[Closed] Thatcher's died according to BBC

I assume from the bitterness of your many posts that you are still blaming your unemployment/miserable life on Thatcher?

Life clearly didn't turn out as planned for you did it? In fairness you probably need to take a bit more responsibility for that...

The great irony of that comment is that Thatcher was [i]specifically[/i] elected as Prime Minister in 1979 on the central issue they created, which was that the Labour government was directly responsible for causing 1.5 million unemployed. This was the poster that won the Tories the '79 General Election :

[img] [/img]

So what is it tpbiker .......are governments responsible for unemployment, or not ?

I'm guessing it depends on whether the government is Tory or Labour, am I right ?

whos paying for your celebration drink Rudebwoy, given I assume from the bitterness of your many posts that you are still blaming your unemployment/miserable life on Thatcher?

Life clearly didn't turn out as planned for you did it? In fairness you probably need to take a bit more responsibility for that...

Rudebwoy seems much more chilled and happier than you.

You need to take a bit of responsibility for that. It's not the government's job to make you happy.

unemployment is the crudest tool in the box to keep wages down --but the side effects far out weigh any concievable gains --unless you are a capitalist and therefore insulated from main society-- most on here are not i guess....

unemployment is the crudest tool in the box to keep wages down --but the side effects far out weigh any concievable gains --unless you are a capitalist ...........

Not at all, on the contrary - unemployment and low wages (which you quite rightly point out it causes) eventually has a devastating effect on the capitalists.

Capitalists need consumers with money to buy their goods and services. Driving down wages might increase profits in the short term but it will always lead to over production/under consumption.

It's almost like it leads to some kind of cycle...

You mean like boom and bust ?

You mean like boom and bust ?

Even from my pro-labour stance, it's a little difficult not to draw connections to the growth and recession that the last labour governments presided over with the phrase "boom and bust"...

so only one thread allowed about this subject and its myriad of off shoots--- unlike talking about sheds, patios, and cars.....

The other topics tend not to take up any of our time modding, there's not much abuse about what shed. The insults on both sides of this topic that fly around are numerous so it's easier for us if it's kept in this thread instead of lots of others on the same topic.

ernie-- the british capitalidst is a very short sighted beast-- and yes in the long run its counter productive--hence the germanic and nordic approach--with high wages, high skill, welfare state , seems to be much less divisive-- but even they are dependant on a skewed 'world'--

The other topics tend not to take up any of our time modding, there's not much abuse about what shed. The insults on both sides of this topic that fly around are numerous so it's easier for us if it's kept in this thread instead of lots of others on the same topic.

i would say you are being paranoid a bit-- all things considered on such an emotive subject--the threads have been remarkably restrained , not much personal insults really, considering its cyber world and all that-- don't get me going on sheds though.....

It's almost like it leads to some kind of cycle...

should be on the bike forum...... 😉

labour have only proclaimed to be more effective at running capitalism than the tories --thats the basic premise of nu labour-- as for millipede.... he won't say until the pollsters tell him..

i would say you are being paranoid a bit-- all things considered on such an emotive subject--the threads have been remarkably restrained , not much personal insults really, considering its cyber world and all that-- don't get me going on sheds though..

The reports and posts we've deleted say otherwise but thanks for your concern.

thanks for your concern

🙄

The other topics tend not to take up any of our time modding, there's not much abuse about what shed. The insults on both sides of this topic that fly around are numerous so it's easier for us if it's kept in this thread instead of lots of others on the same topic.

One thread to rule them all
One thread to bind them..

The reports and posts we've deleted say otherwise but thanks for your concern.

you could put them on a special X rated thread-- that you can only read if you sign a disclaimer-- bet there are some embarrasing quips to be had-- but seriously --you have not had to remove anything i have said- so i take it that i must be showing restraint and awareness of the boundaries ?

-you have not had to remove anything i have said- so i take it that i must be showing restraint and awareness of the boundaries ?

Well, apart from the golden rule about not criticising [s]Jesus[/s] modding decisions 😉

😆

I thought it was quite touching for the Millwall fans to mark her passing with a return to 80's retro style, mindless football hooliganism and thuggery. Very fitting!

So what is it tpbiker .......are governments responsible for unemployment, or not ?

I'm guessing it depends on whether the government is Tory or Labour, am I right

Unsurprisingly nope you're wrong. They are both as bad as each other. But just so we are clear about my political allegiances, I've never voted for the Tories and never will.

Rudebwoy seems much more chilled and happier than you.

You need to take a bit of responsibility for that. It's not the government's job to make you happy.

I'm perfectly happy thanks, what makes you think otherwise? Have you deduced that from the 2 posts I've made on this entire thread? Its not me whos been rambling on about thatcher on an internet thread for the last week. I've had far better things to do with my time, unlike some clearly.

I'd like to pick up rudebwoy's lifeboat analogy from his ill-fated thatcher party thread.

He said he wouldn't want to be in a lifeboat with people who opposed his views on the grounds that they would be inherently selfish.

I wouldn't like to be in rudebwoy's lifeboat when the only trained navigator pipes up that he should be allowed a couple of minutes off of rowing in order to find out where they are and where they are going. He is then denounced as an agitator, his compass and sextant are smashed and thrown overboard. He is then instructed to row aimlessly in the interests of boat solidarity.

Anyone for Orwell?

Why would the navigator be denounced for navigating?

So what is it tpbiker .......are governments are responsible for unemployment, or not ?

I'm guessing it depends on whether the government is Tory or Labour, am I right

"Unsurprisingly nope you're wrong. They are both as bad as each other. But just so we are clear about my political allegiances, I've never voted for the Tories and never will".

But you haven't answered the question. I very clearly asked you if governments are responsible for unemployment or not ?

And of course it's [i]unsurprising[/i] that you are not a Thatcher supporting Tory, it has always been extremely difficult to find anyone who was, even when Thatcher was PM.

Just take hora for example, he very clearly deeply admires and respects Thatcher, but he is not a Tory. So no, I wouldn't expect you to have ever voted Tory. Very few people ever do. Apparently.

Why would the navigator be denounced for navigating?

Hypothetical right wing logic in an attempt to defend a losing argument.

Why would the navigator be denounced for navigating?

Because it makes the story more interesting.

Ha ha ha.

Yeah right, intellectuals flourished under communism didn't they?

Solzhenitsyn was really given a helping hand wasn't he?

Jesus wept.

Yeah right, intellectuals flourished under communism didn't they?

So when Thatcher came to power we had communism ?

And [i][b]you[/i][/b] use the expression "Jesus wept" ! 😀

EDIT : btw I've never heard of a navigator being described as an "intellectual". Are you not aware of their practical skills ?

Why would rudebwoys lifeboat be communist?

Why would rudebwoys lifeboat be communist?

As above - poor debating tactics by right wingers. Not exactly a remarkable phenomenon.

Whoah!

Why do you think that I believe we had communism as our government before, during or after Thatcher? Ernie, I'm not being argumentative now, I just think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

I am challenging rudebwoy and his beliefs. He has admitted openly in the past to being a communist. I am only talking about that. Not really in the context of Thatcher at all.

Hope that's cleared it up. I don't mind being challenged or even (lightly and verbally) abused. But I don't want it to be on the grounds of a misunderstanding.

Why would rudebwoys lifeboat be communist?

Because there was no one selfish in it.

I've had far better things to do with my time, unlike some clearly.

Sounds like you'vebeen getting "on yer bike".

Apologies though, your post to rudebwoy sounded a bit rude to me...and I deduced that maybe you were a bit angry or something. Maybe you're just rude all the time.

I am challenging rudebwoy and his beliefs. He has admitted openly in the past to being a communist. I am only talking about that. Not really in the context of Thatcher at all.

Fair enough. I thought it was in relation to the topic of this thread, ie Thatcher.

More importantly, what should all the people in the rudbwoy's lifeboat do if they have been stranded for several days without food or freshwater. Imagine that the navigator, for the sake of argument, was suffering the most and was the closest to death. Should the others kill him and eat his flesh in order that they could stay alive? Assuming that they would all die otherwise. Better to sacrifice one for the sake of the others? Or would they be guilty of murder and condemned to death?

Ernie's question is a good one and to extend it further - are governments responsible for successes and/or failures of economic policy? Do they really have that much control over events or are events predominantly determined by external forces? In th current context across Europe, I think this is an important question.

FWIW, given that governments essentially have four macro objectives/issues - growth, unemployment, inflation and balance of payments - I personally find it quite some stretch to suggest that any government deliberately goes out to increase the level of unemployment.

Ernie's question is a good one and to extend it further - are governments responsible for successes and/or failures of economic policy? Do yet really have that much control over events or are events predominantly determined by external forces?

In the case of the current, never-ending crisis, its root cause is of course un-regulated free market capitalism, which although originating in the US was also present throughout most of the West.

Strikes me that if gambling with more money than your country's GDP was more regulated, we might not be in this mess.

Who does the regulating? Well, I guess that would be governments...

I am challenging rudebwoy and his beliefs. He has admitted openly in the past to being a communist. I am only talking about that. Not really in the context of Thatcher at all.

That's fair enough, not something I'd seen him post.

I personally find it quite some stretch to suggest that any government deliberately goes out to increase the level of unemployment.

Oh come on, unemployment is a price well worth paying if you're a Tory.

[b][i] "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying."[/i][/b] - Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont

No worries Ernie. Admittedly it is a bit off-topic, although not entirely!

It was meant for the other thread yesterday, but that got closed before I could say it.

I actually follow what you and a few others say on here, despite not agreeing with it a lot of the time. This is because I have gained some respect from the way things are argued, often with a bit of humour.

It's a bit lazy of me to pick arguments with the more 'obvious' people on here. People who dogmatically hold onto discredited ideologies.

I will try harder in future. I believe in what I say. No trolling for kicks, just stating beliefs.

zokes - Member
In the case of the current, never-ending crisis, its root cause is of course un-regulated free market capitalism, which although originating in the US was also present throughout most of the West.

Well if it really was that simple, the solutions would be equally obvious. I am intrigued to find these examples of un-regulated, free markets outside a text book. Even financial markets (which amplified and extended the crisis) are a long way from being either unregulated or free. And there are plenty of countries that have broadly the same (mixed) economic model that are not suffering the same crisis that we are enduring.

Ernie - that's a good example and a standard A level economics question. Examine the conflicts that occur between macro economic objectives and how they differ at different stages of the economic cycle. Nothing in economics is a straight line and trade offs always exist between policies - hence the lifeboat analogy!

I actually follow what you and a few others say on here, despite not agreeing with it a lot of the time. This is because I have gained some respect from the way things are argued, often with a bit of humour.

Thanks. Although you do realise that I'm also a commie don't you ?

.....and a standard A level economics question

Norman Lamont didn't pose it as a question, he offered as a fact.

Unregulated free-market capitalism did not directly cause the current problem. The actions of a few people who believed they were cleverer than they really were and saw a way to make themselves a fortune on the side caused it.

It really doesn't matter how many segments you divide you credit risk database up into to convince yourself something is less risky than it really is. The only real question is 'what is the likelihood of me actually getting this loan amount back and what happens if I don't?'

It was called SUB-prime for a reason. The clue was in the title.

More squeamish people also choose to forget that for every sub-prime loan or mortgage, there is a piece of paper with the lendee's signature on it. No gun to anyone's head.

If loans were actively mis-sold, then that is a different matter. The majority of this was irresponsibility on the part of the lender and the lendee.

Well, dare I say it, that would not score a A*!

The "fact" would need to be interpreted in the context. Simple question - what was the primary objective? Start there (the control of inflation). Then identify the trade-offs and adverse affects that policies designed to tackle this (in this case high interest rates) had on other objectives.

Ernie. If you are a 'commie' as you put it, it then we are likely to disagree quite a lot!

However, if you can convince me I am wrong then I'll become a red too. I hope if the reverse were true, you wouldn't let blind ideology stop you either.

😀

No gun to anyone's head.

Greedy people who wanted to own their own home.

I wonder [i]who[/i] championed that idea ?

Have you decided to come back on topic dannyh ?

Unregulated free-market capitalism did not directly cause the current problem. The actions of a few people who believed they were cleverer than they really were and saw a way to make themselves a fortune on the side caused it.

Could it not be that in actual fact, regulation preventing such clever people from doing stupid things might have helped?

The majority of this was irresponsibility on the part of the lender and the lendee.

Again - regulation would have at least partially negated this.

People (well, apart from molgrips) think they can drive with safety much faster than they actually can. Consequently speed on the roads is regulated. This does stop some people from getting to places faster than they actually might. But on the plus side, it reduces the number of crashes (pun intended).

Ernie. If you are a 'commie' as you put it....

Cheeky git. I'm a better commie than rudebwoy.

zokes - Member
Again - regulation would have at least partially negated this.

Ironically, there were aspects of financial regulation that (unintentionally) led directly to the some of the causes of the financial crisis. Not only did the design of regulation flawed but so was its implementation. Plus governments encouraged and contributed to many of the activities that caused the problems.

People (well, apart from molgrips)

😆

Nice pun.

But if someone drives at 70mph in near-term visibility on a motorway and kills somebody they haven't broken the speed limit (ie that particular rule). The are reckless, stupid etc. The effect is pretty much the same.

So you have another law about due care and attention. But that is necessarily subjective. Now apply this to the (apparent) complexities of the financial sector and you might have well not bothered.

It really boils down to the individual.

Ironically, there were aspects of financial regulation that (unintentionally) led directly to the some of the causes of the financial crisis. Not only did the design of regulation flawed but so was its implementation. Plus governments encouraged and contributed to many of the activities that caused the problems.

Sounds to me then that we're in agreement that better regulation may have avoided the current ongoing mess.

So you have another law about due care and attention. But that is necessarily subjective. Now apply this to the (apparent) complexities of the financial sector and you might have well not bothered.

On the contrary. For something as important as the very nature on which most of the world's economy is sadly based, I'd say finding the best way of 'bothering' is quite necessary. As the current situation amply demonstrates.

the lifeboat analogy --in an extreme situation as that ,all survivors depend on each other, with limited resources, possible injuries and no way of knowing when they may be rescued-- a lot of research was done regarding the second world war and survival rates/deaths-- a lot died as a result of giving up hope --the psychological make up is crucial in those situations-- my analogy was that those who only seek to look after themselves at others expense would not be welcome....

A 'better' commie? I thought you were all 'comrades'. Shoulder to shoulder and all that! 😛

oh- and if you want to be precise--i am near to Trotsky on most political ideology--permanent revolution and all that....just so there are no misunderstandings.

Indeed we are in agreement on regulation. But I doubt we agree on unfettered free markets being the cause! 😉

Any way ride time now, before more revision supervision and the Masters! But would love to have some examples later...!

Hi rudebwoy.

Fair enough, but that's not how you framed it yesterday.

BTW ernie. Those weren't sarcastic quotation marks, I was quoting you and didn't want to get into name-calling.

i am near to Trotsky on most political ideology

I rest my case.

Splitter !

[img] [/img]

There's been a bit of re-think about Trotsky in recent times. Admittedly all supposition as no one got the chance to find out for real after uncle joe had him done in.

If you look at a lot of his policies and writings, there's a lot there that your average man in the street would ascribe to Stalin rather than Trotsky.

I think there are some rose-tinted views of Trotsky, obviously easier in the case of someone who never got the chance to implement their ideas.

Still, the odds are that Trotsky wouldn't have been as murderous as Stalin, but that's another facet of communism that allowed Stalin to ostracise others - insular paranoia.

That's all for now folks. Stuff to be getting on with.

The whole sub-prime thing could never happen again though, could it?

It's good to see that Gideon, having obviously learnt the lessons of the recent past is proposing to offer taxpayer funded loans to pay the deposits of [s]people who can't afford mortgages[/s] potential homeowners. Thus re-inflating another housing bubble. What could possibly go wrong?

Repeat after me - house price rises are not economic growth.....

1500!

Is 1500 our lot, then?

No. Apparently Radio 1 played "I'm in love with Margaret Thatcher" in full in the chart show.

Not adopted by her supporters surely, it was a bit of a piss take.

EDIT: Blimey, supported by Louise Mensch!! They are really clueless!!

Trust the Mensch-Meister to show up.

What a dreadful narcissist she is.

I thought she'd just **** off. No such luck, eh?

Is 1500 our lot, then?

I wouldn't have thought so. Since no thread other this one is allowed on Thatcher, then I suspect that it will go on and on. As indeed she herself had intended to :

I'm sure that Thatcher's 'almost state funeral' on wednesday will provoke further comment.

As will this government's thatcherite agenda, as they continue with their welfare state funeral.

That's bloody ironic, as the only 2 options presented to me by the "careers teacher" was the pit or the steelworks

🙂

Going back a couple of pages I know but hundreds of thousands would count you lucky!
I distinctly remember in the 80s that schools in the Northwest were preparing school leavers for the outside world by showing them how to claim Supplementary Benefit as there were so few job opportunities.

I left School May 1981, started work albeit on a government scheme( like many other kids) this matured into a full 4 year craft apprenticeship, this was the case for most of my mates at the time, this was Oldham, I cannot recall anyone advising me about supplementary benefits, then again I cannot remember the hard times we all went through, must have been all that Wilsons bitter we supped.

Two sides to every story it would seem.

In May 1981 unemployment was still relatively low compared to when it peaked in the mid-eighties, and again in the early nineties. Also still in place in May 1981 was the Youth Opportunities Programme which had been introduced by the previous Labour government.

By May 1981 Thatcher had been prime minister for only 24 months, it took longer than that for her to have a fully devastating effect on the British economy.

must have been all that Wilsons bitter we supped.

It was common practice for the thousands laid off form coal,steel,shipping etc to be advised to sign sick too sowing the seeds of the current issues with the cost of sickness related beneits we have today.

It would appear that the present chancellor George Osborne would agree with you :

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/02/osborne-thatcher-legacy-disability-benefits ]Chancellor says former Tory PM's government 'parked' unemployed people on disability benefits[/url]

[b][i]The chancellor said: "Governments of all colours let too many unemployed people get parked on disability benefits, and told they'd never work again. Why?

"Because people on disability benefits don't get counted in unemployment figures that could embarrass politicians.

"It was quick-fix politics of the worst kind – and the people who lost out were you, hard-working taxpayers who had to pay for all this and those on disability benefits who could have worked but were denied the opportunity to do so."[/i][/b]

So it's all Thatcher's fault then, according to George Osborne.

So it's all Thatcher's fault then, according to George Osborne.

As he said "Governments of all colours" then I can't see him pinning it all on Thatch.

I can't see him pinning it all on Thatch.

Well read the article then. You will see very clearly that he recognizes that the idea was Thatcher's : [i]"the chancellor criticised the Thatcher government for the way it placed many unemployed people on disability benefits"[/i].

Yes, New Labour continued with Thatcher's policy, but Thatcher claimed that New Labour was her greatest achievement.

As he said "Governments of all colours" then I can't see him pinning it all on Thatch.

it was expedient for them at the time--didn't want the real figures to show how their policies were basically shutting down uk industry--its no different today--loads of people 'parked' on self employment--who earn zilch--but receive housing and tax credits that pay slightly more than jsa etc- all those over 60 on 'pension plus'-- there are many ways to 'massage' the real picture--oh and fool loads of others via media that there is loads of jobs every where-- you just need to 'get out there'--horrible hypocrites all of them.....

I've read it thanks.

"the chancellor criticised the Thatcher government for the way it placed many unemployed people on disability benefits".

You're quoting the Guardian journo, not Osborne.

Osborne said "Governments of all colours let too many unemployed people get parked on disability benefits, and told they'd never work again"

That's not pinning it all on Thatcher IMO.

Have we discussed the non ding dong? (apologies I've not read all the threads) It all seems a bit daft when the news report they had instead was longer than the song, they played clips from the song and everybody knew the point people were making. Whatever your views about the protest, exactly what did they think they were protecting anybody from by not playing the whole song?

You're quoting the Guardian journo, not Osborne.

God you're clutching straws 🙄

Will the very Tory supporting Daily Telegraph do ?

[b][i]He said the Thatcher government had placed thousands of unemployed people on disability benefits as "quick-fix politics of the worst kind". [/i][/b]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9980776/George-Osborne-All-Tories-live-in-the-shadow-of-Baroness-Thatcher.html

I'm guessing probably not.

God you're clutching straws

like a scarecrow havin a tug....

Shall we also not forget, on this all encompassing thread, some of the sterling work that was done during Thatchers reign, to preserve ancient traditions..

[url= http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2012/06/01/remember-the-battle-of-the-beanfield-its-the-27th-anniversary-today-of-thatchers-brutal-suppression-of-traveller-society/ ]Remember the Battle of the Beanfield[/url]