So what happens when the governmnet doesnt give in to strikers,

Police, Army and Fire Service pensions aren’t being effected as they had theirs changed to new comers around 2006.

Not true Drac. working longer, pay more money etc…

Can’t be arsed with the figures right now as I’m in Barbados and breakfast is calling me. 8)

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Ernie!

1997 Q2 claimant count – first under labour: 1.557 million
2010 Q1 claimant count – last under Labour: 1.585 million

Fascinating. What the **** has that to do with Thatcher DOUBLING unemployment after complaining that people didn’t want to work because the dole was to generous, eh ?

I’ll remind you again what she said (thanks to your quote of hers which you so kindly posted):

“But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!”

And yet she DOUBLED, yes DOUBLED, unemployment………can’t you see a little problem there ?

Thatcher DOUBLING unemployment after complaining that people didn’t want to work because the dole was to generous

The woman’s own interview was published in September 1987 – claimant count for that quarter was 2.752 million. Claimant count for Q3 1990, last period before her resignation, was 1.553 million

So, really, you should have said:

Thatcher REDUCING unemployment by 44% after complaining that people didn’t want to work because the dole was too generous

See Ernie – what you might learn is that its pretty pointless trying to quote any form of statistics to reinforce your point, as there are other statistics that can “prove” the opposite – so, the sooner you stop selective quotation of “facts” to “prove” your point, like “The cost to the government of benefit payments shot up under Thatcher the sooner I’ll stop using equally selective data to show something else.

The woman’s own interview was published in September 1987 – claimant count for that quarter was 2.752 million.

It gets even better. Thatcher complained that people didn’t want to work because the dole was to generous after she had doubled unemployment ? Really, I never ceased to be stunned just how callous the Tories are.

Here’s a nice graph for you Zulu-Eleven to remind you of unemployment levels under the Tories. And remember, according to Thatcher : “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” Oh and the Tories came to power in 1979…….just in case you can’t tell just by looking at the graph.

Interestingly the Tories didn’t do too badly in their pre-thatcher days during the 1970s.

6,162,000 Public Sector workers (civil servants, local government workers, NHS staff, members of the armed forces, teachers, police, firefighters, judicial and atomic workers) who the government proposes should lose their final salary pension schemes and move to career-average schemes.

650 Public sector workes (MP’s) who the government is not proposing should lose their final salary pension schemes and move to career-average schemes.

Got to love Private Eye!

Like I said Ernie – can prove owt with stats:

Shows that oil prices predict unemployment, with a lag of around 18 months. Rises in oil prices in 1973-74, 1979-80 and in the mid-00s led to rising unemployment. And falling oil prices in 1986, 1998 and 2003 led to falling unemployment.

So, Thatchers fault, or global oil prices?

i’m still waiting for z11 to explain why in 1978 in a different interview thatcher claimed

It is no good having great areas where people have no jobs

yet continued with policies that resulted, as the graph above clearly shows, in a doubling of the unemployment figures.

was she being disingenuous about the politics that she was about to unleash or was she being completely honest and was just telling us what we were all about to find out – that her policies were

no good

Like I said trailmonkey – unemployment tracks global oil prices – can’t blame Thatcher for them can you?

Zulu-Eleven – Member

unemployment tracks global oil prices

So thatcher was lying when she blamed unemployment on Labour in 1979 then ?

Remember the famous poster campaign from that general election ?

And she was also lying when she suggested that the reason for 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!”……..it’s actually all down to global oil prices. And remember that when Thatcher was PM Britain was a significant oil exporting nation.

Excellent. We have established that Thatcher was a liar. And that she lied in particular about issues concerning unemployment. Thank you Zulu-Eleven for helping me with that one – you did say “Hope That Helps” and indeed it does 8)

Z

ulu-Eleven – Member
I’ve also ridden in the Northumbrian fells, surrounded by old lead mines, Cornwall, surrounded by old Tin mines, the Yorkshire coast, surrounded by old Alum quarries and North Wales, surrounded by old Slate Quarries.

Should the government of the day have propped up all those industries indefinitely as well?

Posted 3 hours ago # Report-Post

Ive also visited london town, chester, and liverpool,halifax and scotland all places that had a high rate of employment in banking and money lending,and guess what only london town got propped up, the rest to fend for themselves, chester has almost become a ghost town, lots of empty and boarded up shops,poor public transport, failed new builds, and lots of empty properties, mostly buy to let ones.

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 causes of unemployment.

as for Britain being better off under the conservatives, well, sorry to point it out, but we were –

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?

Somewhat similar to this

Zulu-Eleven – Member

nowhere 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 :

“But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!”

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 – Member

But what’s your point Ernie?

Oh sorry, was it a little vague ? OK, let’s try again :

We have established that Thatcher was a liar. And that she lied in particular about issues concerning unemployment.

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 lie – 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 – Member

can’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 really say that? did she really say exactly 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.

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:

getting people themselves 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 their own areas.

when? 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.

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 long term 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 all day? 😯

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 – Member

i 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….

The Trap Pt 1 – Adam Curtis

Quite relevant in the discussion on Thatcher’s view of society.