Them Londoners did twice.

Exactly. That’s why he’s the perfect candidate for those he serves. I’m always amazed at the ability of the right to convince millions of otherwise sensible and intelligent people to vote against their own interests.

Boris won’t have the same support outside of The Republic of London as he enjoys in it. In what he calls “the regions”, i.e The UK, we’re not so desensitized to the crippling economic disparity that exists there. So public school boys have to work a lot harder to win a vote.

He’s entertaining, but running the country? Oh f*ck no.

So what you are saying is that he could win an election if he stood as conservative party leader? Scary.

Thatcherism was about social inclusion

there’s no other way to put this…………

have you gone mental ?

Boris won’t have the same support outside of The Republic of London as he enjoys in it.

Indeed. Actually its a little bit worse by how his support by ‘Londoners’ is weighted towards the suburbs not ‘proper’ London. IIRC at election time it was ernie who provided us with a breakdown of votes/comment about this, with the implication that if even a bit less of commuterland was included in the election then Ken would have been mayor.

trailmonkey – Member
Thatcherism was about social inclusion
there’s no other way to put this…………

have you gone mental ?

Not completely. The effect of Thatcherism was complete social breakdown, no argument there. But the ideas she came in on were all about helping ordinary people into a better standard of living (rather than the privileged few).

TM – watch Durkin’s C4 documentary on Thatcher. An interesting argument that she was in fact, “a working class revolutionary” (slight hyperbole?) and that she believed capitalism was in the interests of ordinary people, not the toffs. He claims that she believed that the needs and aspirations of ordinary working people should be better reflected in British politics. He quoted her writing:

“in the eyes of the public, Conservatives represent the prejudices and selfish interests of the moneyed classes”

…and argued that, it was Thatcher’s belief that working class people were enslaved by the post-war consensus – trapping them in state run communities working for state owned industries – that led to her conviction that only a radical shake up of the country’s economic framework could deliver real freedom to the British people. Or, as Sir Bernard Ingham put it:

“She was in the business of liberation – liberation of the proletariat.”

Probably not the consensus view, at least not on here, but an Interetsting argument nonetheless!

Durkin?

Martin Durkin?

so it’s utter 80ll0cks then.

Not completely. The effect of Thatcherism was complete social breakdown, no argument there. But the ideas she came in on were all about helping ordinary people into a better standard of living (rather than the privileged few).

if you believe that tosh , then you must be expecting a big man in a red suit comin down yer chimney…

Is that the same Durkin who fabricated a load of statistics and willingly misrepresented ‘research’ sponsored by oil and coal companies in a C4 documentary to de-bunk climate change?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

rudebwoy – Member
Not completely. The effect of Thatcherism was complete social breakdown, no argument there. But the ideas she came in on were all about helping ordinary people into a better standard of living (rather than the privileged few).
if you believe that tosh , then you must be expecting a big man in a red suit comin down yer chimney…

Well I didn’t read it in a book, I lived through it and made my own observations.

Thatcherism was about social inclusion

Are you talking about ‘trickle-down capitalism’?

dazh – Member
Are you talking about ‘trickle-down capitalism’?

No, thats a myth that doesn’t work.

May have been the same guy, not sure tbh. But the argument is interesting at the very least. I have some sympathy with it but have always argued that Thatcher delivered much less than either her critics or her supporters argue, in fact the whole concept of Thatcherism was largely a myth on both aides. * The fact that she broke a number of barriers in the Tory party was arguably one reason why they (as normal) turned against her in the end. To be succeeded by another non-typical Tory leader. How many times has that heppendd before or since?

* perhaps this is why when delivering the annual MrsT lecture to a RW think tank that bOris had to resort to his usual rhetorical tricks!!!

No, thats a myth that doesn’t work.

Refrigerator ownership in rural China increased from 14% to 45% over the period 2001-2010

And you’re claiming that trickle down capitalism doesn’t work?

The Chinese government could easily afford to supply every single household with a fridge. How is it a success that only 45% of people are using one?

The Chinese government could easily afford to supply every single household with a fridge

Then under the great socialist empire where everyone is equal, why didn’t they? Why is it only happening since the evil capitalist reforms

Money brought into china from manufacturing western goods has led to a real terms 1000% increase in the per capita income of rural chinese residents since the start of economic reforms in 1978 (OECD Figures)

Then under the great socialist empire where everyone is equal, why didn’t they?

Maybe because, just like in soviet Russia, the ‘great socialist empire’ was anything but. The chinese and soviet revolutions may have been inspired by socialism, but what they turned into was a far cry from what Marx and Engels envisioned.

ninfan – Member
Refrigerator ownership in rural China increased from 14% to 45% over the period 2001-2010

And you’re claiming that trickle down capitalism doesn’t work?

That’s a transition from socialism to capitalism. Not the same as allowing the rich to get richer in an already capitalist country in the hope the poor will get less poor.

We’ve tried this and it manifestly has not happened.

And you’re claiming that trickle down capitalism doesn’t work?

If it works, why do we have a widening gap between rich and poor?

We’ve tried this and it manifestly has not happened.

You’re saying that poverty in the UK in 2013 resembles poverty in the UK in the 1930’s?

or even the 1970’s?

I reckon that being in poverty in the UK today does not even begin to broach the level of deprivation that we saw in the past – in your words, the poor have got less poor.

Do you really want to stick to the argument that the poor in this capitalist country are not better off than they used to be?

But the ideas she came in on were all about helping ordinary people into a better standard of living (rather than the privileged few).

And you think this was achieved by creating mass unemployment, eroding union power, increasing poverty, lowering wages, cutting public services………… ? I could go on but I think you get the gist.

As confirmed an advocate of Milton Friedman as she was, it is ludicrous to build an argument claiming that her ideals were anything other than about lining the pockets of the privileged few. If you really want to think about it, tell me who the beneficiaries of the utilities sell offs were, certainly not ‘Sid’ (maybe no-one told him), most certainly the huge multi nationals that now own them.

she was in fact, “a working class revolutionary”

Now this I agree with 100% If more people realised how revolutionary she was and how as a result the world has changed under their noses while they’re so busy consuming, the world would be a better place.

If it works, why do we have a widening gap between rich and poor?

A generation ago manual jobs disappeared. The jobs were either automated or went off shore. The middle classes expanded as office jobs replaced them. Which was a good thing.

It would have happened with Maggie or not.

Now the same thing is happening to the middle classes. Office jobs are being replaced by IT systems. Doctors and lawyers are next. The ‘working’ class is about to grow. It’s hard to see this as a good thing for most of us.

It doesn’t matter who is in charge. It’s happening.

The trickle down will be just that. A trickle.

I note that the central question posed by ninfan has been avoided in favour of some straw-manisms.

The working class. Better off now than in the 1930’s?

Discuss.

Do you really want to stick to the argument that the poor in this capitalist country are not better off than they used to be?

Not sure who you think the ‘poor’ are in this country, but going on the numbers of homeless and people using foodbanks and soup kitchens I’d say they there are plenty people in this country who are just as poor as the poor were in the 70s and earlier.

And just how poor do they have to be before we stop congratulating ourselves on a job well done and pretending that there’s no problem?

Of course the working class are better off 100 years later, unions in particular have done amazing things to improve working conditions, the nhs has helped raise life expectancy and countless other improvements

but seeing the way that our current government are driving people to food bank use, Im not sure that things are so rosey

and shirley comparing inequality woudl be a better measure

heres another depressing one
Chart 2: How many times more likely the worse-off tenth are likely to die under the age of 65 than the best-off tenth in Britain, 1921-2007, by area. (Source: Dorling, 2013)

and shirley comparing inequality woudl be a better measure

Why?

The question is whether the poor are, in real terms, poorer, not whether the rich have got richer.

elitist clown

And you’re point is? What if a Tory slagged off the Labour contender for being a socialist bore? Just because his family was rich and he’s got a personality doesn’t follow that he’s not good at politics.

difference between equality of opportunity and equality of living

+1

And just how poor do they have to be before we stop congratulating ourselves on a job well done and pretending that there’s no problem?

<daily mail> When they’re complaining that a £500/week cap on benifits is going to hit them in the pocket? </daily mail mode>

Shouldn’t Ernie be on this thread by now? 😉

ninfan – Member
The question is whether the poor are, in real terms, poorer, not whether the rich have got richer.

I thought the discussion was about whether maggies policies had ended inequality as Boris claimed

and shirley comparing inequality woudl be a better measure

The question is whether the poor are, in real terms, poorer, not whether the rich have got richer.

+1, you could see a change in inequality if the rich got richer and the poor were better off, but not by as much. But everyone’s better off than they were.

It’s very easy to deamonise “the top 1%” or “the top 10%”, but it seems unfair to overtly deamonise them for being harder working or luckier depending on where you see them.

ninfan – Member

You’re saying that poverty in the UK in 2013 resembles poverty in the UK in the 1930’s?

or even the 1970’s?

I reckon that being in poverty in the UK today does not even begin to broach the level of deprivation that we saw in the past – in your words, the poor have got less poor.

Do you really want to stick to the argument that the poor in this capitalist country are not better off than they used to be?

Yes the poor now are much worse of than the 70’s – and I remember being poor in the 70’s.

I spoke to someone the other day spent the evening sat in darkness because they had no money for a leccy card, with no food, no prospect of work, no money for his kids xmas pressies and what income he got was via illegal means. And he’s one of many doing the same thing or already in prison – where the population per capita is much higher than in any decade you mentioned and has ballooned in the last 30 years.

Do you want to tell him how much better off he is because of our captains of industry? I f*cking don’t.

Just dipped into this thread, but this:

I spoke to someone the other day spent the evening sat in darkness because they had no money for a leccy card, with no food, no prospect of work, no money for his kids xmas pressies and what income he got was via illegal means. And he’s one of many doing the same thing or already in prison

should not be happening, in this country, in the 21st century, when there is such massive wealth, that is not being taxed or shared.

trailmonkey – Member

And you think this was achieved by creating mass unemployment, eroding union power, increasing poverty, lowering wages, cutting public services………… ? I could go on but I think you get the gist.

I’m pretty sure I said several posts ago that she did not achieve equality. I said the policies she came in on, voted for by many working class families, where of an ant-elite/get of your arse and make something of yourself nature.

You do remember the landslide elections she won? She was very, very popular until she went batshit and took up ruining communities for a hobby.

I’m not a thatcher apologist. I’m not even a tory. I do think she was on to something with her early political ideology and we could use some of it now.

I do think she was on to something with her early political ideology and we could use some of it now.

Delusional.

Everything that woman did has not just come back to bite us on the a*se, but has torn us all a whole new a*sehole.

I think the difference was that in the 70s rich people were spending the evening sitting in darkness (boris talks about it in his speech) therefore it mustve been a terrible time

Im sure if he spent time away from his elitist bubble
hed be able to see plenty of places in britain that he so vividly conjured up in his speech

I remember what it was like and how this country was seen. Our food was boiled and our teeth were awful and our cars wouldn’t work and our politicians were so hopeless that they couldn’t even keep the lights on —-I remember how deserted London seemed, as people fled to Essex or elsewhere, and the stringy grass and the spangles wrappers and the bleached white dog turds in the park, and the gust of Watneys pale ale from the scuzzy pubs.

You do remember the landslide elections she won? She was very, very popular until she went batshit and took up ruining communities for a hobby.

She would have been a single term PM, but for the Falklands war, there is nothing like a bit of sabre rattling warmongering disguised as patriotism to win votes.

The only good thing I can possibly think of about Thatcher is that whilst she created the underclass through the destruction of the industries and communities in which the working class were employed and lived, she at least allowed them to claim benefits to house and feed themselves. The current lot are now so removed from reality they think that being poor is a lifestyle choice, and so remove any benefits they once received, forcing them to either live on the streets or rely on charity in the form of foodbanks etc. In fact it’s even worse than that, many who have jobs are using food banks or even worse are resorting to pay-day loan-sharks to feed their kids. Did that sort of thing exist in the 70s?

MSP – Member
She would have been a single term PM, but for the Falklands war, there is nothing like a bit of sabre rattling warmongering disguised as patriotism to win votes.

That helped her majority no doubt, but do you remember labour in the early 80’s? Pretty much anyone without two heads could have won against Foot!