Thatcher

[Shakone]

BBmac, so if your suggested policies came in, then nobody will want to have a second home. So they will all sell or gift to a relative. What do you think about the result of this, and the effect it will have on the buy to let crowd, some of whom will now go bankrupt or be out of a job? What about the many people who have purchased only one house, and would then be stuck in negative equity because house prices have plummeted? Does any of this fit in with your sense of fairness? How many people will be out of a job because of this policy? These are just the obvious consequences. The non-obvious may be even more devastating.

I don't think it's fair that the wealth be evenly distributed amongst the total population. Why should it? That would only make sense if everyone contributed equally, worked equally hard and to the same standard, is equally intelligent/creative/productive etc. That cannot ever be the case, therefore it should not ever be the case that wealth is distributed evenly, as you admit. 20% of the people have 80% of the wealth seems quite natural, as 20% of the people contribute 80% of the effect in many fields.

I do support you in the idea of getting rid of second homes, or getting rid of buying to let, but you can't just make such a dramatic switch. Presumably you would phase this in over many years, right? As for building 5 million homes, this too has quite a few consequences...of course there are consequences to not doing it as well...

 

[Shakone]

I disagree with this perspective. People can, will and do change all the time. Greed and more is not always good or desired. There are many people who turn away from the rat race and join communes.

Are we talking about an individual or the masses? I don't think the masses change. Mostly individuals don't change either. It's too much effort to change for most. I don't think human nature changes. Fear, Greed, selfishness, jealousy, these have persisted the ages, and aren't going to change.

 

[Atilla]

Yeah, your quite entertaining too.

I started my career in McDonalds with an economics degree. 3m+ unemployed. Shocking.

Well, it's your quote and it certainly reads as if you were complaining about your lot.

For the record, I left school with virtually nothing. Started work renewing infrastructure/pipelines at the local sewerage works. Got inspired by Thatchers speeches and vision for the future and promptly got on message.

By the time I was 21 I'd finished apprenticeship, started my own business, saved up a large enough deposit and purchased a house. 40% deposit and a very manageable mortgage. Things went from strength to strength and all because I worked hard and was inspired by a great leader.

Theres nothing unusual about what I did. For the last few days, similar stories have emerged from many others who were equally inspired.

Good for you but her policies still made mince meet out of the UK economy and subjected many more people to suffering and misery.

Created nothing and destroyed much. Managed very little. Laid the seeds to much loss as trade unions. Set the trends for labour and people still banging their drum as to how marvellous she was.

I'm told she liked people who could stand up to her. I think she would have loved me then but I'm sure that is another BIG lie about her virtues. Too many yes men in her cabinet as all the nay sayers got the hand-bag treatment.

So much rubbish and lies about so much suffering. Monumental suckup to massive failure.

More rewarding of failure by failures celebrating the biggest setup for failure.

Words fail me.

 

[Atilla]

Are we talking about an individual or the masses? I don't think the masses change. Mostly individuals don't change either. It's too much effort to change for most. I don't think human nature changes. Fear, Greed, selfishness, jealousy, these have persisted the ages, and aren't going to change.

I think masses and people do change. Whilst these emotions still exist their magnitude is not as great.

Social services only came in over the last 100 years. Good or bad is another story.

Different countries in different parts of the world have different policies. Northern Europeans have much higher taxation and far better social benefits. Canada is another example.

I really don't see the English or the French bailing out Greeks but Germans have been doing it in billions. English just about trumped up was it 4bn to help our Irish brothers out.

I do think people are far more tolerating and prepared to help their fellow man than ever before. Hate is less and along with wars.

So whilst those emotions still exist magnitude of their net effect is considerably less imho.

 

[Shakone]

I think masses and people do change. Whilst these emotions still exist their magnitude is not as great.

Social services only came in over the last 100 years. Good or bad is another story.

Different countries in different parts of the world have different policies. Northern Europeans have much higher taxation and far better social benefits. Canada is another example.

I really don't see the English or the French bailing out Greeks but Germans have been doing it in billions. English just about trumped up was it 4bn to help our Irish brothers out.

I do think people are far more tolerating and prepared to help their fellow man than ever before. Hate is less and along with wars.

So whilst those emotions still exist magnitude of their net effect is considerably less imho.

Germany is doing what it is doing out of self-interest. The Germans are not bailing out the Greeks because they are self-less Greek-loving people. It's to their benefit. Doesn't matter how they spin it.

As for whether the selfishness or greed has changed, I'd suggest, if anything, it may have become worse. I don't find people more tolerant, I find them less so. I only find them more tolerant when their own life is good. And therefore if general life standards are improved over two decades, it will appear as though some people are more tolerant. But the nature hasn't changed.

 

[counter_violent]

CV you being really daft now. I see your point and didn't see this post before.

Somebody who is driven and gets through university - is not going to settle for job at McDonalds. Get real.

What a ridiculous statement. It's not moi who needs to get real, perhaps they do.

However, by the same token, despite benefits I will always prefer to work than not to work. Most people think like me too. Scroungers are far and few despite your headlines.

Current govt policy is correct. Reducing benefits to save tax payer money and incentivise people back into work.

I ended up in IT not because I knew anything about it - but because I went for the highest paid job - at the job centre.

Most people don't have the foggiest idea where to start when entering the world of work. Once in that arena they then start to get ideas and experience and progress through the ranks. So whats the issue?


If your point is why are we training our youth through schooling, college and university if there are no jobs for them but let's get em out of school when they are 16 and into stacking shelf's at the local supermarket or changing elderly peoples potties - then this says more about your small arrogant mind than my attitude to work and drive to be the best I can...

It says more about your grip of reality.
So let me get this straight.

We spend time and money getting everyone all educated up so that they can then be work ready to do whatever jobs available and for the going rate. Menial jobs though are off limits, beneath them. So some end up on benefits, which they also complain about as being insufficient to maintain their lifestyles. Then we invite workers from overseas to fill the vacancies.

Brilliant !

Can you think of any other reason why priks would want to try and better them selves so they don't have bathe you in your old age???

It's astounding to me that you are the qualified one and i'm having to waste my time trying to re-educate you on basic economics.

BTW. How did you get on with that second house purchase? Are you on to a third or fourth yet ?

 

[Liquid validity]

As for my own political leanings, I tend to vote for whoever seems to the least worst party for the general good of the population; and that varies, usually whichever govt is in power at the time ends up messing up the country through the arrogance and condescension which comes with believing themselves to be "right" and "radical".......

Agree, same view I take.

 

[Liquid validity]

As we speak they are debating building (having built by the French) new nuclear reactors. One would think they could use existing coal reserves to generate power until fuel cell technologies are developed in the near future. But that thought may be too obvious to all the smart aleks in the Tory party.

Coal in this country is dead, drift mining only exists for minerals
in hard geological formations (gold and diamonds mainly) where the mineral
value outweighs extraction costs.
Citing private mine examples is a dead duck - after all costs there's not much left,
so no big business interest.

In the UK open cast is the only economic method.
No one wants that in their backyard...
So import is not only cheaper and less hassle.

 

[neil]

If that condescending remark is aimed at me you're way off target
Yes, if I saw two people ordering three cups of tea I'd draw one of two conclusions:
one was very thirsty,
someone else was coming along shortly.

I would not think it was a conspiracy by the tea marketing board to undermine coffee sales.

But yes actually, I do think that political parties, whoever they are, often tend to have policies which benefit their own electoral core.
Frankly if you think that Gordon Brown's expansion of the benefit system and massive increase in govt expenditure and Labour's general wish to "re-distribute" wealth away from its creators wasn't largely based on wishing to increase the number of people voting for him, then I suspect you are not viewing Labour's actions objectively.

And you think the free marketeers have "won", do you?
Well Red Ed and his resurgent Old Labour seem to be set on ensuring the free marketeers only "won" a battle, not the war.

As for my own political leanings, I tend to vote for whoever seems to the least worst party for the general good of the population; and that varies, usually whichever govt is in power at the time ends up messing up the country through the arrogance and condescension which comes with believing themselves to be "right" and "radical".......

Yes- build up a large state dependent population, scare them at the approach of each election with the spectre of losing all their state benefits, and the net result is that the aforementioned "addicts" will cling to the tit of Labour and vote them back in.

 

[Splitlink]

Yes- build up a large state dependent population, scare them at the approach of each election with the spectre of losing all their state benefits, and the net result is that the aforementioned "addicts" will cling to the tit of Labour and vote them back in.

It's a pendulum and has been so since the end of WW2. Those in pain vote.

 

[counter_violent]

What does need to be addressed is how we get a model that is inclusive and that takes advantage of all the options already available to those higher up. Starting from the ground up and without interference from govt.

The way forward is as I and Mac have indicated via co-operatives. (even better if routed through an LLP or LLC) (shared risk, equity, wages and dividends)

How do we get like minded people together and co-operating?
Start a website and a list of business headers, locations etc where individuals can add their names to activities of interest.
Provide guidance, information, assistance to get these projects off the ground.

No replies to this...can't say i'm at all surprised.

Just confirms to me that the planet is occupied by a bunch of self interested uncooperative to55ers

And everyone wonders why it's all falling apart!

 

[Vasco da Banana]

No replies to this...can't say i'm at all surprised.

Just confirms to me that the planet is occupied by a bunch of self interested uncooperative to55ers

And everyone wonders why it's all falling apart!

Most ******s will realise exactly why it's falling apart, but better that than going blind.

 

[Mr. Charts]

C_V,
There are plenty of templates though many businesses don't lend themselves to a mutually owned enterprise model.
We used to have plenty of mutual building societies in the days when you could get a loan for a maximum 3.5 times your earnings. We had (and they still exist on a much smaller scale) the Co-op and we do have the ever popular John Lewis Partnership - an excellent model, and less flawed than it used to be.
When I was a kid we were very poor but my mother had the attitude that she was too proud to go to the National Assistance Board (pre-welfare state) and we'd manage somehow. Poverty was something to work and/or educate yourself out of and people would do any work to earn a living. Now we import poor immigrants to do many jobs whilst giving hand outs to people who choose not to work, some of whom create dynasties of layabouts.
The attitude was that the state should help those who were incapable of work through illness or disability or for whom there were simply no jobs; as Beveridge designed the system he said it was for the "deserving poor".
Of course when you lose your job through no fault of your own then you should indeed be supported by welfare. After all, you've paid your National "Insurance" haven't you?
Eventually after 16 years on the waiting list we were re-housed from our damp slum dwelling to a council estate and my goodness we appreciated it and realised we were being subsidised to live in a decent home - and we were so grateful. We didn't regard it as our "right", but as a great privilege.
All our neighbours had the same attitude and we all looked after our homes and estate - and parents controlled their kids - the streets were safe at night.
Now many estates are crime ridden and run down and families don't stick together through thick and thin.
Of course expectations have risen. We didn't have a car or fridge or ever went further than a day out to Filey or Bridlington once a year. Holidays? What were those?
Now the definition of poverty according to the poverty industry is a low %age of average wage, not as it was then - being cold and hungry. Yes, I know some people still are and any decent human being wants to help them.
Funnily enough our corner of Leeds elected a Tory MP......He represented our values. And was he hated by the hard Left.
Maggie tapped into the aspirations of working class people which is basically (as well as the destruction wrought by Labour and the bloated unions bosses who ran the country into the ground) why she was swept to power and won three elections. She had taken the working class aspirational vote, the voters who Labour regarded as theirs as of right.
The outpouring of venom by a loud and vociferous minority on her death makes me despair of common human decency. In the end, as with all those who are consumed with hatred, they only demean themselves and sicken normal people.

 

[Atilla]

No replies to this...can't say i'm at all surprised.

Just confirms to me that the planet is occupied by a bunch of self interested uncooperative to55ers

And everyone wonders why it's all falling apart!

Maybe the priks you talk about don't want to try and better them selves so they don't have to bathe you in your old age???

How many do you need to step forward? Get your ruler out and work it out

 

[Hakuna Matata]

You are making the assumption not to remove Saddam in the first Gulf War was a mistake.

All evidence points to the contrary.

Saddam was no threat and harmless. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 2nd Gulf War was also a big setup/mistake and war purely initiated by the US and UK. Clearly shows 1st Gulf War was correct to stop before becoming involved in Iraqi politics.

I never liked her then or her policies and believe she was a disaster to the country. Her legacy continues to cost us and will do so for some time.

I'm not sure if she would have embarked in wreckless war for politics (as Blair did) - as I also believe she acted out of conviction and integrity to do the right thing for GB.

Blair was full of him self. Thatcher was full of GB.

repped u 4 this x

 

[Hakuna Matata]

RITE.

What f*cks me o44 about things like Maggie is that the verocity of loudest makes all people think it black and white! it NOT black and white.

"She was the baddie in the miners strike"

But just a couple years before whole county had no eleccy cos miners were strikin 4 more money holdin country 2 ransom.

"She says Mandela was a terrorist"

Mandela WAS a terrorist! For the good guys, maybe, but terrorist = yes.

"She took away kids milk"

ac2ally that was a treasury decision that she, as educashion seceretary, had to go wiv.

"She made Poll tax"

Yer, she did.

"She let people buy their own homes"

Yer, she did.

and what also like you get liberals sayin how awful she was when really Thatcher was the liberal that liberals are 'fraid to be!

And also, I will quote, what the Daily Mash sed about her: this is top stuff:

THOUSANDS of people under 35 are rejoicing at the demise of a woman they once read about.

Following Lady Thatcher’s death, people who want to look impressively ‘political’ are acting like they remember Thatcher as something other than a vague abstract concept of evil.

Guardian website regular Tom Booker said: “Thatcher is dead! This is the best day of my life.

“I was really against everything she stood for, whatever that was.

“Especially her ‘prole tax’. She actually invented the word prole, the old bitch.”

28-year-old Facebook self-promoter Nikki Hollis wrote: “Mrs T dead at last. Horrible woman, although I feel sorry for Mr T he was ace in The A Team.”

19-year-old student Stephen Malley said: “The worst thing about Mrs Thatcher was her lack of humanity, empathy or emotion.

“That’s why it’s great that she’s succumbed to dementia after what would have been a long, frustrating and humiliating illness of the type commonly affecting elderly people. The ****ing old cow.”

PEACE X

/END

 

[Atilla]

repped u 4 this x

Yes I do feel, strongly that she would have stood up to US pressure and false concocted intelligence. There would be no sexed up dossier and David Kelly would be happy watching his grand-children run around in his garden.

Blair wanted very much to be a war time cabinet leader - like Thatcher. He wanted to be remembered and so he will be for his wreckless foreign policies at the expense of domestic work.

He did get to give a speech and a standing ovation in the white house standing next to Bush but I doubt people will remember him for it.

I also believe taking the unions down and taking the Falklands back were two things she did right.

Rest of her economic policies were pretty disastrous not thought out or implemented well at all. Destroyed what ever she touched.

Nuff said.

 

[counter_violent]

Yes I do feel, strongly that she would have stood up to US pressure and false concocted intelligence. There would be no sexed up dossier and David Kelly would be happy watching his grand-children run around in his garden.

Blair wanted very much to be a war time cabinet leader - like Thatcher. He wanted to be remembered and so he will be for his wreckless foreign policies at the expense of domestic work.

He did get to give a speech and a standing ovation in the white house standing next to Bush but I doubt people will remember him for it.

I also believe taking the unions down and taking the Falklands back were two things she did right.

Rest of her economic policies were pretty disastrous not thought out or implemented well at all. Destroyed what ever she touched.

Nuff said.

Repeating this over and over still doesn't make it believable.
The majority were not and are not with you. Live with it !

 

[Atilla]

Repeating this over and over still doesn't make it believable.
The majority were not and are not with you. Live with it !

LIve with it! No thanks, much prefer to get over and put it well behind me.

You do not speak for majority either and they certainly are not with you as per your desperate email.

Don't get me wrong I do think cooperatives are great and have big potential going forward but I doubt you'll get much sign-ups on this kind of side with faceless bodies dispersed over a geographical area.

Try sticking a card advert at your local newsagent :cheesy:

 

[counter_violent]

LIve with it! No thanks, much prefer to get over and put it well behind me.

Yes, that's what it means, get over it, live with it.

You do not speak for majority either and they certainly are not with you as per your desperate email.

LV has covered this. She was elected 3 times and so the majority were in favour.

Don't get me wrong I do think cooperatives are great and have big potential going forward but I doubt you'll get much sign-ups on this kind of side with faceless bodies dispersed over a geographical area.

I'm not looking for sign ups, we are having a debate about Thatcher and her legacy. My point about co-ops is to bring all sides of the divide together instead of different sides fighting against each other and getting nowhere. Working together also promotes equality and everyone within the organisation has a voice.

Try sticking a card advert at your local newsagent :cheesy:

I've no need of another job just yet...but thanks for looking out for me .