[Closed] Thatcher's died according to BBC

if you really are interested in kinnock-- why do you not do some 'research' --you'll find plenty of views on his political gymnastics ....

has this not run it's course yet?

not a fan of the closed shop but it is true that they benefit from the unions without paying - free loading a very thatcherite lifestyle choice apparently 😉

Not a fan of non secret ballots though they seem to work well in parliament

I'm afraid I'd like to vote on issues that concern me without being beaten up, having my family attacked or my car smashed up because I don't vote the way the union tells me, Rudeboy.

A monopoly supply of labour is no better than a monopoly supplier of bread. There's a place for a thick sandwich in a plastic bag and a place for Paul's. A monopoly supply of bread would result in Paul's prices for plastic-bag bread.

don't think we need lessons in democracy from right wing dictators-- they do not apply the same in their own stinking party...

any chance you could explain the ctorian comment please

...and would that be anything to do with management of the business by any chance?

edukator--unless you were a stooge,those things would not have happened --were you an MI5 plant-- they were rife in that place !

that stuff about bread and plastic bags -- are you feeding ducks or something ?

And the loony left is still alive on STW

the closed shop is designed so that all those who benefit from hard won gains also contribute --thats as it should be--all those selfish types who dont want to pay a small union sub but never refuse the pay rises and holidays-- i'm all for open democracy--but it must be that!

If the unions were doing such a good job of looking after employee interests I think most people would happily contribute their dues. It's attitudes like yours Rudebwoy that have fractured our society, destroyed industries and communities. The irony is that many of the people holding these attitudes blame Thatcher for much of what they caused.

Interesting personal comment, my wife may agree but can you elucidate in this instance please?

Neil Kinnock was a reasonably successful politician, was he not?

So at the very least, he cannot therefore be a "a decent and honourable man".

rudebwoy,

You seem to have read a lot and be quite knowledgeable but you have not actually been there. To be so dismissive of Edukator is wrong.

Well, yeah - but I interpreted the question to be about factory-level management of labour rather than global management/design etc.

Not having a pop kona, just pointing out that bad mangement extends to producing shite product, which British Leyland were definately guilty of. Interstingly, programes such as Undercover Boss and their ilk are rarely incorrect in their outcomes if my experience is anything to go by. Generally there is an assumption that the prols are stupid, and that of they have a beef then its obviously bollocks. The reality is much nearer to the precise opposite.

Simple example: I got the hump once about the floors not being kept clear. Staff suggestion book, (that I'd spent some time nurturing, to get past the usual opening shots), came back with we haven't got sufficent brooms. When I checked up on it sure enough, 4 to keep 60,000 sq feet clean. Not their fault, and especially not their fault that a culture had hitherto existed whereby they did not feel able to raise this as an issue.

if you really are interested in Kinnock... I'm not

It was more Scargill's role in the miners strike and why Kinnock felt such animosity towards him. ...

If RobD is right up there... and that's the only reason so far put foward to the debate on here... guess Scargill caused a lot more pain than there may have been otherwise ??

Scargill, not fit to wipe Gormley's boot.

Re product- Doubt a 70s Austin Maxi was any worse design the equivalent Datsun. Re shop floor- made a career out of empowering the doers so thats not my point either.

What I was saying and still don't see any reason not to believe is that the labour disputes of the 70s and 80s and the subsequent changes to the legislature were part of a journey with out which Sunderland Nissan would not be possible.

TurnerGuy - Member

Interesting personal comment, my wife may agree but can you elucidate in this instance please?

Neil Kinnock was a reasonably successful politician, was he not?

So at the very least, he cannot therefore be a "a decent and honourable man".

😆 you are, of course correct! Cap doffed. However, I had assumed we were looking at the pool of politicians available and comparing them.

Finally, an explanation for the younger generation;

[img] [/img]

What I was saying and still don't see any reason not to believe is that the labour disputes of the 70s and 80s and the subsequent changes to the legislature were part of a journey with out which Sunderland Nissan would not be possible.

..and what I'm saying which you are clearly not going to listen to is that for good pragmatic reasons I disagree with you. Simplified right down my view is no bad crews, just bad captains. Thatchers view, and apparently yours, which to be honest I do find very weird is all good captains just bad crews.

I guess at the end of the day it comes down to whether you think a manager (and that word is being used in the largest context) can influence outcomes. Personally, I do.

the closed shop is designed so that all those who benefit from hard won gains also contribute --thats as it should be

at some unions would rather see a man out of work than in work

There is of course an alternative view of that.

I am just an old nostalgic but can you imagine how out of shape this thread would have got if Fred, TJ and their ilk were still about 😆

bikebuoy is trying his best on the recent pages but its just not the same.

"Ding Dong the witch is dead" has reached number 9 in the iTunes charts.

Nice to see people making the effort to learn the words in advance of the funeral.

Thatcher was big on Victorian values, Junkyard. She was keen on being self-reliant but also ready to help thy neigbour. It's a theme that came up in many speeches so I thought you'd find some quotes with Google. The Victorian charity ethic and private financing of public services were part of a theme which revolved around responsibility going with wealth. She said something about we only remember the good Samaritan because he had money to help with, not just good intentions. She was not in favour of a selfish society as you suggest but one in which everybody works hard for both personal gain and the common good. Pity she couldn't convince the greedy fat cats she surrounded herself with of that.

there's quite an interesting overview of the history leading up to the miners strike in this obituary for one of the NUM's last leaders before Scargill.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/5417730/Lawrence-Daly.html

It describes the unrest that was prevalent throughout the 1970's and really provides a good insight into why the government of the day decided to stockpile coal and face down the unions.

Probably the best quote in the obituary:

....At the NUM’s 1968 conference he criticised “the higher echelons of our movement who do not live by the same ethical Socialism that they preach. Our biggest obstacle is not so much the acquisitive Tory as the acquisitive Socialist.”

robdixon you should not be allowed to post that. It could be Tory-propoganda and must never have happened. The Comrades will dispute your version of history and like the great leaders of Communism would seek to rewrite history 😉

It's attitudes like yours Rudebwoy that have fractured our society, destroyed industries and communities. The irony is that many of the people holding these attitudes blame Thatcher for much of what they caused.

😆 I didn't realise these people were in government at the same time as thatcher telling her what to do.

Pity she couldn't convince the greedy fat cats she surrounded herself with of that.

Another one of her many faults.

meanwhile after 34 years of monetary policies where are we heading--north sea oil n gas pretty much spunked off, no access to coal, a few windmills and an ailing ageing nuclear sector-- imported gas form russia and leccy from those prudent french people who planned ahead.

Most heavy industry now a museum , plenty of 'service' jobs--and those wonderful players of financial instruments, but the truth is its the last waltz at the Ritz time.....

I'm just musing on this and will put this down before this thread dies. On a personal level, she really separated me from politics. Before her, I vaguely recall a loose respect for most politicians and the view that they were generally decent people trying their best. She came along and my loathing of her was total.

When Blair popped up after the creepy Major, I thought he was almost the second coming as he represented a total break from her. I don't think I was alone if we're honest. I was prepared to completely ignore the signs and loudly cheered him on regardless, as the nay-sayers were right-wing nutters who supported her, surely? Then Iraq and the scales fell away. Then he fell into the very bad camp in my head, the sudden-ness of it being a total shock.

So her legacy for me now is that I am cynical and utterly disrespectful to all politicians. I now think they're all crooks on the make (cash for questions? expenses?) and again suspect many feel similarly. Not very healthy and entirely negative. I believe in exercising my vote, but have no idea which set of crooks will get it at the next election.

Sorry to ramble but been meaning to say that for a long time.

before this thread dies

it can't die yet - only 170 posts to go...

Edukator - Member

Thatcher was big on Victorian values, Junkyard. She was keen on being self-reliant but also ready to help thy neigbour. It's a theme that came up in many speeches so I thought you'd find some quotes with Google. The Victorian charity ethic and private financing of public services were part of a theme which revolved around responsibility going with wealth. She said something about we only remember the good Samaritan because he had money to help with, not just good intentions.

Does anyone really still believe this crock?
The 'trickle down economy' is a myth propogated by the right that gets trotted out whenever the poor are about to be screwed over in favour of the rich again.
It doesn't happen. It never has.
When the rich get richer they keep it. Usually in a tax haven.
It benefits no one but themselves.

She preached philanthropy but every single policy encouraged self interest over helping others.

She was re-elected because she legitimised greed and selfishness.

CBA going through the whole thread but seeing as I posted a link to Morrissey's musings on the Margaret Thatcher's passing about ten pages back I feel it only fair ,by way of balance, to post Gerri Halliwell's Twitter comments
“Thinking of our 1st Lady of girl power, Margaret Thatcher, a grocer’s daughter who taught me anything is possible…x
Another thing I can't forgive The Iron Lady for 🙂

The old hag's demise has been dredging up some memories, among them reading this book...

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780861047130/Thatchers-Britain-Guide-Ruins-Keys-0861047133/plp

And that was only three years worth... Now, after a generation of Thatcher and her children, things are far worse than we could've ever imagined back then.

I'm sure The Iron Lady would be proud.

Rust in Peace?

[img] [/img]

If the unions were doing such a good job of looking after employee interests I think most people would happily contribute their dues.

It's attitudes like yours Rudebwoy that have fractured our society, destroyed industries and communities.

ford were ok with unions but weren't prepared to tolerate a closed shop. they also wanted to deal with one union and chose the less militant eeptu

Thatcher was big on Victorian values, Junkyard. She was keen on being self-reliant but also ready to help thy neigbour. It's a theme that came up in many speeches so I thought you'd find some quotes with Google.

She was not in favour of a selfish society as you suggest but one in which everybody works hard for both personal gain and the common good.

Pity she couldn't convince the greedy fat cats she surrounded herself with of that.

Fine I will add it to the list of things she failed to do

When the rich get richer they keep it. Usually in a tax haven.
It benefits no one but themselves.

They don't spent it ever, then? Genuinely curious here, I'm not a tory apologist.

Some people on here are sick. Why not just get on with your lifes instead of taking the piss out of an old woman who was very ill?

Given that they were already rich, they probably already spent enough....there's only so much you can spend! Would them becoming more rich lead to greater spending-doubtful in my view.

thatcher dead.that's the first i've heard of it from the bbc 😉

They don't spent it ever, then? Genuinely curious here, I'm not a tory apologist.

of course they do molly they are rich but they literally have no money in the bank , not one penny as they spend it all

They do tend to spend a fair amount of it though don't they? Cars, houses etc.

Of course they bank vast quantities of it

Really? How much of Richie Rich's money is going to be actual cash in an account?

You think because Bill Gates has a 'personal fortune' of 67 billion dollars he keeps it sitting in a bank account Junky?

do you really think thats how it works?

They don't spent it ever, then? Genuinely curious here, I'm not a tory apologist.

Was taught this in college & every article on the subject I've read since supports it:

Basically, poorer people will spend - the rich tend to hoard.

[img] [/img]

So what happens when they die?

infestation - Member

Some people on here are sick. Why not just get on with your lifes instead of taking the piss out of an old woman who was very ill?

Have we decided what we're doing with this handwringing, getting offended on other people's behalf nonsense?

You wouldn't see right-wingers getting their knickers in a twist over this, it's PC gorn mad I tells ya.

So what happens when they die?

well it is harder for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven than tpo pas a camel through the eye of a needle but hey lets keep religion out of this 😉

Just over a week left for Elton John to pen a new song.

..and what I have written three times but predictably you don't see. Is that I dont believe its was the crews [u]or[/u] the managers whom were the same then as they are now just with different haircuts.

The difference is the legislation, the playing field in which they operate.

While I can understand the argument that Thatcher had a negative impact on (certain) segments of the less-well off, I think history tells us that this was by no means her intention ( that is too cyncial IMO). There were two central pillars to her philosophy: (1) that the role of government in UK economics and society has become too great/pervasive and (2) individuals should be given greater freedom and responsibilities to make their own choices. An upshot of this (highlighted in the documentaries last night) was her belief that government resources should be used more to target the suffering of those less well-off. We can make our own conclusions about whether this was achieved or not individually!

But IMO the analysis of the Thatcher legacy requires a thorough understanding of what proceeded her and what followed her. It is the classic thesis, antithesis, synthesis framework. Thatchers successes resulted from how she dealt with the excesses that characterised the previous decade/s under the likes of Wilson, Heath, and Callaghan that saw among other things - weak economic performance, the failure of government attempts to manage aggregate demand, devasting collapses in industrial relations, high inflation, balance of payments crises, IMF bailouts, failed income policies and 47% wage demands etc. Her failures were largely due to the fact that she (often) took each (required?) solution too far eg, Keynesian economics were replaced by overly strict monetarist approaches, privatisation and liberalisation was extended too far and in some cases the dangers of externalities were ignored, supply side reforms were not accompanied by policies to retrain work forces sufficiently, the battle for inflation was won at the expense of high and sustained unemployment etc.

But since then, many important lessons have been learned (if not completely). Keynesian and monetarist economics work better in tandem than in isolation (albeit that the current policy mix is unbalanced and not working), the private and public sectors can work together (although again not 100% successfully), inflationary objectives need to be considered with other economic goals (new BoE mandate) etc. Sadly the lesson that has not be learned is that if governments believe that they have a role in managing aggregate demand, then Keynes' argument was that you (attempt to) run budget surpluses in the good times in order to finance deficits in the bad times. This lesson was ignored by Tory and most catastrophically by the last Labour government, thereby reducing our ability to respond to the current crisis. On top of that recent governments have failed to remember the importance of the balanced economies placing an over-reliance on financial services and the public sector. But that does not mean that we do not manufacture anything anymore.

So the Thatcher legacy? Thatcherism itself was largely a myth IMO. The follies of the past were replaced largely by a new extremes but with some successes as well. In time, a new synthesis was formed which is reflected in the current closeness of the main UK political parties. Of course, the challenges have moved on, as they always do, and the current consensus/thesis does not have the answers to the current problems. Let's hope that this time, the reaction or antithesis is less extreme, but I doubt it personally as the political debate highlights that the real reasons for our current crises are not properly recognised or understood!

have you swallowed a dictionary teamhurtmore that's really boring.

I doubt it personally as the political debate highlights that the real reasons for our current crises are not properly recognised or understood!

Except by you of course.

yes, sorry! i was typing without looking how ridiculously long my ramblings had become. Apologies!

[Hi Norman Hunter! Missed the ball again. 😉 But please tell me how the current political and economic elites are making progress towards achieving sustainable growth?]

Hi Norman Hunter! Missed the ball again.

How impertinent of me. 😉

dont be stupid Grum

THM nowt wrong with long posts but it needs more typos 😉

PS all right wing folk want a smaller state and more self reliant folk - given the number on the dole she failed to achieve either and let to a generation[s] of dependency in certain areas.

Keynes' argument was that you (attempt to) run budget surpluses in the good times in order to finance deficits in the bad times.

This is key for me and it is sound advice for everybody not just governments.

My other half thinks i'm mad for keeping a decent savings account, it infuriates her that i drive around in a crappy car and wont spend the money on getting a better one...i explain that the account is our buffer against the realities of everyday life, when a stonking great bill comes through or when i had the bathroom done a few years ago i was able to pay for it from the savings without any interruption to our day to day lives.
When i have money left over i top the account up again.

Governments seem to want to spend every penny they have and even when Blair/Brown were enjoying record tax recipts they didnt put anything away for a rainy day.

This is basic stuff, live within your means.

There's the other leg gone! Appropriate era of football given the thread topic, I suppose.

And the answer.....?

(JY, I was actually embarrassed at the length. But I was bored with geography revision supervision and was playing on an iPad and got carried away - even more than normal 😉 )

Junkyard - Member
PS all right wing folk want a smaller state and more self reliant folk

What about slightly left-wing libertarians?!? 😉

This is key for me and it is sound advice for everybody not just governments.

It's a bit different for governments though.

As Margaret Thatcher sum up herself nicely in one word - [b]Undefeated![/b]

RIP Great Leader.

[url= http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/12/margaret-thatcher-201112 ]Th Invincible Mrs Thatcher[/url]

[img] [/img]

For those that are celebrating her passing well put it this way even enemy respects each other in death.

What about slightly left-wing libertarians?!?

I think it all depends some folk just need the state to provide roads and police. some need it to provide health care as they were born with an illness and some need it to act as their parent and help them cope with life

TBH i find it an idealistic view that just wont work for all people. some wil lthrive and some will watse away at the margins as they need help
Take IDS and giving folk their own rent and monthly payments, I can see why he wants to empower them but the results wont be good as some folk will waste it and end up homeless

I would say, given how many thatcher put on the dole and what she had to do to fund this means she failed on both counts tbh - spendiig and dependency both increased

infestation - Member
have you swallowed a dictionary teamhurtmore that's really boring.

I found it quite interesting, and why is having a large vocabulary a bad thing?

Take IDS and giving folk their own rent and monthly payments, I can see why he wants to empower them but the results wont be good as some folk will waste it and end up homeless

I think you raise a good point here, as in many ways its reflective upon one of the central tenets of the Thatcherite movement - that ultimately, wherever possible, people need to take some level of responsibility for themselves.

I'm sorry its a daily mail link, but I think its a fair one:

http://www.****/news/article-2305358/Vodafone-Kevin-Waldrum-runs-91-184-phone-calling-daytime-chat-line-alleviate-loneliness.html

some folk will waste it and end up homeless

Well, obviously because the benefits culture has created a bunch of ****less losers hasn't it? 😉

ultimately, wherever possible, people need to take some level of responsibility for themselves.

And that the rich would be generous with their money. Which they weren't. And aren't. And never will be.

So...let's chalk that down as another failure.

I found it quite interesting, and why is having a large vocabulary a bad thing?

+1

And that the rich would be generous with their money. Which they weren't. And aren't. And never will be.

Well, you're better off than him, maybe you could send him some of your own money to help him pay his vodaphone bill?

Well, you're better off than him

Bit presumptious...

Whether they are generous or not, doesn't matter since (some 😉 )of their earnings and wealth is taxed to fund government spending. Where would we be without tax revenues? It's the same with profits, which seems to be a dirty word for some. Where does tax revenue come from, what funds corporate investment, what are the rewards for the risk taken by the providers of capital. As a government, we will now be looking for RBS and Lloyds to be profitable in the future!

some

More like a small fraction.

wherever possible, people need to take some level of responsibility for themselves.

Did they really think someone wanted a 91 k phone bill or could afford to pay it - perhaps they should also take on board some corporate responsibility rather than blame customers

Where does tax revenue come from

Little people apparently

No presumption about it Darcy

Poor lads an unemployed security guard with no girlfriend and a 91k phone bill - surely this is the epitome of someone who needs help in modern Tory Britain.

deadlydarcy - Member
some
More like a small fraction.

Junkyard - Member
Where does tax revenue come from
Little people apparently

Not even one 😉 ?

😉

Sorry ratty I thought you were trying to argue about how folk could be self reliant/responsible - is that really your best example of how people always act appropriately and wisely
Have you ever shot yourself with your gun ? that proves my point and now we have to face your hilarious attempts at humour now

Lost me there THM-what is your point?

I think you raise a good point here, as in many ways its reflective upon one of the central tenets of the Thatcherite movement - that ultimately, wherever possible, people need to take some level of responsibility for themselves.

so people have to exercise responsibility but big business doesn't ?

you're right, that sounds like one of the very cornerstones of thatcherism.

trailmonkey - Member

so people have to exercise responsibility but big business doesn't ?

What big business are you referring to?

Aren't they all managed by people?

JY, I was assuming that there was at least a "touch" of humour in your quote about little people! maybe not?

No presumption about it Darcy

Plenty ratty. You have no idea of my circumstances. Anyway, an unnecessary diversion.

Yes it was humour.
Some truth in it though I guess as well

Mark my words Darcy - its an inability to arses like him and make them take responsibility for themselves that runs the biggest risk of losing the Labour party the next election!

Mark my words Darcy

😆

I think we both know that's never likely to happen.

Now you're onto Labour and the next election? Can't you stick to the point?