their own representatives and that when they had they brought Britain to bankruptcy. All this is fascism in it's most pure form- the State imposing its will on the people - Mussolini's 'bundle of staves tied around an axe' - it reduces working people to 'wage-slaves' with no choice in their lives other than to be moved about like chess pieces. Society can only be considered fair when the Government provide us with a choice - at present, for far too many (a growing number) there is none - it is a dehumanising situation to be in for a large number of British people and it is contemptuous to blame them for their plight. Jim Carroll |
|
12 May 15 - 05:37 AM (#3708358) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket to be fair Jim, geography has its place. No point in opening a shipyard in Nottingham because there are a lot of unemployed welders available. I may be an ex miner from a mining community but you only have to back three generations to find one side farming in Staffordshire and the other farming in Scotland. I have sympathy with some of what you put, but getting on your bike a la Tebbit is what you did, what I did and what many others have done and will continue to do so. One son of mine has a 100 mile daily commute and the other, having recently submitted his thesis is now applying for jobs that match his skills, not his distance from bedroom. The state imposing its will on people is called socialism by the way. It's fascism when the people don't want it. The manifesto of the government seems to have had a clear run by the people, whether that is to the liking of any of us or not. And especially for those of us who choose to live here.. |
|
12 May 15 - 06:33 AM (#3708368) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I agree with a lot of what you say, Jim, but then you spoil it with The argument put forward by state suckholes like Terrytoon (and by you, to some extent) is that we should all be prepared to move to wherever the work is I have neither said nor implied any such thing. As I have already gone to great lengths to prove, all I have said is that it is our own responsibility to get what we want. We should certainly receive all the help we need if required but I did not mention moving location at all. You are attempting to knock down the straw man that I did not build. I also object quite strongly to be called a 'state suckhole', even if it is only to some extent. You know very little about me. Certainly not enough to cast such aspersions anyway. |
|
12 May 15 - 06:50 AM (#3708370) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "I have neither said nor implied any such thing" If you haven't, I apoloogise - I read your suggestion " which is why we either try again or reset our sight" as suggesion what Terrtoon had before you - it was not my intention to endow the title of 'suckhole' on you - far from it - that's for Terry and his ilk - apologies for having given tat impression. "No point in opening a shipyard in Nottingham because there are a lot of unemployed welders available." Course not - that would be bad governance - just as closing shipyards on the Mersey, the Tyne and Belfast is, or coalmines, or light industries or steelworks - all of which have been adopted as deliberate policies by the Tories, and passively accepted by Labour. I started work as an apprentice electrician in the shipping industry in a seaport city because it seemed a sensible and secure thing to do - shortly after I finished my time the ships stopped coming into The Mersey I fulfilled my side of the bargain by acquiring appropriate skills and offering myself for work - they reneged on theirs by removing my opportunity be employed. "The state imposing its will on people is called socialism by the way" No it isn't - socialism is where the people have a full say in and the running of the state - I think you will find that the declared ultimate aim of socialism is "the withering away of the state" Jim Carroll |
|
12 May 15 - 07:44 AM (#3708379) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Thanks Jim. Much appreciated. So far this week I have had acknowledgement from Keith that I was right, A confirmation from Greg that we were at cross-purposes and an apology from Jim. I'm on a roll! Think I should try for the lottery this week :-) (Only kidding chaps, before someone takes offence again) |
|
12 May 15 - 08:23 AM (#3708384) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Musket's characterisation of socialism seems to relate to the kinds of "socialism" claimed by successive regimes in the USSR, in China, and in eastern Europe before 1990. That's a long way from the kind of socialism some of us have in mind (call us idealists, I care not a jot). We could argue that true socialism on any significant scale has never been tried. |
|
12 May 15 - 08:50 AM (#3708389) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll " before someone takes offence again" Wot - us??? "socialism" claimed by successive regimes in the USSR," Socialism was never more than a dream in the USSR, though in the first five years, they did take steps to move towards achieving it - Civil War backed by an invasion of 14 countries, massive problems in governing a vast un-industialised country which had previously been run on a feudalist lines , pretty well put a stop to that. The advent of Stalin and W.W.2. didn't help, of course. Jim Carroll |
|
12 May 15 - 10:33 AM (#3708416) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Musket Falling into a stereotype trap, if you don't mind me saying so Steve. Socialism is indeed state knows best, but there is no reason why that can't be by the will of the people. I doubt the people had much of a stake in USSR politics, hence that was fascism. Interestingly, The USA, where socialist is an insult at the level of paedophile, is a socialist society in principle. In the words of Dick Gaughan; "By the people, for the people, That was Lincoln's vow But what the hell would Abraham Lincoln say If he could see America now? |
|
12 May 15 - 08:04 PM (#3708539) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Well I agree that the USSR was more fascist than socialist (though - and at risk of being labelled a Stalin apologist, which I am most decidedly not - I don't think either characterisation is correct). But I'm not sure which alleged stereotype you think I'm subscribing to. If you can name me any country of considerable size in which socialism has been practised untrammelled, for a significant period of time, you're a better man than I am. Socialism doesn't, and will never, get a chance in a world in which the US-led capitalist west will immediately undermine it and generally shit on it from a great height. There are plenty of socialist ideals we could aspire to nonethe!ess. Unfortunately, the Labour/New labour mindset is to ditch those principles in the name of electoral expediency. But that still doesn't work for them and they deserve what they get. |
|
13 May 15 - 04:40 AM (#3708598) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "Well I agree that the USSR was more fascist than socialist" Not my experience, I'm afraid. In the 60s I spent a fair amount of time hitching around Europe - during that time I visted 5 communist countries (Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and travelled over another 2, Poland and East Germany - never saw any sign of "fascism" in any of them. The Cold War was a fact all their existences, but I could travel freely and without hindrance, apart from having to obtain a visa for some. I was treated with warmth and friendliness by everyone I met and made a number of friends My first trip, to Russia, was in 1965, ten years after a war that had devistated the country, yet in the two places I was able to spend several days in, Moscow and Leningrad, they had rebuilt their Cities and appeared to be leading fairly happy, and not too uncomfortable lives - I was lucky enough in Leningrad to meet up with a couple who spoke English (trades unionists), and spent a great deal of time talking to them - the overall impression I was left with was a shortage of material goods (I was asked to sell my nylon short-sleeved shirt) and a feeling that they believed they had some say in their lives and a possibility of change - long time since I felt that back home. This was one of the cities that had been devastated and almost razed to the ground by the Germans and, a few decades prior to that, had lived under despotic feudalism - quite impressive, I thought My most memorable experience was in 1968, when two of us set out for a beer festival in Germany, couldn't get lifts, and were finally picked up by a couple of lads returning to Prague in the hope of getting to see their families following the Russian invasion - the border was rumoured to be due to be reopened the following day. We stayed with them in a hostel in a German border town and the following day my friend and I walked over the newly re-opened border, having had our photographs taken for our visas Prague was somewhat chaotic, the Russian troops were still around as observers, the main resistance was over. We couldn't find accommodation at first, but after trying a student hostel (we weren't students) a lad who had heard our being refused ran after us and told us the building had a number of empty rooms and if we didn't mind using the back stairs, he'd find us some bedding and a key - we stayed a week and spent most of the time with the two fellers who gave us our lift and a bunch of students who took us around, showed us the sights and told us what had happened (including showing us some spectacular photographs taken by one of them, a student of photography. I don't think we met anybody who wanted to 'overthrow' communism, rather, they wanted to see a reform of what they already had (we got much of this from long drinking sessions (bloody awful weak beer) in a workingman's restaurant in the centre of the city). It's a beautiful city and I've always wanted to revisit it, but was put off somewhat by somebody who revisited 'free' Prague a few years ago who described walking around Wenceslas Square and being stopped by a young girl who slid her hand into his pocket, began to massage his balls and offered to show him a good time in a back street not too far away - you can't beat being 'free'. "If you can name me any country of considerable size in which socialism has been practised untrammelled" You don't vote socialism in - you achieve it over time - always against a great deal of pressure from within and without. I have little doubt that all countries who tried it brought about enormous improvements, even if they fell during the race - try reading William Hinton's 'Fanshen' sometime - an account of China before, during and after the revolution - breathtaking Jim Carroll |
|
13 May 15 - 04:53 AM (#3708601) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Hitler's Germany was fascist, but had I am sure a traveller like yourself would have found the people warm and welcoming. People are. The Warsaw Pact countries had powerful Secret Police, encouraged children to inform on their families and shot people trying to escape to the West. |
|
13 May 15 - 05:01 AM (#3708606) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "People are." Are you suggesting Russia was 'fascist' - if so, on what grounds? The most convincing suggestion I've ever heard was 'State Capitalism' - works for me. Certainly never encountered anything resembling what was happening in Nazi Germany, but I may have missed something - any idea what? Jim Carroll |
|
13 May 15 - 05:23 AM (#3708613) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Steve Shaw Ok, Jim, but in my defence I did say that I thought both characterisations of the old USSR (fascist and communist) were incorrect. There were severe restrictions on movement and free speech which definitely lean more in feel towards the f-word side of things. And Joe turned out to be not such a nice guy. A lot of attributes there that don't exactly fit my idealistic view of a good communist state (oxymoron brickbats cheerfully invited). |
|
13 May 15 - 05:30 AM (#3708616) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Russia allied itself with Hitler in the invasion of Poland, and massacred thousands of Polish prisoners. |
|
13 May 15 - 05:58 AM (#3708622) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area, known as the breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own hands. http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm |
|
13 May 15 - 06:11 AM (#3708623) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Jim Carroll "Russia allied itself with Hitler in the invasion of Poland" Briatin stood by while Germany rearmed, did nothing whatever to stop the rise of Hitler, and was prepared to leave him in control of Germany up to the point that it became impossible to do so The British authorities labeled those who actively went out to fight fascism as "premature anti-fascists" and punished them for being such - my father being one of them Hitler counted among his friends and supporters several members of the British House of Lords, including The Duke of Wellington, and a monarch (Edward III - gawd bless 'im) Despite Stalin's growing reputation, Britain was happy to treat him as a ally and a war hero - "good old Uncle Joe" Both hot and cold wartime necessity on all sides has much to answer for. In the time I spent travelling central and eastern Europe I never uncounted the fear and oppression I associate with Nazi Germany I never visited fascist Spain on principle (though I have several times since), but I believe it was rampant there almost up to Franco's death (ask Julian Grimeau's ghost - tortured and eventually garroted by Britain's ally) It certainly was in fascist Chile (we've discussed Mrs Ts' attitude to that) The nearest I ever got to experiencing a repressive state was on an ill-advised trip to Turkey (Britain's ally) when, on at least three occasions, we saw dozens of police with dogs and batons enter the seaside village where we were staying and clearing the streets of young people who (they claimed) "upset the tourists". If it's all the same to you, I'd rather end this dialogue here before we get another thread closed. Jim Carroll |
|
13 May 15 - 08:23 AM (#3708638) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Russia allied itself with Hitler in the invasion of Poland, and massacred thousands of Polish prisoners. And then Britain allied itself with Stalin and handed over thousands of Ukraine and Cossack people to be butchered by the Russians. As they say, all is fair in love and war :-( |
|
13 May 15 - 09:07 AM (#3708644) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford In 1939, Britain sent forces to oppose both Hitler and Stalin. Britain chose to stand up for Poland in 1939 just as it chose to stand up for Belgium in 1914. A noble choice which ordinary folk supported. It did not have to. It never became impossible not to. In 1940 Britain and Commonwealth stood alone. Only when Hitler invaded Russia did they cease to be his friend and become his enemy. We did not choose Stalin as an ally. |
|
13 May 15 - 09:23 AM (#3708647) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome We were not an ally of Russia yet at the the end of the war we (Primarily the UK and USA) sent thousands of Ukraine and Cossack people to be butchered in Russia without a word of complaint? I wonder why we did that then? |
|
13 May 15 - 09:30 AM (#3708649) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Bear in mind, Keith, that my Father was Polish and my Grandfather was a Kuban Cossack who had a book published in France about the betrayal of the Cossacks by the allies after the war so I grew up knowing this stuff. Mind you he is dead now, wrote it in the 1950s and it is not on prominent display in major bookshops so I guess we cannot rely on him... |
|
13 May 15 - 09:35 AM (#3708650) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Keith A of Hertford I do not defend it, but we did it because the Soviets held thousands of liberated British POWs and could have retained them. The Ukrainians and Cossacks were claimed as Soviet citizens who had fought for Hitler against the allies. It was a tragedy. It should not have happened. |
|
13 May 15 - 09:36 AM (#3708651) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: Greg F. Oh God, no - PLEASE don't get Keith started on another bout of his "all eminent live historians" idiocy! |
|
13 May 15 - 09:42 AM (#3708653) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome but we did it because the Soviets held thousands of liberated British POWs and could have retained them To what end and with what excuse? Besides the point really. My reason for bringing it up was reminding people that both sides stood by while atrocities were committed. It is little wonder that my Father and his family got out of Poland while they could. |
|
13 May 15 - 09:54 AM (#3708655) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome ...there was a very real fear that my Grandfather could have been 'sent back' to Russia even though they had kicked him out in the 1920s for his religious beliefs and for having a Polish wife. His children, my Father and Aunty, could have been 'repatriated' as well, even though they had lived in Poland most of their lives. |
|
13 May 15 - 10:00 AM (#3708656) Subject: RE: BS: Pro / Anti Thatcher Squabble Thread... From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome The Ukrainians and Cossacks were claimed as Soviet citizens who had fought for Hitler against the allies. This also included many Russian ex-pats living in Poland and other countries. The crime they were executed for? Not fighting against the allies but being forced into labouring for the Germans. |