Forum menu
she suggested that the reason unemployment, according to the quote which you so kindly provided, was : "But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!"
I don't think she suggested that at all - I'm afraid you're trying to play the game of extrapolating one statement into something completely different, and failing rather badly for what its worth - nowhere in the interview did she attempt in any way to explain the [i]causes[/i] of unemployment.
as for Britain being better off under the conservatives, well, sorry to point it out, but we were -
[img] 
[/img]
While the U.K in GDP per capita terms was 7% poorer than France in 1979, it was 10% richer than France in 2008 - Thatcher's pro-market reforms drove this remarkable recovery, according to you Ernie, NuLab continued the evil Tory pro-market approach, and guess what, GDP continued to rise!
Like I say, its all bollocks, coz statistics can prove owt! You say Britain is less well off because unemployment rose, I say its better off as per capita income after inflation rose - both versions of the truth are right, and both are in many ways wrong as well, they just reinforce something that you think "proves" your political outlook.
I don't understand what that last graph shows. Care to explain?
[img] 
[/img]
Somewhat similar to this
Zulu-Eleven - Membernowhere in the interview did she attempt in any way to explain the causes of unemployment.
Well according to the quote, which you so kindly provided, thatcher said :
[i][b]"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!"[/b][/i]
I think we can all understand what that means - stop giving people so much dole money (I don't think she was arguing for higher wages - do you ?) and they will be forced to work. "Global oil prices" don't seem to figure in her little theory.
But what's your point Ernie?
What are you telling us, that the national unemployment rate is the only measure of a nations economic and societal health?
Unemployment rose under Thatcher! And? so what, what has the number of people who are actively seeking work and claiming benefit got to do with it? whats your point?
Zulu-Eleven - MemberBut what's your point Ernie?
Oh sorry, was it a little vague ? OK, let's try again :
[i]We have established that Thatcher was a liar. And that she lied in particular about issues concerning unemployment.[/i]
Nope, I can't seem to make that any clearer.......you're going to have remain forever in the dark as to what my point was.
Well, I'd simply take issue with the word lied - where did she [b]lie[/b] - you claim she increased unemployment, sorry, is that a lie? where did she actually claim she had, or would, decrease it?
can't see that anywhere, she said that Britain would be "better off" under the conservatives, now, you can argue how you measure that, and statistics can prove it true either way, its all relative to which measure of "better off" you choose to apply.
I'd like to show me a specific and actual lie!
But regardless, your point it? What does a statistical increase in unemployment actually prove Ernie?
Like I say, its all bollocks, coz statistics can prove owt!
Statistic don't lie it's people abusing statistics drawing conclusion which the statistic do not full support.
Don't confuse these two matters.
Unemployment statistics are pretty pish at showing how many people in the country have jobs. I want to see employment figures, figures for those who do not have a job and cannot or choose not to claim benefits for whatever reason and numbers for those in full time education.
Zulu-Eleven - Membercan't see that anywhere, she said that Britain would be "better off" under the conservatives
The unemployment that we have had under this Government is far worse than anything we ever had under a Conservative Government........................ It is no good having great areas where people have no jobs.(Thatcher.M,27/1/78)
As for your point re oil prices.
It is noticeable that the rises in unemployment that correspond with rises in oil prices are happening most noticeably and dramatically in times of Tory govts. While I'm happy to concede that both Cons and NuLab follow the same economic model, their social policies obviously differ.
Also, if this correlation of oil price and unemployment is so intertwined but Thatcher still believed that
It is no good having great areas where people have no jobs.
Then why did she insist on continuing with that economic model ?
She obviously thought the same as Norman Lamont did in 1992 that high unemployment was
a price worth paying
And she was being completely disingenuous by making her original claims.
rises in oil prices are happening most noticeably and dramatically in times of Tory govts
Oil is a global market, I don't think that even Ernie could pin rises in international oil prices on the Tories, but for what its worth, I'll try and save him a little work - You could probably just about tie in UK promulgation of the Iranian revolution, maybe a lesser extent our political involvement of the Iran/Iraq war, no doubt you could tie UK policy in to the effects of the 1991 Gulf War, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Yom kippur would be harder to blame on UK policy, but you could probably get there at a stretch by making it clear it would not have happened without Suez.
hope that helps 😀
hasn't helped much, no 😕
you haven't explained how the rises are much sharper in times of tory govt, you haven't explained why thatcher claimed that labour govts. created more unemployment than she would and you haven't explained why she continued with an econmic model that would create a situation that she clearly stated was no good.
you haven't explained how the rises are much sharper in times of tory govt,
Perhaps the question is more accurately "why do people tend to vote Tory when they see hard times ahead?"
you haven't explained why thatcher claimed that labour govts. created more unemployment than she would
Did she [i]really[/i] say that? did she [i]really[/i] say [i]exactly[/i] that, or is it an interpretation? quote's or it didn't happen!
and you haven't explained why she continued with an econmic model that would create a situation that she clearly stated was no good.
Happily - in order to rebuild, first you must destroy - its no good propping up a failing, unviable industry, better to cut out the cancer and allow the recovery to begin. Just as is being discussed regards countries like Greece at the moment, is it really better to prop them inevitably up at huge expense, or let them fail and begin recovering.
Well the Tories from past start to Freeze the Trade Unions Money.
[img] 
[/img]
Perhaps the question is more accurately "why do people tend to vote Tory when they see hard times ahead?"
say what ? that's just a whole other question 😆 i'm tempted to quote the pulp fiction "ain't no ball park" monologue.
Did she really say that? did she really say exactly that, or is it an interpretation? quote's or it didn't happen!
Well she said this.............
The unemployment that we have had under this Government is far worse than anything we ever had under a Conservative Government........................ It is no good having great areas where people have no jobs.(Thatcher.M,27/1/78)
............... but you're right, she could have meant that unemployment was a good thing and she was hoping to buck the trend and form a tory govt that exceeded labour's unemployment record - after all, that's exactly what she did.
So trailmonkey, you accept that she never actually said what you claimed she had? was what she said actually untrue?
plus, why the partial quote? did she not also go on to say:
[i]getting people [b]themselves[/b] along to try to do things so that we do not have those vast derelict areas... you will get none of this done unless you have a policy that really makes it worthwhile for people to work... worthwhile for people to start up businesses and have them grow... mobilise the people to help to rebuild [b]their own[/b] areas.[/i]
when? [i]It is going to be very difficult to make major inroads quickly. There are a lot of small businesses up and down the country and the development areas depend upon them particularly. But there is not a quick answer while your economy is run down and it is run down at the moment and there are not enough incentives in the system.[/i]
See, a complete emphasis on encouraging entrepreneurship and small business - not on artificially propping up the market, and with a recognition that it was a [b]long term[/b] ground up recovery that was needed, not a spunking of borrowed money to keep white collar civil servants in post as we've seen recently.
Inflation prior to Thatchers premiership was rampant, from year 2 onwards it was lower in every single year than in any of the previous 5 years of labour.
The rates and unemployment were the price paid to crush inflation.
Surely you are not so delusional as to think the 1970s Govt was anything other than a complete disaster.
Perhaps you think running to the IMF was a sign of great success.
So trailmonkey, you accept that she never actually said what you claimed she had? was what she said actually untrue?
i accept that it's pretty obvious what she said and it's pretty obvious what she subsequently did.
i can't make you see what's right in front of you.
Sweet Jesus of Nazareth, have youse bin arguing [i]all day[/i]? 😯
You boring bunch of saddos. I've built 2 bike wheels, stripped and serviced a pair of forks and sorted out me bike for the morrow.
Ha ha Labby; all that waffle, and hours later, you're still wrong! 😆
You'll never get those hours back you know. You cooduv achieved so much in that time.
Ah well.
You cooduv achieved so much in that time
S'alright Elfin - i only posted between wnaks 😈
Zulu-Eleven - Memberi only posted between wnaks
I would expect nothing less when someone of your political persuasion is in deep thought about thatcher.
she often features in most sex lives - if only to keep the wolf from the door.
keep the wolf from the door
😆
I had to think about that one....
[url= http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085#docid=-8420724845321066025 ]The Trap Pt 1 - Adam Curtis[/url]
Quite relevant in the discussion on Thatcher's view of society.