The current generation are now presented with unrealistic expectations and told that they can achieve anything.
No, the current generation (of young adults I presume you mean) are told there's no jobs for them but they can work for free in the hope of later getting a job - and that their parents and grandparents have had all the money so they're unlikely to be able to afford a house if they live in much of the south.
Anyone can be famous, just go on a murdering spree, it's definitely attainable
That is just a wee bit below matrix standards but i am tempted to try it.
They will be the generation that will have their inflated expectations largely unfulfilled
+1 This next generation are going to be much worse of than we were and our parents were the peak. Free education, state pension, earning related pensions, cheap houses and rode the bubble, full employment etc.
It will be much worse for the next lot. Will it make them motivated or will they follow Brand and not vote?
There are jobs, but you have to be in the right area. However, finding a job out of Uni or school has never been easy.
Plus the younger gen do have tendency to p*ss money up the wall 'on essentials', e.g. iphones, gap years and fancy on-suite Uni accommodation. The narrative that it's all the older gens fault is unfair and flawed.
Sorry Ernie, that was a typo on my part. I meant to say "society" not "capitalism", but thanks for the feedback! Nicely put, you charmer 😉 I am surprised by the extent of your Mrs T paraphernalia, it's quite a collection that your draw upon!
But even on capitalism, what she called herself/her supporters attributed to her and what happened under her "reign" were very different things.
You saying she said one thing and then did another 😉
Again i do agree with that - shrewd but deceitful - she was less principled than she spun it and many of her principles [ money supply for example] were either not done or not successful.
I think we are saying they have been handed a worse start in life than previous generations and you cannot just say it is flawed without explaining why.
I think it is hard to argue re employment levels, housing costs, debts [ personal and countries] or social mobility that it is better for this generation than for us or our parents.
Dragon, we have had many years of bringing forward consumption and delaying expenditure through engaging in an orgy of debt financing.
The next generation will have to do the opposite as well as dealing with their inflated expectations. It will not be a happy generation especially with governments stealing their money through extended periods of financial repression. The smart entrepreneurs will capture the market in anti-depressants perhaps?!?!
Plus the younger gen do have tendency to p*ss money up the wall 'on essentials', e.g. iphones, gap years and fancy on-suite Uni accommodation. The narrative that it's all the older gens fault is unfair and flawed.
Who's selling them all that crap though?
The narrative that it's all the older gens fault is unfair and flawed.
Imposing and then raising tuition fees was a crime but I don't recall anyone voting for that
Every generation only sees the faults of the previous generation but doesn't appreciate that many people of that generation who seem to have it all have been through equally hard times or are clinging on to what they have by the skin of their teeth.
The trailers for the programme made it sound interesting but the people on it on the whole like they hadn't been in the real world long enough to have the edges of their opinions knocked off.
The real problem is that even in an island as small as this, the internet and social media make it possible to live in a bubble of like minded people. It becomes easier and easier to believe the us and then stories
I meant to say "society" not "capitalism"
Well that's nonsense too, it's not "a pretty astute comment" as you claim.
She even contradicts that statement herself in the 19 second clip that I posted when at the end she says "That is the way to one nation, one people".
If there is "no such thing as society only individuals" then how can you have "one people" ? Soppy tart.
It's nonsense to claim that there is no such thing as society there clearly is and everybody knows that. Except you apparently.
Thanks for the charmer comment btw, I try my best 🙂
I know you do!!
I just bothered to read and understand the actual quote - it helps. If that means I get labelled in the way you suggest, I can live with that!!! 😉
I just bothered to read and understand the actual quote - it helps.
Oh yeah that one, having realised what a crass and stupid comment that was Maggie's fan club rallied to claim that she had been "misunderstood".
She said that there is no such thing as society, there clearly is. If she meant to say something different then she should have said something different. Simple really.
And in fact years later the Tories were bigging up society by insisting that we should all contribute and make it "big".
[img] 
[/img]
Clearly the big society campaign was completely contradicting Thatcher and her "pretty astute comment". Which to be fair was the intention.
Getting back on track, I think there is a lot to be said for this. I'm 30 (ish) so just scrape into this demographic and actually think that this quote sums it up very well:
"They want to support gay marriage. They are relaxed about immigration but they do want to be tough on those who don't want to contribute to society. These mixes of views are not well represented by any of the main political parties."
I suspect a lot of people (myself included) want a fairly minimal government that supports those who really need it but by and large let's people get on with what they want to do with minimal interference. One that has clear rewards for those that work hard for it and, I guess by extension, does not offer a great deal of support for those who choose not to.
Did she not also say
[i]It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour [/i]
and
[i]There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.[/i]
According to the Margret Thatcher Foundation Z-11, who ought to know a thing or two about what Thatcher said, this is what she said :
[i]....so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families...[/i]
Read the whole interview here :
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689
Now if despite speaking in a carefully prepared and prearranged interview she said things that could be taken the "wrong way", as claimed by people like you, THM, and other members of Maggie's Fan Club, then that's her failing, and there's nothing "astute" about it.
Maggie, fan club???? Ernie you seem to one that keeps the the flag flying in her more than most. I consisted argue that Thatcherism was largely a myth created by supporters and detractors alike.
Her comments were astute however and history has shown that to be the case. Those who fail to heed the message that (rightly or wrongly) that we need to take responsibility for ourselves will be doomed to pretty miserable old age. The state will not be able or willing to pick up the tab. People who stick their heads in the same will only have themselves to blame.
Yet another piece of Maggie paraphernalia - you are a legend Ernie.
Yet another piece of Maggie paraphernalia - you are a legend Ernie.
Since you don't recognise what the meaning of astute is, a clear demonstration is Ernie being very astute in keeping this "Maggie paraphernalia" handy, just to keep your Maggie T spin class in check.
Ernie you seem to one that keeps the the flag flying in her more than most
That almost makes sense. I assume that 'keeping the flag flying in her' means that you are suggesting that I am a secret Thatcher supporter and admirer ?
Well as they say you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
So I've finally been busted.
Very drole!
as ernie likes to pick out only part of the sentence to further his POV... the whole part of the answer.
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and [b]so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 29] there are families[u] and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”.[/u][/b] That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”There is also something else I should say to them: “If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit.”
But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 30] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.
EB, there you go you can have a read of the actual text via Ernie or The Lord! Enjoy it.
as ernie likes to pick out only part of the sentence to further his POV... the whole part of the answer.
I posted a direct link to the [u]whole interview[/u] as published on the Margret Thatcher Foundation website, not some leftie website. And I said : "Read the whole interview here".
I have no problem anyone reading the exact context in which Thatcher said that there is no such thing as society - why would I ?
It was a crass and stupid comment to make. There is very clearly such as thing as society and reading the entire interview that she gave to Woman's Own won't change that.
Today Cameron's vision of "the big society" completely contradicts Thatcher's dismissive attitude of society, which of course is the whole point - Cameron above all wants to distance himself from Thatcher as he recognises her enduring unpopularity.
Let's not forget that Thatcher eventually became so unpopular with the British people that the Tories had to sack her and drag unceremoniously out of Downing Street crying.
It's fairly unprecedented for a serving Prime Minister to be sacked midterm by their own party. But she had become so deeply unpopular with, among other things the poll tax, which she called her "flagship policy - very "astute" eh THM ? that she clearly had to go if the Tories stood any chance of winning the following election.
And as we know it did indeed give them respite as they presented the electorate with a "DeThatchered" Tory Party. Cameroon wants to maintain that distance with Thatcher.
Although of course his "big society" was/is just marketing bollocks - he obviously never had any intentions of implement what he preached or build the society he allegedly aspired to build.
And also of course despite being determined to distance himself from Thatcher David Cameron is much more right-wing than she ever was. For example when she argued that privatizing Royal Mail was completely unacceptable she meant it, as she did when she said "the NHS is safe in my hands" - she mostly left the NHS alone unlike this government which wants to change it beyond recognition.
Although it could be argued that Thatcher knew her limitations and what she could get away with that's why she wasn't as right-wing as Cameron is, and I'm sure that's true even though she totally screwed up with the poll tax - she wasn't as clever as some people like to think. And the "there is no such thing as society" was another one of her stupid moments.
Although it could be argued that Thatcher knew her limitations and what she could get away with that's why she wasn't as right-wing as Cameron is
You see it is a hidden love after all! 😉 so Mrs T is to the left of a left of centre CMD. No wonder you have this not-so-secret fetish!!! Try not to dream about her tonight.....
Actually "stupid moment" is not a bad description after all. When you read the actual interview it seems that she is not at all all clear what she means by society. She seems rather confused between state support and society and looking after each other and society. How that ends up with the common interpretation of the now infamous tag line, god only knows. She needed a better script writer for woman's own though.
Astute enough for new labour to take up the baton, don't forget. No there's a damning verdict if ever one was needed. Ernie's secret love, the poster girl of new labour!!! It was tennis balls and white skirts in my day!
A couple of random thoughts to throw into the mix:
1. At 41 and 20+ years out of university I can look at people I went to school/uni with and see a very clear line between the different attitudes different people have taken to their lives. Those that expected a high standard of living to just happen to them, are ok but not particularly thriving (in some cases quite the reverse. Those that set about their careers with energy, focus, bloody hard work and took responsibility for their personal development and career opportunities have been very successful. I would observe from these case studies that taking responsibility for yourself and your life tends to lead to better outcomes. And for those of my friends who've done, this, their high incomes mean they're paying way more tax, so they're directly giving back to society as a result of their hard work
2. Taking responsibility for your own wealth creation does not mean you're a mean git who cares for no-one else. You can still do charity work or otherwise contribute to your community. In my experience those who do take responsibility for themselves are often more capable of giving back to their community, simply because they can use their initiative, and have more experience to draw on from their professional lives.
3. Welfare State. Baby Boomers understand the value of the welfare state as in their early years (late 1940's, early 1950's) the country was a wreck (close to bankrupt) and many many men came back from the war physically or mentally scarred, and it seemed right for the state to contribute to their recovery as they'd only gone to war because the state asked them to.
However, Gen Y don't have this experience so they don't quite expect the same moral contract to be in place. When one of the biggest problems we have as a society (obesity) is clearly a self-inflicted one (in comparison to getting your leg blown off by a German bomb, whilst fighting for your country), then you can understand the view which says "people shouldn't expect the state to dig them out of their own self-inflicted mess"
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that sentiment, it's a bit harsh, but if you compare the early experiences of the Baby Boomers with Gen Y, you can see how that opinion might be formed
Those that set about their careers with energy, focus, bloody hard work and took responsibility for their personal development and career opportunities have been very successful. I would observe from these case studies that taking responsibility for yourself and your life tends to lead to better outcomes.
So if you try to do something and work hard at it then you are more likely to achieve it. Thanks
Not trying to take the piss but really that is all you have said.
No one goes up the career ladder without trying very hard and some , occasionally, have talent beyond hard work.
Not trying to take the piss but really that is all you have said.
Correct - it's with reference to what the Gen Y interviewees said on the programme last night about needing to take responsibility for themselves, and in that respect I think they've got their heads screwed on, especially in light of the job opportunities which are not coming their way.
There's already a trend in a number of industries which has been building for the last 10 years towards contractors instead of perm staff - e.g. I started on a 4 month contract 3 years ago and I'm still in the same organisation after taking a series of different roles. Their employment experience is likely to be more like this than the perm role for 30 years in the same company that my Dad enjoyed.
In understanding that they need to generate work for themselves I think Gen Y have a better chance of the standard of living they're hoping for and for the UK to enjoy economic growth off the back of their efforts. If they'd said they expected to be given a stable job for life then I'd be seriously worried for their futures
You see it is a hidden love after all! so Mrs T is to the left of a left of centre CMD. No wonder you have this not-so-secret fetish!!! Try not to dream about her tonight.....
If I may respond to your silly schoolboy taunting with a serious point, on a purely personal level I had no issues with Thatcher, she served her party and the wealthy class that she married into well, and it is reasonable to expect her to have done so.
Furthermore she didn't make herself leader of the Tory Party and Prime Minister, first of all she was elected by her party and secondly she was elected by millions of voters, she couldn't have done the things she did without the support of those people.
And as politicians go she was fairly honest about where she stood, although she was spectacularly dishonest during the miners strike, and she did create the myths which people still believe to this day with regards to low taxation, low public spending, higher growth, etc.
But as a general rule most people had some idea what they were supporting when gave her their support.
In contrast my feelings for Tony Blair are completely different, I struggle to find words to express the contempt that I feel towards the lying cheating self-serving low life, which I know is a bit unfair to amoebas.
See, when I hear a (on-off) Labour supporter like Ernie express contempt for Blair, I can't help thinking o the indian Snake parable
I haven't supported the Labour Party since 1995 Z-11, and it was continuous support before then. Although I'm sure you're going to tell me that you know better than me.
See Ernie, you and Dan Hodges [i]do[/i] have something in common, both Ex-Labour party supporters 😉
'We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living.
We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors.
The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.'
R Buckminster Fuller (44 yrs ago, he was optimistic at least...)
Z-11 I have something in common with 8.6 million ex-Labour party supporters.
Are you trying to outdo THM with the silly school playground taunting ?
To be fair I think you'd probably win - I reckon THM is just an amateur in the puerile stakes compared to you.
I love the idea of self reliance and being an entrepreneur unfortunetly this becomes very hard with the concentration of wealth and power in a small minority. The role of the government must be to support this. The Tories may say they do this but opportunity is not just about low taxes. It is most about disruption and creating space for individuals supported by the state. For example in the USA the state giving land out to anybody who could farm it in the west. Rightwing parties tend to talk the talk of self reliance but the reality is to remove state control and replace it with unaccountable company control.
If I may respond to your silly schoolboy taunting with a serious point,
For a guy who spend hours on here trying to wind people up, you do seem to have a surprisingly sensitive side!
on a purely personal level I had no issues with Thatcher, she served her party and the wealthy class that she married into well, and it is reasonable to expect her to have done so.
..there really is no need to feel embarrassed about it, we are a very understanding audience. It's clear that you admire what she did/ her more than those you like to taunt as Maggie lovers!! Much better, that you let it all out...other famous men were equally captivated by the Iron Lady.
Although I'm sure you're going to tell me that you know better than me.
Annoying when people do that about your politics isn't it?
Have a nice day.
I blame Thatcher
you do seem to have a surprisingly sensitive side!
Sensitive ? It amuses me greatly that you have to resort to silly schoolboy taunting, why wouldn't it ? 🙂
Play nicely children!
teamhurtmore - I must say I think there's a big gap between the way you'd like to perceive yourself and the actual impression you create on this site.
It's a shame to see potentially engaging topics such as this always marred by closed-minded bores.
Malvern Rider has a point.
Whats so ****ing laudable about HAVING to work hard for a living?
I wish moderrn technology could be used to give us all more quality free time instead of making us more "productive".
The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.'
Sounds like a good ambition to me.
Chill out - it's a cycling forum and a space for some banter. There are other forums for serious debate on these issues.
Perspective, gentlemen please!
Cha****ng, pls feel free to review page 2 to see exactly where the respectful comments changed in nature to less respectful versions. Funny where that started, but if people want to start that kind of stuff, they need to be able to live with the response.
Whats so ****ing laudable about HAVING to work hard for a living?
Generally better for you than having it handed on a plate.
Whats so ****ing laudable about HAVING to work hard for a living?
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money!
As I've said before we don't live in a communist country. You can choose to be dosser and surf bum all your life if you really want to. You just need to be able to fund the lifestyle that you want.
If you want a nice house, bike, car ...sorry but your going to have to earn it. Struggling to see the problem with this?
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money!
So whose money did the banks ran out of, causing the worst global economic crises since the 1930s ?
Or are you saying banks are a socialist concept ?
Or are you saying banks are a socialist concept ?
well...errr yes.
Really they should have been allowed to fail but for the greater good they were saved. In future with the new banking arrangements i'd like to think they would be alllowed to fail.
The 'work hard to purchase utterly facile and frankly demeaning status symbols' ethic is a myth constructed by the wealthy and perpetuated by the moronic..
Is it laudable to prioritise your ridiculous over stated little job over your children's social development?
Is it laudable to waste your life grafting to line some fat greedy bastards pockets whilst you scrape by..?
In an age of such technological advancement why are we all working more hours than ever for less money?
When you say that you want to work really hard to better yourself you have to maybe take a moment to wonder what 'bettering yourself' actually means..
I'm aware that the system prevents us from escaping this trap, with house prices and the cost of living etc.. and that the alternatives would present a quantum shift in our way of thinking that many people are too indoctrinated to contemplate, but that in no way makes the system right and correct and I find it almost impossible to respect anyone who defends it
Generally better for you than having it handed on a plate.
Why? What if it frees you up to write that symphony you've always wanted to write, or pursue that interesting line of research that might transform society?
Or even just give you time to appreciate the beauty of the world around you?
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money!As I've said before we don't live in a communist country.
Why do you associate not having to work hard for a living with socialism? Look at the worlds most sucessfull communist state. Do you think all they do in China is practice Tai Chi all day?
Its nowt to do with outdated left wing v. right wing politics.
